Teams that are creatively productive: Exploring the exploitable and exploiting the explorable

The present study examines team processes of exploring and exploiting in inno vation teams, to understand important connections with team development. 51 innovation teams invented a business idea (related to explore), which was to be developed into a viable business plan (related to exploit). The business plans were assessed and divided in a) excellent; b (mediocre); and c (poor). Teams´ internal interactions were evaluated accordingly using qualitative and quantitative studies, in both explore and exploit phase. The top performing teams were found to be highly adaptable to situational demands, continuously challenging each other and demanding a lot from each team member through a disciplined and task-oriented approach. The poorer performers were oriented towards social well-being of the group, creating a supportive atmosphere as a group norm. It is argued that this norm inhibited team innovation performance. This study contributes with knowledge on how to achieve psychological safety in teams to obtain the kind of creativity that is workable – exploring the exploitable and exploiting the explorable

Two teams - the power of group dynamics

This paper reports findings from a pilot study regarding the marked differences in academic and extracurricular performance in two teams at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy. The findings suggest that intelligence (IQ) or General Mental Abilities (GA) do have a say, but the significant differences between the two teams are related to teamwork and cooperation. The data suggest that main drivers for performance are task orientation, caring, engagement and empathy, which was evident in the team with the highest performance. These behavioral markers support other research (Google, 2014; A. Pentland, 2015; Torgersen, 2018) regarding team behavior that boosts team performance. On the other hand, behavior as passivity, selfsufficiency, opposing and spontaneous behaviors was found in the low performance group. The key takeaway is that teams may perform very well if members use fruitful behavior as stated above. This is possible to achieve for most people regardless of their GA. The behavior markers described in this article are perhaps more precise and helpful as trainable skills, skills that require effort on the team’s part to hone and get better at. The data also suggest that proper teamwork can equalize GA differences in teams when it comes to performance

Will an implementation of “Joy of Life in Nursing Homes” have positive effect for the work culture? A comparison between two Norwegian municipalities

publishedVersio

Teams that are creatively productive: Exploring the exploitable and exploiting the explorable

The present study examines team processes of exploring and exploiting in inno vation teams, to understand important connections with team development. 51 innovation teams invented a business idea (related to explore), which was to be developed into a viable business plan (related to exploit). The business plans were assessed and divided in a) excellent; b (mediocre); and c (poor). Teams´ internal interactions were evaluated accordingly using qualitative and quantitative studies, in both explore and exploit phase. The top performing teams were found to be highly adaptable to situational demands, continuously challenging each other and demanding a lot from each team member through a disciplined and task-oriented approach. The poorer performers were oriented towards social well-being of the group, creating a supportive atmosphere as a group norm. It is argued that this norm inhibited team innovation performance. This study contributes with knowledge on how to achieve psychological safety in teams to obtain the kind of creativity that is workable – exploring the exploitable and exploiting the explorable

What characterizes the work culture at a hospital unit that successfully implements change – a correlation study

Background To successfully achieve change in healthcare, a balance between technology and “people ware”, the human recourses, is necessary. However, the human aspect of the change implementation process has received less attention than the technological issues. The aim was to explore the factors that characterize the work culture in a hospital unit that successfully implemented change compared with the factors that characterize the work culture of a hospital unit with unsuccessful implementation. Method The Systematizing Person-Group Relations method was used for gathering and analyzing data to explore what dominate the behavior in a particular work environment identifying challenges, limitations and opportunities. This method applied six different dimensions, each representing different behavior in a work culture: Synergy, Withdrawal, Opposition, Dependence, Control and Nurture. We compared two different units at the same hospital, one that successfully implemented change and one that was unsuccessful. Results There were significant statistical differences between healthcare personnel working at a unit that successfully implemented change contrasted with the unit with unsuccessful implementation. These significant differences were found in both the synergy and control dimensions, which are important positive qualities in a work culture. Conclusion The results of this study show that healthcare personnel at a unit with a successful implementation of change have a working environment with many positive qualities. This indicates that a work environment with a high focus on goal achievement and task orientation can handle the challenges of implementing changes

What characterizes the work culture at a hospital unit that successfully implements change – a correlation study

