Building leadership and understanding in teams.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory investigation of team units in a graduate management course at a New York university. The fourteen participants were managers and aspiring leaders enrolled primarily in an MBA program. In the classroom, teams are often formed haphazardly and not intentionally based on research tested instruments. A research-based educational model and instrument was applied to the teams. Results indicated that formulating teams according to students' learning patterns had value for the instructor and participants. Learning pattern theory seemed to be the "ice-breaker" that helped students relate to one another, expedite the assigning of specific roles and responsibilities to team members and share leadership on their teams.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory investigation of teams in a graduate management course. The adult participants were managers and aspiring leaders enrolled primarily in an MBA program. They engaged in experiential action research and applied an educational model and instrument to their team units. Participants were from various professions, including business, education, banking, engineering, sports and health care.

Theoretical Framework and Practical Significance

Adults are returning to professional schools in large numbers to improve their leadership and management skills. The disciplines of leadership and management weave across many professions (Drucker, 1999). Regardless of the discipline, the use of teams has become increasingly popular in classrooms and at worksites. Team theorists posit that individual capabilities are extended and extraordinary results are achieved within teams (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Kline, 1999; Leavitt & Lipman-Blumen, 1995; Senge, 1990; Thompson, 2000). Unfortunately, when individuals work in teams, teams also fail and when this happens, the results can be disastrous for the organization and disappointing for team members (Kline, 1999). Instructors have been criticized for not guiding their students when they work in team units so that team skills, interpersonal interactions and leadership capabilities are improved (Bolton, 1999). Adults have been acculturated with assumptions and beliefs that affect their behaviors and how they interact in teams. Because of this, individuals may experience a tension or dilemma when they serve on a team (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Pacanowsky, 1995; Thompson, 2000). Like a stretched rubber band, the individual, depending upon the strength of the tension, is pulled toward or away from the team unit.

The theoretical framework for the study was Johnston's (1996, 1998) Interactive Learning Model (ILM). Diverse teams were structured using Johnston & Dainton's (1996, 1997) research based Learning Combination Inventory (LCI). Very often, instructors do not formulate teams with intention. Instead, team formation is haphazard and not based on research-tested instruments. Therefore, Johnston's ILM and LCI principles were introduced to students at the beginning of the course (Let Me Learn website: www.letmeleam.org). Johnston posits it is possible to transfer learning that is individually based to learning that is team based by developing an understanding of four interactive learning patterns: Sequence, Precision, Technical Processing, and Confluence. According to Johnston (1998), Sequence seeks to "follow step-by-step directions, organize and plan work carefully, and complete the assignment from beginning to end free from interruptions" (24). In Precision, the learner "takes detailed notes, asks questions to find out more information, knows exact answers, and reads and writes in a highly specific manner" (25). Through the Technical Reasoning pattern, "we see the mechanics of operations, the functions of pieces; we construct, we mull, we make it work, we get it done" (27). Confluence "gives us permission to start before all directions are given; take a risk, fail, and start again; use imaginative ideas and unusual approaches; and improvise" (29).

Furthermore, in the field of business, the team model seems to focus on product or performance outcomes (external process), while in education, the team model seems to emphasize cooperative teamwork values (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). In a management class, there seems to be a need to balance product and performance outcomes with teamwork values (internal process) so that students improve their soft skills (communication, decision-making, cooperation) regarding teams. Therefore, the intention in this course was to evaluate external team outcomes, while also exploring internal team aspects. The instructor's course goals (external) were to have each team complete a project task, which included a team policy paper and an extensive technological team presentation with peer and outside evaluators (Topping, 1998). Internal course goals included open communication, interaction of all team members and positive team closure.

Research Design

Because there are many variables involved in team research, it sometimes seems ambiguous (Kline, 1999). Most team research is quantitatively based and researchers intentionally limit variables. Applying a qualitative design to this study seemed to provide a deeper investigation regarding what happened to all fourteen participants as they interacted in their teams. Because the investigation of diverse teams can be unwieldy, Miles & Huberman's (1994) qualitative structured guidelines were applied. Action-research or putting theory into action in the classroom builds on the qualitative approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). An instructor conducts it directly in the classroom in order to improve teaching and learning and to close the gap between theory and practice (Mills, 2003). Technology was emphasized. In addition to interacting in the classroom, students interacted through e-mail messaging, chat rooms and off-site locations. The modal team size in regard to small group research is to have five members per team (Thompson, 2000). There were two teams of five and one team of four team members. Students who represented or led by each of the learning patterns were placed and balanced across the teams. Aspects of Johnston's interactive learning process were demonstrated at the beginning of the course so as to provide students with a learning focus on their teams. Class and team members' learning patterns were shared; the instructor's learning pattern was also shared.

