Cross-Understanding: Implications for Group Cognition and Performance

By George P. Huber, Kyle Lewis. 2010

252 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/56a0e07d91a7caa6e98f07247c792a2c4879b8b7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Motivating Organizations to Learn (2015, background): “Of particular relevance is cross-understanding, which exists when members have an accurate understanding of one another’s mental models and also recognize each other’s preferences, sensitivities, and beliefs (Huber & Lewis, 2010).”
The Cognitive Perspective in Strategy: An Integrative Review (2011, background): “Here, SC scholarship can benefit from theories of group cognition relevant for strategic contexts (Huber & Lewis, 2010).”
Coactive Vicarious Learning: Toward a Relational Theory of Vicarious Learning in Organizations (2017, background): “For instance, when a pair develops shared mental models, as part of what Huber and Lewis call “cross-understanding” (2010), they are able to engage in more efficient and effective learning with less “wasted” energy spent trying to share and analyze experiences, as individuals are able to communicate”
Leaders' sensemaking under crises: Emerging cognitive consensus over time within management teams (2015, background): “Cross understanding, through an accurate understanding of themental models of others within a leadership team, may lead to changes to mental models because some individuals are convinced by and adopt the beliefs of others (Huber & Lewis, 2010).”
Facilitating Innovation in Diverse Science Teams Through Integrative Capacity (2012, background): “…similarities and differences in knowledge within science teams helps to avoid misunderstandings at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 29, 2016sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from and foster more in depth consideration of how available knowledge can be accommodated and integrated (Huber & Lewis, 2010).”
Managing Joint Production Motivation: The Role of Goal Framing and Governance Mechanisms (2011, background): “Thus, work on collective mind (Weick & Roberts, 1993) and work on cross-understanding (Huber & Lewis, 2010) capture the importance of overlapping knowledge and the interaction of beliefs for the coordination of actions and tasks (see also Gavetti, 2005) However, they do not explicitly address the…”
A Dynamic Perspective on Diverse Teams: Moving from the Dual-Process Model to a Dynamic Coordination-based Model of Diverse Team Performance (2016, background): “…diversity produces representational gaps, which make it difficult for team members to integrate their information and knowledge and complete a task, especially in the short term, even if they are motivated to do so (Cronin & Weingart, 2007; Heath & Staudenmayer, 2000; Huber & Lewis, 2010).”
Team Reflexivity as an Antidote to Team Information-Processing Failures (2014, background): “Similarly, cross-understanding, or the understanding of each other mental model within a team, is an important element for integrating information (Huber & Lewis, 2010).”
Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity (2016, background): “…of cognitions in groups, focusing on how there may be within-team differences in member knowledge about other members’ expertise (transactive memory; Baumann & Bonner, 2013; Mell, van Knippenberg, & van Ginkel, 2014) and about other members’ mental models (cross-understanding; Huber & Lewis, 2010).”
Transactive Memory Systems 1985–2010: An Integrative Framework of Key Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences (2011, background): “Transactive Memory Systems 1985 – 2010 † 191 extent to which group members have an accurate understanding of the mental models of other group members (Huber & Lewis, 2010).”