How Shared Mental Models Drive Team Performance: Insights from Meta-Analysis

Shared mental models (SMMs) are essential for effective teamwork. But how we measure them determines how useful they are in improving team performance and processes. In their paper “Measuring Shared Team Mental Models: A Meta-Analysis,” Leslie A. DeChurch and Jessica R. Mesmer-Magnus show that structured and well-designed measurements of SMMs are far more predictive of high-functioning teams.

Why “getting on the same page” isn’t enough

When leaders say, “We just need everyone on the same page,” they’re describing what psychologists call Shared Mental Models (SMMs) — the overlapping understanding team members have about their work and each other. When these models align, teams anticipate actions, coordinate smoothly, and adapt fast.

But new research from Leslie DeChurch and Jessica Mesmer-Magnus shows that how we measure shared mental models determines how much they actually help. Their meta-analysis of 23 studies and 1,500+ teams reveals that not all “shared understanding” predicts good teamwork.

‍

1. It’s not just what you know — it’s how you organize it

‍

The biggest finding: SMMs only predict better teamwork when they capture knowledge structure, not just knowledge content.

• Content = what people know (facts, data).
  
  
• Structure = how that knowledge connects and interacts.

Think of a software team: knowing every function name (content) isn’t enough. Understanding how each function depends on others (structure) is what enables real coordination. Surveys that just test shared facts show little effect. Teams perform best when their shared model captures the map — not just the list — of what they know.

‍

2. Good results can hide bad processes

‍

Here’s the twist: while structure predicts good process, even shallow shared content can still drive good performance. A team might hit its goals through sheer effort and constant communication, even if its process is messy. As the authors put it:

“Knowledge content predicts performance; knowledge structure predicts both process and performance.”

So hitting targets doesn’t always mean the team is healthy — it might be succeeding despite poor coordination.

‍

3. The paradox: what matters most is hardest to measure

‍

The techniques that best capture knowledge structure — like mapping connections or card-sorting — are the hardest to run. They’re time-consuming and impractical in fast-moving settings like hospitals, disaster response, or product launches. The richer the insight, the less feasible the method.

‍

The real question for leaders

‍

“Getting on the same page” isn’t about everyone knowing the same facts — it’s about sharing the same mental map. Before your next team sync, ask: Are we just trading information, or are we building a shared understanding of how everything connects. Structured conversations that map out dependencies, roles, and workflows turn loose facts into true team intelligence.