PhD Proposal Defense Team Psychological Safety, Team Learning and Team Knowledge 20 September 2013

The influence of team psychological safety on team

knowledge creation: A comparative study between Thai and French teams

Peter Cauwelier

Proposal Defense

1 September 20th, 2013

Knowledge is the critical asset giving organizations sustainable competitive advantage (Chen, D. H. C., & Dahlman, C. J., 2005), and teams are key units contributing to an organization’s performance (Edmondson, A. C. 2012).

Learning leads to knowledge creation (Senge, P. 1994, Bennet, A. 2012, Kim, D.H. 2002).

Different factors impact team learning (Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. 2010), one of which is the level of psychological safety felt at the team level.

Few researchers evaluate how teams actually create knowledge at the team level, and how factors like team psychological safety, as well as the actual team learning behaviors, influence this.

2

Problem Statement

3

Objectives

-> evaluate impact of team psychological safety and team learning

behaviors, on the knowledge created at the team level

-> evaluate nuances or differences between cultures in the model.

Significance

-> understand how team psychological safety impacts knowledge creation

-> nuances in teams with different cultural backgrounds

=> allows organizations to develop/modify conditions to optimize knowledge

creation in teams (and in the organization)

Research Objectives

4

Primary research question

How do team psychological safety and team learning affect

the creation of team knowledge ?

Secondary research question

How do the components of the model differ between cultures ?

Research Questions

Literature review Definitions and Key Terms

5

Team a collection of individuals, interdependent in their tasks, sharing responsibility for

outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social

entity embedded in a larger social system (Decuyper, S., et al. 2010)

note - service or production teams, not action teams (Marks, et al. 2002)

- established teams, not ad hoc teams

Individual mental model (Kim, D. H. 2002)

- a person’s view of the world

- the context in which experiences are viewed and interpreted

- defines how knowledge is created and applied

Team mental model (Mohammed, S. et al. 2010):

the mental models of the team members, about the task, the tools and technology,

understanding of procedures and strategies, awareness of team roles and

communication patterns, and knowledge of teammates’ skills and habits

Literature review Team Knowledge (selected references)

6

(Wildman, J. L., et al. 2012) (Cooke, N. J. et al. 2012)

Shared cognition

= static, from structure

Team cognition

= dynamic, from interactions

Interactive Team Cognition (ITC) theory

7

(Bennet, A. 2012)

Literature review The Learning and Knowledge-Building Environment (selected references)

(Stahl, G. 2000)

7 bis

Team learning

FACTORS AFFECTING TEAM LEARNING

(Decuyper et al., 2010)

Shared mental models Team psychological safety Group potency or group efficacy Cohesion Team development and team learning dynamics Team leadership Interdependence Team structure Organizational strategy Team member systems thinking

Literature review Team Learning (selected references)

8

(Edmondson, A. C. 2003)

Team psychological

safety

Team learning behavior

Team performance

Antecedents to team psychological

safety:

- Team leader behavior

- Informal group dynamics

- Trust and respect

- Use of practice fields

- Supportive organizational context

Team learning behaviors

- Feedback seeking

- Help seeking

- Speaking up about concerns/mistakes

- Innovative behavior

- Boundary spanning

Team Psychological Safety = a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, A. C. 1999)

Literature review Team Psychological Safety

The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others Different frameworks and dimensions: Hofstede, Hall, Bond, GLOBE, Trompenaars, Gelfand Individualism versus collectivism “ the degree to which people’s self-image is defined in terms of I or we “

individualistic

Literature review National Culture: individualistic versus collectivistic

0

20

40

60

80

100

collectivistic

France 71

Thailand 20

1

(Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. 2010) 9

Research paradigm Critical Realism and Mixed Methods

10

Postpositivist view (Cooke, N. J. et al. 2012, Mohammed, S. et al. 2010)

- observe and record learning behaviors

- measure knowledge, and knowledge creation, via individual or team

mental models

Constructivist view (Jashapara, A. 2011, Bennet, A. 2012)

- team learning is social in nature and depends on context and culture

- knowledge is context sensitive and situation dependent

Critical Realist view as Mixed Method approach

validate model and hypothesis

analyze underlying reasons and nuances

11

Conceptual framework The Research Model

12

H0 Teams with higher team psychological safety engage in more team learning behavior than teams with lower team psychological safety H1 Teams with higher team learning behavior create more team knowledge than teams with lower team learning behavior P1 Teams with higher intensity and frequency of team learning behaviors have more and more meaningful occurrences of knowledge creation moments than teams with lower intensity and frequency of team learning behaviors H2 Teams with higher team psychological safety create more team knowledge than teams with lower team psychological safety H3 Psychological safety in teams in Thailand has a more pronounced effect on the creation of team knowledge than in France: H3a low psychological safety has a more negative impact on team knowledge creation for Thai teams in comparison with French teams H3b high psychological safety has a more positive impact on team knowledge creation for Thai teams in comparison with French teams P2 Elements affecting team psychological safety are different between cultures, and their relative importance is different

Conceptual framework Hypotheses and propositions

13

corrected page 93

Research Design Instruments and Measurement Results for each Construct

The research uses

- established teams with 8 members

- teams from engineering departments in 1 organization

- total 6 teams, 3 from Thailand and 3 from France

2-part team challenge around problem solving: team psychological safety, team learning and team knowledge creation are measured before, during and after the challenge

Glasstap® team challenges (1) A Welsh Holiday

(2) Professor Warmkote’s Safe

14

Research Design Empirical Research

pilot (1 team)

update/ adjust

experiment (6 teams)

16

Data Collection Instruments Validity and Reliability

preparatory assessment

T – 1 week T T + 3 weeks

timeline

team psychological safety

task-related team knowledge

team-related team knowledge

main experiment

post assessment

team challenge #1

team learning

overall team knowledge created

team challenge #2

team learning

assessment

overall team knowledge created

task-related team knowledge

team-related team knowledge assessment

task-related team knowledge

team-related team knowledge

Qualitative measurement

Quantitative measurement

Data Collection Sequence of Experiment and Assessments, and Instruments used

16

17

Data Collection Concept-map based Mental Model / Construction of Shared Mental Model

Methodology from Johnson T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008)

option 1 option 2

18 Methodology from Johnson T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B C

D E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B C

D E

F G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N O

Step 1 Determining key concepts around team problem

solving, by subject matter experts and

management -> ± 15 concepts

Step 2 Elicitation of ICMM Individually Constructed

Mental Models, with basic guidance and

practice about concept maps

Step 3 Analyzing and coding of the team’s different

ICMM by researcher: identifying similarity of concepts

links or or

clusters

A F A F A F

Data Collection Concept-map based Mental Model / Construction of Shared Mental Model

19 Methodology from Johnson T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008)

Step 4 Determine which concepts, links, clusters are shared by the team

members, with a threshold (ex. 75%)

Step 5 Construction of the Analysis-Constructed Shared Mental Model AC-SMM,

from the shared concepts, links and clusters

Step 6 Compare changes in the AC-SMM over time

A

B C

D

G

H

I

J

K

L

N

Data Collection Concept-map based Mental Model / Construction of Shared Mental Model

Timeline

Q4

2013

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

Complete pilot run (1 team)

Experiment (6 teams)

Codification and Data Analysis

Dissertation writing

Dissertation submission

20

Setting of the experiment:

- single multinational organization

- Thailand and France

- 8-member engineering teams

Mixed method with 6 teams (3 from France, 3 from Thailand)

Only team psychological safety as an element impacting team learning and team knowledge creation

Additional research could validate this model by

- studying other teams (size, team profession, organization, cultural make-up)

- evaluating other impacts on learning and knowledge creation in teams

21

Limitations

Bennet, A. (2012). Information, Knowledge and Learning. In Bangkok. University (Ed.) Teaching session at PhD in KIM. Bangkok. Chen, D. H. C., & Dahlman, C. J., (2005). The Knowledge Economy, the KAM Methodology and World Bank Operations. Washington DC: The World Bank. Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Durand, J. L. (2012). Interactive Team Cognition. Cognitive Science, 1-31. Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: an integrative model for effective team learning in organizations. Educational Research Review, 5, 111-133. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Psychological Safety, Trust, and Learning in Organizations: A Group-level Lens. Boston: Harvard Business School. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy: Jossey-Bass. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (3rd ed.): McGraw Hill. Jashapara, A. (2011). Knowledge Management An Integrated Approach (2 ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Johnson, T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008). Measuring Team Shared Understanding Using the Analysis-Constructed Shared Mental Model Methodology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 113-134. Kim, D. H. (2002). Organizing for Learning: Strategies for Knowledge Creation and Enduring Change. Singapore: Cobee Publishing House. Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3-13. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor No More: A 15-Year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876-910. Senge, P. M. 1994. The Fifth Discipline, New York NY, Doubleday Business. Stahl, G. (2000). A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Mahwah, NJ, USA. Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Pavlas, D., Salas, E., Stewart, J. E., & Howse, W. R. (2012). Team Knowledge Research : Emerging Trends and Critical Needs. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(1). 22

References