Experiences From Employees With Team Learning in a Vocational

8/13/2019 Experiences From Employees With Team Learning in a Vocational

1/17

Review

Experiences from employees with team learning in a vocational

learning or work setting: A systematic review of qualitative

evidence

K. Hannes a,, E. Raes b, K. Vangenechten a, M. Heyvaert a, F. Dochy b

a Methodology of Educational Sciences Research Group, KU Leuven, Belgiumb Professional Learning and Development, Corporate Training and Lifelong Learning Research Group, KU Leuven, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 22 November 2012

Revised 2 August 2013

Accepted 5 October 2013

Available online 24 October 2013

Keywords:

Team learning

Vocational learning

Employees

Qualitative evidence synthesis

Systematic review

a b s t r a c t

This qualitative evidence synthesis aimed to integrate findings on the experiences of

employees with team learning in the context of their work or vocational learning setting.

The meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis was used to summarize

the findings from original research papers in which the experiential level of employees

was investigated. The findings suggest that employees learn for different reasons and in

different ways. Three major lines of actions for practice and policy were developed from

the synthesis. A first advice is to stimulate communication, boundary crossing and knowl-

edge sharing and establish an enabling learning environment that triggers positive factors

for team learning. Secondly, it is important to analyse the authority structures that influ-

ence the relationships within a team, minimise the power inequalities that flow from hier-

archical differences, and support and enable team leaders to influence the power

differences inside their team. Finally, it is recommended to try to recognise the authentic-

ity, the commitment and devotion of employees toward team learning, to stimulate but not

to intervene in the natural process of team learning, and to consider the place of reflection

and action in this process.

2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

1.1. Review questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

1.2. Defining the main concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

1.2.1. Teams or groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

1.2.2. Team learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1182. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

2.1. Search strategy for identification of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

2.2. Criteria for considering studies in this review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

2.2.1. Type of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

2.2.2. Type of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

2.2.3. Type of outcome measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

2.3. Critical appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

1747-938X/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.002

Corresponding author. Address: Methods of Educational Sciences Research Group, KU Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Tel.: +32

16 32 62 20.

E-mail address: [email protected](K. Hannes).

Educational Research Review 10 (2013) 116132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l oc a t e / E D U R E V
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.002mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.002http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1747938Xhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/EDUREVhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/EDUREVhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1747938Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.002mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.002http://-/?-http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.002&domain=pdf


2/17

2.4. Data extraction and synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

3. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

3.1. Synthesis 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

3.2. Synthesis 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

3.3. Synthesis 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4.1. Implications for practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4.2. Research limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

4.3. Implications for future research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

1. Introduction

Effectiveness, efficiency and innovation have become key factors to the survival of modern organisations (Cameron, 1986;

Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Teams are increasingly expected to generate effective and efficient results (Sessa & London,

2008). As a consequence, the responsibility of teams for the workload within and the output of an organisation has grown

(Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999). In order to be competitive in a changing environment, organisations as

well as their employees should engage in a process of continuous learning (Edmondson, 2002; Sessa & London, 2008). Apart

from stimulating individual learning (Slavin, 1996; Sweet & Michaelsen, 2007), it increases a teams effectiveness (Crossan,Lane, White & Djurfeldt, 1995; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006; West, 1999) and contributes to organ-

isational learning and innovation (Crossan, Lane & White, 1999).

The concept of team learning needs to be considered with caution, as it means different things to different people in

different situations. It has frequently been investigated from a conceptual point of view (Decuyper, Dochy, & Van den

Bossche, 2010; Senge, 1990; Sessa & London, 2006). Several researchers have defined team learning as a group level phe-

nomenon that generates potential beneficial effects (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & OMalley, 1996). The strong focus on

effectiveness is mostly driven by the need to think in terms of performance outcomes of team members. It has been

criticised by Decuyper and colleagues (2010), who argue that going beyond inputs and outputs, in explicitly focusing

on team learning processes, is important in understanding why team learning outputs occur. Establishing a firm causal

link between those who have been subject to team learning processes and their actual performance is still challenging.

Allen and Hecht (2004), in their study on the romance of teams, showed that teams are not as effective as many per-

ceive them to be. According to the authors, the attraction of team work is not based on actual performance benefits, but

rather on psychological ones. First, there are socio-emotional benefits from being involved in a team: reduced uncer-tainty about the work, increased satisfaction and fulfilment of social needs. Second, managers, employees and lay per-

sons may also gain some competence-related benefits, such as an increased personal responsibility for the success of the

team, decreased personal responsibility for team failures and higher self-evaluations of individual and group perfor-

mance. There are several other aspects that may impact on employees actual performance: the meaningfulness they as-

sign to team learning, whether or not they believe the learning processes they are involved in are appropriate or feasible

etc. This seems to suggest that in order to better understand the why and how of team learning it is important to look

into how team learning is experienced by its group members.

Qualitative research evidence on the lived experiences of stakeholders with team learning has not yet systematically been

synthesized. It is nevertheless important to consider, mainly because the perceptions of employees can increase our under-

standing of why certain team learning processes fail or succeed, what employees value in team learning and what may need

to be adapted for a more successful implementation of team learning programs.

1.1. Review questions

The main research question we address in this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) with team learning as our main topic

of interest is: How is team learning experienced by employees? We investigate the meaning of team learning, inventory the

overall opinions and beliefs about team learning, and identify potential positive and negative aspects of team learning. A sec-

ondary question we address is: Which implications for team learning practice and team learning policy can be drawn from

the synthesized findings? Our implication for practice and policy section in this review will be grounded in the suggestions

for improvement that have been offered by employees in the original studies as well as our own understanding and insights

derived from synthesizing the findings of these studies.

1.2. Defining the main concepts

One of the important features of a QES is that it attempts to synthesize findings from original, qualitative studies in order

to create a new understanding or develop lines of actions for practice and policy. It compares and contrasts the content of

K. Hannes et al. / Educational Research Review 10 (2013) 116132 117
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/17

several original research articles in order to develop overarching descriptions that build on the meaning employees assign to

team learning. We considered it beneficial to work with an unambiguous and understandable definition of teams and team

learning to develop a transparent set of inclusion- and exclusion criteria for our review. In what follows, we will draw on

previous research in order to conceptualise teams and team learning for our review.

