Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Shared mental models in teams
Managers usually function as part of a team. This can be as part of a management team or part of a team that the manager must lead. The nature of these teams can also differ. The members of the team can work independently to meet their objectives or it can be necessary for them to work interdependently. Whether the members are independent or interdependent affects the role that shared mental models will play in the functioning of the team. Another factor that influences the state and development of a shared mental model, is the state and development of the group. One can differentiate between experts and beginners with respect to the type of mental model a person uses (Russ-Eft, Preskill & Sleezer, 1997).
Before taking a closer look at team mental models, one should first look at why team mental models are important for managers. In the area of strategic decision making, team mental models most likely have their greatest impact. Not on the decision phase, but on the implementation phase (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Decisions can be made in the absence of a team mental model and in spite of interpretation differences between individuals. Teams with well-developed mental models may be able to implement decisions faster and with fewer problems than teams who do not have shared mental models. In the absence of shared understanding, team members are in effect forced to negotiate reality. The time really needed to spend on the task gets diverted and used as team members attempt to surface their mutual perceptions, assumptions, options and preferences. This increases the likelihood of false beginnings and that individuals with critical information may not be heard. Inferior or inefficient strategies may be followed and in light of the inevitable conflict that would arise, it can be predicted that collective effort would be lower and interpersonal relationships might be damaged.
Members of a newly formed group can start with an abstract, diffuse or general model and then the specificity of the model can increase with experience. Newly formed groups can start with the sharing of cognitive tasks and then develop to a state where sharing consists of overlapping information with some knowledge held in common by all the members. Shared mental models do not imply identical mental models, but rather that team members have compatible models that lead to common expectations (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Phenomenologically shared mental models imply that there must be some level of awareness by and among group members regarding how they interpret tasks, situations and events. A statistical similarity is not enough.
New groups typically go through a forming phase where there is a period when team members spend energy to elicit from and share with others how they would like to work. Sometimes these efforts to reach consensus may lead to conflict and then later a point is reached where the unrest is resolved. By mutual adjustment team members usually at least reach some form of understanding of the nature of the team, its task and rules. A change in group membership can also have an effect on the shared mental model. In stable teams one can expect a very wide spread, complex, but team-specific model. In teams with a high turnover of members the models may be more delimited and more parsimonious (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Due to the new members these models can be more generic and maybe more functional. Members of a group where there is cohesion, are more likely to take part in conversations more actively and be engaged in selfdisclosure or collaborative narration. This increased communication can facilitate the development of team mental models.
Qualitative research paradigms
When choosing a research method and a method of analysis, the researcher has to keep in mind that questions of method and data analysis are secondary to questions of paradigm, or the basic belief system or worldview that guides the researcher, not only in choices of method, but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways. Basically five different paradigms can be distinguished (Highlen & Finley, 1996):
? Positivist paradigm
The purpose of this paradigm is explanation that leads to prediction and control. Qualitative research from a positivist perspective assumes the existence of an objective reality that is both verifiable and quantifiable. The positivist perspective utilises internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity to evaluate qualitative research.
? Postpositivist paradigm
This paradigm shares the same purpose of the positivist paradigm: explanation that leads to prediction and control. Postpositivist researchers strive to address some of the criticisms levied at the positivist paradigm.
Objective reality is assumed to exist; it can however be approximated. Multiple methods are used, although discovery and theory verification are emphasised. Although researchers seek an objective stance, they acknowledge that interactions between investigators and participants affect the data.
? Interpretative/Constructivist paradigm
The main purpose of this paradigm is understanding the participant’s world.
Reality is constructed through human interaction and is seen as relative (i.e. there is no single, external, objective truth). Therefore multiple realities exist, and the interactions between the investigator and participants create the findings as the investigation unfolds. This process is reflexive; information gathered from participants is fed back to them for verification of its accuracy. Methods are used that allow the investigator to record participant observations accurately and to uncover the meanings that participants ascribe to their life experiences.
? Critical paradigm
The purpose of the critical paradigm is emancipation and transformation – to enable participants to gain knowledge and power necessary to be in control of their lives. Critical research is multivocal, collaborative, and grounded in the lived experience of participants. It is organised by an interpretative theory such as feminism, neo-Marxism, or participatory inquiry. Although most qualitative researchers acknowledge that there is no value-free inquiry, critical paradigm investigators openly bring their values and theoretical perspectives to the research process.
? Poststructural paradigm
A major purpose of the poststructural paradigm is deconstruction: that is, to destabilise and challenge any given interpretation of socially constructed reality as complete knowledge. The poststructuralist perspective challenges the claim of any text to possess external validity. Values and politics, rather than methodological validity, assume prominence in the evaluation of research.
This study is approached from an interpretative/constructivist paradigm. This is the only paradigm that allows an understanding of the respondent’s world and where the concept of a mental model fits in since a socially constructed reality is implicit in the concept. This is also the paradigm where the underlying assumptions of the Repertory Grid technique fits in best.
Once researchers select a paradigm that is consistent with their worldview and the empirical questions they wish to address, they select a suitable strategy for operationalising their inquiry. Qualitative strategies are the practices researchers employ in data collection and analysis. A strategy may be used within more than one paradigm, although many are associated with a particular paradigm.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Research Problem
1.3 Research Question
1.4 Research Objectives
1.5 Exposition of study
CHAPTER 2 MENTAL MODELS
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Mental models
2.3 Mental models and decision-making
2.4 Shared mental models in teams
2.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3 THE REPERTORY GRID TECHNIQUE
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Qualitative Research Approach
3.3 The Repertory Grid technique
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The objectives of the study
4.3 Research Design
4.4 Results
4.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Discussion of results
5.3 Conclusions
5.4 Recommendations
REFERENCE LIST
