«Anna B. Adams D. Christopher Kayes The George Washington University David A. Kolb Case Western Reserve University Working Paper ORBH 12/13/04, ...»
Experiential learning in teams
Anna B. Adams
D. Christopher Kayes
The George Washington University
David A. Kolb
Case Western Reserve University
Working Paper ORBH 12/13/04, Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School
of Management, Case Western Reserve University. A revised version of this paper will appear
in Simulation and Gaming. Not to be quoted or cited without permission prior to publication.
We wish to thank Claudy Jules and Alice Kolb for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Abstract Teamwork is prevalent in organizations, yet it has pitfalls such as social loafing, groupthink, overdependence on a dominant leader, over-commitment to goals, and diffusion of responsibility. Such negative factors can be overcome and team effectiveness improved when teams intentionally focus on learning. This paper draws on the historical contributions to experiential learning in teams by Kurt Lewin and his colleagues and contemporary research on team learning based on experiential learning theory. Learning from experience is proposed as the process whereby teams develop in six areas-- purpose, membership, role leadership, context, process, and action. Teams learn differently in early versus later stages of development. The Kolb Team Learning Experience is designed to assist teams in learning about these aspects of team functioning through a structured written simulation. Upon completion of the simulation, the team has knowledge about the functions of teams in general, experience about the functions of its team specifically, and self-awareness of how it learns from experience.
KEYWORDS: experiential learning, team learning, group development, learning style, team roles As teamwork becomes more prevalent in education and the workplace, more emphasis is placed on team learning—the ability of individual team members to learn teamwork skills (Stevens & Campion, 1994) and the capability of the team as a whole to develop the “executive consciousness” necessary to self-organize and manage its work process (Mills, 1967).
Experiential learning theory (ELT) provides a framework for understanding and managing the way teams learn from their experience (Kolb, 1984). In this paper we outline the experiential approach to team learning and review research on the experiential perspective on teams. We examine the application of experiential learning principles to six areas of team functioning— purpose, membership, roles, context, process, and action taking—and describe how team effectiveness can be improved by focusing intentional learning effort on them.
Organizations increasingly rely on teams to get work done. Teamwork in organizations takes many forms, “from the shop floor to the executive suite”—ongoing work teams of various types, parallel teams for advice and employee involvement, temporary project teams, and management teams (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). In organizations with more than 100 employees, over 80% use some form of teams (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). A survey of 1000 Fortune 1000 companies in 1993 by the University of Southern California found that 68% of these organizations used self-managing work teams and 91% used some type of team to solve problems (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992, 1995).
The use of teams to promote student learning in education also has become more prevalent (Michaelsen, Bauman Knight, & Fink, 2004). For example, in his study of student learning at Harvard, Richard Light found student learning teams to be highly effective.
“Specifically, those students who study outside of class in small groups of four to six, even just once a week, benefit enormously. Their meetings are organized around discussions of the homework. As a result of their study group discussion they are far more engaged and far better prepared, and they learn significantly more” (2001, p. 52). Learning teams such as this have sometimes been referred to as collaborative learning (Davidson, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1986;
Yet many who work in teams are not happy about it. Work team members often complain about wasting time in meetings that did not result in any action. Students complain about being forced to work in teams with other students who do not pull their weight when their grade is dependent on their team’s performance (Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004; Hall, 1996).
Small group research has identified a number of factors that negatively impact team performance and member satisfaction. These include phenomena such as overdependence on a dominant leader (Bion, 1959; Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001), the tendency to conform known as “groupthink” (Janis, 1972), over-commitment to goals (Staw, 1982), diffusion of responsibility (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1964), a tendency to make risky or more conservative decisions than individuals acting alone (Clarke, 1971), social loafing (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979) and the Abeline paradox (Harvey, 2001), in which groups take action that most members disagree with because they fail to express their true feelings.
In this paper, we argue that these and other negative factors associated with teamwork can be overcome when teams become able to learn from experience. Teams can increase their effectiveness and team members can develop team skills when a team intentionally focuses on learning. This paper consists of three main sections. In the first section, we explore the theoretical foundation of ELT and its application to teams. We trace the roots of an experiential learning approach to teams to Kurt Lewin in 1946 and then identify three key components to an experiential approach to team learning: conversation space, role leadership, and team development. This section is followed by a review of the contemporary research on experiential learning and teams. We identify learning from experience as the way teams develop in six areas of team functioning: purpose, membership, role leadership, context, process, and action. We identify how teams learn in early versus later stages of development in each of these areas. In the final section, we examine the implications of the experiential learning approach for simulation and training with the Kolb Team Learning Experience (KTLE).
Historical origins The experiential approach to learning in teams has a long and rich history dating back to the 1940s and Kurt Lewin’s research on group dynamics. Lewin’s discovery of the T-group is worth examining. From this work emerged three key insights that frame the experiential approach to team learning as it has evolved over the years: 1) the pivotal role of reflective conversation; 2) the theory of functional role leadership; and 3) the experiential learning process as the key to team development.
