Naturalistic Decision Making

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 2 – Review of Literature

Group and Team Performance

As the term “Command and Control (C2) team” implies, C2 relies on the collective efforts of the individual commanders within the team. An understanding of team processes and functioning is necessary to explore the processes and functions of the C2 team, just as it is for any team.

Team Definition

The definition of a “team” may be as varied as some of the individuals you may find in a typical team. A slightly different definition can be found in almost every literature entry concerning team models. The preferable definition of a team may be some composite of many of these individual definitions. A team requires a group of individuals in order to exist, but a group of individuals does not necessarily constitute a team. For a team to exist, this group of individuals must possess a relationship that fosters an interdependent effort to achieve a common goal. A “team” is set apart from a “group” by this relationship (Swezey and Llaneras, 1997). Having knowledge of the definition of a team is essential in this research endeavor. Since the defining characteristic of a team is the relationship among the team members, TOC (or team) performance cannot be evaluated by observing the individuals. Observations must, therefore, focus on the team members’ interactions, rather than the actions of a single player. The following diagram is the Team Effectiveness Model as proposed by Tannenbaum,Beard, and Salas (1992b). This model was designed to explore how teams function and to evaluate team effectiveness (Tannenbaum et al., 1992b). In addition to providing the components that contribute to team effectiveness, example variables have also been included for each component.The thrust of this study is the development of a framework for observing and measuring the team processes illustrated in this model, in the hopes that future research can use team process observations to predict team performance.

Stages of Team Development

Teams can be categorized by their team processes. Scholtes, Joiner, and Streibel (2002) describe four stages of team development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Each
of these stages has unique characteristics that are displayed in the team processes. This section illustrates the four phases and the characteristics described by Scholtes, et al. (2002) The Forming stage of team development is the first stage of team development. It is during this time that the problem is defined and team discussion is focused on abstract development of the action plan for solving the problem. Team members have a tendency to venture off-topic quite often during this stage. Because of this, team workload might be high,but not well focused.The next stage of team development is the Storming phase. The Storming phase is named such because this is an argumentative stage in team development. Arguments arise because individual differences and expertise are revealed to the group. Team members begin to become defensive of ideas and methods. An informal authority structure also appears in this phase, which can cause further tension in the team. Goals formed during this phase are often unrealistic.Assuming the team survives the Storming phase, it enters the third phase: Norming. In this phase the team starts to show its first signs of cohesion. Discussion moves from argumentation to discussion of the team’s problems and forming solutions. Criticism is conveyed constructively as levels of defensiveness are decreased. Team rules are formed, either implicitly or explicitly. With less energy spent on defending the individuals’ egos, more energy can be spent solving the problems the team was formed to solve. Teams that reach the final stage, Performing, are the more effective teams. Every team should have this stage as its goal when the team is formed. Team members begin to self-identify with the team, and they understand the other team members’ strengths and weaknesses. This somewhat intimate relationship with the other team members allows conflict to be quickly resolved or avoided in entirety. This further reduction in conflict allows even more energy to be dedicated to solving the problems at hand. The knowledge of the team members’ expertise can also make certain assignments automatic, thus reducing time in the delegation process. The Performing stage represents the apex of a team’s problem solving efficiency.The application to command and control teams is that if it can be ascertained which stage of development a certain team is in, the performance level of that team can be inferred in relation to the performance potential of that team


List of Figures 
List of Equations 
List of Tables 
Table of Contents 
Chapter 1 – Introduction 
Chapter 2 – Review of Literature
2.1 Group and Team Performance
2.1.1 Team Definition
2.1.2 Stages of Team Development
2.1.3 Team Process Attributes
2.1.4 TOC Evaluation
2.2 Issues in Team Research
2.2.1 Distributed Cognition
2.2.2 Naturalistic Decision Making
2.2.3 Action Research
2.2.4 Situated Action Models
2.3 Ethnography/Naturalistic Observation
2.4 Selected Observation Methods
2.4.1 Activity Sampling
2.4.2 Conversation Analysis
2.4.3 Interaction Analysis
2.4.4 Link Analysis
2.4.5 Narrative Record
2.4.6 Protocol Analysis
2.4.7 SYMLOG
2.5 Selected Non-observational Methods 
2.5.1 Critical Incident Technique
2.5.2 Interview
2.5.3 Questionnaire
2.5.4 Role Analysis
2.6 Data Collection Taxonomy 
2.7 Instrumentation
Chapter 3 – Methodology
3.1 Purpose
3.2 Procedure 
3.2.1 Battle Simulation
3.2.2 Participants
3.2.3 Observer Training
3.2.4 Facilities
3.2.5 Equipment
3.2.6 Software
3.2.7 TOC Setup
3.2.8 Experimental Procedure
3.2.9 Team Assessment Tool
3.2.10 Analyses
3.3 Agenda 
Chapter 4 – Results
4.1 Item Reduction 
4.1.1 Coordination
4.1.2 Communication
4.1.3 Conflict Resolution
4.1.4 Decision Making
4.1.5 Problem Solving
4.1.6 Boundary Spanning
4.1.7 Joint Knowledge
4.1.8 Motivation
4.1.9 Personalities
4.1.10 Shared Thought Processes
4.2 Inter-Rater Reliability 
4.2.1 Item 1 – Level of Activity
4.2.2 Item 3 – Anticipation of Events and Requests
4.2.3 Item 4 – Timely Presentation of Material
4.2.4 Item 5 – Level of Confusion
4.2.5 Item 8 – Orderly Communication
4.2.6 Item 12 – Participation in Discussions
4.2.7 Item 13 – Type of Criticism
4.2.8 Item 16 – Amount of Criticism
4.2.9 Item 19 – Amount of Brainstorming
4.2.10 Item 20 – Collaboration in Decision Making
4.2.11 Item 28 – Surprising Behavior
4.2.12 Item 29 – Clear Goals and Objectives
4.2.13 Item 35 – Distracting Behavior
4.2.14 Item 37 – Team Member Demeanor
4.2.15 Item 43 – Overall Performance
4.3 Construct Validity
4.3.1 Level of Activity
4.3.2 Coordination
4.3.3 Communication
4.3.4 Conflict Resolution
4.3.5 Decision Making
4.3.6 Joint Knowledge
4.3.7 Personalities
4.3.8 Overall Performance
4.3.9 All Constructs
Chapter 5 – Discussion
5.1 Command and Control Team Evaluation
5.2 Observational Methodology 
5.3 Item Reduction 
5.4 Inter-Rater Reliability 
5.5 Construct Validity
5.6 Other Issues 
5.6.1 The Battle Simulation
5.6.2 Inter-Rater Reliability Issues
5.6.3 Surviving Team Process Constructs
5.6.4 Ordinal vs. Interval Data
Chapter 6 – Conclusion 
6.1 Implications for Human Factors Engineering 
6.2 Summary 
6.3 Future Research 
Appendix A – Team Assessment Tool
Appendix B – Data Collection Manual
Appendix C – Observer Training Materials
Appendix D – Kendall’s Concordance Calculation Details
Appendix E – Item Normality Tests
Appendix F – Inter-rater Reliability ANOVA Details
Appendix G – Construct Validity Test Details
Appendix H – Factor Analysis Details
Appendix I – Construct Principal Components Analysis
Appendix J – Institutional Research Board Protocol

READ  Cell Phone Interface General Evaluation


Related Posts