1 s20 S1053482216301036 Main

Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 660–677
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
The effects of virtualness on teamwork behavioral components:

The role of shared mental models
James M. Schmidtke a,⁎, Anne Cummings b
a
Management Department, Craig School of Business, California State University Fresno, 5245 North Backer Avenue M/S PB 7, Fresno, CA 93740-8001, United States
b
College of Management, Metropolitan State University, 1501 Hennepin Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55403-1897, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Virtual teams are an essential part of work organizations. They help organizations utilize skills
Virtual teams and expertise regardless of where they are located. The virtual team literature suggests that
Shared mental models these teams often experience process losses compared to their face-to-face counterparts. In
Complexity
this paper we propose that as virtualness increases, a team's shared mental models become
Accuracy
more complex; this limits the effectiveness of particular teamwork behaviors: mutual perfor-
Mutual performance monitoring
Backup behavior mance monitoring, backup behavior and adaptation. We identify specific factors that are
Adaptability reflected in increased mental model complexity of virtual teams. Further we examine the mod-
Training erating role that the accuracy and similarity of these shared mental models as well as the level
of virtualness has on the relation between complexity and teamwork behaviors. Finally, we ex-
amine the effects of training inventions on mental model accuracy. To this end, we review the
existing literature to develop a model and specific propositions.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Organizations have considered teams a vital component to achieve organizational objectives since the late 1980s (Kang, Yang,
& Rowley, 2006). During the past 20 years, however, technological advances have led to new forms of work teams such as virtual
teams (VT). Virtual teams are teams in which a significant amount of interaction among geographically disbursed members occurs
via electronic media rather than face-to-face interactions (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). Gibson and
Cohen (2003) define virtual teams as entities that coordinate their activities primarily through some form of technology (either
communication or information technology) such as e-mail, texts, or private discussion boards. Virtual teams are important be-
cause these interactions allow organizations to overcome time and distance constraints that previously limited the use of
teams, reducing costs by minimizing unnecessary travel and relocation expenses (Boudreau, Loch, Robey, & Straub, 1998;
Cascio, 2001). They also allow human resource professionals to effectively utilize employees' talents by selecting the best individ-
uals to participate in teams regardless of their location, eliminating redundancy of employee tasks and increasing efficiency
(Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004; Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004).
While there are clearly differences in the dynamics that occur within face-to-face teams and virtual teams, we contend that
there are basic similarities in the processes, and consequently, the emergent states that are central to the functioning of both
types of groups (e.g., sharing of information, generation of ideas, and evaluation of alternatives). Traditional face-to-face group re-
search has long emphasized the importance of group process on team performance and outcomes such as member satisfaction
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jmschmidtke@csufresno.edu (J.M. Schmidtke), anne.cummings@metrostate.edu (A. Cummings).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.011
1053-4822/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.M. Schmidtke, A. Cummings / Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 660–677 661
(McGrath, 1984). Although there is some debate over what the specific model (e.g., input-process-output vs. input-mediator-out-
put-input) looks like, there are influences such as process factors, mediators, and emergent states that affect group functioning
and outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) importantly differentiated team
“processes,” such as teamwork, from other qualities or “properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary,”
termed “emergent states” (p. 357). They emphasize that these emergent states reflect the cognitive, affective and motivational
states in teams. Further, they suggest that these states can be considered both “inputs and proximal outcomes” (p. 358). Thus,
we propose that as teams (including virtual teams) interact they form shared mental models (i.e., emergent state), which, in
turn, influence teamwork (i.e., processes). We believe that understanding the relation between virtualness and team mental
models is a critical issue that will affect teamwork behaviors and processes within virtual teams. Improving teamwork in increas-
ingly virtual environments will ultimately help to improve team effectiveness.
Marks et al. (2001) define teamwork as, “… interdependent team activities that orchestrate taskwork in employees' pursuit of
goals,” (p. 358). And yet, “teamwork” is a ubiquitous concept that has been used in the literature to describe a wide variety of
processes in which teams engage to convert inputs to outcomes. There is a lack of consistency in terms of what types of activities
encompass teamwork (e.g., interpersonal skills vs. strategy and planning) and which do not. In an attempt to resolve this, Salas,
Sims, and Burke (2005) reviewed 20 years of team literature to develop a theoretical concept of teamwork and identified five
components that appear to be common among various definitions of teamwork: mutual performance monitoring, backup behav-
ior, adaptability, leadership and team orientation. One component of their framework is the concept of shared mental models,
which directly influence the first three teamwork components.
As groups become more virtual, their communication dynamics and shared mental models are altered. The quality of team
members' communication will be affected by the nature of the media the team utilizes. It is also likely that teams operating in
a virtual environment will have cognitive structures that are different in content from those of face-to-face teams as the virtual
aspect may add complexity to the task and certainly to the way in which the team interacts. Klimoski and Mohammed (1994)
defined team mental models as a team's shared mental model regarding the significant components of the team's situation in-
cluding but not limited to its goals, tasks, tools, environment and working relationships. As suggested earlier, these mental models
are an emergent state, a consequence of team interaction. To date, there has been almost no empirical research on team or shared
mental models in the virtual environment. Consequently, researchers suggest that there is still much for us to understand in terms
of how these cognitive structures affect team performance (Fiore, Salas, Cuevas, & Bowers, 2003; Fu, Chui, & Helander, 2006;
Maynard & Gilson, 2014; Millward, Banks, & Riga, 2010; Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008). This literature suggests that mental models
have a positive effect on teamwork, but the mechanism by which this occurs in not well understood. Further, interacting virtually
may require teams to develop new types of mental models relating the communication tools utilized, their capacities and the ap-
propriateness of their use for certain interactions.
One mechanism by which these team mental models can shape and develop is training. Research suggests that training can
improve the accuracy and similarity of teams shared mental models (Cannon-Bowers, 2007; Fiore, Hoffman, & Salas, 2008;
Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Mohammed & Dumville,
2001; Smith-Jentsch, Campbell, Milanovich, & Reynolds, 2001; Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2008;
Stout, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Milanovich, 1999). Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartiainen, and Hakonen's (2015) review of the virtual
teams literature during the past decade identified several studies (Holtbrügge, Schillo, Rogers, & Friedmann, 2011; Rosen, Furst, &
Blackburn, 2006; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007) that indicated training can improve the effectiveness and success of virtual
teams. They identified several types of training such as technology, cultural and communication that help virtual teams perform
better. They did not discuss why these particular forms training improved performance. We believe that the concept of team
mental models may help us explain these effects. As the level of teams' virtualness increases, the complexities of coordinating
their activities can increase exponentially, resulting in greater difficulty to develop a shared understanding of how to accomplish
their tasks, which, in turn, may diminish teamwork effectiveness. A clearer understanding of how increases in virtualness affect
the complexity of teams' circumstances and subsequently, their mental models, may enhance our knowledge of virtual team ef-
fectiveness and the role that training can play in its improvement. Further, it may help to identify the types of training or skills
needed for teams to operate under increasing levels of virtualness that will maximize the potential for virtual team success.
The purpose of this paper is to present the ways in which shared mental models affect the behavioral components of team-
work within virtual teams. The concept of shared mental models (the team's cognitive structures of their task, team, interactions
and environment) has been extensively examined in the face-to-face team literature (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Mohammed,
Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010). DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010) performed a meta-analysis of team shared cognition, includ-
ing team mental models, and found a significant positive relation between the quality of teams' cognitive structures (e.g., mental
models) and team performance. However, shared mental models have only recently begun to receive attention in the virtual team
literature (Curşeu, 2006; Maynard & Gilson, 2014; Mortensen, 2014). Although other integrations of virtual team dynamics have
been recently developed (Caya, Mortensen, & Pinsonneault, 2013; Maynard & Gilson, 2014), these have been aimed more toward
developing theoretical perspectives of virtual team dynamics rather than toward practical application. We examine shared mental
models and discuss how they affect virtual team ability to engage in effective teamwork. We believe that our approach can aid
both academics and managers.
This paper also contributes to the expanding virtual team literature by integrating the dimensions of virtualness with the men-
tal model construct and identifying the complexity this adds to a team's shared understanding of its situation. Specifically, we
contend that as teams become more virtual the complexity of their situation changes which affects the nature of their mental
models. Further, the accuracy and similarity of team mental models will affect team processes such as the behavioral components
662 J.M. Schmidtke, A. Cummings / Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 660–677
of teamwork. It is important to note that some scholars treat virtualness as a moderator of team process (e.g., Andressen, Konradt,
& Neck, 2011; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Joshi, Lazarova, & Liao, 2009), while others treat it as an input (e.g., Bryant, Albring, &
Murthy, 2009; González-Navarro, Orengo, Zornoza, Ripoll, & Peiró, 2010; Kock & Lynn, 2012). We treat it as an input that,
along with training, will affect mental model development. We acknowledge that it could serve a more complex moderating
role in a more comprehensive team input-process-output model but that is beyond the scope of the current paper.
Finally, we consider how training might enhance the accuracy and similarity of team mental models, to guide research and
practice for increasingly virtual teams. We identify specific types of training that will help teams improve the accuracy and sim-
ilarity of their mental models in an increasingly virtual environment. We believe that increasing accuracy and similarity of team
mental models will improve the effectiveness of teamwork.
We will begin by describing key elements in our model presented in Fig. 1: the concepts of virtualness and mental models; the
important accuracy, similarity, and complexity dimensions of useful mental models; and three important teamwork behavioral
components. We will then discuss the important mediating role of shared mental model complexity in understanding how in-
creasing virtualness is associated with lower levels of effective teamwork behavioral components. Next we discuss how mental
model accuracy can reduce the negative effects of increasing complexity on teamwork component behaviors, and end by suggest-
ing a few training practices to improve that accuracy for teams with increasing virtualness.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Concepts
Before discussing the specific relations presented in Fig. 1, it is important to define and explain the constructs in the model.
This is particularly important since some of these constructs lack a common definition and conceptualization in the literature.
2.1.1. Virtualness
Research examining the relationship between virtual teams and group effectiveness factors such as performance, decision
quality, decision time and idea generation (see Gilson et al., 2015; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Martins et al., 2004;
Purvanova, 2014) has established two consistent results; virtual teams tend to take more time to make decisions but also generate
a higher quantity of unique ideas compared to face-to-face teams. The results on performance and decision quality are mixed;
some research finds that virtual teams perform worse that face-to-face teams, some research finds virtual teams perform better
while some research finds no difference (Gilson et al., 2015; Hertel et al., 2005; Martins et al., 2004; Purvanova, 2014). Virtual
teams generate more unique ideas than face-to-face teams although the effects on idea quality are mixed (Gilson et al., 2015;
Purvanova, 2014). Although much of the early research focused on comparing virtual teams to face-to-face teams, it has more re-
cently moved away from this dichotomous comparison (Griffith, Sawyer, & Neale, 2003; Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005; Martins et al.,
2004), and toward considering a continuous concept of the team's extent of virtualness (Martins et al., 2004).
Kirkman and Mathieu (2005) suggest that to “pigeonhole” teams as virtual is a serious limitation, and we believe examining
virtualness as a continuous concept offers two key advantages over defining teams as either virtual or not. First, it allows inclu-
siveness of all teams, so even those that are minimally virtual might consider the implications of technology and tools on a team
development and performance. Second, this approach reflects the more fluid and dynamic nature of teams in today's work
Fig. 1. Proposed model of the effect of virtualness on mental model complexity, accuracy and behavior components of teamwork.
organizations (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Although a team begins at a particular level of virtualness, factors
such external environments, task demands, and interdependencies often shift over time, making the same team more or less vir-
tual as it continues. Finally, very few teams exist at the extremes of no virtualness (a team that exists in one location and only
interacts in face-to-face meetings) vs. the highest degree of virtualness (a team whose members are each located in a different
part of the world who communicate only through asynchronous email); instead, most fall somewhere in between these extremes
(Stagl et al., 2007).
We draw from several previous authors and their various dimensions to propose that virtualness is a function of three things:
(1) the degree of geographic dispersion among team members (O'Leary & Cummings, 2007); (2) the amount of time they spend
using various communication media to interact and perform group tasks; and (3) the synchronicity of the communication media
used.
This is consistent with Martins et al.'s (2004) conceptualization of “teams whose members use technology to varying degrees in
working across locational, temporal, and relational boundaries to accomplish an interdependent task” [emphasis added]. Our con-
ceptualization of virtualness also draws from Griffith et al. (2003), who focus on the dimensions of technological support (elec-
tronic or otherwise), the physical distance between team members, and the percentage of time group members spend working
on the task in which they are separated by time and space. Lastly, we draw from Kirkman and Mathieu's (2005) slightly different
multidimensional view of virtuality; they posit that the degree of a team's virtualness is a function of (a) the degree to which
members use virtual tools to coordinate activities and share information; (b) the information richness of the tools used; and
(c) the degree of synchronicity of team interactions.
The common themes of these views of virtualness are the amount of communication media used (virtual tools), the types of
communication media used, and the degree to which team interactions are synchronous. The communication media theme war-
rants further clarification as it relates to our conceptualization of virtualness. Daft and Lengel (1986) suggest that organizational
members process information to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity. They further suggest that communication media differ in the
ability to process “rich information.” That is information that changes a person's understanding of a situation within a specific pe-
riod of time. Their propositions were developed before much of today's electronic communication media was developed or uti-
lized. Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) builds on their ideas of media richness, which posits that communication tools can
vary in their degree of synchronicity. MST suggests that media vary in their capacity to transmit information (conveyance), and
their ability to process information (convergence) (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008). Synchronous communication methods
such as face-to-face conversations can transmit information very quickly (high conveyance) but have a low ability to process in-
formation (convergence). Conversely, asynchronous methods, such as an email sent across the multiple times zones which is not
likely to be read immediately, have slow information transmission capabilities but high information processing capacities. We be-
lieve that synchronicity is a more useful distinguishing factor than richness because it better addresses the communication re-
quirements (transmission vs. processing) of a team's goals and tasks.
Finally, the dispersion of team members is often discussed in terms of geographical or temporal boundaries. O'Leary and
Cummings (2007) developed a model of geographic dispersion. They suggest that geographic dispersion is a function of three, in-
terrelated dimensions: spatial, temporal, and configurational dispersion. Spatial dispersion represents the geographic distances be-
tween group members. Temporal dispersion represents the degree to which team members' normal working hours overlap.
Finally, configurational dispersion represents the number of unique locations where team members work. In addition to identify-
ing these dimensions, they developed indices to capture these dimensions: the spatial distance index, time zone index, and the
site index, respectively. We believe that geographic dispersion, as a function of these three dimensions needs to be captured in
any definition of virtualness because virtual teams commonly include members that are not physically co-located.
2.1.2. Mental models — complexity, accuracy, and similarity.

