Team Learning from a Team Process Perspective

The second school of thought includes studies which regard team learning as a group process, particularly as ongoing activities (Edmondson et al., 2008). In this tradition, scholars build on constructs and methods of research from organizational learning (e.g. for a review, see Bapuji & Crossam, 2004, Sauquet, 2004) and from team effectiveness studies (Hackman, 1987). Scholars in this tradition usually analyze learning in teams embedded in real organizationalsettings by following case study methods (e.g. Brooks, 1994; Edmondson, 2003; Kasl et al., 1997; Sauquet, 2000), or quantitative, survey- research methods (e.g. Bresman, 2007; Edmondson, 1999; Tsjosvold, Yu, & Hui, 2004; Wong, 2004)

In this school of thought, team learning is understood as a “verb”, as one aspect of a team’s interaction processes (Edmondson et al., 2008). Hence, the bulk of studies adapts the traditional input-process-output approach and analyzes how managerial and contextual factors (input) influence the team learning process which, in turn, bear on the team’s output, which is often evaluated by using performance quality or innovation measures (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson et al., 2008). The following figure

exemplifies this classical approach of understanding team learning. Single input factors of the micro or macro context of teams are taken into account. In a subsequent step, it is then investigated how these factors, such as leader behavior, enhance team learning and how, in turn, learning encourages team performance.

Figure 5: Typical Approach to Studying Team Learning as a Group Process

Before reviewing in detail the particular input factor of leadership - as this is the focus input factor of my dissertation - I will shed light on diverse kinds of team learning process concepts which have been discussed in the last 15 years. Additionally, I will analyze how these team learning process concepts have developed since the beginning of this research tradition.

Review of Team Learning Process Concepts

Many existing team learning process definitions (e.g. Edmondson, 1999, 2002; Kasl et al., 1997) are rooted in the American Pragmatism school of thought, and especially the work of the educational philosopher John Dewey (1859 – 1952), who wrote about inquiry and the nature of experience. In Dewey’s understanding, people learn when they are trying to solve a problematic situation. Otherwise, it is automatic behavior that channels people’s actions (Dewey, 1922). Hence, in this understanding, learning involves the iterative process of “designing, carrying out, reflecting upon, and modifying actions” (Edmondson, 1999: 353). Following Dewey’s (1922) way of learning, an error made by individuals is rather like a test that enhances learning. It revises people’s understanding of the current situation and modifies the action (Sauquet, 2004).

By investigating how professionals work and learn, Schön (1983) build on Dewey’s (1922) understanding of learning. Professionals do not act on the basis of a predefined reality; instead, the work of professionals involves defining a situation as problematic and in a subsequent step acting upon this problematic situation by applying all the person’s previously gained professional experience. The reflection on the new different situation resulting from the action includes the next step which might again necessitate a new problem definition. Taken together, the work of professionals is understood by Schön (1983) as iterative process cycles of reflection and action.

Based on the understanding of learning defined by Dewey (1922) and Schön (1983) as an iterative cycle of reflection and action, Edmondson (1999) conceptualizes her team learning processes by referring to particular learning activities. These learning activities include “asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of action.” (Edmondson, 1999: 353) When a team is engaged in such learning behaviors, it is considered a learning team (Edmondson, 1999; 2002).

The understanding of learning of Schön (1983) also constitutes a fundamental building block in Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) and Kasl et al.’s (1997) team learning model. Similar to Edmondson (1999), these authors also regard team learning as an integrated thinking and action process. Contrary to Edmondson (1999), who refers solely to a number of learning behaviors, Marsick and her colleagues distinguish between learning processes that are characterized either by 1) a cognitive or 2) an action-oriented nature. Cognitive learning processes comprise the process of framing an initial understanding of a situation and reframing it into a new understanding. The cognitive aspect of learning additionally includes the process of integrating perspective, the synthesis of different views among team members, yet not through a majority or compromise rule. Action-oriented processes imply experimentation to test a hypothesis and crossing boundaries in order to communicate ideas outside the team. In contrast with Edmondson (1999), for whom team learning is evaluated as either high or low, Kasl et al. (1997) explain in their case studies that teams run through evolutionary modes of learning, each of which displays the relative effective functioning of the proposed learning processes. The team modes begin with the fragmented mode characterized by

individualistic learning behaviors via pooled learning and range to the synergistic mode where members mutually create new knowledge.

Similar to Kasl et al. (1997) who integrate the importance of crossing boundaries in the learning processes, Wong (2004) clearly distinguishes between two source types of learning processes in her definition of learning: She defined local learning as the process of “the interpersonal knowledge acquisition, sharing, and combination of activities” (Wong, 2004: 646) among team members of the same team. The learning process of distal learning is similar to the local learning process, although these activities are engaged in with individuals outside the team’s boundaries.

Taken as a whole, however, all these team learning definitions have in common that their focus lies in the learning processes. The processes of generating new knowledge (Kasl et al., 1997) or self-reflection (Edmondson, 1999) are evidence of team learning, and do not show whether these teams have ‘really’ acted on gained insights and profited from reflective processes (Edmondson, 2002).

