Navigating Representational Gaps: Traversing Construal Levels and Investing in Uncertainty

Representational gaps (rGaps), which refer to inconsistencies in definitions of a group's problem, are notoriously pernicious and enduring. Team cognition research has primarily focused on increasing similarity and sharedness among members. However, this emphasis is insufficient when an rGap is present, as teams must retain and integrate diverse, and often conflicting, perspectives even as they converge on a solution. In this study, we build new theory on how groups navigate rGaps by embedding incompatible problem definitions in a simulation and recording 23 groups completing the simulation to examine the navigation process from before members are aware that an rGap exists to implementing a concrete solution to a given task. Qualitative analysis revealed a three‐phase process (i.e., Realizing, Integrating, Aligning) of navigating rGaps in which groups traverse multiple construal levels (i.e., Concrete, Problem, Comprehensive). We then explored why some groups ceased progression through the process and how this influenced the representations in their final solution (i.e., neither, single, bifurcated, integrated). Notably, investing in disruptive and generative uncertainty was critical to facilitating progression, challenging the assumption that uncertainty should be reduced, rather than invested in, to avoid harming performance. Our findings yielded important insights for the rGaps, uncertainty, and construal level literatures.