Threshold Conditions for Collective Mind in Project Teams: An NCA Study of Multidisciplinary Coordination

Threshold Conditions for Collective Mind in Project Teams: An NCA Study of Multidisciplinary Coordination | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Threshold Conditions for Collective Mind in Project Teams: An NCA Study of Multidisciplinary Coordination Samuel Johnson Ogundipe This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9160849/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study explores how temporary and multidisciplinary project teams enact collective mind to support coordinated action and reduce implementation errors. In intraorganizational settings, collective mind is traditionally understood through three dimensions: representing, contributing, and subordinating. However, to reflect the behavioural and multi-contextual realities of cross-boundary collaborations, this study reconceptualises subordinating as compliance and contributing as we-centric contribution. It also introduces two additional dimensions, namely, shared understanding and coordination. Data were collected from 31 professionals across three construction project teams in the UK, offering a rich empirical context for examining cognitive and behavioural dynamics in temporary settings. Using Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), the study identifies non-compensatory thresholds that must be met for collective mind to emerge. The analysis is conducted at the individual level to reflect the distributed nature of cognitive enactments within teams, consistent with compilation models in team cognition research. Findings reveal a hierarchy of necessity: compliance is indispensable even at low levels of collective mind, while coordination and representing become necessary at moderate levels. Shared understanding and we-centric contribution are only required when high levels of collective mind are targeted. These results challenge additive models of team cognition and support a configurational view of cognitive infrastructure as emergent and dynamic. The study contributes to theory by refining the conceptualisation of collective mind and demonstrating the utility of NCA in identifying bottleneck conditions in dynamic and multidisciplinary settings. Practically, it offers a resource-sensitive roadmap for managing coordination and cognitive alignment in temporary teams. Management Marketing multidisciplinary project teams collective mind team cognition coordination Necessary Condition Analysis error reduction Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction Temporary and multidisciplinary project teams are increasingly relied upon to execute complex, high-stakes tasks across diverse domains (Allen & O’Neill, 2015 ; Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Yet, their transient nature and structural fluidity raise a fundamental theoretical puzzle: how do such teams develop the cognitive infrastructure necessary to act collectively and reduce implementation errors? This puzzle is particularly salient in contexts where reliability and precision are paramount, such as healthcare, aviation, and emergency response (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011 ; Faraj & Xiao, 2006 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). While existing research has illuminated the role of shared mental models (Grand et al., 2016 ; Mohammed et al., 2017 ), transactive memory system (Peltokorpi, 2014 ), team cognition (Cooke et al., 2024 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ), and knowledge emergence (Allen & O’Neill, 2015 ) in enabling coordinated action, these insights often assume stable team membership and enduring organisational boundaries (Mohammed et al., 2017 , 2021 ; Niler et al., 2021 ). Such assumptions are misaligned with the realities of temporary, cross-boundary teams, where cognitive alignment must be rapidly constructed and sustained under conditions of temporal pressure and structural discontinuity (Braun et al., 2020 ; Cooke et al., 2024 ; Grand et al., 2016 ). Recent work on team sensemaking (Talat, 2020 ) and communicative influence (Reitman et al., 2024 ) further challenges the adequacy of static models, echoing the need for a dynamic understanding of how cognitive infrastructure and error mitigation co-evolve in fluid team environments. The concept of collective mind, as articulated by Weick and Roberts ( 1993 ), offers a compelling lens through which to examine these challenges. The authors defined collective mind as “ a pattern of heedful interrelations of actions in a social system” (Weick & Roberts, 1993 , p. 357). In their study of high-reliability flight deck operations, they demonstrated how tightly coupled teams achieve extraordinary coordination by enacting three interrelated dimensions: representing, contributing, and subordinating. These dimensions reflect how team members internalise shared representations of task structure, synchronise their actions, and willingly subordinate individual preferences to collective goals. In high-reliability contexts, such enactment of collective mind enables both the development of shared cognitive infrastructure and the minimisation of implementation errors (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). However, the question remains: can collective mind be meaningfully extended to temporary multidisciplinary teams, where relational norms, cognitive alignment, and behavioural coordination must be constructed across organisational boundaries and within compressed timeframes? To extend the concept of collective mind to temporary multidisciplinary teams, this study revisits its foundational dimensions ( i.e., representing, coordinating, and subordinating ) and reinterprets them in light of the relational and normative complexities inherent in cross-boundary collaboration. In such settings, subordinating is not merely a matter of hierarchical deference but reflects a deeper form of compliance, where actors align their actions with shared goals despite divergent organisational interests (Carlile, 2004 ; Niler et al., 2021 ; Ogundipe, 2020 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Similarly, contributing is reframed as we-centric contribution, emphasising the intentionality behind individual inputs that serve collective outcomes (Ogundipe, 2020 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). These reconceptualisations are not mere semantic shifts but necessary adaptations that reflect the behavioural dynamics of temporary teams, where trust, reciprocity, and shared understanding must be rapidly cultivated (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Ogundipe et al., 2022 ). By grounding these dimensions in the cognitive and behavioural realities of interorganisational collaboration, the study positions collective mind as a generative mechanism for enabling coordinated action and mitigating implementation errors. Building on this reinterpretation, the study contributes to the literature by operationalising collective mind as a dynamic configuration of cognitive and behavioural mechanisms that enable high-functioning coordination in temporary multidisciplinary teams (Cooke et al., 2024 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Specifically, it reconceptualises subordinating as compliance and contributing as we-centric contribution, reflecting the normative and relational complexities of cross-boundary collaboration. These conceptual refinements are empirically examined using Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), a method well-suited for identifying non-compensatory conditions that must be present for collective mind to emerge and function effectively (Dul et al., 2023 ). By integrating theoretical insights from team cognition and behavioural dynamics with a configurational methodological lens, the study offers a novel account of how collective mind can be enacted in temporary teams to support collective action and reduce implementation errors. Taken together, the study advances three interrelated contributions. First, it problematises the applicability of collective mind in temporary multidisciplinary settings, offering a refined conceptualisation that accounts for relational and normative complexity. Second, it introduces a behavioural framing of subordinating and contributing that aligns with the realities of cross-boundary collaboration. Third, it demonstrates the utility of Necessary Condition Analysis in identifying critical enablers of collective mind, thereby extending methodological approaches in team cognition research. These contributions collectively deepen our understanding of how cognitive infrastructure and behavioural coordination coalesce to support reliable performance in temporary teams. 2. Theoretical Foundation 2.1 Collective Mind as A Cognitive Infrastructure for Error Reduction in Teams The concept of collective mind, introduced by Weick and Roberts ( 1993 ), refers to the pattern of heedful interrelations among actors in a social system. It is enacted when individuals contribute attentively to joint tasks, represent the interdependencies between their actions and those of others, and subordinate their behaviour to the imagined requirements of shared goals. In high-reliability organisations such as flight operations, heedful interrelating reduces the likelihood of errors and fosters a shared cognitive structure that enables coordinated action (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). In project-based environments, particularly those involving multidisciplinary teams, the enactment of collective mind becomes more complex. Actors often operate across organisational boundaries, rely on distributed resources, and engage in asynchronous decision-making (Carlile, 2004 ; Ogundipe et al., 2022 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). These conditions challenge the formation of shared cognitive structures and increase the risk of coordination breakdowns. Recent work in small group dynamics has offered illuminating insights regarding how shared cognition emerges and sustains coordination under temporal and structural constraints. For instance, Allen and O’Neill ( 2015 ) describe the trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs, showing how cognitive alignment develops over time through interaction. Other scholars have also argued for a process-oriented view of team cognition, where knowledge structures are continuously negotiated and refined (Cooke et al., 2024 ; Grand et al., 2016 ). These perspectives challenge static assumptions and foreground the dynamic nature of heedful interrelating. Besides, recent scholarship has highlighted how team cognition is not merely a cognitive phenomenon but also a behavioural one, shaped by communicative influence, reflexive dialogue, and shared intentionality (Mohammed et al., 2021 ). Specifically, it has been proposed that communicative influence serves as a measurable proxy for team dynamics (Reitman et al., 2024 ), reinforcing the idea that collective mind is enacted through both cognitive representation and behavioural coordination. These insights align with the foundational puzzle of this study: how do temporary teams develop the cognitive infrastructure necessary to act collectively and reduce implementation errors? In this paper, collective mind is revisited as a dynamic configuration of cognitive and behavioural mechanisms. The original dimensions (i.e., representing, contributing, and subordinating ) are retained but reconceptualised to reflect the normative and relational complexities of temporary project teams. Specifically, subordinating is reframed as compliance, and contributing is introduced as we-centric contribution. In addition, two new dimensions are proposed: shared understanding and coordination. Shared understanding reflects the need for a common sense of project goals, which is critical for integrating diverse knowledge domains and avoiding interactional inefficiencies (Bittner & Leimeister, 2014 ; Ogundipe et al., 2022 ). However, coordination captures the behavioural monitoring and alignment required to prevent or minimise errors in the implementation of interdependent tasks (Braun et al., 2020 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). As Weick ( 2009 ) suggests, increased errors can lead to variations in the heedfulness with which team members conduct their activities, ultimately resulting in a flawed collective mind. Therefore, these five dimensions ( i.e. we-centric contribution, representing, compliance, shared understanding, and coordination ) form the basis for analysing how collective mind is enacted in multidisciplinary project teams to improve interaction efficiency while also minimising errors. Each dimension is explored in greater depth in the following sections. 2.2 Dimensions of Collective Mind 2.1 Coordination in Project Teams Coordination is considered a foundational dimension of collective mind, referring to the evolving process through which members of a team actively and collectively manage or monitor each other’s actions in pursuit of shared goals (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). In high-interdependence contexts, coordination enables actors to anticipate others’ behaviours, align their actions, and adapt responsively to emerging contingencies (Srikanth & Puranam, 2014 ). This heedful interrelating is central to the emergence of collective cognition, particularly in complex, uncertain, or time-constrained environments. The concept of coordination has deep roots in organisational theory. Galbraith ( 1974 ) emphasised the role of coordination in managing uncertainty and task interdependence, while Lawrence and Lorsch ( 1967 ) highlighted its importance in integrating differentiated units. More recently, Okhuysen and Bechky ( 2009 ) proposed an integrative framework in which coordination is enabled by mechanisms that create three conditions: accountability, predictability, and common understanding. These conditions are not merely structural but cognitive, shaping how actors perceive their roles, anticipate others' actions, and interpret shared goals. Faraj and Xiao ( 2006 , p. 1157) further framed coordination as “ a temporally unfolding and contextualized process of input regulation and interaction articulation to realize a collective performance ”. This definition resonates with the distributed cognition perspective that underpins collective mind. In this view, multidisciplinary team coordination is not a static structure but a dynamic process that synthesises interactions across knowledge boundaries and constantly adapts to enhance performance outcomes in line with the emerging realities of team members (Faraj & Xiao, 2006 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Recent contributions from small group research further enrich this understanding. Braun et al. ( 2020 ) demonstrate that team cohesion and coordination are dynamically linked to performance, especially in newly formed teams. Their findings suggest that coordination is not a one-time achievement but a continuously negotiated process. They also underscore the importance of coordination as both a cognitive and behavioural enabler of collective mind. More specifically, the causal logic underpinning coordination in collective mind is that the more actors are able to anticipate, monitor, and align with each other’s actions, the more effectively they can integrate their expertise and respond to uncertainty. Importantly, coordination is not merely a technical or procedural issue but a relational and cognitive one. It enables actors to move beyond individual expertise and toward collective sensemaking, especially in contexts characterised by ambiguity, time pressure, and distributed knowledge. As such, coordination is a critical enabler of collective mind, shaping how groups think, act, and adapt together. 2.2.2 Representing in Project Interrelations Representing is a central dimension of collective mind, referring to how team members perceive, imagine, and envision the interdependencies among roles, tasks, and activities in pursuit of shared goals (Ogundipe, 2020 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). It is the cognitive infrastructure that enables actors to anticipate others’ actions and define their own contributions in relation to the broader system. In project teams, representing allows individuals to work "alone together" (Bruns, 2013 ), maintaining coherence and coordination without constant negotiation or supervision. Theoretical foundations for representing are found in distributed cognition and social systems theory. Weick and Roberts ( 1993 ) argue that individual action enacts collective mind when it converges with, supplements, assists, and becomes defined by the expected requirements of the network. However, they caution that such convergence is only possible if the representations of actors are structurally similar. Any unresolved differences between representational frameworks can lead to variation in heed and a potential loss of mind due to errors (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). They also note that “group actions are possible only when each participant has a representation that includes the actions of others and their relations.” (Weick & Roberts, 1993 , p. 363). Representing thus plays a critical role in enabling actors to anticipate others’ actions and to define their own contributions in ways that align with collective goals. Furthermore, representing determines whether actors can maintain coherence in distributed work, especially under conditions of uncertainty or fragmentation. Representing is not static; it evolves through experience, interaction, and narrative. Weick and Roberts ( 1993 ) suggest that an increase in heedful interrelating can prevent or correct failures of comprehension in at least three ways: (1) by connecting longer stretches of time, (2) by spanning more activities across task sequences, and (3) by linking more levels of experience. For example, in a dynamic project team where team members are constantly changing, newcomers who take nothing for granted may interrelate more often with old-timers who think they have seen it all, thereby enriching the representational frameworks of both. Whether collective mind gets renewed during (re)socialization may depend on the candor and narrative skills of insiders (old team members) and the attentiveness of newcomers (new team members). Candid insiders who use memorable stories to describe failures as well as successes, their doubts as well as their certainties, and what works as well as what fails, help newcomers infer dispositions of heed and carelessness (Weick & Roberts, 1993 , p. 368). It is worth emphasising that the causal logic underpinning representing in collective mind is that individual cognition must be socially and structurally aligned for collective sensemaking to occur. Representing enables actors to define their own actions in relation to others, to anticipate interdependencies, and to maintain coherence in distributed teams. When representations are structurally similar, individual actions converge, supplement, and assist one another, enacting collective mind (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). When representations diverge, heedful interrelating becomes fragmented, and the system risks losing coherence. Representing is thus a critical dimension of collective mind, shaping how actors think about their roles, their relationships, and the shared goals that bind them together. 