1.
Introduction
In organisations, teamwork is set up
to create interdependent collaboration between team members to
accomplish a common task. Typically, these teams are composed
of team members with diverse background, habits and behaviour
patterns concerning work and (team) work relationships. Team
members are confronted with the challenge to efficiently
combine their individual knowledge, skills and attitudes into
an effective working team in order to finish the tasks they
were assigned (Salas, Sims & Burke, 2005). The way team
members recognise their diversity and learn to use it as
strength is of crucial importance for the ability of the team
members to work together effectively to accomplish the team
goal. Based on previous research, it is well established that
when teamwork is characterised by constructs such as trust,
psychological safety, cohesion, interdependence, or team
efficacy, it tends to be more effective (e.g. Raes, Boon,
Kyndt, & Dochy, 2015.; Edmondson, 1999; Jehn, Greer,
Levine & Szulanski, 2008; Raes, Kyndt, Decuyper, Van den
Bossche & Dochy, 2015). The characteristics described
above are in the literature referred to as emergent states,
which means that they are seen as ‘…properties of the team
that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function
of team context, inputs, processes and outcomes. Team
emergent states describe cognitive, motivational and
affective states of teams …’ (Marks, Mathieu, &
Zaccaro, 2001, p. 357). Because emergent states can be
considered as both inputs and outcomes of the reality they are
part of (Jehn, Greer,
Levine, & Szulanski, 2008), they play a crucial role in
understanding team dynamics and changes in teamwork over time.
Within the teamwork research tradition, different team
development models have been created that describe the
occurrence of these emergent states over time (e.g. McGrath,
1991; Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan, 2005). Team development can be
seen as change over time in teams (Tuckman, 1965). Change in
this context is defined as ‘an alteration in the
nature of group interaction or performance, in the stage of
the group as a whole, or a second-order change in the
patterning of group processes’ (Arrow et al., 2004, p.
80). Alterations can be triggered by influences from inside
(e.g. diversity among team members) or outside (e.g. deadline
pressure) the team. And alterations are learning activities of
the team. These learning activities occur in the form of
adaptive, generative or transformational learning efforts from
the team members that alter the way they approach
collaboration and task work (Sessa & London, 2011). The
traditional team development models describe the occurrence of
emergent states as a fixed process within a prescribed pattern
of sequential stages toward a more mature team (Raes et al.,
2015). Based on these models it can be stated that teamwork of
teams that are more mature is characterised by the presence of
more robust emergent states, such as stronger cohesion and
high, more stable, levels of trust between team members
(Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan, 2005). There is evidence for this
statement, as the presence of more robust forms of these
emergent states in more mature teams is related to the
occurrence of several team processes and eventually to team
outcomes such as team performance (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp
& Gilson, 2008). For example, Raes, et al. (2015) found
that teams who perceived themselves to be in later phases of
team development also report to express more team learning
behaviours and that this relationship is mediated by the
presence of perceived team psychological safety and group
potency. The traditional team development models have been
proven useful for team members to better understand what is
happening in the group they are functioning in (Bonebright,
2010). Additionally, when team members are informed about the
path of development as outlined in these models, they are
bound to develop faster (Wheelan, 2009).
However, these models conceptualise
team development as if all teams experience the same learning
curve towards effective functioning. As such, they seem to
neglect that emergent states can change unpredictably over the
lifetime of a team, caused by the unpredictability of
influences from in and outside of the team. Different teams
can respond differently to the same challenges, translating in
different solutions to these challenges, and, consequently,
different team paths (Sessa & London, 2011). Several researchers
and practitioners have noted that traditional models are too
general and rigid to be applicable to specific teams (Poole,
1983; Raes et al., 2015; Rickard & Morger, 2000; Tuckman,
1965). For example, the idea of different consecutive stages
seems to be problematic in the sense that not all teams follow
the different phases in the described order. Additionally,
empirical confirmation for these models is scarce (Kuipers
& Stoker, 2009). Starting from these observations new
conceptualisations of group development leave more and more
room for unique team paths and influences from outside of the
team (Raes et al., 2015). In this study, a more flexible
approach towards conceptualisation of team development will be
applied to study the changes over time in three temporary
project teams. The inspiration for the creation of this
approach was found in findings about previous research on team
development. In the following paragraph an overview of these
findings is given.
1.1 Team
development
in knowledge work teams – state of the art.
In their review of team
development models Raes et al. (2015) selected 15 models that
are applicable to knowledge work teams. They categorised this
selection of team development models based on their
flexibility. Flexibility is the degree of predictability by
which the team development is conceptualised in the team
development model on a dimenson from fixed to random (Raes et al., 2015). Stated differently,
flexibility represents the extent to which team development
models take into account the dynamic nature of teamwork.
Within this review, three facets of flexibility were
identified: (1) flexibility of the events described in the
model, (2) flexibility of the order of the events and (3)
flexibility in co-existence of development paths (Raes et al., 2015). An event refers to a
phase or critical moment described in the team development
models. A
phase is a distinct sub period within the lifespan of a team
with a specific set of characteristics that shape team
interactions during that phase. A critical moment refers to a
specific moment of change during the lifespan of a team (Raes
et al., 2015). Because it is not within the scope of this
paper to give an exhaustive overview of team development
models that apply to knowledge work teams, a selected number
of models are used to illustrate the different trends within
the literature in the following paragraph (for an exhaustive
overview, see Raes et al., 2015). Additionally, the limitations and
advantages of the different presented conceptualisations will
be discussed.
1.2 Fixed
models
of team development
A collection of
traditional team development models, also referred to as
linear progressive models (Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1996),
that is applicable to knowledge work teams can be classified
as the least flexible type of team development model on three
facets. Firstly, these models describe a number of fixed
events that teams go through. Additionally, the order of
occurence of these events is determined. Lastly, the
co-existence of different events in different paths of
development (e.g., events on an interpersonal level are
inevitable linked with events on the task level) is fixed (Raes et al., 2015). The textbook example
of these type of models is the linear development model of
Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977). The model
describes the maturion of a team over time in five consecutive phases. The
development of the interpersonal path and the path of task
behaviours are described parallel to each other and every
phase consists of characteristics that are specific for
teamwork of a team in that phase. Interaction during the
forming phase is characterised by orientation. Team members
discover the boundaries of the social situation by testing
behaviours towards and in interaction with each other and use
cues from the team leaders’ behaviours as a guidance in this
process. At a task level, team members are preoccupied with
identification of the task and necessary task behaviours.
During the storming phase hostility is the key characteristic
of team member interactions. Team members express resistance
towards each other and the team as a whole in order to protect
their individuality. A comparable process occurs in relation
to the task: team members oppose against the task as a
reaction to the invasion of the task into personal goals.
Interaction during the norming phase is characterised by
acceptance and openess. Team members accept personal
idiocyncracies of others and create norms that adhere to and
respect the differences and similarities between them. Task
behavior is characterised by an open exchange of information
and relevant interpretation related to the task. As a
consequence, the stage is set for effective team work. During
the performing phase, team members no longer feel the need to
establish social relationships because all these issues have
been handled during earlier phases. As a consequence, they can
approach each other and the task in a pragmatic way. Team
members are given specific roles that can be employed when and
where necessary. This enhances succesfull task completion. Ten
years after the publication of the model, Tuckman and Jensen
(1977) reviewed literature on empirical studies that validated
the model. Based on this review, they added an adjourning
stage. During this stage, team members start to alienate from
the team and the team task due to approaching termination of
the team members working together.