Besides regarding the process, later concepts of team learning also include the outcomes generated by team learning activities. For example, Argote et al., (2001) defined team learning as follows: “We define group learning in terms of both the processes and outcomes of group interaction. As a process, group learning involves the activities through which individuals acquire, share and combine knowledge through experience with one another. Evidence that group learning has occurred includes changes in knowledge, either implicit or explicit, that occur as a result of such collaboration.” (Argote et al., 2001: 370)

Likewise, Edmondson (2002) conceptualizes team learning as the interplay of reflection and action by differentiating between behaviors that promote a team’s insights and those that apply the team’s gained insights. For each of these two categories, Edmondson (2002) defines markers: the first category that focuses on the reflection part of learning includes behaviors such as sharing information, seeking feedback and discussing errors. The latter category stresses the importance of acting on gained insights and includes activities such as implementing results, transferring new

knowledge to others, and making changes and improvements (Edmondson, 2002). In contrast to Edmondson’s (1999) previous concept of team learning, which focuses solely on the team learning reflection process, in Edmondson’s (2002) refined understanding, however, teams need to engage in both learning categories - reflection and action - to perform complete learning cycles. In her own words: “This is in contrast with previous work in which learning in a team was presented as either high or low, and evidence of team self-reflection was considered evidence of learning behavior (Edmondson, 1999).” (Edmondson, 2002: 1333)

This non-substitution of learning patterns is also reflected in Gibson and Vermeulen’s (2003) concept, defined as “a cycle of experimentation, reflective communication and codification.” (2003: 202) In contrast to Kasl et al. (1997), who regard experimentation rather as an act of hypothesis testing, Gibson and Vermeulen (2003) understand experimentation as an exploratory activity by producing new ideas and insights. Reflective communication goes in line with Kasl et al.’s (1997) understanding of the cognitive process of integrating perspective. “To come to a common understanding of what the experience of information means, members transfer and combine insights through a process of reflective communication…which enables them to arrive at a potential solution.” (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003: 205-206) The third part of the team learning cycle includes knowledge codification. Team ideas need to be translated into concrete action items which, in turn, decrease ambiguity in the team (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003). Here, too, all three elements of the learning cycle need to be present for team learning to occur.

The following table gives an overview of team learning definitions embedded in the team process school of thought, showing that the initial focus of these definitions lies in understanding how teams learn. It includes activities and behaviors concerning what team members are actually doing while they learn (Edmondson, 1999; Kasl et al., 1997). In this case, learning is regarded as a verb (Edmondson et al., 2008). Based on this idea, recent scholars also highlight the outcomes of these learning processes in addition to the process itself (Edmondson, 2002; Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003) in order to see whether the team really has profited from gained insights by acting and implementing them.

Author(s) Definition Focus: Processes of Learning

Edmondson (1999: 353)

"...ongoing process of reflection and action, characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions."

Kasl, Marsick, & Dechant (1997: 229)

"We define team learning as a process through which a group creates knowledge for its members, for itself as a system, and for others. …We portray team learning as an interrelated set of processes in which collective thinking and action play a central role."

Van der Vegt, & Bunderson (2005: 534)

"We define team learning behaviors as activities by which team members seek to acquire, share, refine, or combine task-relevant knowledge though interaction with one another (Argote, Gruenfeld, & Naquin, 2001: 370). These activities may include asking

questions, challenging assumptions, seeking different perspectives, evaluating alternatives, and reflection on past actions (Edmondson, 1999; Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003). We therefore view team learning behavior as one aspect of a group's 'interaction process' (Hackman & Morris, 1975)..."

Focus: Internal and External Learning Processes

Wong (2004: 646)

"Local learning is defined as the interpersonal knowledge

acquisition, sharing, and combination activities with members in the same group, and distal learning is defined as the interpersonal knowledge acquisition, sharing, and combination activities with individuals external to the group."

Focus: Processes of Learning + Outcomes of these Processes

Argote, Guenfeld, & Naquin, (2001: 370)

"We define group learning in terms of both the processes and

outcomes of group interaction. As a process, group learning involves the activities through which individuals acquire, share and combine knowledge through experience with one another. Evidence that group learning has occurred includes changes in knowledge, either implicit or explicit, that occur as a result of such collaboration."

Edmondson (2002: 1333)

"To explore the process of team learning and the interplay between reflection and action, I first distinguished between team behaviors that promoted new insight and those that applied (or took action based on) new insight…This is in contrast with previous work in which learning in a team was presented as either high or low, and evidence of team self-reflection was considered evidence of learning behavior (Edmondson, 1999)."

Gibson &

Vermeulen (2003: 203-204)

"The exploration of knowledge through experimentation, the combination of insights through reflective communication, and the explication and specification of what has been learned through codification."

In this dissertation, I follow the latter tradition (process and outcomes of the process) and regard team learning from a process perspective, including the idea of conceptualizing team learning as a non-substitutable interplay of reflective behaviors and actions that need to occur in order to implement gained collective insights (Edmondson, 2002).