Lee and Kwok argue, that to adequately respond to challenges posed by the rapidly changing external environment, management is required to use acquired knowledge from multiple organizational levels. As management is often placed on the sideline of knowledge acquisition, the access to knowledge is often limited to small subsets of the database. This problem arises from the lack of centralized knowledge management.
It is important for managers to know how the knowledge flows through the organization and therefore a schematic overview is presented to enable you, as a student, to understand how knowledge is creating, interpreted and shared in a learning organization. Even though the model is created 11 years before the model of Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011) I view this model as an extension to the underlying individual, team & organizational learning processes that the model of Argote and Miron-Spektor is not detailed including.
http://blogs.telestream.net/screenflow/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/shutterstock_lightbulb.jpg
Do you remember the model of Argote & Miron-Spektor? If not, go back to the chapter overview
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S026840120000030X-gr1.jpg
(Source: Lee & Kwok, 2000)
Knowledge acquisition starts at the individual learning level. The knowledge is learned, scanned and interpret. Following, it is stored in the team members memory, who takes action. This action is embedded in the team learning and is again learned, scanned and interpret. Afterwards it is stored in the team's memory, who takes action. Last but not least, the team is taking action and the organizational learning is in place who learns, scans and interprets the acquired knowledge. Organizational learning is the process of a system adapting the environmental context through building and maintain competitive advantage (Nair, 2001). This process is not simply understood. Often decision-makers are unable to make rational decisions as they are rationally bound to the organizational context.
Learning effectively from experiences from individual members as well as the team, requires thoughtfulness consideration of all ways that a team is able to learn. Crucial learning experiences are often sporadic which hamper the learning process of the team. Experiences that are worth learning from, often occur during a hazardous period that pressures the team and the organization to focus on surviving rather than learning. When the teams focus on learning, translating these experiences into actions requires all team members to carefully plan resources to define and pursue learning opportunities. Individual knowledge can be constrained by cultural norms and political dynamics noticeable in the organization. When organizations do manage to effectively learn from experience at the individual and team level, a challenge is presented in overcoming the organizational boundaries (Cross & Israelit, 2000).
This chapter singles out two types of learning, which are individual and team learning. In the upcoming paragraphs a distinction will be made between individual and team learning.
4.1. Individual learning
As indicated in the introduction, individual learning is crucial for learning organizations as when individuals are not learning, the organization is also not learning (Kim, 1993; Tannenbaum, 1997). Team members are crucial to a team, and therefore we will first discuss individual learning, followed by team learning.
Many employees define learning as problem solving which makes them pay attention to failures in their external environment.
http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fail.jpg
(Source: http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fail.jpg)
Learning focuses on subtracting knowledge from the internal environment rather than the external environment. Therefore, the organization and more specifically the member, should critically reflect own actions and areas of improvement (Cross & Israelit, 2000). As Lee and Kwok (2000) emphasized in their model, members are continuously scanning, learning and interpreting their surroundings. The model draws on the study of Draft and Weick (1984). Their model looked like the following:
(Source: (Daft & Weick, 1984))
Even though the model is relatively old, it is not considered outdated as e.g. the research of Lee and Kwok still draw on the assumptions made by Daft and Weick. As defined by Lee and Kwok (2000), individuals are continuously scanning, interpreting and learning from data. Scanning is the process of monitoring the environment and collecting this data for the management. Interpretation is the process of giving meaning to the data.
This is where the human cognitive maps come into play. Cognitive maps are created based on an team member's perception. The team member interprets a construct when the cognitive map is made and following is presented to the organization. Learning is distinguished from scanning and interpreting due to the fact that in the learning phase, the team member is capable to take action. Learning is the ongoing process of reflection and action done by the team member (Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009).
Learning from a team member solely takes place when the actions that the member took are made replicable. As was captured in the research of Kim (1993), learning is the process of experience transformation. Furthermore it was found that a team member continuously goes through a process of experiencing, observing, reflection and abstract formation and generalization. Testing these mental models create another learning opportunity which should be communicated to all team members. Storing this knowledge is advisable as "inventing the wheel twice" needs to be prevented. This can be done via frameworks, routines (Kim D., 1993), manuals, information systems such as for example Salesforce.com.