1.2.1. Teams or groups

The words team and group are frequently used as synonyms, however not always clearly defined. They are often said

to even suggest different meanings. For many, team connotes more than group, namely that groups become teams when

they develop a sense of shared commitment and strive for synergy among members (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Firth-

Cozens (1998) argues that spelling out the criteria that makes a team does not always help the recognition of where a team

begins and ends, who is a member and who is not, how much overlap between teams is useful and how much is divisive. A

variety of very similar definitions can be found in the literature (e.g., Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Hackman, 1987). In line with

other authors (e.g., Boon, Raes, Kyndt, & Dochy, 2013; Decuyper et al., 2010; Devine, 2002) we choose to follow the definition

ofCohen and Bailey (1997)because to our opinion it entails all the important aspects of the definitions developed by other

authors. The focus in this definition is on five applicable and straightforward criteria that distinguish a team from a group of

people and are therefore convenient to integrate in a screening checklist evaluating the eligibility of studies for inclusion:

A team is a collection of individuals who are (1) interdependent in their tasks, (2) who share responsibility for outcomes,

(3) who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social sys-

tems (for example, business unit or the corporation), (5) and who manage their relationships across organizational

boundaries (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p. 241).

1.2.2. Team learning

The current literature proposes over 30 different definitions and theoretical frameworks on team learning that are

currently used and applied to frame research studies (Decuyper et al., 2010).Senge (1990)originally defined team learn-

ing as the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire(p. 236).

The definition of Decuyper et al. (2010) is the result of a systematic review of the team learning literature. It is integra-

tive and a clear and practical conceptualisation of team learning. We therefore adopted this working definition for the

review:

Team learning is a compilation of team-level processes that circularly generate change or improvement for teams, team

members, organizations, etc. Being a compilation, it consists of changing combinations of different types of processes

(sharing, co-construction, constructive conflict, team reflexivity, boundary crossing, team activity, storage and retrieval).

Working circularly, it dynamically translates a complex body of influences from multiple levels into different types of out-

puts at multiple levels, which in turn influence team learning ( Decuyper et al., 2010, p. 128).

2. Methodology

A lot of different methods for QES have recently been developed and reported on (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young,

Sutton, 2005; Hannes & Lockwood, 2012). We opted for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to synthesis, designed

to mirror the procedures used in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and other quan-

titative research (Pearson, Robertson-Malt & Rittenmeyer, 2011). Meta-aggregation takes an inclusive approach to searching

and selecting studies and stresses the importance of methodological quality of studies to be included in a synthesis, from the

point of view that methodological flaws in a particular study could have a negative impact on the findings of a synthesis and

its trustworthiness. Meta-aggregation is aligned with the philosophy of pragmatism in that it is particularly sensitive to the

practicality and usability of its findings. It takes the complex picture of the phenomenon of interest derived from the original

qualitative papers into account, and, also proposes particular lines of action (close to recommendations) on an individual

and an organisational level. It distinguishes itself from other QES approaches developed within an interpretive research par-

adigm in its presentation of a declamatory form of synthesized statement or description that indicates direct action. It does

not seek to re-interpret findings from other studies. Rather, it is developed to emphasize the probability of a particular claim

that may lead directly to an operational prediction (Hannes & Lockwood, 2011).

2.1. Search strategy for identification of studies

We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature produced since 1990 until December 2011. Because the biggest

amount of research on team learning started after the publication ofThe Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990), we anticipated that the

benefit of including studies conducted before 1990 was small. An initial scoping of the literature resulted in the formulation

of a list of key words to be used to search the major databases. The following subject terms were used: team learning, group

learning, collective learning, and cooperative learning. These were combined with a set of context related terms including

employee, vocation training, vocational training, vocation learning, vocational learning, vocation, organization, and

organisation.

118 K. Hannes et al./ Educational Research Review 10 (2013) 116132
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/17

In the first stage of the search strategy these search terms were used within seven relevant, major databases:

ERIC, PsycINFO, EconLit, POOLL, Web of Science, Francis, and the EBSCO database from Academic Search Premier.

Second, thirteen topic specific journals were hand searched: Journal of Workplace Learning, Adult Education Quar-

terly, Vocations and Learning, Studies on Continuing Education, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Journal of

European industrial Training, The Learning Organization, Innovation in Education and Training International, Educa-

tion + Training, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,

Journal of Education, and Work and Small Group Research. Relevant studies were identified based on information

provided in the abstract, or title when the abstract was not available. In case of doubt based on the title only,

the full text was sought. Third, a screening instrument was developed based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria

specified below, which guided the reviewers in assessing the relevance of retrieved studies based on abstract and

titles (Box 1).

Box 1 Screening instrument

Title of the study:

Inclusion criteria:

Types of participants:

Employees > adults > members of a team

Topic studied:

Experiences with team learning

Vocational learning or work setting

Types of studies:Qualitative studies with a clear method and result section > primary research (exclude secondary data)

The five characteristics of a team:

1. A collective of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks

2. Share responsibility for outcomes

3. See themselves and are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems

(two characteristics are combined)

4. Manage their relationships across social boundaries

0 Include

0 Exclude: Reason for rejection:

Studies were considered if they met at least two of the five criteria of a team as defined by Cohen and Bailey (1997). From

studies that passed this initial screening phase the full text was sought. A second reviewer duplicated the full text screening

phase. An inter rater agreement score was calculated. Disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer. For pragmatic

reasons only articles written in a language that could be read and understood by the members from the research team were

included (i.e., English, Dutch, French, and German).

2.2. Criteria for considering studies in this review

2.2.1. Type of studies

All types of qualitative research studies were considered. In line with the basic viewpoint of the developers of the meta-

aggregative approach that a critical appraisal of methodological quality should be considered an obligatory passing point for

inclusion, we restricted included qualitative research reports to empirical studies with a clear description of the sampling

strategy, the methodology chosen, data collection procedures used and the type of data-analysis considered. A transparent

description of these issues facilitates the systematic use of critical appraisal as well as a more paradigmatic appraisal process.

Editorials and opinion pieces were therefore excluded from the analysis.

2.2.2. Type of participants

Since the context of this QES was restricted to work or vocational learning settings, only studies on adult workers were

included. In addition, the participants had to be part of a team and had to engage in team learning. Studies on team leaders

were included, since we considered them being part of a team. Studies targeting top managers were excluded from the study,

because their main task consisted of supervising teams.

2.2.3. Type of outcome measures

We only considered studies that explored the experiences with team learning for employees in the context of their work

or vocational learning. All studies reporting on either the meaningfulness, appropriateness, feasibility, perceived effective-

ness, barriers or facilitators of team learning or a combination of these were considered for inclusion.

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/17

2.3. Critical appraisal

The critical appraisal instrument developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) was used to appraise the methodological

quality of all relevant studies. In a recent comparison of three critical appraisal instruments, the JBI tool appeared to be the

most coherent, because of its focus on congruity (Hannes, Lockwood, & Pearson, 2010). The critical appraisal instrument con-

sists of 10 quality criteria (Box 2). The minimum threshold for studies to be included was that they met criterion eight of the

instrument evaluating whether or not a study has adequately represented the adult workers voices. One of the character-

istics of qualitative research is that the investigator has a potential influence in the interpretation of the data. Over- or under

interpretation from a researcher may have an impact on the trustworthiness of the findings of a study. A reference to the

original quotes of the participants in an original research paper allows a reviewer to evaluate whether or not a particular

claim from an author is credible. It assists in judging the trustworthiness of the claims made by an author, based on the

raw data gathered within the research project. The importance of interpretative validity in qualitative research has been

stressed in the paper fromHannes, Lockwood and Pearson (2010), which is why we gave it a prominent role in the quality

appraisal. Each study had to comply with criterion eight evaluating the credibility of the studies. We decided on a cut-off

score of 710 to consider studies for inclusion.

Box 2 Quality criteria critical appraisal exercise

1. There is congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology.

2. There is congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives.

3. There is congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data.4. There is congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data.

5. There is congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results.

6. There is a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically.

7. The influence of the researcher on the research, and vice versa, is addressed.

8. Participants, and their voices, are adequately represented.

9. The research is ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, there is evidence of ethical approval

by an appropriate body.

10. Conclusions drawn in the research report do appear to flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data.

2.4. Data extraction and synthesis

We used a three step approach to extracting, analysing and synthesizing the findings of original qualitative research

reports. Conceptual and descriptive communality was sought in the themes and metaphors presented in each study. The

analytic process consisted of the aggregation or synthesis of findings to generate a set of overarching descriptions pre-

sented as declamatory statements that were grounded in the findings. In a first step we assembled the findings from ori-

ginal research papers. A finding is defined as a theme, category or metaphor reported by authors of the original paper.

We took the literal descriptions presented in the results sections of original articles into account. For each of the findings

a supporting citation was sought that demonstrated the origin of the findings. We adopted the levels of evidence outlined

byPearson (2004) and assigned them to each of the original themes identified (Box 3). Only findings that were consid-

ered unequivocal and credible were considered for further categorisation. The second step was to summarize these find-

ings on the basis of similarity in meaning across all papers. We searched for conceptual similarity to construct these

categories; a particular theme, metaphor or part thereof that could be identified across multiple papers. In addition,

we looked at potential descriptive similarity, whether the terminology associated with a theme or metaphor was consis-

tent across papers. In a third step these categories were subject to a meta-aggregation in order to produce three com-prehensive sets of aggregated findings. In this process, we concentrated on the summary of common and competing

findings to produce cross generalisations that led to the recommendations for action. What adds to the robustness of

the meta-aggregative approach is that the cues to action can be traced back to the original data. We have integrated

the level of evidence and the identification number of the included studies (Box 4) that generated particular findings

in our conceptual models (Figs. 13).

http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/17

Box 3 Levels of evidenceUnequivocal: relates to evidence beyond reasonable doubt which may include findingsthat are matter of fact, directly reported/observed and not open to challenge.

Credible: relates to those findings that are, albeit interpretations, plausible in light of the data and theoreticalframework. They can be logically inferred from the data. Because the findings are interpretive they can be

challenged.

Unsupported: is when the findings are not supported by the data.

3. Findings

In this part we will present the findings related to the search strategy and critical appraisal exercise, provide an overview

of the main characteristics of the included studies and present the overarching descriptions based on the data-extraction of

the findings in the original research papers as lines of action for policy and practice.

The comprehensive search strategy identified 3783 potentially relevant studies. Based on abstract and title 273 studies

met the inclusion criteria. After filtering out the doubles, 218 studies were assessed, based on the full-text article. A total

of 191 studies were excluded from the review because they did not meet all inclusion criteria. The inter rater agreement

between reviewers for the screening phase was 92%. A complete list of the references of all 191 excluded studies can be ob-

tained from the first author. Most of the excluded studies (N= 90) did not primarily address team learning. Twenty-six stud-ies reported on the experiences of students instead of employees. Eleven studies were excluded because the articles did not

refer to a work or vocational learning setting and 37 texts did not meet the criteria for team work outlined by Cohen and

Bailey (1997). Another 25 studies were mainly quantitative and two articles were excluded based on language. In the

end, 27 studies met all inclusion criteria. All studies were appraised by one reviewer. A random sample of 7 out of 27 articles

was independently appraised by a second reviewer to check on potential differences in interpretation of the appraisal instru-

ment (Table 1). Inconsistencies between reviewers were solved through discussion and through involving a senior research-

er. The first reviewer double checked the remaining 20 studies, based on the line of argument from the discussion. Fourteen

out of 27 studies finally passed the critical appraisal exercise and were used for further data extraction and synthesis.

Table 2outlines the main characteristics of the 14 included studies (listed in Box 4). Several papers reported findings of

studies that were conducted in the health and social care sector (N= 4) or in private production, and manufacturing compa-

nies (N= 7). Other authors reported on team learning in universities or educational alliances (N= 2) or a theatre company

(N= 1). Some of the included papers did not mention the geographical region wherein the interventions were conducted,

however most of the studies were conducted in western countries such as the UK, the USA or Scandinavia. From the 14 re-search papers 115 findings were extracted. These were assigned to seven different thematic categories, based on similarity in

meaning, and further synthesised into three overarching descriptions.Figs. 13visually represent the key findings and cat-

egories related to these statements.

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/17


8/17

19. Olson, C.A., Tooman, T.R., & Alvarado, C.J. (2010). Knowledge systems, health care teams, and clinical practice: A study of successful change.

Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 491516.

U Y Y

20. Peltonen, K. (2008). Can learning in teams help teachers to become more enterpreneurial? The interplay between efficacy perceptions and

team support. LTA, 3, 297324.

Y Y Y

21. Robey, D., Khoo, H.M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. Manuscript submitted for publication. Y Y Y

22. Rutherford, J., & McArthur, M. (2004). A qualitative account of the factors affecting team learning in primary care. Education for Primary Care,

15, 352360.

Y Y Y

23. Sense, J.A. (2004). An architecture for learning in projects. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(3), 123145. N Y Y

24. Sense, J.A. (2005). Facilitating conversational learning in a project team practice. Journal of Workplace learning, 17(3), 178193. N Y Y

25. Soule, D.L., & Applegat, L.M. (2009, January). Virtual team learning: Reflecting and acting, alone or with others.Manuscript submitted for

publication.

N Y Y

26. Szejnwald Brown, H., & Vergagt, P.J. (2008). Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systematic change: The case of a zero-energyresidential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 107130.

U Y Y

27. Van Wijngaarden, J.D., de Bont, A.A., & Huijsman, R. (2006). Learning to cross boundaries: The integration of a health network to deliver

seamless care. Health Policy, 79, 203213.

N Y Y

Y = Yes; N = No; U = Unclear.* The numbers refer to the criteria listed in Box 2.** Reviewer 1.*** Reviewer 2.


9/17

Table 2

Main characteristics of the 14 studies selected for data extraction and synthesis.

Nr. Methodology Method Phenomena of

interest

Setting Geographical Participants Data

analysis

1* Socio-cultural

perspective/

analysis

Observations and

interviews

Procedures and

competence

development

methodology

An oil refinery and

petrochemicals

manufacturing complex

UK Process operators,

maintenance

technicians, office

employees,

training staff,refinery analysts,

refinery

technologists and

various categories

of manager

Thematic

analysis

2 Interpretive

interactionist

approach

Qualitative multiple

case study

The link between

the distribution of

formal power to

individual team

members and the

collective team-

learning outcome

of producing

useful new

knowledge

The research and

development unit of a

large high-technology

manufacturing company

/ Four teams whose

task was to

improve the

production

process. 10 to 15

people in a team

(voluntarily).

Selected to

achieve a broad

variation of

hierarchical rank,gender, age, and

ethnic and racial

background

Thematic

analysis,

negative-

case

analysis

3 Case study Personal in depth

and semi-structured

interviews

The effect of

leadership style of

a team leader on

team-member

learning in

organisations,

ambidextrous

leadership in a

team context

Large and prominent

university

/ Three teams, from

three different

disciplinary units,

responsible for

teaching activities

and some research

tasks. With a clear

top management

team leader (3), a

team leader (3),

and team

members (6)

Content

analysis

4 Interpretive

epistemology

Observations and

interviews

To explore how

collective learning

and change

happen

Primary care teams UK 10 teams Thematic

analysis,

use of

mindmap

software

leading to a

meta-

framework

of results

5 Ethnographical

approach

Developing

sequence of social

interaction

The process of

inter-professional

work and learning

Surgical operating

theatre = interprofessional

groups

Finland Doctors (surgeons

and physicians)

and nurses

Basic

results

compared

with ideal

vignettes

6 Exploratory

study

Observations and

interviews

The role of team

learning in

organisational

learning

Five types of teams: top

management, middle

management, product

development, internal

services, and production.

In a medium-sized

manufacturing company

/ Senior executives,

middle managers,

engineers,

production

workers, and

providers of

various staff

services

An iterative

approach

7 Qualitative

field study

Interviews The operating-

room-team work

routine

Hospitals USA Members of the

OR teams using

MICS

Cross-case

analysis

8 Multiple case-

study design

Direct

observations + semi-

structured

interviews

Conditions for

informal learning

in care work

Home help service Sweden Care workers, and

the head and

deputy of each

unit

Cross-case

analysis



10/17

Table 2(continued)

Nr. Methodology Method Phenomena of

interest

Setting Geographical Participants Data

analysis

9 Case-based

approach

Interviews Team-based

knowledge work

A large insurance company

and a small engineering

company, a large

consumer health product

company

Sweden, USA Members of

project teams

Thematic

analysis

10 Clinicalapproach

Participantobservation,

structured and

unstructured

interviewing

Learning in theworkplace from a

practice based

perspective

A regional theatrecompany = Center Theatre

Company

Mid-west ofthe USA

35 companymembers

Groundedtheory

11 Soft knowledge

systems theory

Qualitative cross-

case study:

interviews, archival

document review,

and direct

observation

Knowledge

production and

successful change

in teams. The

existing

knowledge

networks

Part of the Antimicrobial

Resistance Educational

Alliance (AREA)

USA Health care teams

which matched

the criteria

NVivo

software:

primary

level using

a coding

dictionary,

secondary

level using

emergent

themes

12 Grounded

theory

Team members

written reflections

How to learn to

become an

entrepreneurial

teacher?

An entrepreneurial team-

teaching intervention

Finland The author and

two teacher

colleagues

Open

coding,

axial

coding, and

selective

coding

13 Interpretative Interviews Virtual teams and

the learning of

work practices

A large company USA Workers and

managers of three

cross-functional

teams

Categorical

coding

14 An exploratory

study

Interviews,

observations, access

to electronic project

records

Virtual team

learning

New product development

situations in a

multinational company

/ 7 new product

development

teams: team

members and

managers

Within-

team

analysis

and cross-

team

analysis

*

Number referring to studies included in the synthesis listed in Box 4.



11/17

Box 4 Final set of included studies

1. Boreham, N., & Morgan, C. (2004). A sociocultural analysis of organizational learning.Oxford Review of

Education, 30(3), 307325.

2. Brooks, A. K. (1994). Power and the production of knowledge: Collective team learning in work

organizations.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(3), 213235.3. Bucic, T., Robinson, L., & Ramburuth, P. (2010). Effects of leadership styles on team learning. Journal of

Workplace Learning, 22(4), 228248.

4. Bunniss, S., & Kelly, D. R. (2008). The unknown becomes the known: Collective learning and change in

primary care teams.Medical Education, 42(12), 11851194.