1.3 Towards
a
more flexible approach to study team development
More recent but less
known models of team development implemented more flexibility
in their conceptualisation of team development by means of
identifying multiple possible development paths. Most of these models were created as
a reaction towards the unitary nature of the traditional team
development models. Researchers implemented different features
into their models to allow more flexibility in terms of
outlining a development path (Raes et al., 2015). Morgan, Salas, and Glickman (1993)
created a model that finds its roots in the model of Tuckman
(1965). However, different features were added to the model to
create possible alternative development paths for teams and,
as such, to increase the fit of the theoretical model with the
actual development path of teams. For example, the different
phases are not hypothesised to occur in a strict order, they
overlap and can be repeated several times. They also suggest a
differential maturation of teamwork and task skills. The model of McGrath
(1991) conceptualises team development by means of three
functions or tracks of activities through which teams
contribute to the system (production – well-being – member
support) and four different modes in which these functions can
be found (mode I: inception – mode II: problem solving – mode
III: conflict resolution – mode IV: execution) . The functions
exist independently next to each other and are not
hypothesised to go through all the modes in a specific order.
These models are more flexible than the linear progressive
models on all three dimensions mentioned above (Raes et al., 2015). First, the events
that teams encounter are not fixed, only suggested as a
possible activity that could occur within a function.
Secondly, the order of events is not fixed and third, the
different paths are independent (in the case of McGrath’s
model). However, there are still restrictions in terms of the
range of important events that can occur and paths that can
determine team development.
1.4 Turning
points
The most flexible conceptualisations
of team development consist of a description of critical
events during the lifespan of the team based on the judgement
of the party that is asked (e.g. team members, team leader or
objective external observers) (Raes et al., 2015). Erbert et
al. (2005) introduced one of these conceptualisations, namely
turning points. The concept of turning points is borrowed from
research in romantic relationships (Bolton, 1961). A turning point is
operationalised as critical moments in the lifespan of a team
that is perceived as a significant change in the course of the
collaboration by the team members themselves, both on a task
or interpersonal level and both in a negative or positive
direction. Erbert et al. (2005) identified turning points in
teamwork based on interviews with individual team members
during which team members were asked to report about the
turning points that occurred within the lifespan of their
team. Additionally, they studied the turning points with more
depth in order to get more insight into the concept of change
in teams using the dialectical theory. The dialectical theory
recognises complexities and contradictions within social
interactions and takes this into account when studying the way
humans make sense of their everyday experiences. Erbert et al.
(2005) asked team members to rate the importance of the
turning points on six dialectical contradictions, e.g.
autonomy vs. dependence. They concluded that most of the
identified turning points cluster around one out of seven
issues: cohesion, project management, socialization, member
change, competence, workload and conflict. Additionally, the
most important dialectical contradictions for the identified
turning points were team vs. individual and competence vs.
incompetence. Lastly, Erbert et al. (2005) asked the team
members to score their satisfaction with these turning points
and discovered six different paths of satisfaction over time
(Erbert et al., 2005). However, contrary to other team
development models, they did not use this conceptualisation to
descriptively outline the development path of the teams they
studied over time.
2. Present
study
The main goal of this study is to
enhance knowledge about the team development paths of
temporary project teams taking into account the dynamic nature
of emergent states. The concept of turning points, borrowed
from Bolton (1961) and Erbert et al. (2005), is amplified in
order to create a method to outline the development path of
teams over time. The conceptualisation of team development in
this study is based on the positioning of turning points
towards each other over time. This approach towards
conceptualisation of team development respects the uniqueness
of every individual team because it allows turning points to
occur at any moment in time and relative towards the position
of other turning points. In further
research, this method could be used in order to understand the
emergence of team emergent states over time. Through further elaboration about
the causes and consequences of these turning points more
information about the emergence of team emergent states over
time will be discovered.
The focus is on turning points during the development
of temporary project teams. Temporary project teams are teams
that consist of highly interdependent members that each need
to use their own specialised expertise, knowledge and
judgement in order to accomplish the team task. These teams
are composed with a specific, unique team task for which the
team members have a shared responsibility (Cohen & Bailey,
1997; Devine, 2002; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas & Cohen,
2012). The teams studied are knowledge work team, because
their main focus is on a cognitive task that requires low
physical effort (Devine, 2002). By means of focussing on one
specific type of teams, it is possible to eliminate ‘noise’ in
the results that is created by differences between different
types of teams (Devine, 2002; Dochy, Gijbels, Raes, &
Kyndt, 2014). As such, enhancing our knowledge about the
development of one type of team allows in depth study of
specific findings that appear and can give rise to
recommendations for this type of team.
In this study, attention will be
given to (1) the team members’ perceptions about turning
points in the lifespan of their team and the position of the
turning points towards each other; (2) the characteristics of
teamwork during, before and after the identified turning
points. Using this information, the individual developmental
path of three project teams will be recreated. In a next step,
a cross-case analysis to look for similarities between the
three teams will be conducted. This leads to the following
research questions:
[1] Which
turning points can be identified in each of the studied teams
as perceived by the team members?
a)
Why
are these moments turning points?
b)
Why
do they emerge?
c)
What
is their effect on the team?
d)
Where
can they be situated in the lifespan of the team?
e)
On
which level (task or interpersonal) are the turning points
situated?
[2] How are the
turning points situated within the life course of the team?
[3] Can
similarities and differences be found in the observed turning
points and their positioning over time across the three teams?
3. Method
3.1 The
teams
The subjects of this study are the
team members of three student project teams working together
on an authentic problem in collaboration with real companies
for a period of three months. The projects are part of the
project-based course ‘Labour pedagogy projects’ organised in
the third year of the bachelor program of Educational Sciences
in a large European research-intensive university. More
information about the set-up of this course is given in the
next paragraph. The teams studied adhere to the
characteristics of temporary project teams since they have a
one-time assignment that is unique and that requires a new
solution. The team works on an authentic organisational
problem within a limited timespan. The skills and knowledge of
the each of the individual team members are valuable and
useful to accomplish the task. In the following paragraph a
short description of the three project teams and their project
is given.
Team A consisted of seven female team
members. The authentic assignment they were confronted with
was to optimise the welcome- and socialisation procedure for
new employees at a college for higher vocational education.
Team B consisted of seven female team
members. The authentic question they were confronted with also
came from a college of applied science. They were asked to
determine the necessary steps for designing one of the
educational programs as more competence based.
Team C consisted of six female team
members and one male team member. The question they were
confronted with came from a consultancy company specialised in
guidance of change processes. The project team was asked to
update a tool for guiding these processes.
3.2 The
course
‘Labour pedagogy projects’
In the course ‘Labour pedagogy
projects’ that entails the subject ‘learning and development
in professional organisations’ the student teams were
confronted with an authentic question presented to them by
professional organisations. The project teams worked together
for a delineated period of three months at the end of which
they had to deliver a tangible product to the professional
organisation. The practice-oriented end product(s) had to be
accompanied by a collection of relevant scientific literature
on the topic of their question. Within a well-designed,
supportive environment, the main focus was on the autonomy of
the team. Both on a task and interpersonal level, the team was
self-steering and encouraged to create an environment that
facilitates their collaboration and output production. The
supportive environment was shaped by a number of supporting
activities that are part of the standard curriculum of the
course. Every team was supported by an academic coach and a
contact person from the professional organisation. The
academic coach provided ad hoc guidance on a task and process
level. And the team received the advice and coaching on the
task from the professional coach. Additionally, more
structural activities were set up. On a task level, the team
received feedback on the minutes from every team meeting. The
team was obliged to visit the professional organisation at the
beginning of the project to ensure that the question is clear
for both parties. The team had to discuss about the task and
progress to a professional coach on a regular basis. At the
end of the process, the team organised a closing event with
the stakeholders from the professional organisation and the
academic coach during which a final presentation of the work
and results was given. At the midpoint of the three months,
the team was asked to provide an intermediate report on the
work progress. Additionally, an intermediate evaluation was
set up during which the team members were obliged to organise
a moment to reflect on their activities both at process level
and at task level including the functioning of the group on
both tracks.
