The aim of this article is to explore how teams make sense of their effectiveness over time by telling their team story. We selected five team stories from health care teams perceived by the organization as effective. We analyzed their stories using three-level narrative analysis, which addresses the temporal, social, and normative complexities of narrating effective teamwork. Two story types were identified: developing effectiveness stories, which represent stories about a transition from ineffective to effective, and continuous improvement stories, which represent relatively consistent high performance. This distinction seems to indicate differences in the way teams engage in and profit from narrative reflection, and how they relate to the organizational context. Our findings showed that narrative reflection provides insights into incongruence between teamwork elements, invites members to exchange perspectives, and reveals lessons learned for future recycling. Future research could explore how composite stories might provide insights for other teams to reflect on.

Definitions are social constructions rather than objective descriptions. They set clear boundaries for what is considered normal in a situation. Common words in organizations, like effectiveness or success, carry different meaningss in different contexts. In this paper, we evaluate the Delphi Technique as a method for explicating context-specific definitions and illustrate its use in formulating a context-specific definition of ‘an effective health care team’. Eight multi-disciplinary organization members participated in the study and reached consensus on characteristics assigned to team effectiveness in three rounds. The final definition implies the influence of organizational values, underscoring the importance of context specificity in organization studies.

Objectives: Solution-focused support (SFS) is an upcoming approach to support people with intellectual disabilities (ID). However, while research shows that clients appreciate this approach, insight into professionals' experiences and their application of SFS is lacking. This article describes a qualitative study aimed at understanding how professionals make sense of learning and applying SFS, specifically, Cauffman's Solution Cube. Methods: Logbook files in which professionals reported their experiences with SFS for a full year were qualitatively analyzed in two steps: (1) identification of how professionals assigned successful and unsuccessful applications of SFS, and reflected on what worked and dilemmas arising during this application process, (2) identification of patterns over time in how professionals learned how to deal with the encountered dilemmas. Results: The main dilemma experienced by professionals concerns 'doing what works' in conjunction with other dimensions of the Solution Cube. Three overall patterns were identified to address how professionals made sense of learning how to apply SFS over time and deal with ambiguities of 'doing what works' in practice: (1) a focus on caring, (2) a focus on empowering, and (3) a focus on balancing between the two. Conclusions: Understanding how professionals deal with SFS over time enables researchers to identify different ways professionals learn SFS, along with the ambiguities they experience about the approach and unintended applications. Implications for implementing SFS and learning facilitators that might help promote a balance between caring and empowerment, specifically for people with ID, are provided.

No abstract