Reading who knows what in a team

Identify the unit of analysis

Lewis's work concerns the measurement of transactive memory systems in teams. The topic directs attention to how expertise is differentiated, trusted, and coordinated across members. Read it as a study of a team-level system and its measurement. An individual's reflection about being helpful cannot by itself establish whether the whole team knows where important knowledge resides.

A fictional support desk

A fictional support desk has four specialists. Priya understands billing exceptions, Omar knows an older database, Chen handles integrations, and Rosa knows recurring accessibility issues. Requests are delayed because everyone sends difficult questions to Omar, the most visible expert, even when someone else is better placed to answer. Omar becomes a bottleneck and the other specialists' knowledge remains underused. The problem is not simply insufficient expertise. It involves how expertise is recognized and how work is routed. A general teamwork score could overlook that mechanism while praising everyone's willingness to cooperate.

Examine the knowledge map

For this exercise, ask each fictional member independently who they would consult for several specific problems. Compare the answers with actual experience and current responsibilities. Disagreement may reveal outdated assumptions, hidden expertise, or unclear boundaries. Then test a small change, such as an expertise directory with examples and a way to update it. Track whether requests reach an appropriate person sooner, whether referrals are accurate, and whether dependence on one person decreases. A directory alone will not help if people distrust each other's work or cannot coordinate handovers. The exercise should examine those practical conditions rather than assuming that information availability guarantees its use.

Questions to bring to the source

Ask how the study distinguishes individual reports from evidence about a shared team system. What supports combining members' responses into a team-level description? Which aspects concern specialization, confidence in colleagues, or coordinated action? How is team performance observed? For the support desk, would a high average score hide one member whose expertise is consistently ignored? Consider whether team membership changes or remote work could make an earlier knowledge map obsolete. These questions keep the reading connected to the actual coordination process and prevent an average from concealing important differences in participation or access.

Use individual reflection carefully

Machiavelli Team Contribution asks about a person's own collaborative habits. It does not measure an entire team's transactive memory system. A participant can use its questions to consider whether they identify expertise, make useful referrals, and document handovers. The fictional support desk should evaluate its routing experiment through actual cases, while research on the original questionnaire remains a separate requirement.

Continue the reading

Team contribution is more than a role label →

Knowing who knows what is different from everyone knowing everything →

An individual profile cannot stand in for a team assessment →