Methods and Data Analysis

Methods were triangulated to provide trustworthiness of the data in regard to credibility and dependability. These methods included a pre-tested quantitative inventory (n = 96) to assess students' dispositions towards teams (pre and post inventories were compared for each team member), weekly updates from all team members through e-mail and in-person (these were tracked and coded) and interviews (Kvale, 1996) when the course ended. Inventory questions were Likert scale and open-ended. Interview questions were semi-structured; taped interviews lasted from 30 minutes to two hours.

Additional methods included evaluative questionnaires at strategic points and photographs as visualized back-up data. Bogdan & Biklen (1998) assert that the taking of photographs by participants provides additional insight for researchers regarding how participants construct meaning regarding their experiences. Team members were given disposable cameras. Reflective exercises (Johnston, 1996; 1998; Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993) were utilized in order to expand the focus of the teams to include the team process as well as the team product. Reflective techniques included the sharing of autobiographies, examination of assumptions about teams, summarizing the team process in an end-term paper and a formal class review of team photographs at the last class meeting.

The instructor was the action researcher, but each student was also an action researcher as each adult on each team presented an individual analysis. These methods became the data sources. They were chronicled and analyzed for themes, patterns, actions, events and surprises (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These various methods enabled the instructor to collect multiple perspectives from team members regarding the use of the LCI/ILM in the team. By questioning individuals on each team, a team "story" was compiled and chronicled. Students' words were compared, contrasted and analyzed. Photographs, which students took, were revisited and discussed in an open forum at an end-term class meeting, which was videotaped. Their photographs were the back-up visualization to the words that were analyzed. Based on these multiple methods, a coding system was generated that enabled various perspectives to emerge.

After the data was collected, a categorization process was established. Categories and sub-categories were created based on the number of participants who mentioned a theme or pattern, the uniqueness of the information and whether the information was applicable to team units. The process of categorizing the data was repeated several times in order to refine the analysis. Overall, the dependability of the data is supported by the credibility of the "words" of the participants, which they verified. For this study, team member names are masked and team names begin with the letters: J, K and L.

Results and Discussion

The purpose of this study was to conduct an investigation of teams in a management course. The fourteen participants were managers and aspiring leaders divided into three teams. Participants engaged in experiential qualitative action research and applied an educational model and instrument to their teams. While there were many questions asked throughout this study, two specific questions were: (1) How do adults apply the learning concepts of the ILM/LCI to their team units? (2) How is the instructor affected by the experience of applying the ILM/LCI to teams?

Findings indicated that overall, all students gained experience in producing an external team product and also gained experience in the internal process of team development including shared leadership, interpersonal relations and teamwork values. Students reported that they applied the principles of the ILM/LCI to themselves as individuals and then secondarily applied the ILM/LCI to their team members. Students increased self-understanding and were able to augment their knowledge regarding their teammates as diverse learners. Team member roles and responsibilities were consistent with learning patterns and hastened team role identification. Shared responsibility and shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003) emerged on each team.

Theme: Self-Awareness and Understanding of Team Members Increases Through the ILM and LCI Students claimed the LCI was useful in guiding students toward team roles that were consistent with their learning patterns and helped develop a tolerance for differences.

* Janet explained: The learning patterns do help to understand how a person will lead in a given situation ... After taking this LCI inventory, I noticed that I lead sequentially in everything that I do. I plan my weeks ahead of time as to what needs to be done or what errands need to be run and on which days I will do them ... I never realized how much my life is affected by this learning pattern ... In a group setting, I tend to be the organizer, making sure that everyone knows what is ahead and how we plan on getting there ... John is technically gifted and will put the pop and sizzle in our presentation ... Jean is the idea generator and Jack seems to want a plan as to what we are doing ... Jim seems to focus more on generating the concept than on the actual steps getting there.

* Jean e-mailed: As a learner, I've found that I fit my LCI almost exactly.

* John wrote: I am right on target a technical learner. The way I think, reason and act were fitting to a 'Tee.' I learned that I could be a very successful learner with my technical approach to learning.

* Katy commented: I believe that all the reflective exercises, inventories and assessment of LCI have helped us understand ourselves as learners ... I did not know I led by sequential and precise [characteristics] ... I believe that these exercises opened up our eyes to see who we really are as learners. Kelly is extremely, extremely precise; she asks a lot of questions to the point of being annoying. But her preciseness advanced our team and I came to admire Kelly.

