THEORETICAL, EMPIRICAL AND PRACTICAL INSIGHT INTO TEAM COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GROUP PROCESSES, part I: Factors that shape, leverage or align team processes

Even though this may seem obvious, it is important to ensure that the team is designed in accordance with the organisational context (does the organisation/government provide rewards, education/training and information at the individual and team level for team work) and has support and resources (competence and finance) to accomplish the task (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). This is not only important at the time of establishing the team, but throughout its lifetime.

With regard to ESL teams, this means they have to find (be given) their place in the school functioning – they have to be embedded in the school life, but also in the wider education system. Team members and the team as a whole have to be given relevant information as to what is the ESL team mission (task) and some guidelines on how to accomplish it (how to organise their work, how to address specific problems, which responsibilities and jurisdictions they have etc.). Their appropriate training and financial incentives also have to be provided for (being a member of an ESL team requires time – either this is paid separately or other workload is decreased).

Team composition research examines the attributes of team members and how combinations of these characteristics across team members influence processes, emergent states and outcomes (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). These researchers have posited the four different theoretical models about team composition listed below; in parentheses empirical studies supporting each model are listed. In the area of team composition, one must simultaneously consider all four different aspects/models:

1. the level of individuals’ task-related competencies (high levels of task-related skills are better; Devine & Philips, 2001; Cooke et al., 2003);
2. the level of individuals’ team-related competencies (high levels of teamwork competence are better; Stevens & Campion, 1994; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005);
3. the combination of relevant characteristics across members (e.g. what does each member bring in relation to the other members – the ‘strongest’ and the ‘weakest’ level of a characteristic, the average, the heterogeneity; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011; Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003);
4. which competencies are possessed by members in core versus peripheral roles (‘critical team member’, ‘core’ team roles; Bell, 2007; Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, 2009).

In addition, these aspects are dynamic and change over time:

1. at different stages of the team’s cycle different aspects of the team composition are significant (e.g. early in the team’s cycle, the team’s average and variance of uncertainty avoidance is relevant; later in the team’s cycle average and variance of relationship orientation is important; Cheng, Chua, Morris, & Lee, 2012);
2. members’ position and roles may change over time as does the importance of the position/role; and
3. team memberships change over time (on one hand, membership adjustment allows for better alignment with the demands but, on the other, membership changes also disrupt team functioning; Summers, Humphrey, & Ferris, 2012) and histories of members working together are important (Mathieu et al., 2014).

In ESL multi-professional teams each team member has competence related to their profession – task-related competence (i.e. technical competence required by the job; e.g. guidance counsellor knows a variety of out-of-school-programmes in the community available to the youngster); each member also possesses a certain level of competencies relevant for working in the group – team-related competence (i.e. knowledge and skills about teamwork – social and interpersonal requirements; e.g. emotional intelligence). Taken together, all members form a team profile that can be described by average or variance (heterogeneity) or minimum or maximum (mean level of general cognitive ability, the level of minimum disagreeableness, average preference for teamwork etc.). Moreover, some members may be more influential (for different reasons) than others – e.g. the school head’s suggestions may be taken more seriously due to their position, or the counsellor may make a good conflict manager due to their professional expertise or the teacher/nurse may have specific relevant information about or experience with a student. Further, the influence of a member may change over time (e.g. depending on which competencies are needed in each stage).

It is expected that some members will be more permanent (school counsellors, school heads) while for others (e.g. school nurses, teacher) memberships will perhaps be more flexible to reflect the needs of the potential ESLer. The level of disturbance caused by these changes depends on the relative task- and team-related competencies of the leavers and arrivers and how they fit in with the team profile and which position they occupy (Mathieu et al., 2014). Thus, when replacing a team member, the strategy should not focus only on ‘position requirements’, but also on the other aspects described above. For example, if a ‘temporary member’ possesses an attribute relevant for team functioning and no other member can take this role (e.g. good at managing conflicts), the team leader may decide to keep the person in the team even though the professional may not be directly linked to the potential ESLer or his/her situation. Considering the two types of members in ESL multi-professional groups, it seems that permanent members are more crucial in terms of team functioning and this should guide the team composition and decisions regarding the necessary professional development programmes (training), feedback and team building. Some team members are likely to have already worked together and this experience may positively or negatively influence working in ESL teams.

