Abstract
Most organizational research aims to reveal insight into how organizations can be successful. Historically, the focus of much of this research has been on performance and productivity in service to profit and stockholders in for profit enterprises. However, as operating environments have become increasingly competitive, with rapid adoption of technologies and their impact on it, research has widened its scope to include stakeholders, like people and planet, to understand organizational resilience in pursuit of sustainability. Because the cost of education and training has risen rapidly, the urgency to assess, design, develop, implement, and evaluate pedagogy has become vital for not only educational institutions but industry and government. Institutional urgency compels identification of the highest value paths of learning for quantifiable return on investment. Using a systems perspective, this analysis examines the role project teams can have in delivering learning outcomes that provide enduring value to these organizations and their stakeholders. When seen as learning systems, project teams provide an experiential learning approach for sustained, cumulative value.
The proposition of team systems theory is tri-fold. First, a model of project teams as complex adaptive social systems is explained based upon four principles of self-organization, hierarchy, emergence, and learning. Second, an analysis examines the value of project teams as learning systems mediated by action research with affinity toward cultivating communities of practice. Third, by leveraging learning of project teams they become a middle-out strategy for embedding a learning culture that develops adaptive capacity for organizational change and resilience. Project teams are appropriate for continuous improvement and organizational learning through development of communities of practice paired participative action research. This analysis of team systems theory delves into the co-created value of project teams in experiential and organizational learning in education, as well as its implications in wider contexts such as profit, nonprofit, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. Value can be measured in terms of the efficacy of knowledge networks, risk management, and innovation through mixed methods research. Value grows through formal reflection (e.g., formal debriefing conducted with appreciative inquiry as well as process evaluation) at individual member, team, and organizational levels. Team Systems Theory suggests that creating cultures of learning through progression of project teams toward communities of practice builds co-created value and adaptive capacity. Implications of Team Systems Theory include potential for process improvement and enhanced performance through networked knowledge sharing, as well as increased leadership effectiveness through augmented agility and risk management stemming from organizational change generated from the middle out resulting in organization resilience and sustainability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Feedback is defined in systemic terms as feedback loops – reinforcing and balancing. It can be modeled using tools like System Dynamics developed by Jay Forrester and advanced by John Sterman (2000). In this way, feedback provides opportunities for constructive learning by examining reinforcing and balancing behaviors. It is the antithesis of destructive criticism used by managers to gain behavioral conformity, as discussed by Carol Sanford (Handelsman 2019).
- 2.
Recursive learning integrates personal narrating (e.g., reflective retelling or journaling), curating (e.g., creating portfolios), sharing (e.g., blogging and vlogging), and feedback (e.g., apposite guidance) into curricula. Like Bloom’s Taxonomy, Bruner’s Spiral Curriculum (1960, 1971) presaged this approach of synthesized, cumulative learning.
- 3.
Exploitation in this context means optimum utilization (ecology) not abuse (psychology) even though the subject is a project team in an organization (i.e., human systems).
- 4.
Implicit norms can mediate the success or failure of the team. For the purposes of this discussion, the bias is toward success. Team failures can be attributed to a dysfunctional Storming phase in which cohesion is not fully realized by the team and fragmentation among team members persists throughout the project.
- 5.
Schumpeter (1942) describes creative destruction as a “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one” (pp. 82–83). In this context, creative destruction refers to a nested cycle of reflexive activities in which norms and their artifacts are evaluated for fitness for purpose of the team performance to fulfill its goals and objectives.
- 6.
According to Wenger et al. (2002), learning is essential to human identity.
- 7.
Psychological safety is defined by Edmondson (2003) as the freedom to speak honestly and share one’s perspectives without fear of recrimination. It is not to be confused with the phenomenon occurring on campuses that stifles free speech and/or academic freedom due to emotional fragility as defined by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) in Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.
- 8.
Swept into refers to a concept of “sweeping in” many factors as possible as part of systemic unfolding introduced by C. West Churchman (1913–2004) (Reynolds and Holwell 2010, p. 8).
References
Ahl V, Allen TF (1996) Hierarchy theory: a vision, vocabulary, and epistemology. Columbia University Press, New York
Akkermans HA, Van Oorschot KE (2018) Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics. In: System dynamics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95257-1_4
Ancona D, Bresman H (2007) X-teams: how to build teams that lead, innovate, and succeed. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA
Argote L, Miron-Spektor E (2011) Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge. Organ Sci 22(5):1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0621
Argyris C (1999) On organizational learning. Wiley-Blackwell, London
Ashby WR (1961) An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London
Ashby WR (1991a) General systems theory as a new discipline. In: Facets of systems science. Springer, Boston, pp 249–257
Ashby WR (1991b) Principles of the self-organizing system. In: Facets of systems science. Springer, Boston, pp 521–536
Ayas K, Zeniuk N (2001) Project-based learning: building communities of reflective practitioners. Manag Learn 32(1):61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507601321005
Baker D, Day R, Salas E (2006) Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Serv Res 41(4):1576–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x
Banathy BH (1992) A systems view of education: concepts and principles for effective practice. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs
Barnabè F (2011) A “system dynamics-based Balanced Scorecard” to support strategic decision making: insights from a case study. Int J Product Perform Manag 60(5):446–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401111140383
Bennet A, Bennet D (2004) Organizational survival in the new world. Routledge, London
Bentahar O, Cameron R (2015) Design and implementation of a mixed method research study in project management. Electron J Bus Res Methods 13(1):3–15. Retrieved 14 Aug 2019 from http://www.ejbrm.com/volume13/issue1
Bruner JS (1960) The process of education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Bruner JS (1971) The process of education revisited. Phi Delta Kappan 53(1):18–21. Retrieved 29 Aug 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ043959
Burke CS, Wilson KA, Salas E (2005) The use of a team-based strategy for organizational transformation: guidance for moving toward a high reliability organization. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 6(6):509–530
Burke CS, Hess KP, Salas E (2006a) Building the adaptive capacity to lead multi-cultural teams. In Understanding adaptability: A prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. ISBN: 978-0-76231-248-1
Burke CS, Pierce LG, Salas E (eds) (2006b) Understanding adaptability: a prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley
Byrne D (1998) Complexity theory and the social sciences: an introduction. Routledge, London
Campbell G (2009a) A personal cyberinfrastructure. Educ Rev 44(5):58–59. Retrieved 30 July 2019 from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2009/9/a-personal-cyberinfrastructure
Campbell WG (2009b) No digital facelifts: thinking the unthinkable about open educational experiences. OpenEd 2009: Crossing the chasm, August 12–14, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lelmXaSibrc&feature=youtu.be
Campbell D (2019) Red line: the many human errors that brought down the Boeing 737 Max. The Verge. Retrieved 12 Aug 2019 from https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-crash-problems-human-error-mcas-faa
Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. Wiley, Chichester
Churchman CW (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. New York: Basic Books
Coghlan D, Brannick T (2019) Doing action research in your own organization. Sage, London
ConocoPhillips (2019a) Working with communities. Retrieved from http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainability/creating-shared-value/working-with-communities/
ConocoPhillips (2019b) Risk management. Retrieved from http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainability/creating-shared-value/risk-management/
Cooperrider DL, Srivastva S (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In: Woodman RW, Pasmore WA (eds) Research in organizational change and development, vol 1, pp 129–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620170000025003
Cooperrider D, Srivastva S (2017) The gift of new eyes: personal reflections after 30 years of appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Res Organ Chang Dev 25:81–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620170000025003
Cooperrider DL, Whitney D (2001) A positive revolution in change. In: Cooperrider DL, Sorenson P, Whitney D, Yeager T (eds) Appreciative inquiry: an emerging direction for organization development. pp 9–29. Champaign, IL: Stipes
Corning PA (2002) The re-emergence of “emergence”: a venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity 7(6):18–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.10043
Creswell JW, Clark VLP (2017) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2017) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Cummings R, Phillips R, Tilbrook R, Lowe K (2005) Middle-out approaches to reform of university teaching and learning: champions striding between the top-down and bottom-up approaches. Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn 6(1). Retrieved 29 Aug 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ846611
Daniel TA, Metcalf GS (2001) The management of people in mergers and acquisitions. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport
De Rond M, Miller AN (2005) Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life? J Manag Inq 14(4):321–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850
DeFillippi RJ (2001) Introduction: project-based learning, reflective practices and learning outcomes. Manag Learn 32(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507601321001
Denyer D (2017) Organizational resilience: a summary of academic evidence, business insights and new thinking. BSI and Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield
Driskell JE, Salas E, Driskell T (2018) Foundations of teamwork and collaboration. Am Psychol 73(4):334. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000241
Drouin N, Müller R, Sankaran S (eds) (2013) Novel approaches to organizational project management research: translational and transformational, vol 29. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen
Dubé L, Bourhis A, Jacob R (2005) The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. J Organ Chang Manag 18(2):145–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510589570
Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Childe SJ (2018) Big data analytics capability in supply chain agility: the moderating effect of organizational flexibility. Manag Decis. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2018-0119
Duchek S, Raetze S, Scheuch I (2019) The role of diversity in organizational resilience: a theoretical framework. Bus Res:1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0084-8
Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44(2):350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson AC (2003) Managing the risk of learning: psychological safety in work teams. In: International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. pp 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470696712
Edson MC (2011) A systems perspective of resilience in project team (Doctoral dissertation, Saybrook University, San Francisco, CA)
Edson MC (2012) A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:499–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2153
Edson MC, Metcalf GS (2014) Adaptive capacity in project teams. In: Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the international society for the systems sciences, Washington, DC. International Society for the Systems Sciences, Pocklington
Flood RL (1999) Rethinking the fifth discipline: learning within the unknowable. Routledge, London
Fullan M (2015) Leadership from the middle. Educ Can 55(4):22–26. Retrieved from https://michaelfullan.ca/leadership-from-the-middle-a-system-strategy/
Gare A (2017) Darwinism. In: The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of social theory. pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118430873.est0799
Garwin DA (1993) Building a learning organization. Harv Bus Rev 71(4):73–91
Garwin DA (2017) Building a learning organization. In: Serrat O (ed) Knowledge solutions: tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance. Springer, Singapore, pp 57–67
Gelles D, Yaffe-Bellany D (2019, August 19) Shareholder value is no longer everything, top C.E.O.s say. The New York Times. Retrieved 24 Aug 2019 from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/business/business-roundtable-ceos-corporations.html
Gersick CJ (1991) Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):10–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/258605
Gilley JW, Morris ML, Waite AM, Coates T, Veliquette A (2010) Integrated theoretical model for building effective teams. Adv Dev Hum Resour 12(1):7–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310365309
Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Goffman E (2017) Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior. Routledge, New York
Goldstein J (1999) Emergence as a construct: history and issues. Emergence 1(1):49–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0101_4
Goodwin GF, Blacksmith N, Coats MR (2018) The science of teams in the military: contributions from over 60 years of research. Am Psychol 73(4):322. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000259
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (Eds.) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding transformations inhuman and natural systems. Island Press: Washington, DC
Handelsman A (Producer) (2019, April 22) No more feedback with Carol Sanford, Episode 103. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved 15 Aug 2019 from https://amielhandelsman.com/amiel-show-103-carol-sanford/
Harrison F, Lock D (2017) Advanced project management: a structured approach. Routledge, Abingdon
Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press: Cambridge
Holland JH (1998) Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford University Press, New York
Holland JH (1999) Emergence: From chaos to order. Basic Books: New York, NY
Holling CS, Gunderson LH (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press
Huy QN (2002) Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the contribution of middle managers. Adm Sci Q 47(1):31–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094890
Ison R, Blackmore C (2014) Designing and developing a reflexive learning system for managing systemic change. Systems 2(2):119–136. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems2020119
Ives B (2011, September 26) Creating global knowledge sharing networks at ConocoPhillips. Portals and KM [Blog]. Retrieved from: https://billives.typepad.com/portals_and_km/2011/09/creating-global-knowledge-sharing-networks-at-conocophillips.html
Janis IL (1971) Groupthink. Psychol Today 5(6):43–46
Johnson B, Christensen L (2017) Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Johnson BR, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res 1:112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York
Kauffman S (1996) At home in the universe: the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, New York
Kineman JJ (2017a) Systems research framework. In A guide to systems research (pp. 21–57). Springer, Singapore
Kineman JJ (2017b) Modeling and simulation. In A Guide to Systems Research (pp. 81–109). Springer, Singapore
Klir GJ (2013) Facets of systems science, vol 7. Springer Science & Business Media, Singapore
Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Kolb DA (2014) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press, Upper Saddle River
Kolb DA, Boyatzis RE, Mainemelis C (2001) Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. In: Sternberg RJ, Zhang L-F (eds) The educational psychology series. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 227–247
Kozlowski SW, Chao GT (2018) Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: Challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods. American Psychologist 73(4):576
Lacerenza CN, Zajac S, Savage N, Salas E (2015) Team training for global virtual teams: strategies for success. In: Leading global teams. Springer, New York, pp 91–121
Langeland KS, Manheim D, McLeod G, Nacouzi G (2016) How civil institutions build resilience: organizational practices derived from academic literature and case studies. Project Air Force RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. Retrieved 29 Aug 2019 from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1246.html
Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives.Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lee L, Reinicke B, Sarkar R, Anderson R (2015) Learning through interactions: improving project management through communities of practice. Proj Manag J 46(1):40–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21473
Lewes GH (1875) Problems of life and mind: the foundations of a creed, Series 1, vol 2. Trübner, London
Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc Issues 2(4):34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
Lewin K (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics, part 2: channels of group life: social planning and action research. Hum Relat 1:5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Liswood LA (2009) The loudest duck: moving beyond diversity while embracing differences to achieve success at work. Wiley, New York
Lukianoff G, Haidt J (2018) Coddling of the American mind: how good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin, New York
Marks J (2019, August 14) Hackers just found serious vulnerabilities in the F-15 fighter jet. The Washington Post. Retrieved 14 Aug 2019 from https://www.stripes.com/news/us/hackers-just-found-serious-vulnerabilities-in-f-15-fighter-jet-1.594248
Marshall J, Coleman G, Reason P (2017) Leadership for sustainability: an action research approach. Routledge, London
Maynard MT, Kennedy DM (2016) Team adaptation and resilience: what do we know and what can be applied to long-duration isolated, confined, and extreme contexts. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston
McCraw TK (2009) Prophet of innovation. Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
McDaniel SH, Salas E, Kazak AE (Eds.) (2018) American Psychologist Special Issue: The Science of Teamwork. Journal of the American Psychological Association 73:4. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000337
McDermott R (1999) Nurturing three-dimensional communities of practice. Knowl Manag Rev 11:26–29. Retrieved from https://www.nickols.us/Dimensions.pdf
McDermott R, Archibald D (2010) Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harv Bus Rev 88(3):82–89. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/03/harnessing-your-staffs-informal-networks
McGrail MR, Rickard CM, Jones R (2006) Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Educ Res Dev 25(1):19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453053
McGregor J (2019, August 19) Group of top CEOs says maximizing shareholder profits no long can be primary goal of corporations. The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 Aug 2019 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/19/lobbying-group-powerful-ceos-is-rethinking-how-it-defines-corporations-purpose/
McKim CA (2017) The Value of Mixed Methods Research: A Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11(2):202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
Miller JH, Page SE (2009) Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Mintzberg H, Westley F (1992) Cycles of organizational change. Strateg Manag J 13(S2):39–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130905
Nielsen S, Nielsen EH (2008) System dynamics modelling for a balanced scorecard: computing the influence of skills, customers, and work in process on the return on capital employed. Manag Res News 31(3):169–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170810851276
Nielsen S, Nielsen EH (2015) The balanced scorecard and the strategic learning process: a system dynamics modeling approach. Adv Decis Sci 2015. Retrieved 8 Aug 2019 from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ads/2015/213758/. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/213758
Nonaka I (1988) Toward middle-up-down management: accelerating information creation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 29(3):9. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toward-middleupdown-management-accelerating-information-creation/
O’Leary Z (2004) The essential guide to doing research. Sage, London
Oshry B (2007) Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of organizational life. San Franscisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Pasztor A, Tangel A, Wall R, Sider A (2019, March 27) How Boeing’s 737 Max failed. The plane’s safety systems, and how they were developed, are at the center of the aerospace giant’s unfolding crisis. Wall Street J. Retrieved 12 Aug 2019 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-boeings-737-max-failed-11553699239
Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) (2008) The sage handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks. ISBN 978-1412920292
Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) (2010) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. The Open University with Springer-Verlag London Limited, Milton Keynes
Rimes B (2012, January 30) Four recursive practices for teaching and learning. The tech savvy educator: a practical guide to integrating technology in the classroom. Tech Savvy. Retrieved 30 July 2019 from http://www.techsavvyed.net/archives/2194
Rosen R (1985) Anticipatory systems. Pergamon Press, Oxford
Salas E, Goodwin GF, Burke CS (2008) Team effectiveness in complex organizations: cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches. Routledge, New York
Salas E, Grossman R, Hughes AM, Coultas CW (2015) Measuring team cohesion: observations from the science. Hum Factors 57(3):365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815578267
Salas E, Zajac S, Marlow SL (2018) Transforming health care one team at a time: ten observations and the trail ahead. Group Org Manag 43(3):357–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118756554
Sankaran S, Hou Tay B, Orr M (2009) Managing organizational change by using soft systems thinking in action research projects. Int J Manag Proj Bus 2(2):179–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910949257
Sankaran S, Müller R, Drouin N (eds) (2017) Cambridge handbook of organizational project management. Cambridge University Press, London
Schein EH (2004) Organizational culture and leadership. Wiley, New York
Schmidt T (2009) Strategic project management made simple: practical tools for leaders and teams. Wiley, New York
Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB (2017) How to construct a mixed methods research design. Koln Z Soziol Sozialpsychol 69(Suppl 2):107–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
Schumpeter J (1942) Creative destruction. In: Capitalism, socialism and democracy, vol 825, pp 82–85
Shields PM (2003) The community of inquiry: classical pragmatism and public administration. Adm Soc 35(5):510–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399703256160
Simon H (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Boston: The MIT Press
Smith D, Fischbacher M (2009) The changing nature of risk and risk management: the challenge of borders, uncertainty and resilience. Risk Manage 11(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2009.1
Somers J (2018, April 5) The scientific paper is obsolete: here’s what’s next. The Atlantic. Retrieved 8 Aug 2019 from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete/556676/
Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill, Boston
Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Newbury Park
Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Suddaby R (2006) What grounded theory is not (editorial). Acad Manag J 49:633–642. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083020
Taylor B (2007, August 28) Finding innovation at the fringe. Harv Bus Rev. Retrieved 13 Aug 2019 from https://hbr.org/2007/08/finding-innovation-at-the-frin
Tuckman BW, Jensen MC (1977) Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies 2: 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
Vargo SL, Maglio PP, Akaka MA (2008) On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. Eur Manag J 26(3):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
Vickers G (1968) Value systems and social process. Tavistock, London. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676802100201
Vickers G (1973) Making institutions work. Halsted Press, Sydney
Walton DC (2004) Modeling organizational systems: Banathy’s three lenses revisited. Syst Pract Action Res 17(4):265–284. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPAA.0000040647.65393.79
Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Weick K, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ Sci 16(4):409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning as a social system. Syst Think 9(5):2–3. Retrieved from https://thesystemsthinker.com/communities-of-practice-learning-as-a-social-system/
Wenger E (2011) Communities of practice: a brief introduction. University of Oregon. Retrieved 2 Aug 2019 from http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11736
Wenger E, McDermott RA, Snyder W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA
Wreathall J (2006) Properties of resilient organizations: an initial view. In: Nagel EH, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) Resilience Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315605685-23
Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Zuber-Skerritt O (2015) Participatory action learning and action research (PALAR) for community engagement: a theoretical framework. Educ Res Soc Change 4(1):5–25. Retrieved from ersc.nmmu.ac.za/articles/Vol_4_No_1_Zuber-Skerrit_pp_5-25_April_2015.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Appendix A
Appendix A
Debriefing Format
Questions for Team Discussion:
-
1.
What were the team’s strengths?
-
2.
What were the team’s weaknesses?
-
3.
What were the team’s obstacles and how were they overcome?
-
4.
What were the team’s opportunities and how were they used?
-
5.
What were threats to the team’s progress?
-
6.
What was a transformative moment?
-
7.
What worked well?
-
8.
What didn’t work well?
-
9.
What would the ideal scenario look like? (Flip the “what didn’t work well” statements)
-
10.
How might the ideal be achieved?
General Guidelines:
These questions outline a typical debriefing agenda performed in industry. It comprises a modified SWOT analysis (strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats) and an appreciative inquiry approach (AI). It also uses a backward/forward reflection of an ideal that brings the team’s experience into a new vision for the future, similar to “backcasting” from the Natural Step.
A debriefing session, depending on how deeply you delve into the questions, can run an hour or two. If you break the team into groups, for example the leadership team of 10 members, the project team of 15 members, other participating members of 15, or so, it will be manageable in that timeframe. If the groups get larger than 12–15, they are difficult to manage because they digress and waste time easily.
You will want to be free to move around the room and interact with your teammates. To facilitate this, arrange to have two to three highly competent students record the proceedings. You may want to use different forms of media, such as audio and video recording. You may want someone to take notes of what is said, while another to observe behavior. The media and documentation becomes your cache of data for compilation and analysis later. It is the basis for reporting your results in your thesis.
While conducting a team debriefing sounds like a straightforward process, you will want to be prepared for revelatory moments. Some may be emotional. That’s a good thing…you are delving into the heart (core) of the project. You want team members to be comfortable enough to share substantive reflections on the team process.
Sometimes, team members bring up peripheral issues. You can create a “parking lot” for the issues that are not central themes to the project group’s debriefing purpose by listing them on a flipchart for separate discussions at a later time and meeting. Be sure that the parking lot items become actionable by getting individuals to commit to addressing them by specific dates and reporting outcomes. Commitment and accountability are important for follow-up and continuity of the project. They also build trust that supports the debriefing process.
Should the debriefing start slipping into a “BMW session” (boo-hoo, moan, and whine), acknowledge the issue by putting it on the parking lot list and limit the time allotted to that issue to a few moments. Once these items are parked, refocus the discussion on the formatted questions. You will want to keep the discussion moving and constructive without stepping over contentious issues. In other words, honor the emotion, give it a place to be addressed, and move on.
Opening/Closing:
You may want to open the session with an appreciative reflection of the team’s effort, progress, and achievements. You will want to reiterate this appreciation at the close and discuss next steps (e.g., parking lot items, sharing the results with team members after your thesis is complete). You may want to mention any further follow-up or contact team members can expect from you concerning the project and additional research connected to the team.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Edson, M.C. (2020). Team Systems Theory. In: Metcalf, G.S., Kijima, K., Deguchi, H. (eds) Handbook of Systems Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0370-8_29-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0370-8_29-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0370-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0370-8
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences