Search results

The aim of this paper is to consider how exploitative and exploratory team processes contribute to adaptive and innovative outcomes. The paper integrates the team learning and team adaptation literature and examines factors that stimulate and support exploitative and exploratory processes in interdisciplinary and homogeneous teams. This has implications for team learning research and facilitation that fosters adaptation and innovation.

The paper reviews how teams learn to be exploitative and exploratory and the extent to which adaptive and innovative outcomes ensue. The paper suggests the value of teams understanding how different conditions (environment, leadership, member characteristics, and team composition) affect team members' interactions as they learn and apply exploitative and exploratory processes to produce adaptive and/or innovative outcomes.

Teams learn frames of reference for being exploitative and exploratory influenced by environmental conditions, leadership, particularly leadership that creates psychological safety, and team member characteristics and team. Interdisciplinary team composition and resulting possible subgroup formation pose challenges for exploitative and exploratory teams.

Future research should study teams over time to observe subgroup formation and integration, and facilitation by leaders, team members, and group dynamics professionals to support exploratory and exploitative frames and the emergence of adaptations and innovations.

Teams may be more successful in implementing innovations when they have learned how to weave between exploratory and exploitative frames of behavior.

The paper applies exploitative and exploratory processes to teams to increase their capacity to produce adaptive and innovative outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to examine if team composition based on adaption-innovation (A-I) problem-solving styles is related to the teamwork quality and team effectiveness (TE) of student project teams participating in a [state-gifted program (SGP)].

A correlational design was conducted with a sample of 72 (SGP) participants, consisting of 15 project teams (n = 15), which formed three groups: (1) the homogeneous adaptive group, which consists of five homogeneous adaptive teams (n = 5); (2) the homogeneous innovative group, which consists of five homogeneous innovative teams (n = 5), and (3) the heterogeneous group (i.e. a mix of innovative and adaptive individuals), which consists of five heterogeneous teams (n = 5).

A one-way ANOVA and post-hoc test revealed that team composition based on problem-solving styles is related to teamwork quality and TE. Regarding TE, both homogeneous groups (i.e. all adaptive or all innovative individuals) were more effective than the heterogeneous group. However, regarding teamwork quality, only the adaptive group had significantly higher teamwork quality than the heterogeneous group.

We recommend that leadership educators utilize Kirton’s adaption-innovation inventory (KAI) as a tool for building effective student project teams. KAI can be used by leadership educators in two major ways: to assign students to groups (as done in the current study) or for team building, where team members share their KAI scores to better understand their problem-solving preferences.

The findings add to the literature by specifying the type of homogeneous groups (i.e. homogeneous adaptive), which may offer an advantage over heterogeneous groups regarding teamwork quality.

The aim of this study is to analyze a framework of team learning that includes three learning processes (adaptive, generative, and transformative), factors that stimulate these processes, and consequences of them. The variables provided a field study of the model.

In the field study, 69 project teams of 3 to 11 students and their instructors responded to surveys.

Positive learning stimuli were related to adaptive and generative learning processes, while negative stimuli were related to transformative learning processes. Learning processes were related to individual student learning outcomes. In addition, adaptive and generative learning processes were positively related to team and instructor ratings of outcome quality, while transformative learning was negatively related to team ratings of outcome quality.

The results were subject to the following limitations: cross‐sectional design, mostly self‐report measures, and the lack of control endemic to field research. As such, this study is viewed as an initial test of the team‐learning model in a field setting. Additional research, including longitudinal designs and experimental designs, are called for.

This study adds to the growing literature on group learning. Educators and managers need to be aware that there are different kinds of learning processes in which groups can engage and that these are stimulated to occur differently and have a different impact on outcomes.

Team learning is rarely assessed directly as a construct in its own right and there is a lack of empirical support delineating causes and consequences of team learning. This field study is a first step in this direction.

Drawing on social learning theory, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between team cohesion and employee adaptive performance directly and through employee ambidexterity. The study also investigates the moderating role of team empowerment climate in the relationship between team cohesion and employee adaptive performance.

Time-lagged data were collected in two waves from a sample of 212 employees from 43 teams working in software houses in Pakistan. R (lavaan package) was used to analyze the multilevel framework.

The findings reveal that both team cohesion and employee ambidexterity positively relate to employee adaptive performance. Moreover, employee ambidexterity mediates the cross-level relationship between team cohesion and employee adaptive performance. The results also support that team empowerment climate (a contextual boundary condition) moderates the direct relationship between team cohesion and employee adaptive performance.

The primary novelty of this study lies in developing and examining a holistic conceptual framework for a multilevel model in the software industry that incorporates team cohesion (level 2) as an antecedent, employee ambidexterity (level 1) as an underlying mechanism, employee adaptive performance (level 1) as an outcome and team empowerment climate as a boundary condition (level 2).

As operational environments become increasingly fluid, organizations are turning to teams as a proven performance arrangement to structure complex work. Teams are ubiquitous in modern organizations because they can be used to create synergies, streamline workflow, deliver innovative services, satisfy incumbent needs, maximize the benefits of technology connecting distributed employees, and seize market opportunities in a global village. Teams are also increasingly used because coordinating the “…activities of individuals in large organizations is like building a sand castle using single grains of sand” (West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998, p. 6).

