MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY

The Impact of Structuring

Behaviour on

Team Effectiveness A study in the context of command-and-

control teams

MASTER THESIS

9/7/2015

This study aims to identify the structuring behaviours and behavioural patterns used by on-scene-command-and-

control team leaders to lead teams during emergency situations. By means of an extensive literature review and

the coding of behaviours observed in video recordings of simulation exercises, 17 command-and-control teams

were studied. Ten structuring behaviours shown by the team leader were identified in literature to be either

functional or dysfunctional for the team effectiveness. Results suggest that team leaders of high level effective

teams (n = 7) use structuring behaviours such as ‘summarizing in the form of a command and/or decision’ more

often in comparison with team leaders of low level effective teams (n = 10). Team leaders of low level effective

teams ask more often ‘procedural questions’, which is found to slow down execution. As team processes are

found to develop over time, consecutive team meetings were included in the analysis. Results suggest that the

frequency of some structuring behaviours decreases of low and high level effective teams in the second meeting,

due to the different meeting objectives of meeting 1 and 2. Finally, high level effective team leaders show more

frequently effective behaviour combinations, such as ‘summarizing command’ followed by ‘clarifying’, and

‘goal orientation’ followed by ‘clarifying’. This study provides suggestions for practitioners, who aim to

develop team leadership training and assessment tools.

Maastricht University, School of Business & Economics

Maastricht, September 7, 2015

Euwe, E.B.; i6093734

Msc. Management of Learning

Supervisor: Dr. S. van der Haar

Second supervisor: M. Gerken

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Billy Ocean sang: ‘When the going gets tough, the tough get going’. Initially I thought this

was mainly a cool thing to say for people with no self-management skills. However, after a

very busy year, including moving and renovating old houses, working part-time and

participating in a pressure-cooker Master program, I managed to deliver. Despite losing

complete data sets on viruses and starting a fresh (typical case of: you’ve hit rock bottom, it

can only go up from here), to notice half way through the second time of coding you’ve been

coding all the wrong meetings. And when you think that the whole universe is working

against you to not let you succeed, everything falls into place and you ‘get going’. However,

this could never have happened if I had not had the support of the following people:

Selma van der Haar. for always believing in me and giving me extensive feedback no

matter what time in the night. The feedback was always accompanied with endless

enthusiasm and encouraging words. I learned so much about academic writing and

conducting research and really believe I managed to lift my thesis to a higher level. Thank

you so much for that!

Robert Euwe, my brother, the King of Excel who never felt short of time, despite his busy

schedule, to explain the things that actually happen when I push those buttons in SPSS. And

all right Robert, I’ll admit. Excel IS an awesome program. Additional thanks for being my

alarm clock, bringing me coffee and giving me the occasional hug when I needed it.

Darja Gleinser, for making coding even more fun () in the office at the SBE. Thank you

for all the nice coffee breaks, helping out when needed and for giving me no judgement after

eating take-out pizza three nights in a row.

Klaas Doornbos, who always made time to see if what I write sounded logical and was

comprehensible. His critical opinion, no matter what time, made me think even more about

being concise and to the point.

THANK YOU ALL !

Eline Euwe

September 6, 2015.

P.S. And thanks Billy; maybe I turned out to be a bit tough after all.

2

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………..4

2. THE CONTEXT: COMMAND-AND-CONTROL TEAMS………………………………………..7

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK …………………………………………………..………………8

3.1 TEAM LEADERSHIP …………………………………………………...……………… .8

3.2. LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR …………………………………………...……………… 9

3.3 INITIATING STRUCTURE ……………………………………….……...…………… .10

3.3.1 GOAL ORIENTATION ………………………………………………………12

3.3.2 CLARIFYING ……………………………………………….………………..12

3.3.3 PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS – SUGGESTIONS/QUESTIONS…………15

3.3.4 SUMMARIZING ………………………………………………..…………….16

3.3.5. QUESTION – NAME/NO NAME/REPETITION …………….……………. 17

3.3.6 VISUALIZING ………………………………………..………………………18

3.3.7 TIME MANAGEMENT ………………………………..……………………..18

3.4 BEHAVIOURAL PATTERNS …………………………………..………………………18

RESEARCH MODEL …………………………………...…………………………………..20

4. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………...………………….21

4.1 SETTING AND SAMPLE ……………………………………...……………………….21

4.2 PROCEDURE …………………………………………………...……………………….21

4.3 PARTICIPATING TEAMS ……………………………………..……………………….22

4.4 MEASURES ……………………………………………..………………………………22

5. RESULTS …………………………………………………….……………………………………25

6, CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION …………………………..…………………………………….30

7. LIMITATIONS & DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ………………………………….33

8. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS …………………………………..………………………33

9. REFERENCES …………………………………………….………………………………………35

APPENDIX I Scenarios simulation exercises ……………………..…………………………………39

APPENDIX II Team effectiveness scale ……………………………………………………………..40

APPENDIX III Official statement of original thesis …………………..……………………………..41

3

TABLE OF FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 1. Model structuring behaviours and team effectiveness…………………………….. 19

Table 1. Coding scheme………………………………………………………………… .12-13

Table 2. Inter-rater reliability scores………………………………………………………… 22

Table 3. Aggregation indices…………………………………………………………………23

Table 4. Descriptives & correlations (Meeting 1)………….……………………….………..24

Table 5. Descriptives & correlations (Meeting 2)…………………………....... ……………24

Table 6. Comparison of structuring behaviour means on goal achievement (Meeting 1)… ..25

Table 7. Comparison of structuring behaviour means on quality of actions (Meeting 1)……25

Table 8. Comparison of structuring behaviour means on goal achievement (Meeting 2)…...26

Table 9. Comparison of structuring behaviour means on quality of actions (Meeting 2)……26

Table 10. Difference frequency structuring behaviour high level effective teams over time..27

Table 11. Difference frequency structuring behaviour low level effective teams over time...27

Table 12. Behavioural patterns ……………………………………………………………..28

4

1. INTRODUCTION

‘The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word ‘crisis’. One brush stroke stands for

danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger – but recognize the

opportunity’ - John F. Kennedy

In the fast-paced environment that dominates our world today, we have come to

expect a lot of our leaders (Ancona, Malone, Orlikowski & Senge, 2007). They should be

tough yet humble, challenging and inspiring and have the intellectual and emotional capacity

to translate strategies into concrete plans, which in turn should be implemented by motivated

and committed team members (Ancona et al., 2007). In light of this statement, consider the

challenge of leading a team in complex environments, such as leading command-and-control

teams in the emergency management context (Goleman, 1996).

Whenever there is a crisis, such as a fire in a public building or a collision on the

high- way, people from the fire department, the police, the medical care assistance unit, the

government and possible other disciplines come together to mitigate the consequences of the

crisis of the crisis (Van der Haar, Wijenbergh, Van den Bossche & Segers, 2014). As closed-

loop, interdependent collaboration is needed between the different assistance units, a

command-and-control team is composed during the crisis to coordinate the different

disciplines (Salas, Burke & Samman, 2001). The command-and-control team is composed of

the commander-on-site of each required discipline and is therefore ‘‘composed of individuals

who have high levels of skills and abilities, are specialized in their respective duties, and

come together for a short period of time to work interdependently toward a common goal’’

(Salas et al., 2001, p. 312). The teams are subject to a high level of stress, as they are

confronted with an information overload and very little time to come up with a successful

action plan (Salas et al., 2001). Bad decision-making or too slow decision-making can be

detrimental to the team’s effectiveness, which can have highly publicized, high stake

consequences (Castellan, 1993; Mankins, 2004; Salas et al., 2001;Van der Haar et al., 2014).

In light of these findings, one might argue that leaders of emergency management command-

and-control teams not only face challenges from the outside (stressful environment, time

pressure, high level of responsibility), but also on the inside, due to the ad hoc,

multidisciplinary composition of the team (Aitken, Leggat, Robertson, Harley, Speare &

Leclercq, 2012; Salas et al., 2001).

5

As each crisis is unique and unexpected, the expertise of the command-and-control

team members needs to be combined to face the difficult tasks at hand (Salas et al., 2001).

This requires team interaction (e.g. via team meetings), which is defined by Eriksen & Dyer

(2004) as coordinating team members, tasks and tools. Team interaction is seen as ‘‘a central

component for predicting team outcomes’’ (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012, p.

132). The command-and-control teams have consecutive team meetings during the crisis

which are led by an impartial leader (Van der Haar et al., 2014). In these meetings, the

command-and-control team members share their information, discuss what needs to happen

next and decide on an action plan (UitdeWilligen, 2011). The leader is responsible for

coordinating the team member’s expertise in a way that the efforts of the different disciplines

are aligned, as misaligned teams may succeed individually, but yet fail collectively

(DeChurch, Burke, Shuffler, Lyons, Doty & Salas, 2011, p. 153).

Initiating structure supports in organizing the team interaction so that the ideas and

expertise of diverse team members is more effectively introduced and combined, which in

turn promotes the attainment of team objectives (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Burke, Stagl,

Klein, Goodwin, Salas & Halpin, 2006). The reasoning behind this, is that without a clear

structure to guide thinking and discussions, team members can become confused or

overwhelmed by the information overload (Edmondson, 2012). This promotes lengthy

monologues, complaining, straying from the topic and/or losing the train of thought in details

and examples (Cooke & Szumal, 1994; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Okhuysen

& Eisenhardt, 2002). Dysfunctional behaviour of which one might argue that there is simply

no time for in the emergency management context.