3.3 Data
collection
Data were collected by means of two
sources of information: individual reflection papers and team
interviews. After the end of the project, the team members of
the three student project teams were asked to individually
reflect on the development of their team by means of writing a
reflection paper. They were asked about turning points that
they experienced during the development of their team.
Afterwards, the team members were gathered for a team
interview. These team interviews were conducted by one
interviewer and were videotaped for further analysis. The
approach to the interview was semi-structured (Wengraf, 2001).
The interview consisted of two parts. First, the team members
were asked to outline the course of their team over time
collectively[1],
both on a task and interpersonal level. After ten minutes of
preparations, the graph was presented and the interviewer
asked for clarifications. This information was used to
position the turning points in time during the second part of
the interview. During this second part, team members were
asked to pinpoint and elaborate on turning points that
occurred during the course of their project. A turning point
was defined as a moment during which change occurred. Change
could imply both progress and regression. Team members were
asked to indicate the turning points on the graph with blue
post-its (see Figure 1 – 2 – 3). After ten minutes of
preparations, the team members were asked to elaborate on the
turning points based on the interview guideline.
This two-source data collection was
setup to enhance reliability of the study. The information in
the reflection papers was used as a control for the
information that was given during the interview (Golafshani,
2003). First, it was used to see whether similar information
was reported right after the collaboration and four months
after the collaboration. Additionally, it was used to avoid
the creation of a fragmented picture due to a lack of safety
to speak out between the team members during the team
interview. Both data sources were compared for substantial
differences in information about occurred turning points. As
no substantial differences were found the information from
both data sources was used for analysis.
3.4 Method
of
analysis
Data were analysed using the
theoretical thematic data analysis technique (Braun &
Clarke, 2006) focussing on themes in the data. In this case
the themes are all the facets of information about different
aspects of the turning points as described in the research
questions (e.g. description, cause, consequences). As such,
the coding and analysis of the data were driven by the
research questions with the goal to report the reality of the
participants’ experiences concerning the reported turning
points. A semantic analysis of what has been said and written
was conducted (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To support the use
of this technique, a coding procedure was created and executed
with the help of the QSR
International’s NVivo 10 software. This is a program that facilities
the coding of text documents and the additional analysis of
the identified codes. In the following paragraph, the coding
procedure and the following analysis activities are described.
3.4.1 Coding
procedure.
First, a basic coding schema was set
up to systematically collect all the given information about
one turning point. Because the different teams encountered a
different number of turning points, the number of basic coding
schemes used was different for each of the three teams. For
example, in team A, four turning points were identified. As
such, the final coding schema to analyse the turning points of
team A used in the Nvivo software consisted of four basic
coding schemes.
Basic coding scheme. The codes in this basic scheme were
created based on the sub questions under research question 1
of this study. For example, research question one focuses on
the different turning points identified by the team members.
The code ‘objective description’ was created to code all the
information that was given during the interview and in the
reflection papers that provides an answer to this question.
The codes were fine-tuned by means of different trial versions
with the data from team A. For example, the second code
‘subjective description’ was created to code the information
that provides an answer to research question 1a, since most of
the answers to the question ‘Why is this moment a turning
point?’ entailed a description of how team members experienced
this moment. The different codes and the questions to which
they provide an answer are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1
Codes based on research questions
|
Code |
Description |
|
Objective description |
Information about what
happened during the turning point |
|
Subjective description |
Information about how
the turning point is experienced by team members |
|
Consequence |
Consequences of the
turning point as perceived by the team members |
|
Cause |
What caused the turning
point? |
|
Time |
Situating the turning
point in time |
Additionally, the information was
also coded based on the topic it was referring to. It was
coded ‘task’ when it referred to an aspect that was directly
related to the task being performed, it was coded ‘procedure’
when it referred to the way the team members collaborated to
perform the task. It was coded ‘interpersonal’ when the code
referred to topics that were related to individual team
members and their relationships.
3.4.2 Abstracting
information about the turning points from the coded data
within the teams.
After coding, a document was
generated via the QSR
International’s NVivo 10 software that consisted of an
overview of all collected text data per code from both the
team interviews and the reflection papers. This selection of
text data was used to identify themes within these coded data.
As such, a thorough answer to the different research questions
was formulated based on the collected data. For example, all
the coded text material about the cause of one turning point
within one team was collected and studied as a whole. Based on
this collection and codes, an extended description of the
different turning points was made. Within this text material,
an abstraction of the different themes that emerged concerning
the causes of the turning points as outlined by the team
members was made. This analysis resulted in a narrative
description of the different themes that were determined for
each individual turning point.
3.4.3 Identifying
similarities and differences in the turning points across the
teams.
In the next step, analysis that was
done for every code for every individual team as described in
the previous paragraph was scanned
for recurring themes across the different teams. As such,
similarities in the turning points, their causes and
consequences across the different teams could be identified.
4. Results
First, an overview will be given of
the information about the turning points that was collected
while analysing the coded team interviews and individual
reflection papers interview. Additionally, the results of the
cross case analysis will be given to outline the differences
and similarities in the findings over the different
investigated teams.
4.1 Turning
points
identified in the three teams
For the three teams, a synthesis of
the recurring themes in the information about the turning
points (description, cause, consequence) that was given by the
team members will be presented per turning point.
Additionally, a visual representation of the chronological
position of these turning points within the lifespan of the
team will be given. Using this set-up, research questions one
and two will be addressed for every team individually. It
should be noted that – since teams are unique - differences in
the sort and amount of information that was given occur
between the teams. Additionally, in this section the turning
points are referred to by the name the team members gave them
during the interview.
Team A. Figure 1 represents the course of
the team A with the turning points positioned over the
lifespan of the team. Four turning points were identified
during the group interview.
Figure 1. Course of development team A (see
pdf)
Turning point 1. The first turning point mentioned by
the team members, and nominated as the most important turning
point, is the intermediate
evaluation. This turning point is situated at the
interpersonal level.
Cause. The team members indicated the fact
that they had to reflect on their own and the others
performance and the collaboration as a cause for its
occurrence. They also appointed great importance to the way
they choose to execute this evaluation as an important cause
for its occurrence. They feel that they created a safe and
stimulating environment by setting up an evaluation method
that entailed one-on-one feedback for every team member
followed by a group conversation about the functioning of the
team.
Interviewer: ‘Could you
explain to me why you think this [evaluation] was so
effective?’
Team member: ‘ I think that,
because there was a combination of one-on-one and group, I
think that it is really good if one evaluates like that.
When there is only in group [evaluation], there are always
thinks such as this or that that you would not express
towards the person involved and if there is only one-on-one
[evaluation], eventually you also have to evaluate in group.
I think that both is the best.’
This set-up allowed them to
privately discuss what they felt could not be said in front of
the whole group. The fact that they expressed both positive
and negative points ensured a constructive atmosphere.
Team member: ‘If it wasn’t for
this moment, we wouldn’t have shared negative experiences.’
Consequence. The main consequence is reported on
an interpersonal level. An increase in familiarity or
interpersonal knowledge between team members (Gruenfeld,
Mannix, Williams, & Neale, 1996) enhanced feelings of
safety.
Team member 1: ‘It was a bit
tricky, all girls together, it could have gotten very
bitchy.’
Team member 2: ‘Yes, but it
was not the case, and that was reassuring.’
This allowed the team members to
express feedback (positive and negative) towards each other
and triggered the presence of more acceptance and
understanding of the behaviour of other team members. These
shifts had positive repercussions on the process level. Team
members expressed an increase in the quality of their
collaboration: the understanding of the natural division of
roles was enhanced due to openness about capacities of the
team members.
Team member: ‘Because now I
knew other team members thought I was good at this or that,
I felt more secure to take up this task, without discussion
about it being needed.’
Based on this knowledge, some shifts
in roles occurred spontaneously.
Team member: ‘I used to take
on the leadership role, but it became clear that other team
members were also very good at this, so I let them take the
stage more often’
On a task level, their efficiency
went up after the turning point. The reason this moment had
such significant effect on the teamwork was that it set the
stage for openness between team members to discuss
frustrations, critiques and accomplishments.
Turning point 2. The second turning point refers to
the moment where one of the team members prepared a presentation in
which she presented all her considerations and questions about
the state of the art of the project and the future steps in
the process towards task achievement.
Cause. The turning point was caused by
chaos at the task level. In the previous meeting, the team
members expressed, and agreed about, a shared feeling of lack
of clarity about the task, about what the professional
organisation expected from them and a lack of information
about what other team members were doing.
Team member: ‘You are working
on all kind of things and you are thrown in and after some
time you just don’t know [what the next step is] anymore.
Everybody experienced this feeling, except for [name team
member].’
Due to this feeling of safety
created by the first turning point, the team members were able
to express doubts and insecurities concerning the task. This
was an important condition for this turning point to emerge.
Consequence. The consequence was situated at a
task level: the team started working more focused. On a
process level, team members started collaborating as a team
and bundle their resources in a more efficient way (e.g. role
division was refined as a team leader was appointed).
Team member 1: ‘We started
working again.’
Team member 2: ‘More
goal-directed looking for texts, goal-directed reading, not
just because I did it that way but yes really for the
assignments.’
Team member 3: ‘More together
again, because before it was kind of individual, everybody
did her thing, but now it was very much in the same
direction again.’
On an interpersonal level, this
moment confirmed the safe climate that was established during
the first transition point.
Turning point 3. The third transition point indicated
by the team members was situated during the period of interviews with employees
conducted in the professional organisation to collect
information necessary for their task process.
Cause. The cause of this transition point
was threefold. First, by interviewing the employees they came
in close contact with the core of the problem they had been
working on. The closeness to the authentic work situation made
them realise the value of the project and their expertise to
work on the problem. Secondly, by leading the interviews the
team members became more confident about their competences.
These two causes triggered the understanding that their
project could make a useful difference for the professional
organisation.
Team member: ‘It was the
feeling of finally something, yes, that you could lead
something yes, that was weird, that you would also think
that those people would see you as the one with the
expertise, at least a bit.’
The third reason was the
strengthening of their interpersonal relations due to getting
to know each other in a setting outside the meeting room and
the university (cfr. familiarity).
Consequence. As a consequence of this turning
point, team members felt more motivated to work on the
project. They felt very proud of themselves as individuals and
as a team.
Team member: ‘I think this
period showed us what we were capable of.’
At a task level, the effect was
visible trough high productivity during the focus interviews.
Team member: ‘A drive to
continue, as if we can maybe actually mean something useful
for this organisation. Well, because at the beginning you do
think what can we as students change there and then you
notice that it might be useful, because those people
[employees] also said that it was useful to talk about these
things and then you think: aha we can actually contribute
something.’
At an interpersonal level, this
turning point improved the atmosphere in the team.
Turning point 4. The last transition point was
situated around negative
feedback they received from the academic team coach on
one of their products.
Cause. They state that the moment was
caused by frustration and stress due to the approaching
deadline. However, as the interviewer elaborated on this
moment during the team interviews of this study, it became
clear that the frustration had a deeper cause: not long
before, the coach had encouraged them to take initiative. By
providing negative feedback on their work, they experienced a
discrepancy in the behaviour of the coach. It is the
experience of this discrepancy that disappointed them and made
them angry. They felt that the role of the coach had shifted
from being a companion in the work process to one of an
evaluator of their work.
Team member: ‘Everybody
thought: finally we have something, it was something
concrete for a change and then it got totally demolished and
then yes, it’s a push back, back to reality I guess.’
Consequence. The turning point created an ‘us
against her’ - attitude in the team. At a task level, this
attitude became a very strong motivator to prove that they
could meet the high standards that were set by the coach.
Team B – general development.
Figure 2 represents the course of
team B. The turning points identified by the team members are
outlined on the timeline. The team members reported seven
turning points. They are not discussed in chronological order,
because three of the turning points are related and as such
described together under the subtitle ‘a cluster of three
turning points’
Figure 2. Course of development team B (see
pdf)
Turning point 1. The first transition point covers a
longer period of time. At the beginning of the project the
team members visited
different schools to collect information. The number of
visits was divided between different sub-teams of two or three
members to reduce workload.
Cause. These sub-teams spent a lot of time
together. Due to the lengthy personal, one-on-one contact,
familiarity between the duo’s and trio’s increased.
Team member: ‘I think that,
because you were alone with somebody for a couple of hours,
it caused you to talk about the project and than you would
understand better why people think in a specific manner of,
yes, what their opinion was on certain things, and that
helped also when you were talking to somebody else about the
same topic, to tell to them how this person explained it to
you.’
Consequence. This turning point had a positive
effect at the interpersonal level and the process level: team
members felt that a base of trust was created which had a
positive effect on their collaboration.
Team member: ‘You get to know
each other a little better, you get more insight in how
other people think and you, well, it also was a onset to be
more open towards each other.’
However, they also report a negative
side effect on the task level: sometimes the close friendship
distracted them while working on the task.
Team member 1: ‘Yeah, maybe
the collaboration went a bit easier or smoother on moments
when everything went fine.’
Team member 2: ‘Yes, but this
was also the reason, I think, that it got a bit annoying.
Because in the library, I know, or when we had to
collaborate somewhere, we would just be talking about all
kinds of stuff while we were actually supposed to continue
working. And, in itself, that was not such a good input for
the task.’
Turning point 2. The second transition point that is
put forward by the team members is a meeting with their
coach from the professional organisation.
Cause. During this meeting they received
the necessary information to continue their work and to
channel their efforts in the right direction.
Team member: ‘Before [that
moment] we did not really know what to do, we were working
without knowing where to go and by talking to these people,
a lot became clear for us.’
Consequence. As a consequence, at the task
level, they could continue working and felt very motivated to
do so.
Team members: ‘This lead us to
continue with our work, well yes, we know what we had to do
and that could go more fluent for a while.’
Cluster of three interrelated
turning points 3A – 3B – 3C. From the start of the project,
team members experienced frustrations about the other team
members. Over time, this became stronger and more detrimental
to the positive atmosphere in the team. At different points in
time this came to the front triggered by specific events. The
team members appointed each of these events as turning points.
The first turning was appointed as such spontaneously. The
second and third turning points were added during the
elaboration about the first turning point. For clarity reasons
they are here described jointly as three turning points within
the same scope.
A.
During the first weeks of the
project, frustrations about how individual team members
approached the task work (e.g. the importance team members
granted to the task or the amount of time they spent on the
task) emerged.
Cause. These frustrations were not
discussed overtly, until one of the team members explicitly
expressed hers. This triggered other team members to do the
same.
Team member: ‘We were working
for a couple of weeks and there were little frustrations. We
did talk about it, but never in the group or to the people
we really wanted to say it to or where the message should
end up and uhm, at some point, I had the feeling that we
really needed to say something about it.’
Consequence. At first, team members felt this
was a positive event, because it had the potential to set the
stage for talking about the issues openly. However, this
turning point had a negative long-term outcome in the form of
a recurring habit of outing of frustrations at the end of
every team meeting.
Team member: ‘In the
beginning, I think it was good that we were able to say it,
because it was already present at the surface for a very
long time, but in general it had a very negative effect.’
Even though the frustrations were
always about task or process aspects (e.g. criticising team
members on spelling mistakes) some team members perceived them
as personal attacks.
Team member: ‘Well yeah, if
you keep hearing about the spelling mistakes that you made
and the fact that you didn’t re-read the things you wrote,
after a while… you start … [expresses frustrations with
facial expressions].’
