Learning in multi-team systems

Sessa, Valerie I.; London, Manuel; Wannamaker, Marlee; Toich, Margaret J.; Francavilla, Jessica

doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2019.03.007

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there has been little research to date on how triggers are recognized in the first place, organizational learning theory suggests that triggers for learning are events within or outside the organization that lead individuals to interpret the events, form insights, and generate responses that together become cognitive maps for understanding and future action (Crossan et al, 1999). Sessa et al (2018Sessa et al ( , 2019 suggest that learning processes may be adaptive, generative or transformative. Studies of MTSs have found examples of adaptive, generative, and transformative learning.…”

Section: Triggersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within a performance episode, there are: periods of action during which time the MTS is doing its taskwork and include monitoring progress toward goals, systems monitoring, team monitoring, and coordination, and periods of transition during which time MTSs engage in mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy formation. Sessa et al (2018Sessa et al ( , 2019 introduced the notion of the time between performance episodes which they refer to as hiatus periods during which the component teams may go about their business independent of the MTS. They argued that whether the MTS and component teams are in performance episodes (as well as whether the MTS is in an action or transition TPM 27,3/4 phase) or hiatus periods impacts whether an MTS notices triggers for learning and the learning processes that occur.…”

Section: Performance Episodes and Hiatus Periodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MTSs are expected to respond effectively to complex challenges while simultaneously remaining responsive and adaptable, and preserving inter-team linking mechanisms. MTSs' leadership teams configure and reconfigure their component teams to meet the unique needs of each situation (including the possibility of a different set of component teams or a changing set of component teams as the situation unfolds) and perform (Sessa et al, 2018(Sessa et al, , 2019. How do they learn to do this (Zaccaro et al, 2020)?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…How do they learn to do this (Zaccaro et al, 2020)? Theory suggests that the leadership and component teams as an MTS unit learn as they work (Sessa et al, 2018(Sessa et al, , 2019. However, little research, to date, has explored MTS learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overview of multi-team system learning literature Goals and obstacles to reaching those goals establish the need for learning in MTSs (Sessa et al, 2018(Sessa et al, , 2019. As the MTS is working within its complex environment, demands and opportunities happen in such a manner that the MTS cannot continue to work in the same way and be successful, thus stimulating or triggering the learning processes (Sessa and London, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Learning in multi-team systems: a qualitative study of learning triggers, readiness to learn and learning processes

Sessa¹,

Francavilla

London

et al. 2021

TPM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Multi-team systems (MTSs) are expected to respond effectively to complex challenges while remaining responsive and adaptable and preserving inter-team linking mechanisms. The leadership team of an MTS is expected to configure and reconfigure component teams to meet the unique needs of each situation and perform. How do they learn to do this? This paper, using a recent MTS learning theory as a basis, aims to begin to understand how MTSs learn and stimulate ideas for future research. Design/methodology/approach The authors use two case studies to address research questions. The first case was a snapshot in time, while the second case occurred over several months. Interviews, documents and participant observation were the data sources. Findings As suggested by theory, findings support the idea that learning triggers, the timing of the triggers and readiness to learn (RtL) affect the type of learning process that emerges. The cases showed examples of adaptive and generative team learning. Strong and clear triggers, occurring during performance episodes, led to adaptive learning. When RtL was high and triggers occurred during hiatus periods, the associated learning process was generative. Originality/value Using an available theoretical model and case studies, the research describes how MTS readiness to learn and triggers for learning affect MTS learning processes and how learning outcomes became codified in the knowledge base or structure of the MTS. This provides a framework for subsequent qualitative and quantitative research.

show abstract

Section: Triggersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Performance Episodes and Hiatus Periodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Learning in multi-team systems: a qualitative study of learning triggers, readiness to learn and learning processes

Sessa¹,

Francavilla

London

et al. 2021

TPM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mind the (identification) gap: Foci in multiteam systems and their impact on innovative work behaviours

Cremers,

Curșeu

2023

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents a longitudinal exploration of identification with teams and multiteam systems (MTSs) in an organizational context that started using MTSs. Data were collected in five waves during the first 2 years in which the organization started the implementation of MTSs in order to aggregate teams in value streams as organizational units. The results show that there is a clear and distinct gap between team and MTS identification. This gap is greater in larger MTSs than smaller MTSs. This gap decreases in time mostly due to a rise in MTS identification in combination with a stable team identification across time. Additionally, our research showed that MTS identification is hindered when negative relations are present in the MTS. Finally, we show that identification with the team fosters innovative team performance and the identification with MTS moderates this positive association in a compensatory manner. The findings show important implications for the management of MTSs in modern organizations.

show abstract