Van der Haar et al. (2014) examined the relation between team interaction and team

effectiveness in emergency management command-and-control teams. Results of studying

the second meeting of command-and-control team meetings in simulation exercises, indicated

that structuring behaviour such as concluding a team discussion in terms of a command was

beneficial for the team effectiveness (Van der Haar et al., 2014). UitdeWilligen (2011) also

argues that initiating structure such as e.g. asking questions and/or summarizing in these

specific type of teams, relates positively to the team effectiveness. These results suggest that

structuring behaviour makes a difference for the effectiveness of teams operating in complex

environments (Van der Haar et al., 2014). Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012)

identified ten different types of structuring behaviours which were found to relate positively

to team effectiveness. Based on those findings by Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012),

one might argue that structuring behaviour might entail more than concluding a discussion

6

with a command (Van der Haar et al., 2014) and/or asking questions and summarizing

(UitdeWilligen, 2011). Additionally, the latter studies focus on the team as a whole: not on

the specific behaviour shown by the team leader. DeChurch et al. (2011) argue that in

complex environments such as the emergency management context; effective team leaders

are the most needed and it is therefore of pivotal importance to understand their behaviour.

Hence, the aim of this study is to elucidate the different kinds of structuring behaviour of

team leaders operating in the emergency management command-and-control context. This

results in the main research question:

RQ - 1. Is there a difference in the frequency of different types of structuring

behaviour used by the team leader in low and high level effective teams?

The set-up of this study is as follows. First, the context and characteristics of the

emergency management command-and-control teams are discussed. Second, this study

discusses the role of the team leader in the context of the emergency management context.

Next, the value of specific structuring behaviour for the team effectiveness is discussed based

on findings in literature. The theoretical framework is concluded by discussing possible

relations between structuring behaviours. Third, the methodology section is discussed,

including the context, procedure and measures used in this study. Fourth, the results are

presented and discussed. This study is concluded by discussing directions for future research

and implications for practitioners.

7

2. THE CONTEXT: COMMAND-AND-CONTROL TEAMS

Emergency management command-and-control teams come together to mitigate the

consequences of the crisis (Salas et al., 2001). A crisis is defined as that of a ‘‘sudden

occurrence, with a low probability which, if it arises, has important consequences in terms of

losses (human, material, financial, etc.) for a given collective, and provokes tensions in the

social fabric of that collective’’ (LaLondon, 2004, p. 77). Salas et al. (2001) define four

characteristics of command-and-control teams. First, command-and-control teams can be

seen as heterogeneous, as team members come from various backgrounds and have a high

level of diversity. Second, such teams also have to deal with large amounts of information

and must be able to clarify, filter and integrate that information to gain a comprehensive

overview of the crisis. Third, command-and-control teams are multi-disciplinary, which

demands e.g. closed-loop communication and clarifying how decision-making processes will

work in meetings. And fourth, members of a command-and-control team are operating in a

highly stressful environment, which can have negative influences on e.g. concentration, the

speed and the quality of decision-making (Salas et al., 2001).

Command teams can be seen as a form of multiteams (DeChurch, 2006), which are

defined as “two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently in response to

environmental contingencies toward the accomplishment of collective goals” (Marks,

Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001, p. 290). The composition of a command-and-control team happens

as follows. The commander-on-site of the fire department, the police and the medical

assistance unit have a short meeting on the site of the crisis, called the ‘Motorkap Overleg

(MKO)’. The goal of the MKO is to quickly coordinate the first mono disciplinary action

points of the different assistance units (Van der Haar et al., 2014). In this first meeting, the

MKO decides if the crisis requires the construction of an on-scene-command-team (OSCT)

and if there is a need for an impartial team leader to coordinate the multidisciplinary units. If

so, the OSCT is composed during the crisis and is comprised of members who have a

commanding role in their own disciplinary unit as well as a coordinating role in the OSCT

(Salas et al., 2001). The core of the OSCT consists of the commander-on-site from the fire

department, the police, the medical assistance unit and the public safety officer. The OSCT

has two phases. The consecutive team meetings of the OSCT are referred to as the transition

phase of the OSCT (Van der Haar et al., 2014). The action phase refers to the enactment of

the decisions made during the transition phase and to the gathering of important information

at the scene. The OSCT does not act together during the action phase.

8

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1. TEAM LEADERSHIP

Leaders are found to play a key role in promoting, developing and maintaining the

team effectiveness (Burke et al., 2006; Zaccaro, Rittman & Marks., 2001). DeChurch et al.

(2011) argue that perhaps nowhere are leaders more important than in the emergency

management context, as ineffective leadership in sometimes life-threatening environments

can result in death or injury (Salas et al., 2001). Aitken et al. (2012) argues that leaders in the

emergency management context should be flexible, though predominantly democratic. They

should be able to delegate tasks and responsibilities, but not lose authority and/or the control

of the team (Benoliel & Somech, 2014; Salas et al., 2001). By stimulating team discussions

and encouraging others to participate in the decision-making process, team leaders in the

emergency management context fulfil ‘‘the need for calm, but strong leadership’’ (Van Wart

& Kapucu., 2011, p. 506). These characteristics enable a team leader to redirect the team

member’s energy toward a clear goal which is understood by all team members (Benoliel &

Somech, 2014).

Effective team leadership requires a team leader who is able to coordinate the actions

of the team members (DeChurch, 2006). However, an effective team leader of multiteams

needs to align the effort of teams with those of the other teams. This implies certain

challenges, as teams may succeed individually, yet fail collectively (DeChurch, 2006).

Emergency management command-and-control teams are a form of task-oriented teams

(Salas et al., 2001). Therefore, team leadership is defined as ‘‘the actions undertaken by a

team leader to ensure the needs and goals of a team are met’’ (Reader et al., 2011, p. 1686).

This is in line with the functional approach of leadership (Benoliel & Somech, 2014), which

is seen as well-fitting to the analysis of leadership in multiteam systems, as it studies

leadership in the context of leading the group as a whole (DeChurch et al., 2011). In the

functional approach, the team leader is not the one solely responsible for making sure the

needs of the team are accomplished, but rather is responsible for creating an enabling

situation which ensures that those needs are met (DeChurch et al., 2011). This approach of

leadership is therefore seen as a form of social problem solving (Fleishman et al., 1991).‘‘It is

the team leader’s job to 1) diagnose problems that could impede goal attainment, 2) generate

solutions and 3) implement solutions’’ (DeChurch et al., 2001, p. 153 ). As leadership in the

functional approach is defined in terms of problem-solving activities which are aimed to

attain team objectives (e.g. solutions, goals), Devine (2012) argues that any behaviour that

9

includes goal-directed action would constitute leadership. However, Burke et al. (2006) argue

that a closer examination is needed to identify those leadership behaviours which are

important for practitioners to know what specific knowledge and skills need to be trained.

3.2. LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Leadership behaviour comprises of two different categories according to Fleishman,

MumFord, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, Hein (1992), namely (1) task-focused leadership

behaviours and (2) person-focused leadership behaviours. Task-focused leadership behaviour

focuses on dealing with task accomplishment, whereas person-focused behaviours focuses on

coaching and/or the development of the team member. As command-and-control teams are a

type of teams which are focused on the task, task-focused leadership behaviours enable team

members to understand the demands of the task at hand, know how to operate, and how to

gain task information (Salas et al., 2001). To create this enabling environment as a team

leader, he can initiate structure, which is seen as a component of task-focused leadership

behaviours (Burke et al., 2006).

The use of initiating structure is found to relate positively to perceptions of team

effectiveness (Burke et al., 2006). Initiating structure is primarily oriented towards the

attainment of team goals (Burke et al., 2006) and ‘‘consists of behaviours which work to

ensure that members have a clear sense of direction and purpose’’ (Burke et al. 2006, p. 292).

According to Burke et al. (2006), initiating structure consists of two dimensions, namely (1)

directive leadership and (2) autocratic leadership (Burke et al., 2006). Directive leadership

focuses on task distribution, clarifying of how work needs to be done, goal orientation and

enables clear communication between team members (Burke et al., 2006; Reader et al.,

2011). In contrast, an autocratic leader assumes responsibility and makes decisions without

discussing with team members (Burke et al., 2006). Van Wart & Kapucu (2011) argue that a

directive leadership style is most effective in the emergency management context. According

to DeRue, Barnes & Morgeson (2010), directive leaders have clear direction context and

task/goal assignment, which increases team effectiveness. This way, team members know

what is expected of them and how they should accomplish this task (DeRue et al., 2010).

Furthermore, when clear direction is given and understood, DeRue et al. (2010) argue for

team leaders to assume a monitoring role and check the performance of team members for

any problems which need to be corrected. In line with DeRue et al. (2010), Aitken et al.

(2012) argues that team leaders should change their behaviours to different phases of the

crisis and/or changes in the environment. Effective team leadership is therefore seen as

10

unfolding over time (Aitken et al., 2012), which requires a high level of flexibility of the

team leader (Salas et al., 2001; Van Wart & Kapucu 2011). Not only team leaders develop

over time, but also the team members and the team itself (DeChurch, 2006; Li & Roe, 2012).

Effective team leaders need to align their behavioural inputs with the requirements of the

development of team processes (DeChurch, 2006). This is in line with Li & Roe (2012), who

argue that the interaction patterns in team processes over time can lead to differences in

consequences (e.g. team effectiveness). Van der Haar et al. (2014) already argued for future

researchers to take the changing interaction pattern over time into account when studying

emergency management command-and-control teams. Based on these findings, an additional

question arises if team leaders of low and high level effective teams show different or similar

change patterns of specific structuring behaviours used by team leaders in consecutive team

meetings:

RQ – 2. Is there a change in the frequency of different types of structuring behaviour

used by the team leader in low and high level effective teams over time?

