4.7 Article

Multiple Team Membership, Performance, and Confidence in Estimation Tasks

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.658827

关键词

multiple team membership; estimation tasks; group-to-individual transfer of learning; groups; learning; individual performance

资金

  1. Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS/CCCDI -UEFISCDI within PNCDI III [PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-1824]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MTM is a form of work organization that flexibly deploys human resources across multiple simultaneous projects, where individual members bring in their cognitive resources and use the resources developed while working together. The study supports the group-to-individual transfer of learning and suggests that individual estimates improve only in groups with low or average collective estimation errors.
Multiple team membership (MTM) is a form of work organization extensively used nowadays to flexibly deploy human resources across multiple simultaneous projects. Individual members bring in their cognitive resources in these multiple teams and at the same time use the resources and competencies developed while working together. We test in an experimental study whether working in MTM as compared to a single team yields more individual performance benefits in estimation tasks. Our results fully support the group-to-individual (G-I) transfer of learning, yet the hypothesized benefits of knowledge variety and broader access to meta-knowledge relevant to the task in MTM as compared to single teams were not supported. In addition, we show that individual estimates improve only when members are part of groups with low or average collective estimation errors, while confidence in individual estimates significantly increases only when the collective confidence in the group estimates is average or high. The study opens valuable venues for using the dynamic model of G-I transfer of learning to explore individual learning in MTM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据