Cross-Understanding in Groups: How to “Cross Over” Without “Dying”

Abstract

Academy of Management ReviewVol. 36, No. 2 DialogueCross-Understanding in Groups: How to “Cross Over” Without “Dying”Brandon Randolph-Seng and J. Ian NorrisBrandon Randolph-SengTexas Tech UniversityMurray State University and J. Ian NorrisTexas Tech UniversityMurray State UniversityPublished Online:1 Apr 2011https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0177AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCESHogg M. A., Terry D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25: 121–140.Link , Google ScholarHogg M. A., Turner J. C., Davidson B. 1990. Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11: 77–100. Google ScholarHuber G. P., Lewis K. 2010. Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35: 6–26.Link , Google ScholarMiller D. T., Prentice D. A. 1994. Collective errors and errors about the collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20: 541–550. Google ScholarNeilson G. L., Martin K. L., Powers E. 2009. The secrets to successful strategy execution. Harvard Business Review, 87(2): 60–70. Google ScholarRandolph-Seng B., Casa De Calvo M. P., Zacchilli T. L., Cottle J. L. 2010. Shared cognitions and shared theories: Telling more than we can know by ourselves? Journal of Scientific Psychology, December: 25–35. Google ScholarRoss L., Greene D., House P. 1977. The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13: 279–301. Google ScholarUleman J. S., Saribay S. A., Gonzalez C. M. 2008. Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 329–360. Google ScholarWilson T. D., Lindsey S., Schooler T. Y. 2000. A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107: 101–126. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byBreakdowns in Implementing Models of Organization ChangeAndrew H. Van de Ven and Kangyong Sun30 November 2017 | Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 3 Vol. 36, No. 2 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 1 April 2011 Published in print 1 April 2011 Information© Academy of Management ReviewKeywordsGROUP decision makingCOGNITION -- ResearchCOMPREHENSIONORGANIZATIONAL behaviorDECISION making -- ResearchMENTAL models theory (Communication)MANAGEMENTWe thank Darcy A. Reich for helpful comments on an earlier draft of these remarks.Download PDF