3.3. INITIATING STRUCTURE

So far, leadership is approached via the functional approach, where the main aim is to

get the job done and to create an enabling environment which ensures that the needs of the

team are met (Burke et al., 2006). As described earlier, Burke et al. (2006) argue that this can

be done by initiating structure as a team leader. But yet the question remains, what kind of

specific behaviours are the most important in the midst of crises for leaders operating in

complex environments (Van Wart & Kapucu, 2011)?

The OSCT has consecutive team meetings in which team members discuss ideas,

align their efforts and make action plans (Van der Haar et al., 2014). Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock (2012) argue that initiating structure in a team meeting is seen as key for

effective team leaders as it shows that a team leader is able to structure its task. They argue

for team leaders to make ‘positive procedural communication statements’ during meetings,

which are aimed at ‘‘structuring and organizing the discussion’’ (Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock, 2012, p. 136). They identify ten positive procedural communication statements

which are argued to be functional for the team effectiveness, namely goal orientation,

clarifying, procedural suggestions, procedural questions, prioritizing, time management, task

11

distribution, visualizing, weighing costs/benefits1, and summarizing (Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock, 2012). Dysfunctional behaviour of team members in meetings can be seen as

particular utterances which are already discussed or are irrelevant to the goal of the meeting

(Gruenstein, 2003), lengthy contributions by others (Cooke & Szumal, 1994), straying from

the topic and/or losing focus (Edmondson, 2012; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

However, Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) studied teams in medium-sized

organisations from the automotive supply, metal, electrical, chemical and packaging

industries. The teams had weekly meetings of approximately one hour concerning a topic

which was chosen by the teams themselves, such as ‘how can we improve the quality of our

work?’. There were no hierarchies in the teams, no time pressure and the teams were working

in a normal environment (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). In general team

leadership literature, Burke et al. (2006, p. 292) state that initiating structure ‘‘consists of

behaviours which work to ensure that members have a clear sense of direction and purpose’’,

but do not specifically define those behaviours. Various scholars in the emergency

management context (Benoliel & Somech, 2014; DeChurch, 2006; UitdeWilligen, 2011; Van

Wart et al., 2011) argue for the relevance of structuring behaviours such as goal orientation

and/or providing clarification, but also do not provide a clear overview of structuring

behaviours. Despite a growing body of research on specific leadership behaviours, as of yet

little research has been conducted on the specific structuring behaviours and their relation to

team effectiveness in normal team meetings, let alone in emergency management command-

and-control teams. In order to achieve effective team leadership, it is important to know what

skills practitioners need to train on. Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) provide an

extensive overview of structuring behaviours observed in team meetings. Additional

literature on team leadership in the emergency management context is integrated with the

structuring behaviours of Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012). Table 1 shows the

coding scheme of the structuring behaviours, including label, definition, an example, the

impact on team effectiveness and the references.

1 Weighing costs/benefits is defined by Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) as literal economical thinking, which is

considered not applicable in the context of emergency management command-and-control teams and therefore not included.

12

3.3.1. GOAL ORIENTATION

Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) define goal orientation as pointing out the topic or

leading the team member back to the topic. A team leader is often in the unique position to

see the bigger picture (Benoliel & Somech, 2014), and should therefore at the beginning and

during the meeting explain the purpose and/or objectives of the meeting in a clear manner

(Edmondson, 2012; Mackay, 2006). By differentiating and cross-linking particular utterances

of team members as being relevant to the discussion and further, to the goal of the meeting, it

is expected that the team will more easily develop a shared understanding of the task at hand

and the possible solutions to the problem (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

Prioritizing, which is also a positive procedural communication statement of Kauffeld &

Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) is included in goal orientation, as this behaviour also focuses

on stressing main topics (Cooke & Szumal, 1994). Van Wart & Kapucu. (2011) argue that

goal orientation enables a team leader to make sure team members remain on task which

facilitates the attainment of team objectives more easily. Cooper & Wakelam (1991) even go

as far by stating that goal orientation is seen as key of the process of initiating structure in

meetings as this way, team leaders are able to provide the team with clear direction (Cooper

& Wakelam, 1991; Kotter, 1990; Reader, Flin & Cuthbertson (2011). Bristowe et al. (2012,

p. 1386) argue that clear direction initiated by the team leader in an emergency management

context is a necessity: ‘‘You’ve got someone who stops everyone in the room shouting and

says: “Right, what are you doing? What is the objective?’’. Due to the restricted time limit in

complex environments and the high consequences at stake, goal orientation is seen as crucial

for team effectiveness (Castellan, 1993; Reader et al., 2011).

3.3.2. CLARIFYING

Clarifying or ‘sensemaking’ refers to making sure everyone understands the statement

made by the team member and can link it to the topic (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock,

2012). Zaccaro, Rittman & Marks (2001, p. 462) argue that sense-making is a crucial task of

the team leader as it includes ‘‘embellishing the meaning of important environmental cues

into a coherent framework’’. If a team fails to create a shared understanding of the problem,

it can cause confusion and miscommunication (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). A

team leader should involve his team members in his clarification: ‘‘Say what you think you

are seeing, and check with people who have different perspectives from yours’’ (Ancona et

al., 2007, p. 184).

TABLE 1. CODING SCHEME2

LABEL DEFINITION EXAMPLES

(derived from the videos)

EFFECT ON TEAM

EFFECTIVENESS

REFERENCE3

Goal orientation Pointing out the goal and leading the team

back to the topic, when the team members

stray or lose focus. The team leader needs to

make sure that the focus is on the main

topics.

‘Stick to statements which

belong to the phase Sharing facts

& Interpreting, please.’

Facilitates the attainment of

meeting objectives more easily,

as it keeps the discussion on

target by giving clear direction

and in turn.

- Bristowe et al. (2012)

- Cooke & Szumal (1994)

- Cooper & Wakelam

(1991)

- Edmondson (2012)

- Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock (2012)

Clarifying Making sure everyone understands the

statement made by the team member. It also

includes interpretation, which refers to an

integration of simple information elements

or a combination of simple information and

a team member’s background knowledge.

‘Do you understand?’

‘Is it clear for everybody?’

Team member: ‘The victims have

a bad cough and I do not trust it’

OSCT leader: ‘So you imply there

might be a hazardous substance

present in the smoke, right?’

Creates a shared understanding of

the problem, as it supports

identifying new information,

guiding discussions and prevents

miscommunication.

- Ancona et al. (2007)

- Bristowe et al. (2012)

- DeChurch &

Magnusmesmer (2010)

- Edmondson (2012)

- Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock (2012)

- Salas et al. (2001)

Procedural question Asking questions about how to proceed

further in the meeting.

‘Which discipline do you think

should share his/her information

first?’

Slows down discussion, which

inhibits giving a quick response

to the emergency.

Devine (2002)

Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock (2012)

Procedural

suggestion

Giving suggestions on how to proceed

further in the meeting.

‘This is something that I want to

postpone to the second OSCT

meeting.’

Speeds up discussion, as it

support in gaining a shared

understanding of how to proceed

in the meeting

Burke et al. (2006)

DeChurch & Magnus-

Mesmer (2010)

Drucker (2010)

Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock (2012)

Summarizing

command

Summarizing what has been said, which is

followed up by a command which focuses

on what actions team members should take

or what information they should gather.

Thus, a command always concludes a topic

‘So we want to make sure that the

safety of the professionals on

scene is safe regarding the toxic

smoke. Fire department, you are

going to take care of that.’

Promotes effectively

implementing action plans, as

there is a shared and clear

understanding of the assigned

tasks.

Burke et al. (2006)

Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock (2012)

UitdeWilligen (2011)

2 The structuring behaviour ‘visualizing’ of (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012) is not included in the coding scheme, as each OSCT leader uses tools such as flip charts/hand-outs and

writes on the white board constantly during team meetings. Still, as it is found to have a positive influence on the team effectiveness, visualizing is described in paragraph 3.3.6. 3 The references which are written in italic are empiral evidence.

13

14

that had been raised and discussed

beforehand.

Summarizing

decision

Summarizing what has been said and the

decisions being made, which is followed by

the closure of a raised topic or problem.

Thus, a decision always concludes a topic

that had been raised and discussed

beforehand.

‘Okay, as we are anticipating a

national threat, we have decided

that we are going to GRIP 3.’

Promotes effectively

implementing action plans, as

there is a shared and clear

understanding of the decisions

made.

Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock (2012)

UitdeWilligen (2011)

Question with the use

of a name

Asking a question with the use of the

specific discipline or the first name of the

team member. Also, non-verbal actions such

as asking a question and making eye contact

and asking a question and pointing to the

specific person are coded.

‘Fire department, what do you

think?’

‘Peter, what do you think?’

‘What do you think?’ (points to

the specific person)

Promotes speaking up and

knowledge sharing, as it creates a

feeling of self-confidence within

the team member.

Edmondson (2012)

MacKay (2006)

Question with the use

of no name

Asking a question which did not include a

name of the team member or a reference to a

discipline.

‘How shall we approach this

problem?’

Creates confusion and

miscommunication which slows

down execution.

Edmondson (2012)

Question repetition Repeating a team member’s words.

Team member: ‘We found three

casualties and I saw a big fire.’

OSCT leader: ‘So there are three

casualties and there is a big fire.’