Psychologists developed the concept of mental models to understand how a person's cognitive structures help him/her func-
tion in his/her environment (Craik, 1967; Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960). Johnson-Laird (1989) defines mental models as an
internal representation of knowledge that: (a) matches the situation it represents; and (b) consists of perceptible objects or im-
ages as well as abstract concepts. An example of a mental model follows: Jennifer's office is located in a suite with four other of-
fices. Her mental model of the suite represents the layout of suite, including where her office is located as well as who occupies
the other offices. Consequently, when Jennifer goes to work in the morning, she can go directly to her office without checking the
office number or reading the nameplate on the door because she knows where her office is located. Further, if she needs to bor-
row a book from her colleague Bill, who occupies another office in the suite, she knows which door to knock on without having to
look up that information and when he will likely be in the office.
There are two important aspects of these mental models that affect their usefulness: complexity and accuracy. Complexity is
characterized by the amount of unique information, or number of components, represented in the mental model (Kaplan & Black,
2001). Continuing with the example above, imagine Jennifer's office was located in a hallway with 20 other offices rather than in
a four-office suite. The amount of information represented has increased at least five-fold. With this increasing complexity, the
human mind cannot rely only on implicit information, but rather, also needs to make information explicit (Johnson-Laird,
1983). Thus, in the four-office suite, Jennifer may implicitly garner the information of where Bill's office is located based upon
her normal daily routine. However, in the 20-office hallway, Jennifer will need to explicitly note that Bill's office is three doors
down on the other side of the hallway. This complexity of mental models is important, because as the complexity of a model in-
creases, performance on tasks related to that model decreases (Diehl & Sterman, 1995; Sterman, 1989).
Accuracy is the second aspect that influences the usefulness of mental models. It refers to the degree to which the mental
model correctly characterizes the situation or concepts it represents (Johnson-Laird, 1989; Norman, 1983). In the 20-office exam-
ple above, Jennifer's mental model would be accurate if Bill's office was indeed three doors down on the other side of the hallway,
but would not be accurate if his office was 5 doors down on the same side of the hallway. Mental model accuracy is important
because as the accuracy of a model increases, an individual's performance on tasks related to that model improves. A mental
model's accuracy is also positively related to expertise (Banks & Millward, 2007), performance (Edwards, Day, Arthur, & Bell,
2006; Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000), decision making (Lim & Klein, 2006; Pearsall, Ellis, & Bell, 2010), and strategy formula-
tion (Gary & Wood, 2011).
Group cognitive structures, such as team mental models, are the result of individuals interacting in some social context
(D'Andrade, 1981; Thompson & Fine, 1999; Wegner, 1987). The process is similar to the development of mental models at the
individual level. At the group level, each team member draws information from interactions with other team members, and stores
a representation of that experience in his or her memory. As the team interacts over time, individuals form multiple mental rep-
resentations (of team members, interaction patterns, etc.,) that reflect members' experience with the group.
These representations can take several forms. Some are a “schema” about an individual (e.g., a particular team member who
has a particular expertise, or one who talks incessantly). Others are a “script,” which describes a routine or a series of behaviors
that occur in a typical sequence (e.g., a meeting is called, someone develops an agenda, team members arrive, someone records
the group conversation, etc.). At the group level, to develop team mental models, the group must share common experiences
(which all team members integrate similarly into memory). Nonose, Kanno, and Furuta (2010) suggest that the team mental
models must go beyond the aggregation of individual team members' cognitions; it must be a mutual belief or understanding.
Moreover, this requires that team members not only receive the same information, and observe patterns or styles of behavior,
communication or coordination; they must also discuss them as a team to develop a common shared model. Thus, an additional
factor to consider at the team level is mental model similarity; that is, the degree to which team members all share the same rep-
resentation of the situation.
In addition, the group needs to have an explicit discussion about what the members' shared understanding of their interactions
will be (Thompson & Fine, 1999). Polanyi (1966) was one of the first to distinguish between tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit
knowledge is often acquired through experience and is difficult to verbalize. Explicit knowledge is declarative knowledge that can
be easily shared with others. As mentioned earlier in the example of the knowledge of the location of Bill's office in a four vs.
twenty office suite, as situations or environments become more complex, individuals must make information explicit to develop
their mental models. The same is likely true for groups.
In addition, some types of cognitive structures, such as mental models, will take longer to develop, since some aspects of a
mental model will require multiple observations to ensure that the group's cognitive representation accurately reflects the actual
team dynamics (Strauss & McGrath, 1994). For example, if a five-member team meets one time, and person A talks first, followed
by person B, and then person C, the team might be able to encode the series of events into some type of group cognitive structure,
but to infer that this is a model of the team's interaction routine would require the observation of multiple instances of this par-
ticular pattern (A then B then C).
Several authors have suggested an association between shared mental models and organizational outcomes. Based on their
reviewed the previous decade of the organizational literature related to group cognition Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) devel-
oped the concept of team mental models. Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and Converse (1993) hypothesized that shared mental models
enhance teamwork and consequently team performance. In addition, researchers suggest that teams have multiple mental models
(Cooke, Gorman, & Winner, 2007; Mathieu et al., 2000; Mohammed et al., 2010). The two most common types identified in the
literature are “task-related” team mental models (Task TMM), and “teamwork-related” mental models (Team TMM). Task-related
TMMs reflect information about how the task is to be performed, including technology to be utilized, constraints, and contingen-
cies. Teamwork-related TMM reflect information about team members' expertise, roles, tendencies and patterns of interaction.
The purpose of mental models is to help teams function in their environment; accordingly, we believe that teams are likely to
form mental models that support their team functions. Because some team functions require significant mixing and integration of
both task and team-related issues, the separation between “task” and “team” mental models becomes, in contemporary working
organizations, at least less useful, if not impossible. For example, a group member's initial understanding of the team's task will
help determine his/her initial role, and then over time, operating in that role increases his or her understanding of the group's
task and function. It becomes increasingly difficult for any member of the team to distinguish between a member's role and
his/her understanding of the task. Similarly, the group's strategy will be both affected by, and help determine, the interaction pat-
terns among members.
Fiore et al. (2003) attempt to reconcile this by differentiating between long-term storage (schemas) and working memory.
They suggest that a team's shared mental models are the activation of components of long-term structures (e.g., team vs. task)
into working memory. We believe that the unobservable nature of long-term and working memory supports the notion that it
is more helpful to consider shared mental models as integrated constructs (containing both task and team features) which sup-
port the functions of real teams doing complex work in actual organizations, than to proceed with a “forced” separation between
task and “team.”
As was the case with individual mental models, complexity and accuracy are also important issues for team mental models.
Team Mental Model complexity increases as the amount of information from the environment increases (Bartunek, Gordon, &
Weathersby, 1983; Uitdewilligen, Waller, & Zijlstra, 2010). Increases in environmental information could be the result of a com-
plex task, the number of team members, or the personal differences among team members (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994).
Further, complexity could be the result of differences in the level of awareness or different team members or differences in
thought processes or reasoning. Although there has been no research that has examined the relation between mental model com-
plexity and teamwork behavior or team performance, Uitdewilligen et al. (2010) suggest that this is an area where research is
needed since TMM complexity is likely to be related to team performance.
Similarly, accuracy of team mental models is also an important feature. The concept of accuracy at the team level is a little
more complicated than at the individual level. Recall that at the individual level, accuracy relates to whether the mental model
correctly reflects the situation or construct it represents. At the team level this is also true; team model accuracy is whether
the team mental model is representative of the actual situation (Edwards et al., 2006; Mohammed et al., 2010). Research has
demonstrated that accuracy of team mental models is positively related to performance (Banks & Millward, 2007; Bußwolder,
2015; Lim & Klein, 2006; McIntyre & Foti, 2013; Resick, Murase et al., 2010, Resick, Dickson et al., 2010). Teams with more accu-
rate team mental models demonstrate better teamwork and performance (Lim & Klein, 2006; McIntyre & Foti, 2013).
One issue that differentiates individual and team mental models is convergence (similarity): the degree to which team mem-
bers share the same understanding (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Obviously teams do not possess one brain with one mental
model, each team member will have his or her own mental model of the situation. The issue is the degree to which individuals'
mental models are similar or overlap. Mental model similarity has received more attention in the teams literature than has accu-
racy (Cooke, Kiekel, & Helm, 2001; DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Lim & Klein, 2006; Mathieu et al., 2000; Mathieu, Heffner,
Goodwin, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 2005; Maynard & Gilson, 2014). There is some inconsistency regarding the effects of mental
model similarity on team performance; some research found a significant direct effect (Cooke et al., 2001; Lim & Klein, 2006)
while other research did not find this direct effect (Mathieu et al., 2000, 2005), instead, it found a significantly positive effect
of shared similarity on team mental models on team processes, which ultimately led to improved performance.
The team mental model literature conceptualizes similarity in two ways: congruency and compatibility (Mohammed et al.,
2010; Rentsch & Small, 2007). Congruency implies that team members share identical mental models while compatibility suggests
that individuals have different mental models but that there is overlap of certain critical information among all team members.
The exact degree of similarity (identical vs. compatible) is beyond the scope of this paper. We concur with Cannon-Bowers et
al. (1993), that the degree of similarity important for our model is that the team members must share enough similarity “that
lead to common expectations for the task and team” (p. 236).
Accurate team mental models can occur in two ways. If each team member has an accurate mental model (i.e., it reflects ob-
jective reality) then, by definition, they all share a common understanding of the situation. In this case, discussion of the issues
related to the mental model is not necessary — convergence occurs naturally. However, if individual team members have diver-
gent mental models of the same objective reality, the team can discuss the issues to create a more accurate understanding that
reflects the situation among all team members. In this circumstance, convergence and accuracy develop as a result of team inter-
action. Since both accuracy and convergence are necessary, each team member would have to have the same mental model (or
highly similar) about the relations among sub-tasks, and that mental model would need to reflect the actual state of affairs.
The team mental model literature identifies convergence (similarity) and accuracy as unique features of mental models (see
Mohammed et al., 2010 for a review), and we contend that both are necessary components to support team functioning. For ex-
ample, in a four-member team, if each team member has the identical (or highly similar) mental model for the relations among
sub-tasks for a project, but the mental model does not reflect the actual relations, then accuracy is low even though convergence
is high. If all team members have different mental models (i.e., convergence is low) for the relations among sub-tasks and only
one team member's model reflects the actual relations, then, accuracy at the team level is also likely to be low because they
do not share the same team mental model. Thus, mental model accuracy is a necessary condition for teams to function effectively
while similarity is important but not sufficient characteristic of mental models. Accordingly, we include both of these mental
model features in our framework (see Fig. 1).
2.1.3. Teamwork behavioral components