These events had a significant
impact on their interpersonal relationship in terms of safety.
The team members reported a constant fear of doing something
wrong and of the possibility that other team members would
call their attention to the mistake. The pressure of the
workload strengthened this feeling. In general, these
recurring events were associated with negative feelings.
B.
At a certain point, the team members
decided to take measures by implementing a positive attitude
towards each other. At the end of every meeting they installed
a round of constructive feedback supported through a shared
responsibility. For example, when team members expressed a
frustration in a negative way, the others reminded them that
they had to focus on constructive feedback.
Cause. After subsequent meetings of
strengthening the habit of expressing negative feedback, some
team members were confused about this pattern to such an
extent that they felt they could not respond to the repeated
attacks in an appropriate way.
Team member: ‘I think it kept
going on until we, during one of the meetings, said that is
was important to start focusing on the positive aspects
again and on the positive things other people were able to
do.’
Team member 1: ‘At some point,
I said, you guys, we should look back [to what we achieved
already].
Team member 2: ‘Yes, that
happened’
Team member 3: ‘and then we
did that and everybody was very surprised. We were like:
yes, actually we can be happy and proud about what we
achieved so far.’
Consequence. In general, most team members felt
that this approach worked, despite a couple of backdrops. But
for one of the team members, this perception was not present.
C.
After the last turning point (cfr.
turning point 5) the team members had a very positive
attitude. However, the pattern of mutual frustration occurred
again very quickly.
Cause. The attitude of being positive
disappeared again due to deadline stress. Different aspects of
the task did not go as planned.
Team member: ‘We had to start
working again really hard and the frustration just came
back.’
Consequence. As a consequence, new frustrations
arose and were expressed, due to stress and burnout feelings
of the team members. For some team members’ trust disappeared
due to interpersonal issues. Other team members choose to
personally opt-out due to the lack of interest or the lack of
coping options.
Team members: ‘Yes, it became
interpersonal, but also personal in the first place. I mean,
it just began because it was too much. You did not see the
end of it, you got annoyed from always working, you could
not do anything fun, you were always working and in the end
you were so annoyed that it is not so easy to let these
things [frustrations towards other people] rest.
Turning point 4. The meeting after the
intermediate evaluation is put forward as the fourth
turning point of the team. This moment was situated between
transition point 3A and 3B (cfr. infra). During their obliged
intermediate evaluation the team mainly focused at the task
and procedure level and not at the interpersonal level. A
little while later, they also set up a moment to focus on this
interpersonal level. This moment is the turning point.
Cause. The academic coach advised the
set-up of a new evaluation moment focused on interpersonal
relations and functioning of individual team members. The team
members also felt that they needed some feedback on how others
perceived them and their functioning.
Consequence. This turning point was perceived as
a positive and useful moment. Due to the turning point the
team members became aware of their work points and this
awareness stayed until the end of their project. The primary
effect of this turning point was on a (inter)personal level:
team members felt more secure. They were more aware of their
influence on the team (both positive and negative) and really
started tackling their points to improve.
Team member 1: ‘I think that
at that moment it became clear for everybody what their
position in the group was or what the others thought about
them. More security.’
Team member 2: ‘And you were
also more aware of the things you need to work on, or thing
others could see as a problem.’
The consequence at a process level
was that the team members started to communicate more with
each other about decisions and they got back to working (cfr.
turning point 3B). However, the effect was not sustainable.
Due to deadline stress, all the positive effects of this
moment disappeared after a while.
Team member: ‘I have the
feeling that we very quickly forgot all our points to
improve. Over time, we needed to keep our head above water
more and more because we needed to finish so many things.
Because there was so much work, we seemed to have forgotten
al those points for improvement.’
Turning point 5. The last turning point put
forward by the team is situated around the final
presentation of their product for the professional
organisation.
Cause. In preparation of this presentation
the team members became aware of their competences and on the
teams competences. They went to the presentation with an
attitude of self-security.
Team member: ‘There were
things that we gave each other feedback at so many levels
that we were so convinced about it that we forgot to send it
to the coaches for feedback.’
During and after the presentation,
the enthusiasm and praise of the different stakeholders
(academic coach, professional coach, employers) about there
work confirmed this feeling.
Consequence. This gave the team and the
individual team members a serious boost, both at a task and
interpersonal level. However, the effect of the boost was of
short duration due to the pressure of the deadline that came
back very soon.
Team member: ‘During the train
ride after the presentation we were constantly talking about
the presentation and about how the employees responded to
how we approach the issue and that we really had the feeling
that we could make a difference and yes, that gives you a
bit of a boost.’
Team C – General description.
The four turning points of team C
are presented chronologically in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Course of development team C (see
pdf)
Turning point 1. The team members referred to the
first turning point as the
complex moment. Team members referred to this as the
most important turning point in the lifespan of the team.
During the first meetings of the team, a number of team
members with a dominant character took the lead. Other team
members felt threatened by them and started back talking about
these issues. At the same time they kept up appearances about
the atmosphere in the team during the meetings; by organising
informal lunch dates; and by making explicit statements about
the importance of being honest to each other for the
collaboration, while it was very clear that this was not the
case at that point.
Team member: ‘We were not
honest during direct interaction with each other, and on the
essential moments during meetings, we were just not honest
on a relational level that is. And then, we went to a have
lunch together with the idea to do something about this
hypocrisy. But actually, that only made it worse. We were
really not honest towards each other, drinking chocolate
milk together pretending nothing was wrong and assuming it
would pas. But that didn’t work. Then the crisis came…’
At a certain moment the existing
issues were made explicated. The actual turning point is
situated during the meeting after this moment, when the team
members agreed to openly reflect upon the events.
Cause. Due to open communication team
members started to accept the different personalities of
different team members.
Consequence. As a consequence of this turning
point, team members became more familiar with each other and
learned to understand each other better and what to expect
from each other. At a process level, this facilitated
collaboration. They agreed that they needed to be much more
explicit in terms of their communication and planning. The
performance of the task also got a boost due to this event.
Team members explicitly named this the most important event
for their team.
Team member: ‘It lead to, not
only about this situation, but also in general, why aren’t
we always straightforward with each other. We should make
things more explicit, like what we want to do and just make
sure the communication is much more transparent.’
Turning point 2. The team members referred to the
second turning point as the light point. Two team members felt that some
parts of the project were very vague. They decided to look at
it during an afternoon in the library. They collected all the
information and had thorough discussions about it.
Cause. They figured out the missing
links and presented the other team members with their solution
to the lack of clarity.
Team member: ‘The thing was,
we did not have three goals as we believed first, but only
two main goals and some sub goals and that is the way we
started looking at it at that moment. We were talking about
it and figuring it out and then we decided to share it with
the rest of the group. And actually, what was very vague or
difficult suddenly became, well, everybody was like ‘yes…
even though we thought that the others could just as well
react with confusion to what we were saying. But it turned
out that it could just as well have been two other people
that did the thinking exercise that we had just done.’
Consequence. Due to their effort, the other
team members also started to see the whole picture; they all
felt that this information made their efforts to accomplish
the task more focused and more aligned towards the goal.
Team member: ‘It felt like we
could finally continue’
At an interpersonal level, this
strengthened the trust and openness between team members they
felt that from that moment on a setback in the task could no
longer break the strong interpersonal relationships.
Turning point 3. The third turning point appointed by
the team members is a
workshop that was offered to them by the professional
organisation. This workshop was set up to reflect on
behaviours styles of the team members and to reflect on how
the different behaviour styles interrelate between team
members.
Cause. During the workshop, they were
confronted with the behaviour styles of the other team
members, which differed a lot from theirs, but they were
forced to find a fit between different behaviour styles.
