Interventions to stimulate grouplearning in organizations

Valerie I. SessaDepartment of Psychology, Montclair State University,

Montclair, New Jersey, USA, and

Manuel LondonState University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe a model of group learning, examinevariables that stimulate a group to learn and determine the group’s readiness to learn, and providesuggested interventions to enhance group readiness to learn.

Design/methodology/approach – This practical paper, based on a model of group learning andrecent group, learning, and systems literature, examines what triggers groups to learn and whatmakes groups ready to learn, and then suggest interventions to enhance group readiness to learn.Learning requires that the group recognizes variables that trigger learning. These may be pressures oropportunities from outside the group or encouragement and direction from group members. Inaddition, the group needs to be ready to learn when the triggers occur. Readiness to learn is a functionof the group’s maturity, boundary permeability, and learning orientation.

Findings – Based on a review of the literature and the model, the paper suggests ways to diagnoselearning triggers and readiness and propose interventions to increase general readiness to learn as wellas the group’s readiness to learn as the group is forming, when the group makes progress, and as thegroup concludes its work. Finally, the paper presents a case to demonstrate learning triggers and theimportance of readiness to learn.

Originality/value – This paper fulfills an identified need by managers in organizations regardingunderstanding group learning, what triggers it, and how to enhance group readiness to learn andoffers practical help to stimulating a group’s readiness to learn.

Keywords Group working, Group dynamics, Learning

Paper type General review

IntroductionRecognizing that considerable work in organizations gets done in groups, theory andresearch have been directed towards gaining a better understanding of how groupmembers learn how to work together (Edmondson et al., 2001; Kasl et al., 1997;Senge, 1990). However, while practitioners appreciate insights that stem from thisresearch, they also ask, “How do I get my group to be open to learning?” and “How do Iprepare my group to learn in the first place?” This paper considers conditions thatinfluence whether or not, and in what ways, groups learn. In particular, we examinewhat triggers group learning and describe components of readiness of the group torecognize the triggers and set learning in motion, then we suggest diagnostic questionsto assess triggers and readiness and offer interventions to increase readiness when thegroup is forming, at the midpoint transition, and as the group nears completion. Finally,we provide a case study demonstrating how triggers, readiness, and interventionscontribute to group learning (see Appendix).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

JMD27,6

554

Received 26 June 2006Revised 22 January 2007Accepted 26 January 2007

Journal of Management DevelopmentVol. 27 No. 6, 2008pp. 554-573q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0262-1711DOI 10.1108/02621710810877820

BackgroundGroup learning has been defined in a variety of ways. For instance, it has been viewedas an aggregate of individual learning (Druskat and Kayes, 2000; Ellis et al., 2003).According to this view, group learning occurs when individual group members create,acquire, and share unique knowledge and information. It has been defined as a processin which a group takes action, obtains and reflects upon feedback, and makes changesto adapt or improve (Drach-Zahavy and Somech, 2001; Edmondson et al., 2001).According to this perspective, group learning is assumed to occur when a groupengages in behaviors such as asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting,reflecting, and discussing options and errors. Another view, using the ideas of thegroup as a system (Sessa and London, 2006, see also Bion, 1961 for early work ongroups as systems), group learning is a dynamic process in which learning processes,the conditions that support them, the individuals in the group, and group “behaviors”change as the group learns (Argote et al., 2001, Kasl et al., 1997, Sessa and London,2006). For example, Kasl Kasl et al. (1997) suggested that groups progress fromfragmented, individualistic behaviors to synergistic, group-as-a-whole interactionsthat foster continuous learning. In line with this third view, we defined group learningas a deepening and broadening of the group’s capabilities in (re)structuring to meetchanging conditions, adding and using new skills, knowledge, and behaviors, andbecoming an increasingly high performing group through feedback and reflectionabout its own actions and consequences (Sessa and London, 2006).

We can distinguish three types of group learning (Sessa and London, 2006):

(1) Adaptive learning is when the group automatically makes changes in the waymembers interact and the work they do to accommodate environmentaldemands, pressures, or requirements. This often happens without the membersbeing aware that any real changes have been made.

(2) Generative learning is motivated and regulated by the group itself. It happenswhen the group itself and group members acquire new skills, knowledge, andinformation, share this with the other members of the group, and as a group, usethese skills, knowledge, and information to change the group’s goals, tasks, orwork methods.

(3) Transformative learning occurs when the group needs to make a major shiftin its structure, task, or goals to accommodate outside pressures, respond toopportunities, or embark on new directions that are of the group’s choosing.

Triggers for learningTo prepare groups to learn, we need to understand variables that stimulate a group tolearn. The purpose of a group in an organization is to “do something” – to create aproduct, perform a service, solve a problem, make a design, etc. And the group isexpected to do a quality job, in a timely fashion, and on budget. Learning is not usuallyhigh on the group’s agenda as it does its work. The group will typically only learn if itneeds to in order to do its work.

As groups work, they act within a complex environment that bombards them withcontinuous information. Groups need to pick and choose what they will notice out of thiscontinuous flow, or they will be overloaded with information (Starbuck and Milliken,1988). Learning triggers are those pressures, demands, challenges, and opportunities

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

555

that affect the group’s work in some way such that the group cannot continue to workin the same way and be successful.

Organizations can become powerful change agents in the workplace by creatingmore optimal conditions for triggering learning by rendering normal routinesinoperable and then allowing target groups to change in response (Arrow et al., 2000).Organizations can be cognizant of the many current triggers for learning that arepresent in the organization and the form they occur in. Organizations can also bestrategic in designing triggers for learning that are in line with their mission, values,goals, or strategies, or desired changes. And they can make particularly importanttriggers clear, immediate, and forceful enough for groups to notice, pay attention, andmake sense of them from the continuous flow of information they receive. On the otherhand, organizations can recognize that if there are few demands for learning, groupswill pretty much continue doing whatever they are doing. And sometimes that is allthat is necessary.

One caveat we need to make here is that groups can respond to the same triggers inmarkedly different ways. In response to the same trigger, some groups will reactautomatically with minor adjustments; some will alter their structure and behavior;some will seek out new information, knowledge, and skills; and some will not appear torespond at all.

Readiness to learnThe key questions we address next, given the presence of triggers for learning, are whatfactors determine a group’s readiness to recognize that they need to change and learnand what can group leaders, facilitators, and organizational executives do to stimulateand support learning. Readiness to learn is how groups come to recognize that triggersfor learning are occurring and that they need to change and learn something in order toaccomplish their work and then actually make a decision to take some sort of action.Here, we consider three major characteristics of groups that influence their readiness tolearn: maturity, boundary permeability, and learning orientation.