5. Collin, K., Paloniemi, S., & Mecklin, J. P. (2010). Promoting interprofessional teamwork and learning - The

case of surgical operating theatre. Journal of Education and Work, 23(1), 4363.

6. Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local an variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level

perspective.Organization Science, 13(2), 128146.

7. Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new

technology implementation in hospitals.Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685716.

8. Ellstro m, E., Ekholm, B., & Ellstro m, P. E. (2008). Two types of learning environment: Enabling and

constraining a study of care work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(2), 8497.

9. Erhardt, N. (2011). Is it all about teamwork? Understanding processes in team-based knowledge work.Management Learning, 42(1), 87112.

10. Ford, R. (2008). From situated practice to informed theory: Learning cycles and enabling structures.

The Learning Organization, 15(2), 126148.

11. Olson, C. A., Tooman, T. R., & Alvarado, C. J. (2010). Knowledge systems, health care teams, and clinical

practice: A study of successful change.Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(4), 491516.

12. Peltonen, K. (2008). Can learning in teams help teachers to become more enterpreneurial? The interplay

between efficacy perceptions and team support. LTA, 3, 297324.

13. Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams.

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(1), 51-66.

14. Soule, D. L., & Applegat, L. M. (2009).Virtual team learning: Reflecting and acting, alone or with others .

Cambridge, USA: Harvard business school. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-084.pdf.

Whatever type of team learning is occurringon the work floor, there are three conditional

team learning processes that one shouldalways take into account: communication,

boundary crossing, and knowledge sharing.Besides these essential conditions an enablinglearning environment may further stimulate

the learning of a team.

Category 1: Different types of learning

Active-reflectiveBoth types of learning occur separately,simultanously or not at all (U: 6, 10, 14)

Reflective learning may happen in a formalor an informal way (U: 10)

Feed back-feed forwardFeedback learning is described as theexploitation type of learning and feed

forward learning as the exploration type (U:3).

Single-double loopBoth types of learning are mentioned in thecontext of coping with mistakes (U: 4, 9)

Knowledge creationFor well structured problems limited

knowledge sharing occurs. For ill-structuredproblems knowledge sharing occurs more

frequently (U: 9).

Category 2: Essential conditions of teamlearning

Knowledge sharingTeam members exchange what they know,

think, hear from eachother (U: 1, 2, 9, 10)Boundary crossingContacts occur within teams and outside teams(consumers and management) (U: 6, 14). These

contacts are mainly used to exchange whathappened, spread knowledge and information,facilitate learning and change (U: 2, 3, 5, 6, 11,

14). Employees use pre-existing and newlinkages (U: 11, 14).

CommunicationCommunication can be task or socio-emotional

related and occurs face-to-face (mostappreciated form), via media or virtually.

Respect for linguistic conventions andovercoming stereotypical expectationsassociated with cultural differences is

considered important(U: 13).

Category 3: Enabling learning factors

Team/social supportDifferent types of support that enable learning arementioned, including instrumental, informational,

emotional, appraisal, collegial,intra/interprofessional support (U: 5, 12) . An

inclusive atmosphere is appreciated (U: 5).

Structural support

An emphasis on the planning and organisation ofwork, multidisciplinary teams, formal as well as

informal meetings, active engagement in learningactivities, accessible managers, an optimal use of

architecture and space seem to enable learning(U: 2, 8, 10, 11, 14 / O: 4)

Fig. 1. Findings contributing to synthesis 1 (numbers refer to studies fromTable 2, U = unequivocal and O = unsupported evidence).

http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-084.pdfhttp://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-084.pdf


12/17

3.1. Synthesis 1

Whatever type of team learning is occurring on the work floor, there are three conditional team learning processes that

one should always take into account: communication, boundary crossing, and knowledge sharing. Besides these essential

conditions an enabling learning environment may further stimulate the learning of a team.

This synthesis results from the combination of three categories (Fig. 1): different types of learning (Category 1), essential

conditions for learning (Category 2), and enabling learning factors (Category 3).

Category 1. This category shows that teammembers experience different kinds of learning and theirstories demonstratethat

these different learning types occur either simultaneously or iteratively. Types of learning thathave often beenmentioned are:

reflection and action, feedback/exploitative learning and feed-forward/exploration learning, single- and double loop learning,

individual- and team learning, and knowledge creation (3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 141). The team members also describe conditions that are

important for the teams to engage in a learning process.

Category 2. Communication, knowledge sharing and boundary crossing are all described as conditional team learning pro-

cesses. Communication can help to improve team members understanding of each other and should be task-related as well

as socio-emotional (13). Communication seems essential in different kinds of groups, but its importance is particularly

stressed by virtual teams wherein different communication media are chosen based on urgency, individual preference, need

for documentation and ease of use (13). Members of the virtual teams still perceive face-to-face communication as the most

valuable option and appreciate this kind of interaction (13). Boundary crossing refers to team members communicating withcolleagues outside their own team; experts or informants, consumers or managers (2, 3, 5, 6, 14). It is primarily done to

spread or obtain knowledge and information and sometimes to seek feedback and direction (2, 11, 14). Knowledge sharing

is mentioned in four different studies and seems to flow from communication and boundary crossing that are both featuring

the issue of exchange (1, 2, 9, 10). These findings seem to suggest that team learning can be stimulated by ensuring that

these three components are at place. This would then facilitate the creation of an enabling learning environment.

Category 3. The third category shows that both peer and structural support seem to be important facilitators for team learn-

ing. Study participants have mentioned factors such as collegial support, inter- and intra-professional interaction and guid-

ance, inclusive atmosphere, architecture/lay out of the work space, instrumental-, informational-, emotional- and appraisal

support of team members. On a structural level multidisciplinary teams, accessibility of the leader, and individual and organ-

isational learning readiness are all mentioned as important facilitators for team learning to occur (4, 5, 8, 10).

For team learning and conditional team learningprocesses to occur, power differences should be

minimised or eliminated and authority structuresthat reproduce power differences should be

analysed. The team leaders should takeresponsibility to influence the power relationships

inside their teams and as a result influence the kind

of learning that takes place.

Category 4: Organisational authority structureand distribution of formal power

Negative consequences of lack of formal powerNo control over time movement and work, not invited

for team meetings limiting the chance to integrateknowledge resulting in a perception of being lessvaluable (U: 2, 7). Disencouraging factors include

meetings outside working hours, fear of'identification' with a problem (U: 2, 6, 7), stifling and

intimidating nature of meetings (C: 2).

Sources of power differencesPower differences are institutionalised by ahierarchical authority structure and supporting

policies: communication patterns are steered byhierarchical positions, authority results from formal

position rather than technical knowledge, topmanagement keeps the differences in place (U: 2, 6,

7). Knowledge becomes a source of power in thecontext of persuading stakeholders and gaining

respect and trust (U: 11, 14).

Power differences and team learningReflection and action mostly occurs in teams whereleaders minimize power (U: 1, 2, 9, 11) and create a

psychologically safe, collaborative and inclusiveatmosphere (U: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7).

Category 5: Leadership styles and theirinfluence on team learning

A leader's taskLeaders engage in selecting and motivating staff,

enrol staff intellectually and emotionally in aproject, coaches and reflects on the team, with

sensitivity to potential hierarchical structures inthe organisation. The importance and fit for

purpose of a person for a project should becommunicated (U: 7).

Leadership influencesLeadership is guided by existing personality traits

as well as external influences such as timepressure, hierarchical structure. Leaders may takeover the leadership style of top management (U:

3).

Leadership stylesDifferent styles are identified including

transactional, transformational, ambidextrous andmulti champion or expert leadership, stimulating

different types of learning (C: 3, . A focus oncontact and relationship building and shared

leadership is appreciated (U: 2, C: 7, 11).

Fig. 2. Findings contributing to synthesis 2 (numbers refer to studies fromTable 2, U = unequivocal, C = credible evidence).

1 The numbers refer to the numbers assigned to the studies included in this review listed in (Box 4).

http://-/?-http://-/?-


13/17

3.2. Synthesis 2

For team learning and conditional team learning processes to occur, power differences should be minimised or elim-

inated and authority structures that reproduce power differences should be analysed. The team leaders should take

responsibility to influence the power relationships inside their teams and as a result influence the kind of learning that

takes place.

The synthesis pulls together the findings from two categories (Fig 2): organisational authority structures and distribution

of formal power (Category 4) and leadership styles and their influence on team learning (Category 5).

Category 4. The statements in Category 4 represent the negative consequences of the lack of formal power for

particular groups of employees. Ones function or place in an organisation and in addition his/her specific knowledge

base determines ones power and therefore ones interaction with others. A position of power generally results from

experience and longstanding relations that leads to trust and respect (2, 7, 11, 14). Several findings indicate that the

particular authority structure within an organisation produces an unequal distribution of formal power that is kept in

place by top management and influences the learning of individual team members (2, 6, 7). Lower-power team

members (LPTM) describe their inability to influence important decision making processes, because they are not

invited to participate in important meetings (2). They also state that they would feel uncomfortable about raising

their voices in a meeting, because of a concern to lose credit with their employer (2, 6, 7). This implies that LPTM are

less likely to share and integrate their knowledge (2). Some studies highlight the importance of psychological safety

that, according to the adult workers, implies the confidence of each member to speak up (5, 6, 7). Many LPTM state

that their opinions are perceived to be less valuable (2, 7). The qualitative evidence further indicates that in order for

team learning to occur power differences can and should be reconstituted (1, 2, 11). An atmosphere of collaboration

and inclusion is perceived as stimulating for personal development (2, 3). Studies targeting adult workers from teams

that had succeeded in reducing the hierarchy between their members, report better overall results and learning

opportunities (7, 11).

Category 5. Category 5provides a summary of the stories of team members on their team leaders. On the task level they

stress the importance of a team leaders capability to motivate adult workers by engaging them on an intellectual and an

emotional level and by clarifying their particular role and why they have been selected for the job (7). Many team leaders

tend to take over the top management leadership style, however the findings suggest that a shared leadership has a positive

impact on both the team leaders and LPTM (2, 11). In one study team members of successful teams describe and appreciate

certain leadership tasks which help minimising power differences (7). Leaders themselves describe leadership as being all

about contact and relationships (2, 7). Different kinds of leadership stimulate different kinds of team learning: transactional

leadership stimulates feedback learning, transformational leadership stimulates feed-forward learning and ambidextrous

leadership implies exploration and exploitation, incremental and radical learning, flexibility and control, and feed-forward

and feedback learning (3).

Team learning is clearlyexpressed to be an experiential,

evolutionary and implicit process. Duringthis process positive as well as negative

feelings occur. Different patterns of teamlearning are described but no matter

which pattern of team learning isfollowed, reflective learning and active

learning (in a variety of different forms)should always be part of the

process.

Category 6: Descriptions of teamlearning

AssociationsUnpredictable (C: 4, 13), helpful in

coping with demands (U: 4), stimulatesreflection on the self and others, happens

unconsciously and experiental (U: 4), isdynamic and implicit and induces

knowledge about people and their roles(U: 4, 5, 13, 14)

Positive and negative feelingsThere is a shared responsability for

failure or succes in workinginterdependent, which reduces anxiety(U: 4, 7/C: 9). Seeing the benefits for

clients and the broader picture ismotivating (U: 2, 7, 8, 14). Negative

feeling associated with team learning areuncertainty, fear and stress (U: 4, 7).

Category 7: Patterns of team learning

Action and reflectionLearning occurs from the iteration between

reflection and action (U: 6)

Four step patternPutting learning in practice implies enrolment,

preparation, trials and reflection (U: 7, 14)

Four interconnected learning cycles

Components of learning cycles include actionlearning, direct structured learning, extended

participatory reflection, synthesis acrossdisciplines and dissemination of knowledge

(U/C: 10).

Efficiency perception patternLearning occurs in a pattern of three phases: aplanning, action and evaluation phase, with a

growing amount of self-efficacy belief resultingin a decreasing need for instrumental support infavour of emotional and appraisal support (U:

12).

Experiental learning patternThis pattern consist of two main actions beingthinking and doing, either alone or with others.

Fig. 3. Findings contributing to synthesis 3 (numbers refer to studies fromTable 2, U = unequivocal, C = credible evidence).

http://-/?-http://-/?-


14/17

3.3. Synthesis 3

Team learning is clearly expressed to be an experiential, evolutionary and implicit process. During this process positive as

well as negative feelings occur. Different patterns of team learning are described but no matter which pattern of team learn-

ing is followed, reflective learning and active learning (in a variety of different forms) are always part of the process.

Fig. 3outlines the process of team learning, building on two major categories of findings: descriptions of team learning

(Category 6) and patterns of team learning (Category 7).

Category 6. When analysing descriptions of team learning given by the participants and summarizing words as

unpredictable and unconsciously, mistakes and shared responsibly frequently occur (4, 9, 13). Team learning then seems

to be an experiential process that includes actions such as watching, listening, trying etc. (4, 14). Team learning is also

perceived as evolutionary or non-static (4, 5). Some studies describe it as an implicit process; the learning has a non-formal

nature and occurs during daily work (4, 13). Knowing the other team members, who they are, what they think, what they

will do next, and how to anticipate on this is considered very important, particularly in the context of individual members

specific roles and tasks (4, 5). Team learning helps the members to understand what happens in the company and how their

work is related to the overall goal of their employer (2, 14). The studies further suggest that employees experienced negative

emotions such as uncertainty, fear and stress. These were perceived as logic reactions to the demands placed upon the teams

(4, 7). Overall, the positive feelings concur the negatives ones and team learning is experienced as a valuable process (2, 4).

Category 7. A seventh and last category shows five different team learning patterns or pathways to implement team learn-

ing that have been identified in the original studies: action and reflection, the four step pattern, the four interconnectedlearning cycles, the efficiency perception pattern and the experiential learning pattern. The patterns starts from a different

point of view, however it was noticed that reflection learning and action learning occur in every pattern and can be consid-

ered the core characteristics of the learning processes within teams (6, 10, 12, 14).

4. Discussion

4.1. Implications for practice

This QES aimed to investigate how team learning is experienced by employees and subsequently extracted implications

for the team learning practice. The benefit of having used the meta-aggregative approach was that it permitted the reviewers

to formulate comprehensive descriptions implying several lines of actions, based on credible, high quality, qualitative re-

search evidence. The rich information resulting from the primary research papers enabled the reviewers to better under-stand the meaning of team learning for employees. Our review united the findings of various studies through assimilating

the amount of information from studies that we considered of high methodological quality. The method we opted for has

played an important role in producing accurate conclusions. It allowed us to conduct a proper and formal comparison of find-

ings from different studies involved and provides a qualitative knowledge base for researchers who will study team learning

processes in organisations. In what follows we will discuss the three synthesized lines of argument derived from our review

and their implications for practice.

The first synthesis addresses the importance of conditional aspects for team learning to occur. The finding that commu-

nication, boundary crossing and knowledge sharing are important conditions for team learning is adding to the current find-

ings in the field that were up till now mostly grounded in quantitative studies. The latter studies do stress more the

importance of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), interdependence and task cohesion, group potency (e.g., Boon

et al., 2013; Van den Bossche et al., 2006) and the presence of a transactive memory system the mechanism through which

groups collectively encode, store, and retrieve knowledge (Wegner, 1986) as basic conditions for team learning. Moreover,

Decuyper et al. (2010)identified sharing, boundary crossing and team reflection as important aspects of team learning pro-cesses. This model of team learning now receives additional support from the current study. Our findings do not particularly

suggest that there is one right way for teams to learn. Employers would do well to vary in the strategies they use to facilitate

communication, for example establishing meeting environments based on respect and open communication that allow all

employees to discuss important topics and issues within the workplace that may lead to certain activities, or disseminating

staff bulletins or email messages to communicate changes, expectations and relevant announcements to keep everyone in

the loop of what is going on in the organisation, which may induce reflection. This is expected to increase the chance that

team members engage in creative and innovative activities (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Kratzer,

Leenders & van Engelen, 2004; Tsui & Law, 2007; Walker & Nocon, 2007). We further recommend to create an enabling learn-

ing environment (Clarke, 2005; Govaerts & Baert, 2011; Sveinung, 2004). Based on the original articles studied, we advise

that such an environment should be sensitive to the conditions that are essential for team learning, such as communication

and engaging in a dialogue. Another example of an enabling environment is the promotion of an atmosphere in which errors

are recognised and acknowledged, analysed and reflected upon in order to promote creativity.

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


15/17


16/17

We also opted for the JBI critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of the studies eligible for inclusion. One of the

strengths of this instrument is that it takes into account the theoretical, the descriptive and the interpretative validity of ori-

ginal qualitative research papers (Hannes et al., 2010). We emphasized the importance of interpretive validity by excluding

papers that did not meet the credibility of the study findings, criterion eight. In addition, we excluded findings that were

labelled as unsupported, meaning that the authors statements were not fully grounded in the data. These choices may have

resulted in some potentially illuminating findings not being included in the synthesis. Almost half of the articles which were

previously identified as relevant to the subject were excluded based on the quality appraisal. However, studies conducting

sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether low quality findings added substantial new information to a synthesis have found

that the effect of low quality evidence was modest. Hence, the choice to only include high quality papers is supported by

others (Carroll, Booth & Lloyd-Jones, 2012; Noyes & Popay, 2007; Thomas et al., 2004 ).

During the extraction phase it was noticed that all studies were conducted in western contexts and societies, which may

be due to the choice of databases and search terms. The limitation to four languages understood by the researchers may also

effect these mono-cultural results because articles in other languages, representing other cultures could simply not be in-

cluded. This may limit the transferability of the findings. It should be mentioned though that the findings from the western

papers were very coherent.

4.3. Implications for future research

There is still a lot of theoretical and conceptual confusion about team learning, which links into the different labels that

are used in different countries, learning contexts and situations. A systematic, transparent conceptual review may contribute

to the theoretical clarity in the field and can facilitate future research. The synthesis further highlights the conflicting posi-

tions around aspects such as the hierarchical inequality on team learning. Not being invited to or being able to participate in

important meetings have been a major concern for many employees. On the other hand, employees seem to dislike the sti-

fling and intimidating nature of these meetings and do not want to be identified with particular problems. Another factor

that negatively impacts on team learning processes is inappropriate leadership styles. It would be interesting to think about

how the impact of the discouraging factors on employees could be reduced in order to create a safer environment.

