Team Reflexivity

Michaéla  Schippers; Amy C. Edmondson; Michael A.  West

Chapter | The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning | 2020

Team Reflexivity

by Michaéla Schippers, Amy C. Edmondson and Michael A. West

Abstract

Many teams face the problem of process loss, or suboptimal functioning, with sometimes serious consequences, such as medical errors. Team reflexivity—a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes—can aid in optimizing team performance. In the current chapter, we build on a conceptualization of teams as information-processing systems and highlight reflexivity as a critical information processing activity. Specifically, we describe the relationship of team reflexivity to team and organizational learning and emphasize the dynamic, self-regulatory process aspect of team reflexivity as well as the role of goal setting. Furthermore, we describe the antecedents and outcomes of team reflexivity, the role of motivated information processing, the important role of team reflexivity in problem identification and problem solving, and how team reflexivity can be stimulated. Finally, we discuss the implications of our review and identify avenues for future research.

Keywords: team reflexivity; Groups and Teams; Performance Improvement; Information; Goals and Objectives; Learning;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Schippers, Michaéla, Amy C. Edmondson, and Michael A. West. "Team Reflexivity." In The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning, edited by Linda Argote and John M. Levine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Novartis' Genesis Labs program, launched in 2016 as part of Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR), hosted pitch competitions where teams of NIBR scientists proposed ideas to explore that aimed to revolutionize drug discovery. The goal was to break down barriers between functions and regions that slow innovation. After advancing to the pitch stage, a panel selected a handful of winning proposals. Winning teams left their roles for 18 months and received the resources and laboratory space to pursue their ideas. By 2018, two cohorts of winners had been selected—one almost at the end of its 18-month tenure and the other soon to begin. Genesis Labs had already overcome several hurdles—for example, scientists at first worried that stepping out of their ordinary role or pitching ideas that were not chosen could end their careers at Novartis. Though the Genesis Labs program ultimately succeeded in attracting many candidates, the company wondered how to further refine it to foster greater agility in Novartis R&D. Should they expand the call for entries? Did it encourage true shoot-the-moon ideas? How often should the program run, and how disruptive should it be to existing teams? What was the best way to reintegrate scientists to prior roles after their 18-month stint as part of Genesis Labs was over? Finally, could such contests be adapted and rolled out in other functions in the organization?

Case | HBS Case Collection | September 2019

Teaming Up to Win the Rail Deal at GE (A)

Amy Edmondson, Ranjay Gulati and Rachna Tahilyani

In 2012, Nalin Jain, then head of GE aviation for South Asia, was given the added responsibility for GE’s transportation business in India, including bidding for a $2.5 billion contract to manufacture, service and maintain 1,000 diesel locomotives for state owned Indian Railways (IR). The deal, which would have been “the largest deal on the planet” for the transportation business, had been under discussion for six years, and many within GE had given up hope that it would materialize, but Jain persisted. In February 2015, when IR requested companies to submit a financial bid in six months, Jain quickly built an autonomous team, sequestered from the rest of GE, with people from multiple businesses and functions. His team overcame internal resistance from people at headquarters and stiff competition to help GE win the deal by a narrow margin. Jain was then tasked with executing the deal. As many of his earlier team members had moved on, Jain hired new people and built a new diverse yet integrated team for execution, with members able to put aside their many differences, look beyond their functional silos, and focus on the project deliverables. However, 2017 brought a series of challenges. GE changed India’s organization structure, making India business leaders report only to their respective global business leaders instead of reporting to both their business leaders and the India country leader. Jain’s mandate was expanded to include the entire international operations of GE’s transportation business. And, sub-optimal company performance forced GE to announce cost cuts of $2 billion. In the face of this turmoil, Jain wonders, “Have I created an agile team that can succeed in GE’s matrix environment and deal with the internal challenges? Do the team members have the maturity and motivation required for the project to succeed?”

Keywords: Recruitment; Selection and Staffing; Human Capital; Groups and Teams; Leadership Style; Leading Change; Organizational Design; Organizational Structure; Industrial Products Industry; Manufacturing Industry; Rail Industry; Transportation Industry; United States; India;

Citation:

Edmondson, Amy, Ranjay Gulati, and Rachna Tahilyani. "Teaming Up to Win the Rail Deal at GE (A)." Harvard Business School Case 420-058, September 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Educators

Faculty & Research

Team Reflexivity

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author