Experiencing this process further clarified why the team had
some trouble working together at the beginning of the project
and why, after getting to know each other better, they were
able to overcome differences and use them as strengths of the
team.
Team member: ‘well, the thing
that could be seen as a weakness by one person was also
formulated as a strength and then you could also start
understanding it as a strength. I experienced that very
strongly then. And, well yes, also, we were already
collaborating well at that point, but then it kind of got
explained why that was.
Additionally, the academic coach
provided a feedback workshop during the same period. The
feeling and effect of this workshop was similar to that of the
workshop provided by the professional organisation.
Consequence. As a
consequence of the session those individual team members felt
more involved and this made it easier for them to speak up in
the group. They became closer and even more familiar and the
team cohesion became stronger: more knowledge was collected
about behaviours of team members, about which behaviour they
could expect, how this could be interpreted and what it meant.
In this way team members were able to be more thoughtful of
what certain behaviours could mean and how they should be
understood. As a consequence, roles became clearer, for
example team members knew whom to approach when they had a
problem.
Team member: ‘Well yes for
example, when I thought, well I don’t know how to do this
anymore and I am very easily confused. And then I would
think: whom can I ask? … someone with a [name of profile]
profile, maybe [name of team member]. Yes that was kind of
what it was like of the workshops.’
Turning point 4. The last turning point put
forward by the team, is the end of the project. All the references were
checked, spelling mistakes, typing mistakes, everything was
set in the right colour.
Team member: ‘It was a great
moment, because all the references were checked, all
different possible typo’s were corrected and spelling
mistakes and then it was finished and I was very happy.’
Cause. They
finished the project.
Team member: ‘It was really
finished and that was really like we are very happy that it
is finished. And not just finished because the deadline was
there, but really finished as it should be finished like it
is now.’
Consequence. When
they handed in their work, they described the feeling of
stress fading away. They describe the effect at a task level:
the feeling of relief and victory.
4.2 A
cross case analysis of team development and turning points
In this section, a cross case
analysis of the three project teams in terms of the
similarities and differences that can be discovered in the
turning points and their occurrence over time will be given.
4.2.1. The four turning
points that occurred in the three teams.
Two types of turning points at an
interpersonal level and two types of turning points at a task
level occurred in the three teams. The first type that was
identified in all teams is the turning point that triggered openness about the
relational conflicts (Team A: turning point 1; Team B:
turning point 4; Team C: turning point 1). The team members of
team A and team C explicitly put forward this turning point as
the most important event during the lifespan of their team due
to its positive (long and short term) effects on familiarity,
openness and trust. Also the team members of team B mentioned
that this was an important moment during their collaboration.
The notion of relational conflicts refers to ‘an awareness of
interpersonal incompatibilities, which includes affective
components such as feeling tension and friction.
Relationship conflict involves personal issues such as
dislike among group members and feelings such as annoyance,
frustration and irritation’ (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p.
238). The presence of a relational conflict was situated at a
covert level, but was reported during the team interviews. The
type of turning point discussed here resolved the conflict by
openly expressing differences and incompatibilities.
The second
turning point that was traceable within the development of the
three teams at an interpersonal level was the period when team
members got to know each other on a more personal level,
unrelated to the collaboration itself (team A: turning point
3; team B: turning point 1; team C: turning point 3). This getting to know each
other turning point triggered the enhancement of
familiarity between team members. It strengthened the
interpersonal relationship regardless of the task. The main
difference between the first and the second turning point
discussed here is that the first one involved open
communication about incompatibilities between team members.
For example, team members would give each other feedback on
strengths and points for improvement of individual
contributions to task work; or the different aspects of the
collaboration between team members would be thoroughly
discussed. In the case of the second turning point, the team
members were merely socializing with each other and engaging
in casual conversation. The first type of turning point at a
task level is the Aha –
experience (team A: turning point 2; team B: turning
point 2 ; team C: turning point 2). The different teams
reported a moment during which clarity in terms of the task
and the task goal was created by actions of the team members
themselves or by an outside stakeholder. This event led to an
increase in the performance of the different teams. The last
common turning point is labelled achievement (team A:
turning point 3; team B: turning point 5; team C: turning
point 4) and is characterised by an achievement on the task
level, for example positive feedback on work, finishing a
product, reaching a goal.
Their similarities. The short-term effects of these
turning points were very similar for the three teams (see
Table 2).
Table 2.
Overview of the scope of the effects
of turning points.
|
Task level |
Interpersonal level |
Process level |
|
‘Openness about
relational conflict’ |
||
|
|
‘Getting to know each
other’ |
|
|
‘Aha – experience’ |
|
|
|
|
‘Achievement’ |
|
The main
observed consequence of the openness about relational
conflict moment were enhanced familiarity, trust and
mutual understanding of attitudes and behaviours among team
members. As a consequence of this event, team members started
to understand their own and the other team member’s behaviours
and attitudes in the team and this created awareness and
understanding of processes and mechanisms that occurred within
the collaboration of the team members. This understanding led
to a decrease in frustration about differences in approaches
to the task and an increase of a safe team climate, openness
and trust. As a consequence, team members in the three teams
report similar boosts at a process level: facilitation of
collaboration and at a task level: focus on the task,
productivity, efficiency. However the sustainability of this
effect seems to depend on other dynamics at play and the
subsequent events during the course of the team. In team B a
process conflict about the division of the work and the
responsibilities of individual team members for the work (Jehn
et al. 2008; Jehn & Rupert, 2001) occurred at the same
time (cfr. cluster turning point 3A – 3B – 3C). Additionally,
the team members expressed the presence of a heavy workload.
It seemed that these events eliminated the initial positive
effect of the openness
about relational conflict turning point. The team
members of team B reported that they were able to establish a
strong feeling of friendship between team members, but failed
to create robust openness and trust between the different team
members. The getting to
know each other turning point created more familiarity
among team members, which also contributed to an enhanced
understanding of each other’s behaviour during the
collaboration. Additionally, the turning point also had
repercussions on a mere interpersonal level: namely in terms
of enhanced stronger friendship and a basis of trust among
team members. The common consequence of the Aha-experience is
focused on the task level: it created a clear and shared
understanding of the task. Clearing out the confusion about
the common goal facilitated the teams’ focus and goal
directedness. Due
to a clear, shared vision of the mutual goal, the
collaboration became more effective and smoother. The achievement turning
point mainly enhanced social cohesion between team member and
belief of the team members that they are capable of working on
the task.
Their
differences. The previous
paragraph shows that four types of turning points emerged in
the three teams and that these turning points had similar
consequences in the three teams. Also a lot of difference can
be observed concerning these events. Firstly, the specific
circumstances of the turning points as they occurred within
every single team are unique. Even though the main scope of
the turning point is the same, each one has its own specific
setup and details. For example, even though the obliged and
planned intermediate evaluation triggered openness about the
relational conflicts within two teams (team A and team
B), the intermediate evaluation in both teams itself was setup
differently. And within team C this turning point occurred in
very different circumstances, namely escalation of the
interpersonal conflict very early on in their development.
Secondly, the order of the turning points within the lifespan
of the project teams is different (see Figure 2, 3 and 4 for
an overview of the turning points in chronological order).
Additionally, the position of a turning point relative to
other turning points seemed to have an effect on its impact.
For example, in team B and C an Aha-experience was
reported very early on in the development of the team. The
positive effect that was reported was situated on a task level
(clarity concerning the task). In team A this moment occurred
later during the lifespan of the team, when openness and trust
were already established. The effects of this moment in team A
was more extended as it also confirmed the trust climate that
was created during the openness
about relational conflict moment. Even though the same
type of turning points seemed to have similar consequences
across the three teams, the same type of turning points were
triggered by different causes across the different teams.
For example, the aha-experience
was triggered by an external stakeholder in team B and C, and
by a team member (internal stakeholder) in team A.
Additionally, it is found that some turning points within the
development of a team have a double function. The third
turning point of team A was both a getting to know each
other as well as an achievement turning
point.
4.2.2 Differences in
observed turning points across the teams.
The range
of turning points in team A and B is supplemented with
additional turning points that can not be placed under one of
the four types of turning points mentioned above. In team C,
the only types of turning points mentioned are the four
mentioned above. For both teams, this entailed turning points
that had a negative impact on their functioning.
5. Conclusion
This study was set up to
conceptualise team development in three temporary project
teams taking into account the dynamic nature of emergent
states. The focus of this conceptualisation of team
development is on turning points, or significant changes in
the lifespan of the team as perceived by the team members, and
their positioning towards each other over the lifespan of the
team. In the following section a short overview of the
findings for the three teams is given. Because the interest is
in the development of these teams over time, the turning
points will be discussed in terms of their effect on team
maturity both on an interpersonal and a task level. Next, the
main take away points of the cross case analysis are given.
This overview recaps the main direct conclusions of the study.
The team members of team A put
forward four turning points as significant events within their
development. The first turning point, which consisted of an
evaluation of the task work and the team work, enhanced the
feeling of being a team between team members and this was seen
an important prerequisite for the following turning points and
was also strengthened after every other turning point. The
second turning point, which entailed a brainstorming session
to clarify the future directions on the task path, focused on
task work, and mostly strengthened the feeling of competence
of the team motivating them towards better achievement. The third turning
point, during which the team members had close contact with
each other and their target audience, enhances the feeling of
being a team and their feelings of competence as a team. The
last turning point, which was a negative confrontation with
the academic coach, had a strengthening influence on the
feeling of being a team and, on after a while also enhanced
motivation to deliver a better product. Over the whole line,
each one of these turning points increased and strengthened
the maturity of the team in terms of collaboration and
performance.
The team members of team B
identified five turning points. The first turning point,
during which team members got to know each other better by
spending time with each other in duo’s, set the stage for the
construction of a good team. The second turning point
consisted of a meeting with the contact person of the
professional organisation to clarify the organisational
question and enhanced team competence and performance. A
cluster of turning points around interpersonal frustrations
emerged. The first two turning points in this cluster, which
entailed fostering a positive attitude towards each other, had
a short-term good effect on the collaboration of the team
members. Their long-term effect however, was negative because
their intentions to engage in constructive collaboration
failed due to high stress levels. One turning point occurred
during which the team members reflected on their
collaboration. This had a positive effect on their
collaboration. A turning point that was created due to the
success of their final presentation strengthened their team
cohesion. However, the last turning point of the frustration
cluster had a negative effect on the collaboration. As such,
the turning points that occurred in the development of this
team had an overall positive short-term effect on
collaboration and team performance. However, the recurring
covert and over frustrations towards each other seemed to have
had a detrimental effect on this overall positive effect. Even
though the team members reported successful and increasing
team performance and good interpersonal relationships, the
high perceived workload seemed to have had a recurring
negative effect on the interpersonal maturity of the team.
In team C four turning points were
identified. The first one reflected about interpersonal
interaction and had a positive effect on the collaboration.
During the second turning point, the team members figured out
how to approach the task that lay ahead of them. This fostered
their collective efficacy. The third turning point entailed
reflection on individual characteristics of the team members
and how this interplays with the collaboration. This enhanced
their trust and facilitated collaboration as a team. Lastly, they put
forward the moment at which their goals were achieved as a
turning point. The turning points that occurred during the
lifespan of this team each had an overall increasingly
positive effect on the collaboration and team performance over
time.
By approaching team development
through pinpointing important moments of change during the
lifespan of a team, a number of conclusions can be made when
comparing the teams in the three cases. In this study, three
similar teams were investigated and a common ground could be
detected in terms of occurring events that shape the
development of these teams, for example the occurrence of a
relational conflict or a moment of task clarity. As such, four
types of turning points were identified that occurred within
the three teams: openness
about the relational conflict, getting to know each
other better, Aha-moment
and achievement.
The consequences of these turning points on the further
lifespan of the team also show great similarity across the
three teams. However, the triggers for occurrence, the timing
of one type of turning point and the order of occurrence of
these different turning points are different for the three
teams. Additionally, the events behind the turning points are
also considerably different. For example, in two teams the openness about the
relational conflict was triggered by the intermediate
evaluation. In the third team it was triggered by an
unforeseen circumstance. Aside from
the common turning points, two of the three teams identified
unique turning points that are considered important for the
development of the team. The scope and content of these
turning points are different and they can thus not be compared
to each other. Yet all these events had an important impact on
the course of the team, as perceived by the team members.
6. Discussion
In this last section, the findings
of this study are elaborated on in more depth: the turning
points approach is compared with and contrasted against
existing theories. First the similarities and differences with
a more popular conceptualisation of team development are
discussed. Based on this comparison, the strengths of the
turning point method will be highlighted and potential
opportunities and limitations for the use of this method are
outlined. Following, the findings in this study in terms of
the types of turning points that were found will be discussed
in the light of relevant existing team theories.
6.1 Turning
points:
a more flexible way of conceptualising team development.
The turning point conceptualisation
of team development is compared and contrasted with the linear
development model of Tuckman (1965). This comparison is made
because the Tuckman model is traditionally the most used team
development model in research and in practice (Raes et al.,
2015). The scope of the four types of turning points that
could be identified within each of the three teams (e.g.,
getting acquainted with each other, relational conflict,
sudden focus on the task, achieving as a team) can also be
detected in different phases of the linear development model
of Tuckman (1965) (e.g. resp. forming, conflict and performing
phase). Additionally, two of the three teams (team A and team
C) reported a gradually increase in team collaboration and
team performance. As such reporting the gradual maturation of
teams over time that is outlined in the traditional models.
This is not surprising because these models originate from
studying the same subject: the process of team development
(Raes et al., 2015). However, the turning points
conceptualisation is suggested here as a more flexible
alternative for the linear development model, because in
contrast to the former provides an alternative path for
development when a team does not pass one of the phases, skips
one of the phases, relapse to one of the earlier phases or
passes the phases in a different order, whereas the latter
does not (Bettenhausen & Murninghan, 1985). For the teams
in the current study, this is specifically problematic in the
case of team B. When the development of this team was outlined
based on the model of Tuckman (1965) the description would
stop after the second phase, because the team did not fully
pass this storming phase, even though the team members also
experienced dynamics that are characteristic for the later
phases of development. The development of team A and C could
be fitted within the path outlined by the Tuckman model, but
they also described events and orders of events that not fit
the traditional model. This shortcoming of the Tuckman model
could be explained by stating that it is predictive in nature
(Bushe & Coetze, 2007). As such it prescribes a
development path for teams that, when closely followed,
results in the highest level of performance possible. However,
other researchers approach this model as descriptive when
using it to identify the state of development in which a team
is situated at a certain moment in time (e.g. Miller, 2003;
Raes et al., 2015; Wheelan, 2009). By using it as a
descriptive model, these researchers assume that all teams
will follow exactly this development path. Lack of clarity
about the potential use of the Tuckman model, and by extension
the other existing team development models, encourages
misinterpretations and a very rigid view on team development.
The strength of the turning point
conceptualisation as an alternative for the Tuckman model
consists in the fact that it is more flexible in terms of
descriptive possibilities to outline team development of
individual teams. The important events that teams encounter
during their lifespan are well captured in the traditional
models. However, these models do not allow for the description
of other events that play a role that could have an important
influence, or do not allow to report about events that occur
in a different order then described by the model. Teams can
encounter every possible event that influences their
development and change. This conceptualisation allows other
events to play a role in team development than the ones
described in a fixed model, including events with a negative
outcome. And it also allows events that have an overall
influence during the development, such as the cluster of
turning points in team B. As such, this approach should thus
be considered a descriptive approach. It can be used to
describe team development paths taking into account specific
dynamics of individual teams, because it allows flexibility on
different aspects. This description has potential for both
research and practice. Using this approach, more in depth
knowledge of the dynamics of emergent states over time could
be collected by identifying the effect of these turning points
on a specific emergent state, such as psychological safety,
instead of the explorative approach used in this study.