To learn from their experience, teams must create a conversational space where members can reflect on and talk about their experience together. In the summer of 1946, Lewin and his colleagues designed a new approach to leadership and group dynamics training for the Connecticut State Interracial Commission. The 2-week training program began with an experiential emphasis encouraging group discussion and decision making in an atmosphere where staff and participants were peers. The research and training staff gathered extensive notes and recordings of the group’s activities. They met each evening to analyze the data collected during the day’s meetings. Although it was the scientific norm to analyze research objectively without the subjective involvement of the participants; Lewin was receptive when a small group of participants asked to join these discussions. One of the staff members in attendance was
Ronald Lippitt, who described what happened in a discussion attended by three trainees:
Sometime during the evening, an observer made some remarks about the behavior of one of the three persons who were sitting in—a woman trainee. She broke in to disagree with the observation and described it from her point of view. For a while there was quite an active dialogue between the research observer, the trainer, and the trainee about the interpretation of the event, with Kurt an active questioner, obviously enjoying this different source of data that had to be coped with and integrated….
The evening session from then on became the significant learning experience of the day, with the focus on actual behavioral events and with active dialogue about differences of interpretation and observation of the events by those who had participated
By creating a conversational space where staff in analytic, objective roles could integrate their ideas with the experiences and observations of active group participants, Lewin and his colleagues discovered the self-analytic group and with it a powerful force for team learning and development. A team can develop a composite image of itself by developing the capacity to reflect on its experience through conversations that examine and integrate differences in members’ experiences on the team. This shared image becomes the guiding light that enables the team to learn and shape itself to respond effectively to the challenges of its mission and environment. A team that cannot see itself accurately is ultimately flying blind. To develop this shared self-image, a team needs to create a hospitable conversational space. Members need to respect and be receptive to differing points of view; to take time to reflect on consequences of action and the big picture; and to desire growth and development (Baker, Jensen, & Kolb, 2002).
As a team develops from a group of individuals into an effective learning system, members share the functional roles necessary for team effectiveness. In 1948, Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats described a new concept of team roles and team leadership based on the first National Training Laboratory in Group Development. In contrast to the then-prevailing idea that leadership was a characteristic of the person and that teams should be led by a single leader, Benne and Sheats discovered that mature groups shared leadership. While initially group members were oriented to individual roles focused on satisfying their personal needs; they later came to share responsibility for team leadership by organizing themselves into team roles. Some roles focused on task accomplishment, such as initiator-contributor, information seeker, coordinator, and evaluator-critic; other roles focused on group building and maintenance, such as encourager, compromiser, standard setter, and group-observer. While members tended to choose roles based on their personality dispositions, they also were able to adopt more unfamiliar roles for the good of the group (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Later in the paper we provide a taxonomy of 12 team roles based on experiential learning theory.
Teams develop by following the experiential learning cycle. The laboratories in group development, or T-groups as they came to be known, were based on a model of learning from experience known as the laboratory method. This model was typically introduced by the group trainer as follows: “Our goal here is to learn from our experience as a group and thereby create the group we want to be. We will do this by sharing experiences together and reflecting on the meaning of these experiences for each of us. We will use these observations and reflections to create a collective understanding of our group, which will serve to guide us in acting to create the kind of group experience that we desire.” This training model has been developed into a more general theory of learning in ELT.
ELT defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). The ELT model portrays two dialectically related modes of grasping experience, concrete experience and
conceptualization, and two dialectically related modes of transforming experience, reflective observation and active experimentation.
According to the four-stage learning cycle, immediate or concrete experiences are the basis for observations and reflections. These reflections are assimilated and distilled into abstract concepts, from which new implications for action can be drawn. These implications can be actively tested and serve as guides in creating new experiences.
A closer examination of the ELT model suggests that learning requires abilities that are polar opposites. In grasping experience, some of us perceive new information through experiencing the tangible qualities of the world, relying on our senses and immersing ourselves in concrete reality. Others tend to perceive, grasp, or take hold of new information through symbolic representation or abstract conceptualization—thinking about, analyzing, or systematically planning, rather than using sensation as a guide. Similarly, in transforming or processing experience, some of us tend to carefully watch others who are involved in the experience and reflect on what happens, while others choose to jump right in and start doing things. The watchers favor reflective observation, while the doers favor active experimentation.
Each dimension of the learning process presents us with a choice. Since it is virtually impossible, for example, to simultaneously drive a car (concrete experience) and analyze a driver’s manual about the car’s functioning (abstract conceptualization), we resolve the conflict by choosing. Because of our hereditary equipment, our life experiences, and the demands of our environment, we develop a preferred way. We resolve the conflict between concrete or abstract and between active or reflective in patterned, characteristic ways, called “learning styles.” The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Kolb, 1999a, 1999b) was created to assess individual learning styles. While individuals tested on the LSI show many different patterns of
scores, research on the instrument has identified four statistically prevalent learning styles:
diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating (Figure 1). The following summary of the four basic learning styles is based on both research and clinical observation (Kolb, 1984, 1999a, 1999b).