* Kasey added: We displayed our learning patterns throughout this project. I think that going forward, I will be more aware that learning patterns are different and I will use such information at work.

* Larry observed: As a manager, I think they [learning patterns] can be useful when choosing team members or assigning tasks. I know I am not confluent, but I want to be. When people come up with an idea, I can take that idea and make it great, but I would like to be the one coming up with the idea.

* Lynda said: I realize now why some people are the way they are. It has shed some light on why they act the way they do ... I am sequential and not that precise. I actually hate precise. Precise is too much detail for me, but it probably would help with work and school if I were a little more precise.

Theme: Shared Responsibility and Shared Leadership Emerge Team members shared responsibilities and shared leadership as they achieved the goals they laid out for their teams. While the interactions of adults seemed to add at times to the inherent tension within teams, students were able to get beyond these feelings of "tension" and identify with their teams. There was no team leader on any of the teams. Instead, shared responsibility and shared leadership evolved.

* Jack said: We worked together and shared ideas. Everyone had different responsibilities and we made all of our decisions as a group. There was no leader of our team.

* Keith e-mailed: The question is: who do you want at the wheel when you spot an iceberg dead ahead? As for me, I am happy to take a leadership position, but my mindset was, let's see how it also works out with my team mates partially steering the ship.

* Kelly summarized: The self-reflection helped me realize that it may be okay to trust others with shared responsibility, that I need not be the only one responsible.

* Larry wrote: I have the leadership ability to guide the team towards the goals, but I pulled back. We all shared in our goals ... there was no formal leader chosen by the group or appointed ... we all contributed.

* Lee stated: It took away a lot of stress, not having to do everything myself ... I came to appreciate the skills of my team members.

* Laura noted: Self reflection helped me see what my strengths are and that helped me apply them to my team ... We all shared the leadership role on our team.

The instructor tried to ease individual/team tensions when they emerged. She acted as an external facilitator and tried to coach students to reflect on their assumptions and analyze their tensions from a different perspective. Many of these basic tensions were traced to learning pattern differences. The easing of tensions encouraged students to continue to work with their teams. The instructor, as the action researcher, was able to refine her syllabus and develop a new instructional action plan regarding team units. She found value in utilizing the LCI in formulating teams. The ILM with its reflective practice base seemed to enhance the instructor's understanding of her students in regard to their learning patterns and enabled her to build relationships with them based on their learning patterns. The instructor's external and internal course goals were achieved.

Conclusions and Implications

The formulation of teams based on learning pattern theory may give teams an initial focus in classrooms and worksites. By focusing on learning pattern theory, perhaps team tensions based on physical and cultural differences may be minimized. Further research is needed in how physical and cultural differences may overlap with learning pattern differences in organizing and assessing teamwork. This study applied an educational model and instrument (ILM/LCI) in a management course. It may aid instructors in formulating team instructional models based on learning pattern theory so that they may further their understanding of how students learn in team units. Moreover, the concept of researching "shared leadership" is in its infancy (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Therefore, this study may serve as an impetus for additional studies on sharing leadership in teams.

References

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research in education. Needham Heights, MA: Allan & Bacon.

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1997). Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Bolton, M.K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams. Journal of Management Education, 23 (3), 233-251.

Drucker, P.F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York:

Johnston, C.A. (1996). Unlocking the will to learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Johnston, C.A. (1998). Let me learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Johnston, C.A., & Dainton, G.R. (1996). Learning combination inventory. Pittsgrove, NJ: Let Me Learn, Inc.

Johnston, C.A. & Dainton, G.R. (1997). Learning combination inventory users' manual.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston, MA: Harper Business.

Kline, T. (1999). Remaking teams: The revolutionary research-based guide that puts theory into practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leavitt, H., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (1995, June). Hot groups. Harvard Business Review, 73 (4), 109-116.

Let me learn website: www.letmelearn.org (2003).

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mills, G.E. (2003) Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Osterman, K.F., & Kottkamp, R.B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving schooling through professional development. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Pacanowsky, M. (1995). Team tools for wicked problems. Organizational Dynamics, 23 (3), 36-49.

Pearce, C.L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Thompson, L. (2000). Making the team: A guide for managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3), 249-276.

Patricia Ann Marcellino, Adelphi University, NY

Dr. Marcellino is an assistant professor of higher education. Her teaching-research agenda includes management, leadership and team development.