«Anna B. Adams D. Christopher Kayes The George Washington University David A. Kolb Case Western Reserve University Working Paper ORBH 12/13/04, ...»
Teams can become caught in action by adequately incorporating feedback, and teams also can become caught in inaction by incorporating too much feedback. Teams must learn to balance feedback pursuit and action.
One of the tools teams typically use to show this action process visually is an actionplanning worksheet. This worksheet allows the team to directly integrate feedback into its actions so that it can change goals, better match team members with team tasks, improve processes, and reanalyze its context, all based on feedback. The action-planning worksheet enables the team to chart this iterative process. The team can balance feedback and action without getting stuck in either process.
The action processes a team enlists are based on the level of development in which the team operates. Early on in a team’s development, it is likely to perform actions disconnected from feedback. Responsibility is shared as team members begin to work collectively rather than individually. In essence, the transition from lower to higher development is marked by the team’s response to goals or circumstance without seeking feedback. In later stages, the team works together to change current goals and act upon them as the situation demands. The team is able to make independent, well-thought-out decisions based on feedback from its feedback systems with involvement from everyone on the team. In these later stages, the team designs new feedback systems to integrate increasingly complex data from the environment. The team takes responsibility for its actions based on this feedback. By the time the team reaches the highest stages, it has learned to seek and integrate feedback continually into higher-order, purposeful actions. These actions will be adapted as needed by changing goals, skills, and contexts. The team has learned that purposeful actions are based on continual learning and adaptation.
We have outlined how learning drives individual teams to develop higher-level functioning in each of the six aspects of team functioning. In the final section, we outline the implications of this model of team learning for educational interventions and introduce a structured method to guide teams through this process.
Since teams do not often naturally develop or learn, a programmed team-learning experience provides a structured way to move through the developmental process for each aspect of team functioning. Understanding how teams learn was the first step in designing a simulation that encourages learning. Teams learn from experience by having members who are Involved and committed to the team and its purpose and who are creating new knowledge • and identifying challenges (concrete experience).
Engaging in reflection and conversation about the team’s experiences and making • observations to ensure that all available knowledge has been addressed (reflective
Thinking critically about how the team works and coming up with new theories, devising • plans or models and placing abstract events into coherent and simple explanations (abstract conceptualization).
Making decisions, taking action, and experimenting with various approaches and • strategies for problem solving (active experimentation).
A team can progress in its development through several popular educational interventions. One such intervention, the Kolb Team Learning Experience (KTLE), emphasizes development of the various aspects of team functioning described above, including the internal mechanisms of the team and management of the team’s environment. Its structured experiences enhance team effectiveness through learning. In its step-by-step simulation, individuals learn to implement the basic team functions (e.g., goals, roles, membership) within an existing or new team. This learning is put to direct use to accomplish a specific purpose put forth by the team or its organization.
The KTLE is a structured written simulation (in the form of a team workbook) in which team members learn about team functions while engaging in the processes of knowledge creation, reflection, critical thinking, and action taking. Thus, team members learn how to learn as the team progresses through activities and problems in the team-learning workbook. The team is encouraged to experience all stages of the learning cycle multiple times and reflect on its ability to continually experience these stages. As the team learns, it increases its ability to operate at higher developmental stages within its functional aspects of purpose, membership, roles, context, process, and action taking. 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 awareness of learning and progress through the learning cycle modes. This knowledge, experience, and learning can be continually leveraged as the team continues to work together to accomplish its goals.
The KTLE helps teams work toward higher development through seven distinct
simulation modules, each lasting about an hour in length. The modules are as follows:
1. Team learning overview: Teams engage in an introductory exercise that encourages teamwork and requires the team to move through the learning cycle by engaging in a simulated product development and marketing exercise. Teams then analyze their process and acquire their first exposure to the team-level learning cycle.
2. Team purpose: This module helps a team set its general direction by identifying individual purpose and how it relates to the team’s overall purpose.
3. Team membership: Teams “map” the learning styles of individual members onto a specially designed learning space. They then develop a snapshot of team members’ learning styles and can begin to see how the team as a whole learns best. Team members can identify the synergies and challenges relative to their individual learning styles.