Promotes the feeling of self-

confidence of the team member,

which increases speaking up and

in turn, faster execution.

Edmondson (2012)

Mackay (2006)

Time management Giving reference to how much time is

needed and/or is remaining.

‘I want to take eight minutes for

this first OSCT meeting.’

‘We are taking longer than I

suspected.’

Increases the team members’

involvement, which leads to

greater perceptions of team

effectiveness.

Duncan (1973)

15

DeChurch & Magnus-Mesmer (2010) argue that clarifying is one of the key

responsibilities of the team leader when initiating structure. They state that team leaders play

a crucial role in clarifying how ‘‘key decisions alternatives are related to one another and

how they influence goal accomplishment’’ (DeChurch & Magnus-Mesmer, 2010, p. 528). If

team members better understand the task and how their actions are linked to the goal, it will

be far easier to lead the discussion and make action plans (Ancona et al., 2007; Burke et al.,

2006). ‘‘In a catastrophe, it is easy for everyone to become overwhelmed. A leader must be

able to break the catastrophe down into manageable pieces that everyone can understand, and

ensure that everyone understands what their role is’’ Van Wart & Kapucu (2011, p. 503-504).

This is in line with Gruenstein (2003), who argues that topic segmentation is found to have a

positive influence on the team effectiveness. Edmondson (2012) states that team members of

low level effective teams, rarely ask for clarification of each other’s statements or try to

understand possible disagreements. She argues for a team leader to clarify statements and to

encourage members to ask for clarifications as well (Edmondson, 2012). As unclarity can

obscure the real issues which in turn can promote lengthy debates (Edmondson, 2012; Cooke

& Szumal, 1994). This is especially important in the emergency management context, as

command-and-control teams have a high functional heterogeneity (Salas et al., 2001).

Benoliel & Somech (2014) argue that the higher the level of diversity in terms of expertise is,

the more difficult it becomes to reach decision consensus. They argue that different

perspectives, opinions and using jargon, resulting from the expertise diversity, may lead to an

information overload (Benoliel & Somech, 2014). Therefore, it is of vital importance that a

team leader is able to quickly identify crucial information and is able to clarify that

information in a common vocabulary (Salas et al., 2001), as wrong assumptions and/or

miscommunication in emergency management are found to lead to tensions and/or incorrect

decisions (Bristowe et al., 2012).

3.3.3. PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS – SUGGESTIONS / QUESTIONS

This structuring behaviour refers to giving suggestions or asking questions about how

to proceed further in the meeting (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). This will

support in gaining a shared understanding of how to proceed in the meeting (DeChurch &

Magnus-Mesmer, 2009). Giving procedural suggestions, which is defined by Burke et al.

(2006) as ‘clear initiation and organization of work group activity’ by the leader belongs to

directive leadership behaviour (Burke et al., 2006), which is leadership behaviour which is

found to be the most effective in emergency management context (Van Wart & Kapucu.,

16

2011). Drucker (2004, p. 20) argues for making procedural suggestions combined with clear

direction setting as a team leader prior, during and at the end of the meeting: ‘‘Good leaders

don’t raise another matter for discussion, they sum up and adjourn.’’

Findings in literature are conflicting on whether asking procedural questions are

promoting or decreasing the team’s effectiveness. Edmondson (2012) argues that asking

questions in how to proceed further in a meeting, has a positive influence on the team

members as it will enable a sense of ‘being heard’ by the team leader. She argues that this

feeling of trust of the team leader in the team member’s expertise or wishes, will increase the

willingness to share his ideas. Drucker (2004) on the other hand, argues that in case of a

meeting in which several or all members have to report, all forms of discussion should be

limited to only questions for clarification. He argues that at this kind of meetings, team

members should know the meeting format prior to the meeting and that there should be no

debate on that format during the meeting (Drucker, 2004). Team leaders should have clear,

pre-set procedures and should stick to it (Drucker, 2004). The OSCT also has a meeting

format which is known by all team members, namely the ‘B.O.B. structure’4 (Copi

Draaiboek, 2010). This is an abbreviation for first gaining an image of the task at hand, next

discussing possible solutions and finally, deciding on an action plan (Copi Draaiboek, 2010).

Devine (2002) argues that emergency management command-and-control teams often have

predetermined structures, as this facilitates a quick response. As team members already know

the meeting format prior to the meeting and due to the high time pressure, one might argue

that asking procedural questions and waiting for the answer might inhibit giving a quick

response.

3.3.4. SUMMARIZING

Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) define summarizing as summarizing the

results of the team meeting. Drucker (2004) argues for the importance of summarizing what

has been said in team meetings, as repeating collective decisions is found to have a positive

influence on the shared understanding of the task (Edmondson, 2012; MayKay, 2006). As

command-and-control teams have a high functional heterogeneity, it is of utmost important

that all team members understand what has been said and the decision being made (Benoliel

& Somech, 2014). Summarizing gives the opportunity to quickly repeat crucial information

and gives a clear overview what has been discussed so far (MacKay, 2006). Additionally, this

4 The B.O.B. structure is the Dutch abbreviation of ‘Beeldvorming, Oordeelsvorming and Besluitvorming’.

17

will give team members the opportunity to voice an opinion and ask questions. Duncan

(1973) argues that summarizing is the key to developing and achieving consensus on a plan.

3.3.5. QUESTION - NAME / NO NAME / REPETITION

Asking questions is defined as asking questions about opinions, context and/or

experience by Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012). In order to gain a shared

understanding of the task, it is of vital importance that people share their knowledge

(Bristowe et al., 2012). Team members must be encouraged to speak up, which team leaders

can do by asking questions directly by the use of a name and/or ask open questions to the

team with the use of no name (Mackay, 2006).

Edmondson (2012) argues for team leaders of hierarchical teams to ask team members

directly to share their individual held knowledge, especially from lower-status team members

who might otherwise be reluctant to speak. The commander-on-site of the fire department in

the OSCT might feel he has more expertise in crisis management in comparison with the

experience of the municipal public safety officer and hence, might monopolize meeting time.

In turn, lower-status team members can also experience hierarchically embedded fear, which

can result in concealing one’s thoughts (Edmondson, 2012). However, high status team

members are found to accept more influence on their decision from low status team members

in comparison with non-threatening environments (UitdeWilligen, 2014).

In any case, team leaders can ask questions directly to a team member by the use of a

name and/or discipline reference to counteract the chance of not speaking up. Edmondson

(2012) states that when a team member is directly asked for his opinion, this supports his

believe that the team leader values his input, which makes team members more responsive

(Edmondson, 2012). This is in line with the findings of Zijlstra, Waller & Philips (2012), who

argue that when all team members are actively participating in the meeting, this indicates

more reciprocity in the interaction (Zijlstraet al., 2012). Sheila Widnall, former U.S. secretary

of the Air Force, states that team leaders should have a direct and proactive attitude when it

comes to asking questions/stimulating team members: ‘‘The job of leaders is to draw others

out.’’ (Edmondson, 2012), which can be seen as a directive leadership behaviour (Burke et

al., 2006).

Finally, Drucker (2004, p. 36) states that team leaders should ‘‘listen first and speak

last’’ and that asking questions should be combined with active listening. Active listening

indicates making eye contact and nodding and/or saying ‘hmmh’ and/or literally repeating a

team members words (Drucker, 2004; Edmondson, 2012; MacKay, 2006). This is believed to

18

promote the feeling of self-confidence of the team member, which increases his willingness

to speak up and share his knowledge (Edmondson, 2012; MacKay, 2006). Listening actively

by literally repeating a team member’s words is defined by MacKay (2006) as ‘‘asking a

question in the form of repetition’’.

3.3.6. VISUALIZING

A well-designed meeting requires agenda use, a team leader and good facilities, such

as a meeting room, and the use of clarifying tools such as flip-charts (Duncan, 1996). Duncan

(1996) argued that when a team leader uses flip-charts and/or writes down a general overview

of what has been discussed, this has a positive influence on the team effectiveness. Command

teams are argued to rely heavily on sophisticated technology (Devine, 2002), so one might

argue that visualizing is especially important in the OSCT, as visualizing can enable team

members to gain an overview of the incident in a quick manner (Duncan, 1996). For example,

a team leader can e.g. draw the scene of the incident, the location of the shelter for the

wounded people, the location of the water bollards for the fire fighters, write down the

decisions being made etc.

3.3.7. TIME MANAGEMENT

Time management refers to stating how much time is needed at the beginning of the

meeting and giving updates on how much time is remaining (Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock, 2012). The members of the OSCT have only a short amount of time for the

meeting, before they return to their own disciplinary units to implement the decisions made.

Ending a meeting before the scheduled time, is found to have a positive influence on the team

effectiveness (Drucker, 2004). Drucker (2004) argues that team leaders should terminate the

meeting as soon as its specific purpose has been accomplished. Furthermore, longer meetings

are perceived as less effective than shorter ones when the agenda is not completed (Drucker,

2004) He argues that effective time management increases the team members’ involvement,

which eventually leads to greater perceptions of effectiveness.

3.4. BEHAVIOURAL PATTERNS

UitdeWilligen (2011) who studied behaviours of the OSCT, states that summarizing

can have an extra positive effect on the team effectiveness when it is combined with another

behaviour, such as a command or a decision or a proposal. As an impartial leader is believed

to have a positive effect on the team effectiveness, Nixon & Littlepage (1992) argue that a

19

team leader’s endorsement of a solution or proposal has a negative effect on the quality of

decision making in teams, and therefore the component ‘proposal’ is not included.