Group maturityAs group members work together, they should experience process gains, meaning theyshould become increasingly effective and produce more than would be possible ifindividual group members worked alone and aggregated their production (Steiner,1972). That is, the collection of individuals begins to operate as a single well oiledmachine in which the group itself is a unique and coherent above and beyond thepeople in it. Group maturity is the process of moving from a simple collection ofindividuals towards a complex and integrated system. In an immature, un-integratedgroup, individuals retain separate views, work on their own, are often not committed tothe group as a whole, and learn on their own. In a fully integrated and mature group,the group works, learns, and makes decisions as a single unit.

To become a holistic system, group members need to develop mutual trust, a sharedmental model, a group identity, cohesiveness, and potency. These characteristics allowgroups to act as single units rather than collections of individuals. First, mutual trust is:

[. . .] the shared perception [. . .] that individuals in the group will perform particular actionsimportant to its members and [. . .] protect the rights and interests of all group membersengaged in their joint endeavor (Webber, 2002, p. 205; cited by Salas et al., 2005).

JMD27,6

556

Without mutual trust, individual group members will spend time and resourcesprotecting, checking, and inspecting each other rather than working together (Cooperand Sawaf, 1996). Second, a shared mental model is the convergence of knowledgestructures possessed by the group members about the group’s task and how groupmembers operate together. This shared set of knowledge facilitates group members’interactions (Fiore et al., 2001). The group needs to maintain this shared understandingat a level that facilitates its working as one.

Third, group identification is the degree to which the group has a clear conception ofitself. This includes the extent to which group members identify with the group anddefine themselves as group members. Is this group membership an important part oftheir existence? Do they take on characteristics (behavioral tendencies and beliefs) ofother team members? This has been called self-construal orientation (Hackman et al.,1999). Group identification also includes cohesiveness which is the glue that holds thegroup together. It occurs as group members develop a sense of task commitment,group pride, and interpersonal attraction (i.e. they enjoy being with the other membersof the group). Within organizations, most employees are pulled in many differentdirections. They have other tasks and may be members of different groups. Groupidentification ensures that the group can stay together over a period of time despite theforces on individual members to utilize their resources in a variety of other tasks.

Finally, group potency and collective efficacy are perceptions regarding groupconfidence or belief in its ability to accomplish goals (Campion et al., 1993, Guzzo et al.,1993, Jung and Sosik, 2003). Without some degree of confidence that the group canperform its job, it is difficult for members to expend time, energy, and other resourcestoward the group and its task.

It is not until group members have mutual trust, a shared mental model, a groupidentity and cohesiveness, and potency in place that group members can be integratedinto a single unit so indeed they are synergistically doing more than any one individualcould do alone. The result of this maturation process is increasing integration. This is atall order for work groups in organizations today – the key point for group leaders,facilitators, coaches, and members themselves to is to strive towards more maturityand integration rather than seeing integration as some sort of end point. As the groupgrows more mature and integrated the group as a whole can be more capable oflearning generatively and transformatively rather than learning being accomplishedand shared by individual members.

Boundary permeabilityAs individuals come together to form an integrated group, they form a boundary aroundthemselves. This boundary helps people (both inside the group and outside of it) determinewhat is the group and what is not the group. Groups need boundaries and their boundariesmust be, to some degree, permeable. One function of the boundary is to buffer and close offthe system to protect it from the environment. However, boundaries also need to allowresource exchange between the group and the environment (Yan and Louis, 1999).Boundary permeability is the ease with which people and resources move into and out ofthe group (Arrow et al., 2000). An optimum balance of permeability is needed for groups tobe ready to learn. Group boundaries need to be sufficiently permeable so that groups canaccess the resources they need but not so permeable that either outside input overwhelmsthe group or group resources are drained from the group (Alderfer, 1980).

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

557

Learning orientationGroups vary in their proactive learning orientation or overall learning propensity(Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002, 2003). Teams with a higher learning orientation aremore ready to learn, that is, they tend to pursue a greater number of new ideas relatedto a wider range of team activities as well as ideas that represent larger digressionsfrom current thinking and practice (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003). Groups that arehigh in learning orientation seek opportunities to develop new skills and knowledgeand devote time to learning, enjoy and take on challenging assignments from whichthey can learn, and are willing to experiment with new ideas.

In summary, we propose that a group’s readiness to learn is a function of thegroup’s maturity, boundary permeability, and learning orientation. These variables areadditive in the sense that one may compensate for another. However, generally,the higher a group is on all of them, the more the group as a whole, not just theindividuals within, is ready to learn. We can use these concepts to diagnose a group’sreadiness to learn.

Diagnosing learning triggers and readiness to learnA group leader, facilitator, or observer can diagnose a group’s general readiness forlearning by answering questions that reveal the group’s recognition of a trigger as wellas their maturity, boundary permeability, and learning orientation. Groups vary overtime in how ready they are to learn and may not always need to be in a high state ofreadiness. Some possible diagnostic questions are listed below:

(1) Does the group recognize learning triggers?. What issues is the group currently addressing? What challenges do group

members articulate?. Do group members mention a target learning trigger – that is, a specific

problem or opportunity? Have they tried to address the issue?

(2) How mature is this group?. Do group members work on their own or retain separate views? Do they

collaborate and make decisions as a single unit? Or are they somewhere inbetween?

. Do the members trust each other? What are some examples? Do membersrespect each other’s opinions? Do group members define themselves asmembers of this group? Are they proud to be members? Are the group’sgoals important to them?

. Do members believe the group can succeed?

. Do members collaborate in getting work done? Do they parcel work out toindividual members? Do they coordinate work and outputs? Do membersshare responsibilities?

. When a decision needs to be made, how do members make the decision?Jointly? By vote? Or does the leader make the decisions?

. Do members depend on each other, or do they work in isolation?

. Do members ask each other how they can improve? Do they give each otherfeedback about their performance? Are they honest and direct with each other,

JMD27,6

558

and if so, do they react positively or do they become angry, hold a grudge,and/or withdraw?

. Are members aware of each other’s background, knowledge, and capabilities?

(3) Are the group’s boundaries sufficiently permeable?. How does the group bring in information from outside of itself? Are they

allowing new information into the group or keeping the group closed?. Does the group welcome instruction from the facilitator or others? Do

members often bring new ideas and information, perhaps from other groups,to the attention of the group members?

. Is the group able to get work done? Or do they spend too much time bringingin new information?

. How does this group handle disturbances? Are there any examples? Werethey ignored, complained about, delegated to someone outside the group orto some one or more members inside the group to take care of, or dealt withdirectly in the group as a whole?