4. Roles: Team members identify their role preferences and “map” them to identify gaps and potential strengths of team members and the team as a whole.
5. Context: The team identifies its primary contextual demands, including the nature of its task and the resources it needs to complete its task effectively.
6. Team process: The team once again visits the four-phase team learning cycle. In this module, however, the team diagnoses its own process and identifies its strengths and weaknesses relative to navigating the learning cycle.
7. Action planning: The team works through a detailed action-planning worksheet. In this final module, the team pulls together what it learned about itself from the other six modules. The planning process provides the team with a detailed but flexible action plan, including deadlines, expected results, and the necessary team processes to achieve these
Team learning is an essential process that facilitates team development and, in turn, the ability of a team to take action in the face of specific contextual demands. The history of group and team research describes both the positive and negative aspects of team functioning. The KTLE provides a structured simulation to help teams realize the importance and potential of team learning without falling prey to the problems that often plague teams during the learning process.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665.
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation. Westport, CN: Quorum Books.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues,
Bion, W. R. (1959). Experience in groups and other papers. New York: Basic Books.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1991). Learning skills profile. Boston: TRG Hay/McBer Training Resources Group.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1995, March–April). From learning styles to learning skills: The Executive Skills Profile. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(5), 3–17.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1997). Assessing individuality in learning: The Learning Skills Profile. Educational Psychology, 11(3–4), 279–295.
Carlsson, B., Keane, P., & Martin, J. B. (1976). R & D organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review (spring), 17(3), 1-15.
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 27–40.
Clarke, R. D. (1971). Group-induced shift to risk: A critical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 76(4), 251–270.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.
Davidson N. (Ed.) (1990). Cooperative learning in mathematics. A handbook for teachers.
Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short term project teams.
Small Groups Research, 31(3), 328–353.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716.
Fernandez, C. L. (1986). Role elaboration: The influence of personal and situational factors.
[unpublished qualifying paper]. Cleveland, OH: Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University.
Fernandez, C. L. (1988). Role shaping in a high-tech organization using experiential learning theory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1997). Classroom Strategies That Facilitate Transfer of Learning to the Workplace. Innovative Higher Education. 22(1): 45-60.
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1999). A framework for learning to work in teams. Journal of Education for Business, 74, 1, 28–33.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 499–517.
Gibson, C. & Vermuelen, F. (2004). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48: 202-239 Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and inter-group relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.) (Vol. 3, pp. 261–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hall, J. (1996). Training in teamwork for students of library and information studies. Education for Information, 14(1), 19–30.
Halstead, A., & Martin, L. (2002). Learning styles: A tool for selecting students for group work.
International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 39(3), 245–252.
Harvey, J. (2001). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational
Jackson, C. J. (2002). Predicting team performance from a learning process model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 6–13.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the classroom. Science and Children, 24, 2.
Kayes, A. A., Kayes, D. C., Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2004). The Kolb team learning experience: Improving team effectiveness through structured learning experiences.
Boston: Hay Resources Direct.
Kayes, D. C. (2001). Experiential learning in teams: A study in learning style, group process and integrative complexity in ad hoc groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Kayes, D. C. (2004). The 1996 Mt. Everest Climbing Disaster: The Breakdown of Learning in Teams. Human Relations, 57(10), 1236-1284.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1999a). Learning Style Inventory, version 3. Boston: TRG Hay/McBer Training
Kolb, D. A. (1999b). Learning Style Inventory, version 3: Technical specifications. Boston: TRG Hay/McBer Training Resources Group.
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins. S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 823–832.
Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1992). Employee involvement and total
quality management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco:
Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1995). Creating high-performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lingham, T. (2005). The development of a measure of conversational learning in teams.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
McMurray, D. (1998). Learning styles and organizational behavior in Japanese EFL classrooms.
Journal of Fukui Prefectural University, 13, 29–45.
Michaelsen, L., Bauman Knight, A., & Fink, L. D (Eds.). (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Mills, T. M. (1967). The sociology of small groups. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.