Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:01:26.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognition and communication: situational awareness and tie preservation in disrupted task environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2020

Sean M. Fitzhugh Open the ORCID record for Sean M. Fitzhugh [Opens in a new window] ,
Arwen H. Decostanza ,
Norbou Buchler  and
Diane M. Ungvarsky
Sean M. Fitzhugh*
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
Arwen H. Decostanza
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
Norbou Buchler
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
Diane M. Ungvarsky
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Individuals filling specialized, interdependent organizational roles achieve coordinated task execution through effective communication channels. Such channels enable regular access to information, opportunities, and assistance that may enhance one’s understanding of the task environment. However, the time and effort devoted to maintaining those channels may detract from one’s duties by turning attention away from the task environment. Disrupted task environments increase information requirements, thus creating a dilemma in which individuals must sustain benefits offered by important communication channels and relieve burdens imposed by ineffective channels. Using separable temporal exponential random graph models (STERGMs), this paper examines the relationship between situational awareness (SA) and the propensity to sustain or dissolve preexisting communication channels during 10 disruptive events experienced sequentially by a large, multifaceted military organization during a 2-week training exercise. Results provide limited evidence that increased SA detracts from tie preservation; instead SA begins to predict tie preservation during the second week of the exercise. Patterns of organizational adaptation reveal that, over time, improvised coordinative roles increasingly fall upon those with elevated SA. These results suggest that over successive disruptions, the benefits of information provided by communication channels within interdependent, role-specialized organizations begin to outweigh the costs of sustaining those channels.

Keywords

organizationscommunicationnetwork dynamicsdisastersituational awarenessadaptation
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 508 - 542
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Action Editor: Noshir Contractor