(4) Learning orientation. Does the group generally look for opportunities to develop new skills and

knowledge?. Does the group like challenging and difficult assignments? Is the group

willing to take risks on new ideas in order to find out what works?. Does the group like to work on things that require a lot of skills and ability?

Do members see learning and developing skills as very important?. Is the group able to get work done? Or are they spending too much time

learning?

Enhancing general group readiness to learnIncreasing a group’s readiness to learn entails preparing the group to become adept atrecognizing that a trigger for learning is occurring and making and assessing thechange. Organizations, group facilitators, and group leaders can generally enhanceconditions for groups to become ready to learn by allowing and encouraging groups toregulate themselves as needed, by providing a culture or environment that is conduciveto group working and learning, and by providing groups with adequate feedback.

Designing groups to be self organizing so that they can regulate themselves inresponse to changes in the environment is one way to enhance readiness to learn. Selforganization is the ability of the group to change how, where, and what the group canadd onto, subtract from itself, or change such as adding and changing its structure andsetting, adding new feedback loops, making its own rules, and inventing new ways torespond to information, etc. Self-organization allows the group to evolve and survive ina complex environment (Meadows, 1999) and allows it to become a more maturesystem, control its own boundary permeability, and choose what and when to learn.

Optimizing the environment or culture that the group is working in is another wayto enhance general readiness to learn, although this is particularly difficult to affect(Meadows, 1999). For example, often, work groups find it difficult to obtain thesupports that are needed for them to perform effectively (Wageman et al., 2005).

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

559

As examples, the reward system should provide positive consequences for groupperformance. Group-oriented cultures with group-based reward and recognitionsystems particularly aid in advancing the maturity of the group. Second, theeducational system should make available to the group, at the group’s initiative,technical or educational assistance for any aspects of the work for which members arenot already knowledgeable, skilled, or experienced – including if necessary the honingof members’ skills in working together on collective tasks. Appropriate educationsystems send the message that learning and a learning orientation is an appropriatepart of group work. And third, the information system should provide the group withwhatever data and projections members need to select or invent strategies for carryingout the work that are fully appropriate for the group’s task and situation. Appropriateinformation systems allow groups to open and close their boundaries as they need.

Another way to enhance general readiness to learn is via feedback about the groupand its learning experiences (London and Sessa, 2006). Without feedback, a group canchange but cannot learn beyond adaptation. A group can usually fulfill its purposes ordo its work by a number of paths, so it needs and relies on feedback to regulate itself.Groups use feedback about their actions and choices to determine behaviors thatshould be repeated in the future when the same or similar circumstances arise. Thosethat do not work are dropped from the group’s repertoire or modified until they dowork. Feedback allows the group to become more fully integrated. Feedback alsoallows the group to assess and adjust its boundary permeability. And finally feedbackhelps the group regulate its learning orientation such that members know what andwhen to learn and when learning is not necessarily appropriate.

Facilitating learning at transition pointsIn addition, groups need to learn different things at different stages of their development.When a group begins, members need to learn about each other’s potential contributions.As a group makes progress, it needs to learn effective methods of interaction andoperation. When a group is about to complete its work, it needs to reflect on and capturethe behaviors and interaction patterns that were most effective and perhaps discoverways to improve performance in the future (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Here, weconsider ways to promote learning readiness at the transition points between thesegeneral stages.

Group formationAs a group forms, the early stage is a foundation for how members will work togetherand learn throughout its life cycle (Polzer et al., 2002). The learning goals in the groupformation stage is to allow the group to mature quickly from a collection of individualmembers into an integrated system, appropriate boundaries to gel, and learningorientation to set in so the group can learn what it needs and get to work. In terms oflearning focus, the goals are to encourage individual member learning and sharing ofinformation with each other and to potentiate (to coin a new phrase) holistic grouplearning. With these in place, the group can quickly turn its attention from theindividual members to the group as a whole learning to do the task (Ettin et al., 1997).

Almost immediately, group members may need to adapt to some small differencesfrom what they expected or what worked previously. Individuals may need to adapttheir behaviors and the group may need to adapt its interaction patterns from what

JMD27,6

560

members were used to working in other groups. Essentially, if the group can applywhat was done earlier, follow standard procedures, follow past working relationships,and experience little pressure to do otherwise, then there is no need to be open tochange beyond adaptation. A facilitator can help the group adapt if that is all that isneeded. If more is needed the facilitator can help the group recognize that the knowncourse of action is not working. They can do this by helping the group frame the task,outline conditions, and lead a discussion of areas for improvement from prior groups.Also, the group can be reminded of its ability to get the job done.

Often more than adaptation is needed. The task may be ambiguous. Or the demandsof the task may be to do something new and different. Members have to structure theirown goals and invent methods for achieving them. Perhaps, there are other groups tofollow, maybe outside the organization, that provide best practices. Maybe there arefew if any structured or fool proof methods. This requires seeking information anddiscovering new ways to use it – that is, generative behavior. Are the members readyto seek new information? Are they open to experimentation? Are they waiting forstructure, or creating it themselves?

Even at the start, the group may need to engage in transformative learning.Perhaps, the task is radical and highly unstructured (e.g. find a way to cut expenses,use a new technology, or solve a difficult problem that no one has tackled before). Thisrequires creativity, inventing new and different work methods, and experimentingoutside one’s comfort zone (maybe working with people from other disciplines, treatingpeople who are usually on different organizational levels as equal partners). This mayrequire the group to transform itself even before it has started its work!

Interventions to establish and even increase readiness to learn at this stage mightinclude those listed below:

(1) During group formation. Clarify the importance of the project is to the organization. This can increase

individual members’ motivation to learn.. Provide a clear statement of the problem or opportunity and what is

expected of the group along with information regarding the resources thegroup can utilize (money, training, experts, information, rewards, etc.).This can trigger group learning.

. Describe who is in the group and who is not in the group but accessible to thegroup. Introductions should include why each person was chosen to be in thegroup and any specialized knowledge and unusual capabilities andcompetencies that the individual brings to the group. This helps the group tobegin to establish its boundaries.

. Conduct teambuilding exercises designed to move the group from acollective of individuals into a holistic system. This will help move the groupto higher levels of maturity quickly.

. Review roles of: boundary spanners, ambassadors, and scouts; also, introduceor suggest information and communication technologies to utilize forinformation. This helps the group establish appropriately open boundaries.

. Explain how failure will be viewed (e.g. whether group members will bepunished in some way, held responsible, or viewed poorly if something

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

561

goes awry; or whether the group is encouraged to experiment regardless ofthe outcome). This will help establish a group learning orientation.

(2) As the team progresses through the midway point. Remind the members about the problem or opportunity, what is expected of

the group, and progress toward the group goal. This strengthens, clarifies,and (re) focuses the group.

. Hold a strategy session with the group to discuss any new opportunities orproblems on the horizon and new resources. This will enhance the originaltrigger as well aid the group in ensuring it continues to learn what is needed.(As the organization and the people in it change and learn, triggers mayevolve or change completely in the midst of the group’s work).

. Encourage the group members to actually use the product or service thatthey are developing. This will clarify triggers for learning and well asgenerally enhance learning readiness.

. Facilitate a discussion of group process and progress. Examine whethergroup members trust each other, have a shared understanding of the group’swork, identify with the group, and/or have a sense of cohesiveness andconfidence in doing its work. Discuss remedial actions that may be needed.This prompts readiness to consider new or different behaviors and interactionpatterns.

. Review the appropriateness of the group’s boundaries. Are they appropriatelyscanning the environment for needed information? Are they trying out newthings and receiving feedback from those outside the team?

. Discuss the group’s learning orientation. Is the group still concentrating onlearning when it should now be doing? Or is it attempting to do somethingwhen it does not yet have the necessary structure, knowledge, skills, orbehaviors to accomplish what needs to be done?

(3) Nearing completion. Consider the triggers for learning. Were the appropriate triggers heard and

responded to? Were any important triggers missed? Why? This will help thegroup understand its actions and consider whether they were appropriate.

. Discuss the general readiness to learn. Were group members able to selforganize; were they stymied in some way? Were there organizational culture,structures, and resources in place to help them get their work done as agroup? Did they get needed feedback? This will suggest patterns ofinteractions that worked and should be repeated and those that did not andshould be avoided in the future.

. Review where and how the group adapted to changing circumstances.Did the group actually created knowledge or learned a new skill or behavioras a unit? Did the group transform the way it approached the task? This willhelp the group recognize what they did to bring about changes in theirbehavior in response to pressures and opportunities within and outside thegroup.

JMD27,6

562

For instance, the group leader and/or facilitator can clarify expectations and opportunities,initiate introductions, conduct teambuilding exercises, review members’ roles asboundary spanners, explain consequences of failure, and clarify the importance of thegroup’s work.

As the team progresses through the midway pointAt the group’s midway point, the group needs to assess where it is in terms ofaccomplishing its goals and make adjustments as necessary, including what learningneeds to be done. In terms of readiness to learn, the group leader or facilitator as well asthe group itself can assess how mature it is – is it well on its way to becoming a fullyintegrated system or are members still acting individually; it needs to assure that itsboundaries are appropriate – not so open that the group is floundering or so closedthat needed resources are not coming in; and it needs to determine if its learningorientation is suitable – not so high that the group is concentrating more on learningthan doing and not so low that the group is unable to perform because it has notlearned what it needs to work effectively. And they need to do this quickly andeffortlessly so they can keep their focus on the work and goals at hand. In terms oflearning focus, the appropriate level is holistic group learning, unless the group has notyet matured into a unit as expected, in which case, remedial work based on individuallearning needs to be done.

The focus needs to be on taking action, that is, on group processes that get thingsdone. Adaptive, generative, and/or transformative behaviors and interactions may beneeded. The group may need to recognize disturbance in the environment and dealwith it (e.g. cut costs). They may need new ideas or methods of operation, and askindividual members to explore, bring them to the group, and experiment with them.They may need a major transformation, giving up old goals, taking on newresponsibilities, changing the purpose and methods of the group, disbanding parts ofthe group or merging with other groups. A facilitator can apply the diagnosticquestions we suggested above to determine how ready the group is for adaptive,generative, and transformative learning. Interventions may be needed to make groupready to meet the demands of the environment, opening their boundaries, increasingmutual trust, collective efficacy, and learning orientation, or fostering collaboration,information sharing, and joint decision making. Interventions that promote boundarypermeability, group maturity, and a learning orientation can focus the group on theneed for change and lead to method for adapting, trying new work processes, orrestructuring the group.

Interventions to adjust and focus readiness to learn and actual learning at thistransition point are included in the list above. Examples are reminders about theproblems and opportunities the group is facing and the progress the group is making,discussions strategy, testing the group’s product, having a discussion about groupprocess and progress, reviewing group boundaries, discussing willingness to try newthings for the sake of learning.

Nearing completionAs the group achieves its goals or a phase of its goals, this is a time for reflection onwhat worked well, what did not work well, and what was learned along the way. If thegroup is ending, concluding the group properly helps set the stage for the nextgroup formation – in whatever formation current members work again in the future.

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

563

If the group is staying together and beginning a new task, discussing what worked,what could have been done better, and any learnings will help during their nextformation. In both cases, concluding sets the stage for continuous group learning. Thegoal in the concluding stage is to determine whether what the group “heard” was inline with the organizational triggers, what worked (or did not) during groupmaturation, whether the boundaries were appropriate and why or why not, andwhether the learning orientation was suitable and why or why not. It also includeswhat went well as the group worked on its tasks and what could have been improved.In terms of learning focus, the appropriate level is holistic group learning with asecondary focus on the individual – what are their own takeaways that they can usewith other groups.

Groups that engaged in adaptive, generative, or transformative behavior willhave acquired new interaction patterns. This may be a time for last minuteadjustments or simply saying goodbye. The facilitator can help members recognizethese patterns, codify them (be sure they are written in minutes, for instance), andperhaps practice them for later. At least, the facilitator can review what happenedand lead the group through a discussion of what was done well and what can beimproved – perhaps minor changes or possibly very different ways of going abouttasks like this.

Now, consider some interventions to assess readiness to learn and actual learning atthis transition point. Examples are reviewing the triggers to which the groupresponded initially, considering whether the group was ready to learn at differentstages, and examining how the group adapted to changing circumstances as the workprogressed.

ConclusionThis paper examined conditions that trigger group learning and variables thatcontribute to a group’s readiness to learn. Readiness to learn is the degree to which thegroup recognizes that it needs to change to accomplish its work and has madea decision to take some sort of action. Readiness is contingent upon three factors: agroup’s maturity, its boundary permeability, and its learning orientation. Facilitators,change agents, or the group itself can diagnose and intervene to enhance readiness tolearn at different stages of group development.

Finally, we need to note that sometimes what a group learns can be surprising(Arrow et al., 2000). Learning can lead to other unintended or unanticipatedlearning – that is the learning itself can serve as a trigger for more learningcausing groups to move in directions far different from what the organization oreven group members expected. Groups can learn in response to an expected futuretrigger and appear to respond to actual events before they happen or to events thatnever actually happen. Also, as employees are often members of multiple groups,triggering events, changes, and learning in one group can trigger learning in othergroups as the employee takes the new learnings to the new group, thereby causingeffect on the groups across the organization. We can understand triggers forlearning and prepare our groups to be ready to learn so that as individuals andorganizations, we stimulate and facilitate group learning. But in the end, groupschoose the forces or disturbances that get their attention, and they decide how torespond.

JMD27,6

564

References

Alderfer, C.P. (1980), “Consulting to underbounded systems”, in Alderfer, C.P. andCooper, C.L. (Eds), Advances in Experiential Social Processes, Vol. 2, Wiley, London,pp. 267-95.

Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D. and Naquin, C. (2001), “Group learning in organizations”,in Turner, M.E. (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research, Lawrence Erlbaum &Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E. and Berdahl, J.L. (2000), Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation,Coordination, Development, and Adaptation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bion, W.R. (1961), Experiences in Groups and other Papers, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002), “Why some teams emphasize learning more than others:evidence from business unit management teams”, in Sondak, H. (Vol. Ed.), Mannix, E.A.& Neale, M.A. (Series Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Vol. 4. TowardPhenomenology of Groups and Group Membership, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 49-84.

Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2003), “Management team learning orientation and businessunit performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 552-60.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, J.G. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), “Relations between work groupcharacteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 823-50.

Cooper, R. and Sawaf, A. (1996), Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership andOrganizations, Grosset/Putnam, New York, NY.

Drach-Zahavy, A. and Somech, A. (2001), “Understanding team innovation: the role of teamprocesses and structures”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 111-23.

Druskat, V.U. and Kayes, D.C. (2000), “Learning versus performance in short term projectteams”, Small Group Research, Vol. 31, pp. 328-53.

Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2001), “Disrupted routines: team learning andnew technology implementation in hospitals”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46,pp. 685-716.

Ellis, A.P.J., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Porter, C.O.L.H., West, B.J. and Moon, H. (2003),“Team learning: collectively connecting the dots”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88No. 5, pp. 821-35.

Ettin, M.F., Cohen, B.D. and Fidler, J.W. (1997), “Group-as-a-whole theory viewed in its20th-century context”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 329-40.

Fiore, S.M., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001), “Group dynamics and shared mental modeldevelopment”, in London, M. (Ed.), How People Evaluate others in Organizations, Erlbaum,Mahwah, NJ, pp. 309-36.

Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J. and Shea, G.P. (1993), “Potency in groups: articulating aconstruct”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 87-106.

Hackman, J.R. and Wageman, R. (2005), “A theory of team coaching”, The Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 269-88.

Hackman, M.Z., Ellis, K., Johnson, C.E. and Staley, C. (1999), “Self-construal orientation:validation of an instrument and a study of the relationship to leadership communicationstyle”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 183-94.

Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2003), “Group potency and collective efficacy: examining their predictivevalidity, levels of analysis, and effects of feedback performance on future groupperformance”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 28, pp. 366-91.

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

565

Kasl, E., Marsick, V.J. and Dechant, K. (1997), “Team as learners: a research-based model of teamlearning”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 33, pp. 227-46.

London, M. and Sessa, V.I. (2006), “Group feedback for continuous learning”, Human ResourceDevelopment Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 1-27.

Meadows, D. (1999), Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System, The SustainabilityInstitute, Hartland, VT.

Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P. and Swann, W.B. Jr (2002), “Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonalcongruence in small work groups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 296-324.

Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005), “Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork?”, Small GroupResearch, Vol. 36, pp. 555-99.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,Doubleday, New York, NY.

Sessa, V.I. and London, M. (2006), Continuous Learning in Organizations: Individual, Group, andOrganizational Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Starbuck, W.H. and Milliken, F.J. (1988), “Executives’ perceptual filters: what they notice andhow they make sense”, in Hambrick, D.C. (Ed.), The Executive Effect: Concepts andMethods for Studying Top Managers, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Steiner, I.D. (1972), Group Processes and Productivity, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Wageman, R., Hackman, J.R. and Lehman, E. (2005), “Team diagnostic survey: development ofan instrument”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 41, pp. 373-98.

Yan, A. and Louis, M.R. (1999), “The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level:buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries”, Human Relations, Vol. 52, pp. 25-48.

Appendix. Hospital quality improvement team: a case study of learning triggers,readiness, and group learningCase introductionConcerned about a rising rate of patient infections, the CEO of a hospital formed a committee toinvestigate ways to reduce infections and thereby improve patient outcomes. The CEO invitedDr Timothy Bergmann, head of the infectious disease department in the hospital, to chair thecommittee. The committee would be part of the hospital’s quality improvement process, whichwas an on-going effort to improve operations and outcomes in all departments. Similar to otherexisting quality improvement teams, the infection rate committee would consist ofrepresentatives from different departments and functions. A group facilitator would beassigned to the committee from the hospital’s quality improvement department. The facilitatorassigned to the group, Patricia Worth, was a professional organization development expert whowas used to helping groups implement a step-by-step quality improvement process.Dr Bergmann met with Patricia and the hospital CEO to identify other members of this newquality improvement team. They selected 15 people, including four other physicians, twophysician assistants, three registered nurses, two lab technicians, a pharmacist, and threemembers of the house staff who represented cleaning services, waste management, and foodservices. The team consisted of 17 people in total, including the chair and facilitator.

During the time the committee was being formed, Dr Bergmann became aware of a nationaleffort to reduce hospital infection rates and he submitted a proposal to become part of thisconsortium of hospitals. The consortium was funded by a Federal health agency. The grantwould provide funds for the committee to attend a regional meeting of similar committees fromother hospitals to be trained on elements of group process and build an effective team as well asprovide a vehicle for sharing quality improvement initiatives and results.

JMD27,6

566

In terms of general readiness to learn, some of the pieces are already in place. This group willbe part of an organization that already has a group mindset in that it regularly uses qualitygroups. Group members were carefully selected to represent diversity and a designated groupleader and group facilitator are in place. It remains to be seen regarding how much the group willbe allowed to self organize and change and regulate itself and how much and what kind offeedback it will received from the organization.

Group formationDuring the first meeting of the team, Dr Bergmann described the purpose of the group, andPatricia described the quality improvement process. The process would consist of collecting dataon various infection rates, deciding which infections were most problematic and focusing onthem first, tracking patient experiences to pinpoint the sources of the target infections,determining alternative ways the infections may have occurred, examining root causes as well asdiagnosis and treatment methods, suggesting changes in hospital procedures that would reducethe infection rate and/or catch and treat infections earlier before they spread, and trackingresults. Patricia would help the team determine methods for data collection, problem and rootcause analysis, brainstorming, and discussions. She would also help the group duringdiscussions so they raise and resolve conflicts and do not get bogged down in unproductivediscussions. Six group members had participated in other quality improvement teams, sothey were acquainted with the process. None of the physicians had participated in a qualityimprovement team before. The statement of the problem and the description of the qualityimprovement process provided the early triggers for learning.

Also during the first meeting, group members introduced themselves, described theirbackgrounds, and listened intently to the Pat and Dr Bergmann. The CEO attended the firstmeeting. He gave each member an annual report published by the media of all area hospitals’success rates that showed that maximizing patients’ positive outcomes was critical to thehospital’s competitiveness. Infection control was not the only issue, certainly, but it was thecornerstone of positive outcomes in almost every area of the hospital. His presence as well asthe annual report emphasized the importance of the effort. He expressed his confidence in thegroup and his gratitude to the members for agreeing to take time from their busy schedules toparticipate. He said that the group should continue their effort for as long as it takes to make adifference. He expected that they would meet regularly (without specifying what that meant) forsix to nine months. The CEO’s presence made the triggers for learning more immediate andforceful as well as motivating the group to do its important work.

After the CEO left, two of the members, Margaret Fine, a surgeon, stated that she had verylimited time and that she knew what needed to be done in the surgical unit to reduce infections.Jerome Flaherty, a pediatric oncologist, agreed and rushed off to handle an emergency call.The two other physicians then had a discussion with the chair as if no one else were in the room.One of them, Harold Siler, the head of internal medicine, was new to the hospital, and said that allthey needed to do was what he had done at his former hospital. He proceeded to describe thegreat successes he had had and how they could succeed here by simply following the methods hehad instituted elsewhere. The other members of the team were too intimidated to speak.Readiness to learn at this point was low. The group was un-integrated and boundary-less with anorientation around demonstrating competence rather than learning.

Pat, a bit overwhelmed with the size of the group and the strong wills of the doctors, satquietly observing. She thought that she would talk to Tim Bergmann after the meeting to reviewwhat happened and plan ahead. The meeting had been scheduled for an hour, and when the hourwas over, Tim thanked the members and said that he would be in touch soon about the time andlocation for the next meeting. Pat and Tim scheduled time to meet the next day.

When Pat and Tim met to debrief, Tim reviewed a letter he received from theconsortium coordinator inviting the team from four hospitals to meet in a nearby city for atraining session. One day would be technical, with a review of the infection control literature

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

567

and successful intervention. Two full days would be spent on teambuilding, communication,conflict resolution techniques, and quality improvement methods. The materials and data sentby the consortium consultants showed that this team’s initial interactions (or lack there of) werenot unusual compared to other hospitals. The letter also indicated that there had already beentwo other groups of hospitals in other regions of the country that had participated successfully inthis training.

Although this training session was just what the team needed to begin team integration andset the stage for learning, Pat and Tim wondered if members of the group would participate.Would they take the time to attend the kick-off training session? Would they treat it seriously?

At the next meeting, they had 100 percent attendance, remarkably. Tim described theconsortium and the plan for the training session that would take place in six weeks. This wasenough time for most members to clear their calendars for the three days. Pat emphasized thatthose who attended needed to commit for the total three days and that it was important for theirteam to make a good showing. Thirteen of the team members said they would be available,including four of the physicians (Harold, Margaret, Jerome, and Tim). Pat said she would be intouch with the team members by email to make travel arrangements, and the team would notmeet again until the consortium training meeting. Seeing that so many team members wereparticipating in the training session, three other members cleared their schedules, so all but oneof the members (one of the doctors) attended.

Tim indicated that this was a tremendous investment of time and resources for the hospital,and it showed the CEO commitment to the consortium and the importance of making a realdifference in infection control. This could be a key element in improving patient outcomes for thehospital. At this point, the group was demonstrating that it had received the triggers to learn andwas now beginning to show signs of readiness to learn what it needed to do its task compared toits first meeting only one week ago. It is difficult to determine what happened during thatweek to cause this to happen so dramatically, demonstrating that groups do act in unanticipated(and unintended) ways.

At the consortium, team members found the technical presentations interesting. Since theywere so diverse, some team members, including the doctors, had trouble following the details inareas outside their expertise. The consultant moderated question and answer sessions andencouraged everyone to raise issues that were unclear and to have the experts explainprocedures and findings in terms that everyone could understand. The cases demonstrated thatpeople from different disciplines and different levels on the hierarchy contributed to infectioncontrol in different ways and that all team members needed to understand and appreciate thevalue of these differences. The next two days consisted on more cases and role plays withdiscussions about how to raise and resolve conflicts. Emphasis was placed on all team membersputting aside their positions in the hospital hierarchy and treating each other as equals. Onesmall group exercise assigned people to different roles than they were used to. Physicians had totake on the roles of nurses and cleaning staff and vice versa. Also, the teams met together to getto know each other as individuals. They were asked to share some aspects of their personal lives,for instance, where they were raised, their favorite food, and hobbies.

Overall, the training session went better than Tim and Pat expected. Having other teamspresent and being under the watchful eye of the funding agency may have contributed to thepositive group climate that developed during the three days. Pat wondered whether this wouldcontinue. At this point, the group was enroute to becoming a holistic and integrated group.A shared mental model was developing. Since the group was on its own for a few days, itsboundaries were solidifying and it was becoming a self organizing system. And finally the groupwas establishing its learning orientation. However, group members were still learning asindividuals, but that is to be expected at this point in the group’s maturation process.

The team met a week after they returned from training. Members seemed happy to see eachother again. They chatted before the meeting, asking about family and projects theywere working on – information about each other that they had shared during their time away.

JMD27,6

568

When the group convened, members seemed energized. Tim summarized what went on for thephysician who missed the session and to remind everyone. Pat reviewed the qualityimprovement process. All members commented in particular on how glad they were for thediverse group as they had been unaware of how little they each individually knew about thetechnical aspects of infection. Pat and Tim exchanged a quick smile during this interchange.Their team was already starting to recognize each other’s potential contributions.

Margaret made a suggestion that the group meet daily for “lightening” rounds, using thetraditional early morning grand rounds as a parallel. If they met bi weekly for a two hourmeeting and 15 minutes daily, they might make rapid progress. Some people might miss asession here or there, but they would not miss much, and they could easily catch up. This way,they would keep things moving and maintain the sense of urgency. Harold Siler, the new fellowwho seemed to have all the answers and little patience at the first meeting, said he was willing totry this if everyone agreed, which they did.

Pat and Tim were gratified that the group had begun to move from a collection of individualsto a maturing and self-organizing team, and they were cautiously optimistic about the individualmember’ and group’s readiness to learn and already small demonstrations of learning – learningto be a team including ideas for structure and process, learning about the quality process, andlearning about infection rates and how to lower them. Both knew that keeping the momentumgoing in such a large group of professionals would be difficult, especially because each of themhad substantial pressures to cope with on their jobs.

As the team progressed through the midway pointThe collaborative climate continued in the brief daily meetings. Pat and Tim had a brief agendawaiting each morning. The group began by establishing a data collection and analysis method toidentify major types of infections. Using suggestions by Pat based on her knowledge of qualityimprovement, the group analysis showed that bloodstream infections were most frequent(32 percent) followed by ventilator-associated pneumonia (22 percent) and urinary tract infections(17 percent). Others were less frequent (for example, lower respiratory infection, 10 percent;gastrointestinal, 7 percent; and surgical-site infections, 5 percent). As per their original charge tofocus on the most problematic infections first, the group decided to start with bloodstreaminfections. They spent four weeks and two two-hour meetings on the subject. All members,regardless of position, engaged in generative learning by reviewing their literatures and reportinglearnings back to the group. The group discovered quite a bit of literature across a variety ofdisciplines on infection control methods in bloodstream. Also, Dr Siler was very helpful since hisformer hospital had already conducted major efforts in these areas and had some success.Together, the group discovered that bloodstream infections arose primarily from the range ofinvasive methods for taking blood samples, giving transfusions, and surgical complications.

The team adapted by splitting into three subgroups to examine the processes involved ineach of these areas. They invited experts from appropriate departments to brief the group oneach of these. They decided to four changes in procedures that should be implemented and thechanges in infection rates tracked. The new methods dealt with the sterility of equipment in thelabs, emergency room, operating rooms, and patient floors, and the cleanliness of phlebotomists,nurses, lab technicians, and physicians. They developed a protocol for different procedures andprocesses. Then they designed a controlled experiment which randomly selected departments toimplement the changes and others to maintain current procedures so they could compareoutcomes.

Although the team had invited other experts to provide them with information, the teamdesigned the new methods without consultation back to the departments that would have toadminister them. They simply sent a memo indicating the new procedures. The team moved onto another topic as they waited for results from the first two months of the trial.

The data showed no difference in infection rates. Puzzled, the team invited members from thedifferent experimental groups to a meeting to discuss what happened. Basically, the memo and

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

569

changes were ignored. The changes were too much trouble, and no one had the time, or took thetime, to study them. So nothing changed. The team discovered the hard way that it needed toadjust its boundaries. It had done well bringing what it needed into the team but had not done aswell getting needed information and resources out of the team to the larger environment. Theyneeded to be more sensitive to the personnel in the departments if they were to successfully altertargeted behavior. Dr Siler was especially frustrated by what he perceived as the lack ofcooperation, and he blamed Margaret Fine from surgery for not getting her colleagues on board.This was not a pleasant interchange. However, the friction lasted only a few minutes. Dr Finewas not the type of person to hold a grudge, and Pat and the two lab technicians convincedHarold Siler that this was a pervasive problem that went well beyond the surgeons.

They realized that participants in the trial would need to be convinced of the importance ofreducing infection rates and would need training to learn how to do so. This lead to another twomonth trial preceded by training by the hospital’s training staff and visits from the qualityimprovement team. The second trial showed a 50 percent reduction in infection rates, and thenew procedures were implemented in the control groups, preceded by the same training andattention from the improvement team.

At this point, the group was 6 months of the nine months of their original charge from theCEO, and meeting bi-weekly. They felt that they had begun to make substantial progress eventhough they had a two month setback. In addition, members indicated to Pat and Tim theirgratefulness to the CEO and other hospital members that their original “mistake” had not raisedmuch negative attention and that they felt supported . . . though in retrospect they could notbelieve that they had been so cavalier in their attitude.

Interestingly, during the time the team members were completing their review and design ofmethods to control bloodstream infections (about six weeks into the quality improvementprocess after returning from the consortium kick-off), the CEO surprised the group by a visit atone of the daily lighting rounds. He had data that showed a sudden increase in ventilatorinfections. He knew this was second on the team’s list, and he wanted the team to get to itimmediately. This was a forceful new learning trigger that the team needed toaddress immediately. They convinced the CEO to let them finish their implementation of thebloodstream infection control methods and promised him they would shift their focus to theventilator infections in about two weeks.

With the first bloodstream trial underway, the group held a two-hour meeting to examine theventilator issue. They asked for a presentation from the head of the respiratory therapydepartment, and they invited two respiratory therapists to join the team temporarily while theyaddressed this issue. At this point, the team was continuing its morning lightening rounds foranother two weeks, but attendance had started to dwindle, and the group abandoned them. Theymaintained their previously established bi-weekly schedule of two-hour meetings. However, sixmembers (the two lab techs, the pharmacist, the waste management and the cleaning servicesstaff person, and the food services representative, who was a nutritionist) said they would dropout temporarily because they felt they had little to contribute to the ventilator issue. Therespiratory therapists immediately disagreed, arguing that all these areas could have an effect onhow patients on ventilators were treated.

Jerome Flaherty, the pediatric oncologist, suggested that Tim and Pat create a subgroup todeal with this issue and report back to the entire team in two weeks, since time was of theessence. Tim asked the two respiratory therapists, Margaret Fine, and a lab technician to formthe subgroup. Margaret refused, saying she did not have time. No one else volunteered.

The team needed to transform quickly. One of the respiratory therapists said he would ask aphysician she worked with and a physician’s assistant to join their subcommittee. At the nextbi-weekly meeting, the members of the subcommittee were present, but they had nothing toreport. Tim was dismayed at their lack of progress. He had forgotten what it took to get theoriginal group started and how far it had come. Pat pointed out to him that he had notasked anyone to lead the subcommittee, and maybe he should so someone would take control.

JMD27,6

570

Tim took it for granted that the two respiratory therapists would do this jointly, however, theyhad not had the benefit of being part of the quality improvement team, and they apparently didnot feel empowered to take control. So Tim made an explicit appointment, asking the moreexperienced respiratory therapist to lead the subcommittee and report back at the next bi-weeklymeeting.

The next meeting started with the review of the bloodstream data from the first trial, and thisoccupied all the time of the group. The entire two hours (and an additional half hour) was takenup mulling over the data and deciding that they needed more active training to gain thecommitment of a new set of experimental departments for the second bloodstream trial. Theventilator subgroup had worked hard to prepare, and after the meeting, the respiratory therapistTim had asked to be in charge complained that all their work went for nothing. Tim assured herthis was not the case and that the group was very concerned, given the CEO’s directive, andwould devote the next meeting to the subgroup’s findings and recommendations.

