The Development and Empirical Validation of a Multidimensional Measurement Instrument for Team Learning Behaviors

Abstract

The importance of teamwork to organizational success in today’s economy has been emphasized in literature for well over a decade. Effective teamwork can only be sustained, however, if it is supported by a process of team learning. Following Edmondson, the authors regard team learning as a group process comprising several concrete learning behaviors. The aim of this article is to report on the development of a conceptual framework and its operationalization into a measurement instrument for behaviors associated with team learning. A better understanding of these distinctive behaviors and their impact on team performance may help tailor interventions aimed at improving team performance. Based on a survey among 19 operational teams in the Dutch banking sector, the authors validated a multidimensional instrument for team learning behaviors. To prevent common-method bias, they used a multirater approach with two respondent groups, namely, team members and leaders (representing the insiders of the team), on one hand, as well as supervisors (representing the external stakeholders of the team), on the other hand. The data indicated a positive relationship between several team learning behaviors and team performance, and partly confirmed their theoretical model.

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

“…We follow the first stream and adhere to Edmondson (1999), who defined team learning as an ongoing process of collective reflection and action. Savelsbergh, Van der Heijden, and Poell (2009) characterized this process by eight team learning behaviors: (1) exploring; (2) coconstruction of meaning, (3) reflecting on outcomes and (4) processes; (5) communicating; (6) discussing errors and unexpected outcomes of actions; (7) seeking feedback; and (8) experimenting within and as a team. For sake of clarity, elaborate descriptions of these team learning behaviors are summarized in Table 1. 7 **** Insert Table 1 about here ****…”

“…We follow the first stream and adhere to Edmondson (1999), who defined team learning as an ongoing process of collective reflection and action. Savelsbergh, Van der Heijden, and Poell (2009) characterized this process by eight team learning behaviors: (1) exploring; (2) coconstruction of meaning, (3) reflecting on outcomes and (4) processes; (5) communicating; (6) discussing errors and unexpected outcomes of actions; (7) seeking feedback; and (8) (Burke et al, 2006;Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004;Stogdill, 1950), which will be elaborated upon below.In this study we adhere to these traditional leadership concepts depicting the dichotomy of person and task-focused leadership; however, we follow Stoker (1999, p. 78) (Stogdill, 1950) he or she shows concern and respect for followers, looks after their welfare, and gives support. Consideration can evoke an increased level of psychological safety in the team, which has been found to be positively related to team learning (Edmondson, 1999).…”

Enabling team learning in healthcare

“…A further limitation was that detailed information was not gathered about behaviours within the team (as is the case in studies by Poell 2009 andWilson, Goodman, andCronin 2007) and so direct comparison with these studies is not possible.…”

“…The functioning of teams or groups has long been considered an important areas for organisational performance (Salas, Burke, and Cannon-Bowers, 2000;Savelsbergh, van der Heijden, and Poell 2009), different perspectives have been offered on the characteristics of effective teams (Hackman 2002;Matthieu et al 2008), the actions that team leaders can take to enable teams to be effective (Day, Gronn, and Salas 2004;Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks 2001) and the environmental factors that may impact on team performance (Senior and Swailes 2007).…”

What’s in a name: dimensions of social learning in teacher groups

“…Central concepts in this context are for instance mutually shared cognition (Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006), perceived group efficiency (Strijbos, Martens, Jochems, & Broers, 2004) or quality of team meetings (Doppenberg et al, 2012). Other studies focus on learning behaviour, defined as an on-going process of collective reflection and action characterized by exploring, reflecting, discussing errors and unexpected outcomes, seeking feedback, and experimentation (Savelsbergh, Van der Heijden, & Poell, 2009). Furthermore, the importance of social aspects of group learning is also reflected in studies scrutinizing methodological issues related to this subject (Goodman & Dabbish, 2011).…”