Master Thesis
Team learning behaviors of front office teams in Dutch
municipalities:
A qualitative case study
Author: B.J. (Bianca) Tuenter Student number: 0217905
University: University of Twente
Faculty: Management and Governance Master: Business Administration (BA) Track: Service Management
1st supervisor: Prof. dr. C.P.M Wilderom 2nd supervisor: M.E. Gravesteijn M.B.A.
Master Thesis
Team learning behaviors of front office teams in Dutch municipalities:
A qualitative case study
“Real learning gets to the heart of what it means to be human.
Through learning we re‐create ourselves.
Through learning we become able to do something we never were able to do.
Through learning we reperceive the world and our relationship to it.
Through learning we extend our capacity to create to be part of the generative process of life.
There is within each of us a deep hunger for this type of learning.”
Peter M. Senge (1990), The Fifth Discipline
Foreword
Proudly I present to you my thesis with which I finalize my master study Business Administration (Service Management) at the University of Twente. The subject of this thesis is team learning behaviors of front office teams within the context of Dutch municipalities. A qualitative case study design was chosen to study to which extend team learning behaviors exists within front office teams, which factors promote or inhibit these learning behaviors, whether and how these learning behaviors interrelate and in turn, how team learning behavior affects team performance. The subject of this thesis is very interesting because of the lack of knowledge on team learning behavior in this specific research context. With this thesis I hope to have contributed to reducing this ‘knowledge gap’ and interest others in the topic of this study.
I would like to thank everyone who was involved in this research for their valuable contribution. I would like to thank some people in particular. First a special word of gratitude for Marianne Gravesteijn for her support and for helping and coaching me during my entire research period. Thank you for all the interesting and inspiring conversations; it was a pleasure to work with you! I would also like to thank Celeste Wilderom. Marianne and Celeste have both given me very valuable support and feedback that resulted in a study I am proud to present to the reader. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ruud Fidder (team leader) and the six team members of the team under study. Without their cooperation this research would not have been possible.
Finally, I would like to thank my boyfriend Robin, parents, grandmother, family (in‐law) and friends.
Thank you very much for all your support during the last years!
I hope you enjoy reading this thesis.
Bianca Tuenter
Summary
This report presents a research concerning team learning behavior in a Dutch municipality.
Nowadays organizations operate in a constantly changing environment. In order to succeed, organizations in the private as well as in the public sector need to adapt to this ever changing environment and must become ‘learning organizations’. An important theme in the literature on a
‘learning organization’ is ‘team learning’. Many scholars argue that an organizations ability to learn depends on the ability of its teams to learn. As most organizations choose a team based organizational design, it is very important for organizations to know how teams learn, and what factors influence team learning behavior.
Current literature on team learning shows a lack of knowledge and understanding on team learning behavior in different organizational contexts. An extensive literature review shows that no research has been conducted on team learning behavior in Dutch local governments (municipalities), even though municipalities are now more than ever forced to learn, change and improve their internal organizations. This is the context were this study makes a contribution. This research studies to which extent team learning behavior exists, and aims to contribute to the identification of the factors that promote or inhibit team learning behavior, whether and how these factors interrelate, and in turn, how team learning behavior affects team performance of front office teams in the context of a Dutch municipality.
Team learning is examined in this study in the organizational behavior tradition, in terms of behavior and activities. This study adheres to the definition proposed by Edmondson (1999) and regards team learning as a process of action and reflection characterized by five distinct learning behaviors: (1) seeking feedback, (2) asking questions and sharing knowledge, opinions and perspectives, (3) collective reflection, (4) error management and (5) experimenting.
In the extant literature on team learning behavior numerous factors can be identified that influence the learning behavior of teams. Five factors were identified that were sufficiently included and supported in previous empirical studies. These factors are (1) team psychological safety, (2) team identity, (3) team learning orientation, (4) team leader behavior, and (5) team composition. This early identification of possible factors that influence team learning behavior provided a theoretical lens and direction to the field research. However the research site was entered as open minded as possible.
To get an in‐depth understanding of team learning processes and the factors that influences these processes in a new context (Dutch municipality) a qualitative research strategy was chosen. The empirical part of this study is designed using a case study. The selected case is a front office team within one of the largest local governments in the Netherlands. This front office team is part of the department of public services and is responsible for environmental permits. This team consists of six
team members and one team leader. During this study three types of data collection procedures were used: (1) open interviewing, (2) observations and (3) studying existing documents.
