Skip to main content

The Influence of an Individual’s Transactive Memory Profile when Advice Is Sought

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World

Abstract

Recently the construct of transactive memory systems (TMSs) has been the focus in a number of studies. The TMS provides a group of people with an expertise map and processes to retrieve information from the most reliable source in a timely fashion. While most research has analysed the factors behind the creation of a TMS, a few have looked into characteristics, which analyse the retrieval of information from a TMS in real life teams. These studies reveal that factors related to the awareness of other’s expertise and its importance for team members to accomplish work related tasks play a role when seeking advice. However, individual factors, which have an impact on knowledge sharing behaviour, were not included in these studies. For this reason, this study places the TMS within a wider framework to analyse the impact of individual factors on information search from the TMS. To analyse the impact of individual factors on the frequency of information search, two teams were analysed. A survey was conducted to create scores representing the awareness team members have of each other’s expertise, how important they judge this knowledge to accomplish their tasks and how extravert each team member is. Those individual characteristics were combined to create a TMS profile for each participant. Subsequently, the influence these profiles have on the network position and information search was analysed. The results reveal that team members who score high on knowing and valuing are more often sought out for information than other team members. In addition, if the main communication channel is face-to-face contact, extraversion has an impact on information search.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, R. E., & van den Hooff, B. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33, 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46, 1554–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (2000). Visualizing social networks. Journal of social structure, 1(1), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychologoy, 74, 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1080–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., & Contractor, N. (2004). Network theory and small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12). New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. W., & Maurer, S. D. (1997). The retention of knowledge workers with the unfolding model of voluntary turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 247–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, D., Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual traning and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mieg, H. A. (2006). Social and sociological factors in the development of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 705–722). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance? Small group research, 34, 651–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group and Organization Management, 24, 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzolo, E. T. (2005). Organizing for information retrieval from transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 32(6), 726–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). The effects of critical team members assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32(4), 575–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, Y., Carley, K. M., & Argote, L. (2006). The contigent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know. Management Science, 52, 671–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Van Den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., & Segers, M. (2009). The role of academic motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1195–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, T. C., & Koesten, J. (2005). Prestige, centrality, and learning: A social network analysis of an online class. Communication Education, 54(3), 254–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social cognition, 13(3), 310–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. T. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z.-X., Paul, S. H., Han, Y.-L., & Dean, T. (2007). Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722–1730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katerina Bohle Carbonell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bohle Carbonell, K., Rienties, B., Van den Bossche, P. (2011). The Influence of an Individual’s Transactive Memory Profile when Advice Is Sought. In: Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Milter, R. (eds) Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World. Advances in Business Education and Training, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0802-0_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics