THE MODERATING EFFECT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TASK INTERDEPENDENCE AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSACTIVE MEMORY
Master Thesis, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
April, 2009 ELLEN HULLEMAN S1263900 Bongerdplein 5 8162 AW Epe Tel: 06-41460249 Email: E.M.Hulleman@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ university: Drs. H. Grutterink Second assessor: Prof. Dr. G.S. van der Vegt
Supervisor/ field of study: M. van Wijk
ABSTRACT
This survey study among 241 team members of 60 work teams in a car trading company examined the moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between task interdependence and the development of transactive memory. The results revealed that task interdependence was positively related to the development of cognitive transactive memory, but not to the behavioral consequences of transactive memory. Psychological safety was found to relate positively to both cognitive transactive memory and its behavioral consequences. However, a moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between task interdependence and transactive memory was only found when transactive memory was measured as a cognitive construct. Future research should examine under which conditions transactive memory actually results in positive behavioral consequences, such as enhanced team coordination.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, organizations operate in a continuously changing, competitive and turbulent environment, which is characterized by uncertainty and unpredictability (Hitt, 2000; López, Peón, & Ordas, 2006; Mathisen, Einarsen, Jorstad, & Bronnick, 2004). Organizations are obliged to adjust to this dynamic environment in order to survive. One consequence is that they are forced to shift from a focus on individual work to teamwork, which has led to team performance becoming a salient organizational goal (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van der Vliert, 2000).
A lot of research has shown that if team members are aware which team member knows what, team performance improves (e.g. Austin, 2003; Hollingshead, 2001; Lewis, 2003; Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; Wegner, Erber, & Raymon, 1991;). This “knowing who knows what” is called transactive memory (Wegner, 1986). Teams with a transactive memory can perform better because they do not have to reinvent the wheel continuously; they know which team member to consult for what knowledge, where what knowledge is needed and how to benefit from knowledge.
Although the positive relationship between transactive memory and team performance is generally confirmed, less is known about the development of transactive memory. One of the, up to now, few studies on this topic has identified task interdependence as an important antecedent. In a team with higher levels of task interdependence, the need for cooperation is higher, because team members need access to the knowledge of their fellow team members in order to be able to fulfill their tasks (Zhang, Hempel, Han, & Tjosvold, 2007).
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Transactive memory
Wegner, Giuliano and Hertel (1985) introduced the theory of transactive memory. Transactive memory can be defined as “a combination of individual minds and the communication among them” and can be divided in two components: “(1) an organized store of knowledge that is contained entirely in the individual memory systems of the group members, and (2) a set of knowledge relevant transactive processes that occur among group members” (Wegner et al., 1985, p. 256). This means that in teams with a well-developed transactive memory, individuals not only have access to their own knowledge, but also to the knowledge of their fellow team members. This gives team members access to a larger pool of knowledge instead of only their own knowledge. Transactive memory can be seen as meta-memory, memory about a memory (Lewis, 2003; Wegner, 1986). For instance, one member of the team in the car depot of a car trading company always knows when the train with the ordered new cars arrives. If the other mechanics are aware of the fact that he/she always knows when the cars arrive and that he/she will remind them of it, they do not have to remember the arrival times themselves. They can make use of his/her knowledge about the arrival times in order to be at the right time at the right place.
Wegner (1986) found that a team with a well functioning transactive memory is likely to be effective in reaching its goals. Other researchers also found evidence for a positive relationship between transactive memory and team performance. Knowing “which team member has what knowledge” results in better, more sensible work planning and high quality problem solving. Moreover, it leads to a distribution of tasks in such a way that all team members can use their expertise to the fullest (Liang et al., 1995; Moreland, 1999; Zhang et al., 2007). In addition, members of teams with transactive memory have more trust in the knowledge and competencies of fellow team members (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007; Lewis, 2003; Liang et al., 1995). This improves cooperation between the team members (Weick & Robert, 1993), which in turn leads to better team performance.
believe has what labeled information. The last stage is retrieval; team members determine the location of the information and then recall the information from the team member who has that information (Wegner, 1986).
Research on the concept of transactive memory is still in its infancy (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Mainly the empirical measurement of it appears to problematical (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Originally, Wegner, Giuliano and Hertel (1985) defined transactive memory as a cognitive construct. According to them it could be seen as cognitive interdependence, and it resides in the memories of people. Other researchers have approached the measurement of transactive memory differently and focused on the behavioral consequences this construct might have. For instance, Lewis (2003), drawing on Moreland (1999), developed a scale to measure transactive memory in the field. However, instead of measuring the cognitive underpinnings of transactive memory, she developed a scale that measured three behavioral consequences of transactive memory, referring to it as manifestations of a transactive memory. These three manifestations were specialization, credibility and coordination. Specialization considers the differentiation in knowledge among team members. Credibility involves how much members trust information from each other. Coordination can be seen as how efficiently team members process their knowledge (Lewis, 2003). In other words, according to her, the cognition of transactive memory results in team members differentiating more knowledge among each other, trusting each other more and, processing their knowledge more efficiently.
As could be expected theoretically, some studies found discrepancies between these two measurement scales. For instance, Kitaygorodskaya, Kekäle, & Helo (2006) found that more than half of the team members they questioned had much difficulty in identifying the knowledge domains of their team members, but that the Lewis still scale indicated that transactive memory was well-developed since they found high levels of specialization, credibility and coordination. This discrepancy suggests that the behavioral consequences of transactive memory not only derive from a well-developed cognitive transactive memory.
To make sure that the variables in this research affect both cognitive transactive memory and its behavioral consequences, we will measure transactive memory with both measurement scales.
Transactive memory and task interdependence
Moreland, 1999; Wegner et al., 1991; Zhang et al., 2007). Task interdependence refers to the extent to which team members must share materials, information, and advice in order to achieve the desired output or performance (Van der Vegt, et al., 2000). Tasks and responsibilities are distributed among the team members and patterns of interaction between team members are created. These interaction patterns become relatively stable over time (Van der Vegt, 2008). The level of task interdependence in teams can vary to a large extent. There are teams which are characterized by very low levels of task interdependence. An example is a sales team of a car trading company; the members of this team almost completely rely on themselves in order to sell the cars. There are also teams with very high levels of task interdependence between its members. For instance, at the PR team of the car trading company in our sample, the contributions of all the different team members combined constitute the success of a new campaign; therefore they are very highly task interdependent. Task interdependence is a continuum. Between these two examples of task interdependence there are much more levels of task interdependence, where some aspects of the task may be executed by individuals, while other aspects of the task demand collective or shared resources (Wageman & Baker, 1997).
Task interdependence is believed to contribute to the development of transactive memory in different ways. First, if task interdependence in a team increases, the team members must interact more with each other to fulfill their tasks and will engage in more information sharing (Crawford & Haaland, 1972, Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). If team members often work together to execute their tasks, they generally develop a kind of companionship. This makes the team members experience a group membership (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993, Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The feeling of commitment to the group makes team members helping each other more (Pearce & Herbik, 2004). When the team members help each other, they will also share more information. More information can be labeled into certain knowledge domains, more information gets stored and more information can be retrieved by the team members when necessary. Thus, a well developed transactive memory gets created.
interdependence, team members give information to, and receive information from other team members all the time. This creates a sense of duty among the team members to always give information to fellow members when they need it. It reduces the uncertainty of not getting something in return for all team members. They know that all the team members feel this duty and therefore they are more willing to share their information. A basis for meaningful information sharing between the team members is provided (Muthusamy & White, 2005). This leads to team members obtaining more information on what their fellow team members know. They can apply more information to different labels and more information can be coded into knowledge domains. More information is stored and subsequently, more information can be retrieved by the team members at a later time. So, transactive memory gets better developed.
Third, task interdependent team members experience more responsibility for the outcomes of the other team members (Kiggundu, 1983; Pearce & Gregersen, 1991). This can be explained by the Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This theory states that people’s identity is in a large part defined through the success of the groups they belong to. People use the status of groups to determine their self-esteem and respect. If a group is successful, then the individuals in this group feel better about themselves (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). A successful group performs well. In a task interdependent team, team members are not only responsible for their own tasks, but also partially for the tasks of their fellow team members. If one team member fails in executing his tasks, the success of the whole team will decrease, which results in a decline of every team member’s self-esteem. Therefore, the team members really want to support their fellow team members and share with them whatever is necessary to make it possible for everyone to fulfill their tasks (Tyler & Blader, 2000). This makes it easier for the team members to obtain more information on the knowledge domains of the team members and consequently label more information to more labels. The storage of information increases and more information can be retrieved by the team members, a better developed transactive is created.
team members and challenge each other’s reasoning. Next to that, they will also monitor each other’s efforts and give and receive feedback, so that they can interfere if someone does wrong. They will actively seek to influence and be influenced by each other. If a team member brings forward a better way to execute the tasks, team members usually implement it quickly. It is checked more often whether the team members work together effectively, so the teamwork can be improved when necessary (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). This promotive interaction leads to more opportunity for the team members to learn who has what information on what knowledge domain, what results in more labeling and storing of information. Later on, team members can retrieve more information when necessary. A better transactive memory is developed. The following hypothesis can thus be formulated:
H1: Task interdependence is positively related to transactive memory
Transactive memory and psychological safety
A transactive memory is the result of learning who has what information in which knowledge domain (Wegner, 1986). Edmondson (1999) discovered that team learning is better in teams in which team members feel psychologically safe. Psychological safety refers to “a shared belief in a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 354). In a psychologically safe team, a team member “feels able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career” (Kahn, 1990, p. 708). Because team members feel respected by their fellow team members and they know they will not be judged when they make a mistake or have a different opinion, team members in a psychologically safe environment do not have to worry about self-protection and feel free to show themselves (Edmondson, 2002). This contributes to the development of transactive memory in several ways. First, the experience of psychological safety allows team members to speak up (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson, 2004). Because the team members feel that they can be themselves, they all dare to speak openly about what they know or think. As a result, they share more information with each other, which makes it easier to learn who is an expert on what knowledge domain. This results in more labeling and storing of information, which in turn leads to team members being able to retrieve more information from their fellow team members. So, transactive memory gets more developed.
team members learn not only what limitations a team member has, but also who actually is an expert on this knowledge domain, since this member will introduce solutions and improvements on the subject. This information can then be stored and later on, when information on this topic is needed, be retrieved. Thus, a better transactive memory is created.
Third, psychological safety overcomes reluctance to ask for help (Edmondson, 2004). Asking for help can be a frightening thing to do for team members, because he or she then admits that he or she does not know something (Lee, 1997). This can cause an image of being incompetent, and because of self-protection, team members will try to avoid creating such an image (Edmondson, 2004). However, in a team with a high level of psychological safety, team members dare to ask for help, because they know that it will not be held against them. They know that their fellow team members do not judge them if they admit to need help, but that they will try to help as much as possible. While helping, team members share information and it becomes clear who knows what. The team members will store this information, and when they do need help again, they know whom to go to for what problem. Transactive memory gets more developed.
Finally, psychological safety promotes feedback seeking (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson, 2004). The team members feel safe enough to ask for the opinion of fellow team members in order to see if they can execute their task better. While getting feedback from each other, the team members find out who has knowledge on certain topics. This allows them to store and retrieve this knowledge. So, this creates a better developed transactive memory. These leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: Psychological safety is positively related to transactive memory
Transactive memory, task interdependence and psychological safety
Next to the positive relations between task interdependence, psychological safety, and transactive memory, we also expect that the positive relation between task interdependence and transactive memory is strengthened by the level of psychological safety. While sharing more materials, information, and advice improves the development of a transactive memory, this relation is also subject to team members experiencing a climate for interpersonal risk taking.
hesitate to show themselves, because they know that they will not get judged for remarkable opinions or made errors. Because of this, team members do not hold back when interacting with each other, and the frequent interactions become much easier. This results in team members finding out easier who has and who lacks what knowledge. Transactive memory becomes better developed. However, convenience in interacting is less important for non task interdependent team members, since they hardly have to interact and they do not have any benefit from knowing who knows what. Therefore, an increase in the level of psychological safety does not lead to more development of transactive memory.
Team members that are non task interdependent do not depend on each other to fulfill their tasks, therefore do not feel reciprocal committed to each other. When the level of task interdependence increases, also the level of reciprocal commitment increases. With higher levels of psychological safety, team members feel more respected by their fellow team members. This feeling of respect results in team members not only feeling obliged to the reciprocal actions, but they become also more willing to participate in reciprocal actions. This does not affect the team members in a non task interdependent team, since there is no need to participate in reciprocal actions. Therefore, an increase in the level of psychological safety does not lead to a better developed transactive memory when the team is not task interdependent. However, when team members are task interdependent, in increase in the level of psychological safety will result in a better developed transactive memory. If team members are also willing, they will share more information and therefore it becomes more clear who has what knowledge and a better transactive memory is developed. Also, if in a task interdependent team, a team member renounces to fulfill his reciprocal actions, a higher level of psychological safety results in team members that dare to speak up and ask for the needed actions if psychological safety is high. In this way, they still get to know who has what knowledge, and therefore more transactive memory is created.
not use this information, since they simply do not feel responsible for the tasks of others. They do not get to know who has or lacks what knowledge, and therefore their transactive memory will be less-developed.
If task interdependence is high, also the amount of promotive interaction is high. In non task interdependent teams, the level of promotive action is less. If the level of psychological safety increases, also the amount of promotive interaction increases. Team members do not have to worry about self-protection. Mistakes that are made do not have negative consequences to image, career or status. Therefore, team members become even more willing to explain and teach fellow team members more and to challenge each other’s reasoning. Also, with high levels of psychological safety, it is no threat for the team members if fellow team members monitor their efforts or give feedback. They know that they are only doing that in order to help, it is not done to condemn one another. With higher levels of psychological safety, team members will even more actively seek to influence and be influenced by each other, since they know that it only helps them forward. This results in team members in task interdependent and non task interdependent teams getting to know more about the knowledge their team members do and do not have, and therefore it leads to more development of transactive memory. However, since task interdependent team members gain more from an increase in promotive interaction, it is expected that they will participate more in promotive interaction than team members that are not task interdependent. This results in task interdependent team members getting to know more about the knowledge of their fellow team members than team members that are not task interdependent. Thus, task interdependent team members creating a better developed transactive memory than non task interdependent team members.
The following hypothesis is thus formulated (see figure 1):
FIGURE 1
The conceptual model of the relationships between task interdependence, psychological safety and transactive memory.
METHOD Sample and Procedure
In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted a survey study among the members of 60 teams in a large car trading company. The teams ranged in size from 2 to 25 members (M=7.07, SD=4.63). The following criteria were determined to define a team; (1) it should be the smallest functional unit in the organization; (2) the members should directly report to the same manager and; (3) the members should work together on a permanent basis (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). The teams were gathered within different levels of the organization.
In total, 397 team members received a questionnaire, of which 241 returned their completed questionnaires (which comes down to a response rate of 61%). Of the 241 respondents, 173 were male (71.8%) and 68 were female (28.2%). The age of the respondents varied between 21 and 62 years (M=36.43, SD=9.45). The respondents had on average been working for 86.57 months (SD=108.58) in the organization and for 34.26 months (SD=61.53) in their teams.
The team managers received an announcement by email, which described the goal and the procedure of the study. In this e-mail, we also explained that the collected data would be confidentially processed; team members did not have to fill in their name, and only we could trace which team member completed a questionnaire by means of a code on the bottom of each page of the questionnaire. A few days after the announcement, packages with questionnaires were distributed.
Measures
Task Interdependence. This variable was measured with three questions developed by
Van der Vegt, Emans, & van der Vliert (2000). An example item was: “I have to obtain information and advice from my colleagues in order to complete my work”. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, varying from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5). The internal consistency of the scale was .75 (Cronbach’s α). A principal component analysis with Varimax rotation showed that the three items of task interdependence loaded on one factor, as expected, with factor loadings all greater than .75 and a variance of 19.57% (see appendix 1). The total explained variance of the principal component analysis was 45.08%.
Psychological Safety. This variable was measured with seven questions developed by
measured on a five-point Likert scale, varying from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5). Cronbach’s α was .71. As expected, the seven items of psychological safety all loaded on one factor with factor loadings greater than .52 and a variance of 25.49% (see appendix 1).
Transactive memory. As stated before, this variable was measured with two different
scales. The cognitive transactive memory scale was based on transactive memory theory by Wegner, Giuliano, and Hertel (1985) and consisted of the following three items: (1) “The other team members know exactly what my knowledge and abilities are”; (2) “The other team members know into detail what I know and what I am capable of”, and; (3) “The other team members have an accurate view of my knowledge and abilities”. Cronbach’s α was .84. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, varying from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5).
The second transactive memory scale contained 11 items developed by Lewis (2003) and assessed three behavioral consequences of transactive memory as mentioned by Moreland (1999). The scale consisted of three sub dimensions: specialization, coordination, and credibility. Specialization was measured with three items. An example item was: “Each team member has specialized knowledge of some aspect of our team task”. Cronbach’s α was .70. To measure coordination, four items were used. An example of an item was “Our team worked together in a well-coordinated fashion“. Cronbach’s α was .74. Credibility was measured with four items. An example item is “The team members do not have much faith in other members’ expertise”. Cronbach’s α was .76. All items of the sub dimensions were measured using a five-point Likert scale, varying from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5). Cronbach’s α of the three sub dimensions combined was .68.
Covariates. Age, gender, organizational tenure (in months), and team tenure (in
months) were chosen as covariates, since previous research has shown that they may influence reactions of individuals (Gladstein, 1984; Jehn, 1995).
Data Analysis
were standardized (except the dependent variable transactive memory) to prevent multicollinearity (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, task interdependence correlated positively with cognitive transactive memory (r=.29, p<.01). Task interdependence also correlated positively with behavioral transactive memory (r=.21, P<.01). This corresponds with the expectation that task interdependence facilitates the development of a transactive memory. As expected, also psychological safety correlated positively with cognitive transactive memory (r=.14, p<.05) and behavioral transactive memory (r=.33, p<.01). Higher levels of psychological safety went together with a better developed transactive memory.
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations between used variables
Testing the hypotheses
Cognitive transactive memory
Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical linear regression of cognitive transactive memory on psychological safety and task interdependence.
TABLE 2
Hierarchical Linear Regression of Cognitive Transactive Memory on Task Interdependence and Psychological Safety
Step Variable 1 2 3 1 Gender -.08 -.07 -.07 Age -.03 -.04 -.04 Months in Organization -.10 -.06 -.05 Months in Team .16 ** .13 ** .13 * 2 Task Interdependence .17 *** .17 *** Psychological Safety .12 ** .12 *
3 Task Interdependence X Psychological safety .10 *
R² .05 * .13 *** .15 *
∆R² .05 * .09 *** .02 *
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001
After examining the covariates gender, age, organizational tenure and team tenure, the second step with psychological safety and task interdependence was highly significant in predicting cognitive transactive memory (∆R² = .09; ∆F= 11.48, p<.001). As expected, the third step, with the interaction between task interdependence and psychological safety, contributed significantly to predicting cognitive transactive memory (∆R² = .02; ∆F= 4.04, p<.05).
In order to examine our hypotheses, we looked at the b-coefficients of the steps. As expected, there was a positive relation between task interdependence and cognitive transactive memory (b=.17, t= 3.67, p<.001), which confirmed hypothesis 1.
As expected, there was also a positive relation between psychological safety and cognitive transactive memory (b=.12, t= 2.39, p<.05), which confirmed hypothesis 2.
standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean scores for psychological safety (Cohen et al., 2003). Figure 2 shows that when psychological safety was high, there was a positive relationship between task interdependence and cognitive transactive memory (b=.32, t=4.20, p<.000), whereas this relationship was less positive when psychological safety was low (b=.16, t=2.16, p<.05). This confirmed hypothesis 3.
FIGURE 2
Regression of Cognitive Transactive Memory (TM) on Task interdependence (TI) for Low and High Levels of Psychological Safety (PS)
Behavioral transactive memory
We also conducted the same analysis for the behavioral consequences of transactive memory. Table 3 shows the results of the hierarchical linear regression of the behavioral transactive memory on psychological safety and task interdependence.
TABLE 3
Hierarchical Linear Regression of Behavioral Transactive Memory on Task Interdependence and Psychological Safety
Step Variable 1 2 3 1 Gender -.04 -.04 -.04 Age .03 .02 .02 Months in Organization .02 .00 .00 Months in Team -.01 -.01 -.01 2 Task Interdependence .01 .01 Psychological Safety .19 *** .19 ***
3 Task Interdependence X Psychological Safety -.00
R² .02 .20 *** .20
∆R² .02 .19 *** .00
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001
After examining for the covariates gender, age, organizational tenure and team tenure, the second step with task interdependence and psychological safety showed that psychological safety was highly significant in predicting behavioral transactive memory, as expected (∆R² = .19; ∆F= 26.78, p<001). The third step with the interaction between task interdependence and psychological safety did not contribute significantly to predicting behavioral transactive memory (∆R²=.000; ∆F=.001, p=n.s.).
In order to examine our hypotheses we looked at the b-coefficients of the steps. In contrast to our expectations, there was no relation between task interdependence and behavioral transactive memory (b=.01, t=0.41, p=n.s.). This did not confirm hypothesis 1.
DISCUSSION Findings
Several studies have shown that if team members know which team members knows what, team performance increases (e.g. Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007; Lewis, 2003; Liang et al, 1995; Moreland, 1999; Wegner, 1986; Weick & Robert, 1993; Zhang et al, 2007). This knowing who knows what is called transactive memory (Wegner, 1986). However, little is known about its development. In this study we tried to extend the research about the development of a transactive memory by examining whether the previously established positive relation with task interdependence (Zhang et al, 2007) was contingent on psychological safety; the extent to which team members feel safe for interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, 1999).
The commonly used scale to measure transactive memory measures only the behavioral consequences of a transactive memory (e.g. Lewis, 2003). However, in order to stay close to the founders of the theory on transactive memory, Wegner, Giuliano and Hertel (1985), we also measured transactive memory with a cognitive scale.
As expected, psychological safety was also positively related to transactive memory. Teams in which team members dare to speak up, reveal and discuss errors, ask for help when necessary, and seek feedback (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson, 2004) have a better developed cognitive transactive memory, and also have better developed behavioral consequences; better coordination and higher levels of credibility and specialization.
As expected, the relationship between task interdependence and transactive memory was even more positive for team members who experienced high levels of psychological safety. However, when the behavioral consequences of transactive memory were measured, this moderating effect of psychological safety was not found. This suggests that, in order for a change in team processes to appear, a change in only cognition is not sufficient. This finding is consistent with the statement of Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001), a cognitive team mental model, such as transactive memory, serves as an input for team processes and influences them, but does not result directly in team outcomes like coordination.
Limitations
Of course, this study has some limitations. The first limitation concerns the generalizability of the results. This study only contained a sample in one organization, the largest car trading company in the Netherlands. It is possible that different results will be obtained when different types of organizations will be included. However, since this research measured cross-level effect, which means that team members from all levels in organizations were included, and the sample size is reasonably large, it seems reasonable to assume that these results give a good indication of the relations between task interdependence, psychological safety and transactive memory.
statements about the causality of the found relations, additional experimental research should be done to get more insight. An example of such an experiment would for instance be an experiment in line with a previous one executed by Liang, Moreland and Argote (1995). Just like at the previous experiment, different teams could be trained to assemble a radio. After this training, half of the teams would receive individual training; the other half receives would group training. After the training, the teams have to assemble the radio’s. However, in addition to the previous experiment, in this experiment half of the teams that received individual training become task interdependent teams. They have to assemble the radio’s in a call-queuing process and are all responsible for the assembled radios. The other half stays non task interdependent, they have to assemble their own radios and are only responsible for the radios they assembled themselves. The teams that received group training are also divided in task interdependent and non task interdependent teams. When the teams are finished assembling the radios, transactive memory should by measured by all four groups. A conclusion can be drawn on which team developed a better transactive memory.
A third limitation is the use of self report of the team members. Respondents indicated the degrees of task interdependence, psychological safety, and transactive memory themselves. Although the questionnaires were filled in anonymously, socially desirable answers and/or ‘common method variance’ could still be a problem. For future research, it is recommended to also collect data with more objective measures or with multiple methods (Doty & Glick, 1998). For instance, task interdependence could, next to the questionnaire, be measured by means of observation of teams. While observing the teams and their tasks, the amount of shared materials, information and advice in order to fulfill their tasks can be charted and determined.
Theoretical Implications
information more, and processing their knowledge more efficiently when they feel psychologically safe.
This study also gives more insight on the relationship between task interdependence and transactive memory. It revealed that task interdependence is positively related to a cognitive transactive memory. However, the findings did not support a positive relation between task interdependence and the behavioral outcomes specialization, credibility, and coordination of transactive memory. This is in contrast to previous findings (e.g. Zhang, et al. 2007). The findings also showed that psychological safety only had a moderating effect on the relationship between task interdependence and cognitive transactive memory. A moderating effect of psychological safety on the relation between task interdependence and the behavioral outcomes specialization, credibility, and coordination was not found. So, this may suggest that this relationship is also dependent upon other conditions, for instance team leadership (e.g. Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). More research should be done on under what conditions a well-developed cognitive transactive memory results in well-developed behavioral outcomes.
Practical Implications
Psychological safety is at least positively related to and probably might improve the development of cognitive transactive memory, and also positively influences specialization, credibility and coordination among members in a team. So, attaining higher levels of psychological safety might result in a better developed transactive memory. To increase psychological safety, leadership is very important (Edmondson, 1996; 2002; 2004). Leaders should avoid autocratic behavior, inaccessibility, or failure to acknowledge vulnerability (Edmondson, 1996). They should have the interpersonal skills to seek input, invite feedback and ideas, and create a climate that is safe for interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, 2002). Also, the work processes and organizational norms should be perceived as open and respectful in order for the level of psychological safety to increase (Edmondson, 2004).
REFERENCES
Austin, J.R. 2003. Transactive Memory in Organizational Groups: The Effects of Content, Consensus, Specialization, and Accuracy on Group Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 88 (5), 866-878.
Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and Social Power in Life. New York: Wiley.
Brandon, D.P. & Hollingshead, A.B. 2004. Transactive Memory Systems in Organizations: Matching Tasks, Expertise, and People. Organization Science. Vol. 15 (6), 633-644. Campion, M.A, Medsker, G.J. & Higgs, C.A. 1993. Relations between Work Group
Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 46(4), 823-850.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P. West, S.G. & Aiken, L.S. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, New Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crawford, J.L. & Haaland, G.A. 1972. Predecisional Information Seeking and Subsequent Conformity in the Social Influence Process. Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 23 (1), 112-119.
Michael, D.N. 1976. On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Doty, D.H. & Glick, W.H. 1998. Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results? Organizational Research Methods. Vol. 1 (4), 374-406.
Edmondson, A.C. 1996. Learning from Mistakes Is Easier Said Than Done: Group and Organizational Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Vol. 32 (1), 350-383.
Edmondson, A.C. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 (2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A.C. 2002. Managing the Risk of Learning: Psychological Safety in Work Teams. In: M. West. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork: 1-38. London: Blackwell.
Edmondson, A.C. 2004. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In: R.M. Kramer & K.S. Cook. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches: 239-272. Russell Sage Foundation. New York.
Field, A. 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage.
Gladstein, D.L. 1984. Groups in Context: a Model of Task Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 29 (4), 274-309.
Hitt, M.A. 2000. The New Frontier: Transformation of Management for the New Millennium. Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 28 (3), 7-17.
Hollingshead, A.B. 2001. Cognitive Interdependence and Convergent Expectations in Transactive Memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 81 (6), 1080-1089.
Jehn, K.A. 1995. A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 40 (2), 256-282.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. 1989. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. 1998. Cooperative Learning and Social Interdependence Theory. In: R. Scott Tindale, Theory and Research on Small Groups, 9-35. New York: Plenum Press.
Kahn. W.A. 1990. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 33 (4), 692-724.
Kanawattanachai, P. & Yoo, Y. 2007. The Impact of Knowledge Coordination on Virtual Team Performance over Time. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 31 (4), 783-808.
Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut. J.W. 1978. Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Wiley. Kiggundu, M.N. 1981. Task Interdependence and Job Design: Test of a Theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 6 (3), 145-172.
Kitaygorodskaya, N., Kekäle, T. & Helo, P. 2006. Development of Transactive Memory System in Distributed R&D Teams with Tasks of Different Complexity. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference Taiwan, 2006, to be published.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Bell, B.S. 2003. Work Groups an Teams in Organizations. In: W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski, Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, p. 333-375. London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Ilgen, D.R. 2006. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Vol. 7 (3), 77-124.
