Shared Mental Models: How Elite Sports Teams Build Winning Chemistry
- Dr Paul McCarthy
- 2 days ago
- 14 min read
Shared mental models have the most important effect on performance outcomes in sporting domains of all types. This commonality of perception allows teams to coordinate actions, make split-second decisions and maintain consistency under pressure. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance extends beyond individual skill to create genuine team chemistry.
In this piece, we'll explore the shared mental models definition, get into the benefits of shared mental models for teams and reveal what training creates shared mental models for the team.
What are shared mental models in sports
Definition of shared mental models
Shared mental models represent overlapping mental representations of knowledge held by team members that support effectiveness [1]. Players who develop a shared and coherent understanding of the task ahead and the teamwork required to succeed see performance improvements [1]. Research has showed the advantages of this cognitive framework in multiple sports domains [1].
Shared mental models mean team members are on the same page about their actions on the field [2]. This organized and common understanding among teammates regarding work aspects are the foundations for coordinated performance. Richards and colleagues broke down how these models affect critical performance variables in hockey and netball [1]. Studies in volleyball showed improved collective decision making. Football teams showed boosted cohesion, collective efficacy, and buy-in to tactical approaches [1].
The research base spans 6,209 participants and 1,912 teams. This provides strong empirical support for continued use of shared mental models in sport [1]. Ice hockey and handball research suggested these models serve as a prerequisite to aid collective performance [1].
Key components of team mental models
Team members hold multiple mental models about different domains while working on tasks [1]. Cannon-Bowers proposed four distinct types: the equipment model, task model, team interaction model, and team model [1].
The equipment model covers knowledge about equipment functioning, technology, and tools that team members interact with [1]. The task model has knowledge about procedures, strategies, contingency plans, and environmental constraints [1]. Team interaction models address roles and responsibilities, role interdependencies, interaction patterns, and communication channels [1]. The team model regards task-relevant attributes such as knowledge, skills, abilities, priorities, and tendencies of each member [1].
Mathieu merged these four models into two broader domains: task mental models (comprising equipment and task models) and team mental models (comprising team interaction and team models) [1]. Task mental models refer to similar understanding among members about work objectives, team resources, procedures, and duties [1]. Team mental models refer to similar understanding about interpersonal interaction, member roles and responsibilities, and role interdependencies [1].
An additional dimension addresses strategy mental models. These cover understanding of strategic priorities, trade-offs among strategic alternatives, and implications of strategic decisions [1].
Team mental models (TMMs) build upon shared mental models but recognize that overlapping knowledge structures can be dysfunctional completely [1]. Mental models should be distributed by reference to roles and responsibilities, via units, leaders, or key individuals instead [1]. This distribution allows teams to know what, why, when, where, and how to execute collectively [1].
How shared mental models differ from individual knowledge
Individual skill alone cannot produce team coordination. Teams face the challenge of arranging members' actions so that when combined, they create the most effective result [2]. This arrangement must occur across three dimensions: type, timing, and location [2].
Action type matters because achieving team actions often requires each member to undertake specific actions. To cite an instance, if a point guard in basketball lobs an alley-oop pass through the air but her teammate expects a bounce pass, the change in action type will result in an incomplete pass because the teammate has already begun to jump [2].
Action timing proves critical as well. If the point guard makes the alley-oop pass too early, her teammate might be unable to jump fast enough to catch and dunk the ball [2]. Research on multi-person rowing demonstrates that rowers' strokes must be synchronized. This requires coordination of actions during races [2].
Action location completes the coordination puzzle. The point guard must throw the alley-oop pass close enough to the rim, or her teammate will not be in position to catch the ball to dunk it [2].
Individual knowledge focuses on personal execution. Shared mental models enable teams to coordinate these three dimensions without constant verbal communication. The models demonstrate in non-verbal, coordinated actions where members understand each other's needs, thoughts, and actions [3]. This becomes especially important under conditions of excessive workload, time pressure, or other stressors when overt communication would impede performance outcomes [3].
