The Joint Influence of Intra- and Inter-Team Learning Processes on Team Performance: A Constructive or Destructive Combination?

In order for teams to build a shared conception of their task, team learning is crucial. Benefits of intra-team learning have been demonstrated in numerous studies. However, teams do not operate in a vacuum, and interact with their environment to execute their tasks. Our knowledge of the added value of inter-team learning (team learning with external parties) is limited. Do both types of team learning compete over limited resources, or do they form a synergistic combination? We aim to shed light on the interplay between intra- and inter-team learning in relation to team performance, by including adaptive and transformative sub-processes of intra-team learning. A quantitative field study was conducted among 108 university teacher teams. The joint influence of intra- and inter-team learning as well as structural (task interdependence) and cultural (team efficacy) team characteristics on self-perceived and externally rated team performance were explored in a path model. The results showed that adaptive intra-team learning positively influenced self-perceived team performance, while transformative intra-team learning positively influenced externally rated team performance. Moreover, intra-team and inter-team learning were found to be both a constructive and a destructive combination. Adaptive intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning led to increased team performance, while transformative intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning hurt team performance. The findings demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between both the scope (intra- vs. inter-team) and the level (adaptive vs. transformative) of team learning in understanding team performance

Managing formalization to increase global team effectiveness and meaningfulness of work in multinational organizations

Global teams may help to integrate across locations, and yet, with formalized rules and procedures, responsiveness to those locations’ effectiveness, and the team members’ experiences of work as meaningful may suffer. We employ a mixed-methods approach to understand how the level and content of formalization can be managed to resolve these tensions in multinationals. In a sample of global teams from a large mining and resources organization operating across 44 countries, interviews, observations, and a quantitative 2-wave survey revealed a great deal of variability between teams in how formalization processes were enacted. Only those formalization processes that promoted knowledge sharing were instrumental in improving team effectiveness. Implementing rules and procedures in the set-up of the teams and projects, rather than during interactions, and utilizing protocols to help establish the global team as a source of identity increased this knowledge sharing. Finally, we found members’ personal need for structure moderated the effect of team formalization on how meaningful individuals found their work within the team. These findings have significant implications for theory and practice in multinational organizations

Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior:The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification

A questionnaire study of 129 members of 20 multidisciplinary project teams examined the relationship between informational dissimilarity and both team identification and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) for individuals working under different interdependence configurations. Results revealed that under congruent low-low and high-high combinations of task and goal interdependence, informational dissimilarity was unrelated to team identification and OCB. By contrast, under incongruent low-high and high-low combinations of task and goal interdependence, informational dissimilarity was negatively related to team identification and OCB. Team identification partially mediated the relationships between the predictors and OCB

Facilitating Team Learning in Organisations

Teams in organizations are increasingly seen as an important level and leverage for innovation and change, because they can help to let individual ideas develop into new institutional practices and support the cascading of new developments into the organization. This, in turn, can lead to the necessary innovation and change. However, why do some teams perform really well and others not? A trustworthy predicting variable of team performance is team learning. A vast amount of research has been done on this topic. However, as researcher being involved in team learning research differences between results found in quantitative and qualitative research were noticed. Main aims of this chapter was on the one hand to make an inventory of antecedents influencing team learning and on the other hand to see whether there are differences between results found in quantitative and qualitative studies. Results show that many antecedents could be identified, based on both quantitative and qualitative research. And as expected there are significant differences between both strands of research. Whereas quantitative research mainly focusses on testing hypotheses of antecedents influencing team learning, qualitative research tries to unravel mechanisms on how these antecedents work and how team learning processes are influenced. Majority of the research belongs to the quantitative strand, whereas there are major questions open that only can be answered by means of qualitative research

Pattern of follow-up care and early relapse detection in breast cancer patients

Item does not contain fulltextRoutine breast cancer follow-up aims at detecting second primary breast cancers and loco regional recurrences preclinically. We studied breast cancer follow-up practice and mode of relapse detection during the first 5 years of follow-up to determine the efficiency of the follow-up schedule. The Netherlands Cancer Registry provided data of 6,509 women, operated for invasive non-metastatic breast cancer in 2003-2004. In a random sample including 144 patients, adherence to follow-up guideline recommendations was studied. Mode of relapse detection was studied in 124 patients with a second primary breast cancer and 160 patients with a loco regional recurrence. On average 13 visits were performed during the first 5 years of the follow-up, whereas nine were recommended. With one, two and three medical disciplines involved, the number of visits was 9, 14 and 18, respectively. Seventy-five percent (93/124) of patients with a second primary breast cancer, 42 % (31/74) of patients with a loco regional recurrence after breast conserving surgery and 28 % (24/86) of patients with a loco regional recurrence after mastectomy had no symptoms at detection. To detect one loco regional recurrence or second primary breast cancer preclinically, 1,349 physical examinations versus 262 mammography and/or MRI tests were performed. Follow-up provided by only one discipline may decrease the number of unnecessary follow-up visits. Breast imaging plays a major and physical examination a minor role in the early detection of second primary breast cancers and loco regional recurrences. The yield of physical examination to detect relapses early is low and should therefore be minimised