Being open matters: the antecedents and consequences of cross-understanding in teams

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of the current paper is to explore the role of cross-understanding as a mediator between openness to cognitive experience and reflective communication cognitions on the one hand and team performance on the other hand using the input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) model as a framework (Ilgen et al., 2005). Design/methodology/approach – The sample consisted of 156 participants organized in 37 student teams. Two mediation models were estimated while using a nonparametric resampling procedure of bootstrapping developed by Hayes (2012). Findings – Cross-understanding positively mediates the relation between openness to cognitive diversity and team performance and the relation between reflective communication cognition and team performance. Reflective communication cognition has a direct and negative relation to team performance. Additionally, the percentage of women within groups positively relates to group performance. Research limitations/implications – Future research could explore the validity of this model in other organizational settings and while using different indicators for team performance. Practical implications – Practitioners should encourage an open climate toward knowledge diversity and different perspectives within teams, as this might create the optimal conditions for cross-understanding to emerge. Team members should also be encouraged to learn not only about the knowledge of other team members but also about their beliefs, preferences and things they are sensitive to, as this awareness is beneficial for the overall team performance. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the team cognition literature by bringing empirical support for a relatively less investigated concept: cross-understanding. The paper establishes its relation to team performance and two of its potential antecedents – openness to cognitive diversity and reflective communication cognition.

The mediating role of task conflict and crossunderstanding in the relation between transactional leadership and team adaptive performance

“…Cross-understanding is a relatively new concept in team cognition literature and the empirical evidence of its benefits on team performance is very little. To our knowledge there is only one paper that investigated the role of cross-understanding (Meslec & Graff, 2015). Answering their call we investigate the role of cross-understanding in other relation and in organizational setting: transactional leadership and adaptive performance.…”

Getting to Know You: Motivating Cross-Understanding for Improved Team and Individual Performance

“…Higher levels of crossunderstanding in a team is theorized to positively influence the way in which teams present, assimilate, and utilize knowledge. Empirical research on cross-understanding is still emerging, but the available evidence from published studies (Meslec & Graff, 2015;Otoiu, Andrei, & Băban, 2012) and conference presentations (Bayer & Lewis, 2013;Lewis & Herndon, 2015;Rariden & Lewis, 2013) suggests that teams with higher cross-understanding perform at higher levels as theorized. The current study adds to this literature with a large-scale empirical investigation of not only the effects of cross-understanding on team performance, but also its effects on individual performance (Huber & Lewis, 2010), which has not yet been examined.…”

“…Although quantitative research on cross-understanding is still emerging, a recent study by Meslec and Graff (2015) demonstrated that cross-understanding positively affects team performance. Examining student teams engaged in complex research projects in organizations, Meslec and Graff (2015) showed that teams with low cross-understanding are unable to utilize diverse perspectives, and therefore perform worse than their higher cross-understanding counterparts. In accordance with the theoretical predictions and emerging empirical support for the team-level benefits of cross-understanding, we hypothesize the following:…”

“…Research has demonstrated that team learning orientation is also associated with high levels of psychological safety (Wilkens & London, 2006) and higher quality interpersonal interactions (Porath & Bateman, 2006), thereby creating an environment where diverse perspectives can be openly shared and discussed. Such eagerness and openness towards learning about, understanding, and reflecting upon team members' varied perspectives and behaviors has also been shown to lead to greater cross-understanding (Meslec & Graff, 2015). In contrast, low team learning orientation is unlikely to lead to cross-understanding.…”

“…For example, teams high in performanceprove orientation tend to be selective and biased in information elaboration (Gully & Phillips, 2005), and share information only if it demonstrates their abilities and shows them in good light (Porter, 2005). Such teams may perceive sharing of information about themselves as counterproductive (Poortvliet, et al, 2007), leading to a general lack of openness and reflectivity, which in turn makes for a less conducive environment for developing cross-understanding and high performance (Meslec & Graff, 2015).…”