The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance
Research across multiple domains demonstrates how shared mental models shape both team processes and outcomes. Teams that arrange their understanding of tasks and teamwork unlock coordination capabilities that individual talent alone cannot produce.
Improved coordination and timing
Shared mental models help team performance by improving coordination between members' actions [4]. This coordination stems from knowing how to predict teammates' needs and behaviors accurately, which helps anticipatory behavior and increases team performance [5]. Team members develop shared expectations that enable them to coordinate actions smoothly without constant verbal direction.
The mechanism works through implicit coordination, particularly at the time constraints prohibit explicit communication [6]. Studies tracking development over competitive seasons found improved cohesion and creativity in collective decision making throughout competitive situations [7]. Football teams showed this through corner kicks and counterattacks, where players performed their roles based on knowledge of what teammates were likely to do, resulting in coordinated team performance [6].
Coordination based on prediction and experience performing together becomes possible only through shared understanding [6]. Teams utilize this to anticipate movements and coordinate complex plays without verbal cues interrupting the flow of action.
Improved decision-making under pressure
High-pressure environments magnify the value of shared mental models. Under conditions of excessive workload, time pressure, or other most important stressors, teams need to rely on their understanding of the situation, the environment, and interactions between members, which increases the team's knowing how to perform under pressure [4].
The arrangement of task-related and team-related mental models affects both the tendency to solve problems proactively and knowing how to coordinate team problem-solving efforts [4]. This proactive problem-solving behavior, combined with coordinated team efforts, links directly to improved team performance [4]. Volleyball teams showed improved collective decision making [7], while ice hockey and handball teams found these models served as a prerequisite to help collective performance [7].
Teams that face rapid changes in the internal or external environment can identify implications and adapt therefore without lengthy discussions that introduce delays [4]. This capability proves valuable in ever-changing game situations where split-second decisions determine outcomes.
Reduced communication barriers
Shared mental models demonstrate themselves in non-verbal, highly coordinated actions where members understand each other's needs, thoughts and actions intuitively [4]. This mutual predictability helps teams cooperate smoothly [4], taking friction out of coordination processes.
Teams can anticipate and predict the needs of other members [4], reducing the necessity for constant verbal communication during execution. Members who develop common understanding through experience performing together see their communication become more efficient [6]. They establish shared language and protocols where certain instructions carry specific meanings understood by all members.
The operative principle centers on playing positions effectively. Teams with shared mental models around roles and responsibilities avoid dropped balls and duplicated effort [4]. This streamlined communication allows for faster adjustments and more fluid gameplay.
Better role clarity among teammates
Research with 152 male professional senior players from all 10 teams in an elite ice hockey league showed that shared mental models have a negative association with social loafing [7]. The study tested how these models relate to role clarity and team identification, finding that perceived shared mental models positively relate to role clarity and team identification, which in turn negatively relates to social loafing [7].
Role clarity helps teammates understand their specific responsibilities and how they interconnect with others' duties. Team members who hold clear knowledge of each other's roles can access this understanding during training and competition [6]. This clarity reduces uncertainty about who should perform specific tasks in less clearly defined situations.
Shared mental models strengthen team identification, encouraging a sense of collective identity that improves accountability. The indirect effects through these mediators suggest that helping shared mental models may reduce social loafing through both role clarity and team identification [7]. Coaches and sport psychologists should be aware of the importance of shared mental models in their work to improve team performance [7].
What are the benefits of shared mental models for teams
Teams that develop shared mental models gain advantages that extend beyond immediate game performance. These benefits compound over time and create competitive edges that individual talent alone cannot replicate.
Faster tactical adjustments during competition
Knowing how to adapt tactics mid-game separates good teams from elite ones. Shared mental models enable teams to establish and update their understanding during actual competition through both incidental means and those they consider [6]. Players adjust their shared knowledge state based on unfolding game situations without breaking the flow of play.
Teams benefit from pre-planned tactical flexibility as well. Coaches who develop shared mental models with their squads can adjust tactics through the season to test new ideas or adapt for specific opponents [4]. This requires planning blocks of games in advance and weighing when new knowledge needs introduction. The performance vision remains consistent in its core principles, but tactical applications move based on competitive demands.