Abstract Background To successfully achieve change in healthcare, a balance between technology and “people ware”, the human recourses, is necessary. However, the human aspect of the change implementation process has received less attention than the technological issues. The aim was to explore the factors that characterize the work culture in a hospital unit that successfully implemented change compared with the factors that characterize the work culture of a hospital unit with unsuccessful implementation. Method The Systematizing Person-Group Relations method was used for gathering and analyzing data to explore what dominate the behavior in a particular work environment identifying challenges, limitations and opportunities. This method applied six different dimensions, each representing different behavior in a work culture: Synergy, Withdrawal, Opposition, Dependence, Control and Nurture. We compared two different units at the same hospital, one that successfully implemented change and one that was unsuccessful. Results There were significant statistical differences between healthcare personnel working at a unit that successfully implemented change contrasted with the unit with unsuccessful implementation. These significant differences were found in both the synergy and control dimensions, which are important positive qualities in a work culture. Conclusion The results of this study show that healthcare personnel at a unit with a successful implementation of change have a working environment with many positive qualities. This indicates that a work environment with a high focus on goal achievement and task orientation can handle the challenges of implementing changes

Two teams - the power of group dynamics

This paper reports findings from a pilot study regarding the marked differences in academic and extracurricular performance in two teams at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy. The findings suggest that intelligence (IQ) or General Mental Abilities (GA) do have a say, but the significant differences between the two teams are related to teamwork and cooperation. The data suggest that main drivers for performance are task orientation, caring, engagement and empathy, which was evident in the team with the highest performance. These behavioral markers support other research (Google, 2014; A. Pentland, 2015; Torgersen, 2018) regarding team behavior that boosts team performance. On the other hand, behavior as passivity, selfsufficiency, opposing and spontaneous behaviors was found in the low performance group. The key takeaway is that teams may perform very well if members use fruitful behavior as stated above. This is possible to achieve for most people regardless of their GA. The behavior markers described in this article are perhaps more precise and helpful as trainable skills, skills that require effort on the team’s part to hone and get better at. The data also suggest that proper teamwork can equalize GA differences in teams when it comes to performance

Shared cognition in intercultural teams: collaborating without understanding each other

Purpose Severe misunderstandings have been proved to cause significant delays and financial overruns in large engineering projects with teams consisting of people from Western and Asian cultures. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in shared cognition may explain some of the crucial misunderstandings in intercultural production teams. Design/methodology/approach The study has used systematizing the person–group relationship (SPGR) survey methodology, supported by interviews, to study mental models in six South Korean teams that also includes Norwegian engineers (52 individuals). In so doing, the study uses the theoretical framework of Healey et al. (2015), where X-mental representations involve actions that are automated and subconscious and C-mental representations involve actions that are verbalized reasonings and conscious. People may share mental models on the X-level without sharing on the C-level, depicting a situation where teams are coordinated without understanding why (surface discordance). Findings The findings of the study are that people with different cultural backgrounds in an intercultural team may learn to adapt to each other when the context is standardized, without necessarily understanding underlying meanings and intentions behind actions (surface discordance). This may create a perception about team members not needing to explicate opinions (sharing at the C-level). This in turn may create challenges in anomalous situations, where deliberate sharing of C-mental models is required to find new solutions and/or admit errors so that they may be adjusted. The findings indicate that the non-sharing of explicated reasonings (C-mental models) between Norwegians and Koreans contributed in sharing C-mental models, despite having an implicit agreement on how to perform standard tasks (sharing X-mental models). Research limitations/implications The study is limited to Norwegians and Koreans working in production teams. Future studies could benefit from more cultures and/or different team contexts. The authors’ believe that the findings may also concern other standardized environments and corroborate previous perspectives on intercultural teams needing to both train (develop similar X-mental representations) and reflect together (develop similar C-mental representations). Practical implications Based on our findings we suggest the using of cross-cultural training at a deeper level than previously suggested, training in both social interaction patterns as well as verbalizing logical reasoning together. This entails reaching a shared and joint understanding of not only actions but also values, feelings and teamwork functions. This can be enabled by group conversations and training in dynamic team patterns. Important is, however, that standardized contexts may dampen the perception of the need to do both. Originality/value The study contributes to current research on intercultural teams by focusing on a dual-mode perspective on shared cognition, relating these to contextual factors. In this, the authors’ answer the call in previous research for more information on contextual matters and a focus on interaction in intercultural teams. The study also shows how the differences between X-mental and C-mental shared mental models play out in a practical setting