The research results show that all five learning behaviors occur within the front office team under study, but differ in the frequency in which they occur. The behavior ‘seeking feedback’ appeared too narrowly defined in this context and was extended with the behavior ‘giving feedback’. The behaviors ‘seeking and giving feedback’ and ‘asking questions and sharing knowledge, opinions and perspectives’ occur on a daily basis. The other (collective) learning behaviors occur a lot less frequently mainly during team meetings. All learning behaviors are related to operational team tasks.
The research results show that some factors promote and as well inhibit learning behaviors. The factors that promote and/or inhibit team learning behavior within this context are largely similar to the factors of universal models of team learning behaviors. Four factors that were identified in the literature review ‘team psychological safety’, ‘team identity’, ‘team composition’ and ‘team leader behavior’ also influenced the learning behaviors of the team under study. Two new factors ‘task characteristics’ and ‘team autonomy’ emerged from the research results as factors that influence the learning behaviors in this context. Especially the ‘task characteristics’ have shown to be an important motivational and driving force to engage in team learning behavior. This study shows that the type of team tasks, which are non‐routinely and knowledge intensive, shape the learning behaviors of the front office team under study in essential ways. The factor ‘task characteristics’ is hardly ever included in research on team learning behavior and is an under‐theorized concept. Within this context it is concluded that the factors ‘team psychological safety’, ‘team identity’ and ‘task characteristics’ are the most influential factors as ‘team psychological safety’ and ‘team identity’ are identified to influence all six learning behaviors and the ‘task characteristics’ are identified to influence five of the learning behaviors that occurred within the team under study.
The direct influence of the team leader on the learning behaviors is limited; he influences the team learning behaviors for the most part indirectly through the factors ‘psychological safety’ and ‘team autonomy’. Based on the perceptions of the team members and the team leader, the learning behaviors appear to have a positive influence on the team performance.
This study has contributed to the literature on team learning behavior and practice by providing detailed insights in team learning behaviors and how and which factors promote and/or inhibit the specific learning behaviors in a municipal context. This study shows the challenges the front office team faces and in which way these challenges shape the learning processes.
Table of content
1 Introduction ... 10
1.1 Background ... 10
1.2 Current literature on team learning ... 11
1.2.1 Gap in current literature ... 12
1.3 Research context ... 13
1.4 Purpose statement and research questions ... 14
1.5 Relevance ... 15
1.6 Structure ... 16
2 Literature review ... 17
2.1 Literature search methodology ... 17
2.2 Team learning behavior ... 18
2.2.1 Teams defined ... 18
2.2.2 Team learning behavior ... 18
2.3 Factors that influence team learning behavior ... 21
2.3.1 Team psychological safety ... 22
2.3.2 Team Identity ... 24
2.3.3 Team learning orientation ... 25
2.3.4 Team leader behavior ... 26
2.3.5 Team composition ... 28
2.4 Team performance... 29
2.5 Model ... 31
3 Field research ... 32
3.1 Qualitative research ... 32
3.2 Case study design ... 32
3.2.1 Case description ... 33
3.3 Data collection procedures ... 33
3.3.1 Interviews ... 34
3.3.2 Observations ... 34
3.3.3 Existing documents ... 35
3.4 Data analysis and interpretation ... 36
3.5 Qualitative reliability ... 36
3.6 Qualitative credibility ... 37
4 Results and Analysis ... 38
4.1 Team learning behavior ... 38
4.1.1 Learning behavior 1: Seeking feedback ... 38
4.1.2 Learning behavior 1a: Giving feedback ... 39
4.1.3 Learning behavior 2: Exploring and co‐construction of meaning ... 40
4.1.4 Learning behavior 3: Collective reflection ... 40
4.1.5 Learning behavior 4: Error management ... 42
4.1.6 Learning behavior 5: Experimenting ... 43
4.1.7 Learning behaviors: Summary table ... 45
4.2 Factors that influence team learning behavior ... 45
4.2.1 Psychological safety ... 46
4.2.2 Team identity ... 48
4.2.3 Team leader behavior ... 50
4.2.4 Team composition ... 52
4.2.5 Task characteristics ... 54
4.2.6 Team autonomy ... 57
4.2.7 Team learning orientation ... 58
4.3 Factors that interrelate towards team learning behavior ... 59
4.4 The influence of team learning behavior on team performance ... 62
5 Conclusion and Discussion ... 66
5.1 Research questions ... 66
5.2 Theoretical implications ... 76
5.3 Practical implications ... 77
5.4 Further research ... 78
5.5 Limitations ... 78
References ... 80
Appendices ... 89
Appendix 1 – Topic list ... 90
Appendix 2 – Data matrices team learning behaviors ... 94
Appendix 3 – Data matrices: factors that influences team learning behavior ... 101
Appendix 4 – Factors that interrelate towards team learning behavior ... 115
Appendix 5 – The influence of team learning behavior on team performance ... 117
Appendix 6 – Practical recommendations for the front office team under study ... 119
List of figures
Figure 1: Schematic display of report and research process ... 16
Figure 2: Antecedents of team learning behavior and team performance ... 31
Figure 3: Team tasks ... 33
Figure 4: Frequency team learning behavior ... 45
Figure 5: The influence of psychological safety on the team learning behaviors ... 48
Figure 6: The influence of team identity on the team learning behaviors ... 50
Figure 7: The influence of team leader behavior on the team learning behaviors ... 51
Figure 8: The influence of team composition on the team learning behaviors ... 54
Figure 9: The influence of task characterisitcs on the team learning behaviors ... 57
Figure 10: The influence of team autonomy on the team learning behaviors ... 58
Figure 11: The influence of team leader behavior on psychological safety and team autonomy ... 61
Figure 12: The influence of team learning behavior on team performance ... 65
Figure 13: Factors that promote and/or inhibit team learning behavior ... 69
Figure 14: Factors that interrelate towards team learning behavior ... 72
Figure 15: Complete model... 75
1 Introduction
In this introduction the background of this research and the context in which this research is conducted will be outlined. The purpose statement will be displayed after which the research questions are presented. Also the relevance of this research will be addressed. This chapter concludes with a schematic display of how this research is structured.
1.1 Background
This research is about team learning in a public environment, to be precise in Dutch municipalities, as indicated by the title of this thesis. Why this subject is chosen will be displayed in this and the following paragraphs.
Contemporary organizations operate in a turbulent environment in which change seems to be the only constant factor. Organizations are confronted with rapid advances in technology, intensifying (global) competition and shifts in customer preferences (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008).
Likewise the public sector is constantly challenged to find meaningful solutions to social issues in a dynamic and changing world. Now more than ever there is a pressure on the government to change and improve their internal organizations. This pressure is currently further enhanced by the global economic crisis. Civilians and companies become more critical and wonder whether public organizations can be organized more efficiently and effective. As a result, the demands on public organizations are high and better and faster service deliveries are required (Hiemstra, 2003; 2005).
In order to succeed, organizations in the private as well as in the public sector need to adapt constantly to their environment. In order to cope with this requirement, organizations must become a ‘learning organization’ (Garvin, 2000). The concept of a ‘learning organization’ was introduced in the 1990s and was stimulated by Peter Senge’s book (1990), The Fifth Discipline, and many other publications. Senge (1990, p. 236) described learning organizations as: “organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together”.
In the literature on the ‘learning organization’ many methods and techniques are offered for organizational learning and for coping with complex challenges that organizations might face.
An important theme in this literature is ‘team learning’. According to Senge (1990), ‘team learning’ is one of the most important disciplines enabling learning at an organizational level.
Different scholars emphasize that teams, not individuals, are the foundation for learning within modern organizations (Senge, 1990; Probst & Büchel, 1997; Homan, 2001; Edmondson, 2002; Yorks, Marsick, Kasl, & Dechant, 2003). These scholars state that an organizations ability to learn depends on the ability of its teams to learn. Only when teams can learn, organizations can learn.
The structure of organizations has shifted over the years, and many of today’s organizations choose a team based organizational design for organizing their work processes. As layers of management are eliminated and jobs become more complex, tasks are often assigned to teams of employees.
Organizations increasingly rely on teams to perform key tasks as designing, producing and selling products and delivering various services (Ilgen, 1994; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Ellis, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Porter, West, & Moon, 2003). Several empirical studies found that people in teams, learn and accomplish more than they would as individuals. Team members bring together complementary skills and experiences that exceed the skills and experiences of individuals (Ellis et al., 2003; Yorks, Marsick, Kasl, & Dechant, 2003). Within teams different competencies and perspectives are bundled and combined, therefore the use of a team based organizational design can lead to increased efficiency of organizational processes and improved organizational innovativeness (Stock, 2004).