6.2 Contrasting
the
findings in this study with earlier research on teamwork.
Teamwork has been studied for many
years; as such the findings in this study can be compared with
earlier theories studying phenomena that were discovered when
studying turning points over the lifespan of temporary project
teams.
First, as mentioned above Erbert et
al. (2005) identified several turning points in their study.
Interestingly, the scope of the turning points identified in
their studie and in this study show considerable overlap. Most
identified turning points clustered around following topics:
cohesion, project management, socialisation, member change,
competence, workload and conflict. Additionally, most turning
points were positioned at the dialectical contradictions of
team vs. individual and competence vs. incompetence. The
turning points identified in this study can be situated on the
described topics, except for project management and member
change. The later one is not so relevant for the type of teams
studied here due to fixed membership of the studied teams.
Additionally, the identified turning points were mainly
situated on the two dialectical contradictions described
above. The turning points at an interpersonal level entailed
events during which the team members encountered a tension
between the identify of the individual and the identity of the
team played an important role: the openness about relational
conflicts turning point started with tensions due to
diversity between the different team member and created a
collective understanding of the influences of the diversity of
these individual team members on the collective collaboration.
This dialectical contradiction can also be identified within
the dynamics of the getting
to know each other turning point. It also enhances
understanding of the position of individual team members
within the whole of the team. The aha-experience and
achievement turning
point are situated at the competence vs. incompetence
contradiction for the obvious research that they increased a
feeling of competence among team members, and, in some cases,
started from a feeling of incompetence (cfr. turning point 2,
team A). Also in the case of the turning points that were only
observed in one of the three teams at least one of the
contradictions can be observed. Turning point 5 in TEAM A
could be situated at both, as this turning point was about (1)
the team against the coach and (2) feeling incompetent due to
negative feedback from the coach. The cluster of turning
points in TEAM C is clearly situated at the individual vs.
team contradiction due to the interpersonal frustration that
repeatedly arose.
In two of the three teams, the team
members spontaneously[2]
put forward the ‘openness about the relational conflict’-
turning point as the most important event within the team
development. Additionally, the effect of this turning point
was particularly important for fostering a positive
interpersonal context for constructive collaboration. The
third team also recognised its importance and short-term
positive effect on collaboration. Due to the importance team
members ascribed to this event and its facilitating effect, we
decided to confront the findings of our study with earlier
research on conflict and conflict management. This finding is
not completely in line with previous research and theory about
relational conflict in teamwork. Jehn and Mannix (2001) state
that the occurrence of relational conflict is always
undesirable in a team context in terms of performance. In
their questionnaire study, they confirmed the hypothesis that
high-performing teams experience lower levels of relational
conflict compared to low-performing teams. However, based on
the findings of the current study, it seems that the
occurrence of a relational conflict, defined as team members’
awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities accompanied by an
emotion of friction or frustration (Jehn & Mannix, 2001),
is a natural part of the process of the examined teams.
Moreover, the uncovering of this conflict has led to an
increase of social learning, defined as ‘the process though which
team members get to know each other better as individuals
and learn to interpret each other’s behaviour in the context
of personal life and personality’ by Jehn and Ruppert
(2008, p. 128) within each of the three teams. When social
learning is present and it enhances familiarity and
understanding of each other’s motives for behaviour it can
create empathy and facilitates relational interaction with
other team members (Huckman, Staats, & Upton, 2009; Jehn
& Rupert, 2008). This has positive influences on the team
work because it facilitates collaboration which in turn leads
to higher team effectiveness and efficiency (for an overview
of beneficial effects, see Jehn & Rupert, 2008). The team
members also reported a positive effect of this turning point
on team performance. It seems that sometime at the beginning
of the project, the openness about relational conflict is to
some extent necessary in order to facilitate future
collaboration. This mechanism could be identified thanks to
the qualitative nature of the currend study and the focus on
studying a longer period of time.
De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) found
in their study that avoidance of relational conflict is most
beneficial for team functioning and team performance. The
current study suggests that it is necessary to uncover the
relational conflict in order to make task conflicts effective.
The presence of trust and openness fostered by the turning
point enhances the quality of constructive task conflict (Van
den Bossche et al., 2006). Overlooking this mechanisms, could
also explain why De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 found that both
task and relational conflict are negative for team
functioning. They found that a small amount of conflict is
good for team performance; however, an increase in intensity
of the conflict is detrimental to the functioning of the team.
It could be that whenever a conflict, no matter which type of
conflict, becomes too intense, a relational aspect of
awareness of perceived differences is experienced. However,
when relational frictions are solved, task conflict can occur
without the emergence of intense negative emotions. In line
with this, the statement that a relational conflict is
unrelated to the task (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn
& Mannix, 2001) can be refuted for the studied teams: it
requires collaboration on the task and task processes for team
members to become aware of incompatibilities and for
irritations and frictions to emerge. Clearing out emotions by
overtly discussing relational conflicts seems to have
beneficial effects. However, occurrence of this confrontation
does not necessarily mean that the collaboration is
safeguarded (cfr. team B). The question remains what triggers
a good outcome of this event and what triggers a bad outcome
both on the long and short term. The three teams reported a
stronger influence of interpersonal processes on task
processes than the other way round. Dysfunctional
interpersonal relations had a detrimental effect on the task
process. However, when they were going good, this had a
positive effect on the task process. The task did not have
this kind of effect on the interpersonal relations. This
emphasises the importance of the quality of these
interpersonal processes. When interpersonal matters are openly
discussed, this openness can also prevent escalation of a
relational conflict. More research is necessary to tap into
the specific timing and characteristics of this turning point.
6.3 Context
of
this study and future research.
The subjects of this study were
functioning within the context of a course that is part of the
curriculum of an educational program. One reason to set up
this type of education is to familiarize students with working
in teams. Within the context of the course, a number of
interventions are organised to enhance collaboration and
facilitate the task process.
This context can be considered as a limitation of the
study, because some of the interventions that are part of the
course set-up are closely linked to some of the identified
turning points. For example, the visit to the client
organisation is a mandatory part of the program for the teams.
In one of the teams this triggered the Aha-experience.
Another example is the openness
of the relational conflicts turning point that was
closely related to the intermediate evaluation with two of the
three teams. The closing event triggered the achievement turning
point in team B. These observations raise the question to what
extent the observed turning points occurred as a natural
aspect of the development of the teams. Given the scope of
this study, it is not appropriate to make statements about
(the absence of) causal effects of interventions. However, it
is a valid observation that these turning points occurred in
the three teams with different triggers, in some cases
related, and in some cases unrelated, to the organised
interventions in context of the course. Further research is
necessary to untangle the complexity of the dynamics of
different influencing factors of the turning points.
The method developed in this study
to identify changes in the emergent states over time can be
used with different purposes in future research. For example,
it can be used to specifically focus on the fluctuations of
one emergent state over time to understand its emergence more
in-depth. Additionally, changes in other aspects of teamwork
can be measured before and after the occurrence of a turning
point. Or interventions can be tested to trigger turning
points and as such foster collaboration. This can contribute
to the entanglement of the complexity of teamwork.
Keypoints
Individual teams
report unique team development paths over time, which is not
in line with the traditional team development models.
The innovative
flexible approach towards team development allows unique paths
of individual teams and provides opportunities to study
generalizability and common grounds.
Openness about
relational conflict is the most important turning point within
the development of student project teams.