Team members also update their in-game shared knowledge state by communicating intended tactical changes to other members during games [6]. Research on table tennis doubles teams revealed that a particular stare by one player was enough to communicate intended tactical changes to their partner. This economy of communication allows tactical shifts without timeout delays.
Stronger team identification and cohesion
Research tracking shared mental model development over competitive seasons found improved cohesion and creativity in collective decision making throughout competitive situations [8]. Football teams showed improved cohesion, collective efficacy, and belief in tactical approaches when shared mental models were properly developed [8].
The process builds through reciprocal knowledge exchange between coaches and player groups, where increased responsibility flows to players [8]. This exchange strengthens collective identity and reinforces commitment to team objectives. Players develop deeper connections to team goals and each other, creating psychological bonds that withstand competitive pressures.
Meta-analytic findings show that shared mental models positively relate to team processes (ρ = .43) and team performance (ρ = .38) [9]. Studies across research and development teams found these models positively related to team creativity [9]. European scientists participating in interdisciplinary environmental research who developed shared understanding of research goals proved much more likely to combine viewpoints than those without shared understandings [9].
Reduced social loafing and increased accountability
Social loafing occurs when individuals reduce effort in group settings compared to solo work [10]. Research shows that social loafing was reduced under conditions of individual accountability [11]. Multiple judges who expected to justify their judgments worked as hard as individual judges on measures of cognitive effort.
Shared mental models curb this tendency by creating transparent expectations. When teams develop clear understandings of roles and responsibilities, individual efforts become more visible to teammates. This visibility increases accountability without requiring external monitoring systems.
Without shared mental models, team members may feel their contributions lack significance or that responsibilities are unclear [10]. These conditions breed social loafing. Shared mental models eliminate ambiguity about who does what and establish frameworks where each member's role carries distinct value toward team success.
Consistent performance across different game situations
Teams acquire stable shared knowledge states prior to games through actual play in practice and competition settings, plus explicit planning [6]. This stable form of shared knowledge serves as a cognitive resource that teams draw upon during games to achieve coordination across varying situations.
The stability of shared mental models means teams maintain performance standards whatever the opponent, venue, or game phase. The common understanding persists across contexts and allows teams to execute their approach with consistency. This consistency proves valuable during high-stakes competitions where environmental variables shift but team execution must remain steady.
How elite teams develop shared mental models
Building shared mental models takes intentional effort across multiple practice domains. Elite teams combine structured planning sessions with hands-on training methods to develop the common understanding that drives performance.
Pre-game planning and strategy sessions
Strategic alignment begins well before competition day. Teams use game day minus five (GD-5) to debrief the previous week, review adjustments, identify what they learned and establish intentions for the coming week [4]. On GD-4, defensive groups plan the week and session content together, priming players to drive themes and messages to the wider squad [4].
One rugby team developed their performance vision using the club badge and image of a lion to generate shared language [4]. The vision centered on an analogy of the lion's bite and behavior preceding it: position the block to be in the best position, use jaws to dictate where attacking players go and trap them, then bite with maximum impact given the game situation [4]. This framework addressed a biggest weakness from the previous season where players lacked deeper understanding of how their individual skillset fitted into the bigger defensive picture [4].
The performance vision was offered to the playing group to clarify tactical components and common language [4]. Coaches and players came to clear agreement of what they wanted to build to be successful through listening, constructive conflict at times and extended discussion [4]. This reciprocal knowledge exchange between coaches and defensive groups increased responsibility expected of players [4].
Position-specific training approaches
Understanding position-specific actions helps players review individual match performance and develop common language [12]. Frameworks for appraising performances make discussion and knowledge exchange between coaches and practitioners easier [12].
Playing as other positions helps understand what teammates can do and how they may need help [13]. Watching tutorials about different positions builds mental models of capabilities across the squad [13]. Some teams use playbooks where they draw out all attack plays, with each player receiving 200 pages before each gathering [5].
