This article explores how team facilitation can promote team reflexivity about communication. We present a case study that was conducted within a participatory action research framework with a Top Management Team for an international manufacturing company. We identify and analyze five key interventions that promoted team reflexivity. These interventions included activities such as (a) framing the facilitation, (b) inquiring into the key issues, (c) role modeling feedback, (d) positive storytelling, and (e) reflecting on concrete communication actions. The findings suggest that reflexivity can be enhanced through positive storytelling and emotion, framing and contextual sensitivity, and addressing interactional challenges within the team. The study complements previous reflexivity research by articulating how self-awareness about a team’s communication shapes the meaning making patterns and action potential of teams as well as how reflexivity is performed in action.
AakhusM. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112-117. doi:10.1080/03637750701196383
2.
BargalD. (2008). Action research: A paradigm for achieving social change. Small Group Research, 39, 17-27. doi:10.1177/1046496407313407
3.
BargeJ. K. (2004). Reflexivity and managerial practice. Communication Monographs, 71, 70-96. doi:10.1080/03634520410001691465
4.
BargeJ. K. (2012). Systemic constructionist leadership and working from within the present moment. In Uhl-BienM.OspinaS. M. (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. 107-142). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
5.
BargeJ. K.FairhurstG. T. (2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist approach. Leadership, 4, 227-251. doi:10.1177/1742715008092360
6.
BatesonG. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BurrV. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
8.
BusheG. R.MarshakR. J. (2014). The dialogic mindset in organization development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 22, 55-97. doi:10.1108/S0897-301620140000022002
9.
CarbaughD.NuciforoE. V.Molina-MarkhamE.van OverB. (2011). Discursive reflexivity in the ethnography of communication: Cultural discourse analysis. Cultural Studies↔Critical Methodologies, 11, 153-164. doi:10.1177/1532708611401334
10.
CooperriderD.SekerkaL. E. (2006). Toward a theory of positive organizational change. In GallosJ. V. (Ed.), Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader (pp. 223-238). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
CooperriderD. L.SrivastvaS. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In WoodmanR. W.PasmoreW. A. (Eds.), Research in organizational development (Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.
CooperriderD. L.WhitneyD. K. (1999). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. In CooperriderD. L.SorensenP. F.WhitneyJr., D.YagerT. F. (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization towards positive theory of change (pp. 3-28). Champaign, IL: Stipes.
13.
CraigR. T.TracyK. (2014). Building grounded practical theory in applied communication research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 229-243. doi:10.1080/00909882.2014.916410
14.
CunliffeA. L. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning, 33, 35-61. doi:10.1177/1350507602331002
15.
CunliffeA. L. (2014). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Di StefanoG.GinoF.PisanoG.StaatsB. (2014). Making experience count: The role of reflection in individual learning (Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper No. 14-093). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414478
17.
FredricksonB. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
18.
FreyL. R. (2000). To be applied or not to be applied, that isn’t even the question; but wherefore art thou, applied communication researcher? Reclaiming applied communication research and redefining the role of researcher. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 178-182. doi:10.1080/00909880009365565
19.
FreyL. R. (Ed.) (2006a). Facilitating Group Communication in Context: Innovations and Applications With Natural Groups: Vol. 1. Facilitating group creation, conflict and conversation. Cresshill, NJ: Hampton Press.
20.
FreyL. R. (Ed.) (2006b). Facilitating Group Communication in Context: Innovations and Applications With Natural Groups: Vol. 2. Facilitating group task and team communication, Cresshill, NJ: Hampton Press.
21.
FreyL. R. (2009). What a difference more difference-making communication scholarship might make: Making a difference from and through communication research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 205-214. doi:10.1080/00909880902792321
22.
FreyL. R.Sunwolf. (2005). The symbolic-interpretive perspective of group life. In PooleM. S.HollingsheadA. B. (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 195-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
GurtnerA.TschanF.SemmerN. K.NaångeleC. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 127-142. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.002
24.
HackmanJ. R.WagemanR. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 269-287. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.16387885
25.
HambrickD. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334-343. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24345254
26.
HambrickD. C. (2010). Top management teams. In BournoisF.Duval-HamelJ.RoussillonS.ScaringellaJ.-L. (Eds.), Handbook of top management teams (pp. 23-30). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
HambrickD. C.MasonP. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277628
28.
HartwigR. T. (2010). Facilitating problem solving: A case study using the devil’s advocacy technique. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 10, 17-31.
29.
HartwigR. T. (2014). Ethnographic facilitation as a complementary methodology for conducting applied communication scholarship. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 60-84. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.874567
30.
HartwigR. T.FreyL.R. (2007, November). Facilitating team communication facilitation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
31.
HedmanE.Gesch-KaramanlidisE. (2015). Facilitating conversations that matter using coordinated management of meaning theory. OD Practitioner, 47(2), 41-46.
32.
HeronJ.ReasonP. (2006). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research “with” rather than “on” people. In ReasonP.BraduburyH. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 144-154). London, England: Sage.
33.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
LittlejohnS. W.FossK. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
MacCurtainS.FloodP. C.RamamoorthyN.WestM. A.DawsonJ. F. (2010). The top management team, reflexivity, knowledge sharing and new product performance: A study of the Irish software industry. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 219-232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00564.x
36.
MorelandR. L.McMinnJ. G. (2010). Group reflexivity and performance. Advances in Group Processes, 27, 63-95. doi:10.1108/S0882-6145(2010)0000027006
37.