2.2.3 Compliance as Normative Heedfulness Compliance is a critical dimension of collective mind, referring to the extent to which actors align their actions with shared expectations, norms, and obligations that define legitimate behaviour within a project team (Ogundipe, 2020 ; Stöber et al., 2019 ). In the context of heedful interrelating, compliance is not simply rule-following; it reflects a mindful enactment of shared commitments that enable distributed actors to function coherently and responsibly (Ogundipe, 2020 ). It is a behavioural expression of attentiveness, where individual actions converge with collective expectations to sustain coordination and reduce implementation errors (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). In project environments, compliance is shaped by both formal structures and informal norms. It involves adherence to client requirements, regulatory standards, and project objectives, but also the internalisation of shared values and relational expectations (Stöber et al., 2019 ). This dual nature of compliance ( i.e., structural and normative ) makes it a powerful mechanism for behavioural alignment. It enables actors to anticipate how others will behave, interpret their own responsibilities, and maintain coherence across organisational boundaries. Compliance also plays a role in shaping the cognitive infrastructure of collective mind. When actors enact compliance mindfully, they contribute to a shared understanding of what constitutes appropriate action. This reduces ambiguity and enhances predictability, allowing team members to work independently while remaining aligned with collective goals. In this sense, compliance supports the emergence of predictive knowledge and representational alignment (Ogundipe, 2020 ). Empirical studies have shown that compliance mechanisms must be contextually relevant and well-designed to be effective. For example, the clarity of codes of conduct, the specificity of training programmes, and the responsiveness of reporting systems all influence behavioural alignment (Stöber et al., 2019 ). Moreover, compliance is often enacted through informal practices such as anticipatory adjustments, mutual monitoring, and empathetic responsiveness (Ben-menahem et al., 2016 ). These practices reflect a deeper form of heedfulness, where actors internalise shared expectations and enact them without external enforcement. Therefore, the causal logic underpinning compliance in collective mind is that alignment with shared expectations enables distributed actors to function as a coherent system. Compliance reduces relational friction, enhances coordination, and supports the enactment of shared cognitive structures. It is particularly critical in temporary project teams, where actors must quickly establish behavioural norms and align their actions despite divergent organisational affiliations. When enacted with heedfulness, compliance becomes a generative force that sustains collective mind, enabling actors to adapt, align, and act together in pursuit of shared goals. 2.2.4 Shared Understanding Among Project Actors Shared understanding is another critical dimension of collective mind, referring to the extent to which team members develop similar interpretations of goals, priorities, procedures, and interdependencies (Ko et al., 2005 ). Shared understanding is not merely about agreement. Rather, it is about the convergence of mental models that allow distributed actors to function coherently, especially under conditions of uncertainty and complexity (Ogundipe et al., 2022 ). The concept of shared understanding is well-established in both organisational and project management literature. Ko and colleagues ( 2005 ) define shared understanding as the degree to which team members have a common grasp of project goals and processes, which facilitates coordination and problem-solving. Aubé, Rousseau, & Tremblay ( 2015 ) argue that shared understanding enhances team performance by reducing ambiguity and enabling more effective collaboration. In project settings, shared understanding is often achieved through deliberate communication strategies, clarification of ambiguous terms, and alignment of mental models (Ogundipe et al., 2022 ). The relational and cognitive implications of shared understanding enable actors to work independently and maintain autonomy while remaining aligned with collective goals (Bruns, 2013 ). Moreover, shared understanding supports predictive knowledge by allowing actors to anticipate how others will interpret and respond to unfolding events (Ogundipe, 2020 ). Shared understanding thus plays a critical role in preventing fragmentation in heedful interrelating. Empirical illustrations reinforce the importance of shared understanding in project environments. For example, Ben-Menahem et al. ( 2016 ) provide rich examples of how shared understanding is cultivated through informal practices such as anticipatory conforming, where specialists adjust their standards to accommodate others’ needs, and cross-domain triangulating, where actors validate their findings through dialogue with other domains. These practices are embedded within formal structures that define roles and responsibilities, but they also evolve dynamically as new interdependencies are revealed. The causal logic underpinning shared understanding in collective mind is that cognitive alignment enables distributed actors to interpret situations similarly, anticipate each other’s actions, and define their own contributions in ways that support collective goals. Shared understanding reduces ambiguity, enhances coordination, and supports the emergence of predictive knowledge. 2.2.5 We-centric Contribution We-centric contribution is conceptually anchored in Weick and Roberts’ ( 1993 ) notion of “contributing,” which refers to the heedful actions of organisational members undertaken to fulfil shared goals. In its original formulation, contributing was situated within intra-organisational contexts where actors typically operated under shared rules, procedures, and institutional norms. However, in multidisciplinary project teams, actors often work across divergent regulatory frameworks, industry standards, and professional logics (Ogundipe et al., 2022 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). This fragmentation introduces the risk of self-focused actions or I-centric contribution , where individuals act primarily in accordance with their own domain-specific priorities, potentially overlooking how their decisions affect others (Ogundipe, 2020 ). For example, in construction projects, an electrical engineer may focus solely on compliance with electrical regulations, without considering how their choices might constrain architectural design or procurement timelines. If such decisions go unchecked, they may produce unintended consequences that ripple across the project. To account for these complexities, the concept of contributing is reframed in this study as we-centric contribution , which is defined as a mental orientation and attitudinal disposition that reflects deliberate attentiveness to interdependencies and potential overlaps with others when executing one’s own isolated actions (Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Ogundipe, 2020 ). It positions contribution not merely as individual input, but as a relational act, embedded in a broader network of mutual influence and joint responsibility. The theoretical foundations of we-centric contribution are further enriched by Carlile’s ( 2004 ) work on boundary-spanning and knowledge transformation. Carlile argues that resolving cross-boundary challenges requires actors not only to adapt their own knowledge but also to influence and transform the knowledge of others. These dual requirements of openness and assertiveness resonate with the logic of we-centric contribution, which demands that actors remain mindful of how their actions shape and are shaped by others (Ogundipe, 2020 ). Therefore, we-centric contribution reflects a disposition of empathetic intelligence, where actors monitor others’ activities, anticipate their needs, and adjust their own behaviours accordingly (Bruns, 2013 ; Cooke et al., 2024 ; Ogundipe, 2020 ). This mindset fosters predictive knowledge (i.e., an understanding of what others are likely to do), which then enables tacit coordination (Ogundipe et al., 2022 ). In contrast to explicit coordination mechanisms, we-centric contribution allows actors to align their actions without formal intervention, reducing the need for boundary spanners or detailed planning. It is a form of cognitive scaffolding that supports fluid collaboration and tacit coordination in complex, interdependent settings (Ben-menahem et al., 2016 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Empirical studies have shown that tacit coordination is enabled through transactive memory systems and frequent informal communication, which allow team members to anticipate each other’s actions without explicit cues (Peltokorpi, 2014 ). For example, in distributed or virtual teams, this form of coordination becomes even more critical, as limited personal interaction constrains the exchange of tacit knowledge (Handke et al., 2020 ; Lane et al., 2024 ). Moreover, heedful interrelating, characterised by attentiveness, responsive communication, and a felt sense of the team’s work, has been empirically linked to improved team performance in self-managing teams (Ogundipe, 2020 ; Stephens & Lyddy, 2016 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). These findings reinforce the idea that we-centric contribution is a practical necessity in complex, interdependent project environments. Specifically, the causal logic of we-centric contribution in relation to collective mind lies in its capacity to reduce coordination overhead while enhancing alignment. Even when a low level of collective mind is sufficient, the presence of we-centric contribution enables actors to act with care and foresight, thereby maintaining coherence across distributed tasks. It serves as a cognitive lubricant that allows project members to function smoothly despite complexity and fragmentation. By fostering mutual responsiveness and predictive knowledge, we-centric contribution strengthens the collective mind’s infrastructure, making it a critical enabler of joint action in project-based organising. 2.3 Summary The five dimensions discussed in the previous chapter form a dynamic and interdependent configuration that enables the enactment of collective mind in project teams. Coordination provides the behavioural scaffolding for aligning actions, while representing ensures cognitive alignment by enabling actors to perceive and capture interdependencies in shared tasks. Compliance reinforces normative coherence, guiding behaviour through shared expectations. Shared understanding acts as a cognitive bridge, allowing actors to interpret goals and procedures similarly, thereby reducing ambiguity. Finally, we-centric contribution fosters relational attentiveness, encouraging individuals to act with foresight and empathy toward others’ roles and constraints. These dimensions do not operate in isolation; rather, they co-evolve through interaction, feedback, and mutual reinforcement. For instance, effective coordination depends on structurally similar representations and shared understanding, while compliance is strengthened by we-centric contributions that reflect internalised norms. The interplay among these dimensions creates a pattern of heedful interrelating that supports reliable performance and error reduction in project teams. In this way, collective mind emerges not as a static construct but as a fluid, generative mechanism shaped by the cognitive and behavioural dynamics of project-based collaboration. 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study adopts a configurational methodological approach to examine the necessary conditions for the emergence of collective mind in multidisciplinary project teams. Specifically, it employs Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), a technique designed to identify non-compensatory conditions that must be present for a particular outcome to occur (Dul, 2016 ; Dul et al., 2023 ). Unlike traditional correlational methods that assess average effects, NCA focuses on identifying bottleneck factors, without which the desired outcome cannot be achieved, regardless of the presence of other enabling conditions (Dul et al., 2023 ). The empirical context for this study is the UK construction industry. Construction projects were selected because they exemplify temporary and multidisciplinary team arrangements, where actors from diverse professional backgrounds collaborate under time pressure and across organisational boundaries (Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). These settings are particularly prone to coordination challenges, fragmented understanding, and behavioural misalignment, conditions that directly affect the emergence of collective mind. As such, construction project teams offer a theoretically rich and practically relevant context for examining how heedful interrelating unfolds in cross-boundary environments. 3.2 Recruitment and Sample Access To recruit suitable teams for data collection, the researcher began by identifying the top 100 construction companies in the UK using publicly available data from the Construction Index website. An Excel database was created containing the contact details of these companies. Initial outreach involved directly contacting the listed companies to explain the research aims and request access for data collection. This approach yielded limited success, as most companies did not respond, and those that did indicated they were unavailable to participate. Consequently, the researcher leveraged professional networks and academic connections to identify potential access points. Through these networks, three project managers were identified who agreed to introduce the researcher to their respective teams. After presenting the research objectives and discussing the data collection process with each team, all three agreed to participate. Data collection was subsequently conducted on one project per team. 3.3 Sample and Data Collection Data were collected from 31 construction professionals across the three project teams that participated in the study. Project Team 1 (PT1) involved the design of an institutional building for engineering academics and students, with a budget of £9 million. Project Team 2 (PT2) focused on the technical design of science laboratories and offices for postgraduate researchers, with a budget of £23 million. Project Team 3 (PT3) centred on the construction of a commercial building comprising corporate offices and retail centres, with a budget of £28 million. All three projects were located in the UK and spanned different stages of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) construction lifecycle. PT1 at the concept and advanced design stages (RIBA 2 & 3), PT2 at the technical design stage (RIBA 4), and PT3 at the preconstruction and construction stages (RIBA 5). The teams included a mix of architects, engineers, project managers, consultants, quantity surveyors, and client representatives, all from multiple organisations. Questionnaire responses were completed as follows: 8 from PT1, 12 from PT2, and 11 from PT3. Participants completed the questionnaire in person, allowing them to seek clarification and ask questions about the items during the process. This approach ensured high response quality and consistency in interpretation. Before administering the NCA questionnaire, the researcher was granted access to observe bi-monthly meetings across all participating project teams. These meetings provided valuable insights into the internal dynamics, coordination practices, and technical language used by team members. This observational phase was instrumental in tailoring the NCA questions to the specific realities of the project teams, ensuring contextual relevance and enhancing the validity of the data collected. 3.4 Questionnaire Design We followed Churchill’s ( 1979 ) approach to questionnaire development. The initial pool of items was constructed by combining validated scales from several relevant empirical studies with newly developed items tailored to the context of construction project teams (Selnes & Sallis, 2003 ). Redundant or ambiguous items were eliminated through interviews with MBA students with backgrounds and industrial experience in project management. Specifically, the first draft of the questionnaire was pilot-tested with 21 postgraduate students (including MBA and PhD students) who had prior experience working in project teams. Their feedback informed revisions to the items’ clarity, relevance, and phrasing. A final review was conducted in consultation with a method specialist professor experienced in NCA and research design, whose suggestions helped refine the instrument further. Each construct was measured using a continuous 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with no neutral midpoint. This scale format aligns with the continuous logic of NCA and avoids ambiguity in respondent interpretation (Dul, 2016 ). Where possible, validated scales were used directly or adapted to suit the construction project context. For example, shared understanding was measured using items adapted from Ko, Kirsch & King ( 2005 ), Aubé, Rousseau & Tremblay ( 2015 ), and Bittner & Leimeister ( 2014 ). These items captured team members’ similarity in prior experience, problem-solving approaches, and clarity of communication. One item stated: “Our team members are always on the same page regarding which aspects of the project to prioritise.” Coordination was measured using modified items from Van de Ven, Delbecq and Koenig Jr. (1976) and Lewis ( 2003 ), focusing on structured routines and formalised processes for circulating design-related information. For instance, one item read: “Our team has a well-structured routine (e.g. bi-monthly meetings) to ensure our workflow is implemented smoothly and efficiently.” Compliance was operationalised using new items inspired by Weick and Roberts ( 1993 ), focusing on alignment with client requirements, project objectives, and industry regulations. Representing was also measured using new items grounded in Weick and Roberts’ ( 1993 ) conceptualisation of structurally similar representations. Items captured how project teams explained requirements, resolved conflicting views, and updated shared documentation. We-centric contribution combined elements of contributing and alignment of interests among project actors. Items were inspired by Weick and Roberts ( 1993 ) and Carlile ( 2004 ), capturing mutual support, empathetic intelligence, and the use of boundary objects to negotiate overlapping interests. The outcome variable, collective mind, was measured using nine items developed from Weick and Roberts ( 1993 ), focusing on error reduction, behavioural consistency, and attentiveness. One item stated: “There have been no major accidents on site or any noticeable errors in the way team members implement their tasks.” Where applicable, reverse-coded items (e.g., “ There has been a considerable amount of errors in the way team members implement their tasks. ”) were recoded during analysis to ensure consistency in scale direction. This adjustment was made prior to reliability testing and data analysis to maintain interpretive alignment across all constructs. Reliability testing using Cronbach’s alpha yielded acceptable scores for all constructs: collective mind (0.890), shared understanding (0.766), coordination (0.715), representing (0.775), we-centric contribution (0.815), and compliance (0.715). The full list of measurement items and theoretical sources is provided in the Appendix. 