Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, Vol. 85, No. 2, 273-283 Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0Q2I-90fO/OQ/$5.0G DOI: IOJ03?//002!-9010.85,2,273 The Influence of Shared Mental Models on Team Process and Performance John E. Mathieu Pennsylvania State University Tonia S. Heffner University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Gerald F. Goodwin Pennsylvania State University Eduardo Salas and Janis A. Cannon-Bowers Naval Air Warfare Center The influence of teammates' shared mental models on team processes and performance was tested using 56 undergraduate dyads who "flew" a series of missions on a personal-computer-based flight- combat simulation. The authors both conceptually and empirically distinguished between teammates' task- and team-based mental models and indexed their convergence or "sharedness" using individually completed paired-comparisons matrices analyzed using a network-based algorithm. The results illustrated that both shared-team- and task-based mental models related positively to subsequent team process and performance. Furthermore, team processes fully mediated the relationship between mental model convergence and team effectiveness. Results are discussed in terms of the role of shared cognitions in team effectiveness and the applicability of different interventions designed to achieve such convergence. Increased technology has contributed to the complexity of many tasks performed in the workplace, making it difficult for employ- ees to complete their work independently. In response to the technological advances, many organizations have adopted a team approach to work. Teams are viewed as being more suitable for complex tasks because they allow members to share the workload, monitor the work behaviors of other members, and develop and contribute expertise on subtasks. An abundance of research has been conducted on the factors that contribute to high team perfor- mance (for reviews, see Gist, Locke, & Taylor, 1987; Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). One variable that has recently received much theoretical attention concerns the in- fluence of team members' mental models on team-related pro- cesses and behaviors (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997; Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 1994; Stout, Salas, & John E. Mathieu and Gerald F. Goodwin, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Tonia S. Heffner, Depart- ment of Psychology, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga; Eduardo Salas and Janis A. Cannon-Bowers, Training Systems Division, Naval Air Warfare Center, Orlando, Florida. Tonia S. Heffner is now at the Army Research Institute, Washington, DC. Gerald F. Goodwin is now at the American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC. Eduardo Salas is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official position, policy, or decision of their respective affiliations. We thank Dana Born, Gwen Fisher, Kirsten Hobson, Kara Ivory, Mike Trip, and Nikki Windefelder, who were instrumental in the running of the teams and data coding portions of this work. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John E. Mathieu, who is now at the School of Business Administration, Depart- ment of Management, University of Connecticut, 368 Fairfield Road, 6-4IMG, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-2041. Electronic mail may be sent to jmathieu@sba.uconn.edu. Kraiger, 1996). The present research was designed to empirically examine the impact that teammates' mental models have on team process and performance in a dynamic and exciting laboratory flight simulation. A team can be defined as "a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact, dynamically, interdependently, and adap- tively toward a common and valued goal/objective/mission, who have each been assigned specific roles or functions to perform, and who have a limited life-span of membership" (Salas et al., 1992, p. 4). Research has identified numerous factors that affect teams and has offered several models of team functioning (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Although these different models vary in details, they all share an input-process-outcome (I-P-O) framework. Inputs to such models are conditions that exist prior to a performance episode and may include member, team, and organizational char- acteristics. Performance episodes are defined as distinguishable periods of time over which performance accrues and feedback is available. Processes describe how team inputs are transformed into outputs. Outcomes are results and by-products of team activity that are valued by one or more constituencies. Hackman (1990) iden- tified three primary types of outcomes: (a) performance-including quality and quantity, (b) team longevity, and (c) members' affec- tive reactions. Although we recognize the importance of all three types, for our purposes we will concentrate on performance outcomes. Empirical examinations of I-P-O models have demonstrated their utility (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). However, the large number of factors that influence outcomes has prohibited a comprehensive examination of the model. Many variables that have been proposed to influence team processes and thereby team performance have yet to receive much empirical examination. Included among these are members' knowledge and its organizational structure. This oversight has occurred despite acknowledgement of the impor- tance of knowledge organization for individual and team perfor- mance (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1990; Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & 273