Professor Carol Cardno

Head of School of Education

UNITEC Institute of Technology

Auckland, New Zealand

Like the image of a beautiful Bengal tiger, stalking stripes camouflaged by dappled sunshine on a jungled riverbank, the notion of team learning might capture the spirit and challenge the brave. The beauty of the notion lies in its promised power and potential to transform communication in teams so that the organisation’s capacity to learn and utilise critical information is increased. But this tiger has teeth and claws – and learning how to learn in teams may be somewhat like taking a tiger by the tail – a simultaneously essential and dangerous undertaking for survival.

Who amongst us would eschew the advantage of grappling with a challenge that has the potential to improve an organisation and enable it to survive? The ideal is indeed attractive. In reality, we need to be aware that getting down to the business of organisational learning is no mean task. In relation to team learning, the practices that enable real learning and effective problem-solving to occur require both skill and courage on the part of team leaders.

Starting over two decades ago, Argyris & Schon, (1978) were crusaders in the realm of examining behaviour that impacts on organisational learning. More recent voices (Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990) affirm the value of developing learning organisations. There is a current proliferation of reference to ‘organisational learning’ and the ‘learning organisation’ in literature about organisational change, improvement and problem-solving (Bierema, 1999; Lumby, 1997; Kiernan, 1996; O’Neil, 1995; Robinson, 1995). The notion that learning is associated with change is by no means new. What is new, is a renewed interest in the potential of facing up to learning that might be extremely difficult and disquieting. But is worth doing because of its potency to resolve or at least allow leaders to manage deep seated, recurring problems – the ‘beast’ that all leaders face in the form of dilemmas (Cardno, 1995).

Garvin (1993) suggests that knowledge generation and modification of practice based on valid information are essential features in a learning organisation. Organisational learning is a notion described by Argyris (1977) as the capacity for error detection and correction that comes about when communication in an organisation makes it possible for learning to occur. Organisational learning, according to Senge (1990) is an art that is both desirable and difficult for organisations to acquire and practice. He says that learning organisations can be built when:

Organisational learning requires individuals in the organisation to be open to learning - not only about what is going wrong, but also about how they might be personally implicated in complex problems that are difficult to resolve. This is an extremely demanding form of reflective practice, especially when problems have several dimensions and give rise to tensions between competing values and beliefs. If, however, organisational learning can enable the resolution of difficult, recurring problems in ways that ensure that they remain solved, then it holds out considerable promise as a pathway to effectiveness and the realisation of complex goals as a highly collaborative activity.

Senge (1990) says, "organisations learn only through individuals who learn" (p. 139). He offers as a caveat, however, the view that "individuals learn all the time and yet there is no organisational learning" (p. 236). He does, however, hold out considerable hope for a different kind of learning: team learning, to bridge the gap between individual, isolated learning and learning that can permeate an organisation’s memory and become embedded in the culture. Fiol and Lyles (1985) assert that for individual learning to become organisational learning, it must be encoded into the practice of the organisation so that it becomes independent of the memory, motivation and action or those originally involved. This requires a special dimension of leadership; one in which the team leader becomes the catalyst for learning through modelling an approach that empowers the whole team to learn. Team leaders can thus seed a culture of organisational learning. Senge’s view that teams engaged in learning can become a microcosm for learning throughout the organisation has considerable significance for schools where there appears to be a genuine commitment to both collaborative practice and effective management.