The key message from team composition is that while the right mix of people in a team sets the stage for team effectiveness – the ‘right mix’ is not a static property. In addition, awareness of the described aspects/models in team composition can make the decisions in this regard more transparent (e.g. when assigning members to teams; when targeting human resource efforts – e.g. training) or, perhaps more importantly, can help anticipate problems and take preventive actions (Mathieu et al., 2014).

Team composition is linked with the concept of diversity; it refers to how homogenous or heterogeneous is the composition of a team with regard to different features. Multi-professional ESL teams are by definition diverse in their demographics, i.e. functional background (e.g. teaching, administration, counselling) and educational background (e.g. degree in psychology). Theoretical classifications describe this as highly job-related (Weber & Donahue, 2001) and surface-level diversity (Bell, 2007). Both attributes reflect a team member’s type of knowledge, attitude and perspective that the member brings to the task and both are expected to lead to a broader task-relevant perspective, thus increasing the team’s success (e.g. teachers are expected to contribute with their teaching and pedagogical experience and with insight from the classroom concerning a specific student). Indeed, a meta-analysis of empirical studies by Bell and colleagues (2011) examined demographic diversity and performance; and functional background diversity had a positive (albeit small) relationship with general team performance as well as with team creativity and innovation, while educational background variety was related to team creativity and innovation.

Authors (e.g. Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011) highlight two separate tracks of activities within the team: task-work (what it is that the team is doing) and team-work (how they are doing it with each other – social interactions, the relationship among members). This is linked to the two sets of competencies – task(work) competencies and team(work) competencies.

Based on the work of other scholars, Cannon-Bowers and Bowers (2011) summarise the team competencies that have replaced the personality-based approach. Competencies are essentially composed of knowledge, skills and attitudes (i.e. KSA) and are easier to influence (via selection or training) than trait attributes. Team competencies are:

1. Knowledge: knowledge of teamwork skills, knowledge of team roles
2. Skills:
   1. adaptability (reallocation of team resources),
   2. interpersonal factors (conflict resolution, ability to negotiate, cooperativeness, desire to help others, interpersonal trust),
   3. team management and leadership (task motivation, goal-setting abilities, ability to establish roles and expectations, organising abilities),
   4. assertiveness (sharing ideas clearly and directly),
   5. mutual performance monitoring (ability to give, seek and receive feedback), communication (ability to clearly and accurately exchange information),
   6. cross-boundary factors (ability to build links with organisation or other teams); and
3. Attitudes: a preference for teamwork (inclination to be part of a team).
   Along the same lines, Steven and Campion (1994, 1999) identified interpersonal and self-management KSA as important for teamwork. These KSA should be considered in the processes of selection, training, performance appraisal, career development, compensation and job analysis (Steven & Campion, 1994).

In ESL teams, first, task analysis is warranted at least at some general level to identify the competencies required to perform team- and task-related tasks (Burke, 2005). Team-related competencies in this context refer to knowledge about interpersonal relations and teamwork as well as to skills on how to interact with other team members effectively and a positive attitude to working together; other team members have a different educational background and different experience, the role in the school, their position may be hierarchically below or above one’s position – all this makes team competencies much needed. Task-related competencies in this context are specific ESL competencies, i.e. knowledge and understanding of ESL, skills that help prevent/re-integrate ESLers, preference for working with ESLers. When designing the ESL team, task and team competencies must be considered, although it appears that team competencies are often neglected.

Second, some systematic approach to developing teamwork competencies is needed (taking the team composition model described above into account). Third, when possible it would be worth taking teamwork competencies into account for future candidate selection (to some degree these team competencies are generic; Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011). Fourth, a system for monitoring effectiveness and allowing for appropriate compensation for the team members must be put in place.