UitdeWilligen (2011) defined summarizing in the form of a command as ‘when a

team member told other team members what actions they should take or what information

they should gather’. When it is clear who does what, this will enable the successful

implementation of action plans (Burke et al., 2006). Summarizing in the form of a decision is

defined as ‘a decision which always concluded a topic that had been raised and discussed

beforehand’. Task distribution‘ refers to delegating tasks during discussions (Kauffeld &

Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Reader et al. (2011) agree that delegating tasks and/or making

decisions as a team leader has a positive influence on the team effectiveness. Reader et al.

(2011) argue that especially during a crisis, high level effective team leaders need to take on a

directive leadership style and assume decision-making authority in complex environments, in

comparison with low level effective team leaders. Due to the time pressure and size of a crisis

and all the decisions which have to be made, the team leader must delegate in a clear and

comprehensive manner (Van Wart & Kapucu.,2011). The combinations between

summarizing and a command/decision are therefore found to have a positive influence on the

team effectiveness (UitdeWilligen, 2011). Based on these findings, the question arises to

what extent other combinations of different types of structuring behaviour used by the team

leader might be functional or dysfunctional for the team effectiveness. This results in the

third related research question:

RQ – 3. Is there a difference in the combinations of different types of structuring

behaviour shown by the team leader in low and high level effective teams?

20

RESEARCH MODEL

Based on the findings described above, model 1 depicts a positive or negative relation with

team effectiveness.

Goal orientation

Clarifying

Procedural question

Procedural suggestion

Time management

Summarizing command

Summarizing decision

Question name

Question no name

Question repetition

TEAM

EFFECTIVENESS

Model 1. Research model structuring behaviour and team effectiveness

21

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. SETTING AND SAMPLE

In this field study, data is collected from 17 on-scene-command teams (OSCT), which

were observed during realistic OSCT simulation exercises of five different safety regions.

These simulation exercises require frequent participation and are regularly organized by the

different assistance units (e.g. fire department, the police, the medical care assistance unit).

The general purpose of the simulation exercises was to prepare team members for

emergency management tasks (Van der Haar et al., 2015). The task for the OSCT members

was to effectively coordinate their own assistance units and to effectively collaborate in the

OSCT during team meetings. The team members knew the purpose of the simulation

exercises, but they were not informed about the scenarios beforehand and there were no

interventions during the exercise. The simulation exercises were realistic, as the teams needed

to follow realistic procedures and each commander-on-site of the different disciplines was

represented in the OSCT. If the type of incident (e.g. level of difficulty, severity) required the

support and guidance of an impartial leader, the MKO members asked an impartial team

leader to join, which was present from the first OSCT meeting onwards.

The scene of the crisis was projected on a virtual screen, which could be explored by

the use of a joy stick and communication was done face-to-face or via walkie-talkies. Team

members were able to gather more information by asking questions to trainers, who were

portraying as field practitioners. The trainers provided them with information about the

development of the incident. Through this face-to-face interaction with team members, the

trainers were able to get insight in the effectiveness of the team. Based on the type of type of

questions asked by the team members, the scenario could change. The exercise scenarios

were therefore interactive to a certain extent.

4.2. PROCEDURE

The respondents received information regarding the exercise procedure prior to the

start of the exercise. The team members were placed in different rooms where they received

the call for assistance. After the call, the team members came together in a room where they

were able to see the crisis incident virtually. After about 20 minutes, the team members had

the MKO which had an average duration of 8 to 10 minutes. The number of OSCT meetings

was dependent on time constraints; based on the speed of the processes of the team, the team

could have a third meeting. This study focuses on the first OSCT meeting (n = 17) and on the

22

second OSCT meeting (n = 11). The MKO is not included in this study. After each

meeting(s), the commander-on-site of each discipline returned to coordinate their own

assistance unit, where they were able to gain new information regarding the development of

the crisis. The exercise had a duration of 75 min on average and was ended by the trainers.

Team members and the external raters filled out questionnaires about their

experiences prior to the exercise, after each meeting (MKO and OSCT) and after the

completion of the exercise in general. Critical success factors of the simulation exercise were

‘providing other members with the correct information concerning the situation, the speed of

the exercise and keeping the right GRIP level’ (Copi Draaiboek, 2010).

4.3. PARTICIPATING TEAMS

Each team had four to six members, with an average size of five persons. The possible

role of the participant was OSCT leader, Fire Officer, Police Officer, Medical Officer, Public

Safety Officer, Consultant Hazardous Substances and Public Relations Officer of the Police

Department. The average age of the respondents (n=102) was 45 years old (SD=7.8) and 67%

held a bachelor or higher degree. All teams consisted of Dutch members; 81% was male and

19% was female. The average experience of working in real-life emergencies was 13 times

(SD=14.6), and of participating in simulation exercises was 19 times (SD=17.4). The team

members have no or little experience working together (Van der Haar et al., 2014).

There were two scenarios which both concerned a fire in an electronics store

(Appendix I). Eleven teams participated in scenario A and six teams in scenario B.

4.4. MEASURES

Structuring behaviour. The data is collected from video recordings of the first and

second OSCT meeting, which ranged in time from eight to seventeen minutes. The behaviour

in the video recordings is coded via the coding scheme, which is presented in Table 1. As the

focus of this study is to identify and examine the specific structuring behaviours used by the

team leader, only the behaviour of the team leader is coded. In sum, the following structuring

behaviours are included in the coding scheme used in this study: ‘goal orientation’,

‘clarifying’, ‘procedural question’, ‘procedural suggestion’, ‘summarizing command’,

‘summarizing decision’, ‘question with the use of the name’, ‘question with the use of no

name’, ‘question repetition’ and ‘time management’ (UitdeWilligen, 2011; Kauffeld &

Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012).

The behaviour in the video recordings was coded via the program Observer XT 10,

which is coding software developed by Noldus information technology. Observer XT 10 is

23

a professional and complete manual event recorder for the collection, management, analysis

and presentation of observational data (Noldus Information Technology, 2011). The video

recordings are used to score the frequency of structuring behaviour of the team leader. A lag

sequential analysis was used in Observer to calculate the frequencies of combinations of the

structuring behaviours. Those frequencies were transported to Microsoft Excel and then to

SPSS for the analysis. The coding scheme used in this study is tested by another rater to

measure for coder inter-rater reliability: the Cohen’s Kappa (Table 2.). It is used to assess the

extent to which two raters agree over the classification of the behaviours into mutually

exclusive categories (Allan & Bennet, 2010). The other rater viewed 10% of the video

recordings. The Cohen’s Kappa was calculated twice and the combined results reflected a

high level of inter-rater agreement (K= .77).

Table 2. Inter-rater reliability scores

Summed statistics Values

Agreements 263

Disagreements 71

Proportion of agreements 0.79

Kappa 0.77

Rho 0.98

Team effectiveness. The effectiveness of the OSCT was externally rated by 15 raters who

took on the role of field practitioners, such as the commander of the fire department. In sum,

there were 31 team effectiveness ratings (1-4 raters per team, 10% women, 53% higher

educated, aged 32-59 years (M = 45.6, SD = 8.1), tenure of 3 – 45 years (M = 13.9, SD =

12.2) and working at different organizations: 30% fire department, 20% police, 13% disaster

medicine, 27% government, and 7% safety region, and 3% other, e.g. consultancy. All raters

had at least three years of experience in emergency management, were all educated for a

function in emergency management or had a present function which could be related to

training and development. The raters which did not fulfil the latter criteria had a higher

education level.

The emergency management team effectiveness rating scale (Appendix II) was used,

which consists of the three factors quality of actions (e.g. ‘On scene safety of professionals is

taken into account’; M = 5.70, SD = 0.74, α = .92)), goal achievement (e.g. ‘There is a fast

stabilization’ M = 5.36, SD = 0.84, α = .93), and error rate (e.g. ‘There is no unnecessary

damage’ M = 5.06, SD = 0.79, α = .64). The response scale ranged from ‘1’ (‘‘strongly

disagree’’) to 7 (‘‘strongly agree’’). The external ratings were aggregated into team scores for

quality of actions, goal achievement and error rate. Quality of actions and goal achievement

were supported by the Rwg scores and the ICC (1) and (2) scores, but the error rate was not

(Table 3). These scores showed that there was an acceptable level of inter-rater agreement

and inter-rater reliability for quality of actions and goal achievement (Lebreton & Senter,

2008). The error rate did not differ more between teams than within teams and is therefore

not included in the data analysis. The scores on quality of actions and goal achievement were

binned together in teams of low level effectiveness and high level effectiveness. The cut-off

point for quality of actions was ≥7 and for goal achievement ≥6.

Table 3. Aggregation indices

M

SD α rWG ICC(1) ICC(2)

Quality of

actions

5.67

.81 .88 .94 .29 .42

Goal

achievement

5.24

.97 .89 .90 .11 .18

Error rate 4.83 .95 .85 .85 -.37 -.95

24

5. RESULTS

DIFFERENCES IN LOW AND HIGH LEVEL EFFECTIVE TEAMS

Descriptive statistics, inter-correlations, internal consistencies of the scales of meeting

1 are presented in Table 4 and of meeting 2 in Table 5.