Even though the research of Naranjo-Gil, Hartmannw, & Maasz (2008) focuses on heterogeneity in top management teams (TMTs), I apply this concept also in the widest sense to the individual team member. In the research of Naranjo-Gil et al., it was found that heterogeneity provides a team with varieties of knowledge bases, types of decision makers and professional opinions. Considering this fact, it is again emphasized that when an external member is added to team, he is extremely valuable to the team through his "alternative" ways and opinions. These differences should be fostered and maintained as long as possible. Ultimately the members "external" point-of-view will align and again, heterogeneity is sought through adding an external member to the team. The following is a, by myself experienced, real-life example of an entrepreneur called Catherine who owns her own employment agency:
As is stipulated in this paragraph, fostering individual member learning is crucial in a learning team. Ultimately, all members have their own opinions and views on the situation. Tapping into this knowledge may lead to unforeseen successes.
4.2. Team learning
In the past, team learning has been defined in several ways. The view that has been adopted in this chapter is derived from Druskat & Kayes (2000) and Ellis et al. (2003), who determined that team learning occurs when team members create, acquire and share their knowledge and information. Team learning is in this perspective viewed as a process for change in interactions between members who acquire, share and combine knowledge. Team members discuss openly, form new routines and adjust their strategies in response to perceived errors (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001).
Thoroughly understanding team processes is an important aspect of human resource management as a lot of activities are executed in team formations. A team is composed by uniting diverse types of individuals who all have divergent knowledge, expertise and functions. These teams are composed to discuss issues, produce results and make decisions. Human resource managers often fulfill the advising role in organizations to select members, setting agendas, coach groups leaders, facilitate the group process and design learning interventions when appropriate.
Teams learn most during the execution of their work. What teams learn is not static as some teams might learn high-performing strategies, others might learn structures or interactions patterns (Jacques, 2002;Sessa & London, 2006). In line with this process view, continuous learning in a team is seen as a deepening, broadening group capacity to restructure, add and use new skills, knowledge and behavior and ultimately continuously increase the system sophistication through reflecting own actions and consequences. Continuous learning in a team and an organization is an ongoing process that recognizes the need to learn, motivation to learn, and to learn from own and others experiences (Tannenbaum, 1997).
4.2.1. Vicarious learning
Vicarious learning is a type of learning that is occurring through indirect processes. Vicarious learning observers behaviors and consequences of others and following derives the learning possibilities for in general the team (Gioia & Manz, 1985) or more specifically the team member. In the past, researchers have continuously stipulated the importance of vicarious learning for a team and its team members. Failure, near-failure and success experiences are effective ways to obtain valuable knowledge as they are often composed of rich, complex data embedded in the activities prior and post task execution (Kim & Miner, 2007). This type of knowledge is often defined as tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge mostly derives from subjective insights, intuitions and hunches which are rooted in team members actions and experiences. Due to the subjective nature, it is relatively difficult to formalize and transfer this knowledge which poses challenges for communicating (Desouza, 2003). It is therefore necessary for the team to determine how tacit knowledge can be facilitated and communicated throughout the team. In the research of Desouza (2003), it was found that two particular approaches aim at encouraging vicarious learning processes: IT systems and face-to-face dialogue creation. The former fosters communication and tracks experiences via the exchange of knowledge via emails, online discussions, chats and servers. The latter encourages dialogues between team members and can be fostered through formal and informal mechanisms. Where formal mechanisms are planned interaction settings such as cross-functional team meetings, informal mechanisms occur in unplanned settings. This should be a focal point of learning teams as research found that team members are more eager to exchange ideas and share narratives in informal settings than in formal settings. These informal settings could be via trainings, after work drinks and team building programs. By making knowledge sharing a pleasurable experience, employees are more likely to take additional steps to code tacit knowledge into an electronic format. This way the team can create and foster a shared understanding which can also be defined as a shared mental model.