The importance of teamwork for organizational success has been emphasized by many scholars (Edmondson, 1999; Glassop, 2002; Edmondson, 2002; Drucker, 2003). To succeed in a constantly changing world it has become very important for private as well as public organizations to know how teams learn, and what factors are most important in team learning.
1.2 Current literature on team learning
Since the concept of the learning organization flourished in the 1990s a lot of research on this topic has been done and published by many scholars. It was around this time that the importance of teams for organizational learning was acknowledged, and the first studies on team learning appeared in the management literature. However, research specifically focused on team learning remained rather scarce until the early 2000s. Around the year 2000 the concept of team learning received a lot of attention and since then the literature on team learning has been expanding in volume and diversity.
For two decades now empirical research has been done on team learning. In the existing body of literature on this topic, different research streams can be distinguished. Edmondson et al. (2007) identify three distinct areas of research that provide insight into the concept of team learning. The three areas of prior work differ fundamentally in used conceptualization, terminology, research methodology as well as in the questions they address. The research areas have remained rather separate during the years and each area offers a unique contribution to the knowledge on team learning.
The three research streams Edmondson et al. (2007) identify are: (1) research focused on learning curves, (2) psychological studies of task mastery and (3) research on learning processes in work teams.
In the first research area, team learning is conceptualized as a performance improvement, usually efficiency improvement. Efficiency improvement is often measured in terms like; cost reduction and time savings. Research focused on learning curves show a connection between performance improvement and production experience. The general theme in this research tradition involves
account for these variations. Studies in this area are field studies that examine teams that produce new products or services and they usually collect quantitative longitudinal data (Lapre, Mukherjee, &
van Wassenhoven, 2000; Edmondson, Winslow, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2003; Reagans, Argote, & Brooks, 2005).
The second research stream, conceptualizes team learning as task mastery. Research in this area includes small groups, and studies how group members learn to perform new tasks. Team learning is usually measured in terms of how well a team has learned to accomplish its tasks. Researchers are specifically interested in how teams coordinate skills and actions and communicate knowledge of their members to build shared team knowledge. Research showed that teams with a shared understanding with regard to team tasks, resources and context are better able to perform interdependent tasks. The studies conducted in this area have a psychological nature and are mostly conducted in a laboratory setting using experiments (Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Lewis, 2004;
Ren, Carley, & Argote, 2006).
Scholars of the third research area consider team learning not as a team outcome as the first two areas do, but they believe that team learning is a group process. Team learning is conceptualized as learning behaviors which are processes of sharing information and reflecting on experiences. In this area, researchers measure and observe the processes of team learning for evidence that actual learning has occurred. Their primary concern is to discover what the driving forces are of learning behavior in organizational workgroups. The studies of this research area examine real work groups in their natural environment and use qualitative exploratory as well as quantitative research methods.
The micro‐level field studies in this third area provide in‐depth knowledge and insight in learning processes in organizational contexts (Edmondson, 1999; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Wong, 2004;
Zellmer‐Bruhn & Gibson, 2006).
This research follows the third research tradition and observes and examines team learning in terms of team behavior and activities. I choose to contribute to the knowledge on team learning in this area since it is situated in organizational research and micro‐level organizational research has my personal interest. The research area is closely related to and expands my personal more qualitative research expertise.
1.2.1 Gap in current literature
The research area that focuses on learning processes in real work teams is a rather mature research field. The literature in this area is characterized by the use of quantitative and qualitative research methods. In the early stages mostly qualitative exploratory research methods were used, but as the research field matured more quantitative studies were conducted.
Several authors state that more micro‐level field research is needed to get an in‐depth understanding of team learning behavior of real work teams in specific contexts (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003;
Zellmer‐Bruhn & Gibson, 2006; Edmondson et al., 2007). Teams that work in various contexts can differ fundamentally and might face different team learning challenges. The current universal models of team learning do not capture these differences as they do not take into consideration the
organizational context or team type. The existing literature on team learning shows a lack of knowledge on team learning processes and challenges in different industry domains. Therefore Edmondson et al. (2007) claim to really advance knowledge on team learning there is a need for field based research to identify and understand context specific factors and relationships. According to them the development of precise and context specific theories to help guide practice and research in different industry contexts is an important next phase in team learning research.
Research on team learning processes has been conducted in several setting over the years, like in high tech manufacturing firms, hospitals, pharmaceutical firms, law firms and financial service firms.
(Brooks, 1994; Edmondson, 1996; 1999; 2003; Sarin & McDermott; Wong, 2004; Bresman, 2007).
However, an extensive literature review shows that hardly any empirical research is conducted on learning processes in work teams in public organizations. Edmondson et al. (2007) also emphasize the need for contextually specific research in areas like public organizations, specifically interesting according to them are government and schools. The literature review shows that no empirical research has been conducted on team learning behavior in Dutch local governments (municipalities).
This is the area where this study aims to make a contribution.
1.3 Research context
I chose to conduct this research in a Dutch municipal organization not only because of the lack of literature on team learning in this context, but also because municipalities today are faced with many changes and challenges. Now more than ever municipalities are forced to change and improve their internal organizations (Hiemstra, 2003; 2005). Their ability to learn is critical for their organizational success for now and in the future.
In the Netherlands there are currently 418 municipal organizations. Together they employ almost 200.000 employees. Municipalities are special groupings of service settings, which deliver direct en indirect services to their civilians and companies. These local authorities focus on areas like, education, health care, welfare, environment, planning, culture and sport and recreation.
Municipalities today are confronted with high demands of the society. Civilians and companies demand higher standards of service delivery, and require more insight in processes and results. Also the central government demands change. Issues like, dualism, integrated service delivery, one public front office, transparency, managing for results and collaboration are all subjects that are high on the agenda. Also new laws, economic downsizing and further decentralization of certain tasks and responsibilities represent change for municipalities. This change has an impact on the culture and core values of municipalities; a slow movement from the legal‐rational bureaucracy paradigm to the managing for results (MFR) is observed (Ehrenhard, 2009). Municipalities are evolving from administrative organizations to more demand‐driven organizations with a focus on efficiency and high quality service delivery (Hiemstra, 2005).
Within municipalities, like in most organizations, the work is largely accomplished in teams. All the mentioned developments and changes require an effective way of collaboration and learning within these teams. Front office teams are often the first teams that notice change and face a direct need for learning as they are in direct contact with civilians and companies. They need to be able to learn and quickly translate their new knowledge into a better service delivery. For this reason I chose to focus in this research on front office teams in Dutch municipalities.
1.4 Purpose statement and research questions
As described there is a need in the literature for field‐based research that develops context specific theories on team learning. The introduction showed that no research has been done on team learning processes in Dutch municipalities, despite the many changes in this context that forces municipalities ‐ and thus her (front office) teams ‐ to learn and adjust to the changing circumstances.
Resulting from the previous, the research which is described in this report has the following purpose statement:
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the identification of the factors that promote or inhibit team learning behavior, whether and how these factors interrelate, and in turn, how team learning behavior affects team performance of front office teams in the context of a Dutch municipality.
Based on the purpose statement of this research the following main research questions are formulated:
Main research questions:
1. To which extent does team learning behavior exists within a front office teams in a Dutch municipality?
2. Which contextual factors promote or inhibit team learning behavior?
3. In what way do these contextual factors interrelate towards team learning behavior?
4. What is the influence of team learning behavior on team performance?
The main questions include several concepts that need further explanation. This leads to the following sub‐questions:
Sub‐questions:
1. What is team learning behavior?
2. What factors influence team learning behavior?
3. What is team performance?
Before the main research questions can be answered, the concepts of these sub‐questions need to be studied and relevant literature needs to be considered. In the next chapter a literature review will provide answers to the sub‐questions. The main research questions will be addressed later in this report.
1.5 Relevance
Although previous paragraphs have shown why this research is conducted, this paragraph shortly highlights the relevance of this research. The relevance of a research can be practical in nature (practical relevance) and/ or theoretical in nature (theoretical relevance) (Hart, 1988).
In the previous paragraph is established that many organizations in the private as well as in the public sector choose a team based structure and increasingly rely on teams to carry out critical tasks (Ellis et al., 2003; Moon, 2003). Teams are also considered to be the fundamental learning unit within organizations (Edmondson, 2002; Yorks et al., 2003). The growing reliance on teams in changing organizational environments creates a managerial imperative to understand the factors that influence and enable team learning.
These reasons triggered many scholars in studying learning processes within work teams. However a literature review shows, no research on this subject has been conducted within (Dutch) municipal organizations. As municipalities differ fundamentally in characteristics and dynamics from private sector organization and employ many people it is important that research is conducted in this context. Based on personal interests, the increasing importance of team learning, and the gap in literature on team learning processes in this context, this study aims to contribute to the literature on this subject. This research is a first step to reduce the lack of knowledge on team learning processes in a public environment, more specifically in (Dutch) municipalities.
Besides this theoretical relevance, this research also has practical implications. From a practical perspective, the findings of this study are useful to stakeholders (i.e., team leaders, team members, managers and HR consultants of teams in municipalities) responsible for team learning behavior and team performance. It provides these stakeholders with insights in which factors could improve team learning behavior and therewith team performance. With this knowledge the optimal conditions can be created so that team learning behavior is enhanced and maximal performance can be achieved, resulting in high quality service delivery towards civilians and companies.
1.6 Structure
The figure below outlines the overall research process and the structure of this report.
Figure 1: Schematic display of report and research process
As shown in figure 1, this study has been a continuous process in which the different parts are closely linked together. The important concepts of the main research questions are studied in the literature review which provides a theoretical lens and foundation for the field research. The empirical field research has led to research data that have been analyzed. Data analysis has been an ongoing process during this study. The last chapter presents a discussion based on the data analysis, conclusions are drawn which lead to recommendations and suggestions for further research.
Literature Review (Ch2)
Field research (Ch3)
Conclusions and Discussion (Ch5)
Results and Analysis (Ch4) Introduction/research problem
(Ch1)
Group processes;
Learning behavior;
Learning processes;
Team performance;
Collaborative learning.
2 Literature review
The purpose statement and the main research questions include several concepts that need further explanation. In this chapter the main concepts of this research are studied with the use of existing literature. The answers will be provided to the sub‐questions.
The early identification of constructs provides a theoretical lens for the field research that will be described later in this report. It provides direction and lays a foundation for the analysis of the research data. First, a brief description will be given of the literature search methodology.
2.1 Literature search methodology
A systematic literature review was conducted to find relevant books and articles with regard to the topic under study. A broad range of sources was used to find literature that would contribute in explaining the main concepts of this study. The most literature was found with the use of the online database Web of science. But also other search engines were used like: Scopus, Journal Storage (JSTOR) and Google Scholar.
To retrieve relevant articles among the following key words were used in various combinations;
Learning;
Team;
Learning organization;
Team learning;
Group learning;
Psychological safety;
These key words are based on preliminary readings and logical reasoning. The first search resulted in about 150 papers. These articles were filtered on title and abstract summaries to determine their relevance. After this first selection of papers, the search was extended by using backward and forward citations. The following selection and prioritization criteria were used to determine which articles were most relevant:
1. The literature must be published after the year 2000 to ensure the most recent literature is used;
2. Older articles could be used but only articles with at least 50 citations;
3. Only articles in top journals were selected (impact factor).
After taking these selection and prioritization criteria into account, 85 articles were selected for further examination. Most of these articles appeared to be relevant and these articles are used throughout this report.
2.2 Team learning behavior
It is important for this research to determine the meaning of team learning behavior. Team learning is not an easy concept to define, since it can be viewed in many ways. First, the concept ‘team’ will be defined, after which the concept team learning will be studied and explained.
2.2.1 Teams defined
Teams have been studied for a long time by many research disciplines. Literally hundreds of studies have been conducted, therefore many definitions of teams can be found in the literature.
The existing empirical research on teams distinguishes different types of teams. Essentially the research focuses on three types: (1) work teams, (2) project teams and (3) management teams (Stock, 2004; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). This research focuses on front office teams which can be classified as work teams. Work teams are responsible for producing products and/or delivering services and are continuous in nature (Stock, 2004).
Numerous definitions of work teams have been suggested over the years. For example Stock (2004, p. 275) defines work teams as: “a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks and share responsibilities for outcomes”. Other authors define work teams as: “As a distinguishable set of two or more people who are assigned specific roles or functions to perform dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/ objective/ mission, who have each been assigned specific roles and functions to perform, and who have a limited life span of membership” (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannebaum, 1992, p. 126), or as: “a group of individuals with a clear identity, who work together in a coordinated manner toward a common goal or result, and who’s individual knowledge and skills are essential” (Korevaar, 2001, p. 10).
Such definitions share many elements but are slightly different. All authors agree that a team is more than a group of people in the same space, physical or virtual. A work team can be defined in many ways but the most complete definition is of Kozlowski and Bell (2003). This definition includes all the attributes proposed by other authors but also includes the organizational context in which teams are embedded. This research therefore adopts their definition and regards teams as:
“collectives composed of two or more individuals who exist to perform their organizationally relevant tasks, share one or more common goals, interact socially, exhibit task interdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity” (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003, p. 334).
2.2.2 Team learning behavior
The existing literature on team learning shows that the concept team learning is defined in many ways. The introduction briefly indicates that three main research streams can be identified in the current literature on team learning (Edmondson, 2007). These three areas of work differ
fundamentally in used conceptualization. But also within these research areas there is no consistency in used conceptualization and operationalization of team learning.
As pointed out by Edmondson (2007), team learning is often studied in one or two ways; either by regarding learning as an outcome (Lewis, Lange, & Gillis, 2005; Reagans et al., 2005; Ren et al., 2006) or by studying learning as a process (Kasl, Marsick, & Dechant, 1997; Edmondson, 1999; Van der Vegt
& Bunderson, 2005; Zellmer‐Bruhn & Gibson, 2006).
This research follows, as discussed in the introduction, the third research tradition that is distinguished by Edmondson et al. (2007) by focusing on learning processes in work teams. Team learning in this area and therefore also in this study is considered as an action – a process – and not as an outcome. Team learning in this research is examined in the organizational behavior tradition; in terms of activities and behaviors.
Previous studies identified several team learning behaviors. Several authors describe team learning as an ongoing cycle of activities that a team engages in to process knowledge that allows it to adapt and improve (Kolb, 1984; Kasl et al., 1997; Edmonson, 1999; 2002; Van Offenbeek, 2001; Gibson, 2001).
Kolb (1984, p.41) defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience”. The experiential learning theory of Kolb (1984) provides a holistic four‐stage learning model. This learning cycle includes the learning behaviors: (1) experiencing, (2) reflective observing, (3) conceptualizing and (4) experimenting. This four‐stage learning cycle regards experiences as the basis for observations and reflections. These reflections are translated into abstract concepts which lead to implications for actions. These concepts are generalized through a process of codification, in which tacit knowledge becomes explicit. Tacit knowledge includes experiences, skills and attitudes (Weggeman, 1997; 2000). This knowledge is exclusively embedded in the minds of individuals, it is personal and context specific (Koskinen & Vanharanta, 2002). When this knowledge is articulated, codified, and stored in certain media, it can be transmitted to others and becomes explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeauchi, 1995). When tacit knowledge becomes explicit a collective outcome could be developed or designed. Teams can experiment with these outcomes, test them and create new experiences (Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005).
Kasl et al. (1997) identify similar learning behaviors and propose that team learning processes comprise the following four elements: (1) framing, (2) reframing, (3) crossing boundaries and (4) experimentation. The integration of these four behaviors pulls thinking and acting together which according to these authors results in team learning. Framing, includes the team’s initial perception of a situation or action, based on prior experience and knowledge. According to Kasl et al. (1997) team members are able to reframe their initial perceptions and adjust their cognitive frameworks through boundary crossing and experimentation. Crossing boundaries and experimentation (deliberate interventions) are described as the action components. When team members cross boundaries they
interaction occurs with other team members and the larger organizational environment. These actions result in new information which is used to re‐examine and adjust the team’s initial perceptions. Learning on team level however only occurs when learning is a collective process, in which team members are not only willing to listen to the perspectives of others but also integrate and share these views (Burke, Salas, & Diaz, 2008).
