Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 149–164

Mutual Performance Monitoring: Elaborating the Development of a Team Learning Theory

Article

Abstract

Preparing university graduates for the world of work must address teamness, a quality essential to working in complex and dynamic organizations. Mutual performance monitoring (MPM) highlighted as a fundamental component in the authors’ initial team learning theory is examined. It was thought that first year university students may not have the skills of MPM to affect high quality team outputs, and our results suggest this is true. It is proposed that students are supported with strategies which legitimize monitoring the work of their team members and that the ideas of collusion, spying and cheating are replaced with teamness. Further, it appears that many academics are unprepared or ill-equipped to prepare students for a world of work in teams. Exposing the naivety of students, presenting perceived and positive changes in team skills and suggesting strategies may provide some pedagogical guidance for academic educators to better implement team learning. This paper explores MPM as a building block in a more comprehensive theory of team learning.

Keywords

Team learning Mutual performance monitoring Team learning theory Academic development Information systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albon R, Jewels T (2009) Towards the development of a team learning theory for information systems: implications for universities, academics, and academic developers. Paper presented at the Americas conference on information systems, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Albon RJ (2006) A case study of the integration of self, peer and group assessment in a core first year educational psychology unit through flexible delivery implementation. In: Roberts T (ed) Self, peer and group assessment in e-Learning. Idea Group, USA, pp 101–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  4. Blickensderfer EL, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1997) Fostering shared mental models through team self-correction: theoretical bases and propositions. In: Beyerlein M, Johnson D, Beyerlein S (eds) Advances in interdisciplinary studies in work team, vol 4. JAI Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  5. Blickensderfer EL, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1998) Cross-training and team performance. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress: implications for individual and team training. APA Press, Washington, pp 299–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley J, White BJ, Mennecke BE (2003) Teams and tasks: a temporal framework for the effects of interpersonal interventions on team performance. Retrieved 15 Feb, 2010, from http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/353
  7. Cannon-Bowers JA, Tannenbaum SI, Salas E, Volpe CE (1995) Defining team competencies: implications for training requirements and strategies. In: Guzzo RR, Salas E (eds) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 380–380Google Scholar
  8. CATME (unknown) Designing a peer evaluation instrument that is simple, reliable, and valid. Retrieved 2nd June, 2010, from https://engineering.purdue.edu/CATME/CATME-brochure.pdf
  9. Driskell JE, Salas E (1992) Collective behavior and team performance. Hum Factors 34: 277–288Google Scholar
  10. Dyer DJ (1984) Team research and team training: a state-of-the-art review. In: Muckler FA (ed) Human factors review. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Frame JD (1999) Project management competence. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregorich SE, Helmreich RL, Wilhelm JA (1990) The structure of cockpit management attitudes. J Appl Psychol 75: 682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guzzo RA, Shea GP (1992) Group performance and inter-group relations in organizations. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM (eds) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 3, 2nd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, pp 269–313Google Scholar
  14. Hackman JR (1987) The design of work teams. In: Lorsch JW (ed) Handbook of organizational behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 315–342Google Scholar
  15. Hackman PA (1999) Human performance and ergonomics. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA (1997) The emerging conceptualisation of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull 121: 43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kellet S (1993) Effective teams at work. Manag Dev Rev 6(1): 7–11Google Scholar
  18. Kleinman DL, Serfaty DT (1989) Team performance assessment in distributed decision making. Paper presented at the symposium on interactive networked simulation for training, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolfschoten GL, Grünbacher P, Briggs RO (2011) Modifiers for quality assurance in group facilitation. Group decision and negotiation, on line version 23 Feb 2011Google Scholar
  20. Loughry ML, Tosi HL (2008) Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organ Sci 19(6): 876–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serfaty D (2004) Communication overhead: the hidden cost of team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 61–82Google Scholar
  22. MacMillan JM, Paley J, Entin EB, Entin EE (2004) Questionnaires for distributed assessment of team mutual awareness. Retrieved 14/12/2009, from psu.eduGoogle Scholar
  23. Marks MA, Panzer FJ (2004) The influence of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Hum Perform 17(1): 25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McIntyre RM, Salas E (1995) Measuring and managing for team performance: emerging principles from complex environments. In: Guzzo RA, Salas E (eds) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 9–45Google Scholar
  25. Morgan BB, Glickman AS, Woorward EA, Blaiwes AS, Salas E (1986) Measurement of team behaviors in a navy environment (No. NTSC TR-86-014). Naval Training Systems Center, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  26. Mullen B, Cooper C (1994) The relation between group cohesivness and performance: an integra-tion. Psychol Bull 2(115): 210–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nonose K, Kanno T, Furuta K (2009) An evaluation method of team situation awareness based on mutual belief. Cogn Technol Work 12(1): 31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norman DA (1999) The invisible computer. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Oser RL, Gualtieri JW, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1999) Training team problem solving skills: an event-based approach. Comput Hum Behav 15(3-4): 441–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paris CR, Salas E, Canon-Bowers JA (2000) Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis. Economics 43(8): 1052–1075Google Scholar
  31. Prince C, Salas E (1993) Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew. In: Wiener EL, Kankm BG, Helmreich RL (eds) Cockpit resource management. Academic Press, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  32. Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The anatomy of team training. In: Tobias L, Fletcher JD (eds) Training & retraining: a handbook for business, industry, government, and the military. Macmillan, New York, pp 312–335Google Scholar
  33. Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS (2005) Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork?. Small Group Res 36: 555–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Senge PM (1992) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Random House Australia, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith-Jentsch KAM, Zeizig RL, Acton B, McPherson JA (1998) Team dimensional training: a strategy for guided team self-correction. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress: implications for individual and team training. APA Press, Washington, pp 365–374Google Scholar
  36. Steiner ID (1972) Group processes and productivity. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Urban JM, Bowers CA, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1995) The importance of team architecture in understanding team processes. In: Beyerlein M, Johnson D, Beyerlein S (eds) Advances in interdisciplinary studies in work teams, Knowledge work in teams, vol 2. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 205–228Google Scholar
  38. Volpe C, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Spector P (1996) The impact of cross-training on team functioning: an empirical investigation. Human factors 38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Higher Colleges of TechnologySharjah Woman’s CollegeSharjahUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.College of Business AdministrationAmerican University in the EmiratesDubaiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations