Team engagement in an executive human resource development program: A closed cohort model perspective

Abstract

This study explored team engagement of two cohorts who had different team experiences in an Executive HRD program. Despite the widespread use of the closed cohort model (CCM) in executive programs and the recognition that a CCM is a type of team, there is a dearth of research on team engagement in cohorts. For ease of reference, the cohorts have been dubbed Team X and Team Y. Two research questions guided the study: What factors facilitated team engagement in a closed cohort model? What factors hindered team engagement in a closed cohort model? The findings showed that the CCM is only a formation tactic, narratives influence interactions and interdependence. Team X's engagement was impacted by cognitive bias, in and out team formation, and depersonalization. The findings showed that beliefs and the language used to describe the cohorts' goals and purpose initiated an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mindset at the start of the program. The divergence led to the creation of an ‘in’ team and an ‘out’ team. The divisiveness between the in and out teams led to depersonalization. On the contrary, Team Y categorized itself on the principle of ‘becoming’, which meant that members would undergo a transformation unique to their experiences versus meeting a preset standard. Team Y celebrated the strengths of its members, which became a precursor for success. As a result, four factors influenced engagement, namely, the transactive memory system, task cohesion, social cohesion, and subgroups. Overall, dialogic, cognitive, and affective factors influenced engagement.

Using online learner trace data to understand the cohesion of teams in higher education

“…Task cohesion is shown to be positively related to the engagement of team learning behaviours (Bossche et al, 2006). In contemporary literature, researchers have a growing consensus that the nuances of engagement in teams, such as their commitment towards a goal (Marks et al, 2001), are impacted by factors such as cohesion (Forsyth, 2021; Waight & Edwards, 2021). Behavioural interactions characterise task cohesion as evidence of commitment, unity and resolve to complete a task (Carron et al, 1985).…”

Methods for strengths use support: A multi‐dimensional model

“…Drawing on the job demands-resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017, van Woerkom et al (2016c) conceptualized organizational support for strengths use as a type of job resource that helps employees achieve their work-related goals and engage in activities. Previous research has shown that organizational and supervisor support for strengths use has positive impacts not only on employees' strengths use, but also on their attitudes, well-being, and performance (Goetz & Boehm, 2020;Meyers et al, 2019;van Woerkom et al, 2016bvan Woerkom et al, , 2016cWaight & Edwards, 2021).…”