Coming from a slightly different perspective Gibson (2001) developed a framework for collective cognition in work groups. Gibson (2001, p. 123) defines collective cognitions as: “the group process involved in the acquisition, storage, transmission, manipulation and use of information”. The learning phases identified by Gibson (2001) are: (1) accumulation, (2) interaction, (3) examination and (4) accommodation. During the first identified phase – accumulation –, groups obtain knowledge and information. This phase consists of activities such as perceiving information, filtering that information, and storing the filtered information. The second phase – interaction – consists of activities such as retrieving, exchanging and structuring the information. The quality of these activities depends upon the communication patterns within the group. In the examination phase group members collectively examine information, make interpretations and use these interpretations to evaluate possible courses of actions. The last phase – accommodation – consists of activities as the integration of opinions and judgments of the group members which lead to decisions on the actions that should be taken (Gibson, 2001).
Huber (1991) like the previous scholars also discerned four learning behaviors: (1) information acquisition, (2) information distribution, (3) information interpretation and (4) information storage and retrieval. Offenbeek (2001) elaborated on the learning behaviors of Huber taking into account criticism on the activity of interpretation of given data. This activity lacks attention to the more creative aspects of learning according to some authors (Huysman, 1996; Weick & Westley, 1996).
Van Offenbeek (2001) has therefore split information interpretation into converging and diverging interpreting activities. This scholar’s conceptualization of interpretation closely resembles the framing and reframing elements of Kasl et al. (1997). Van Offenbeek (2001) defines team learning as an iterative team process in which information is (1) acquired, (2) distributed, (3) both convergently and divergently interpreted, and (4) stored and retrieved. Information acquiring is a process through which information is acquired by observing and scanning the environment and by actively initiating focused inquiries for additional information. Information distribution is the process by which information is distributed from different sources by a team member to the other members of a team which leads to new information and understandings. Information interpretation can be described as the process by which the available information is given a meaning that is commonly understood.
Interpreting activities are convergingly leading to collective interpretations and divergingly leading to questioning and seeing things differently in a new manner. Information storage and retrieval represents the way information is stored, traced and used by the team (Van Offenbeek, 2001).
In this study, I adhere to the definition of team learning behavior proposed by Edmondson (1999).
Edmondson (1999, p. 353) conceptualizes team learning as “an ongoing process of reflection and
action, characterized by (1) asking questions, (2) seeking feedback, (3) experimenting, (4) reflecting on results, (5) and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions”. According to Edmondson (1999; 2002) it is through these set of activities that individuals acquire, share, and combine knowledge and that learning takes place in a group. I chose this definition since it describes the process of team learning in specific and concrete learning behaviors which have been widely accepted and adopted by many scholars (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003; Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005; Yeh & Chou, 2005; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006;
Mensink & van den Boogaard, 2007; Savelsberg, Heijden, & Poell, 2009; Hirst, Knippenberg, & Zhu, 2009). Besides this definition offers a distinct frame for the empirical research.
Some authors have focused on one or two of these learning behaviors in their studies and have developed more detailed definitions of these behaviors (Van Dyck, 2000; Van Woerkom, 2003;
Schippers, 2003). Savelsberg et al. (2009) elaborated on each specific team learning behavior as defined by Edmondson (1999) based on the more detailed conceptualizations of other authors. In this study, I adopt the elaborated definitions of team learning behavior of Savelsberg et al. (2009, p.
583), and conceptualize team learning as an ongoing process of reflection and action characterized by the following five learning behaviors:
1. Seeking feedback: seeking and analyzing feedback internally among team members and externally from outsiders to the team; to measure whether the team is doing the right things and doing thing right (Elaborated definition based on Schippers et al., 2003).
2. Exploring and co‐construction of meaning: conversational actions of members, asking questions and sharing knowledge, opinions, perspectives (Elaborated definition based on Van den Bossche et al., 2006).
3. Collective reflection: collectively look back or ahead on results, experiences, goals, actions, working methods, strategies, and assumption to discuss; eventually aimed at adapting working methods, strategies, or assumptions (Elaborated definition based on Schippers et al., 2003).
4. Error management: discussing errors collectively and exploring how to prevent them.
(Elaborated definition based on Van Dyck, 2003).
5. Experimenting: collectively doing things differently than before and measuring differences in outcome (Elaborated definition based on Van Woerkom, 2003).
2.3 Factors that influence team learning behavior
In the literature numerous factors can be identified that affect learning behavior in teams. However five factors were identified that are sufficiently included and supported in previous empirical studies.
In this paragraph these factors are examined and described. This early identification of possible constructs provides a theoretical lens for the field research, however the research site will be entered as open minded as possible and none of these factors is guaranteed a place in the resultant theory.