Video analysis and collective review
Video footage combined with open discussions, direct instruction and debate increases awareness and understanding as players solve problems in small groups using classroom settings [4]. Teams spend extensive time debriefing previous games rather than treating it as something to finish in a few video clips [4].
Theater modes that allow replaying, pausing and scrubbing through gameplay sections provide fantastic ways to build mental models [13]. Teams used slow off-field and pedagogic approaches, often beginning with slow walk and talk sessions to clarify player understanding [4]. Performance analysis serves as the main knowledge base that determines pedagogical measurements for developing shared mental models [5].
Regular team discussions and debriefs
Post-performance reviews and team debriefing let members make sense of their performance together and gain shared vision of how to proceed [5]. Discussions of successful and failed performance events let trainees develop richer mental models and more effective practice than debriefings focused only on failures [5].
Reflective conversations with senior players over messaging apps, phone calls or in person support understanding how the group notices shared mental models and their effect within competitive games [4].
Which type of training leads to shared mental models for the team
Training methods that foster shared mental models go way beyond traditional practice drills. Research reveals specific approaches that accelerate team alignment and strengthen collective understanding.
Consider practice with team scenarios
Guided experience within training proves more effective than general sporting experience for developing shared understanding between team members [14]. Coaches help with this through tactical formation work where players understand their roles and responsibilities within specific routines [14]. Team shape drills allow members to learn where everybody else is meant to be and create mental maps of collective positioning [14].
This approach works at the time coaches design controlled scenarios that teams may face together and allow members to develop skills for success [14]. Practicing specific counterattacks or set pieces gives each player understanding of their own role plus knowledge of what fellow team members need to do [14]. Debriefs and feedback sessions reinforce learning and provide opportunities for players to reflect on successful performance areas and problem-solve developmental gaps [14].
Communication drills and verbal protocols
Situation monitoring is the foundation of team awareness. This process scans and assesses environments to determine situations and team performance. It ensures new or changing information gets identified for communication and decision-making [7]. Teams arrive at shared mental models where everyone maintains common perception of situations and what to expect next at the time each person on the team practices situation monitoring and fosters awareness through communication tools [15].
Communication tools that promote effective understanding include SBAR, call-outs and check-backs [7]. These structured protocols create consistency in how information flows between members. Similarly, the I'M SAFE Checklist reminds team members to understand illness, medication and stress affecting performance [7].
Situational awareness exercises
Team situational awareness represents a skill most important to performance in complex environments [16]. Training strategies improve this by transforming shared mental models into situational awareness that makes effective performance in dynamic task situations [16]. Teams develop collective knowing how to detect and correct potential problems before they escalate through systematic monitoring exercises [17].
Simulation training under pressure
Simulation-based training demonstrates superiority over traditional didactic methods for developing shared mental models [18]. Research found significant effects on team performance when comparing full intervention groups (didactic plus simulation) against control groups. Didactic-only training showed no effectiveness compared to controls [18]. Virtual simulation training provides experiential learning opportunities where different team members simultaneously apply and practice cognitive tools and strengthen formation of shared mental models [18]. Self-directed learning approaches during simulation allow groups to develop shared mental models without adding training time [19].
Shared mental models in expert team decision making
Expert teams operate in environments characterized by severe time pressure, complex decision tasks, faster evolving information, and high information ambiguity [20]. Decision making requires dynamic integration of situational aspects like teammates, opposition, and field positioning with strategic factors such as team philosophy and match objectives, often applied without overt communication [21].
Reading teammates' intentions without verbal cues
Performers must see things in similar ways and make mutually compatible decisions if appropriate action is to be taken [22]. Shared mental models shape and define information that team members attend to, helping create a congruent agreed perception of the situation through inter-perceptivity [21]. This supports both heterogenous accuracy (understanding one's own role) and inter-positional accuracy (understanding teammates' roles and tasks) [21].
Nonverbal communication cues play most important roles in conveying intentions. Body language, facial expressions, gestures, posture, and eye contact reveal immediate emotional states and coordination signals [23]. Research on table tennis doubles revealed that a particular stare by one player communicated intended tactical changes to their partner without verbal exchanges.