4.2.2. Silo mentalities
Encouraging vicarious learning can also increase silo mentalities. Silo mentality is the tendency of teams or departments within an organization to not share information and lack defined common goals. These boundaries create an "us against them" mentality which can often cause anxiety in employees attending meetings with other departments (Cilliers & Greyvenstein, 2012). These parts of the organization become delineated to the extent that the team members feel threatened by the "outsiders." When teams or groups are portraying silo mentalities, they are not collective working towards a performance goal. A fitting example is the following image:
http://www.thehumanenterprise.com.au/Images/marketing-offers/Public-Engage-WebPage-Image.png
(Source: http://www.thehumanenterprise.com.au/Images/marketing-offers/Public-Engage-WebPage-Image.png)
Even though silos are often considered hazardous, they also serve a purpose. When a high-quality is tightly linked and has established psychological safety, team members feel so closely connected they are likely to feel more comfortable, take more responsibility and work harder. Even though silos have an advantage inside a team, externally they can reduce the capacity of the team to work cross-functionally. Silos therefore need to be managed not eradicated. Softening the silos is crucial in this aspect. Ways to do this are: emphasizing a shared fate - "we all play on the same side", bring people together via reducing the physical barriers and emphasize the procedural fairness. Leadership in learning organizations and teams must take initiative and enforce the desired behavior. It is important that the team members see and acknowledge that cross-unit collaboration is a paved pathway to success (Pittinsky, 2010).
4.3. Interim conclusion
This paragraph focused on determining how teams in general and members in specifically learn and communicate their knowledge. Vicarious learning and silo mentalities are seen as sources of knowledge and the former should fostered the latter should be softened.
§5. Psychological safety
We have now learned what types of relationships can exist in a team and how they are capable of learning in general on a team level and more specifically on team member level. Mind you that research has found, there is another factor that should be taken into account: psychological safety. This paragraph aims to highlight why it is important to comprehend and manage the effects of physiological safety on individual team member and team relationships.
5.1. What is psychological safety?
The need for learning triggers organizations to seek for alternatives to enhance their processes and outcomes. Their succession rate largely depends on the capacity to learn from past experiences (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009) on individual team member level as well as on a team level. Research has shown that environmental work conditions in general and psychological safety in particular foster the organization learning abilities (Brueller & Carmeli, 2011). A key factor for organizations to learn from their failure is therefore directly linked to the level of psychological safety the team members perceive inside the team.
Psychological safety is defined as the perception that the benefits of articulating (novel) ideas/suggestion outweigh the costs of speaking up [Edmondson, (1999); Edmondson, (2004)]. In general, failures are a rich source of learning. In contrast they also provoke fear for consequences. When team members do not feel safe to speak their mind about the possible causes that might have lead to the failure, the learning potential is reduced. In §2 we defined the characterizes of a learning organization.
The table proposed that in a supportive learning environment blameless reporting should be fostered to ensure that in the future, the learning organization does not make the same mistake again. Fostering learning on an organizational level is achieved via individual team member learning and team learning. A method to encourage reporting failures could be blameless reporting. This report method is does not punish failures but instead rewards. Edmondson (2011) states that managers play a key role in reporting and should encourage individual team members and entire teams to speak up when a failure is detected. To be able to learn from these situations, individuals must feel psychological safe to articulate failures, speak up their mind and ultimately benefit the learning team and organization. The following paragraphs explain in detail how psychological safety can be fostered on an individual and team level. http://blogs.telestream.net/screenflow/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/shutterstock_lightbulb.jpg
5.2.1. Individual psychological safety
As discussed in the previous paragraph, psychological safety is the perception that a team members feels safe enough to articulate an opinion without fearing for negative consequences. The individual psychological safety concept even goes further and emphasizes that a team members feels psychological safe when he/she has confidence in their acquired knowledge. Meaning that they feel their knowledge is accurate and justified (Siemens, Roth, Balasubramanian, & Anand, 2009). It incorporates the fact that a team member is able to transfer particular work-related knowledge to another co-worker (Boudreau, Hopp, McClain, & Thomas, 2003). Hence, psychological safety is also an adequate method to reduce silo mentalities. A psychological safe climate refers to formal and informal organizational practices and process that guide the open and mutual trustworthy relationship within the organizational context. Team members that work in an organization that provides non-threatening and supportive environments are more likely to take risks of proposing new ideas. Individual psychological safety therefore strongly relates to the impact of low and high-quality relationships within the team. It can basically be seen as a vicious cycle, as when a team member is experiencing a low-quality relationship with one or multiple of his team members, his psychological safety is effected and he/she will be likely not feel safe to speak their mind. Learning is fostered through the interaction between team members. Organizations in general, and teams in specific, that aim at fostering a psychological safe environment enhance the team members learning behavior by tapping into the creativity of each individual.
