Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41049264›Full record

ArticleJournal of management2025

The Partners of My Partners: Shared Collaborative Experience and Team Performance in Surgical Teams.

Marco Tonellato, Valentina Iacopino, Daniele Mascia, Alessandro Lomi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marco TonellatoUniversity of Trento.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3641-8620
Valentina IacopinoUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.
Daniele MasciaLUISS University.
Alessandro LomiUniversity of Italian Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When teams in organizations are assembled to perform contingent tasks, team members carry with them experiences of prior interaction with partners in different teams. Focal team members share collaborative experiences to the extent that they worked with common external prior partners. Extending current research on team effectiveness, we investigate how shared collaborative experience (SCE) affects team performance. Consistent with the established understanding of team processes as carrying both a teamwork and a taskwork component, we conceptualize SCE as having two distinct dimensions that we call SCE extent and SCE diversity. We posit that high SCE extent increases the ability of teams to refine their teamwork processes, increasing their performance through enhanced coordination and reflexivity. We argue that high SCE diversity hinders the ability of teams to form a shared understanding of task demands, thus undermining team performance. Furthermore, we investigate the contingent effect of task complexity on the relationship between SCE and performance. We argue that the benefits of implicit coordination and the drawbacks of experience diversity decrease as tasks become more complex and require more explicit coordination and wider repertoires of responses. These predictions find support in an analysis of 1343 robot-assisted surgery operations performed by 114 surgeons during a four-year period in a private university hospital. By explicitly recognizing how team members benefit from the network of their shared prior partners, our study contributes to developing a new approach to study the effectiveness of temporary teams in organizations.

Indexed as

group processeshealth caresocial networksteam learningteam performanceteams

Identifiers

PMID41049264
PMCPMC12496028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.