During the past decade there has been an immense growth on research within teams (e.g. Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Johnson and Johnson, 2003). Within this field of research the interest for the recently emerged concept ‘team learning’ has increased rapidly (Yorks and Sauquet, 2003). Senge pointed out the importance of team learning for organisations in his book about organisational learning (Senge, 1990). He states that team learning is the key to organisational learning and innovation necessary in our rapidly changing society. In addition, research has shown that the occurrence of team learning within a team has a positive effect on team performance (Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, and Kirschner, 2006).
The main focus of this article is to test the Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviours model (TLB&B model) as proposed by Van den Bossche et al. (2006) in the, for team learning relatively unexplored context of police and firemen teams. This model has been tested in very different settings, e.g. military teams (Veestraeten, Kyndt and Dochy, submitted); student teams (Van den Bossche et al, 2006), sport teams (Decuyper, Dochy, Van den Bossche and De Bosscher, 2010). Validating the TLB&B model in response teams will give the opportunity to make a comparison over different contexts. In addition, the effect of self-efficacy on team learning and team performance will be examined in this study. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his or her ability to be successful in a course of action to meet given situational demands (Bandura, 1993). Self-efficacy is predictive for individual performance (Bandura, 1993) and individual learning (Van Dinther, Dochy and Segers, 2010) and it influences a person’s motivation (Schunk, 2003). It can be argued that the extent to which members of a team exhibit self-efficacy concerning the team task can influence the learning of the team and team performance, because individual learning is an important condition for team learning (Decuyper et al., 2010). Finally, this study will also focus on one of the different input variables that influence the process of team learning and team functioning, namely frequency of team meetings during a certain period (Van den Bossche et al., 2006).
A ‘team’ defined.
Although teamwork is the subject of a vast body of empirical research, authors cannot seem to agree on the definition of ‘a team’ (Delarue, Van Hootegem, Procter, and Burridge, 2008). To define the concept ‘team’ in this article a combination of the definitions of Cohen and Bailey (1997) and Salas, Burke and Cannon-Bowles (2000) is adopted. Cohen and Bailey (1997) describe a team as a group of individuals who depend on each other in their task, who share responsibility for the team outcome and who consider themselves and are considered by others as a social entity. A last criterion mentioned by these authors is that members “…manage their relationships across organisational boundaries.” (Cohen and Bailey, 1997, p.241). This criterion corresponds to what Kasl, Marsick and Dechant (1997) call boundary crossing, which is seeking and giving information, views and ideas by interacting with other individuals, units or teams. Salas, Burke and Cannon-Bowers (2000) add two more crucial characteristics of a team to the definition of Cohen and Bailey, namely team interaction and the development of a shared vision. By combining these two definitions, five key characteristics of a team can be distinguished: interdependence, shared responsibility, the ability to draw the boundaries of the team (determining the difference between the team and the rest of the world), boundary crossing and the development of a shared mental model (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Salas et al., 2000).
In this study, the focus will specifically be on police and fireman teams. According to the typology of Devine (2002) they can both be classified under ‘response teams’. These teams are characterised by their collective team task which often requires them to scan an unknown situation in a real-time setting, decide upon an appropriate action and perform the action coordinated and quickly. They have to act in ambiguous high-risk environments where their physical health is at stake and time-pressure is severe. Due to this team-pressure the team members have to trust on their common sense and reason for a response. Coordination between team members is important in this type of teams. Since prior research has shown that the type of team has an influence on the observed team learning processes (Edmondson, 1999) it is expected that certain processes and variables in the TLB&B model of Van den Bossche et al. (2006) will have a different influence on team effectiveness compared to these variables and processes in other team types. According to the model of Hollenbeck, Beersma and Schouten (2012) however, police and firemen teams can be distinguished from each other in their temporal stability. And this is also the case in this study: while most police teams are fixed teams, who work together for a certain period, firemen teams tend to be less invariable. The firemen teams that were investigated are composed from larger pools. Working in shifts, firemen teams are assembled per intervention: every short-lived intervention team is thus part of a larger pool, and team composition may vary from time to time. Firemen teams can thus be considered to be less stable over time than police teams, although members work together for a long time (in the larger pool). Therefore, differences between police teams and firemen teams in the influence of the variables and processes in the TLB&B model of Van den Bossche et al. (2006) on team effectiveness will also be investigated. Different input factors could also have an influence on the occurrence and strength of team learning processes and variables (Decuyper et al., 2010). Up until now most of these input variables have not been investigated. In this study, the focus will be on the amount of gatherings of a team throughout a certain period. This meeting frequency increases the teams’ communication opportunities and stimulates members to disagree and think critically (Hofner, 1996). Because communication and critical thinking are important processes in team learning (Van den Bossche et al., 2006), this study will focus on the effect of the frequency of the meetings teams have on team learning processes and variables.
Team learning
The review study of Decuyper et al. (2010) illustrates that numerous definitions of team learning exist. Decuyper et al. (2010) identified no less than 30 different definitions of team learning. In addition to the differences in conceptualisation, literature shows different views on (the position of) team learning. Some authors consider team learning as a team performance outcome of building shared knowledge and communication (Savelsbergh, van der Heijden, and Poell, 2009) in addition to outcomes such as productivity or quality (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, and Halpin, 2006). Other authors consider team learning as a process of adapting to change, enhancing understanding, or improving performance (Edmondson, 1999). In this study, the definition of team learning by Van den Bossche et al. (2006) is used: “building and maintaining of mutually shared cognition, leading to increased perceived team performance” (p. 490), but team learning is also considered as an element of team effectiveness. Thus the focus in this article will be on team learning as a process as well as an outcome.
A Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviours model.
Van den Bossche et al. (2006) developed the TLB&B model (see Figure 1). This model distinguishes four different categories of variables on the team level. The model suggests that the social context of the team, referred to as beliefs about the interpersonal context, has a direct influence on the team learning behaviours. These team learning behaviours contribute to the development of mutually shared cognition and mutually shared condition directly relates to team effectiveness. Subsequently, the different variables of the team learning beliefs and behaviours model (Van den Bossche et al., 2006) will be discussed.
[insert figure 1]
Beliefs about the interpersonal context
A collection of different individuals is not a sufficient condition to learn as a team. In order to be able to learn, certain aspects should be present in the interpersonal context (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995). The most important aspects are included in the TLB&B model of Van den Bossche et al. (2006). In the following paragraphs, the variables interdependence, social and task cohesion, group potency and psychological safety are discussed. These variables belong to the social perspective on team learning and are a part of the interpersonal context of the team. The social perspective on team learning stresses the social factors that contribute to successful team performance. Next to the social perspective there is also a cognitive perspective on team learning that stresses the influence of group work on cognitive processes and the cognitive processes that arise from working in group (Olivera and Strauss, 2004). This perspective will be discussed later.
Interdependence. One of the key characteristics of a team is that team members work interdependently (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). Two forms of interdependence can be distinguished namely task and outcome interdependence (Wageman, 1995). Task interdependence is defined as the degree to which team members need each other and have to rely on one another to successfully accomplish the team task (Burke et al., 2006). Outcome interdependence can be defined as the extent to which successfully reaching the team goal influences the outcome for each of the team members separately (De Dreu, 2007). Both types can either be ‘positive’, ‘negative’ or ‘absent’ (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 2007). Positive interdependence between team members exists when they feel that they can only reach their goal when the other team members do so too. Negative interdependence is found when individuals feel that they can only reach their goals when the other team members fail to do so. Absence of interdependence is found when individuals feel that they can reach their goals regardless of whether others reach their goals (Johnson et al., 2007).
Studies have shown that positive task interdependence enhances cooperation and learning in teams (Cohen and Bailey, 1997) because an increasing level of task interdependence heightens the need for coordination to achieve a positive outcome (Burke et al., 2006). Outcome interdependence on the other hand contributes to team member’s effort to achieve consensus and solutions (Wageman, 1995; Johnson et al., 2007). Moreover, Wageman (1995) finds that total interdependence (a combination of task and outcome interdependence) positively affects the degree to which members learn from each other. In her qualitative research Edmondson (2002) also found a positive relationship between team interdependence and team learning. As a consequence, when testing the model of Van den Bossche et al. (2006) in police- and firemen teams positive relationship between the two forms of interdependence and team learning is expected.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): (Task and outcome) Interdependence is positively related to the team learning behaviours.
Cohesion. Cohesion is a frequently discussed concept in teamwork literature (Decuyper et al., 2010). Most authors follow the definition of Festinger (1950) who defines cohesion as “the resultant of all forces acting on all the members to remain in the group” (Festinger, 1950, p. 274). Cohesion can thus be seen as the force that keeps the team together (Mullen and Copper, 1994). Beal, Cohen, Burke and McLendon (2003) found that the stronger cohesion, the higher the team performance. Two underlying concepts can be distinguished namely task cohesion and social cohesion (Mullen and Copper, 1994). Task cohesion concerns the members’ attraction to the group because of a shared commitment to a shared task (Van Vianen and De Dreu, 2001). Social cohesion can be described as team members’ attraction to the group because of positive interpersonal relationships with other team members. Overall, researchers agree that the influence of task cohesion on team learning behaviour and team performance is stronger than the influence of social cohesion (Mullen and Copper, 1994). Most researchers agree on the positive relation between task cohesion and team performance (Mathieu et al., 2008). Moreover, Van den Bossche et al. (2006) found a positive influence of task cohesion on team learning. But there is disagreement about the relation between social cohesion and team performance (Beal et al., 2003). Mathieu et al. (2000) state that a certain amount of social cohesion can attribute to a team’s learning and performance; a team cannot function properly when team members refuse to work with each other (Mathieu et al., 2000). However, social cohesion can become a problem when the relationships between different team members distract them from their work. Van den Bossche et al. (2006) conclude however that the influence of social cohesion on team learning behaviour is too small to be significant.
Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Social cohesion is not related to the team learning behaviours.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Task cohesion is positively related to the team learning behaviours.
Psychological safety. Edmondson (1999) conceptualises psychological safety as “a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking (…), a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up. This confidence stems from mutual respect and trust among team members.” (p. 354). Edmondson investigates the influence of psychological safety on team learning. She found that psychological safety stimulates team learning behaviours such as seeking feedback, asking questions and discussing decisions since team members worry less about possible embarrassment or rejection due to speaking up when psychological safety is present (Edmondson, 1999). Accordingly, Kayes et al. (2005) state that when psychological safety is low teams tend to communicate less effectively and encounter conflict more often, which can counter the occurrence of team learning. Some authors found that team psychological safety is a key factor for team learning (e.g. Decuyper et al., 2010; Edmondson, 1999; Van den Bossche et al., 2006).