The field of QES might also benefit from methodological research focusing on how to appraise the types of qualitative

research that have not been included. For example, we only included empirical studies with a clear methods and results sec-

tion. Opinion, descriptive papers and editorials were excluded. This exclusion criterion has been used in previous research,

indicating the importance of study quality and credibility in the selection of qualitative research evidence. Hannes,

Goedhuys, and Aertgeerts (2012) state that editorials and opinion pieces are often political rather than empirical and

therefore lend themselves more for a discourse type of analysis than a meta-aggregation. Little guidance exists on how these

reports should be critically appraised and how data should be extracted. This is an area for future methodological research.

Alternatively, authors of original research could be stimulated to back up their statements with evidence from transcripts of

interviews, focus groups or observational descriptions in order to be considered for future evidence syntheses. This will

prevent the exclusion of potentially interesting, unsupported findings.

References

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 6189.Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132169.Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The romance of teams: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 439461.Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441462.Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations and firm performance.Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 24, 4568.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 1840.Block, P. (2008). Community: The structure of belonging. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 10651105.Boon, A., Raes, E., Kyndt, E., & Dochy, F. (2013). Team learning beliefs and behaviours in police- and firemen teams. International Journal of Training and

Development, 37(4).Buelens, M., & De Stobbeleir, K. (2009). Grootmeester in leiderschap [Master in leadership]. Tielt, Belgium: Uitgeverij Lannoo nv.Bunniss, S., & Kelly, D. R. (2008). The unknown becomes the known: Collective learning and change in primary care teams. Medical Education, 42(12),

11851194.

Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 16(5), 720735.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness.Management Science, 32(5), 539553.Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Lloyd-Jones, M. (2012). Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of

sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 14251434.Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes and healthcare organizations.Human Resource Development

International, 8(2), 185205.Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness researchfrom the shop floor to the executive suite.Journal of Management,

23(3), 239290.

Coleman, P. T., & Voronov, M. (2003). Power in groups and organizations. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.),International Handbook ofOrganizational Teamwork and Cooperative working(pp. 229254). West-Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0005http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


17/17

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review,24(3), 522537.

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organizational learning: Dimensions for a theory. The International Journal of OrganizationalAnalysis, 3(4), 337360.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Dechant, K., Marsick, V. J., & Kasl, E. (1993). Towards a model of team learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 15(1), 114.Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrativemodel for effective team learning in

organizations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111133.Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,

6(4), 291310.

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. SmallGroup Research, 30(6), 678711.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & OMalley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning inhumans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189211). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods.

Journal of Health Service Research and Policy, 10(1), 4553.Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350383.Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128146.Ellstrm, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421435.Firth-Cozens, J. (1998). Celebrating teamwork. Quality in Health Care, 7(S37), 37.Govaerts, N., & Baert, H. (2011). Learning patterns in organizations: Towards a typology of workplace learning configurations.Human Resource Development

International, 14(5), 545559.Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Reviews Psychology, 47, 307338.Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),Handbook of organizational behavior(pp. 315342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentic-Hall.Hall, T., & Janman, K. (2009). The leadership illusion: The importance of context and connections. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Hannes, K., Goedhuys, J., & Aertgeerts, B. (2012). Obstacles to implementing evidence-based practice in Belgium: A context-specific qualitative evidence

synthesis including findings from different health care disciplines. Acta Clinica Belgica, 67(2), 99107.

Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2011). Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidencesynthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(7), 16321642.

Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2012). Synthesizing qualitative evidence: Choosing the right approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., & Pearson, A. (2010). A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments ability to assess validity in qualitative research.

Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 17361743.Hinds, P., & McGrath, C. (2006, November). Structures that work: Social structure, work structure, and coordination ease in geographically distributed teams.

Paper presented at the twentieth anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work. USA, New York. doi:10.1145/1180875.1180928.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Kondo, Y. (1995). Are creativity and standardization mutually exclusive? Human Systems Management, 14, 309312.Kratzer, J., Leenders, O. A. J., & van Engelen, J. M. L. (2004). Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 6371.Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationship between informal and formal learning.Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 313318.Mocker, D. W. & Spear, G. E. (1982).Lifelong learning: Formal, non-formal, informal, and self-directed. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC, Clearinghouse on Adult, Career,

and Vocational Education.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and

improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27(7), 941966.

Nordhaug, O. (1994). Structural learning barriers in organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38(3/4), 299315.Noyes, J., & Popay, J. (2007). Directly observed therapy and tuberculosis: How can a systematic review of qualitative research contribute to improving

services? A qualitative meta-synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(3), 227243.Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leaderships . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Pearson, A. (2004). Balancing the evidence: Incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute Reports, 2, 4564.Pearson, A., Robertson Malt, S., & Rittenmeyer, L. (2011). Synthesising Qualitative Evidence. Philadelphia, Lippincott: Williams and Wilkins.Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. Professional communication, IEEE Transactions on, 43, 5166.Scharmer, O. (2010). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.Senge, M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sessa, I. V., & London, M. (Eds.). (2006). Continuous learning in organizations: Individual, group, and organizational perspectives . Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Sessa, I. V., & London, M. (Eds.). (2008). Work group learning. Understanding, improving & assessing how groups learn in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceElbaum Associates.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 315342.Soule, D. L., & Applegat, L. M. (2009, January). Virtual team learning: Reflecting and acting, alone or with others. Cambridge, USA: Harvard business school.

Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-084.pdf.

Sveinung, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training

and Development, 8(1), 820.Sweet, M., & Michaelsen, L. (2007). How group dynamics research can inform the theory and practice of postsecondary small group learning. Educational

Psychology Review, 19(1), 3147.Thomas, J., Harden, A., Oakley, A., Oliver, S., Sutcliffe, K., Rees, R., Brunton, G., & Kavanagh, J. (2004). Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic

reviews. Education and Debate, 328(7446), 10101012.Tichy, N. M., & Ulrich, D. O. (2008). Transformational leadership: Review of the leadership challenge A call for the transformational leader.Sloan

Management Review, 26, 5968.Tsui, A. B. M., & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school-university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 12891301.Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning

environments. Team learning beliefs & behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490521.Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222240.

Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3),178195.

West, M. (1999). Communication and teamworking in healthcare. Nursing Times Research, 4(1), 817.Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior

(pp. 185205). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1747-938X(13)00032-8/h0170http://refhub

Documents

Experiences From Employees With Team Learning in a Vocational