Anticipating movements and actions
Teams predict teammates' needs and behaviors with precision, which helps anticipatory behavior [9]. This allows members to anticipate and execute actions as a unit rather than individuals [24]. Expert teams use implicit coordination where members have similar expectations about how action should unfold, allowing coordination without explicit verbal communication [25].
Coordinating complex plays in real-time
Dominant themes identified by players and coaches include "multiple players recognized and connected to own teammates" and "connection between teammates, position on-court (online/offline) and location of defender" [21]. Each individual's shared mental model represents a chunk of the performance vision and holds detailed information relating to cues, data points, teammates, opposition, and tactics in context of geographical location [21].
Managing transitions between game phases
Teams establish and update shared understanding during competition through both incidental and considered means. Shared situational understanding accelerates when on-field learning combines with off-field considered learning, improving team decision making [21]. This integration enables teams to manage transitions across attacking, defending, and neutral game phases with fluidity.
Conclusion
Shared mental models separate good teams from championship teams. Coaches and sport psychologists should prioritize building common understanding through practice sessions that consider every detail, planning meetings and well-laid-out communication protocols.
The evidence spans thousands of athletes across multiple sports and demonstrates that teams develop shared knowledge about tasks, roles and tactical approaches. They realize coordination capabilities that individual talent alone cannot produce. Teams anticipate movements, make split-second decisions and adapt tactics without breaking competitive flow.
Building these cognitive frameworks will pay dividends through stronger cohesion, reduced social loafing and consistent performance under pressure.
Key Takeaways
Elite sports teams achieve winning chemistry through shared mental models - common understanding that enables seamless coordination without constant verbal communication.
• Shared mental models enable teams to coordinate actions, anticipate movements, and make split-second decisions under pressure without verbal cues
• Teams develop these models through deliberate practice with scenarios, video analysis, strategic planning sessions, and structured communication protocols
• Benefits include faster tactical adjustments, stronger team cohesion, reduced social loafing, and consistent performance across different game situations
• Expert teams use shared understanding to read teammates' intentions, coordinate complex plays in real-time, and manage game phase transitions fluidly
• Research across 6,209 participants shows shared mental models positively impact both team processes (ρ = .43) and performance outcomes (ρ = .38)
The key to building championship-level team chemistry lies not just in individual skill development, but in creating collective cognitive frameworks that allow teams to think and act as one unified entity during competition.
References
[1] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.550271/full[2] - https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/encyclopedia-of-sport-and-exercise-psychology/chpt/shared-mental-models[3] - https://www.t-three.com/thinking-space/blog/the-power-of-shared-mental-models[4] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1057143/full[5] - https://www.journalofexpertise.org/articles/volume5_issue1/JoE_5_1_Giske_etal.pdf[6] - https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/sports-psychology/team-building/shared-mental-models/[7] - https://www.healthysimulation.com/shared-mental-model-healthcare-simulation/[8] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10266230/[9] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1463922X.2022.2061080[10] - https://www.coachhub.com/en/blog/social-loafing[11] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30045454/[12] - https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/10135/1/CreatingASharedMentalModelOfPerformanceCoachesPerspectivesOfKeyPositionspecificSoccerActionsPV-TILL.pdf[13] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiemadigan/2019/07/21/shared-mental-models-win-games/[14] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14660970.2022.2161527[15] - https://www.aha.org/center/project-firstline/teamstepps-video-toolkit/shared-mental-model[16] - https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315087924-18/role-shared-mental-models-developing-team-situational-awareness-implications-training-renée-stout-janis-cannon-bowers-eduardo-salas[17] - https://www.humanreliability.com/2025/06/how-shared-mental-models-can-save-lives/[18] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6854192/[19] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31505232/[20] - https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203772744-16/shared-mental-models-expert-team-decision-making-janis-cannon-bowers-eduardo-salas-sharolyn-converse[21] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2025.1648137/full[22] - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/shared-representations/shared-mental-models-in-sport-and-refereeing/40F28A11A73859D72A1D5F5814126B02[23] - https://positivepsychology.com/nonverbal-communication-cues/[24] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5510246/[25] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02082/full