At that meeting, now four months into the continuous quality improvement effort, theinfection control group listened to the ventilator subcommittee’s report. Despite appearances ofthe original group’s integration and maturity, the addition of new members actually caused thegroup to become less integrated and this was apparent during the meeting. Harold Siler seemedto have little patience for their report. He said they were way off base – that their data werewrong and their examination of the literature missed some important studies in the medicalliterature. The respiratory therapists were taken aback, and the new people they had asked tojoin their subgroup were insulted. They said nothing in the meeting but complained to Patafterward and said they would quit the group. Tim, listening to this, immediately smoothedthings out by reiterating the importance of the effort, how much the CEO was counting on them,and that they really needed their involvement.

Tim also engaged in a little one-on-one remedial group development by meeting privatelywith Harold Siler to listen to his reasoning and remind him that the therapists did not have hisbackground and training, yet they had considerable field experience. He asked that he be open tohearing them out and also that he would share his knowledge at the next meeting. Harold wasnot easy to convince. He reminded Tim that he was the head of a key department, internalmedicine, and that he could not waste his time listening to respiratory therapists. Tim reviewedthe experience they had during the consortium training and stated that the success of their teamdepending on recognizing and valuing each person’s contribution. Harold agreed to come to thenext meeting prepared to listen and educate.

During the next meeting, they heard the results of the second bloodstream trial. Everyonewas anxiously anticipating the results, and again, the vent project seemed to get short-shrift. Therespiratory therapists sat quietly in the back during the first hour during which the team intentlyreviewed the results and then congratulated themselves on their success.

When they said they needed to now focus on ways to maintain and extend the reductions theyhad achieved in bloodstream infections, Tim interrupted the group and reminded them they hadanother pressing concern, and he quickly asked the members of the ventilator subgroup to cometo the head of the table. Harold Siler was already sitting there next to Tim. After Tim’s talkweeks earlier, Harold met with the subgroup during several of their meetings, and gave themsome ideas based on his knowledge of ventilator-associated pneumonia. He seemed to havedeveloped a rapport with the respiratory therapists again allowing the group to move backtowards integration. The subgroup explained several steps they could change in monitoringpatients on ventilators that may get at major causes they had identified for the onset of infection.They recommended a protocol that would train the therapists on the new procedure. They didnot feel they needed a controlled experiment since other hospitals were beginning to followsimilar procedures and had reported positive benefits.

At this point, the group (despite a setback or two) was integrated. They were still tryingto set appropriate boundaries that allowed needed information to flow in and out – but theywere aware of their shortcomings and were working on correcting them. Their learning

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

571

orientation was also appropriate. They were experimental, yet getting work completed. In termsof general readiness to learn, the group was self organizing – structuring, restructuring, andadding new members as the group deemed necessary and doing its work in the process andmanner it deemed useful. As far as we can tell, they were supported with needed resources in theorganization. They could have perhaps had better feedback systems in place, although the onesthey were using were working. In terms of readiness to learn what was needed at the midpoint oftheir task, Pat and Tim had worked “behind the scenes” to keep the group on track rather thanhave the group as a whole discuss its progress. The group was clearly demonstrating learning.For a few examples, they were learning generatively about blood stream infections andventilator associated pneumonia. The group was adapting as needed to work pressures bydividing, and re-dividing into subgroups. And it was engaged in a group transformation as newmembers were added.

Nearing completionThe group seemed on a roll. In just over six months, they had tackled two major sources ofinfection. Although the CEO had estimated a 6-9 month timeframe, they knew their work wasjust beginning. There were other areas to address, and the need for continuous improvement inall infectious control areas. Pat asked Tim to set aside the first hour of the next bi-weeklymeeting to lead the group in a discussion of what they had accomplished, what they had learnedalong the way, and how supportive the organization, Pat and Tim, and the group itself had beenin allowing needed learning to happen.

Of course, the group members were feeling pretty good about their accomplishments. Theyfelt that they were accomplishing their work successfully. They felt they were working as acollaborative team. While they had their disagreements, they were able to address them head-onand move forward.

They had learned quite a bit about infectious diseases and ventilator-related infections from avariety of different perspectives. They had learned how to respond to outside pressures (e.g. fromthe CEO who wanted progress on reducing ventilator-related infections) and how to work withother groups – not take it for granted that departments would follow their recommendations justby sending them a memo indicating a change in procedure. They learned how to balance theirtime by setting priorities and focusing on an issue until they made progress. They also thankedPat for her teaching them the various elements of the continuous quality improvement process,such as collecting objective data about problems, their potential sources, and the effects ofinterventions. They used a round robin method to be sure everyone who wanted to have a chanceto express an opinion about whatever issue they were discussing. They voted on the alternativesand established data collection methods for feedback about success rates of their variousinterventions. Several participants said they had already started to use these methods in theirhome departments, teaching them to their colleagues.

In terms of allowing learning to take place (triggers for learning and readiness to learn), teammembers had to think this through a bit more as they had never addressed these issues. From thebeginning, it was pretty clear what their charter was and it motivated them that the members hadbeen specially selected by the CEO, Pat, and Tim for such an important project. They wereparticularly grateful for the three day offsite that allowed them to get know each other and begin tocome together as a team. Some members indicated that they were thankful for Pat and Tim’s“behind the scenes” work that allowed them to continue to mature as a team through out the projectand many group members agreed that this was one of the most integrated teams they had everbeen on. Group members chuckled over their learning about boundaries – how careful they were toensure they brought all needed information into the group but forgot about allowing informationto flow well the other direction. Many members said that they would never make that mistakeagain in other groups. Finally group members discussed their learning orientation. Theythought that they had hit it just right. They learned so much about so many things, yet theylearned as they were working and accomplishing their task. Both happened almost seamlessly.

JMD27,6

572

The group ended their reflections of their accomplishments, their learnings, and their readiness tolearn with a bit of surprise. They knew that they had accomplished high quality and importantwork, but they had not realized how much important work and learning they were doing in order toget that work done.

What could have been a large, diverse group fraught with mistrust and intolerance turnedinto a mature group that worked and learned as an integrated system, regulating its ownboundaries, and regulating what it needed to learn and when. With high readiness to learn inplace, the group was able to perform its work successfully.

About the authorsValerie I. Sessa is an Assistant Professor of Industrial and Organizational Psychology atMontclair State University in New Jersey. Previously, she was a research scientist at the Centerfor Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. Her research interests are in the areas ofexecutive assessment and selection, continuous learning, and group development. Valerie I. Sessais the corresponding author and can be contacted at: sessav@mail.montclair.edu

Manuel London is a Professor and Director of the Center for Human Resource Managementin the Harriman School for Management at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.His research interests focus on leadership development and how people learn about themselvesand others in organizations.

Interventionsto stimulate

group learning

573

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.