posted on 2005-01-01, 00:00authored byRobert Kraut, Susan Fussell, F. Lerch, A. Espinosa
Most research examining the influence of coordination on team performance has not
distinguished between coordinating (the processes by which teams attempt to manage
interdependencies among individuals) and the resultant state of coordination (the degree to which interdependencies are managed well). Similarly, most research has not distinguished between the state of coordination and the performance outcomes that are often influenced by coordination. We demonstrate the usefulness of these distinctions in a study of 50 teams engaged
in a realistic 14-week management simulation. Results using a panel design show that two processes for coordinating (use of shared cognition about the distribution of expertise within the team, and working together for a longer time period) improved coordination. Shared cognition seemed to compensate for low levels of communication and lack of working together. The
resulting coordination, in turn, directly influenced teams’ financial performance and external evaluations. All effects of the coordination processes, however, were indirect, and operated by helping the teams achieve a more coordinated state.