Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots.

Abstract

This article tests the degree to which personal and situational variables impact the acquisition of knowledge and skill within interactive project teams. On the basis of the literature regarding attentional capacity, constructive controversy, and truth-supported wins, the authors examined the effects of cognitive ability, workload distribution, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and structure on team learning. Results from 109 four-person project teams working on an interdependent command and control simulator indicated that teams learned more when composed of individuals who were high in cognitive ability and when the workload was distributed evenly. Conversely, team learning was negatively affected when teams were composed of individuals who were high in Agreeableness. Finally, teams using a paired structure learned more than teams structured either functionally or divisionally. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as well as possible limitations and directions for future research.

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

“…The team's defensive score started at 50,000 and decreased 1 or 2 points for every second an enemy was within the restricted region and highly restricted region, respectively. Consistent with past research (Ellis et al, 2003;Hollenbeck, Ellis, Humphrey, Garza, & Ilgen, 2011, we combined the accuracy and speed components into an overall measure of team performance by first calculating separate z-scores for the team's offensive score and defensive score. We then combined the two z-scores (r = .28, p < .05), using equal weighting, into an overall measure of team performance.…”

“…Team contexts, relative to individual contexts, create an opportunity for team members to distribute their attention, search for information, and pool their collective knowledge via information exchange (Latham & Locke, 2007). This collective search and information exchange process lies at the core of effective team learning (Edmondson, 1999;Ellis et al, 2003;Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003). Teams can also build transactive memories in which team members not only build their own knowledge, but also build knowledge about which team members possess other knowledge (e.g., Moreland, 1999) which leads to stronger team processes and performance (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010).…”

“…For example, specific learning objectives represent only one way in which specific learning goals could be set for teams. Team learning involves more than improvement on individual task knowledge or the pooling of this knowledge (Ellis et al, 2003); it also includes learning new behaviors (DeRue, Hollenbeck, Johnson, Ilgen, & Jundt, 2008). Thus, specific learning goals for teams could be operationalized according to how much time is spent on learning aspects of the task, brainstorming ideas for performance, or developing shared team mental models.…”

Does team stability mediate the relationship between leadership and team learning? An empirical study among Dutch project teams

“…When a project is completed, members either return to their functional units or move on to the next project (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Multiple activities are done simultaneously, rather than sequentially, to save time (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995).In defining the concept of team learning, some researchers have emphasized the process of learning (e.g., Edmondson, 1999Edmondson, , 2002Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003;Kasl, Marsick & Dechant, 1997), while others have stressed its outcomes (e.g., Ellis, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Porter, West, & Moon, 2003). We follow the first stream and adhere to Edmondson (1999), who defined team learning as an ongoing process of collective reflection and action.…”

Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition development and performance.

“…The measure of team performance in this study was adapted from Ellis et al (2003) and focused on the team's main objective, which was to maximize the number of points represented by offensive and defensive scores. Offensive scores went up by 5 points every time an enemy track was disabled within one of the restricted zones and dropped by 25 points every time an enemy track was disabled in the neutral space or a friendly track was disabled.…”