Under what conditions do team learning behaviors best predict team performance? The current meta-analytic efforts synthesize results from 113 effect sizes and 7758 teams to investigate how different conceptualizations (fundamental, intrateam, and interteam), team characteristics (team size and team familiarity), task characteristics (interdependence, complexity, and type), and methodological characteristics (students vs. nonstudents and measurement choice) affect the relationship between team learning behaviors and team performance. Our results suggest that while different conceptualizations of team learning behaviors independently predict performance, only intrateam learning behaviors uniquely predict performance. A more in-depth investigation into the moderating conditions contradicts the familiar adage of “it depends.” The strength of the relationship between intrateam learning behaviors and team performance did not depend on team familiarity, task complexity, or sample type. However, our results suggested this relationship was stronger in larger teams, teams with moderate task interdependence, teams performing project/action tasks, and studies that use measures that capture a wider breadth of the team learning behavior construct space. These efforts suggest that common boundary conditions do not moderate this relationship. Scholars can leverage these results to develop more comprehensive theories addressing the different conceptualizations of team learning behaviors as well as providing clarity on the scenarios where team learning behaviors are most needed. Further, practitioners can use our results to develop more guided team-based policies that can overcome some of the challenges of forming and developing learning teams.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3.
AnconaD. G.CaldwellD. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
4.
AppelbaumS. H.GallagherJ. (2000). The competitive advantage of organizational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12, 40-56.
5.
ArgoteL.GruenfeldD.NaquinC. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In TurnerM. E. (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research: 369-411. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
6.
ArgoteL.InskoC. A.YovetichN.RomeroA. A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 512-529.
7.
BechkyB. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 3-21.
8.
BienefeldN.GroteG. (2014). Speaking up in ad hoc multiteam systems: Individual-level effects of psychological safety, status, and leadership within and across teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 930-945.
9.
BoonA.RaesE.KyndtE.DochyF. (2013). Team learning beliefs and behaviours in response teams. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(4), 357-379. doi:10.1108/03090591311319771.
10.
BoscoF. (2013). Hunter/Schmidt meta-analysis excel sheet. Retrieved May 11, 2021, from http://frankbosco.com/
11.
BradleyB. H.PostlethwaiteB. E.KlotzA. C.HamdaniM. R.BrownK. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151-158.
12.
BresmanH. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21, 81-96.
13.
BresmanH.Zellmer-BruhnM. (2012). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120-1139.
14.
BundersonJ. S.SutcliffeK. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552-560.
15.
CampbellJ. P. (1986). Labs, fields, and straw issues. In LockeE. A. (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 269-279). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
16.
DahlkeJ. A.WiernikB. M. (2018). Psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta-analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43, 415.
17.
De JongB. A.DirksK. T.GillespieN. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134-1150.
18.
De WitF. R.GreerL. L. (2008, August). The black-box deciphered: a meta-analysis of team diversity, conflict, and team performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2008, No. 1, pp. 1-6). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
19.
De WitF. R.GreerL. L.JehnK. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 972, 360-390.
20.
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 951, 32-53.
21.
DecuyperS.DochyF.Van den BosscheP. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 52, 111-133.
22.
DennisA. R.ValacichJ. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531-537.
23.
D’InnocenzoL.MathieuJ. E.KukenbergerM. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964-1991.
24.
DipboyeR. L.FlanaganM. F. (1979). Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory?American Psychologist, 342, 141-150.
25.
Drach-ZahavyA.SomechA. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 52, 111-123.
26.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 442, 350-383.
27.
EdmondsonA. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419-1452.
28.
EdmondsonA. C.BohmerR. M.PisanoG. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685-716.
29.
EdmondsonA. C.DillonJ. R.RoloffK. S. (2007). Three perspectives on team learning: outcome improvement, task Mastery, and group process. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 269-314.
30.
EdmondsonA. C.NembhardI. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 262, 123-138.
31.
EllisA. P. J.HollenbeckJ. R.IlgenD. R.PorterC. O. L. H.WestB. J.MoonH. (2003). Team Learning: Collectively Connecting the Dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 821-835.
32.
EllisJ. B.LutherK.BessiereK.KelloggW. A. (2008). Games for virtual team building. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems, 295-304.
33.
GibsonC.VermeulenF. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative science quarterly, 48(2), 202-239.
34.
GordonM. E.SladeL. A.SchmittN. (1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191-207.
35.
GruenfeldD. H.MannixE. A.WilliamsK. Y.NealeM. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1-15.
36.
HedgesL. V.PigottT. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 426-445.
37.
HighhouseS.GillespieJ. Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much? In LanceC. E.VandenbergR. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 247-265). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
38.
HollenbeckJ. R.BeersmaB.SchoutenM. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82-106.
39.
HuangJ. C. (2010). Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: The moderating role of team goal orientation and conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21, 334-355.
40.
Huedo-MedinaT. B.Sánchez-MecaJ.Marín-MartínezF.BotellaJ. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?Psychological methods, 112, 193-206.