There is little doubt that the use of teams in schools is linked to the application of collaborative management ideals. Coleman and Bush (1994, p. 226) assert that there is a strong trend towards collegial approaches in schools and that "one of the main features of collegiality is its emphasis on teamwork". It is also generally assumed that self-managed schools will rely heavily on the ability of teams to contribute to effective school management (Caldwell & Spinks, 1992; Hall & Wallace, 1996; O’Neill, 1997). Teams abound in schools because they are structured in ways that allow teachers to work together to make curriculum and management related decisions. In settings where the implementation of education reform has increased the complexity of school management through devolution, principals have embraced the opportunity to share new tasks and decision-making with teams. Hall and Wallace (1996) who have conducted in-depth research into the role of the Senior Management Team (SMT) in British schools, state that:

The significance of a SMT in providing joint leadership, and workload sharing has been well established in overseas research (Hall & Wallace, 1996; Walker & Stott, 1993). In New Zealand there is little published research on the incidence or effectiveness of teamwork in schools. The two studies reported below (Cardno, 1998a and 1998b) were carried out as the problem analysis phase of an action research study. Interventions in a primary school and a secondary school, in the form of dilemma management training (Cardno, 1997), have been completed and the project is currently being evaluated to determine the impact of the intervention on communication that is critical in enabling organisational learning to occur in teams.

A recent baseline study of team practices in New Zealand schools (Cardno, 1998a) reveals that teams of all types proliferate in both large and small primary and secondary schools. Data were collected by fax-back survey. Out of a possible 2301 primary schools, 460 responded and out of a possible 339 secondary schools, 69 responded representing a 20% sampling in each sector. The survey tested two critical assumptions that have a bearing on the significance of teams in effective school management. One was that there is a very high incidence of self-styled teams in all types of schools. The other was that although schools claim that groups of staff working together are teams, there might be an absence of practices commonly associated with the notion of effective team performance.

The findings confirmed a very high prevalence of teams that operate on a permanent basis and as Table 1 shows, almost all large primary and secondary schools have senior management teams (an average of 91%).

Given this confirmation of the high degree to which permanent teams exist, it could be conjectured that schools already have at hand the structural means to create conditions for organisational learning through effective teamwork.

In order to establish the extent to which teams functioned as formal work teams, a set of essential team practices was determined by synthesising ideas from the literature on effective teamwork (Adair, 1986; Bell, 1992, Coleman & Bush, 1994). Table 2 presents the percentages of the response sample in relation to current practice in eight selected areas.

The survey question about team practices was designed to elicit information that would illuminate the extent to which teams operated within formal boundaries (documented objectives, meeting procedures), had delegated accountability (documented decision-making limits, formal reporting requirements), and were supported and empowered to develop (team review and training). The disparity between concerns for formality and accountability on the one hand (which show as a high to moderate emphasis overall), and development on the other hand (which shows as a low emphasis on training and a moderate emphasis on review), is indicative of a possible tension. Where teams are expected to contribute effectively to decision-making, yet experience conditions that are not conducive to producing this outcome, valuable opportunities for both effective contribution to school management and to organisation learning might be lost.

This baseline study illuminated a key issue related to the potential of teams to contribute to organisational learning. As West-Burnham (cited in Coleman and Bush, 1994, p. 267) asserts, teams need to be nurtured and developed if they are to be an effective vehicle for organising work and therefore consideration needs to be given to the way the team functions. This points to the issue of responsibility for team leadership and its corollary – team development. Bell (1992) emphasises that teams need to be managed and developed if they are to function effectively. Both Bell (1992) and Adair (1986) highlight the significance of effective team communication that addresses contentious issues – the context in which learning that impacts on problem-solving must occur. Bell provides a succinct framework for judging effective team functioning and suggests that an effective working team will have shared perceptions, a common purpose, agreed procedures, commitment, co-operation and capability to resolve disagreements openly by discussion. Adair emphasises the need to develop individuals and the team simultaneously and describes building blocks for effective team performance, which include building co-operation and the ability to engage in creative conflict, sound inter-group relations and individual development.

If the potential of a team as an agent for organisational learning is to be realised then the critical issue of team development must be addressed. Furthermore, it must be addressed in such a way that it impacts on the manner in which a team deals with conflict and learns from mistakes. This requires a particular type of team leadership in which conflict and disagreement are harnessed to enable learning. The following in-depth review of the effectiveness of one Senior Management Team in a secondary school draws on the literature of team effectiveness to determine the standards against which this team reviews its own practice.