Table 4. Descriptives & correlations (Meeting 1)5

BEHAVIOUR M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Goal orientation 8,41 2,67 -

Clarifying 11,29 4,06 ,524* -

Procedural question 2,18 1,51 0,182 0,073 -

Procedural suggestion 5,24 1,44 0,217 0,084 0,008 -

Summarizing command 4,82 2,77 ,485* ,581* -0,199 -0,021 -

Question repetition 5,06 1,56 ,619** -,589* -0,396 0,2 ,589* -

Summarizing decision 6,06 2,54 -0,051 -0,052 -0,323 0,105 0,394 0,205 -

Question name 15,76 5 ,522* ,674** -0,168 -0,313 ,533* ,647** 0,058 -

Question no name 5,76 2,8 -0,279 -0,71 0,41 0,108 -

0,289 -0,442 -0,054

-

,495* -

Time management 1,41 1,33 0,2 0,081 -0,07 -0,054 0,29 0,123 -0,043 -

0,173 0,129 -

Goal achievement

(binned) 1,47 0,51 0,374 0,393 0,062 0,03 0,271 0,278 -0,427 0,335

-

0,324 0,197 (.846)

Quality of actions

(binned) 1,41 0,51 0,26 0,379 0,062 0,094 0,456 ,545* 0,041 0,288

-

0,266 0,156 0,408 (.852)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5. Descriptives & correlations (Meeting 2)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5 To measure for high correlations between variables for meeting 1 and 2, the multicollinearity was measured via VIF. All

variables, except for ‘Question name’ (VIF 7,156), had a VIF score > 5, which indicates that multicollinearity would not

interfere with the ability to interpret the outcomes of the analysis.

BEHAVIOUR M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Goal orientation 5 2,4 -

Clarifying 7,9 3,78 0,384 -

Procedural question 0,36 0,5 0,082 -0,086 -

Procedural suggestion 5,45 1,81 -0,115 0,153 -0,309 -

Summarizing command 2,36 1,03 ,728* 0,499 0,105 0,064 -

Question repetition 15,27 3 0,014 ,742** 0,126 0,546 0,224 -

Summarizing decision 3,63 1,12 0,148 -0,268 0,257 -0,157 -0,308 -0,086 -

Question name 13,09 4,23 -0,373 -0,175 -0,064 -0,045 -0,423 0,14 0,388 -

Question no name 3,82 2,14 0,505 0,431 -0,304 0,075 ,671** 0,04 -0,239

-

,629* -

Time management 0,63 0,67 0,185 0,064 0,134 -0,261 -0,079 -0,242 -0,06 -

0,233 0,158 -

Goal achievement

(binned) 1,41 0,51 -0,159 ,534* -0,069 0,346 0,153 ,788** -0,14 0,066 0,008 -0,516 (.846)

Quality of actions

(binned) 1,47 0,51 -0,398 -0,023 ,828** 0,452 -0,407 0,087 -0,14 0,428

-

0,171 -0,232 0,408 (.852)

25

A Mann-Whitney U test (Table 6) was used to calculate if there was a significant difference

in the frequency of structuring behaviours in low and high level effective teams in meeting 1.

Teams which score low on goal achievement had a significant higher frequency of ‘asking

procedural questions’ (p = .046) in comparison with teams which score high on goal

achievement. Teams which score high on goal achievement had significant higher scores on

‘summarizing command’ ( p = .027).

Table 6. Comparison of structuring behaviours means on goal achievement (Meeting 1)

HIGH (n=7) LOW (n=10)

BEHAVIOUR MEAN MEAN Mann-Whitney U p

Goal orientation 10,5 7,67 24 0,277

Clarifying 11,06 7,17 19,5 0,114

Procedural question 6,44 11,28 15,5 ,046*

Procedural suggestion 9,25 8,78 34 0,888

Summarizing command 11,88 6,44 13 ,027*

Summarizing decision 11,5 6,78 16 0,059

Question name 9,5 8,56 32 0,743

Question no name 10,63 7,56 23 0,236

Question repetition 8,31 9,61 30,5 0,587

Time management 9,69 8,39 30,5 0,606 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7. Comparison of structuring behaviours means on quality of actions (Meeting 1)

HIGH (n=7) LOW (n=10)

BEHAVIOUR MEAN MEAN Mann-Whitney U p

Goal orientation 11,5 7,25 17,5 0,085

Clarifying 11,5 7,25 17,5 0,083

Procedural question 8,6 8,6 31 0,679

Procedural suggestion 9,21 8,85 33,5 0,881

Summarizing command 11,07 7,55 20,5 0,149

Summarizing decision 11 7,6 21 0,168

Question name 6,64 10,65 18,5 0,101

Question no name 11 7,6 21 0,166

Question repetition 7 10,4 21 0,161

Time management 10,14 8,2 27 0,400 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A Mann-Whitney U test (Table 7) indicated that there are no significant difference in

the frequency of structuring behaviour in teams with high quality of actions, compared to

teams with low quality of actions in meeting 1.

A Mann-Whitney U test (Table 8) indicated that teams which score low on goal

achievement also had a significant higher frequency of ‘asking procedural questions’ (p =

.030) in meeting 2, in comparison with teams which score high on goal achievement. Teams

26

which score high on quality of actions, have a higher frequency of using ‘summarizing

command’ in the second meeting compared to teams which score low on quality of actions (p

= .009) (Table 9).

Table 8. Comparison of structuring means on goal achievement (Meeting 2)

HIGH (n=5) LOW (n=6)

BEHAVIOUR MEAN MEAN Mann-Whitney U p

Goal orientation 5,08 7,1 9,5 0,329

Clarifying 5,75 6,3 13,4 0,729

Procedural question 4 8,4 3 ,030*

Procedural suggestion 7,08 4,7 8,5 0,247

Summarizing command 5 7,2 9 0,329

Summarizing decision 6,58 5,3 11,5 0,537

Question name 5,58 6,5 12,5 0,662

Question no name 6,67 5,2 11 0,537

Question repetition 5,83 6,2 14 0,931

Time management 5,17 7 10 0,429 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 9. Comparison of structuring means on quality of actions (Meeting 2)

HIGH (n=5) LOW (n=6)

BEHAVIOUR MEAN MEAN Mann-Whitney U p

Goal orientation 5,83 6,2 14 0,931

Clarifying 7,58 4,1 5,5 0,082

Procedural question 5,83 6,2 14 0,931

Procedural suggestion 7 4,8 9 0,329

Summarizing command 6,5 5,4 12 0,662

Summarizing decision 8,33 3,2 1 ,009*

Question name 5,67 6,4 13 0,792

Question no name 6,17 5,8 14 0,931

Question repetition 6,67 5,2 11 0,537

Time management 4,67 7,6 7 0,177 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

FREQUENCY DIFFERENCES OVER TIME

A Mann-Whitney U test (Table 10) indicates that high level effective teams have significant

less ‘goal orientation’ (p = .008), less ‘procedural questions’ (p = .005) and less

‘summarizing command’ (p = .007) in meeting 2 in comparison with meeting 1. High level

effective teams have a higher frequency of ‘clarifying’ in meeting 2, compared to meeting 1

(p = .007).

27

With regard to the second meeting, a Mann-Whitney U test (Table 11) indicated that

‘clarifying’ also increases in meeting 2 in low level effective team meetings, in comparison

with meeting 1 p = .032). ‘Asking procedural questions’ decreases for low level effective

teams in meeting 2 compared to meeting 1 (p = .005).

Table 10. Difference frequency structuring behaviour high level effective teams over time

HIGH (n=7) HIGH (n=5)

BEHAVIOUR MEAN MEAN MANN-

WHITNEY U p

Goal orientation 8 3 0 .008*

Clarifying 3 8 0 .007*

Procedural question 8 3 0 .005*

Procedural suggestion 4.20 6.9 6 .159

Summarizing command 8 3 0 .007*

Summarizing decision 5.30 5.70 11.5 .833

Question name 7.20 3.80 4 .068

Question no name 6.60 4.40 7 .243

Question repetition 7 4 5 .104

Time management 6.8 4.2 6 .126 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 11. Difference frequency structuring behaviour low level effective teams over time

LOW (n=10) LOW (n=6)

BEHAVIOUR MEAN MEAN MANN-

WHITNEY U P

Goal orientation 7.6 4.67 7 .140

Clarifying 3.7 7.92 3.5 .032*

Procedural question 9 3.5 0 .005*

Procedural suggestion 7.6 4.67 7 .131

Summarizing command 7.5 4.75 7.5 .162

Summarizing decision 7.3 4.92 8.5 .230

Question name 7.3 4.92 8.5 .226

Question no name 7.4 4.83 8 .201

Question repetition 7.5 4.75 7.5 .162

Time management 6.6 5.5 12 .568

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

BEHAVIOURAL PATTERNS

A Mann-Whitney U test (Table 12) indicated significant differences in the use of

behavioural patterns of specific structuring behaviours in meeting 1 for high level effective

teams (n = 7) and low level effective teams (n = 10). High level effective teams have a higher

frequency of ‘goal orientation’ followed by ‘clarifying’ (p = .052). ‘Summarizing command’

is more frequent followed by ‘clarifying’ (p = .003), in comparison with low level effective

28

teams. ‘Summarizing command’ is also followed by the same ‘summarizing command’ more

often in high level effective teams (p = .027) and by ‘summarizing decision’ (p = .011). High

level effective teams have a higher frequency of ‘question name’ followed by ‘question

name’ (p = .027). Low level effective teams more often follow ‘question no name’ with the

same ‘question no name’ (p = .015).

A Mann-Whitney U test indicated no significant differences in the use of behavioural

follow-ups of specific structuring behaviours in meeting 2 for high and low level effective

teams.