MüllerA.HerbigB.PetrovicK. (2009). The explication of implicit team knowledge and its supporting effect on team processes and technical innovations: An action regulation perspective on team reflexivity. Small Group Research, 40, 28-51. doi:10.1177/1046496408326574
38.
OliverC. (2005). Reflexive inquiry: A framework for consultancy practice. London, England: Karnac.
39.
OliverC.FitzgeraldS. (2013). How to explore meaning making patterns in dialogic OD and coaching. OD Practitioner, 45, 30-34.
40.
PearceK.SpanoS.PearceW. B. (2009). The multiple faces of the public dialogue consortium: Scholars, practitioners, and dreamers of better social worlds. In FreyL. R.CissnaK. N. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 611-632). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
PearceW. B. (1999). Using CMM: The coordinated management of meaning. San Mateo, CA: Pearce Associates.
42.
PearceW. B. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
43.
PearceW. B.CronenV. (1980). Communication, action and meaning: The creation of social realities. New York, NY: Praeger.
44.
PeelleH. E. (2006). Appreciative inquiry and creative problem solving in cross-functional teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 447-467. doi:10.1177/0021886306292479
45.
PieterseA. N.van KnippenbergD.van GinkelW. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153-164. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.003
46.
PooleM. S. (1997). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In TrentJ. (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 94-97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
47.
PutnamL. L.StohlC.BakerJ. S. (2012). Bona fide groups: A discourse perspective. In HollingsheadA. B.PooleM. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 211-234). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
ReasonP. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 187-203. doi:10.1177/1056492606288074
49.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (2006). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 1-14). London, England: Sage.
50.
SafranJ. D.ReadingROMY. (2008). Mindfulness, metacommunication, and affect regulation in psychoanalytic treatment. In HickS.BienT. (Eds.), Mindfulness and the therapeutic relationship (pp. 122-140). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
51.
Samra-FredericksD. (2000). Doing “boards-in-action” research: An ethnographic approach for the capture and analysis of directors’ and senior managers’ interactive routines. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8, 244-257. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00202
52.
SavelsberghC. M. J. H.van der HeijdenB. I. J. M.PoellR. F. (2009). The development and empirical validation of a multidimensional measurement instrument for team learning behaviors. Small Group Research, 40, 578-607. doi:10.1177/1046496409340055
53.
ScheinE. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
54.
ScheinE. (1995). Process consultation, action research and clinical inquiry: Are they the same?Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10, 14-19. doi:10.1108/02683949510093830
55.
SchippersM. C.Den HartogD. N.KoopmanP. L.van KnippenbergD. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human Relations, 61, 1593-1616. doi:10.1177/0018726708096639
56.
SchippersM. C.EdmondsonA. C.WestM. A. (2014). Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Research, 45, 731-769. doi:10.1177/1046496414553473
57.
SchippersM. C.HomanA. C.van KnippenbergD. (2013). To reflect or not to reflect: Prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 6-23. doi:10.1002/job.1784
58.
SchippersM. C.WestM. A.DawsonJ. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41, 769-788. doi:10.1177/0149206312441210
59.
SeiboldD. R.MeyersR. A. (2012). Interventions in groups: Methods for facilitating team development. In HollingsheadA. B.PooleM. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 418-441). New York, NY: Routledge.
60.
ShepherdD. A.SutcliffeK. M. (2011). Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, 35, 361-380. doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0157
61.
ShinY. (2014). Positive group affect and team creativity: Mediation of team reflexivity and promotion focus. Small Group Research, 45, 337-364. doi:10.1177/1046496414533618
62.
ShotterJ. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for “withness”-thinking. Organization Studies, 27, 585-604. doi:10.1177/0170840606062105
63.
ShotterJ. (2010). Movements of feeling and moments of judgement: Towards an ontological social constructionism. International Journal of Action Research, 6, 16-42. doi:10.1688/1861-9916_IJAR_2010_01_Shotter
64.
ShotterJ. (2014). Methods for practitioners in inquiring into “the stuff” of everyday life and its continuous co-emergent development. In SimonG.ChardA. (Eds.), Systemic inquiry: Innovations in reflexive practice research (pp. 95-123). Farnhill, UK: Everything Connected Press.
SimpsonJ. L.SeiboldD. R. (2008). Practical engagements and co-created research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 266-280. doi:10.1080/00909880802172285
67.
StorchJ.SolsoK. (2014). Reporting from inside the emerging process of becoming research consultants. In SimonG.ChardA. (Eds.), Systemic inquiry: Innovations in reflexive practice research (pp. 174-192). Farnhill, UK: Everything Connected Press.
68.
SunwolfSeiboldD. R. (1999). The impact of formal procedures on group processes, members, and task outcomes. In FreyL. R. (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 395-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
TommK. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflexive questioning as a means to enable self-healing. Family process, 26, 167-183. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00167.x
70.
TommK. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic, or reflexive questions?Family Process, 27, 1-15. doi:10.1111/j.15455300.1988.00001.x
WagemanR.NunesD. A.BurrussJ. A.HackmanJ. R. (2008). Senior leadership teams: What it takes to make them great. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
74.
WestM. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In WestM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555-579). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
75.
WheelanS. A.FurburS. (2006). Facilitating team development, communication and performance. In FreyL. R. (Ed.), Facilitating group communication in context: Innovations and applications with natural groups. Facilitating group task and team communication (Vol. 2, pp. 155-176). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
76.
WidmerP. S.SchippersM. C.WestM. A. (2009). Recent developments in reflexivity research: A review. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 2(2), 2-11.
77.
ZornT. E.TompsonG. H. (2002). Communication in top-management groups. In FreyL. R. (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 253-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