Traditional face-to-face group research has long emphasized the importance of group process on team performance and out-
comes such as member satisfaction (McGrath, 1984). Although there is some debate over what the specific model (e.g., input-pro-
cess-output vs. input-mediator-output-input) looks like, there are dynamics that affect group functions and outcomes (Ilgen et al.,
2005). One conceptualization of process is “teamwork,” often seen as the activities groups use to achieve a common goal (Gibson
& Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001; McGrath, 1984). Salas' work has identified several basic elements of teamwork and the relations among
them (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Salas et al., 2005). We focus on three of the dimensions identified by Salas et al.
(2005): mutual performance monitoring, back-up behavior and adaptability. Mutual performance monitoring involves the ability
to be aware of team members' progress on their tasks while completing one's own work. Research has found a positive effect of
performance monitoring on team performance (Jehn & Shah, 1997; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991). Backup behavior involves
providing additional resources (e.g., time, manpower) to team members when the task assignments are beyond their capacity
to complete by the deadline (Porter et al., 2003). Porter et al. (2003) found a positive link between backup behavior and team
performance. Finally, adaptability is the capacity for the team to recognize changes in the environment, team, or the task and ad-
just accordingly (Salas et al., 2005). The teams literature, in general, shows a positive relationship between adaptability and per-
formance (DeRue, Hollenbeck, Johnson, Ilgen, & Jundt, 2008; Klarner, Sarstedt, Hoeck, & Ringle, 2013; Lepine, 2003; Resick,
Murase et al., 2010).
We focus on these particular team functions because they are among those that a group's mental models become particularly
important for in contemporary organizations. Indeed, Salas et al.’s (2005) model indicates the effectiveness of each of these
“behavioral components of teamwork” is dependent on a team's shared mental models. In Fig. 1 we present the relations among
virtualness, team mental model complexity and accuracy and the behavioral components of teamwork. This model has three im-
portant features — both a mediating and a moderating mechanism by which team mental models operate as teams become more
virtual, and the effect that training should have on them.
2.2. Relations among virtualness, mental model complexity, accuracy and similarity
The team's level of virtualness should influence the complexity of the team's mental models. As teams become more dispersed
(crossing temporal, geographic, and locational boundaries) and increasingly rely on asynchronous communication media to ac-
complish their goals, the complexity of their shared mental models will also increase to reflect the situation within which the
team operates. Research suggests that in highly dispersed teams, environmental complexity can create coordination requirements
which can hinder teamwork if they are not properly met (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Watson-Manheim &
Belanger, 2002). Problems can stem from team members' familiarity with their own environment but limited awareness of others'
situations, suggesting a lack of shared understanding of each others' contexts at the team level (i.e., a lack of congruence in the
team's mental model). Kankanhalli, Tan, and Wei (2007) propose that increased environmental complexity coupled with a lack
of shared understanding of its extent, can lead to delays, ineffective teamwork and decreased productivity. Team mental models
may be the key factor in increasing team members' shared understanding of the complexity of the environment.
2.2.1. Virtualness and team mental model complexity