41.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543.
42.
JoshiA.PandeyN.HanG. (Helen). (2009). Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task‐based, team‐level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 731–759.
43.
KaslE.MarsickV. J.DechantK. (1997). Teams as learners: A research-based model of team learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 227-246.
44.
KatzR. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81-104.
45.
KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E.CorderyJ. L.RosenB.KukenbergerM. (2011). Managing a new collaborative entity in business organizations: Understanding organizational communities of practice effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1234-1245.
46.
KirkmanB. L.RosenB.TeslukP. E.GibsonC. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175-192.
47.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2008). Team learning, development, and adaptation. In SessaV. I.LondonM. (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 15-44). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.
49.
LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.JacksonC. L.MathieuJ. E.SaulJ. R. (2008). A meta‐analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61,273-307.
MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.PaolettiJ.BurkeC. S.SalasE. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170.
52.
MarroneJ. A.TeslukP. E.CarsonJ. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50,1423-1439.
53.
McGrathJ. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
54.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DeChurchL. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535-546.
55.
MichaelD. N. (1973). On learning to plan and planning to learn: The social psychology of changing toward future responsive societal learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56.
MitchellG. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality the external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 72, 109–117.
57.
MorelandR. L.MyaskovskyL. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117-133.
58.
NembhardI. M.EdmondsonA. 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 Behavior, 27(7), 941-966.
59.
OertelR.AntoniC. H. (2015). Phase-specific relationships between team learning processes and transactive memory development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24,726-741.
60.
PaulusP. B.NijstadB. A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
61.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization science, 12(4), 502-517.
62.
RenY. (2018). Learning in virtual teams. In ArgoteL.LevineJ. M. (Eds.) The oxford handbook of group and organizational learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A.JohnstonJ. H. (1997). How can you turn a team of experts into an expert team?: Emerging training strategies. In ZsambokC. E.KleinG. (Eds.), Expertise: Research and applications. Naturalistic decision making (pp. 359–370). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
64.
SalasE.DickinsonT. L.ConverseS. A.TannenbaumS. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In SwezeyR. W.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
65.
SarinS.McDermottC. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross‐functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 707-739.
66.
SavelsberghC. M.van der HeijdenB. I.PoellR. F. (2009). The development and empirical validation of a multidimensional measurement instrument for team learning behaviors. Small Group Research, 40,578-607.
67.
ScheinE. H. (1993). How can organizations learn faster?: The problem of entering the Green Room. Sloan Management Review, 34, 85- 92.
68.
SchmidtF.HunterJ. (2015.Methods of meta-analysis. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
69.
SengeP. (2013). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
70.
SharmaM.GhoshA. (2007). Does team size matter? A study of the impact of team size on the transactive memory system and performance of IT sector teams. South Asian Journal of Management, 14, 96-115.
71.
ShufflerM. L.WieseC. W.SalasE.BurkeC. S. (2010). Leading one another across time and space: Exploring shared leadership functions in virtual teams. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26, 3-17.
72.
SitkinSim B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. In CummingsL. L.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 231-266). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
73.
StaatsB. R.MilkmanK. L.FoxC. R. (2012). The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 132–142.
74.
StasserG.TaylorL. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675-684.
75.
StewartG. L.BarrickM. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-148.
76.
StrausS. G. (1999). Testing a typology of tasks: An empirical validation of McGrath’s (1984) group task circumplex. Small Group Research, 30, 166-187.
77.
SundstromE.McIntyreM.HalfhillT.RichardsH. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 41, 44-67.
78.
TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E.SalasE.CohenD. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2-24.
79.
ThompsonJ. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
80.
Van den BosscheP.GijselaersW. H.SegersM.KirschnerP. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37, 490-521.
81.
Van der HaarS.SegersM.JehnK. A. (2013). Towards a contextualized model of team learning processes and outcomes. Educational Research Review, 10,1-12.
82.
Van Der VegtG. S.BundersonJ. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.
83.
Van OffenbeekM. (2001). Processes and outcomes of team learning. European Journal Of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10,303-317.
84.
VashdiD. R.BambergerP. A.ErezM. (2013). Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 945-971.
85.
Visschers-PleijersA. J.DolmansD. H.WolfhagenI. H.van der VleutenC. P. (2005). Development and validation of a questionnaire to identify learning-oriented group interactions in PBL. Medical Teacher, 27(4), 375-381.
86.
WagemanR. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science quarterly, 40, 145-180.
87.
WhitmanD. S.Van RooyD. L.ViswesvaranC. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta‐analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41-81.
88.
WieseC. W.BurkeC. S. (2019). Understanding team learning dynamics over time. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-14.
89.
WilsonJ. M.GoodmanP. S.CroninM. A. (2007). Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32,1041-1059.
90.
WongS. S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15, 645-656.
91.
WoodR. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,60-82.
92.
ZhuJ.LiaoZ.YamK. C.JohnsonR. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state‐of‐the‐art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834-852.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