In this study (Cardno, 1998b) the researcher’s aim was to provide a six-member Senior Management Team (SMT) in a large urban secondary school with insights about their practice which could be used as a springboard for learning and development. The project was planned so that it could serve dual purposes in providing a deeper analysis of team practice and allowing the team to utilise their participation to meet management obligations. Thus the team was extrinsically motivated to participate in order to meet a mandated requirement that schools undertake systematic school self-review for both accountability and improvement purposes (Ministry of Education, 1993, p.4). The team was aware that it was not meeting this obligation effectively. In addition, it was committed to its own development, and furthermore, it was challenged by new membership to reflect critically on its own practice with a view to improving it. Over the course of a year the team worked with the researcher to consider the standards against which their effective practice would be judged and how to obtain objective feedback in order to make self-judgements and consider changes to its practice.

Once the SMT had identified some key aspects of effective review, namely that they needed to establish the norms against which to review practice, and that they needed to check perceptions of stakeholders, they were able to devise a process model which would be trialled in their own review. The five steps of the process model and its application are described.

• Step One - Establishing Expectations

The researcher held a focus group meeting with the SMT to establish the expectations, objectives and main issues for the review. The team’s perception of expectations held of its performance, and main issues for the team, contributed to the development of a draft survey tool. The team decided that it was important to consult a key stakeholder group: the middle management staff before finalising the review survey.

• Step Two - Checking Perceptions of Expectations and Issues

A focus group meeting was held with middle managers (Deans and the Curriculum Management Team) as representatives of staff, to gain a further perspective on expectations held of the SMT, and to determine main issues from the staff perspective, in order to refine the survey tool. These perceptions of the expectations held of the SMT by staff and main issues for the team contributed in a major way to the final development of the questionnaire.

• Step Three - Survey Tool Development

Using the data provided by the focus group meetings held at steps one and two of the review process, the questionnaire was finalised in consultation with the SMT. It comprised 17 key statements (couched in positive terms) reflecting areas deemed to be of significance in the operation of the SMT - by themselves and by middle management groups in the school. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale, a) how important to them the issue was, and b) how they felt about the SMT’s performance in that area. Provision was made for general comment at the end of the questionnaire. The dual emphasis on getting feedback about what was of importance for stakeholders and how the SMT’s performance could be rated was considered valuable by the SMT. They felt that although the expectations for their performance had been scoped through checking with the middle management group, they would value the perceptions of the whole staff and of the Board of Trustees in confirming expectations as well as reviewing performance.

The survey was conducted in October 1997. Of the eight board members, six responded (75%). Of the 133 staff members surveyed, 76 responded (57%).

The methodology used in this survey is well grounded in relationship marketing literature related to the measurement of service quality in business and education (Parasuraman et al, 1991; Murphy et al, 1997). However, the method of data analysis employed for this review may be viewed as a limitation as it is conducted at an elementary level to serve the review goals of this project rather than more complex statistical research goals. Consequently, data analysis shows relatives not absolutes and indicates patterns but not to the extent to which they are or are not statistically true. Regardless of this limitation, the survey does present data which can be interpreted by the SMT to identify strengths and weaknesses related to both the conception of their role and their actual performance, and the patterns identified draw attention to areas where improvements can be made.

As the mean rankings in Table 3 below indicate, the survey showed a high degree of concurrence between the board and staff. In short, both stakeholder groups affirmed that all noted aspects of the SMT’s work were viewed as priorities. It also confirmed consistent overall satisfaction with the team’s performance.

The performance of the SMT is consistently viewed as well above average and in the very good category by both the board and staff. Board means range between 2.8 and 3.7 whilst staff means are consistently equal to or higher and range between 3.3 and 4.0.