3.5 Procedure for Data Analysis The data were analysed using the NCA package in R Studio, following the guidelines outlined by Dul ( 2016 ). For each condition variable, a scatterplot was generated with the outcome variable (collective mind) on the y-axis. The plots were divided into two regions by ceiling lines, which represent the threshold beyond which the outcome cannot occur without the condition. Two ceiling techniques were used: Ceiling Envelopment (CE), a stepwise line that captures all observations below the threshold, offering 100% accuracy; and Ceiling Regression (CR), a linear approximation that may allow some observations above the line, resulting in lower accuracy. The effect size (d) was calculated as the ratio of the ceiling zone (C) to the scope (S), with interpretation thresholds as follows: 0 < d < 0.1 (small effect), 0.1 ≤ d < 0.3 (medium effect), 0.3 ≤ d < 0.5 (large effect), and d ≥ 0.5 (very large effect). In addition to calculating effect sizes, a bottleneck table was generated to identify the minimum levels of each condition required to achieve different levels of collective mind (e.g., 50%, 70%, 90%). This analytical approach enables the identification of indispensable conditions and provides a nuanced understanding of how different antecedents constrain the emergence of collective mind in distributed project environments. While collective mind is conceptualised as a team-level construct, reflecting a pattern of heedful interrelations of actions in a social system (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ), the analysis was conducted at the individual level to reflect the distributed and varied nature of cognitive enactments within teams. Team cognition is inherently a bottom-up construct originating in the cognition of individuals and emerging from member interactions (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ; Mohammed et al., 2017 ). This methodological approach is consistent with compilation models (also referred to as configural unit properties) in team cognition research (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). Compilation is based on assumptions of discontinuity and describes phenomena that comprise a common domain but emerge as qualitatively different manifestations across levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). This perspective views the collective phenomenon as a complex combination of diverse lower-level contributions (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). Rather than relying on aggregation of responses to form team-level scores (which would be required for isomorphic compositional models assuming sharedness), this analytical framework identifies critical thresholds at the individual level that must be met for the team-level outcome to materialise. This logic mirrors the nonlinear combination rules applied in compilation, such as disjunctive or conjunctive models that identify the necessary minimum or maximum individual contribution within the team to determine the collective attribute (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). This analytical approach aligns with the theoretical premise that collective mind does not reside in the individuals taken separately, but arises from the interrelating actions and representations of individual team members (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). While this choice introduces a level-of-analysis tension, the study intentionally treats differential individual enactments as necessary precursors/conditions to team-level cognitive infrastructure, thereby offering a nuanced perspective on the micro-foundations of collective mind (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). The methodological choice is justified by the goal of identifying specific individual-level constraints that inhibit or enable team-level emergence, focusing on the configuration of contributions rather than simple consensus (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). 4. Findings The Necessary Condition Analysis was conducted to determine which of the five antecedent conditions are necessary to establish and maintain collective mind among project team members. As shown in Figs. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 & 5 , there are empty spaces in the upper left corners of the scatterplots for all the condition variables investigated, which is an indication of the presence of necessary conditions (Dul et al., 2023 ). As can be noted on each diagram, there are three different types of ceiling lines (i.e. the red, green, and yellow lines). The red line, which represents the CE technique, gives the most accurate result because there are no observed cases (i.e. the blue rings) above it. Hence, CE is used to interpret the results. Once all conditions were confirmed to be necessary for collective mind, further calculations were conducted with the NCA software, and the results are presented in Table 1 . For compliance, the size of the areas with observation (i.e. the scope, Table 1 ) is 9.0, and the ceiling zone (i.e. the size of the areas above the ceiling line – CE) is 4.995. Hence, the effect size for compliance against the collective mind of project actors is 0.56 (i.e. ceiling zone C divided by scope S, which is 4.995 divided by 9.0). Based on the dataset used in this study, the result shows that compliance has a very large effect on collective mind (Fig. 1 ). Table 1 The NCA results for all variables (31 observed cases) Condition variables Ceiling techniques Accuracy (in%) Ceiling zones (C) Scope (S) Effect size (d) Compliance CE 100 4.995 9.0 0.56 a CR 74.2 3.406 9.0 0.38 b Coordination CE 100 1.395 6.0 0.23 c CR 93.5 0.993 6.0 0.17 c Representing CE 100 0.708 4.5 0.16 c CR 87 0.588 4.5 0.13 c Shared Understanding CE 100 0.769 9.99 0.08 d CR 100 0.384 9.99 0.04 d We-centric Contribution CE 100 0.462 5.1 0.09 d CR 100 0.231 5.1 0.05 d a d ≥ 0.5 interpreted as a ‘‘very large effect.’’ in accordance with Dul, ( 2016 ) b 0.3 ≤ d < 0.5 interpreted as a ‘‘large effect,’’ in accordance with Dul, ( 2016 ) c 0.1 ≤ d < 0.3 interpreted as a ‘‘medium effect,’’ in accordance with Dul, ( 2016 ) d 0 < d < 0.1 interpreted as a ‘‘small effect,’’ in accordance with Dul, ( 2016 ) For coordination (Fig. 2 ), the scope is 6.0, and the ceiling zone is 1.395. Hence, the effect size for coordination against collective mind is 0.23 (i.e. 1.395 divided by 6.0). This result shows that coordination has a medium effect on collective mind. However, for representing (or representations, Fig. 3 ), the scope is 4.5, and the ceiling zone is 0.708. Hence, the effect size for representing against collective mind is 0.16 (i.e. 0.708 divided by 4.5). This result shows that representing has a medium effect on collective mind. Moreover, for shared understanding (Fig. 4 ), the scope is 9.99, and the ceiling zone is 0.769. Hence, the effect size for shared understanding against collective mind is 0.08 (i.e. 0.769 divided by 9.99). This result shows that shared understanding only has a small effect on collective mind. Lastly, for we-centric contribution (or contributions, Fig. 5 ), the scope is 5.1, and the ceiling zone is 0.462. Hence, the effect size for we-centric contribution against collective mind is 0.09 (i.e. 0.462 divided by 5.1). This result shows that we-centric contribution only has a small effect on collective mind. In addition to the results presented above, a further analysis was conducted to identify the minimum levels of compliance, coordination, representing, shared understanding, and we-centric contribution that are required to achieve different desired levels of collective mind. The results are presented in Table 2 . The bold lines (Table 2 ) are used to highlight three levels (i.e. low, medium, and high levels) of collective mind that are potentially attainable. The values below 50% are considered low level, values between 50% and 70% are considered medium, while a high level of collective mind is above 70%, and up to 100%, which is the highest level attainable (Dul, 2016 ). A 100% level of collective mind should be an ideal target for organisations where there is zero tolerance for errors, or where a single error could lead to disastrous effects, such as the case of aircraft careers and flight operators (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). Table 2 Bottleneck table for NCA results Collective mind Compliance Coordination Representing Shared Understanding We-centric Contribution 0 NN NN NN NN NN 10 50.0 NN NN NN NN 20 50.0 NN NN NN NN 30 50.0 NN NN NN NN 40 50.0 NN NN NN NN 50 50.0 25.0 NN NN NN 60 50.0 25.0 16.7 NN NN 70 50.0 25.0 16.7 NN NN 80 50.0 25.0 16.7 NN NN 90 100.0 75.0 75.3 70.0 82.4 100 100.0 75.0 75.3 70.0 82.4 Note : the CE (i.e. ceiling envelopment) ceiling technique was used for the above bottleneck table. By using CE, 100% accuracy level is attained (i.e. no outlier cases above ceiling line is permitted). Please note that the results are in percentages and “NN” means not necessary. Interestingly, for a low level of collective mind, only compliance is necessary, even for levels as low as 10%. Counterintuitively, coordination and representations (i.e. representing) only become necessary for a medium level of collective mind, while shared understanding and we-centric contribution are only relevant when a very high level of collective mind is desired. These results have both theoretical and practical implications, as presented in the discussion chapter below. 5. Discussion This chapter reflects on the theoretical, methodological, and practical significance of operationalising collective mind in multidisciplinary project teams. Drawing on the findings from the Necessary Condition Analysis, it revisits the foundational puzzle raised in the introduction: how do temporary (multidisciplinary) teams develop the cognitive infrastructure necessary to act collectively and reduce implementation errors? The discussion is structured around three key subchapters: theoretical implications, practical relevance, and limitations, with directions for future research. 5.1 Theoretical Implications The study advances the conceptualisation of collective mind by integrating insights from team cognition, behavioural dynamics, and project coordination (Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). Building on Weick and Roberts’s ( 1993 ) original framework, it reconceptualises subordinating as compliance and contributing as we-centric contribution, reflecting the normative and relational complexities inherent in cross-boundary collaboration (Braun et al., 2020 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). This reframing is essential because temporary teams are often characterised as less hierarchical, relying on interpersonal coordination rather than formal authority, and must overcome members’ divergent organisational interests to pursue collective goals (Ogundipe et al., 2022 ; Peters et al., 2017 ). This dynamic reinterpretation of core behaviours aligns with recent calls to examine how cognitive infrastructure and behavioural coordination co-evolve in fluid team environments and complements models focused on process dynamics (Ding & Kuvaas, 2023 ; Grand et al., 2016 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Reitman et al., 2024 ). The NCA findings reveal a novel hierarchy of necessity among the five dimensions. Compliance (reconceptualised subordination) is indispensable even at low levels of collective mind, suggesting that basic behavioural control ( i.e., the willingness to subordinate individual action to joint requirements ) is the non-negotiable necessary condition required for any collective action to occur (Dul et al., 2023 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). Counterintuitively, coordination and representing (“big picture” awareness) only become necessary preconditions at moderate levels of collective mind. This supports the notion that once basic compliance is secured, teams must engage in explicit coordination activities and rapidly form internalised representations of the social system to function effectively (Stephens & Lyddy, 2016 ), particularly in fluid teams where low authority differentiation necessitates strong self-management and idea integration (Niler et al., 2021 ). Interestingly, shared understanding and we-centric contribution are only required when very high levels of collective mind are targeted. This challenges additive and compositional models of team cognition, which often assume high cognitive similarity is fundamental for all functioning teams (Healey et al., 2015 ; Mohammed et al., 2017 ). Instead, this non-compensatory logic supports the configurational view that highly developed shared knowledge and deep collective identification act as bottleneck conditions required only for achieving the most reliable, near-error-free outcomes, thereby demonstrating the utility of NCA in assessing necessity in degree (Ding & Kuvaas, 2023 ; Dul et al., 2023 ; Geremew et al., 2024 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). Importantly, the study contributes to the literature on team dynamics by showing that collective mind, through heedful interrelating, is fundamentally a behavioural phenomenon enacted dynamically, rather than a static cognitive outcome (Stephens & Lyddy, 2016 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). This aligns with the perspective of Interactive Team Cognition (ITC), which posits that team interaction is team cognition, and rejects the notion that cognition is reducible only to individual knowledge states (Cooke et al., 2024 ). The hierarchy of necessity revealed by our findings underscores that the behavioural mechanism of subordinating is the prerequisite for subsequent cognitive emergence (Ding & Kuvaas, 2023 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). Furthermore, the interplay between coordination and representing underscores how the continuous process of behavioural monitoring and action articulation enables implicit coordination and predictive knowledge, which are critical for error reduction and team adaptation in fluid settings (Faraj & Xiao, 2006 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Stephens & Lyddy, 2016 ). Moreover, the study extends the notion of distributed cognition by demonstrating how artefacts such as routines and shared documentation serve as external cognitive scaffolds that support alignment across organisational boundaries (Cooke et al., 2024 ; Mohammed et al., 2017 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). These boundary objects are crucial in temporary interorganisational networks (or multidisciplinary teams) as they mitigate the mutual knowledge problem inherent in distributed collaboration and provide a means of developing shared cognitions through sensemaking (Handke et al., 2020 ; Peters et al., 2017 ). By facilitating externalised team knowledge (Grand et al., 2016 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ) and promoting continuity of intentions and actions (Ogundipe et al., 2022 ; Peters et al., 2017 ), these artefacts enable actors to work efficiently, maintaining coherence without the need for constant negotiation (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Furthermore, the reconceptualisation of contributing as we-centric contribution significantly enriches the literature on relational cognition (Peters et al., 2017 ). This behavioural emphasis highlights the necessity of anticipatory adjustments and mutual responsiveness in fostering tacit (implicit) coordination (Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Stephens & Lyddy, 2016 ). By focusing on the intentionality behind individual inputs that serve collective outcomes, this framing complements existing models of Transactive Memory System and Shared Mental Models (Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Peltokorpi, 2014 ). Specifically, it provides a process-based explanation for how specialised knowledge and common knowledge are activated and integrated (Grand et al., 2016 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ). Thus, we-centric contribution offers a more nuanced, dynamic understanding of how individual actions are embedded in and directed by collective goals in temporary, interdependent, and multidisciplinary teamwork (Cooke et al., 2024 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Ogundipe, 2020 ). Finally, the study responds directly to recent critiques of static models of team cognition, which have frequently relied on cross-sectional, aggregated data gathered after emergence has already happened (Braun et al., 2020 ; Grand et al., 2016 ; Mohammed et al., 2021 ). By demonstrating a hierarchy of necessity through NCA, the study offers a dynamic account of how cognitive and behavioural mechanisms could potentially interact over time (Mohammed et al., 2017 , 2021 ; Niler et al., 2021 ). We show that collective mind is not a fixed state but a generative process ( an emergent state of activity ) that arises from the interactions of lower-level elements/dimensions (Cooke et al., 2024 ; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). This process is shaped by feedback loops (e.g., via coordination) (Braun et al., 2020 ; Grand et al., 2016 ), normative alignment (via compliance), and representational convergence (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). This insight opens new avenues for theorising team cognition as an emergent and adaptive phenomenon (Grand et al., 2016 ; Mohammed et al., 2017 ). Understanding these dynamic trajectories is critical for advancing the science of team cognition, particularly in fluid contexts where capabilities must develop quickly and continually. 5.2 Practical Implications From a managerial perspective, the differentiated necessity of conditions offers a resource-sensitive roadmap for fostering collective mind. Because necessary conditions cannot be replaced by other factors, prioritising them ensures that organisational resources are invested in the critical determinants that must be fulfilled for collective performance, leading to optimal resource allocation and increased effectiveness. Project managers can tailor their interventions based on the desired level of collective mind and the phase of the project lifecycle, thereby integrating findings on dynamic team processes into project governance mechanisms. The NCA results demonstrate that compliance is indispensable even at low levels of collective mind, making it the priority during early planning and contracting (Ding & Kuvaas, 2023 ; Ogundipe et al., 2022 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Project managers must prioritise compliance mechanisms, such as regulatory alignment, standardised platforms, and clear codes of conduct, because these interventions establish the normative boundaries and action controls within which diverse actors operate (Stöber et al., 2019 ). Implementing all contractual commitments is a critical coordination activity, as contracts define roles and responsibilities and act as a safeguard against opportunism in cross-boundary relationships (Van der Valk et al., 2016 ). This initial focus on compliance ensures accountability ( i.e., the integrating condition that clarifies who is responsible for specific elements of the task ), thereby reducing the risk of coordination breakdowns (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009 ). As the project transitions into design and development phases, coordination and representing become necessary at moderate levels of collective mind, reflecting the need to manage complexity introduced by specialised, interdependent tasks (Braun et al., 2020 ; Niler et al., 2021 ; Ogundipe, 2020 ). Structured routines, shared documentation, and boundary-spanning roles should be prioritised as coordination mechanisms that increase the organisation’s capacity to handle the complex information requirements of task interdependence (Galbraith, 1974 ; Ogundipe, 2020 ; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009 ). Specifically, project documents function as boundary objects or scaffolding to provide a common reference and external representations that support interpretational alignment across organisational boundaries (Ogundipe et al., 2022 ; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009 ; Peters & Pressey, 2016 ). Representational alignment ensures that actors interpret goals and interdependencies in compatible ways, reducing ambiguity and enhancing predictability. In execution and monitoring, shared understanding and we-centric contribution are necessary bottleneck conditions required to manage high complexity and avoid errors, particularly in high-stakes or knowledge-intensive contexts (Ding & Kuvaas, 2023 ; Ogundipe et al., 2022 ; Talat, 2020 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). Shared understanding supports the ability of the team to achieve tacit coordination and respond effectively to unexpected events (Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Ogundipe et al., 2022 ). Likewise, we-centric contribution establishes the necessary collective commitment and common purpose required to overcome inherent relational complexities (Burt et al., 2022 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Ogundipe, 2020 ). These dimensions collectively foster mutual responsiveness and adaptive sensemaking, allowing members to apply their effort towards a jointly held conception of the work, thereby increasing the predictability and reliability of collective action (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009 ; Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). Importantly, the NCA results suggest that over-investment in certain conditions may lead to condition inefficiency if bottlenecks remain unresolved (Dul et al., 2023 ; Van der Valk et al., 2016 ). For instance, high levels of relational factors, such as trust or we-centric contribution, cannot compensate for the absence of compliance, because a lower value for one necessary condition cannot be compensated for by a higher value of another causal factor (Dul et al., 2023 ; Van der Valk et al., 2016 ). Managers should therefore utilise NCA's bottleneck analysis to identify and address the condition(s) that are below the necessary threshold level before investing in compensatory or complementary factors. This logic offers a pragmatic approach to optimal resource allocation in project environments, which are constrained by limited organisational resources and varying stakeholder demands. 