Table 12. Behavioural patterns structuring behaviours meeting 1

HIGH

(n=7)

LOW

(n=10)

BEHAVIOUR FOLLOW-UP MEAN MEAN

MANN-

WHITNEY U p

Goal orientation Clarifying 11.71 7.10 16.00 .050*

Summarizing command Clarifying 13.14 6.10 6.00 .003**

Summarizing command Summarizing command 12.00 6.90 14.00 .027*

Summarizing command Summarizing decision 12.07 6.85 13.50 .011*

Question name Question name 10.71 7.8 20.00 .027*

Question no name Question no name 9.71 8.5 14.00 .015* *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Note: due to the magnitude of results on behavioural patterns in meeting 1 and meeting 2(>200), only the significant results are discussed

and depicted.

29

6. CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to provide insight in the specific structuring behaviours

used by low and high level effective emergency management command-and-control team

leaders. Among other scholars, Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) argued that

effective team leaders can use certain behaviours to bring structure in a team. This is argued

to speed up discussion (Burke et al., 2006; Drucker, 2010), to facilitate the attainment of

meeting objectives (Burke et al., 2006; Edmondson, 2012; Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock, 2012), to promote speaking up (Edmondson, 2012), and to increase

involvement and self-confidence in team members (Duncan, 1996; Edmondson, 2012;

MacKay, 2006). By using additional literature on leading teams in emergency management

command-and-control teams, the behaviours of Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012)

were made specific for this study. Support was found for differences in the frequency of

using specific structuring behaviours by high level effective team leaders in comparison with

low level effective team leaders. As team processes are seen as unfolding over time (Li &

Roe, 2012), consecutive meetings were observed and analysed to see if structuring behaviour

decreases or increases over time. Finally, a sequential analysis was conducted to investigate

whether high level effective leaders use certain combinations of behaviours more or less in

comparison with low level effective leaders.

DIFFERENCES IN HIGH AND LOW LEVEL EFFECTIVE TEAMS

As Devine (2002) already indicated; knowing a meeting format prior to the start of the

meeting, increases giving a quick response to a complex environment. This finding is

confirmed in this study, as a positive relation is found between low level effective team

leaders asking more often ‘procedural questions’ in comparison with high level effective

team leaders in meeting 1, as well as in meeting 2. In simulation exercises, team members

were observed straying from the topic and were talking simultaneously as a result of asking

procedural questions. This enabled lengthy monologues and in turn, cost valuable meeting

time. Furthermore, results suggest that high level effective team leaders use more

‘summarizing command’ in comparison with low effective team leaders in meeting 1. This

result is in line by the statements of Van Wart & Kapucu (2011), who argued that high level

effective team leaders in emergency management context use more directive leadership

behaviours. Giving a summary prior to a command is found to increase the shared

understanding of the task as there is no confusion on who does what (Reader et al., 2011;

UitdeWilligen, 2011).

30

With regards to meeting 2, ‘summarizing decision’ was more often used by effective

team leaders who score high on quality of actions, in comparison with team leaders who

score low on quality of actions. This is in line with the findings of UitdeWilligen (2011), who

argue that the combination between summarizing and a command/decision is found to have a

positive influence on the team effectiveness (UitdeWilligen, 2011).

All specific structuring behaviours used by the team leader were expected to have an

effect on team effectiveness, however, much to surprise, most structuring behaviours were

not significantly related. This might be explained by the expectation that a shared

understanding of the task/ knowledge sharing, mediates the relationship between structuring

behaviour and team effectiveness. Knowledge sharing is defined by DeCuyper, Dochy & Van

den Bossche (2010, p. 116) as: ‘‘the process of communicating knowledge, competencies,

opinions or creative thoughts of one team member to other team members, who were not

previously aware that these were present in the team’’. Van der Haar, Segers, Jehn & Van

den Bossche (2015) indicated the relevance of a shared understanding in emergency

management command-and-control teams in their study. They found support for the relation

between team learning and a shared understanding, and a relation between a shared

understanding and team effectiveness, but no support for a direct relation between team

learning and team effectiveness. Zaccaro et al. (2001) found that a shared understanding of

the task mediates the influence of leadership on team coordination and team performance.

These findings indicate the relevance of a shared understanding and its possible mediating

effect. Future researchers are therefore encouraged to investigate whether a shared

understanding/knowledge sharing has a mediating role between structuring behaviour and

team effectiveness.

STRUCTURING BEHAVIOUR OVER TIME

The frequency of ‘goal orientation’, ‘procedural questions’ and ‘summarizing

commands’ decreases in the second meeting for high level effective teams. Low level

effective teams ask less procedural questions in the second meeting. These findings might be

explained by the fact that the first OSCT meeting focuses on delegating tasks and coming up

with a plan of action (Salas et al., 2001). In the second OSCT meeting, processes are often

already initiated and plans are already being implemented. This might explain why ‘goal

orientation’, ‘procedural questions’ and ‘summarizing commands’ decreases significantly for

high level effective teams in the second meeting, as it is simply no longer needed that often.

31

Additionally, Aitken et al. (2012) stated that a team leader should adapt his leadership

style/behaviour to the different phases of the emergency. Based on the findings of this study,

it is argued that the frequency of initiating structure also changes over time. This is in line

with findings of Sarin & McDermott (2003), who argue that team leaders should adjust the

level of initiating structure to the current needs of the team. They state that constantly high

frequencies of structuring behaviours can also extinguish creative problem-solving (Sarin &

McDermott, 2003). In light of this statement, one might argue that high level effective team

leaders who already had high frequencies of structuring behaviour in meeting 1, can reduce

their efforts in meeting 2, which promotes the level of problem-solving and in turn, the team

effectiveness.

BEHAVIOUR FOLLOW-UP IN HIGH AND LOW LEVEL EFFECTIVE TEAMS

High level effective team leaders were found to combine ‘goal orientation’ with

‘clarifying’ more often in comparison with low level effective team leaders. During

simulation exercises, effective OSCT leaders were observed to first state the meeting

objectives and/or the goal of a specific phase and next, explain the thought behind the

meeting objectives. These findings are consistent with research on ‘goal-setting theory’ (e.g.

Locke & Latham, 1990). Team members are more committed if they understand how their

own actions are linked to the goal of the team (Locke & Latham, 1990). In line with this

thought, Sarin & McDermott (2003) argue that team leaders should not only have clear goal

setting in a team, but also should outline the procedures, activities and task on how to

accomplish these goals. They argue that understanding the process of how to get the goal,

increases the development of creative ideas (Sarin & McDermott, 2003).

Furthermore, ‘summarizing command’ is more often followed by ‘clarifying’ by high

level effective team leaders. These results are corresponding with the findings of Van Wart &

Kapucu (2011), as they argue that team leaders must make sure that decisions and/or

commands in teams, must be made as comprehensively and clear as possible. Bristowe et al.

(2011) argue that this can be done by the use of explaining the value and/or the meaning of

such a command and/or decision to the team member, which one might argue which can be

defined as the behaviour ‘clarifying’ of Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012). Sarin &

McDermott (2003) argue that if a team leader is able to make team members understand why

they or others get assigned a certain task, team members will be more committed to perform.

32

7. LIMITATIONS & DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There were significant results found for the relation between some specific structuring

behaviours and team effectiveness, which can be seen as promising. An explanation for the

lack of support for the other structuring behaviours and the combinations between

behaviours, can possibly be found in the small sample size: meeting 1 (n = 17) and meeting 2

(n = 11). It is recommended to confirm the findings of this study in future research with an

increased sample size and to possibly find more support for the relation between structuring

behaviours and team effectiveness. Additionally, as teams are found to evolve over time (Li

& Roe, 2012) and team leaders are encouraged to change their roles to the different phases of

the crisis (Aitken et al., 2010; DeRue & Morgeson, 2012), future researchers are encouraged

to also include consecutive meetings. If future researchers include as many meetings at the

different moments in time as in the present study, this will enable a comparison of the

absolute frequencies and a possible confirmation of the results in a bigger sample size.

Furthermore, the participants had to fill in questionnaires after each meeting during

the simulation exercise, which focused on (1) Cooperation and communication (‘In this

meeting, team members listened to each other’), (2) Gaining an image of the task at hand

(‘All team members hold the same view on the incident’) and (3) Decisions (‘The decisions

made are based on set priorities’). This data is not included in the research. As filling in

questionnaires is a reflective activity, one might argue that team leaders might adjust their

behaviour based on their own reflection (e.g. regarding meeting satisfaction, feedback from

others, personal experience) (Edmondson, 2012). As effective leaders are found to develop

over time and to adjust their behaviour and leadership style to the current phase of the

emergency (Aitken et al., 2010; DeRue & Morgeson, 2012), one might argue that reflection-

in-action could influence that development. It is therefore recommended for future research

to incorporate data of ‘reflection-in-action’ during simulation exercises. This data is believed

to enrich the understanding of the team leader’s reflection on the team processes and to what

extent this reflection influences the possible adjustment of behaviour.

8. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study indicate that some specific structuring behaviours by the team

leader in emergency management command-and-control teams can benefit the effectiveness

of the team in terms of goal achievement and quality of actions. The specific structuring

behaviours identified in this research, support practitioners in training design and/or

assessment tools. This study gives a clear overview of what structuring behaviours are found

to be effective in meeting 1 and meeting 2 of the OSCT. Also certain combinations between

behaviours are found to be positively related with the team effectiveness. Team leaders

should be made aware of the importance of initiating structure in a team and should be given

the opportunity to train on (1) using specific structuring behaviours, (2) knowing when to use

which behaviour in what meeting, and (3) making combinations between behaviours. Finally,

as results suggest that task-focused leadership is most effective in this context, team leaders

should be trained on assuming a directive role while leading the OSCT.

