Content area
Full text
Abstract In recent years there has been tremendous interest in the benets of using teams in
organizations; particularly in the synergistic effects of team (collective) learning. However, this article questions whether, as yet, the full potential of these synergistic effects has been realized. It explores two concurrent possible reasons for this failing. First, because of deficiencies in the theoretical understanding of the concept of collective learning. Second, that the rather singular, simplistic, methodologies used by organizations to record their collectives ' 'learning' fail to capture sufficiently the nuances of collective processes. Consequently, this article demonstrates the potential of a multifarious approach to valuing the interactions Of members of collectives. At present, organizations do not seem to hold this resource in high regard and hence do not employ appropriate devices to identify and utilize this layer of knowing. The methods they employ often reduce these contributions down to simplistic summaries, often focusing on outcomes, forgoing further layers of knowing. This article argues that this is insufficient if teams/collectives seek to realize improved performance.
Interest in teams' potentials for facilitating organizational effectiveness has been increasing exponentially, this profusion stemming from organizations devoting greater resources to an ever widening number and variety of collectives, particularly in their synergistic contributions to organizational learning (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Nicolini and Meznar, 1996). The other side to this increasing interest is a concern that these collectives rarely fulfil their promise (Dunphy and Bryant, 1996; Hackman, 1987). Certainly, in relation to 'synergy', collectives rarely exceed the sum of their individual efforts (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). The reasons are manifold, but what is considered paramount here is the suggestion that organizations who form these collectives are unable to identify, capture and utilize potential knowing from the multiplicity of processes manifested in meetings.
This article emerged from a research programme carried out by the authors with a team in a leading UK telecommunications firm. The latter almost exclusively employs teams; with many processes being available to manage collective output with employees experienced in collective working. Yet, the researchers felt that there was little appreciation of the processes at work within the project team. Instead, there was only a concern with the final outcome: namely that 'some sort' of working prototype was produced...