Mental model complexity generally increases as the amount of information presented (by the situation or underlying con-
struct) expands. Consequently, increasing levels of virtualness will be associated with an increase in the complexity of team men-
tal models, and we argue that this complexity is critical to understanding how virtualness affects teamwork behavioral
components. Further, we contend that increasing levels of complexity will also be a function of: a) the number of elements con-
taining additional information, and b) the interaction of these elements (i.e., beyond simple additive effects, multiplicative, or
even exponential effects). Below, we identify five broad factors that change as a team's level of virtualness increases, and conse-
quently, contribute to the increasing complexity of a group's mental models: technological factors, temporal differences, geo-
graphic differences, environmental differences, and interpersonal factors. Note that the discussion of these factors is not
intended to be an exhaustive list of those contributing to mental model complexity; instead, we focus on recognizing the types
of factors that will become important for shared mental models in increasingly virtual groups. We discuss each factor in some de-
tail and give some examples of how these factors may interactively contribute to team mental model complexity.
2.2.1.1. Technological factors. Technological factors that need to be considered as virtualness increases include teams' knowledge
about the different communication tools available to the team. Beyond the hands-on knowledge of how to use each tool, team
members need to understand the underlying capabilities of each technology, such as their ability to transmit (conveyance) and
process (convergence) information (Dennis et al., 2008) to determine which tool would be appropriate for particular interactions.
For example, resolving a dispute with team members might require individuals to choose their words carefully; thus, using a me-
dium that allows for high levels of processing would be preferable. Further, teams might develop shared understanding for which
type of communication medium is suitable for particular issues. In another example, a major obstacle requiring a complete shift of
the team's timeline might require a medium with fast transmission speed such as a conference call or a real-time chat session
while a minor schedule change might only require an e-mail notification (asynchronous communication). Thus, the greater num-
ber of tools available to the team to understand and use, the more complex its mental models regarding these tools will be.
Other issues related to technology include the volume of information shared and protocols for preventing information overload
among team members. The literature identifies information overload as one of the drawbacks of operating in increasing
virtualness (Blackburn, Furst, & Rosen, 2003; Ellwart, Happ, Gurtner, & Rack, 2015; Franz, 1999). Depending on the particular
media used, team members may be bombarded with information, including information that is not relevant to the tasks they per-
form. Further, information or messages that are urgent may be difficult to communicate as virtualness increases. Co-located teams
can communicate urgency by physical means whereas temporally or geographically dispersed teams cannot. Teams must share
common understandings of procedures and protocols for labeling, storing and transmitting information to prevent information
overload and so that urgent messages are not ignored and trivial messages do not overwhelm members (Cordery & Soo, 2008;
Horwitz & Santillan, 2012; Tannenbaum et al., 2012). Taken together, a team's mental models must not only contain knowledge
regarding their tasks' information requirements, but also systems for labeling, transmitting and storing information which become
more complicated as a team's virtualness increases.
One final issue related to technology is the degree to which essential team information is explicit or tacit. Tacit knowledge is
that which is difficult or impossible to express in words or symbols (Polanyi, 1966). For example, a team member who designs a
label for a product may struggle to verbally describe the creative process s/he used to create the label, making it difficult to com-
municate this information using electronic media (Finholt, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1990). In some cases, it may be possible to mitigate
these communication difficulties by converting tacit information into explicit information (Griffith et al., 2003), but for certain
types of information or knowledge, this may not be possible. Consequently, teams' mental models need to reflect the kinds of in-
formation that can be easily shared (explicit), needs to be transformed from tacit to explicit (needs to be converted), and cannot
be transmitted via electronic media.
2.2.1.2. Temporal factors. A second aspect that contributes to the complexity of the team's mental models and may help to explain
the negative effects of increasing virtualness on the behavioral components of teamwork is temporal factors. As the level of
virtualness increases, temporal differences also need to be represented in the team's mental models. Research has demonstrated
a positive link between teams' shared temporal cognition and their performance, including the ability to meet deadlines (Gevers,
Rutte, & Van Eerde, 2006; Mohammed, Hamilton, Tesler, Mancuso, & McNeese, 2015). In essence, the team needs a shared under-
standing of how the different temporal locations of each team member will affect the team's ability to coordinate activities. For
example, as virtualness increases, the nature of deadlines may change. Overlapping with geographical factors below, for teams
with members in the same location, an “end of the day” deadline will mean the same thing for all team members as opposed
to teams with members across various time zones. Any task or interaction component in a shared mental model with a time-
bound or time-sensitive element will need to be modified as virtualness increases.
The type of interdependence required for the team's task (e.g., sequential or reciprocal) may also require special timing coor-
dination. In situations of higher interdependence, the team must also incorporate the extent to which time boundaries are related
to the causal order of task performance. As an illustration, if team member B relies on the work of team member A to perform his
or her work but team member B exists in a time zone that precedes that of A, temporal adjustments may need to occur for both
to perform their task successfully (e.g., start earlier). Temporal factors, including the time-bound elements of shared and interde-
pendent tasks contribute to the complexity of the team's shared mental models and must be incorporated into them.
2.2.1.3. Geographical factors. Geographical differences among team members may be much easier for team members to recognize in
their team mental models than temporal boundaries because they can observe that certain members are not present in their local
environment. Geographical distances and differences affect team communication and coordination of its activities and will affect
the degree to which team members maintain the awareness of each other's task performance as well as the team's progress toward
its goals. Thus, team members need to agree on how they are going to monitor distributed team members' performance. The team's
mental models must also include an understanding of which tasks or sub-tasks are portable; that is, which tasks can be easily
transported to a different location if necessary. Teams working on a creative, design, or decision-making task might be able to easily
shift portions of work from one team member to another member in a different location in an effort to meet a deadline. However,
dispersed teams working on the production of physical object would need to transfer the object from one location to another if one
member's tasks involving the object were to be reassigned to meet a deadline. Thus, any team issue that involves location of team
members or the performance of tasks needs to be reflected in the team's mental models. Accordingly, as the number of, and distance
between, locations increases, the complexity of the team's mental models will also increase.
2.2.1.4. Environmental factors. Another issue that contributes to greater team mental model complexity as virtualness increases is
the group's external environment. As with geographical factors, when team members are situated in the same location, external
factors that may affect the team are largely the same for each member. Further, the responsibility to scan the environment and
recognize changes in conditions or task demands can be distributed among team members since they are all surveying the
same environment. However, as a team becomes more dispersed (i.e., more virtual), responsibility for assessing the environment
becomes distributed to team members in each unique location. As a result, the number of environmental cues that the team must
consider will also increase, and environmental factors unique to a particular location may affect the functioning of the entire team.
As an illustration, a team member working in a developing country who loses electricity because of poor infrastructure may cause
delays for the entire team. In summary, as a team's degree of virtualness increases, the size and complexity of the environment is
also likely to increase, placing even greater demands on team members to scan and interpret the environment. Consequently,
shared mental models must include relevant knowledge of all the environments in which team members function, as well as ex-
pectation for group members' responsibilities for assessing and recognizing changes in environmental factors.
2.2.1.5. Interpersonal factors. The final factor that becomes more complex as virtualness increases, and thus, requires more complex
mental models, involves the group's interpersonal issues. First, as team members interact via technology their abilities to detect
individual differences, non-verbal cues, and paraverbal cues will diminish as the level of virtualness increases. In addition, restric-
tion in members' ability to display emotions or attitudes through facial expressions or tone of voice may diminish their ability to
form interpersonal relationships (Strauss & McGrath, 1994) and the absence of these types of cues in highly virtual teams may
lead to breakdowns in communication among team members (Rutter & Stephenson, 1977). Further, the ability of team members
to develop accurate perceptions of each other's leadership skills, communication styles, and interpersonal skills is likely to become
more difficult as the level of virtualness increases.
2.2.1.6. Issues related to interactive effects of factors. Related to both technological and geographical factors is the compatibility of the
technology across locations (Horwitz & Santillan, 2012). Differences in hardware, operating systems, interfaces, internet capabil-
ities, security and programming environments (Wang, Siegel, & Roychowdhury, 1996), and the age of the technologies in each
environment (Chen & Nath, 2008), may lead to breakdowns in communication. For example, one team member may have diffi-
culty opening an email attachment saved in an incompatible particular format by another team member. Further, certain geo-
graphical locations may be limited in Internet access or cellular service which may make sending and receiving messages or
data difficult hindering the ability of team members to share information or perform related tasks. The team mental models
will need to contain information about any technological limitations or incompatibilities so they can adjust their strategies to in-
sure successful transmission and processing of information.
Another issue involving a combination of geographic and temporal factors is information flow. Virtual teams must possess a
shared mental model about the flow of information (Hinds & Weisband, 2003). All team tasks require some degree of coordina-
tion; otherwise, there would be little need to assign a team to work on a project. This coordination requires that information
move between team members as they work together toward achieving their goals. In traditional face-to-face teams, information
flow can be observed since team members are working in the same location in real time. Greater physical and temporal disper-
sion makes information flow difficult, if not impossible, to observe as the level of virtualness increases. Teams with higher levels
of virtualness to coordinate need to have an understanding of members' locations and their temporal working patterns in order to
ensure that information flows in a manner that facilitates both team efficiency and effectiveness. This knowledge is particularly
important when changes in one member's environment cause delays for that individual. S/he would need to understand how a
delay might affect other members in order to take appropriate action.
A final issue relates to interpersonal and geographical factors. When teams are dispersed among multiple locations there may
be cultural differences among team members that impact their social interaction and understanding. These cultural differences
may reflect organizational, regional, national or international differences among team members. For example, in high power dis-
tance cultures, low status team members might be unwilling to openly disagree with high status team members. If team members
from a high power distance culture notices that their team leader has incorrectly estimated the time it will take to complete a
particular task, they will not likely correct the leader because to do so would be culturally inappropriate. On an organizational
level, when team members work for the same company in different locations, there may be aspects of the overall organizational
culture that are shared across locations; at the same time, unique subcultures are likely to exist within each distinct location
(Gibbs, 2006). Cultural differences can affect team member behavior via customs or norms (Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt, & Pradies,
2014; Hatch, 1993; Scott & Lane, 2000), as well as the interpretation of information and team member actions. These cultural
components are often important elements of shared mental models in organizations (Druskat & Pescosolido, 2002). Consequently,
as cultural differences among team members increase with greater levels of virtualness, the team's mental models will become
more complex to reflect this diversity.
To summarize, as a team's level of virtualness increases, technological, temporal differences, geographic differences, environ-
mental differences and interpersonal factors in the environment may also increase. As a result, team mental models will also
be more complex.
Proposition 1. As the level of virtualness increases, the level of complexity of the group's shared mental models will increase.
2.3. Mental model complexity and behavioral components of teamwork
As the complexity of a team's mental models increases (via the relevant factors discussed above), the effectiveness of the be-
havioral components of teamwork, will likely decrease. Mutual performance monitoring will become more difficult because team
members may not be able to rely on physical observation of each other's performance or activities; instead, they may need to rely
on team members' self-reports or some other type of data that requires more complex interpretation. Additionally, as normal
work schedules among team members fail to overlap (temporal dispersion increases), mental models will need to reflect an un-
derstanding of those team members who overlap and those with the ability to monitor particular team members in real time. If a
team is composed of members who are temporally dispersed around the world, there will likely be variations in overlapping
schedules, leading to greater complexity of the mental models regarding team members' ability to monitor each other's behavior.
Further, workload and information sharing demands will also increase if mutual performance monitoring requires that the entire
team has an awareness of each other's activities and performance, despite temporal dispersion (such as across multiple time
zones). Consequently, the effectiveness of mutual performance monitoring may diminish.
Similarly, the greater complexity of team mental models will also negatively affect backup behavior. Several researchers
(Marks et al., 2000; McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Porter et al., 2003) suggest the ability to anticipate others' needs is critical for effec-
tive backup behavior. As mental models become more complex, this ability to provide effective backup behavior may become
more difficult, especially for certain types of backup behavior, such as feedback (Marks et al., 2000). Although there is to date,
little research on the effects of virtualness on the ability to provide feedback, it is likely that greater complexity of mental models
associated with increasing virtualness will have negative effects. Feedback will be limited to actions or behaviors that can be “ob-
served” or monitored in a virtual environment. Further, temporal dispersion may reduce the timeliness of feedback. Consequently,
it may become more challenging for team members to provide effective backup behavior.
Finally, mental model complexity is also likely to negatively affect adaptability. As the level of virtualness increases, the
environment in which the team operates expands. When team members are co-located, external factors that could affect the
team are the same for each member. For example, if inclement weather affects members' ability to come to work, it would
affect all members similarly and they could adjust their tasks and schedules accordingly. However, when a team is distributed
across multiple locations, the same inclement weather may only affect one team member. Further, if they are not directly
affected, other team members may be unaware of the inclement weather facing the particular team member and may not
realize the need for some type of adjustment. Increases in mental model complexity related to greater virtualness are likely
to raise the cognitive demands placed on each team member and increase the potential for errors in reading environmental
cues. Consequently, higher levels of virtualness are likely to have a negative effect on the team's ability to adapt to its
environment.
In sum, increased team mental model complexity will explain why higher virtualness reduces the effectiveness of the behav-
ioral components of teamwork (see Fig 1). Stated formally:
Proposition 2. The complexity of a group's mental models mediates the relation between the group's level of virtualness and the effec-
tiveness of its teamwork component behaviors.
2.4. Virtualness, mental model accuracy, similarity and complexity
In addition to its effects on mental model complexity, a greater level of virtualness is likely to affect the accuracy and similarity
of team mental models. Recall that according to Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) (Dennis et al., 2008) communication is a pro-