5.2.2. Team psychological safety
Keeping in mind the team members individual psychological safety, we will now broaden your understanding of team psychological safety. Team psychological safety is defined as the aggregated belief that the team is feeling protected against interpersonal risk taking. The concept is rooted in past research and can be traced back as far as 1965 (Schein & Bennis). A model that best represents the flow of team psychological safety is presented below:
http://blogs.telestream.net/screenflow/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/shutterstock_lightbulb.jpg
(Source: Edmondson, Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams, 1999)
Some might confuse team psychological safety with team cohesion. However, both address a different concept. Team cohesion is capable of reducing the willingness of team members to collectively agree and is able to diminish the likelihood of an individual to challenge others views (Janis, 1982). Psychological safety on the contrary, addresses the confidence that the teams has that others will not embarrass, reject or punish a team member for speaking up. One of the most important aspects of team psychological safety is: trust. Trust is defined as the level to which team members expect that others actions will benefit their interest. Where individual psychological safety addresses interpersonal trust, team psychological safety also addresses the fact that team members have mutual respect and feel comfortable enough to be themselves in the team. Team psychological safety is a strong mechanism that is capable of alleviating the distress that team members might have concerning others reactions to, by them proposed ideas and/or suggestions. Hence, psychological safety is capable of facilitating learning behavior in teams. When individuals feel respected, they feel confident to express their opinions and therefore the benefits of speaking up outweigh the costs of not speaking up.
Mind you that whenever the team composition changes, psychological safety changes and has to be established again. Even though the team psychological safety does not have a direct impact on the customers need, it is however influencing how team members are performing their activities.
5.2.3. Psychological safe work climate
As defined in the previous paragraphs, psychological safety enables team members to seek for feedback from their peers through diminishing the affiliation that this will automatically lead to negative responses. By constructing an enjoyable and constructive environment in the workplace, high-quality relationships can function as a psychological safety stepping stone.
Conquering fear of failure lead to construction of mutual trust and constructive relationships. This type of atmosphere increases goodwill in relationships with others. Due to this goodwill, they are more willing to take risks without the negative affiliation that this might endanger their established connections or even subject it to irreversible damages (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). A psychological safe team work climate refers to all the formal and informal organizational activities and procedures that encourage openness and mutual trust in the interactions between team members. It describes a climate that encourages members to feel safe and to articulate opinions without concerning about negative consequences. When a solid work climate is established, individual employees will be more likely to propose new ideas and opinions which ultimately also benefits the learning organization. The following is an example proposed by Dennis, experienced by the author:
http://blogs.telestream.net/screenflow/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/shutterstock_lightbulb.jpg
When pitching ideas, the team members might come to an innovative solution that otherwise might not have been discovered. Besides this, when conflicts do arise, team members will smoother collaborate while problem solving. It is therefore advisable that learning organizations display a strong climate for psychological safety and hence are performing better than those who did not (Baer & Frese, 2003). Last but not least, a psychological safe work climate fosters the adoption and implementation of process innovations which function as a critical contingency in discovering the full potential of innovations.
5.3. Interim conclusion
This paragraph focuses on determining what psychological safety entails and what the effect of a psychological safe environment is on the individual team member and the team. Furthermore, the concept of a psychological safe work climate has been explained to re-enforce that a positive work climate can have a significant positive influence on the performance of the team.
§6. Fostering effective team learning
Beich (2008, p.xii) stated that high performing teams are an organizational attribute that only a few can afford to be without. This citation is chosen as it emphasizes in one sentence how important teams are for learning organizations. We have now looked at all the facets of teams in general and team members in specific. This paragraph aims to create a clear overview of how team learning in a learning organization can be optimized.