Table 3 above also shows the performance gap measures. A performance gap analysis is a derived measure achieved by deducting the mean score of the importance rating from the mean score of the performance rating. When the gaps are negative as in this case, this could be read as a signal to maintain a high focus on these issues and to strive for improvement in all areas. However, in general, a low magnitude gap of below -0.9 is considered insignificant, a moderate magnitude gap of between -1.0 to -1.2 is considered worthy of note and a high magnitude gap of more than -1.2 should be considered significant.

The performance gap analysis provided a window through which the SMT could view the perceptions of disparity between what was considered important and how they performed on this issue. Significant issues which spotlighted needs for improvements were communication (with a board gap factor of -1.3 and a staff gap factor of -1.3) and appropriate consultation (with a board gap factor of -1.5 and a staff gap factor of -1.4).

• Step Five - Reporting and Response

The survey results and researcher’s interpretation were discussed with the SMT at meetings in late 1997 and early 1998. The purpose of these meetings was to share the findings and discuss interpretation of the data to enable the team to identify significant messages from the survey and respond to these messages by discussing them as a team and setting priorities for change and improvement. The SMT agreed that several useful conclusions could be reached from the survey findings and ensuing discussion. In addition they spent time reflecting on how this knowledge could inform future actions and team development.

As a result of this survey, the SMT could conclude that there was general satisfaction: an overall perception that the team was doing a good job on a range of important tasks. The SMT acknowledged that the findings of the survey were extremely positive and that they have many strengths to affirm and to build on. They also acknowledged that there were two critical performance areas that emerged as relative weaknesses and required development attention from the team as a whole and as individuals. Tied to these two broad areas of consultation and communication were other related concerns that also needed attention such as decision-making processes, giving and getting honest feedback and the way in which the team acknowledges and revisits mistakes.

The larger problem in this action research study lies at the point of considering how the potency or strength that is deemed to be a feature of effective teamwork can be turned into action that impacts on organisational learning. The studies of team practices reported in this paper establish a number of facts that might impinge on the possibilities that exist for teams to contribute to organisational learning in schools.

In relation to teamwork in schools generally, these are as follows:

• Teams of all types proliferate in New Zealand schools.
• Teachers, middle managers and senior managers engage in considerable activity related to team meetings and decision-making.
• Almost all schools have Senior Management Teams.
• There is a high expectation for teams to be accountable for decisions and subsequent actions.
• There is a low emphasis on team training and development.

In relation to the Senior Management Team in the case study, the following issues are noteworthy:

• The SMT established the significance of norms that contribute to organisational learning by including them in the review survey. (These include effective communication, collaboration, feedback and acknowledgement of mistakes.)
• As respondents, key stakeholders identified the importance of the same sub-set of factors and furthermore indicated that it was in these particular areas that they had perceptions of performance gaps.
• The SMT acknowledged these issues as shortcomings and espoused intent to undertake development that could improve their effectiveness.

Since mid 1998, the Senior Management Team in Orion High School has engaged in four substantial training sessions with the researcher, learning and practising skills that should enable them to communicate in ways conducive to team learning for solving organisational problems. In these problem-based interventions (Cardno, 1997) they focus on real issues of their choice as the context for learning. They are genuinely committed to practising productive rather than defensive approaches to uncovering the sources of these complex issues and to examining how their assumptions might be blocking learning as a team. From their reflections thus far, there is evidence to suggest that they are still encountering a number of practical and interpersonal challenges. Some of these are:

• Defensive patterns of behaviour are still not always challenged by colleagues.
• Time constraints work against the intention of understanding a problem at a deep level before moving on to considering solutions.
• There is still need for an external facilitator to guide them through ‘sticky passages’.
• Often there are too many pressing problems to deal with – resulting in superficial examination of the issue at hand before moving on to the next issue.
• An expectation that the principal, as nominal leader of the team, will model productive approaches to problem-solving is not yet being met.

