Timescales of Massive Human Entrainment

The past two decades have seen an upsurge of interest in the collective behaviors of complex systems composed of many agents entrained to each other and to external events. In this paper, we extend concepts of entrainment to the dynamics of human collective attention. We conducted a detailed investigation of the unfolding of human entrainment - as expressed by the content and patterns of hundreds of thousands of messages on Twitter - during the 2012 US presidential debates. By time locking these data sources, we quantify the impact of the unfolding debate on human attention. We show that collective social behavior covaries second-by-second to the interactional dynamics of the debates: A candidate speaking induces rapid increases in mentions of his name on social media and decreases in mentions of the other candidate. Moreover, interruptions by an interlocutor increase the attention received. We also highlight a distinct time scale for the impact of salient moments in the debate: Mentions in social media start within 5-10 seconds after the moment; peak at approximately one minute; and slowly decay in a consistent fashion across well-known events during the debates. Finally, we show that public attention after an initial burst slowly decays through the course of the debates. Thus we demonstrate that large-scale human entrainment may hold across a number of distinct scales, in an exquisitely time-locked fashion. The methods and results pave the way for careful study of the dynamics and mechanisms of large-scale human entrainment.Comment: 20 pages, 7 figures, 6 tables, 4 supplementary figures. 2nd version revised according to peer reviewers' comments: more detailed explanation of the methods, and grounding of the hypothese

The Joint Influence of Intra- and Inter-Team Learning Processes on Team Performance: A Constructive or Destructive Combination?

In order for teams to build a shared conception of their task, team learning is crucial. Benefits of intra-team learning have been demonstrated in numerous studies. However, teams do not operate in a vacuum, and interact with their environment to execute their tasks. Our knowledge of the added value of inter-team learning (team learning with external parties) is limited. Do both types of team learning compete over limited resources, or do they form a synergistic combination? We aim to shed light on the interplay between intra- and inter-team learning in relation to team performance, by including adaptive and transformative sub-processes of intra-team learning. A quantitative field study was conducted among 108 university teacher teams. The joint influence of intra- and inter-team learning as well as structural (task interdependence) and cultural (team efficacy) team characteristics on self-perceived and externally rated team performance were explored in a path model. The results showed that adaptive intra-team learning positively influenced self-perceived team performance, while transformative intra-team learning positively influenced externally rated team performance. Moreover, intra-team and inter-team learning were found to be both a constructive and a destructive combination. Adaptive intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning led to increased team performance, while transformative intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning hurt team performance. The findings demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between both the scope (intra- vs. inter-team) and the level (adaptive vs. transformative) of team learning in understanding team performance

Group-to-Group Distance Collaboration: Examining the “Space Between

Organizations are moving towards a new type of work: group-to-group collaboration across distance, supported by technologies that connect rooms across distance into large collaboration spaces. In this study we report on distributed group-to-group collaboration in the domain of space mission design. We use the metaphor of the “space between ” distant groups to describe the connections, interdependencies, and gaps that exist. To the extent that the “space between ” remains wide, the risk for design errors increases. We found that different teams, who had different processes and methodologies, were able to form hybrid solutions. However, their hybrid solutions addressed mostly terms and results, and did not address the deeper methodologies that created the results. We also found that some individuals acted as information bridges across sites, representing the teams in articulation. To a large extent small groups were used for reconciling perspectives, but the majority of results were not communicated and integrated back into the larger team. We discuss the challenges that group-to-group collaboration designers face in meeting requirements for supporting these new technologies