5.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research While the study offers important insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size (n = 31) is relatively small, which inherently limits the generalisability of the findings to broader organisational populations. Although NCA is robust to small samples and suitable for exploratory theory-building, and can be conducted with very small datasets, its robustness does not substitute for the need for a good sample size (Dul, 2016 ; Dul et al., 2023 ). Therefore, future studies should replicate the analysis with larger and more diverse samples across sectors such as healthcare, IT, and pharmaceuticals to enhance external validity and determine how robust the necessity conditions are under varying contextual moderators. Replication with new samples would also help to better demarcate the theoretical domain in which the necessary conditions apply. Second, the study relies solely on quantitative data collected via structured questionnaires at a single point in time. This cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw strict causal necessity conclusions and capture the temporal dynamics of collective mind, which is defined as a pattern of ongoing activity (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). While this approach enabled the operationalisation of complex constructs and the application of NCA, it excluded qualitative insights necessary to unpack the “black box” of team cognition emergence (Allen & O’Neill, 2015 ; Grand et al., 2016 ). Hence, future research could adopt a mixed-methods design, incorporating longitudinal data collection with interviews or ethnographic observations to uncover contextual nuances and provide rich descriptions of team processes in action (Handke et al., 2020 ; Liu et al., 2023 ). Combining methods, such as NCA with qualitative data, will potentially provide a richer perspective on causality (Dul et al., 2023 ). Third, NCA is inherently a bivariate approach that evaluates each condition in isolation, as its underlying logic dictates that the absence of a necessary condition cannot be compensated for by increasing other determinants’ levels (Ding & Kuvaas, 2023 ; Van der Valk et al., 2016 ). Consequently, potential synergies or trade-offs (such as how robust coordination might compensate for weak shared understanding) are not captured. To address this sufficiency logic and explore causal complexity, future studies should integrate this NCA analysis with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) or fuzzy-set logic (fsQCA) (Geremew et al., 2024 ). These configurational methods are ideally suited to explore sufficiency configurations and equifinality (multiple combinations of conditions leading to the same outcome), providing a complete perspective on the causal relationships that complement NCA’s necessity focus (Dul et al., 2023 ; Geremew et al., 2024 ). Conceptually, the study treats collective mind as a desirable outcome but does not interrogate its potential downsides. This is critical because excessive cognitive alignment, which may result from unchecked heedfulness, is known to foster groupthink, reducing creativity and inhibiting innovation in teams (Weick & Roberts, 1993 ). While collective mind enables coordination, its over-development risks rigidity, potentially leading to performance that is habitual and resistant to adaptation rather than heedful and evolving. Research has demonstrated that teams with high diversity, while prone to conflicts, can produce higher quality ideas than homogenous groups, suggesting that discordance is sometimes beneficial (Burt et al., 2022 ). Investigating the “dark side” of collective mind, particularly by exploring the relationship between heedfulness and constructive conflict, could offer a more balanced understanding of its role in project teams. Declarations Ethical approval and informed consent statements: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the NUBS (Nottingham University Business School) Research Ethics Committee at the University of Nottingham. All participants provided informed consent by signing a consent form prior to their involvement in the research. References Allen NJ, O’Neill TA (2015) The trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs. Small Group Res 46(3):352–390 Aubé C, Rousseau V, Tremblay S (2015) Perceived shared understanding in teams: The motivational effect of being on the same page. Br J Psychol 106(3):468–486 Bechky BA, Okhuysen GA (2011) Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Acad Manag J 54(2):239–261 Ben-menahem SM, Von Krogh G, Erden Z, Schneider A (2016) Coordinating knowledge creation in multidisciplinary teams: Evidence from early-stage drug discovery. Acad Manag J 59(4):1308–1338 Bittner E, Leimeister J (2014) Creating shared understanding in heterogeneous work groups: Why it matters and how to achieve it. J Manage Inform Syst 31(1):111–144 Braun MT, Kozlowski SWJ, Brown TA, DeShon RP (2020) Exploring the dynamic team cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Res 51(5):551–580 Bruns HC (2013) Working alone together: Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise. Acad Manag J 56(1):62–83 Burt BA, Stone B, Perkins T, Polk A, Ramirez C, Rosado J (2022) Team culture of community: cultural practices for scientific team cohesion and productivity. Small Group Res 53(6):855–890 Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming : An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 15(5):555–568 Churchill GA Jr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73 Cooke NJ, Cohen MC, Fazio WC, Inderberg LH, Johnson CJ, Lematta GJ, Peel M, Teo A (2024) From teams to teamness: Future directions in the science of team cognition. Hum Factors 66(6):1669–1680 Dierdorff EC, Bell ST, Belohlav JA (2011) The power of we: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. J Appl Psychol 96(2):247–262 Ding H, Kuvaas B (2023) Using necessary condition analysis in managerial psychology research: introduction, empirical demonstration and methodological discussion. J Managerial Psychol 38(4):260–272 Dul J (2016) Necessary condition analysis (NCA): Logic and methodology of necessary but not sufficient causality. Organizational Res Methods 19(1):10–52 Dul J, Hauff S, Bouncken RB (2023) Necessary condition analysis (NCA): Review of research topics and guidelines for good practice. RMS 17(2):683–714 Faraj S, Xiao Y (2006) Coordination in fast-response organizations. Manage Sci 52(8):1155–1169 Galbraith JR (1974) Organisation design: An information processing view. Interfaces 4(3):28–36 Geremew YM, Huang WJ, Hung K (2024) Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis as a mixed-method and analysis technique: A comprehensive systematic review. J Travel Res 63(1):3–26 Grand JA, Braun MT, Kuljanin G, Kozlowski SWJ, Chao GT (2016) The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. J Appl Psychol 101(10):1353–1385 Handke L, Klonek FE, Parker SK, Kauffeld S (2020) Interactive effects of team virtuality and work design on team functioning. Small Group Res 51(1):3–47 Healey MP, Vuori T, Hodgkinson GP (2015) When teams agree while disagreeing: Reflexion and reflection in shared cognition. Acad Manage Rev 40(3):399–422 Ko D-G, Kirsch LJ, King WR (2005) Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Q 29(1):59–85 Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. K. J. Klei, pp 3–90 Lane JN, Leonardi PM, Contractor NS, DeChurch LA (2024) Teams in the digital workplace: Technology’s role for communication, collaboration, and performance. Small Group Res 55(1):139–183 Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research Lewis K (2003) Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. J Appl Psychol 88(4):587–604 Liu R, He Y, Ding XH, Li J (2023) Media multiplicity and collaborative innovation with suppliers: evidence from China. Eur J Innov Manage 26(2):331–346 Mohammed S, Hamilton K, Manzanares MS, Rico R (2017) Team cognition: Team mental models and situation awareness. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes. Wiley, pp 369–392 Mohammed S, Rico R, Alipour KK (2021) Team cognition at a crossroad: Toward conceptual integration and network configurations. Acad Manag Ann 15(2):455–501 Niler AA, Mesmer-Magnus JR, Larson LE, Plummer G, DeChurch LA, Contractor NS (2021) Conditioning team cognition: A meta-analysis. Organizational Psychol Rev 11(2):144–174 Ogundipe SJ (2020) Problem representations and collective mind within networks [University of Nottingham]. https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/61533/ Ogundipe SJ, Peters LD, Tóth Z (2022) Interfirm problem representation: Developing shared understanding within inter-organizational networks. Industrial Marketing Management , 100 (November 2021), 76–87 Okhuysen GA, Bechky BA (2009) 10 Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Acad Manage Annals 3(1):463–502 Peltokorpi V (2014) Transactive memory system coordination mechanisms in organizations: An exploratory case study. Group Org Manage 39(4):444–471 Peters LD, Pressey AD (2016) The co-ordinative practices of temporary organisations. J Bus Industrial Mark 31(2):301–311 Peters LD, Pressey AD, Johnston WJ (2017) Contagion and learning in business networks. Ind Mark Manage 61:43–54 Reitman JG, Harrison JL, Gorman JC, Lieber R, D’Mello SK (2024) Communicative influence: A novel measure of team dynamics that integrates team cognition theory with collaborative problem solving assessment. J Educ Psychol 117(1):134–151 Selnes F, Sallis J (2003) Promoting relationship learning. J Mark 67(3):80–95 Srikanth K, Puranam P (2014) The firm as a coordination system: Evidence from software services offshoring. Organ Sci 25(4):1253–1271 Stephens JP, Lyddy CJ (2016) Operationalizing heedful interrelating: How attending, responding, and feeling comprise coordinating and predict performance in self-managing teams. Front Psychol 7:362 Stöber T, Kotzian P, Weißenberger BE (2019) Design matters: on the impact of compliance program design on corporate ethics. Bus Res 12(2):383–424 Talat A (2020) A framework for team sensemaking: Articulation and measurement of multidimensionality. Paradigms 14(2):153–160 Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Sociol Rev 41(2):322–338Jr. Van der Valk W, Sumo R, Dul J, Schroeder RG (2016) When are contracts and trust necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A necessary condition analysis. J Purchasing Supply Manage 22(4):266–277 Weick KE (2009) Making sense of the organization: The impermanent organization, vol 2. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Weick KE, Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm Sci Q 38(3):357–381 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files ExtendedTableofVariables.docx Extended table of variables Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9160849","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":608363440,"identity":"1ebe94cd-897d-4c64-88b1-77af32141475","order_by":0,"name":"Samuel Johnson Ogundipe","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0327-6833","institution":"University of Nottingham","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Samuel","middleName":"Johnson","lastName":"Ogundipe","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-18 15:05:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9160849/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9160849/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105307337,"identity":"fc724d27-cd12-421d-b3ca-546104e1f983","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 14:49:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31265,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNCA – A scatter plot for compliance against collective mind\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/16dc5ab9c87b58d1bc0b5414.jpeg"},{"id":105564979,"identity":"a63d9e2b-be19-4b32-b593-90964f37f122","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:51:30","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":27777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNCA – A scatter plot for coordination against collective mind\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/6f614abe9237f9621420ff2c.jpeg"},{"id":105564281,"identity":"b3095af1-a282-45ea-8331-6520590a3fe8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:49:09","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":38568,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNCA – A scatter plot for representations against collective mind\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/1c36c2b4fa025dcb73ddd931.jpeg"},{"id":105565050,"identity":"a7ad622d-e9cd-45fb-9482-c008ba4b70ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:51:41","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":32580,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNCA – A scatter plot for shared understanding against collective mind\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/ca932ab5e320b34d8b721004.jpeg"},{"id":105564925,"identity":"bc4612df-9fdd-49fc-a4b8-e0ebe1feeb99","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:51:20","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39548,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNCA – A scatter plot for we-centric contribution against collective mind\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/ce7c1a40515cad32b0403b9c.jpeg"},{"id":105569436,"identity":"d98ff8d2-c0fc-4e6f-902b-4e17f851a325","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 13:12:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1105728,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/31b60262-159a-4265-a357-149d6f4cf0cc.pdf"},{"id":105565022,"identity":"0f83728a-80a9-436b-bc11-8e7fd900eba8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:51:37","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":33739,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExtended table of variables\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"ExtendedTableofVariables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/eeaac1f0c9bc25817bf6196a.docx"},{"id":105307331,"identity":"0328c01c-ffd9-4e4d-8582-c03503be6c27","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 14:49:20","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19466,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9160849/v1/9c21ed97e0254fc5e1dae49e.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThreshold Conditions for Collective Mind in Project Teams: An NCA Study of Multidisciplinary Coordination\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTemporary and multidisciplinary project teams are increasingly relied upon to execute complex, high-stakes tasks across diverse domains (Allen \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Neill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Bechky \u0026amp; Okhuysen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, their transient nature and structural fluidity raise a fundamental theoretical puzzle: how do such teams develop the cognitive infrastructure necessary to act collectively and reduce implementation errors? This puzzle is particularly salient in contexts where reliability and precision are paramount, such as healthcare, aviation, and emergency response (Bechky \u0026amp; Okhuysen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Faraj \u0026amp; Xiao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). While existing research has illuminated the role of shared mental models (Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), transactive memory system (Peltokorpi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), team cognition (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and knowledge emergence (Allen \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Neill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) in enabling coordinated action, these insights often assume stable team membership and enduring organisational boundaries (Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Niler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Such assumptions are misaligned with the realities of temporary, cross-boundary teams, where cognitive alignment must be rapidly constructed and sustained under conditions of temporal pressure and structural discontinuity (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Recent work on team sensemaking (Talat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and communicative influence (Reitman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) further challenges the adequacy of static models, echoing the need for a dynamic understanding of how cognitive infrastructure and error mitigation co-evolve in fluid team environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of collective mind, as articulated by Weick and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), offers a compelling lens through which to examine these challenges. The authors defined collective mind as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ea pattern of heedful interrelations of actions in a social system\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, p. 357). In their study of high-reliability flight deck operations, they demonstrated how tightly coupled teams achieve extraordinary coordination by enacting three interrelated dimensions: representing, contributing, and subordinating. These dimensions reflect how team members internalise shared representations of task structure, synchronise their actions, and willingly subordinate individual preferences to collective goals. In high-reliability contexts, such enactment of collective mind enables both the development of shared cognitive infrastructure and the minimisation of implementation errors (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). However, the question remains: can collective mind be meaningfully extended to temporary multidisciplinary teams, where relational norms, cognitive alignment, and behavioural coordination must be constructed across organisational boundaries and within compressed timeframes?