cess comprised of two sub-components: (1) transmitting information (conveyance) and (2) processing the information to reach a
common understanding (convergence). Dennis et al. (2008) specifically link convergence processes to the development of shared
mental models. Further, they suggest convergence requires communication media that allows for synchronous interaction. Simi-
larly, Maynard and Gilson (2014) examined the process of shared mental model development in virtual teams and posit that syn-
chronous communication media facilitate conveyance and convergence, while asynchronous media can diminish the convergence
process. Accordingly, developing more accurate and similar shared mental models in an increasingly virtual environment becomes
much more difficult. For example, if one team member is located in San Francisco and a second team member is located in Tokyo
(a 16 h time difference), synchronous communication does not occur easily. In support of this idea, Murase, Carter, DeChurch, and
Marks (2014) demonstrated that communication affected the accuracy of teams' mental models. Similarly, Marks et al. (2000)
found that mental model similarity was positively related to the quality of team communication. Certainly, teams that are geo-
graphically and temporally dispersed could arrange a video conference meeting (more synchronous media), but the ability of
such a meeting to assist in creating team mental model accuracy would depend on many things, including the dynamics of the
tasks involved and other factors, such as technological or logistical limitations. The resulting inherent difficulty reaching a shared
understanding among dispersed team members may result in less accurate mental models.
As discussed earlier, the tacit/explicit knowledge distinction will affect the complexity of team mental models as virtualness
increases. The type of information is also likely to affect accuracy and similarity for the same reasons. Since tacit knowledge can-
not easily be expressed verbally (Polanyi, 1966), it may be difficult for teams to develop a shared accurate understanding of that
information. Even when tacit information can be converted into explicit information (Griffith et al., 2003), the translation may fail
to capture nuances of the tacit information leading to less accurate shared understanding of information. Consequently, increasing
levels of virtualness will negatively affect accuracy of team mental models to the extent that they contain tacit knowledge or in-
formation that cannot be made explicit (see Fig. 1).
Proposition 3. As the level of virtualness increases, the accuracy and similarity of a group's shared mental models will decrease.
Although there is limited research on factors that affect mental model accuracy and similarity, Gary and Wood (2005) dem-
onstrated that mental model accuracy was negatively related to environmental complexity. Teams in a less complex environment,
characterized by fewer decision variables and fewer relations between decision variables and outcomes, had more accurate men-
tal models than teams in a more complex environment. With respect to levels of virtualness, in the previous section we discussed
the extent to which increasingly virtual teams have more complex mental models. Recall that team mental models are a repre-
sentation of the “real world” situation in which team members operate. Thus, the reason these mental models are more complex
is that they reflect a situation (e.g., environment, relations, and boundaries) that is more complex. Accordingly, the ability to ac-
curately represent these factors will be more difficult. Further, it is more likely in complex situations where team members are
working in unique environments, that team members will possess dissimilar mental models. Langan-Fox, Anglim, and Wilson
(2004) suggest that environmental factors, such as the complexity of the situation in which the team operates, is likely to affect
the development of shared understandings (similarity) and, consequently, team mental models.
In addition, the ability to receive information and update the accuracy of mental models as virtualness increases will also be more
difficult. King and Majchrzak (2003) suggest that global virtual teams often fail to keep pace with the rapidly changing environment
resulting in an inability to encode and share knowledge. Uitdewilligen, Waller, and Pitariu (2013) found a negative relation between
accuracy, similarity and performance over time in a changing situation. They posit that these results are due to the fact that teams in
a changing environment do not update their mental models sufficiently. In a more complex environment, changes in particular areas
of that environment may only be known to a single team member. In such cases, if this knowledge is not shared and encoded at
the group level, team mental models will not reflect this information, and consequently, will be less accurate and similar. Further,
if multiple changes are occurring in multiple locations, the volume of information that the team must update and incorporate into
its mental model may become overwhelming such that it prevents the team from developing an accurate, similar understanding
of the team's situation. Taken together, these two issues suggest that as the complexity of the team's circumstances and mental
models increase, the ability of the team to develop accurate, similar mental models will decrease. Stated formally:
Proposition 4. Increasing levels of the complexity of a group's mental models will be associated with decreasing levels of the accuracy
and similarity of that group's mental models.
Increasing levels of virtualness might also affect the relation between mental model complexity and mental model accuracy
and similarity. There are two reasons why this might occur. First, communication among team members affects mental model
development (Fiore, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2001; Maynard & Gilson, 2014; Waller, Gupta, & Giambatista, 2004). Waller et al.
(2004) found that teams utilizing more face-to-face communication were better able to develop and utilize shared mental models.
As teams increase in their level of virtualness and become more dependent on technology to interact, face-to-face communication
becomes less likely. Also Fiore et al. (2003) suggest that more communication breakdowns occur when teams interact via tech-
nology, as media often lacks cues that help individuals correctly interpret messages. As the level of virtualness increases, the abil-
ity of teams to communicate the complexity of their environments, and consequently, form shared mental models is diminished.
Consequently, mental model accuracy and similarity are also likely to decline.
In addition to communication breakdowns that are more likely to occur in an increasingly virtual environment, providing and
receiving meaningful, timely feedback is also likely to be more difficult. Johnson-Laird (1989) suggests that one way individuals
improve the accuracy of their mental models of the world is to test them to determine whether they are accurate. These tests
then provide individuals with feedback as to whether their mental models are accurate or whether they need to be modified.
The same issue is true in teams. Teams receive feedback, either based upon team performance or as individuals within the
group (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004). This feedback should be incorporated into the teams' mental
model resulting in more accurate representations. The research on feedback in increasingly virtual environments is limited, how-
ever, it is likely that increasing levels of virtualness will affect both types of feedback. First, in an increasingly virtual environment,
team members are spread out across multiple locations which may increase the number of sources of information that need to be
considered. This increases the complexity of the situation, and consequently, acquiring and interpreting team performance feed-
back will be more difficult as virtualness increases. Second, temporal boundaries will also affect feedback; as a team becomes
more virtual and dispersed across multiple time zones it may be more difficult for members to provide and receive timely
feedback.
Capelo and Dias (2009) suggest that the quality and timing of feedback will affect mental model development. In terms of in-
dividual feedback, Diehl and Sterman (1995) found that in complex environments where multiple feedback loops, that feedback
complexity and timing are critical factors in individuals' ability to learn. Further, Shachaf and Hara (2005) suggest that media se-
lection is an important issue when providing feedback in global virtual teams. Although they do not identify specific communica-
tion media to use for feedback, they suggest that more synchronous media are probably necessary for individuals to converge on a
common understanding of the feedback. Taken together, these findings suggest that increasing levels of virtualness are likely to
affect the timing and meaningfulness of feedback. These negative effects of virtualness on feedback will, in turn, negatively affect
mental model accuracy and similarity, particularly in complex situations.
Given that increasing levels of virtualness are likely to hinder communication and feedback, we believe that it will moderate
the relation between mental model complexity and mental model accuracy and similarity. Stated formally
Proposition 5. The level of virtualness will moderate the relation between team mental model complexity and team mental model ac-
curacy and similarity such that the negative relation will be stronger when there are higher levels of virtualness.
2.5. Relations between mental model characteristics and the components of teamwork
Salas et al. (2005) propose that accuracy of mental models is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of mutual per-
formance monitoring, backup behavior and adaptability. They also suggest convergence among team members mental models is
important for effective teamwork. Recall from our earlier discussion that there is an established positive relation between both
mental model accuracy and similarity with team performance. One of the reasons for the improvement in team performance is
the effect of mental models on coordination and teamwork (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Lim & Klein, 2006; Mathieu
et al., 2000; Resick, Murase et al., 2010; Resick, Dickson et al., 2010). DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010) conducted a
meta-analysis of team cognition (including shared mental models) and demonstrated a positive relation between team cognition
and team behavioral processes. Further Mathieu et al., 2000 demonstrated that the positive effect of mental model convergence
(similarity) on performance was fully mediated by team processes. With respect to the behavioral components of teamwork, mu-
tual performance monitoring is “primarily a cognitive operation in which team members observe actions of their teammates and
watch for errors or performance discrepancies,” (Marks & Panzer, 2004, p. 27). Although increasing virtualness may hinder mem-
bers' ability to physically observe others, they may still be able to maintain awareness of what teammates are doing through other
mechanisms such as technology. Possessing an accurate, similar team model is still necessary to interpret information they receive
about others' performance and provide the necessary support. Thus, a team's shared mental models need to accurately reflect the
team's situation to effectively support team functioning (in this case, the behavioral components of teamwork).
In addition to the direct effects of mental model accuracy and similarity on teamwork behaviors (Fig. 1), they might also help
mitigate the negative effects of model complexity on team performance. Kozlowski and Bell (2003) suggest that teams operating
in a complex environment may face higher coordination demands and may be more prone to failures in teamwork. Accurate,
shared mental models help reduce the need for explicit coordination since they help team members to anticipate the needs of
other team members and provide appropriate support (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Rouse, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1992).
This may be particularly important as the level of a team's virtualness increases since the ability to explicitly coordinate activities
may be diminished as teams are spread across spatial, temporal, and configurational dimensions. For example, team members
who are dispersed across temporal boundaries whose work schedules do not overlap would need to rely more on the shared un-
derstanding of team roles when reviewing each other's work, since the ability to communicate and receive feedback in real time
would be limited. In addition, if a team's shared mental model regarding its complex environment is inaccurate, it may fail to at-
tend or monitor the appropriate cues; consequently, it may fail to adequately adapt to changes required by some environment
shift. This could negatively affect the team's performance. Wilson, Burke, Priest, and Salas (2005) suggest that high performing
teams operating in a complex environment need to have accurate shared mental models to enhance mutual performance moni-
toring and adaptability. For teams that are able to generate shared mental models that accurately reflect the complexity associated
with increasing levels of virtualness, may be able to mitigate some of the negative effects of mental model complexity and con-
sequently, improve the effectiveness of their behavioral components of teamwork. Taken together, this suggests that team mental
model accuracy and similarity will both directly and indirectly affect the behavioral components of teamwork. Stated formally:
Proposition 6. The accuracy and similarity of a group's mental models will be positively related to the group's teamwork component
behaviors.
Proposition 7. The accuracy and similarity of a group's mental models will reduce (moderate) the negative effect of the Complexity of
those models on the group's teamwork component behaviors.
A team's level of virtualness may also moderate the effects of mental model complexity on the teamwork behavioral compo-
nents. As the level of virtualness increases, the relation between mental model complexity and mutual performance monitoring,
backup behavior and adaptability will become more negative. As suggested earlier, physical and temporal dispersion may limit the
ability of team members to “observe” and interpret the performance of others within the framework of the team's shared mental
models. As virtualness increases, the ability of team members to synchronously communicate and resolve differences in under-
standing or increase awareness of others' performance will be further limited. Thus, as the level of virtualness increases, the re-
lation between mental model complexity and the effectiveness of mutual performance monitoring will decrease further.
Similarly, increasing virtualness will also negatively affect the relation between mental model complexity and backup behavior.
As geographic and temporal differences between team members increase, the ability to anticipate the needs of other team mem-
bers may deteriorate further. If two team members have work schedules that do not overlap, it may be difficult or impossible to
for one person to anticipate what the other needs. If team member A is struggling with a task that team member B could assist
but team member B has already finished working for the day, then backup behavior is not likely to occur. In addition, if tasks need
to be performed in a certain sequence, team members' temporal proximity will also affect their ability to engage in backup behav-
ior. Therefore, the geographic and temporal dispersion of team members and their roles will further exacerbate the relation be-
tween the complexity of the team's mental models and backup behaviors.
The level of virtualness will also negatively influence the relation between mental model complexity and effectiveness of
teams' adaptability. When team members exist in the same location, the need to recognize changes in conditions or task de-
mands can be shared among team members since they are all surveying the same environment. As the team becomes more
virtual (in this case, more dispersed), the responsibility for assessing the environment also becomes distributed to team
members at each unique location. In addition, when teams are dispersed across multiple locations, members are not likely
to encounter the same environmental conditions. Team members' mental models must not only contain an understanding of
their own environment but also those of other team members. Further, team members must understand how changes in
their environment would affect other team members. Consequently, as the degree of virtualness increases the size and com-
plexity of the environment increases, and the demands on team members for scanning and interpreting this environment
also increases.
In addition to raising the level of demands for monitoring changes in the team's environment, the need to share information
regarding changes and reach agreement as to how to respond to those changes also increases. As discussed earlier, the temporal
boundaries associated with increased virtualness may limit the ability of the team to share and understand this information and
adapt effectively. A team member in one location may recognize a change that requires the team to adapt in some way but it may
occur at a time when other team members are unavailable. This delay in the ability to share information may reduce the team's
ability to adapt in the situation or may limit the responses of the team to the degree that particular responses are time sensitive.
Taken together, the increase in environment size coupled with the limitations imposed in an increasingly virtual environment
may increase the negative effects of mental model complexity on adaptability.
Increasing levels of virtualness will increase the negative effects of team mental model complexity on all three behavioral com-
ponents of teamwork (see Fig. 1). Stated formally:
Proposition 8. The level of virtualness will increase (moderate) the negative effect of the Complexity of those models on the group's
teamwork component behaviors.
Given that accuracy may mitigate the negative effects of team mental model complexity on the behavioral components of
teamwork, team interventions that help promote mental model accuracy may help mitigate these adverse consequences. We
now turn to a discussion of the role that training can take to reduce the effects of the undesirable relations we have identified.
2.6. Training
As illustrated in Fig. 1, we contend that the focus of employee training should be on improving the accuracy of a work team's
mental models. Therefore, we limit our training discussion to the following five areas: coordination and adaption training, cross-
training, guided-team training, communication training, and cross-cultural interpersonal skills training. We will discuss each of
these types/strategies in the following paragraphs and how they can improve mental model accuracy.
2.6.1. Coordination and adaptation training.