References

Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, H., & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: Making the most of simplicity. In Nystrom, P. & Starbuck, W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, vol. 1 (pp. 385–408). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 645–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auf der Heide, E. (1989). Disaster response: Principles of preparation and coordination. In Disaster response: Principles of preparation and coordination. Canadá: CV Mosby Company.Please provide editor(s) and details for references “Auf der Heide (1989)” and “Carley & Hill (2001)”.Google Scholar
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22(6), 725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorman, S. A. (1975). A combinatorial optimization model for transmission of job information through contact networks. The Bell Journal of Economics, 6(1), 216–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A.. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings, and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3), 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandes, U., Lerner, J., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2009). Networks evolving step by step: Statistical analysis of dyadic event data. In ASONAM’09. International conference on advances in social network analysis and mining (pp. 200–205). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, M. E., & Quintane, E. (2018). The weakness of tie strength. Social Networks, 55, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 597–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2000). Decay functions. Social Networks, 22(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24(4), 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, C. T. (2008). A relational event framework for social action. Sociological Methodology, 38(1), 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, C. T., Petrescu-Prahova, M., & Cross, B. R. (2007). Responder communication networks in the world trade center disaster: Implications for modeling of communication within emergency settings. Mathematical Sociology, 31(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, C. T., Acton, R. M., & Marcum, C. S. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration in the hurricane katrina response. Journal of Social Structure, 13(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, K. (1992). Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organization Science, 3(1), 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, K. M., & Hill, V. (2001). Structural change and learning within organizations. In Larsen, E. & Lomi, A. (Ed.), Dynamics of organizations: Computational modeling and organization theories. MIT Press/AAAI.Google Scholar
Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., & Harper-Sciarini, M. (2011). Supervisory control of multiple robots: Human-performance issues and user-interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 41(4), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, M. K., Farkas, M. T., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2009). Learning through rare events: Significant interruptions at the baltimore & ohio railroad museum. Organization Science, 20(5), 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contractor, N. S., & Monge, P. R. (2002). Managing knowledge networks. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, E. R., & Lepine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 571–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928–937.Google Scholar
Cummings, J., Lee, J., & Kraut, R. (2006). Communication technology and friendship during the transition from high school to college. In Kraut, R., Brynin, M., & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 265–278). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahlander, L., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 69–110.Google Scholar
de Sola Pool, I., & Kochen, M. (1978). Contacts and influence. Social Networks, 1(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degenne, A., & Lebeaux, M.-O. (2005). The dynamics of personal networks at the time of entry into adult life. Social Networks, 27(4), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J. (2003). Vicarious learning, undersampling of failure, and the myths of management. Organization Science, 14(3), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmond, M. (2012). Disposable ties and the urban poor. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1295–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6(5), 178–190.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynes, R. R. (1970). Organized behavior in disaster. Lexington, MA: Heath LexingtonBooks.Google Scholar
Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2007). Networking by entrepreneurs: Patterns of tie-formation in emerging organizations. Organization Studies, 28(12), 1849–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endsley, M. R. (1988a). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the human factors society annual meeting, vol. 32 (pp. 97–101). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endsley, M. R. (1988b). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 national aerospace and electronics conference, 1988, NAECON 1988 (pp. 789–795). IEEE.Google Scholar
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endsley, M. R. (2000). Direct measurement of situation awareness: Validity and use of SAGAT. Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, 10, 147–174.Google Scholar
Enemark, D. P., McCubbins, M. D., Paturi, R., & Weller, N. (2011). Does more connectivity help groups to solve social problems. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 21–26). ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzhugh, S. M., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2017). Organizational tie de(activation) during crisis. In 2017 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM) (pp. 123–130). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design: An information processing view. Organizational Effectiveness Center and School, 21, 21–26.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, J., Aiken, M., & Marrett, C. B. (1971). Organization structure and communications. American Sociological Review, 36(5), 860–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, R. A, & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, D. R., Goodreau, S. M., & Handcock, M. S. (2008). Goodness of fit of social network models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(481), 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. J., Settle, J. E., Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Marlow, C., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Inferring tie strength from online directed behavior. Plos One, 8(1), e52168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krivitsky, P. N., & Handcock, M. S. (2014). A separable model for dynamic networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krivitsky, P. N., & Handcock, M. S. (2016). tergm: Fit, simulate and diagnose models for network evolution based on exponential-family random graph models. The Statnet Project (http://www.statnet.org). R package version 3.4.0.Google Scholar
Kudo, H., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001). Neocortex size and social network size in primates. Animal Behaviour, 62(4), 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenders, R. Th. A. J., Contractor, N. S., & DeChurch, L. A. (2016). Once upon a time understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(1), 92–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariotti, F., & Delbridge, R. (2012). Overcoming network overload and redundancy in interorganizational networks: The roles of potential and latent ties. Organization Science, 23(2), 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markovsky, B., & Chaffee, M. (1995). Social identification and solidarity: A reformulation. Advances in Group Processes, 12, 249–70.Google Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V, & Campbell, K. E. (2012). Reflections on conceptualizing and measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 91(1), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1133–1156.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., & Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relationships: Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.Google Scholar
Oldroyd, J. B., & Morris, S. S. (2012). Catching falling stars: A human resource response to social capital’s detrimental effect of information overload on star employees. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 396–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, J., James, N., Ahmed, A., & Halliday, P. (2006). Observational assessment of situation awareness, team differences and training implications. Ergonomics, 49(4), 393–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrescu-Prahova, M., & Butts, C. T. (2008). Emergent coordinators in the world trade center disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 28(3), 133–168.Google Scholar
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. G. B., Dunbar, R. I. M., Pollet, T. V., & Kuppens, T. (2009). Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics. Social Networks, 31(2), 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D. P., & Shrestha, L. (1995). Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training. Human Factors, 37(1), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, P., Stanton, N., Walker, G., & Green, D. (2006). Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. Applied Ergonomics, 37(2), 225–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sasovova, Z., Mehra, A., Borgatti, S. P., & Schippers, M. C. (2010). Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 639–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, J. (2007). Sampling an unknown universe: Problems of researching mass casualty incidents (a history of ECRU’s field research). Statistics in Medicine, 26(8), 1812–1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabright, M. A., Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M. (1992). Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 122–160.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology, 31(1), 361–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steier, L., & Greenwood, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the evolution of angel financial networks. Organization Studies, 21(1), 163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuchman, G. (1973). Making news by doing work: Routinizing the unexpected. American Journal of Sociology, 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & KoenigJr, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 322–338.Google Scholar
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications, vol. 8. Cambriduge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Mullen, B. & Goethals, G. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer Series in Social Psychology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16(3), 571–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, S., Jones, Q., & Terveen, L. (2002). Contact management: Identifying contacts to support long-term communication. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 216–225). ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. C., Taekman, J. M., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl. 1), i65–i71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37(1), 20–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W.-X., Sornette, D., Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2005). Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272(1561), 439–444.Google Scholar