Lee, F. 1997. When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help Seeking and Power Motivation in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 72 (3), 336-363.
Liang, D.W., Moreland, R & L. Argote. 1995. Group versus Individual Training and Group Performance: the Mediating Role of Transactive Memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol. 21 (4), 384-393.
López, S.P., Peón, J.M.M., & Ordás, C.J.V. (2006). Human Resource Management as a Determining Factor in Organizational Learning. Management Learning. Vol. 37 (2), 215-239.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, Z.J. 2001. A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 26 (3), 356-376.
Mathisen, G.E., Einarsen, S., Jorstad, K., & Bronnick, K.S. 2004. Climate for Work Group Creativity and Innovation: Norwegian Validation of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Vol. 40 (5), 383-392.
Moreland, R.L. 1999. Transactive Memory: Learning Who Knows What in Work Groups and Organizations. In L.L. Thompson, J.M. Levine & D.M. Messing. Shared Cognition in Organizations: the Management of Knowledge: 3-31. Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum.
Muthusamy, S.K. & White, M.A. 2005. Learning and Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances: a Social Exchange View. Organization Studies. Vol. 26 (3), 415-442.
Pearce, J.L. & Gregersen, H.B. 1991. Task Interdependence and Extrarole Behavior: a Test of the Mediating Effects of Felt Responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol.76 (6), 838-844.
Pearce, C.L. & Herbik, P.A. 2004. Citizenship Behavior at the Team Level of Analysis: the Effects of Team Leadership, Team Commitment, Perceived Team Support, and Team Size. Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 144 (3), 293-310.
Ramamoorthy, N & Flood, P.C. 2004. Individualism/Collectivism, Perceived Task Interdependence and Teamwork Attitudes among Irish Blue-Collar Employees: a Test of the Main and Moderating Effects? Human Relations. Vol. 57 (3), 347-366.
Raven, B.H. 1992. A Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence: French and Raven Thirty Years Later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Vol. 7, 217-244. Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex Interdependence in
Task-Performing Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 78 (1), 61-72.
Tyler, T.R. & Blader, S.L. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B. & E. van de Vliert. 2000. Team Members’ Affective Responses to Patterns of Intragroup Interdependence and Job Complexity. Journal of Management. Vol. 26 (4), 633-657.
Van der Vegt, G.S. & Janssen, O. 2003. Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation. Journal of Management. Vol. 29 (5), 729-751.
Van der Vegt, G.S. 2008. De Relatie tussen Expertisediversiteit en Teaminnovativiteit: de Modererende Werking van Taakafhankelijkheid en Taakflexibiliteit. Gedrag & Organisatie. Vol. 21 (2), 170-183.
Wageman, R. 1995. Interdependence and Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 40 (1), 145-180.
Wageman, R. & Baker, G. 1997. Incentives and Cooperation: The Joint Effects of Task and Reward Interdependence on Group Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 18 (2), 139-158.
Wegner, D.M. 1986. Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind. In B. Mullen & G.R. Goethels, Theories of Group Behavior: 185-208. New York: Springer Verlag.
Wegner, D.M., Guiliano, T. & P. Hertel. 1985. Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W.J. Ickes. Compatible and incompatible relationships: 253-276. New York: Springer Verlag.
Wegner, D.M., Erber, R. & P. Raymond. 1991. Transactive Memory in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 61 (6), 923-929.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 38 (3), 357-381.
APPENDIX 1
Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation of Task Interdependence and Psychological Safety Factor 1 Factor 2 Task Interdependence
I have to obtain information and advice from my colleagues in order to complete my work
,08 ,75 I depend on my colleagues for the completion
of my work
-,00 ,86 I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check
or work with others*
,06 ,75 Psychological Safety
If you make a mistake in this team, it is often held against you*
,58 -,18 Members of this team are able to bring up
problems and tough issues
,69 ,22 People on this team sometimes reject others for
being different*
,61 ,08 It is safe to take a risk in this team
,63 -,02 It is difficult to ask other members of this team
for help*
,64 -,01 No one on this team would deliberately act in a
way that undermines my efforts
,52 ,06 Working with members of this team, unique
skills an talents are valued and utilized
,55 ,12
% Variance
