Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 18, No. 1, 69–86 1089-2699/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035161 Exploring the Benefits and Boundaries of Transactive Memory Systems in Adapting to Team Member Loss Jessica Siegel Christian, Aleksander P. J. Ellis Matthew J. Pearsall, University of Arizona and Michael S. Christian University of North Carolina This study examines how teams respond to unplanned member loss. We draw on theory of team compilation and adaptation to suggest that teams with well-developed trans- active memory systems (TMS) will be better equipped to withstand the loss of a member. Then, based on role criticality theories, we argue that those effects depend on which member is absent, such that when a more critical member is lost, the perfor- mance benefits of a TMS are reduced. Finally, we reason that this interactive effect is because of the team’s ability to engage in plan formulation. We tested and found support for our hypotheses using 78 four-member teams engaged in a command-and- control simulation. TMS positively affected team performance following the loss of a member, but the benefits of the TMS were reduced following the loss of a critical member because teams had more difficulty engaging in plan formulation. We discuss how the results of this study add to our understanding of the precursors of successful team adaptation. Keywords: team adaptation, transactive memory, critical team member Team-based organizations often operate in thieu, 2000; Waller, 1999). In organizations, dynamic environments where survival depends teams must adapt to a wide-ranging set of cir- on the ability to successfully adapt to changing cumstances, including external contingencies circumstances (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & such as communication equipment failures Smith, 1999). Increasing competition, global- (LePine, 2003, 2005) or unfamiliar performance ization, and technological changes have created contexts (Marks et al., 2000) and internal struc- a need for more flexible and adaptive responses tural contingencies such as planned downsizing (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Volberda, 1996). (DeRue et al., 2008) or member replacement Teams are thought to have adaptive advantages (e.g., Moreland, 1999). The nature of the con- over individuals (Kozlowski et al., 1999), lead- tingency is important because it determines ing researchers to turn their focus toward team both the extent to which specific team processes adaptation as an essential performance criterion are disrupted and the team’s ensuing response (e.g., Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, (Burke et al., 2006; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). 2006; Chen, Thomas, & Wallace, 2005; DeRue, The first purpose of this study is to expand Hollenbeck, Johnson, Ilgen, & Jundt, 2008; our understanding of the range of contingencies This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. LePine, 2003, 2005; Marks, Zaccaro, & Ma- teams face to include situations where a team This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. member is unexpectedly lost or absent and not replaced. This situation is commonplace. In ac- tion teams such as military units or firefighters, Jessica Siegel Christian, Matthew J. Pearsall, and Mi- chael S. Christian, Kenan-Flagler Business School, Univer- members are sometimes injured or incapaci- sity of North Carolina; Aleksander P. J. Ellis, The Eller tated, leaving the team short on resources and College of Management, University of Arizona. skills. In project, decision-making, and cus- Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- tomer service teams, members may unexpect- dressed to Jessica Siegel Christian, University of North Carolina, Kenan-Flagler Business School, McColl Building edly need to travel, fall ill, or be called away on 4734, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. E-mail: jessica_christian@ other assignments (see Sundstrom, 1999). For unc.edu these types of teams with specialized expertise, 69 70 SIEGEL CHRISTIAN, PEARSALL, CHRISTIAN, AND ELLIS losing a member can be particularly detrimental important predictor of adaptive success (i.e., because of the concurrent loss of the member’s team performance) in situations where teams unique knowledge and skills. Despite this, no lose a member. research has examined factors that predict suc- However, the potential benefits of a TMS cessful performance in the situation where a may depend on the role played by the lost team member is unexpectedly lost. Research suggests member. Not all positions within a team are that adjusting to a change in the task or envi- equally important to the team’s workflow (Ar- ronmental structure requires a series of contin- row & McGrath, 1993; Kozlowski et al., 1999). uous developmental processes that compile According to Humphrey, Morgeson, and Man- over time (Burke et al., 2006). The unexpected nor’s (2009) strategic core theory, team mem- loss of a member represents a different situation bers in highly critical positions are more “core” and requires the team to quickly find new ways to the team. We argue that teams with a well- to redirect the remaining members’ distributed developed TMS will be able to withstand the knowledge to perform at a high level. We are loss of a less critical team member, but will interested in teams’ initial response to the loss have more trouble compensating for the loss of of a member and how members quickly adjust a highly critical member. their behaviors to meet this unexpected chal- Our final objective is to uncover the mecha- lenge. nism underlying this conditional relationship. Our second purpose is to uncover factors that Kozlowski et al. (1999) argued that adaptive help and hinder adaptation to member loss. In teams must have the ability to choose a plan for terms of successful adaptation, we examine action. In an effort to respond effectively to new team performance following the loss of a mem- demands, teams must quickly devise a strategy ber. Kozlowski et al.’s (1999) compilation the- to address the change so that the lost members’ ory suggests that team members are better responsibilities are not neglected (Burke et al., equipped to deal with losing a team member 2006; Stout & Salas, 1993). We argue that the when they understand the roles and responsibil- loss of critical nodes within the TMS will ham- ities of their teammates and how they connect per the availability of information required for together. Therefore, we suggest that a team’s the team to effectively formulate adaptive plans. transactive memory system (TMS)—an orga- Therefore, we expect plan formulation to rep- nized store of knowledge that is contained en- resent a key mechanism explaining why losing tirely in the individual memory systems of a critical member reduces the effects of TMS on group members; a set of knowledge-relevant team performance following member loss. transactive processes that occur among group With this research, we contribute to the team members (Wegner, Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985)— adaptation literature in several ways. First, we plays an important role in how teams perform expand the typology of adaptive contexts by following the loss of a member. examining team performance following the loss Our study is not the first to examine TMS in of a team member. Second, based on the unique adaptive team contexts. Previous research has requirements of this form of adaptation, we provided valuable insight into how a TMS im- identify a team’s TMS as a key determinant of pacts team effectiveness when new members success. Third, we establish criticality as an are added to a team (e.g., Levine & Choi, 2004; important boundary condition that determines Lewis, Belliveau, Herndon, & Keller, 2007) and the degree to which performance is influenced This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. how the benefits of a TMS are reduced when by TMS. Finally, we uncover and examine plan This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. team membership is scrambled after training formulation as a mechanism underlying the in- (Moreland, 1999; Moreland & Argote, 2003; teractive effects of TMS and criticality on team Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996; Moreland performance. & Myaskovsky, 2000). However, these studies have generally viewed TMS as an outcome vari- Transactive Memory Systems and Team able that is negatively affected by the addition Performance Following Member Loss of newcomers, or as a mediator of the effects of team training strategies. We take the literature Transactive memory was originally con- on TMS and team adaptation in a different ceived by Wegner and colleagues (Wegner, direction, suggesting that TMS represents an 1987; Wegner et al., 1985) as a way to explain TRANSACTIVE MEMORY AND TEAM MEMBER LOSS 71 the behavior of individuals in close relation- that reflect emergent cognitive aspects of trans- ships. Wegner noticed that couples tend to have active memory: memory differentiation (devel- a system for processing information that allows opment and recognition of specialized areas of them to do more without exhausting their cog- expertise within the team), task coordination nitive resources, which he labeled transactive (effective combination of knowledge), and task memory. Each member of a couple develops a credibility (trust in one another’s competence specific domain of knowledge and expertise,