Teams have considerable capacity to learn because they are units of action, and as Senge (1990) reminds us, learning in an organisational learning sense always takes place in a context of action. The challenge in team learning lies at the point where people collectively interact to overcome the forces that work against honest communication, especially in situations fraught with conflict. Very often in teams, where the collective intelligence of the team should be greater that that of individual intelligence, this potential for open dialogue is untapped because barriers are created. These barriers, which Argyris (1985) calls defensive routines, are both subtle and pervasive and unless they are recognised and removed are likely to inhibit team learning.

It is usual for people to adopt a defensive approach when situations arise that are threatening or embarrassing (Argyris, 1985). Argyris contends that we are taught to be defensive in our earliest stages of life, rationalising this defensiveness as caring for and protecting others and ourselves. So, we develop a repertoire of strategies that are consistent with defensive reasoning. For example, we become expert in giving indirect or mixed messages; we cloak negative feedback with a positive opener; we deflect attention from ourselves to the deficiencies of others; we excuse ineffectiveness rather than confronting it; and so on.

Defensiveness is evident in the kind of communication that takes place in organisations when issues surface that are likely to threaten or embarrass individuals or teams. Teams adopt ways of doing things that reflect an ability to engage in game playing to hide error. Individuals perpetuate appropriate cultural games and invent further games to hide the games that are played. Thus, the defensive reasoning of individuals contributes to the emergence of defensive routines that make it difficult for the team to find out what is wrong or what it needs to know. For a team to learn (and to contribute to organisational learning) it must overcome the defensive barriers to learning that are ingrained in both individual and collective behaviour.

Team learning is a collective skill, yet there needs to be a strong element of leadership to shape the development of the team. Leaders who are committed to solving problems and dealing with conflict effectively, should also be committed to leading the learning of skills that will enhance the capability of a team to realise its potential as a microcosm for organisational learning. The particular set of skills associated with effective communication that leads to organisational learning are those associated with the confrontation and elimination of defensive dialogue and the use of productive dialogue in teams. For many leaders of teams, this is an inordinate challenge that fits the adage of ‘taking the tiger by the tail’ because it appeals on the one hand and yet, on the other hand, is fraught with danger. As the learning capacity of the team grows, so exponentially does the challenge for the leader who must be capable of modelling personal openness to learning and have the ability to effectively utilise team strength even though this might challenge their own goals and capability. Hence, taking the team by the tail becomes no mean feat and presents a considerable demand.

The kind of talk that a team engages in makes all the difference in this context of team learning. In order to overcome defensive routines teams need to learn communication skills that move their talk from the arena of discussion to the arena of dialogue (Argyris, 1985; Garmston & Wellman, 1998, Senge, 1990). Senge, attributing to Bohm (1965) the distinctive contribution his work has made to the notion of collective thought, draws attention to his distinction between two primary types of discourse: ‘dialogue’ and ‘discussion’. Bohm points out that the word ‘discussion’ has the same root as percussion and concussion. It has connotations of sallying back and forth from opposite sides, with an underlying principle of needing to win. By contrast, ‘dialogue’ comes from the Greek word dialogos. Dia means through, Logos means word or meaning.

Bohm talked about dialogue contributing to a pool of common meaning that needs to be accessed collectively. Winning is not a paramount principle and people are not in opposition, but are participators in widening the common meaning pool, which explores issues from many viewpoints. The key to this kind of communication is the suspension of assumptions. This demands a high degree of trust because it requires one to refrain from imposing views on others and to avoid suppressing what they think. Furthermore, in team dialogue, assumptions must be suspended collectively – not an easy task, because as Senge et al (1994) assert, " Hanging your assumptions in front of you so that you and others can reflect on them is a delicate and powerful art" (p. 378). In a collegial atmosphere both dialogue (to explore complex issues) and discussion (presenting and debating different views and making decisions) can and should occur with the team acknowledging the different goals of each and seeking to balance high levels of both advocacy and inquiry. When a team practices genuine advocacy (laying out reasoning and thinking for others to see) and inquiry (encouraging others to challenge views and reveal their own assumptions), with the purpose of increasing valid information for all, it is becoming effective in terms of engaging in productive rather than defensive dialogue.