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo extend the concept of collective mind to temporary multidisciplinary teams, this study revisits its foundational dimensions (\u003cem\u003ei.e., representing, coordinating, and subordinating\u003c/em\u003e) and reinterprets them in light of the relational and normative complexities inherent in cross-boundary collaboration. In such settings, subordinating is not merely a matter of hierarchical deference but reflects a deeper form of compliance, where actors align their actions with shared goals despite divergent organisational interests (Carlile, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Niler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, contributing is reframed as we-centric contribution, emphasising the intentionality behind individual inputs that serve collective outcomes (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). These reconceptualisations are not mere semantic shifts but necessary adaptations that reflect the behavioural dynamics of temporary teams, where trust, reciprocity, and shared understanding must be rapidly cultivated (Bechky \u0026amp; Okhuysen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). By grounding these dimensions in the cognitive and behavioural realities of interorganisational collaboration, the study positions collective mind as a generative mechanism for enabling coordinated action and mitigating implementation errors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on this reinterpretation, the study contributes to the literature by operationalising collective mind as a dynamic configuration of cognitive and behavioural mechanisms that enable high-functioning coordination in temporary multidisciplinary teams (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, it reconceptualises subordinating as compliance and contributing as we-centric contribution, reflecting the normative and relational complexities of cross-boundary collaboration. These conceptual refinements are empirically examined using Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), a method well-suited for identifying non-compensatory conditions that must be present for collective mind to emerge and function effectively (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). By integrating theoretical insights from team cognition and behavioural dynamics with a configurational methodological lens, the study offers a novel account of how collective mind can be enacted in temporary teams to support collective action and reduce implementation errors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the study advances three interrelated contributions. First, it problematises the applicability of collective mind in temporary multidisciplinary settings, offering a refined conceptualisation that accounts for relational and normative complexity. Second, it introduces a behavioural framing of subordinating and contributing that aligns with the realities of cross-boundary collaboration. Third, it demonstrates the utility of Necessary Condition Analysis in identifying critical enablers of collective mind, thereby extending methodological approaches in team cognition research. These contributions collectively deepen our understanding of how cognitive infrastructure and behavioural coordination coalesce to support reliable performance in temporary teams.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical Foundation","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Collective Mind as A Cognitive Infrastructure for Error Reduction in Teams\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of collective mind, introduced by Weick and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), refers to the pattern of heedful interrelations among actors in a social system. It is enacted when individuals contribute attentively to joint tasks, represent the interdependencies between their actions and those of others, and subordinate their behaviour to the imagined requirements of shared goals. In high-reliability organisations such as flight operations, heedful interrelating reduces the likelihood of errors and fosters a shared cognitive structure that enables coordinated action (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). In project-based environments, particularly those involving multidisciplinary teams, the enactment of collective mind becomes more complex. Actors often operate across organisational boundaries, rely on distributed resources, and engage in asynchronous decision-making (Carlile, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These conditions challenge the formation of shared cognitive structures and increase the risk of coordination breakdowns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent work in small group dynamics has offered illuminating insights regarding how shared cognition emerges and sustains coordination under temporal and structural constraints. For instance, Allen and O\u0026rsquo;Neill (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) describe the trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs, showing how cognitive alignment develops over time through interaction. Other scholars have also argued for a process-oriented view of team cognition, where knowledge structures are continuously negotiated and refined (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These perspectives challenge static assumptions and foreground the dynamic nature of heedful interrelating.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBesides, recent scholarship has highlighted how team cognition is not merely a cognitive phenomenon but also a behavioural one, shaped by communicative influence, reflexive dialogue, and shared intentionality (Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, it has been proposed that communicative influence serves as a measurable proxy for team dynamics (Reitman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), reinforcing the idea that collective mind is enacted through both cognitive representation and behavioural coordination. These insights align with the foundational puzzle of this study: how do temporary teams develop the cognitive infrastructure necessary to act collectively and reduce implementation errors?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, collective mind is revisited as a dynamic configuration of cognitive and behavioural mechanisms. The original dimensions \u003cem\u003e(i.e., representing, contributing, and subordinating\u003c/em\u003e) are retained but reconceptualised to reflect the normative and relational complexities of temporary project teams. Specifically, subordinating is reframed as compliance, and contributing is introduced as we-centric contribution. In addition, two new dimensions are proposed: shared understanding and coordination. Shared understanding reflects the need for a common sense of project goals, which is critical for integrating diverse knowledge domains and avoiding interactional inefficiencies (Bittner \u0026amp; Leimeister, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, coordination captures the behavioural monitoring and alignment required to prevent or minimise errors in the implementation of interdependent tasks (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). As Weick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) suggests, increased errors can lead to variations in the heedfulness with which team members conduct their activities, ultimately resulting in a flawed collective mind. Therefore, these five dimensions (\u003cem\u003ei.e. we-centric contribution, representing, compliance, shared understanding, and coordination\u003c/em\u003e) form the basis for analysing how collective mind is enacted in multidisciplinary project teams to improve interaction efficiency while also minimising errors. Each dimension is explored in greater depth in the following sections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e2.2 Dimensions of Collective Mind\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e2.1 Coordination in Project Teams\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoordination is considered a foundational dimension of collective mind, referring to the evolving process through which members of a team actively and collectively manage or monitor each other\u0026rsquo;s actions in pursuit of shared goals (Bechky \u0026amp; Okhuysen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In high-interdependence contexts, coordination enables actors to anticipate others\u0026rsquo; behaviours, align their actions, and adapt responsively to emerging contingencies (Srikanth \u0026amp; Puranam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This heedful interrelating is central to the emergence of collective cognition, particularly in complex, uncertain, or time-constrained environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of coordination has deep roots in organisational theory. Galbraith (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e) emphasised the role of coordination in managing uncertainty and task interdependence, while Lawrence and Lorsch (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1967\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted its importance in integrating differentiated units. More recently, Okhuysen and Bechky (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) proposed an integrative framework in which coordination is enabled by mechanisms that create three conditions: accountability, predictability, and common understanding. These conditions are not merely structural but cognitive, shaping how actors perceive their roles, anticipate others' actions, and interpret shared goals. Faraj and Xiao (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p. 1157) further framed coordination as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ea temporally unfolding and contextualized process of input regulation and interaction articulation to realize a collective performance\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. This definition resonates with the distributed cognition perspective that underpins collective mind.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this view, multidisciplinary team coordination is not a static structure but a dynamic process that synthesises interactions across knowledge boundaries and constantly adapts to enhance performance outcomes in line with the emerging realities of team members (Faraj \u0026amp; Xiao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Recent contributions from small group research further enrich this understanding. Braun et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that team cohesion and coordination are dynamically linked to performance, especially in newly formed teams. Their findings suggest that coordination is not a one-time achievement but a continuously negotiated process. They also underscore the importance of coordination as both a cognitive and behavioural enabler of collective mind. More specifically, the causal logic underpinning coordination in collective mind is that the more actors are able to anticipate, monitor, and align with each other\u0026rsquo;s actions, the more effectively they can integrate their expertise and respond to uncertainty. Importantly, coordination is not merely a technical or procedural issue but a relational and cognitive one. It enables actors to move beyond individual expertise and toward collective sensemaking, especially in contexts characterised by ambiguity, time pressure, and distributed knowledge. As such, coordination is a critical enabler of collective mind, shaping how groups think, act, and adapt together.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Representing in Project Interrelations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresenting is a central dimension of collective mind, referring to how team members perceive, imagine, and envision the interdependencies among roles, tasks, and activities in pursuit of shared goals (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). It is the cognitive infrastructure that enables actors to anticipate others\u0026rsquo; actions and define their own contributions in relation to the broader system. In project teams, representing allows individuals to work \"alone together\" (Bruns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), maintaining coherence and coordination without constant negotiation or supervision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical foundations for representing are found in distributed cognition and social systems theory. Weick and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) argue that individual action enacts collective mind when it converges with, supplements, assists, and becomes defined by the expected requirements of the network. However, they caution that such convergence is only possible if the representations of actors are structurally similar. Any unresolved differences between representational frameworks can lead to variation in heed and a potential loss of mind due to errors (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). They also note that \u0026ldquo;group actions are possible only when each participant has a representation that includes the actions of others and their relations.\u0026rdquo; (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, p. 363). Representing thus plays a critical role in enabling actors to anticipate others\u0026rsquo; actions and to define their own contributions in ways that align with collective goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, representing determines whether actors can maintain coherence in distributed work, especially under conditions of uncertainty or fragmentation. Representing is not static; it evolves through experience, interaction, and narrative. Weick and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that an increase in heedful interrelating can prevent or correct failures of comprehension in at least three ways: (1) by connecting longer stretches of time, (2) by spanning more activities across task sequences, and (3) by linking more levels of experience. For example, in a dynamic project team where team members are constantly changing, newcomers who take nothing for granted may interrelate more often with old-timers who think they have seen it all, thereby enriching the representational frameworks of both. Whether collective mind gets renewed during (re)socialization may depend on the candor and narrative skills of insiders (old team members) and the attentiveness of newcomers (new team members). Candid insiders who use memorable stories to describe failures as well as successes, their doubts as well as their certainties, and what works as well as what fails, help newcomers infer dispositions of heed and carelessness (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, p. 368).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is worth emphasising that the causal logic underpinning representing in collective mind is that individual cognition must be socially and structurally aligned for collective sensemaking to occur. Representing enables actors to define their own actions in relation to others, to anticipate interdependencies, and to maintain coherence in distributed teams. When representations are structurally similar, individual actions converge, supplement, and assist one another, enacting collective mind (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). When representations diverge, heedful interrelating becomes fragmented, and the system risks losing coherence. Representing is thus a critical dimension of collective mind, shaping how actors think about their roles, their relationships, and the shared goals that bind them together.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 Compliance as Normative Heedfulness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompliance is a critical dimension of collective mind, referring to the extent to which actors align their actions with shared expectations, norms, and obligations that define legitimate behaviour within a project team (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; St\u0026ouml;ber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of heedful interrelating, compliance is not simply rule-following; it reflects a mindful enactment of shared commitments that enable distributed actors to function coherently and responsibly (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It is a behavioural expression of attentiveness, where individual actions converge with collective expectations to sustain coordination and reduce implementation errors (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). In project environments, compliance is shaped by both formal structures and informal norms. It involves adherence to client requirements, regulatory standards, and project objectives, but also the internalisation of shared values and relational expectations (St\u0026ouml;ber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This dual nature of compliance (\u003cem\u003ei.e., structural and normative\u003c/em\u003e) makes it a powerful mechanism for behavioural alignment. It enables actors to anticipate how others will behave, interpret their own responsibilities, and maintain coherence across organisational boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompliance also plays a role in shaping the cognitive infrastructure of collective mind. When actors enact compliance mindfully, they contribute to a shared understanding of what constitutes appropriate action. This reduces ambiguity and enhances predictability, allowing team members to work independently while remaining aligned with collective goals. In this sense, compliance supports the emergence of predictive knowledge and representational alignment (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical studies have shown that compliance mechanisms must be contextually relevant and well-designed to be effective. For example, the clarity of codes of conduct, the specificity of training programmes, and the responsiveness of reporting systems all influence behavioural alignment (St\u0026ouml;ber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, compliance is often enacted through informal practices such as anticipatory adjustments, mutual monitoring, and empathetic responsiveness (Ben-menahem et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These practices reflect a deeper form of heedfulness, where actors internalise shared expectations and enact them without external enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the causal logic underpinning compliance in collective mind is that alignment with shared expectations enables distributed actors to function as a coherent system. Compliance reduces relational friction, enhances coordination, and supports the enactment of shared cognitive structures. It is particularly critical in temporary project teams, where actors must quickly establish behavioural norms and align their actions despite divergent organisational affiliations. When enacted with heedfulness, compliance becomes a generative force that sustains collective mind, enabling actors to adapt, align, and act together in pursuit of shared goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 Shared Understanding Among Project Actors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eShared understanding is another critical dimension of collective mind, referring to the extent to which team members develop similar interpretations of goals, priorities, procedures, and interdependencies (Ko et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Shared understanding is not merely about agreement. Rather, it is about the convergence of mental models that allow distributed actors to function coherently, especially under conditions of uncertainty and complexity (Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The concept of shared understanding is well-established in both organisational and project management literature. Ko and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) define shared understanding as the degree to which team members have a common grasp of project goals and processes, which facilitates coordination and problem-solving. Aub\u0026eacute;, Rousseau, \u0026amp; Tremblay (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) argue that shared understanding enhances team performance by reducing ambiguity and enabling more effective collaboration. In project settings, shared understanding is often achieved through deliberate communication strategies, clarification of ambiguous terms, and alignment of mental models (Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relational and cognitive implications of shared understanding enable actors to work independently and maintain autonomy while remaining aligned with collective goals (Bruns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, shared understanding supports predictive knowledge by allowing actors to anticipate how others will interpret and respond to unfolding events (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Shared understanding thus plays a critical role in preventing fragmentation in heedful interrelating. Empirical illustrations reinforce the importance of shared understanding in project environments. For example, Ben-Menahem et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) provide rich examples of how shared understanding is cultivated through informal practices such as anticipatory conforming, where