This chapter describes the change efforts and action research projects at a Dutch multinational which, over a period of 25 years, produced in one of its businesses a zigzag path toward collaborative leadership dynamics at the horizontal and vertical interfaces. The chapter also identifies the learning mechanisms that helped achieve this transformation. Changing the patterns at the vertical interfaces proved to be a most tricky, complex, and confusing operation. The data show that organizations need hierarchical interfaces between levels, but are hindered by the hierarchical leadership dynamics at these interfaces. The data furthermore show that competitive performance requires more than redesigning horizontal interfaces. A business can only respond with speed and flexibility to threats and opportunities in the external environment when the leadership dynamics at agility-critical vertical interfaces are also changed.

This paper seeks to describe the application of the Agile software development approach to rapidly develop and deploy a variety of innovative IT applications.

The Agile approach is flexible and iterative with continuous feedback and constant communication. It is also marked by frequent and short delivery schedules. An Agile team of staff and students was formed for different projects, and visual tools were used to show process and progress. Team members were also co‐located (situated in the same space), a key element that allowed faster and direct communication. Within the Agile framework, the Crystal Clear methodology was selected, which is based on team size and criticality of the application to develop the workflow and iterative processes.

The Agile approach is particularly suited to innovation development and creative teams for rapid development of products, services, and technology. However, its acceptance is dependent on organizational culture and nature of application.

As a next step, it would be useful to test the Agile approach in an innovative application that is on a larger scale than six team members and with a different level of criticality.

Flexibility and adaptability are needed in managing the development of IT innovations and applications as they vary in size and complexity. The flexible and iterative Agile approach provided the framework to develop and implement these projects despite the small staff size.

There is little in the professional literature on software development and project management approaches for small teams. The Agile approach would be of interest to an IT unit or library with limited staff resources and interested in a lightweight framework to develop and deploy innovative projects.

The purpose of this paper is to propose and test a theoretical model linking individual perceptions of participative leadership style and managerial practices (i.e. teamwork and information sharing) to individual innovative behavior through the mediating mechanisms of: perceptions of team support for innovation and team vision; and psychological empowerment.

Self-report data were collected from 394 employees working in five organizations. Structural equation models were conducted to empirically test the hypothesized research model.

As hypothesized, participative leadership, teamwork and information sharing positively predicted perceptions of team support for innovation and team vision, which in turn fostered psychological empowerment. The latter was further positively associated with innovative performance.

The results of the present study inform management of the group processes (i.e. team vision and support for innovation) that can mobilize employees to engage in effective innovative activities. Importantly, the findings indicate that for such processes to be developed and nurtured, teamwork activities should be promoted within work groups, effective communication systems should be implemented throughout the organization, and participatory skills should be developed among supervisors.

The study represents one of the first attempts to investigate the perceived group and psychological processes that can explain how managerial practices and leadership style jointly benefit employee innovative behavior.

This paper explores how adaptive organizations, companies capable of continuously adapting their organizational model, dynamically solve the universal problems of organizing.

The authors applied grounded theory to data acquired from six interpretative case studies, collected in two rounds of interviews (15 in total), then completing and validating the study’s evidence through triangulation with several secondary data sources.

In adaptive organizations, polyarchies and intrapreneurial employees are essential to shape the division of labour, leading to high levels of autonomy and empowering individuals and teams, while reducing bureaucracy and hierarchy. In terms of the integration of effort, digital solutions are preferred to social proof in the provision of information, while the authors note that incentives are always geared towards developing strong higher-order dynamic capabilities.

This paper has some limitations that could be addressed in future research, including longitudinal studies to analyse the link between the universal problems of organizing and a company's dynamic capabilities.

Adaptive organizations go beyond tech firms in responding to the universal problems of organizing work by making specific use of digital technologies.

The paper studies how companies should organize themselves so that they continuously adapt to an ever-changing competitive environment.

This paper aims to present an interpretive case study in education for sustainability (EfS) that applies VanWynsberghe and Herman’s (2015, 2016) adaptive education as pedagogy. Dewey’s theory of behaviour change is applied to educative experiences based on habit disruption and real-world learning, leading to creativity in the formation of new habits. The programme presented inverts dominant conceptions of knowledge to design innovative sustainability pedagogy. Instead knowledge resides alongside experience, cases, intuition, advice, experimentation and dialogue in the individual and collective effort to address daily sustainability challenges.

The paper reports on the outcomes of an interpretive case study (Merriam, 1998) of a higher education programme in sustainability pedagogy. It presents a series of reflections by instructors and participants in discussing the programme’s relationship with the core themes of habit, disruption, creative action and dialogue framed within the five features of adaptive education: stakeholders, real-world learning, off campus, transdisciplinarity and non-traditional rewards.

Through this examination, the authors found that adaptive education offered a pedagogy that simultaneously addressed the need for increased sustainability knowledge, whilst inverting its dominance. As a long-term project, the extent of the programme’s impact will be evident beyond the programme’s completion.

This interpretive case study is analysed through high-level conceptual and theoretical aspects of the pedagogy rather than the particularities of the case. By putting the centrality of knowledge into question, the authors are advocating for a more experimental role for higher education in its teaching and learning. These questions are broadly applicable.

There are research, learning and social benefits to this programme. Adaptive education builds capacity for future leaders and educators of sustainability.

The paper concludes with a discussion for further theorizing and research on adaptive education and EfS in higher education. This research will contribute to broader discussions of the evolving role of education in sustainability.