Team reflexivity involves collective and intentional reflection on team objectives, processes and methods, followed by adaptive adjustments aimed at improving team functioning (Schippers et al., 2014, 2015). Higher levels of reflexivity encourage team members to proactively share information, diverse perspectives and specialized expertise, thereby... See more

Conversely, when a pro-self tendency dominates, a team's information processing may become fragmented or biased, as members prioritize individual interests, even at the expense of others or the team's effectiveness (Bechtoldt et al., 2010). We articulate that TMX functions as a team-level social motivational factor that shapes how a team... See more

In the MIP-G model, a team's social motivational factor reflects whether its members operate with a more prosocial or pro-self stance, which shapes how this team processes information (De Dreu et al., 2008; De Dreu & Beersma, 2010). When prosocial motivation prevails within a team, members work towards collective goals and tend to process... See more

are likely to motivate their teams to invest effort to seek additional information and peripheral cues to interpret the situation. Accordingly, these teams would engage in active information exchange, including sharing opinions and expertise, participating in critical discussions, and questioning and evaluating available information, all of which... See more

The MIP-G model suggests that teams operate as information processors, driven by two orthogonal motivational forces: epistemic factor and social factor (Bechtoldt et al., 2010; De Dreu et al., 2008). The epistemic motivational factor regulates how deeply teams search for and process information (De Dreu et al., 2008) and is closely associated with... See more

Social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) posits that teams attend to social cues in the work environment to interpret and navigate organizational dynamics. Leaders, through their communication, provide these social cues, helping their team members make sense of their contexts (Chiang et al., 2021; Copeland, 1994).

As leader indirect communication inherently involves ambiguity and interpretative latitude; team members' collective efforts to decode and discuss a leader's intentions can significantly shape intrateam interactions and information processing dynamics. These interpretive activities consequently shape team processes and outcomes

For leaders, by stating messages indirectly, they are better to address sensitive issues, avoid direct confrontation or create space for subordinates' initiative and independent thinking (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Eisenberg, 1984; Hwang, 1987).

define indirect communication as a communication style wherein the speaker conveys meaning using implicit, abstract, vague or subtle words, rather than via explicit, clearly coded, transmitted part of the message (Adair et al., 2016; Hall, 1977; Holtgraves, 1997).