This kind of training is designed to help work teams adapt to changes in the group's task demands or the group's external en-
vironment (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006, Lacerenza, Zajac, Savage, & Salas, 2015). In particular, this training helps
teams alter their internal coordination while limiting the communication required, as they face changing circumstances
(Lacerenza et al., 2015; Salas, Nichols, & Driskell, 2007). Focusing on topics such as monitoring and backup behavior, this training
develops team members' skills at recognizing what team behaviors need to be monitored, determining how those behaviors can
be monitored, and developing strategies for team members to assist each other in completing the group's tasks. In addition, this
kind of training focuses attention on how the team identifies and uses cues in the environment to make changes to existing strat-
egies and behaviors. Explicit discussion of, and when feasible, concurrent training among team members on these skills will not
only help the group create a shared understanding of environmental cues, but make the group's shared mental model more ac-
curate as the team faces changes in its external environment. Research by Marks et al. (2000) provides evidence for parts of this;
they found that 3-person teams that were provided training that included how to coordinate their activities developed more ac-
curate mental models than teams that did not receive such training.
2.6.2. Cross-training
Cross training is also likely to improve mental model accuracy as it requires group members to acquire knowledge demanded
by each other's positions. Blickensderfer, Cannon-Bowers, and Salas (1998) describe three different types of cross-training: posi-
tional clarification, positional modeling and positional rotation. Positional clarification involves team members describing their
roles and responsibilities. Positional modeling includes team members observing each other performing tasks as well as discussing
them. Positional rotation entails each member performing each other's jobs or tasks. The more group members clarify, model and
rotate these things among themselves, the more accurate their shared mental will be. Indeed, Marks et al. (2002) found that
cross-training improved shared mental model development.
Marks et al. (2002) also found that more active types of cross-training (i.e., modeling and rotation) were better than clarifica-
tion for developing shared mental models. We suggest that at lower levels of virtualness, groups might do well to focus on all
three types of cross training, whereas at higher levels of virtualness, focusing on positional clarification may be the most practical
option. But any efforts to clarify, model or rotate individual team member knowledge and skills should improve the accuracy of a
team's shared mental models.
2.6.3. Guided team self-correction