specialists adjust their standards to accommodate others\u0026rsquo; needs, and cross-domain triangulating, where actors validate their findings through dialogue with other domains. These practices are embedded within formal structures that define roles and responsibilities, but they also evolve dynamically as new interdependencies are revealed. The causal logic underpinning shared understanding in collective mind is that cognitive alignment enables distributed actors to interpret situations similarly, anticipate each other\u0026rsquo;s actions, and define their own contributions in ways that support collective goals. Shared understanding reduces ambiguity, enhances coordination, and supports the emergence of predictive knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.5 We-centric Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe-centric contribution is conceptually anchored in Weick and Roberts\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) notion of \u0026ldquo;contributing,\u0026rdquo; which refers to the heedful actions of organisational members undertaken to fulfil shared goals. In its original formulation, contributing was situated within intra-organisational contexts where actors typically operated under shared rules, procedures, and institutional norms. However, in multidisciplinary project teams, actors often work across divergent regulatory frameworks, industry standards, and professional logics (Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This fragmentation introduces the risk of self-focused actions or \u003cem\u003eI-centric contribution\u003c/em\u003e, where individuals act primarily in accordance with their own domain-specific priorities, potentially overlooking how their decisions affect others (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For example, in construction projects, an electrical engineer may focus solely on compliance with electrical regulations, without considering how their choices might constrain architectural design or procurement timelines. If such decisions go unchecked, they may produce unintended consequences that ripple across the project. To account for these complexities, the concept of contributing is reframed in this study as \u003cem\u003ewe-centric contribution\u003c/em\u003e, which is defined as a mental orientation and attitudinal disposition that reflects deliberate attentiveness to interdependencies and potential overlaps with others when executing one\u0026rsquo;s own isolated actions (Dierdorff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It positions contribution not merely as individual input, but as a relational act, embedded in a broader network of mutual influence and joint responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical foundations of we-centric contribution are further enriched by Carlile\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) work on boundary-spanning and knowledge transformation. Carlile argues that resolving cross-boundary challenges requires actors not only to adapt their own knowledge but also to influence and transform the knowledge of others. These dual requirements of openness and assertiveness resonate with the logic of we-centric contribution, which demands that actors remain mindful of how their actions shape and are shaped by others (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, we-centric contribution reflects a disposition of empathetic intelligence, where actors monitor others\u0026rsquo; activities, anticipate their needs, and adjust their own behaviours accordingly (Bruns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This mindset fosters predictive knowledge (i.e., an understanding of what others are likely to do), which then enables tacit coordination (Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast to explicit coordination mechanisms, we-centric contribution allows actors to align their actions without formal intervention, reducing the need for boundary spanners or detailed planning. It is a form of cognitive scaffolding that supports fluid collaboration and tacit coordination in complex, interdependent settings (Ben-menahem et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies have shown that tacit coordination is enabled through transactive memory systems and frequent informal communication, which allow team members to anticipate each other\u0026rsquo;s actions without explicit cues (Peltokorpi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). For example, in distributed or virtual teams, this form of coordination becomes even more critical, as limited personal interaction constrains the exchange of tacit knowledge (Handke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Lane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, heedful interrelating, characterised by attentiveness, responsive communication, and a felt sense of the team\u0026rsquo;s work, has been empirically linked to improved team performance in self-managing teams (Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Stephens \u0026amp; Lyddy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). These findings reinforce the idea that we-centric contribution is a practical necessity in complex, interdependent project environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the causal logic of we-centric contribution in relation to collective mind lies in its capacity to reduce coordination overhead while enhancing alignment. Even when a low level of collective mind is sufficient, the presence of we-centric contribution enables actors to act with care and foresight, thereby maintaining coherence across distributed tasks. It serves as a cognitive lubricant that allows project members to function smoothly despite complexity and fragmentation. By fostering mutual responsiveness and predictive knowledge, we-centric contribution strengthens the collective mind\u0026rsquo;s infrastructure, making it a critical enabler of joint action in project-based organising.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Summary\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe five dimensions discussed in the previous chapter form a dynamic and interdependent configuration that enables the enactment of collective mind in project teams. Coordination provides the behavioural scaffolding for aligning actions, while representing ensures cognitive alignment by enabling actors to perceive and capture interdependencies in shared tasks. Compliance reinforces normative coherence, guiding behaviour through shared expectations. Shared understanding acts as a cognitive bridge, allowing actors to interpret goals and procedures similarly, thereby reducing ambiguity. Finally, we-centric contribution fosters relational attentiveness, encouraging individuals to act with foresight and empathy toward others\u0026rsquo; roles and constraints. These dimensions do not operate in isolation; rather, they co-evolve through interaction, feedback, and mutual reinforcement. For instance, effective coordination depends on structurally similar representations and shared understanding, while compliance is strengthened by we-centric contributions that reflect internalised norms. The interplay among these dimensions creates a pattern of heedful interrelating that supports reliable performance and error reduction in project teams. In this way, collective mind emerges not as a static construct but as a fluid, generative mechanism shaped by the cognitive and behavioural dynamics of project-based collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a configurational methodological approach to examine the necessary conditions for the emergence of collective mind in multidisciplinary project teams. Specifically, it employs Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), a technique designed to identify non-compensatory conditions that must be present for a particular outcome to occur (Dul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike traditional correlational methods that assess average effects, NCA focuses on identifying bottleneck factors, without which the desired outcome cannot be achieved, regardless of the presence of other enabling conditions (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The empirical context for this study is the UK construction industry. Construction projects were selected because they exemplify temporary and multidisciplinary team arrangements, where actors from diverse professional backgrounds collaborate under time pressure and across organisational boundaries (Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These settings are particularly prone to coordination challenges, fragmented understanding, and behavioural misalignment, conditions that directly affect the emergence of collective mind. As such, construction project teams offer a theoretically rich and practically relevant context for examining how heedful interrelating unfolds in cross-boundary environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Recruitment and Sample Access\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo recruit suitable teams for data collection, the researcher began by identifying the top 100 construction companies in the UK using publicly available data from the Construction Index website. An Excel database was created containing the contact details of these companies. Initial outreach involved directly contacting the listed companies to explain the research aims and request access for data collection. This approach yielded limited success, as most companies did not respond, and those that did indicated they were unavailable to participate. Consequently, the researcher leveraged professional networks and academic connections to identify potential access points. Through these networks, three project managers were identified who agreed to introduce the researcher to their respective teams. After presenting the research objectives and discussing the data collection process with each team, all three agreed to participate. Data collection was subsequently conducted on one project per team.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Sample and Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected from 31 construction professionals across the three project teams that participated in the study. Project Team 1 (PT1) involved the design of an institutional building for engineering academics and students, with a budget of \u0026pound;9\u0026nbsp;million. Project Team 2 (PT2) focused on the technical design of science laboratories and offices for postgraduate researchers, with a budget of \u0026pound;23\u0026nbsp;million. Project Team 3 (PT3) centred on the construction of a commercial building comprising corporate offices and retail centres, with a budget of \u0026pound;28\u0026nbsp;million. All three projects were located in the UK and spanned different stages of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) construction lifecycle. PT1 at the concept and advanced design stages (RIBA 2 \u0026amp; 3), PT2 at the technical design stage (RIBA 4), and PT3 at the preconstruction and construction stages (RIBA 5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe teams included a mix of architects, engineers, project managers, consultants, quantity surveyors, and client representatives, all from multiple organisations. Questionnaire responses were completed as follows: 8 from PT1, 12 from PT2, and 11 from PT3. Participants completed the questionnaire in person, allowing them to seek clarification and ask questions about the items during the process. This approach ensured high response quality and consistency in interpretation. Before administering the NCA questionnaire, the researcher was granted access to observe bi-monthly meetings across all participating project teams. These meetings provided valuable insights into the internal dynamics, coordination practices, and technical language used by team members. This observational phase was instrumental in tailoring the NCA questions to the specific realities of the project teams, ensuring contextual relevance and enhancing the validity of the data collected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Questionnaire Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe followed Churchill\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e) approach to questionnaire development. The initial pool of items was constructed by combining validated scales from several relevant empirical studies with newly developed items tailored to the context of construction project teams (Selnes \u0026amp; Sallis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Redundant or ambiguous items were eliminated through interviews with MBA students with backgrounds and industrial experience in project management. Specifically, the first draft of the questionnaire was pilot-tested with 21 postgraduate students (including MBA and PhD students) who had prior experience working in project teams. Their feedback informed revisions to the items\u0026rsquo; clarity, relevance, and phrasing. A final review was conducted in consultation with a method specialist professor experienced in NCA and research design, whose suggestions helped refine the instrument further.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach construct was measured using a continuous 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with no neutral midpoint. This scale format aligns with the continuous logic of NCA and avoids ambiguity in respondent interpretation (Dul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Where possible, validated scales were used directly or adapted to suit the construction project context. For example, shared understanding was measured using items adapted from Ko, Kirsch \u0026amp; King (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), Aub\u0026eacute;, Rousseau \u0026amp; Tremblay (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and Bittner \u0026amp; Leimeister (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These items captured team members\u0026rsquo; similarity in prior experience, problem-solving approaches, and clarity of communication. One item stated: \u0026ldquo;Our team members are always on the same page regarding which aspects of the project to prioritise.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoordination was measured using modified items from Van de Ven, Delbecq and Koenig Jr. (1976) and Lewis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), focusing on structured routines and formalised processes for circulating design-related information. For instance, one item read: \u0026ldquo;Our team has a well-structured routine (e.g. bi-monthly meetings) to ensure our workflow is implemented smoothly and efficiently.\u0026rdquo; Compliance was operationalised using new items inspired by Weick and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), focusing on alignment with client requirements, project objectives, and industry regulations. Representing was also measured using new items grounded in Weick and Roberts\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) conceptualisation of structurally similar representations. Items captured how project teams explained requirements, resolved conflicting views, and updated shared documentation. We-centric contribution combined elements of contributing and alignment of interests among project actors. Items were inspired by Weick and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) and Carlile (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), capturing mutual support, empathetic intelligence, and the use of boundary objects to negotiate overlapping interests. The outcome variable, collective mind, was measured using nine items developed from Weick and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), focusing on error reduction, behavioural consistency, and attentiveness. One item stated: \u0026ldquo;There have been no major accidents on site or any noticeable errors in the way team members implement their tasks.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere applicable, reverse-coded items (e.g., \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThere has been a considerable amount of errors in the way team members implement their tasks.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;) were recoded during analysis to ensure consistency in scale direction. This adjustment was made prior to reliability testing and data analysis to maintain interpretive alignment across all constructs. Reliability testing using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha yielded acceptable scores for all constructs: collective mind (0.890), shared understanding (0.766), coordination (0.715), representing (0.775), we-centric contribution (0.815), and compliance (0.715). The full list of measurement items and theoretical sources is provided in the Appendix.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Procedure for Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data were analysed using the NCA package in R Studio, following the guidelines outlined by Dul (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). For each condition variable, a scatterplot was generated with the outcome variable (collective mind) on the y-axis. The plots were divided into two regions by ceiling lines, which represent the threshold beyond which the outcome cannot occur without the condition. Two ceiling techniques were used: Ceiling Envelopment (CE), a stepwise line that captures all observations below the threshold, offering 100% accuracy; and Ceiling Regression (CR), a linear approximation that may allow some observations above the line, resulting in lower accuracy. The effect size (d) was calculated as the ratio of the ceiling zone (C) to the scope (S), with interpretation thresholds as follows: 0\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;d\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1 (small effect), 0.