33

9. REFERENCES

Allan, P. & Bennet, K. (2010). PASW Statistics by SPSS. A Practical Guide. Version 18.0.

Australia: Cengage Learning.

Ancona, D., Malone, T., Orlikowski, W., & Senge, P. (2007). In Praise of the Incomplete

Leader. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 92 - 100.

Aitken, P., Leggat, P., Robertson, A., Harley, H., Speare, R., Muriel, G. & Leclercq, B.

(2012). Leadership and Use of Standards by Australian Disaster Medical Assistance

Teams: Results of a National Survey of Team Members Peter Aitken. Prehospital

Disaster Medicine, 27(2):142 - 147.

Benoliel, P., & Somech, A. (2014). The Role of Leader Boundary Activities in Enhancing

Interdisciplinary Team Effectiveness. Small Group Research, DOI:

10.1177/1046496414560028.

Bristowe, K., Siassakos, D., Hambly, H., Angouri, J., Yelland, A. & Draycott, T. & Fox, R.

(2012). Teamwork for Clinical Emergencies: Interprofessional Focus Team Analysis

and Triangulation With Simulation. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1383–1394.

Burke, C., Stagl, K., Klein, C., Goodwin, G., Salas, E. & Halpin, S. (2006). What

type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The leadership

quarterly, 17(3), 288 - 307.

Castellan, J. (1993). Individual and Team Decision Making: Current Issues. New Jersey,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooke, R.& Szumal, J. (1994). The Impact of Team Interaction Styles on Problem-solving

Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 30, 415 – 137.

Cooper, S., Endacott, R., & Cant, R. (2010). Measuring Non-Technical Skills in Medical

Emergency Care: a Review of Assessment Measures. Open Access Emerg Med, 2, 7-

16.

COPI Draaiboek. (2010). Draaiboek oefening “Expert in paniek ”. Veiligheidsregio Gooi

& Vechtstreek.

DeChurch, L. A., Burke, C. S., Shuffler, M. L., Lyons, R., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (2011). A

historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. The

leadership quarterly, 22(1), 152 – 169.

35

DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). Measuring shared team mental models: A

meta-analysis. Team Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(1), 1.

DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in Multiteam Systems.Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91(2), 311 – 329.

Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the Dynamic Complexity

of Team Learning: An Integrative Model for Effective Team Learning in

Organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111 - 133.

DeRue, D. S., Barnes, C. M., & Morgeson, F. P. (2010). Understanding the Motivational

Contingencies of Team Leadership. Small Group Research, 41(5), 621 - 651.

Drucker, P. F. (2004). What Makes an Effective Executive. Harvard Business Review, 82(6).

Edmondson, A. (2012). Teaming. How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the

Knowledge Economy. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ericksen, J., & Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team

events on subsequent project team development and performance.Administrative

Science Quarterly, 49(3), 438 - 471.

Fleishman, E., Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Levin, K., Korotkin, A. , & Hein, M.

B. (1992). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and

functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245 - 287.

Goleman, D. (2003). What Makes a Leader? New York, ME Sharpe,.

Helsloot, I., Martens, S., & Scholtens, A. (2010). Basisboek Regionale Crisisbeheersing. Een

Praktische Reader voor Functionarissen in de Regionale Crisisorganisatie. Arnhem:

Nederlands Instituut Fysieke Veiligheid Nibra.

Huckman, R., Staats., B. & Upton, D. (2008). Team Familiarity, Role Experience, and

Performance: Evidence from Indian Software Services. Management Science, 55(1),

85 – 100.

Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings Matter, Effects of Team

Meetings on Team and Organizational Success. Small Team Research, 43(2), 130 -

158.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). What Leaders Really Do. In ‘On Leadership. HBR’s 10 Must Reads’, 37

55. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Lalonde, C. (2004). In Search of Archetypes in Crisis Management. Journal of

Contiguencies and Crisismanagement, 12(2), 76 - 88.

36

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability

and Interrater Agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815 - 852.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

MacKay, I. (2006). 40 Checklists for Managers and Team Leaders. Gower: Wales.

Mankins, M. (2004). Stop Wasting Valuable Time. Harvard Business Review,82(9), 58-67

Marks, M., Mathieu, J. & Zaccaro, S. (2001). A Temporally Based Framework and

Taxonomy of Team Processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356 – 376.

Nixon, C. & Littlepage, G. (1992). Impact of meeting procedures on meeting

effectiveness. Journal of Business & Psychology, 6(3), 361 – 369.

Okhuysen, G. & Eisenhardt, K. (2002). Integrating knowledge in Groups: How Formal

Interventions Enable Flexibility. Organization Science, 13, 370 – 386.

Salas, E., Burke, C. & Samman, S. (2001). Understanding Command and Control Teams

Operating in Complex Environments. Information, Knowledge, Systems

Management, 2 (4), 311- 323.

Sarin, S. & McDermott, C. (2003). The Effect of Team Leader Characteristics on Learning,

Knowledge Application, and Performance of Cross-Functional New Product

Development Teams. Decision Sciences, 34 (4), 707 – 739.

Reader, T. and Flin, R. & Cuthbertson, B. (2011) Team Leadership in the

Intensive Care Unit: the Perspective of Specialists. Critical care medicine, 39 (7),

1683 - 1691.

Uitdewilligen, S. (2011). A Communication Perspective on Team Situation

Awareness: A Videoanalysis Study of Emergency Management Command Teams at

the Port of Rotterdam. Team Adaptation. Maastricht.

Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team

Learning: Building Shared Mental Models. Instructional Science, 39(3), 283-301

Van der Haar, S., Segers, M., Jehn, K. & Van den Bossche, P. (2015). Investigating the

Relation Between Team Learning and the Team Situation Model. Small Group

Research, 46 (1), 50 – 82.

37

Van Der Haar, S., Wijenbergh, B., Van Den Bossche, P. & Segers, M. (2014). Team

Learning Behaviour: A Study in the Context of Command-and-Control Teams. Paper

presented at Symposium Different Approaches towards Studying Team Learning

Processes: What Can We Learn from Combined Experiences, Oslo (1-35).

Van Der Haar, S., Segers, M. & Jehn, K. (2013). Measuring the Effectiveness of Emergency

Management Teams: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Emergency

Management, 9 (3), 258-275.

Van Der Vegt, G. & Bunderson, J. (2005). Learning and performance in

multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of

Management Journal, 48(3), 532 - 547.

Wart, M. van & Kapucu, N. (2011). Crisis Management Competencies. The Case of

Emergency Managers in the USA. Public Management Review, 13(4), 489 – 511.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2002). Team leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12(4), 451 - 483.

Zijlstra, F., Waller, M., & Phillips, S. (2012). Context the tone: Early interaction patterns in

Swift-starting teams as a Predictor of Effectiveness. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 21(5), 749 - 777.

38

APPENDIX I Scenarios simulation exercises

Scenario A. There is a huge fire in an electronics store, which is quickly expanding within

the building. There are eighteen people present in the building. On the second floor a sewing

workplace is located and eight apartments are located on the third floor. It is presumed that

the fire was started on purpose, as bystanders heard a loud bang and saw a black car driving

away. The owner of the electronics store is known at the Police department, as he is possibly

linked to a Turkish revolutionary liberation team. The possible present roles in this scenario

were: OSCT leader, Fire Officer, Police Officer, Medical Officer and Public Safety Officer.

Scenario B. A Molotov cocktail caused a huge fire in an electronics store, which is quickly

expanding within the building. In the building 44 people are present during the time of the

incident of which sixteen people are missing. On the second floor, a sewing workplace, a

kitchen studio and a marijuana plantation are located. The third floor consists of eight

apartments. It is presumed that the missing sixteen people fled the scene of the incident as

they are probably illegal immigrants. Due to the smoke, people are not able to return to their

homes. The possible present roles in this exercise were: OSCT leader, Fire Officer, Police

Officer, Medical Officer, Public Safety Officer and Consultant Hazardous Substances.

39

APPENDIX II Team effectiveness scale

(derived from the study of Van der Haar et al., 2013)

Quality of actions

- The coordination of the own unit is tuned with the coordination of the other units.

- The actions on scene are justified.

- The actions on scene are adequate.

- The actions on scene are coordinated.

- On scene safety of professionals is taken into account.

- On scene safety of civilians/companies is taken into account.

Goal achievement

- The source is diminished efficiently and effectively.

- The crisis is controlled.

- There is a fast stabilization.

- Stabilization happened safely.

Error rate

- There are no unnecessary victims.

- There is no unnecessary damage.

- Based on what is happening and what has happened; press can be positive.

40

APPENDIX III Official statement of original thesis

By signing this statement, I hereby acknowledge the submitted paper/report/thesis*, titled:

……………………………………………………………………………………….. to be

produced independently by me, without external help. Wherever I paraphrase or cite literally,

a reference to the original source (journal, book, report, internet, etc.) is given. By signing

this statement, I explicitly declare that I am aware of the fraud sanctions as stated in the

Education and Examination Regulations (EERs) of the SBE.

Place: …………………………………………………………………………………………..

Date: ………………………………………………………………………………………….

First name & last name: ………………………………………………………………………

Study programme: ……………………………………………………………………………

Course/skill: ………………………………………………………………………………….

ID number: ……………………………………………………………………………………

Signature: …………………………………………………………………………………….

*strikethrough the subjects that are not applicable

41