Components of an effective team
Creating and sustaining effective teams is a continuous process of learning and renewing practices. But what are considered crucial components of an effective team? Research has shown that a number of attributes are essential for successful team work. According to Tarricone & Luca (2002) and Biech (2008), the attributes that are crucial are:
Attributes
Description
Commitment
Team members that know what the exact purpose of the team is are committed to the success of the team. Successful teams are characterized by high motivation, high level of engagement and aim to achieve the maximum result. It is valuable to define the team's performance goals and how the team eventually will contribute to the learning organization's success. Purposes and conditions of teams change over time. When a new leader or member became part of the team, the aim has to be redefined.
Interdependence
It is valuable to create an environment in which individuals are capable of contributing to the team. Psychological safety plays an important role in this facet as when individuals are able and eager to speak up, they contribute far more to the team then when they remain silent and not share their experiences. A positive interdependent team brings out the best in each employee and ultimately pushes the team to meet or exceed their goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). When a high-quality relationship has been established, individuals drive and promote their team members to achieve, contribute and learn from the team.
Interpersonal skills
Ability to discuss problems and successes openly with all the team members. Each individual needs to be honest, trustworthy, supportive and show respect and commitment to the team. It is natural that conflicts might arise during the lifecycle of the project. Difference employees are forced to work together, which can lead to personality clashes. Problems need to suffice and nursed. Conflict is not always a bad thing as it can actually construct new ideas. It is important to acknowledge that a degree of conflict is necessary and normal.
Open communication
Listening to the needs, demands and concerns of the team members helps to create an effective work atmosphere. Team members are encouraged to take in constructive criticism and provide constructive feedback to others as well. Again, psychological safety plays an important role as it implies that team members who feel psychological safe, feel free to speak their mind, without the fear of negative consequences for their position. This might actually benefit the learning organization. Each team member should thus be able to explain the problem that he or she sees preferable whenever it is arising.
Team composition
Define each team members specific role within the team to make sure that they equally contribute to the teams and the learning organization's overall goal. There should not be any vague generalities.
Team processes, leadership
& accountability
Team members need to be held accountable for their contribution to the progress. They should be made aware of the process, ideas and best practices to ensure that they are not re-inventing the wheel. Effective leadership is crucial for success.
Assessing the effectiveness of the team can be accomplished via the "High Performance Profile: A mature team assessment (Parker, 1998)." In general this assessment has been created for teams that have been together over longer periods of times. It is a necessity that team members have some experience in working together.
NOTE: the test can be accesses via the google.scholar.com books portal
Ideal team composition
Research has shown that teams are capable of being effective when structural features such as well-designed activities, clear team compositions and context ensure the availability of acquired knowledge. (Hackman, 1987).
Heterogeneous teams
What is in your opinion about an ideal team? What are the characteristics that a member should have in order to be valuable to a team? http://blogs.telestream.net/screenflow/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/shutterstock_lightbulb.jpg
Team building tests
Whenever the performance of the team declines below aspiration level, teams can decide to participate in team building programs. Team building programs aim primarily at enhancing the team performance and as Alsem (2005) stated, teams perform best when there is a strong motivation to do so. Hence, in principle we can determine that teambuilding is crucial when creating motivated personnel. Assessment of the team seems therefore necessary to evaluate which aspects are performing well and which are maybe not performing according to standard. One of the tests that a team can take is the
A test that focuses on boundary spanning relationships and silo mentalities is defined as the "cross-functional team conflict survey (Parker, 1998)" The aim of the test is to determine the members skills to work in a cross-functional teams. Among others, question such as if the team members listens carefully and attentively to each team member & whether the team member shows integrity in dealing with cross-functional teams.
NOTE: the test can be accesses via the google.scholar.com books portal
Team building can be considered crucial for a team as it enhances the team performance. Team building focuses on the psychological aspect of a team and distinguishes between commitment, interdependence, interpersonal skills, open communication, team composition and team processes and accountabilities as defined by Tarricone & Luca (2002) and Biech (2008). As can be detected throughout the chapter, psychological safety plays a key role in all the components of this chapter. Without psychological safety, there is no team to build. There is no commitment, there is no communication and so on. Encouraging teams to learn and interact effectively thus begins at the individual level as stated in paragraph four.