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;d\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.3 (medium effect), 0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;d\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5 (large effect), and d\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.5 (very large effect). In addition to calculating effect sizes, a bottleneck table was generated to identify the minimum levels of each condition required to achieve different levels of collective mind (e.g., 50%, 70%, 90%). This analytical approach enables the identification of indispensable conditions and provides a nuanced understanding of how different antecedents constrain the emergence of collective mind in distributed project environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile collective mind is conceptualised as a team-level construct, reflecting a pattern of heedful interrelations of actions in a social system (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), the analysis was conducted at the individual level to reflect the distributed and varied nature of cognitive enactments within teams. Team cognition is inherently a bottom-up construct originating in the cognition of individuals and emerging from member interactions (Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This methodological approach is consistent with compilation models (also referred to as configural unit properties) in team cognition research (Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Compilation is based on assumptions of discontinuity and describes phenomena that comprise a common domain but emerge as qualitatively different manifestations across levels (Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This perspective views the collective phenomenon as a complex combination of diverse lower-level contributions (Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRather than relying on aggregation of responses to form team-level scores (which would be required for isomorphic compositional models assuming sharedness), this analytical framework identifies critical thresholds at the individual level that must be met for the team-level outcome to materialise. This logic mirrors the nonlinear combination rules applied in compilation, such as disjunctive or conjunctive models that identify the necessary minimum or maximum individual contribution within the team to determine the collective attribute (Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This analytical approach aligns with the theoretical premise that collective mind does not reside in the individuals taken separately, but arises from the interrelating actions and representations of individual team members (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). While this choice introduces a level-of-analysis tension, the study intentionally treats differential individual enactments as necessary precursors/conditions to team-level cognitive infrastructure, thereby offering a nuanced perspective on the micro-foundations of collective mind (Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). The methodological choice is justified by the goal of identifying specific individual-level constraints that inhibit or enable team-level emergence, focusing on the configuration of contributions rather than simple consensus (Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Necessary Condition Analysis was conducted to determine which of the five antecedent conditions are necessary to establish and maintain collective mind among project team members. As shown in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e \u0026amp; \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, there are empty spaces in the upper left corners of the scatterplots for all the condition variables investigated, which is an indication of the presence of necessary conditions (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). As can be noted on each diagram, there are three different types of ceiling lines (i.e. the red, green, and yellow lines). The red line, which represents the CE technique, gives the most accurate result because there are no observed cases (i.e. the blue rings) above it. Hence, CE is used to interpret the results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnce all conditions were confirmed to be necessary for collective mind, further calculations were conducted with the NCA software, and the results are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. For compliance, the size of the areas with observation (i.e. the scope, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) is 9.0, and the ceiling zone (i.e. the size of the areas above the ceiling line \u0026ndash; CE) is 4.995. Hence, the effect size for compliance against the collective mind of project actors is 0.56 (i.e. ceiling zone C divided by scope S, which is 4.995 divided by 9.0). Based on the dataset used in this study, the result shows that compliance has a very large effect on collective mind (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe NCA results for all variables (31 observed cases)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCondition variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCeiling techniques\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccuracy (in%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCeiling zones (C)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScope (S)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect size (d)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompliance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.995\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.406\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoordination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.395\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.993\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.708\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.588\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShared Understanding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.769\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.384\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe-centric Contribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.462\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.231\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e d\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.5 interpreted as a \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;very large effect.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; in accordance with Dul, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e 0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;d\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5 interpreted as a \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;large effect,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; in accordance with Dul, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e 0.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;d\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.3 interpreted as a \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;medium effect,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; in accordance with Dul, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e 0\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;d\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1 interpreted as a \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;small effect,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; in accordance with Dul, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor coordination (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), the scope is 6.0, and the ceiling zone is 1.395. Hence, the effect size for coordination against collective mind is 0.23 (i.e. 1.395 divided by 6.0). This result shows that coordination has a medium effect on collective mind. However, for representing (or representations, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), the scope is 4.5, and the ceiling zone is 0.708. Hence, the effect size for representing against collective mind is 0.16 (i.e. 0.708 divided by 4.5). This result shows that representing has a medium effect on collective mind.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, for shared understanding (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), the scope is 9.99, and the ceiling zone is 0.769. Hence, the effect size for shared understanding against collective mind is 0.08 (i.e. 0.769 divided by 9.99). This result shows that shared understanding only has a small effect on collective mind. Lastly, for we-centric contribution (or contributions, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), the scope is 5.1, and the ceiling zone is 0.462. Hence, the effect size for we-centric contribution against collective mind is 0.09 (i.e. 0.462 divided by 5.1). This result shows that we-centric contribution only has a small effect on collective mind.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the results presented above, a further analysis was conducted to identify the minimum levels of compliance, coordination, representing, shared understanding, and we-centric contribution that are required to achieve different desired levels of collective mind. The results are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The bold lines (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) are used to highlight three levels (i.e. low, medium, and high levels) of collective mind that are potentially attainable. The values below 50% are considered low level, values between 50% and 70% are considered medium, while a high level of collective mind is above 70%, and up to 100%, which is the highest level attainable (Dul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). A 100% level of collective mind should be an ideal target for organisations where there is zero tolerance for errors, or where a single error could lead to disastrous effects, such as the case of aircraft careers and flight operators (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBottleneck table for NCA results\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollective mind\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompliance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoordination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShared Understanding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe-centric Contribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e: the CE (i.e. ceiling envelopment) ceiling technique was used for the above bottleneck table. By using CE, 100% accuracy level is attained (i.e. no outlier cases above ceiling line is permitted). Please note that the results are in percentages and \u0026ldquo;NN\u0026rdquo; means not necessary.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, for a low level of collective mind, only compliance is necessary, even for levels as low as 10%. Counterintuitively, coordination and representations (i.e. representing) only become necessary for a medium level of collective mind, while shared understanding and we-centric contribution are only relevant when a very high level of collective mind is desired. These results have both theoretical and practical implications, as presented in the discussion chapter below.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis chapter reflects on the theoretical, methodological, and practical significance of operationalising collective mind in multidisciplinary project teams. Drawing on the findings from the Necessary Condition Analysis, it revisits the foundational puzzle raised in the introduction: how do temporary (multidisciplinary) teams develop the cognitive infrastructure necessary to act collectively and reduce implementation errors? The discussion is structured around three key subchapters: theoretical implications, practical relevance, and limitations, with directions for future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Theoretical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study advances the conceptualisation of collective mind by integrating insights from team cognition, behavioural dynamics, and project coordination (Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Okhuysen \u0026amp; Bechky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Building on Weick and Roberts\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) original framework, it reconceptualises subordinating as compliance and contributing as we-centric contribution, reflecting the normative and relational complexities inherent in cross-boundary collaboration (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Dierdorff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This reframing is essential because temporary teams are often characterised as less hierarchical, relying on interpersonal coordination rather than formal authority, and must overcome members\u0026rsquo; divergent organisational interests to pursue collective goals (Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This dynamic reinterpretation of core behaviours aligns with recent calls to examine how cognitive infrastructure and behavioural coordination co-evolve in fluid team environments and complements models focused on process dynamics (Ding \u0026amp; Kuvaas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Reitman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe NCA findings reveal a novel hierarchy of necessity among the five dimensions. Compliance (reconceptualised subordination) is indispensable even at low levels of collective mind, suggesting that basic behavioural control (\u003cem\u003ei.e., the willingness to subordinate individual action to joint requirements\u003c/em\u003e) is the non-negotiable necessary condition required for any collective action to occur (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Counterintuitively, coordination and representing (\u0026ldquo;big picture\u0026rdquo; awareness) only become necessary preconditions at moderate levels of collective mind. This supports the notion that once basic compliance is secured, teams must engage in explicit coordination activities and rapidly form internalised representations of the social system to function effectively (Stephens \u0026amp; Lyddy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), particularly in fluid teams where low authority differentiation necessitates strong self-management and idea integration (Niler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly, shared understanding and we-centric contribution are only required when very high levels of collective mind are targeted. This challenges additive and compositional models of team cognition, which often assume high cognitive similarity is fundamental for all functioning teams (Healey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Instead, this non-compensatory logic supports the configurational view that highly developed shared knowledge and deep collective identification act as bottleneck conditions required only for achieving the most reliable, near-error-free outcomes, thereby demonstrating the utility of NCA in assessing necessity in degree (Ding \u0026amp; Kuvaas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Geremew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, the study contributes to the literature on team dynamics by showing that collective mind, through heedful interrelating, is fundamentally a behavioural phenomenon enacted dynamically, rather than a static cognitive outcome (Stephens \u0026amp; Lyddy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). This aligns with the perspective of Interactive Team Cognition (ITC), which posits that team interaction is team cognition, and rejects the notion that cognition is reducible only to individual knowledge states (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The hierarchy of necessity revealed by our findings underscores that the behavioural mechanism of subordinating is the prerequisite for subsequent cognitive emergence (Ding \u0026amp; Kuvaas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the interplay between coordination and representing underscores how the continuous process of behavioural monitoring and action articulation enables implicit coordination and predictive knowledge, which are critical for error reduction and team adaptation in fluid settings (Faraj \u0026amp; Xiao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stephens \u0026amp; Lyddy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the study extends the notion of distributed cognition by demonstrating how artefacts such as routines and shared documentation serve as external cognitive scaffolds that support alignment across organisational boundaries (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These boundary objects are crucial in temporary interorganisational networks (or multidisciplinary teams) as they mitigate the mutual knowledge problem inherent in distributed collaboration and provide a means of developing shared cognitions through sensemaking (Handke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). By facilitating externalised team knowledge (Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and promoting continuity of intentions and actions (Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), these artefacts enable actors to work efficiently, maintaining coherence without the need for constant negotiation (Okhuysen \u0026amp; Bechky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the reconceptualisation of contributing as we-centric contribution significantly enriches the literature on relational cognition (Peters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This behavioural emphasis highlights the necessity of anticipatory adjustments and mutual responsiveness in fostering tacit (implicit) coordination (Dierdorff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Stephens \u0026amp; Lyddy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). By focusing on the intentionality behind individual inputs that serve collective outcomes, this framing complements existing models of Transactive Memory System and Shared Mental Models (Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Peltokorpi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, it provides a process-based explanation for how specialised knowledge and common knowledge are activated and integrated (Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, we-centric contribution offers a more nuanced, dynamic understanding of how individual actions are embedded in and directed by collective goals in temporary, interdependent, and multidisciplinary teamwork (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Dierdorff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the study responds directly to recent critiques of static models of team cognition, which have frequently relied on cross-sectional, aggregated data gathered after emergence has already happened (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). By demonstrating a hierarchy of necessity through NCA, the study offers a dynamic account of how cognitive and behavioural mechanisms could potentially interact over time (Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Niler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). We show that collective mind is not a fixed state but a generative process (\u003cem\u003ean emergent state of activity\u003c/em\u003e) that arises from the interactions of lower-level elements/dimensions (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kozlowski \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). This process is shaped by feedback loops (e.g., via coordination) (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), normative alignment (via compliance), and representational convergence (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). This insight opens new avenues for theorising team cognition as an emergent and adaptive phenomenon (Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Understanding these dynamic trajectories is critical for advancing the science of team cognition, particularly in fluid contexts where capabilities must develop quickly and continually.