Self-managed schools have the means to create and take charge of their own destiny. Inevitably, they are also likely to meet a number of challenges along the path of continuous improvement. One of these challenges will be their ability to recognise and act upon the consequences of failure to learn from past mistakes. Teams in schools, nurtured by far-seeing and capable leaders, could learn skills that facilitate a climate of organisational learning in which productive, rather than defensive, communication enables the quality of educational provision to be examined and improved. But, will they?

There are several questions that arise in this context. Firstly, what will motivate leaders to realise and celebrate the potency of the teams they lead, and to engage in relevant professional development to accelerate their often un-harnessed potential to contribute to organisational learning? Secondly, what kind of interventions will be required to move a team from the normal tendency to engage in defensive dialogue to a more effective assimilation and utilisation of productive dialogue skills? Thirdly, what strategies for team learning and development are likely to be effective in embedding productive dialogue practices in the culture of the organisation so that they become part of a collective long-term memory and not just the ephemeral qualities of a particular leader at a particular time?

Adair, J. (1986). Effective Teambuilding. London: Pan Books.

Argyris, C. (1977). Double-Loop Learning in Organisations. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 115-125.

Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, Change and Defensive Routines. Boston: Pitman.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Sydney: Addison-Wesley.

Bell, L. (1992). Managing Teams In Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.

Bierema, L. L. (1999) The Process of the Learning Organisation. NASSP Bulletin. February, 46-56.

Caldwell, B. J. & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the Self-Managing School. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Cardno, C. (1995). Schools as Learning Organisations: A Challenge for Quality Improvement. The Practising Administrator. 17 (4), 34-37.

Cardno, C. (1997) Problem-Based Methodology in Leadership Development: Interventions to Improve Dilemma Management. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Researching Education in New Times, December, Brisbane.

Cardno, C. (1998a). Teams in New Zealand Schools. Leading and Managing, 4 (1), 47-60.

Cardno, C. (1998b). School Self-Review: The Case of a Secondary School Senior Management Team. Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Educational Research Conference, Dunedin, December.

Coleman, M. & Bush, T. (1994). Managing with Teams. In T. Bush & J. West-Burnham (Eds.) The Principles of Educational Management. Harlow: Longman, 265-284.

Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organisational Learning. Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 803-813.

Garmston, R. & Wellman, B. (1998). Teacher Talk that Makes a Difference. Educational Leadership. April, 30-34.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organisation. Harvard Business Review. July-August, 78-91.

Hall, V. & Wallace, M. (1996). Let the Team Take the Strain: Lessons from Research into Senior Management Teams in Secondary Schools. Organisational Leadership, 16 (3), 297-308.

Kiernan, M. J. (1996) The Eleven Commandments of 21^st Century Management: What Cutting-Edge Companies are Doing to Survive and Flourish in Today’s Chaotic Business Worlds. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Lumby, J. (1997) The Learning Organisation. In T. Bush & D. Middlewood, (Eds.) Managing People in Education. London: Paul Chapman, 31-42.

Ministry of Education. (1993). National Education Guidelines. The Education Gazette, April, 3-4. Wellington: Learning Media.

Murphy, B., Stevens, K. & McLeod, R. (1997). A Stakeholder Framework for Measuring Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring, 43-57.

O’Neil, J. (1995) On Schools as Learning Organisations. Educational Leadership. April, 20-23.

O’Neill, J. (1997). Managing Through Teams. In T. Bush & D. Middlewood, (Eds.) Managing People in Education. London: Paul Chapman, 76-92.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1991). Understanding Customer Expectations of Service. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 39-48.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1995) Organisational Learning as Organisational Problem-Solving. Leading & Managing, 1 (1), 63-78.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Century Business.

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C, Ross, R. B. & Smyth, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Walker, A. & Stott, K. (1993). The Work of Senior Management Teams: Some Pointers to Improvement. Studies in Educational Administration, 58, 33-40.