Guided team self-correction refers to a team conducting pre-briefing and debriefing sessions. These are conducted under the
direction of a facilitator, whose function is to help keep the team focused, constructive and productive (Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig,
Acton, & McPherson, 1998). This facilitator often prevents teams from focusing on irrelevant issues or skewing toward positive
or negative aspects of performance. Prior empirical work suggests that guided team self-correction has positive effects on the de-
velopment of team mental models (Salas et al., 2007; Smith-Jentsch et al., Smith-Jentsch et al., 1998).
Team Dimensional Training is a form of guided self-directed training that concentrates on helping teams identify specific as-
pects of teamwork with the goal of developing accurate team mental models (Smith-Jentsch et al., 1998). It particularly involves a
pre-briefing session to help the team identify goals, objectives and aspects of teamwork that are likely to affect performance.
Although this strategy was developed and tested with combat teams (at low levels of virtualness), it could be easily adapted
for teams at various levels of virtualness. First, as virtualness increases, the facilitator could help teams focus on the relevant com-
ponents of mental model complexity for their particular situation to help ensure accuracy. Second, after meaningful performance
episodes, the facilitator could help focus teams on how aspects of virtualness affected teamwork, to help them refine and improve
the accuracy of their shared mental models. As discussed earlier, one mechanism to improve the accuracy of mental models is
feedback. This method helps to ensure that teams receive meaningful feedback on the adequacy and accuracy of their mental
models. Lastly, not only could the facilitator lead these efforts, but s/he could also model and develop the team's skills in self-man-
aging the process of analyzing their performance and providing feedback to each other.
2.6.4. Technology and communication training.

Effective communication is critical to shared mental model formation. Levesque, Wilson, and Wholey (2001) found that teams'
diminished communication over time harmed shared mental model development. If one of the goals of training is to improve
team mental model accuracy, effective communication that results in a common understanding of the information is critical. As
discussed earlier, communication tools vary in their capacity to transmit and process information. Thus, teams need to receive
some type of technological training on the tools that are available for the team to use. This training would involve both how
to use the tools as well as the capacity of the tools to share information (conveyance) and to process or interpret that information
as a team (convergence). This may be particularly important in facilitating accuracy. For example, if one team member was
attempting to explain how s/he performed an assigned task, rather than trying to explain the process over email or the phone
(which may lead to miscommunication), the team member could take a cell-phone video to demonstrate. This may be particularly
beneficial as virtualness and mental model complexity increase, since it requires that dispersed team members share the unique
attributes of their roles or environments. As part of this training, information about any technological incompatibilities among
team members or locations needs to be presented. If team members are able to share more complete information and have an
understanding of the tools used to communicate, they are likely to improve the accuracy of their team mental models.
A second type of training specifically focused on tacit information sharing and perspective taking which has been found to im-
prove individuals' communication skills specifically in the ability to relay tacit information (Blokpoel et al., 2012; De Ruiter et al.,
2010). For example, Blokpoel et al. (2012) found that perspective taking was able to explain differences between participants
playing the Tacit Communication Game (TCG), designed to test individuals' ability to communicate in novel situations without
the conventions typically used in linguistic settings (De Ruiter et al., 2010). These skills might also benefit team members in in-
creasingly virtual environments who often have limited nonverbal and social cues to determine the meanings of messages,
impairing the ability of senders and receivers to share a common understanding of the team's situation. This is particularly impor-
tant when the team's task involves tacit knowledge that is difficult to communicate verbally. The ability to encode and decode
messages and information may improve the ability of team members to share and process information in their efforts to develop
a common understanding. Consequently, the accuracy of the team's mental models should increase.
2.6.5. Interpersonal skills training

Finally, cross-cultural interpersonal skill training emphasizes individual's ability to interact with others from different cultures
(Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Littrell & Salas, 2005). Black and Mendenhall's (1990) review of cross-cultural training identified 19
studies which demonstrated a positive relation between cross-cultural training and interpersonal relation skills. Although general
cross-cultural training can encompass a variety of cultural aspects, interpersonal skills training is most likely to have the strongest
effect on mental model development as it relates to individuals' abilities to communicate with each other. Culture is more likely to
affect how individuals communicate and what they are willing to discuss. Further, Goffman (1982) suggests that interpersonal
interactions are dependent on rituals that exist within a culture. These rituals translate into norms or expected patterns of inter-
action. They can affect a variety of aspects of interaction such as the formality of the interaction, content and tone, as well as spe-
cific conventions such as greetings, feedback or apologies (Tannen, 1986). Given that these rituals are culturally specific, they may
limit the ability of individuals from different cultures to form a common understanding of a message. As virtualness increases and
team members span across cultures, this lack of common understanding may lead to inaccurate team mental models. Cross-cul-
tural interpersonal skill training that emphasizes the differences in interaction and communication rituals may reduce misunder-
standings and consequently improve team mental model accuracy.
Each of these forms of training will lead to more accurate team mental models, although the types of specific training required
for a group will vary depending on the specific circumstances within the group, including the team's level of virtualness. For ex-
ample, teams that are located in the same region of the same country (minimally to moderately virtual) would not likely need
cross cultural training. Similarly, teams in which all members perform the same task would not likely benefit significantly from
cross-training. Before determining the specific training program for a particular team, it will be important to conduct some
type of needs assessment. To the degree that designated training programs meet the needs of a particular team; training will
lead to improved accuracy of the teams' mental models. Stated formally:
Proposition 9. Specialized training will lead to increased team mental model accuracy.
3. Discussion
The virtual teams literature has suggested that as teams are dispersed over temporal, geographical and relational boundaries;
they often experience process loss and perform more poorly than expected (Fiore et al., 2003, Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Kankanhalli
et al., 2007). Several literature reviews (Caya et al., 2013; Martins et al., 2004) have identified team processes and process losses
in the virtual arena as an area in need of more research to help teams achieve their potential. We have examined the effects of
virtualness on three behavioral components of teamwork identified by Salas et al. (2005): mutual performance monitoring, back-
up behaviors and adaptability. We chose to examine these components as they were grounded in the empirical work on face-to-
face teams and provide practical guidance to both researchers and managers (Salas et al., 2005).
In addition, we followed the current trend of conceptualizing virtualness along a continuum rather than as a dichotomous con-
struct. Examining how the level of virtualness affects processes like teamwork is critical. Much of the current literature examining
virtual teams in the workplace focuses on high levels of virtualness, such as global virtual teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999;
Kankanhalli et al., 2007; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006; Sarker, Ahuja, Sarker, & Kirkeby, 2011). While this is certainly im-
portant, future research should examine teams at moderate levels of virtualness - for example, teams with members located in
the same general region, such as the Western United States. Moderate levels of virtualness should demonstrate fewer negative
effects on the behavioral components of teamwork than high levels of virtualness; however, that is an empirical question that
needs to be examined. For example, it may be that particular components of teamwork, such as mutual performance monitoring
and backup behavior, will be more directly affected by moderate levels of virtualness than other factors, like adaptability.
A significant contribution of our model is its incorporation of the concept of shared mental models into the virtual teams lit-
erature. Although the traditional teams literature (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Mohammed et al., 2010) has considered
team shared mental models extensively, the virtual teams literature is only beginning to do so. There is a dearth of empirical re-
search investigating the role of shared cognition in the virtual team literature (Martins et al., 2004). Although several authors have
examined the role theoretically (Curşeu, 2006; Fiore et al., 2003; Maynard & Gilson, 2014), each has focused on general issues
related to team performance. Our goal was to utilize the relation between shared mental models and teamwork components iden-
tified in the face-to-face literature by Salas et al. (2005), to extend it teams operating in increasing levels of virtualness, and to
better specify the mechanism by which this happens.
A second contribution is that we introduce the relation between the level of virtualness and mental model complexity. Al-
though the general issue of complexity is discussed in reviews and meta analyses (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010,
Mohammed et al., 2010; Uitdewilligen et al., 2010), very little research has examined this construct (Curseu, Schalk, & Wessel,
2008; Gary & Wood, 2011; McNamara, Luce, & Tompson, 2002). This complexity is particularly important for the increasing
level of virtualness of teams – as many researchers suggest, as virtualness increases, the complexity of the environment increases
(Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Kankanhalli et al., 2007; Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Watson-Manheim & Belanger, 2002). We attempt to
explore the resulting, important complexity of a team's mental models. We identify specific factors related to technology as well
as temporal, geographical and interpersonal boundaries that occur in an increasingly virtual environment, and that need to be in-
tegrated into a team's mental models. Additionally, we propose that rather than focus on the task/team distinction highlighted in
much of the shared mental models literature, an approach that examines integrated shared mental models that support specific
components of teamwork is beneficial both for researchers studying teams in an increasingly virtual environment and organiza-
tions desiring practical strategies to improve team effectiveness. In addition, we examine the indirect effects of virtualness on
team mental models and their relation to teamwork behaviors. As virtualness increases, it will be more difficult for team members
to develop accurate, similar mental models of their increasingly complex situation. Further, virtualness will also negatively affect
the relation between mental model complexity and teamwork behaviors. The physical dispersion of team members coupled with
the increased reliance on asynchronous communication (increased virtualness) may make it more difficult for teams to translate
their shared understanding of the situation (team mental models) into effective mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior
and adaptability.
We also discuss the importance of mental model accuracy and similarity. In addition to the direct improvements accuracy and
similarity will have on the components of teamwork behavior (Salas et al., 2005), they can moderate the relation between virtual
team complexity and the behavioral components of teamwork. Although the mental models literature has examined the effects of
mental model accuracy in face-to-face teams, this issue has yet to be addressed in the virtual team literature. Teams that possess
complex and accurate team mental models under various levels of virtualness should have more effective teamwork behaviors
than teams do not possess such models.
The final contribution of our model is the identification of specific training practices that may help teams increase the accuracy
and similarity of their mental models and manage the complexities of working in an increasingly virtual environment. Greater
accuracy and similarity will reduce the negative effects on teamwork behaviors associated with increasing levels of virtualness.
An important issue to consider is the effectiveness of training at varying levels of virtualness; for example, cross-training may
be very effective when the level of virtualness is low to moderate, but less effective when it is high due to the greater geograph-
ical and temporal dispersion of team members. Future research will need to examine the effectiveness of proposed training inter-
ventions across a continuum of virtualness.
4. Conclusion
Teams are a ubiquitous feature of organizations, and advancements in technology will continue to expand the ability of orga-
nizations to create teams existing across time and space.
Considerable variations exist in how teams are designed or configured; consequently, it will be essential for organizations to
have a clear understanding of how critical team processes, such as teamwork, are influenced by levels of virtualness and teams'
mental models in order to minimize any potentially negative outcomes.
The purpose of this paper has been to identify the extent to which the complexity of virtual teams' shared mental models can
be affected by degree of virtualness, explaining how the accuracy of these models may reduce any negative effects on the behav-
ioral components of teamwork.
Finally, we identified several types of training that might improve teamwork as the level of virtualness increases. We believe
our model contributes to a better understanding of teamwork and can provide guidance to organizations as they manage the chal-
lenges of operating in an increasingly virtual world.
References
Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C. P. (2011). The relation between self-leadership and transformational leadership: Competing models and the moderating role of
virtuality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 68–82.
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478.
Banks, A. P., & Millward, L. J. (2007). Differentiating knowledge in teams: The effect of shared declarative and procedural knowledge on team performance. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(2), 95.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273–284.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review,
15(1), 113–136.
Blackburn, R., Furst, S., & Rosen, B. (2003). Building a winning virtual team. Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 95–120). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Cross-training and team performance. In J. Cannon-Bowers, & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress:
Implications for individual and team training (pp. 299–311). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Blokpoel, M., van Kesteren, M., Stolk, A., Haselager, P., Toni, I., & Van Rooij, I. (2012). Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective tak-
ing? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 253.
Boudreau, M., Loch, K., Robey, D., & Straub, D. (1998). Going global: Using information technology to advance the competitiveness of the virtual transnational organi-
zation. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 120–128.
Bryant, S. M., Albring, S. M., & Murthy, U. (2009). The effects of reward structure, media richness and gender on virtual teams. International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems, 10(4), 190–213.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6),
1189.
Bußwolder, P. (2015). The effect of a structured method on mental model accuracy and performance in a complex task. Systems, 3(4), 264–286.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2007). Fostering mental model convergence through training. In F. Yammarino, & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizations and time
(pp. 149–157). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In J. CastellanJr (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group
decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Capelo, C., & Dias, J. F. (2009). A feedback learning and mental models perspective on strategic decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development,
57(5), 629–644.
Cascio, W. F. (2001). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 81–90.
Caya, O., Mortensen, M., & Pinsonneault, A. (2013). Virtual teams demystified: An integrative framework for understanding virtual teams. International Journal of e-
Collaboration (IJeC), 9(2), 1–33.
Chen, L., & Nath, R. (2008). A socio-technical perspective of mobile work. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 7(1, 2), 41–60.
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., & Winner, J. L. (2007). Team cognition. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, S. T. Dumais, S. Lewandowsky, & T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of applied
cognition (pp. 239–268) (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., & Helm, E. E. (2001). Measuring team knowledge during skill acquisition of a complex task. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3),
297–315.
Cordery, J. L., & Soo, C. (2008). Overcoming impediments to virtual team effectiveness. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 18(5), 487–500.
Craik, K. (1967). The nature of explanation. 1943Cambridge UK: Cambridge University.
Curşeu, P. L. (2006). Emergent states in virtual teams: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 21(4), 249–261.
Curseu, P. L., Schalk, R., & Wessel, I. (2008). How do virtual teams process information? A literature review and implications for management. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 23(6), 628–652.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
D'Andrade, R. G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5(3), 179–195.
De Ruiter, J. P., Noordzij, M. L., Newman-Norlund, S., Newman-Norlund, R., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S. C., & Toni, I. (2010). Exploring the cognitive infrastructure of com-
munication. Interaction Studies, 11(1), 51–77.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.
DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., Ilgen, D. R., & Jundt, D. K. (2008). How different team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and per-
formance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 182–196.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of in-
dividual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056.
Diehl, E., & Sterman, J. D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 198–215.
Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating.
Human Relations, 55(3), 283–314.
Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Jr., & Bell, S. T. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(3), 727.
Ellwart, T., Happ, C., Gurtner, A., & Rack, O. (2015). Managing information overload in virtual teams: Effects of a structured online team adaptation on cognition and
performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 812–826.
Finholt, T., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1990). Communication and performance in ad hoc task groups. Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooper-
ative work, 291–325.
Fiore, S. M., Hoffman, R. R., & Salas, E. (2008). Learning and performance across disciplines: An epilogue for moving multidisciplinary research toward an interdisci-
plinary science of expertise. Military Psychology, 20(S1), S155.
Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In E. Fleishman, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), How people evaluate
others in organizations (pp. 309–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., Cuevas, H. M., & Bowers, C. A. (2003). Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(3–4), 340–364.
Franz, H. (1999, January). The impact of computer mediated communication on information overload in distributed teams. Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceed-
ings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on ((pp. 15-pp). IEEE).
Fu, Q., Chui, Y., & Helander, M. G. (2006). Knowledge identification and management in product design. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(6), 50–63.
Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. (2005, July). Mental models, decision making and performance in complex tasks. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society, Boston.
Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 569–594.
Gevers, J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Van Eerde, W. (2006). Meeting deadlines in work groups: Implicit and explicit mechanisms. Applied Psychology, 55(1), 52–72.
Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Decoupling and coupling in global teams: Implications for human resource management. In G. Stahl, & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in
international human resource management (pp. 347–363). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national
diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2),
274–303.
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of
Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.
Goffman, E. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
González-Navarro, P., Orengo, V., Zornoza, A., Ripoll, P., & Peiró, J. M. (2010). Group interaction styles in a virtual context: The effects on group outcomes. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(6), 1472–1480.
Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information tech-
nology. MIS Quarterly, 265–287.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95.
Hinds, P. J., & Weisband, S. P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Cre-
ating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 21–36). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99(3), 390–403.
Holtbrügge, D., Schillo, K., Rogers, H., & Friedmann, C. (2011). Managing and training for virtual teams in India. Team Performance Management: An International Journal,
17(3/4), 206–223.
Horwitz, S. K., & Santillan, C. (2012). Knowledge sharing in global virtual team collaboration: Applications of CE and think Lets. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 10(4), 342–353.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology,
56, 517–543.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775–790.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Mental models. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 469–499). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science,
20(1), 240–252.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 783–808.
Kang, H. R., Yang, H. D., & Rowley, C. (2006). Factors in team effectiveness: Cognitive and demographic similarities of software development team members. Human
Relations, 59(12), 1681–1710.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2007). Managing conflict in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 237–274.
Kaplan, D. E., & Black, J. B. (2001). Computer-based tools for the development and investigation of mental model reasoning about causal systems. In Proceedings of the
World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Tampere, Finland.
Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 183–194.
King, N., & Majchrzak, A. (2003). Technology alignment and adaptation for virtual teams involved in unstructured knowledge work. In C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen
(Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 265–291). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face in-
teraction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175–192.
Klarner, P., Sarstedt, M., Hoeck, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2013). Disentangling the effects of team competences, team adaptability, and client communication on the perfor-
mance of management consulting teams. Long Range Planning, 46(3), 258–286.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437.
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Research article electronic media variety and virtual team performance: The mediating role of task complexity coping mechanisms.
Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 55(4), 325–344.
Kozlowski, S. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 12. (pp. 333–375). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lacerenza, C. N., Zajac, S., Savage, N., & Salas, E. (2015). Team training for global virtual teams: Strategies for success. Leading global teams (pp. 91–121). New York:
Springer.
Langan-Fox, J., Anglim, J., & Wilson, J. R. (2004). Mental models, team mental models, and performance: Process, development, and future directions. Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 14(4), 331–352.
LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27–39.
Levesque, L. L., Wilson, J. M., & Wholey, D. R. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22(2), 135–144.
Lim, B. C., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418.
Littrell, L. N., & Salas, E. (2005). A review of cross-cultural training: Best practices, guidelines, and research needs. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 305–334.
Marks, M. A., & Panzer, F. J. (2004). The influence of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Human Performance, 17(1), 25–41.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.
Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3–13.
Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environ-
ments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 971.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2005). Scaling the quality of teammates' mental models: Equifinality and normative com-
parisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(1), 37–56.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.
Maynard, M. T., & Gilson, L. L. (2014). The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management,
39(1), 3–32.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473–492.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McIntyre, H. H., & Foti, R. J. (2013). The impact of shared leadership on teamwork mental models and performance in self-directed teams. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 16(1), 46–57.
McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.),
Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 9–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McNamara, G. M., Luce, R. A., & Tompson, G. H. (2002). Examining the effect of complexity in strategic group knowledge structures on firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 23(2), 153–170.
Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt: Rinehart and Winston.
Millward, L. J., Banks, A., & Riga, K. (2010). Effective self-regulating teams: A generative psychological approach. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal, 16(1/2), 50–73.
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89–106.
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910.
Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., Tesler, R., Mancuso, V., & McNeese, M. (2015). Time for temporal team mental models: Expanding beyond “what” and “how” to incor-
porate “when”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 693–709.
Mortensen, M. (2014). Constructing the team: The antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organization Science, 25(3), 909–931.
Murase, T., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2014). Mind the gap: The role of leadership in multiteam system collective cognition. The Leadership Quarterly,
25(5), 972–986.
Nonose, K., Kanno, T., & Furuta, K. (2010). An evaluation method of team situation awareness based on mutual belief. Cognition, Technology & Work, 12(1), 31–40.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. Mental Models, 7(112), 7–14.
O'Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 433–452.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., & Bell, B. S. (2010). Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition development and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 192.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair
group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.
Porter, C. O., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 391–403.
Purvanova, R. K. (2014). Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 2–29.
Rentsch, J. R., & Small, E. E. (2007). Understanding team cognition: The shift to cognitive similarity configurations. In F. Yammarino, & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Multi-level
issues in organizations and time (pp. 159–174). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Allison, L. K., & Clark, M. A. (2010). Team composition, cognition, and effectiveness: Examining mental model similarity
and accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(2), 174.
Resick, C. J., Murase, T., Bedwell, W. L., Sanz, E., Jiménez, M., & DeChurch, L. A. (2010). Mental model metrics and team adaptability: A multi-facet multi-method ex-
amination. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(4), 332.
Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2006). Training for virtual teams: An investigation of current practices and future needs. Human Resource Management, 45(2),
229–247.
Rouse, W. B., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1992). The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE
Transactions on, 22(6), 1296–1308.
Rutter, D. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1977). The role of visual communication in synchronising conversation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 29–37.
Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: Emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(4), 339–356.
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540–547.
Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams a meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 38(4), 471–488.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.
Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 28(1), 273–310.
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62.
Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2005). Team effectiveness in virtual environments: An ecological approach. In S. P. Ferris, & S. Godar (Eds.), Teaching and learning with virtual
teams (pp. 83–109). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Campbell, G. E., Milanovich, D. M., & Reynolds, A. M. (2001). Measuring teamwork mental models to support training needs assessment, devel-
opment, and evaluation: Two empirical studies†. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 179–194.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction impacts on team mental models, processes, and effective-
ness. Small Group Research, 39(3), 303–327.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. (1998). Team dimensional training. In J. Cannon-Bowers, & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress:
Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Priest, H. A., Burke, C. S., Goodwin, G. F., & Johnston, J. H. (2007). Distributed team performance: A multi-level review of distribution,
demography, and decision making. In F. Yammarino, & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizations and time (pp. 11–58). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35(3), 321–339.
Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Milanovich, D. M. (1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 41(1), 61–71.
Strauss, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 87–97.
Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant! New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 5(1), 2–24.
Thompson, L., & Fine, G. A. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 278–302.
Uitdewilligen, S., Waller, M. J., & Pitariu, A. H. (2013). Mental model updating and team adaptation. Small Group Research, 44(2), 127–158.
Uitdewilligen, S., Waller, M. J., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2010). 8 team cognition and adaptability in dynamic settings: A review of pertinent work. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25(2010), 293–353.
Waller, M. J., Gupta, N., & Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50(11),
1534–1544.
Wang, L., Siegel, H. J., & Roychowdhury, V. P. (1996, April). A genetic-algorithm-based approach for task matching and scheduling in heterogeneous computing envi-
ronments. Proc. Heterogeneous Computing Workshop (pp. 15–19).
Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Belanger, F. (2002, January). Exploring communication-based work processes in virtual work environments. System Sciences, 2002. HICSS.
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3604–3613) (IEEE).
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In G. Mullen, & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208).
New York, NY: Springer.
Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61(4), 555.
Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., Priest, H. A., & Salas, E. (2005). Promoting health care safety through training high reliability teams. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(4),
303–309.

1 s20 S1053482216301036 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s20 S1053482216301036 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 660–677

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

The effects of virtualness on teamwork behavioral components:

2.1.2. Mental models — complexity, accuracy, and similarity.

2.1.3. Teamwork behavioral components

2.2.1. Virtualness and team mental model complexity

2.3. Mental model complexity and behavioral components of teamwork

2.4. Virtualness, mental model accuracy, similarity and complexity

2.6.1. Coordination and adaptation training.

2.6.3. Guided team self-correction

2.6.4. Technology and communication training.

2.6.5. Interpersonal skills training

You might also like