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Practical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a managerial perspective, the differentiated necessity of conditions offers a resource-sensitive roadmap for fostering collective mind. Because necessary conditions cannot be replaced by other factors, prioritising them ensures that organisational resources are invested in the critical determinants that must be fulfilled for collective performance, leading to optimal resource allocation and increased effectiveness. Project managers can tailor their interventions based on the desired level of collective mind and the phase of the project lifecycle, thereby integrating findings on dynamic team processes into project governance mechanisms. The NCA results demonstrate that compliance is indispensable even at low levels of collective mind, making it the priority during early planning and contracting (Ding \u0026amp; Kuvaas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Project managers must prioritise compliance mechanisms, such as regulatory alignment, standardised platforms, and clear codes of conduct, because these interventions establish the normative boundaries and action controls within which diverse actors operate (St\u0026ouml;ber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementing all contractual commitments is a critical coordination activity, as contracts define roles and responsibilities and act as a safeguard against opportunism in cross-boundary relationships (Van der Valk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This initial focus on compliance ensures accountability (\u003cem\u003ei.e., the integrating condition that clarifies who is responsible for specific elements of the task\u003c/em\u003e), thereby reducing the risk of coordination breakdowns (Okhuysen \u0026amp; Bechky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). As the project transitions into design and development phases, coordination and representing become necessary at moderate levels of collective mind, reflecting the need to manage complexity introduced by specialised, interdependent tasks (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Niler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Structured routines, shared documentation, and boundary-spanning roles should be prioritised as coordination mechanisms that increase the organisation\u0026rsquo;s capacity to handle the complex information requirements of task interdependence (Galbraith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Okhuysen \u0026amp; Bechky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, project documents function as boundary objects or scaffolding to provide a common reference and external representations that support interpretational alignment across organisational boundaries (Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Okhuysen \u0026amp; Bechky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Peters \u0026amp; Pressey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Representational alignment ensures that actors interpret goals and interdependencies in compatible ways, reducing ambiguity and enhancing predictability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn execution and monitoring, shared understanding and we-centric contribution are necessary bottleneck conditions required to manage high complexity and avoid errors, particularly in high-stakes or knowledge-intensive contexts (Ding \u0026amp; Kuvaas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Talat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Shared understanding supports the ability of the team to achieve tacit coordination and respond effectively to unexpected events (Mohammed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Likewise, we-centric contribution establishes the necessary collective commitment and common purpose required to overcome inherent relational complexities (Burt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Dierdorff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Ogundipe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These dimensions collectively foster mutual responsiveness and adaptive sensemaking, allowing members to apply their effort towards a jointly held conception of the work, thereby increasing the predictability and reliability of collective action (Okhuysen \u0026amp; Bechky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, the NCA results suggest that over-investment in certain conditions may lead to condition inefficiency if bottlenecks remain unresolved (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Valk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, high levels of relational factors, such as trust or we-centric contribution, cannot compensate for the absence of compliance, because a lower value for one necessary condition cannot be compensated for by a higher value of another causal factor (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Valk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Managers should therefore utilise NCA's bottleneck analysis to identify and address the condition(s) that are below the necessary threshold level before investing in compensatory or complementary factors. This logic offers a pragmatic approach to optimal resource allocation in project environments, which are constrained by limited organisational resources and varying stakeholder demands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the study offers important insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31) is relatively small, which inherently limits the generalisability of the findings to broader organisational populations. Although NCA is robust to small samples and suitable for exploratory theory-building, and can be conducted with very small datasets, its robustness does not substitute for the need for a good sample size (Dul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, future studies should replicate the analysis with larger and more diverse samples across sectors such as healthcare, IT, and pharmaceuticals to enhance external validity and determine how robust the necessity conditions are under varying contextual moderators. Replication with new samples would also help to better demarcate the theoretical domain in which the necessary conditions apply.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the study relies solely on quantitative data collected via structured questionnaires at a single point in time. This cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw strict causal necessity conclusions and capture the temporal dynamics of collective mind, which is defined as a pattern of ongoing activity (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). While this approach enabled the operationalisation of complex constructs and the application of NCA, it excluded qualitative insights necessary to unpack the \u0026ldquo;black box\u0026rdquo; of team cognition emergence (Allen \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Neill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Grand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, future research could adopt a mixed-methods design, incorporating longitudinal data collection with interviews or ethnographic observations to uncover contextual nuances and provide rich descriptions of team processes in action (Handke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Combining methods, such as NCA with qualitative data, will potentially provide a richer perspective on causality (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, NCA is inherently a bivariate approach that evaluates each condition in isolation, as its underlying logic dictates that the absence of a necessary condition cannot be compensated for by increasing other determinants\u0026rsquo; levels (Ding \u0026amp; Kuvaas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Van der Valk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, potential synergies or trade-offs (such as how robust coordination might compensate for weak shared understanding) are not captured. To address this sufficiency logic and explore causal complexity, future studies should integrate this NCA analysis with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) or fuzzy-set logic (fsQCA) (Geremew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These configurational methods are ideally suited to explore sufficiency configurations and equifinality (multiple combinations of conditions leading to the same outcome), providing a complete perspective on the causal relationships that complement NCA\u0026rsquo;s necessity focus (Dul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Geremew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptually, the study treats collective mind as a desirable outcome but does not interrogate its potential downsides. This is critical because excessive cognitive alignment, which may result from unchecked heedfulness, is known to foster groupthink, reducing creativity and inhibiting innovation in teams (Weick \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). While collective mind enables coordination, its over-development risks rigidity, potentially leading to performance that is habitual and resistant to adaptation rather than heedful and evolving. Research has demonstrated that teams with high diversity, while prone to conflicts, can produce higher quality ideas than homogenous groups, suggesting that discordance is sometimes beneficial (Burt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Investigating the \u0026ldquo;dark side\u0026rdquo; of collective mind, particularly by exploring the relationship between heedfulness and constructive conflict, could offer a more balanced understanding of its role in project teams.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthical approval and informed consent statements: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the NUBS (Nottingham University Business School) Research Ethics Committee at the University of Nottingham. All participants provided informed consent by signing a consent form prior to their involvement in the research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllen NJ, O\u0026rsquo;Neill TA (2015) The trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs. Small Group Res 46(3):352\u0026ndash;390\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAub\u0026eacute; C, Rousseau V, Tremblay S (2015) Perceived shared understanding in teams: The motivational effect of being on the same page. Br J Psychol 106(3):468\u0026ndash;486\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBechky BA, Okhuysen GA (2011) Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Acad Manag J 54(2):239\u0026ndash;261\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBen-menahem SM, Von Krogh G, Erden Z, Schneider A (2016) Coordinating knowledge creation in multidisciplinary teams: Evidence from early-stage drug discovery. Acad Manag J 59(4):1308\u0026ndash;1338\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBittner E, Leimeister J (2014) Creating shared understanding in heterogeneous work groups: Why it matters and how to achieve it. J Manage Inform Syst 31(1):111\u0026ndash;144\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun MT, Kozlowski SWJ, Brown TA, DeShon RP (2020) Exploring the dynamic team cohesion\u0026ndash;performance and coordination\u0026ndash;performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Res 51(5):551\u0026ndash;580\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruns HC (2013) Working alone together: Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise. Acad Manag J 56(1):62\u0026ndash;83\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurt BA, Stone B, Perkins T, Polk A, Ramirez C, Rosado J (2022) Team culture of community: cultural practices for scientific team cohesion and productivity. Small Group Res 53(6):855\u0026ndash;890\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming : An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 15(5):555\u0026ndash;568\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChurchill GA Jr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64\u0026ndash;73\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooke NJ, Cohen MC, Fazio WC, Inderberg LH, Johnson CJ, Lematta GJ, Peel M, Teo A (2024) From teams to teamness: Future directions in the science of team cognition. Hum Factors 66(6):1669\u0026ndash;1680\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDierdorff EC, Bell ST, Belohlav JA (2011) The power of we: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. J Appl Psychol 96(2):247\u0026ndash;262\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDing H, Kuvaas B (2023) Using necessary condition analysis in managerial psychology research: introduction, empirical demonstration and methodological discussion. J Managerial Psychol 38(4):260\u0026ndash;272\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDul J (2016) Necessary condition analysis (NCA): Logic and methodology of necessary but not sufficient causality. Organizational Res Methods 19(1):10\u0026ndash;52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDul J, Hauff S, Bouncken RB (2023) Necessary condition analysis (NCA): Review of research topics and guidelines for good practice. RMS 17(2):683\u0026ndash;714\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFaraj S, Xiao Y (2006) Coordination in fast-response organizations. Manage Sci 52(8):1155\u0026ndash;1169\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGalbraith JR (1974) Organisation design: An information processing view. Interfaces 4(3):28\u0026ndash;36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeremew YM, Huang WJ, Hung K (2024) Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis as a mixed-method and analysis technique: A comprehensive systematic review. J Travel Res 63(1):3\u0026ndash;26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrand JA, Braun MT, Kuljanin G, Kozlowski SWJ, Chao GT (2016) The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. J Appl Psychol 101(10):1353\u0026ndash;1385\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHandke L, Klonek FE, Parker SK, Kauffeld S (2020) Interactive effects of team virtuality and work design on team functioning. Small Group Res 51(1):3\u0026ndash;47\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHealey MP, Vuori T, Hodgkinson GP (2015) When teams agree while disagreeing: Reflexion and reflection in shared cognition. Acad Manage Rev 40(3):399\u0026ndash;422\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKo D-G, Kirsch LJ, King WR (2005) Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Q 29(1):59\u0026ndash;85\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. K. J. Klei, pp 3\u0026ndash;90\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLane JN, Leonardi PM, Contractor NS, DeChurch LA (2024) Teams in the digital workplace: Technology\u0026rsquo;s role for communication, collaboration, and performance. Small Group Res 55(1):139\u0026ndash;183\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewis K (2003) Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. J Appl Psychol 88(4):587\u0026ndash;604\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu R, He Y, Ding XH, Li J (2023) Media multiplicity and collaborative innovation with suppliers: evidence from China. Eur J Innov Manage 26(2):331\u0026ndash;346\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammed S, Hamilton K, Manzanares MS, Rico R (2017) Team cognition: Team mental models and situation awareness. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes. Wiley, pp 369\u0026ndash;392\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammed S, Rico R, Alipour KK (2021) Team cognition at a crossroad: Toward conceptual integration and network configurations. Acad Manag Ann 15(2):455\u0026ndash;501\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiler AA, Mesmer-Magnus JR, Larson LE, Plummer G, DeChurch LA, Contractor NS (2021) Conditioning team cognition: A meta-analysis. Organizational Psychol Rev 11(2):144\u0026ndash;174\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgundipe SJ (2020) \u003cem\u003eProblem representations and collective mind within networks\u003c/em\u003e [University of Nottingham]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/61533/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/61533/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgundipe SJ, Peters LD, T\u0026oacute;th Z (2022) Interfirm problem representation: Developing shared understanding within inter-organizational networks. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial Marketing Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(November 2021), 76\u0026ndash;87\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOkhuysen GA, Bechky BA (2009) 10 Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Acad Manage Annals 3(1):463\u0026ndash;502\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeltokorpi V (2014) Transactive memory system coordination mechanisms in organizations: An exploratory case study. Group Org Manage 39(4):444\u0026ndash;471\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeters LD, Pressey AD (2016) The co-ordinative practices of temporary organisations. J Bus Industrial Mark 31(2):301\u0026ndash;311\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeters LD, Pressey AD, Johnston WJ (2017) Contagion and learning in business networks. Ind Mark Manage 61:43\u0026ndash;54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReitman JG, Harrison JL, Gorman JC, Lieber R, D\u0026rsquo;Mello SK (2024) Communicative influence: A novel measure of team dynamics that integrates team cognition theory with collaborative problem solving assessment. J Educ Psychol 117(1):134\u0026ndash;151\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelnes F, Sallis J (2003) Promoting relationship learning. J Mark 67(3):80\u0026ndash;95\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSrikanth K, Puranam P (2014) The firm as a coordination system: Evidence from software services offshoring. Organ Sci 25(4):1253\u0026ndash;1271\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStephens JP, Lyddy CJ (2016) Operationalizing heedful interrelating: How attending, responding, and feeling comprise coordinating and predict performance in self-managing teams. Front Psychol 7:362\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSt\u0026ouml;ber T, Kotzian P, Wei\u0026szlig;enberger BE (2019) Design matters: on the impact of compliance program design on corporate ethics. Bus Res 12(2):383\u0026ndash;424\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTalat A (2020) A framework for team sensemaking: Articulation and measurement of multidimensionality. Paradigms 14(2):153\u0026ndash;160\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Sociol Rev 41(2):322\u0026ndash;338Jr.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan der Valk W, Sumo R, Dul J, Schroeder RG (2016) When are contracts and trust necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A necessary condition analysis. J Purchasing Supply Manage 22(4):266\u0026ndash;277\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeick KE (2009) Making sense of the organization: The impermanent organization, vol 2. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons Ltd.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeick KE, Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm Sci Q 38(3):357\u0026ndash;381\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"multidisciplinary project teams, collective mind, team cognition, coordination, Necessary Condition Analysis, error reduction","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9160849/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9160849/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explores how temporary and multidisciplinary project teams enact collective mind to support coordinated action and reduce implementation errors. In intraorganizational settings, collective mind is traditionally understood through three dimensions: representing, contributing, and subordinating. However, to reflect the behavioural and multi-contextual realities of cross-boundary collaborations, this study reconceptualises subordinating as compliance and contributing as we-centric contribution. It also introduces two additional dimensions, namely, shared understanding and coordination. Data were collected from 31 professionals across three construction project teams in the UK, offering a rich empirical context for examining cognitive and behavioural dynamics in temporary settings. Using Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), the study identifies non-compensatory thresholds that must be met for collective mind to emerge. The analysis is conducted at the individual level to reflect the distributed nature of cognitive enactments within teams, consistent with compilation models in team cognition research. Findings reveal a hierarchy of necessity: compliance is indispensable even at low levels of collective mind, while coordination and representing become necessary at moderate levels. Shared understanding and we-centric contribution are only required when high levels of collective mind are targeted. These results challenge additive models of team cognition and support a configurational view of cognitive infrastructure as emergent and dynamic. The study contributes to theory by refining the conceptualisation of collective mind and demonstrating the utility of NCA in identifying bottleneck conditions in dynamic and multidisciplinary settings. Practically, it offers a resource-sensitive roadmap for managing coordination and cognitive alignment in temporary teams.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Threshold Conditions for Collective Mind in Project Teams: An NCA Study of Multidisciplinary Coordination","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-24 14:49:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9160849/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"baadebc3-548e-40e1-b301-ab9469040a22","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 24th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":64735729,"name":"Management"},{"id":64735731,"name":"Marketing"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-24T14:49:03+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-24 14:49:03","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9160849","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9160849","identity":"rs-9160849","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}