There is no straight-forward answer concerning the question to the optimal size of the teams, perhaps because the answer depends on the task, purpose and responsibility of the team (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011). However, scholars indicate that as the group grows larger this has negative effects on various dimensions, e.g. member satisfaction, cooperation (Forsyth, 2010; Levine & Moreland, 1990). Parker (2003) recommends that for cross-functional teams 6 to 10 members is the optimal team size, indicating this would be an optimal size also for ESL multi-professional teams.

Every team training or training intervention needs to specify the objectives (what has to be learnt – e.g. knowledge, skills, changes in attitudes). Training objectives depend on the team goals, job design and training needs – at the individual or team level (Campbell & Kuncel, 2005). Training needs are aligned with the required teamwork and taskwork competencies (see above).

There are many ways to build teamwork competencies. The focus can be on the individual (e.g. assertiveness training), the team (e.g. cross-training) or both (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004). The training can be delivered via specific instructional methods and training media, e.g. lecture, synthetic experiences (simulation, exercises) (Campbell & Kuncel, 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Empirical evidence in a meta-analysis showed that team training fosters team cognitive and affective outcomes (i.e. emergent states), teamwork processes, and performance outcomes (Salas et al., 2008) – essentially, it affects factors that shape, align or leverage team processes, team processes per se as well as team effectiveness directly. Attention to post-training procedures (training evaluation, transfer and application of newly gained KSA of training) is also needed (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

The most important implication for ESL multi-professional teams is that team training is effective and should thus become an integral part of the team’s existence. For ESL multi-professional teams, cross-training (i.e. exposure to and practice on team members’ tasks), specifically positional clarification (explanation of team members’ general position and responsibilities) and positional modelling (duties of each member are discussed and observed) are the most relevant (see Day et al., 2004). This means that upon establishing the ESL team some sessions (meetings) would be devoted so that each member (e.g. teacher, external actor) explains their general role and responsibility in the ESL team and that these are discussed; such cross-training helps avoid future misconceptions and false expectations about what other ESL team members can or should do. Thus, cross training can be beneficial for the team’s communication and coordination strategies as well as improve the team’s anticipatory behaviour (Day et al., 2004). Team self-correction training through which the team is taught to diagnose, design and implement solutions to its team functional problems also seems worth considering. Assertiveness training (i.e. to communicate effectively when offering or requesting assistance, offering a potential solution, or providing feedback) is also called for. This is essentially training in communication for ESL team members that helps the members express their thoughts in an unoffending way and also receive others’ ideas without being offended.

The design of ESL multi-professional team training is based on the assumption that members have already received adequate training and education in their discipline (e.g. teachers, nurses). However, it is important to note that these trainings generally do not include team competencies, potentially leading to difficulties in functioning of the ESL team. Team competencies of ESL team members should be systematically developed.

Leadership in teams matters for team performance outcomes (Burke et al., 2006) as well as for supporting a range of team processes (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Contemporary theoretical perspectives on team leadership view it as an outcome of team processes that provide resources for better team adaptation and performance in subsequent performance cycles; this perspective complements the perspective of leadership as an input to team processes and effectiveness (Day et al., 2004). The key point is that both leadership and team processes influence each other (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Team leadership is considered a dynamic process in which the leader’s behaviour changes/adapts (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

In the theoretical framework leadership behaviours are classified in four large categories: information search and structuring, information use and problem-solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material resources (Fleishman et al., 1991). Other types of leadership in the context of cross-sector team cooperation also exist (e.g. Bryson et al., 2006; Hood et al., 1993). Leadership behaviour can also be seen along two dimensions: task-focused leadership (dealing with task accomplishment) and person-focused leadership (dealing with team interaction and development, i.e. with socio-emotional aspects; Burke et al., 2006). Meta-analyses of empirical studies (Burke et al., 2006) showed that both types of behaviour contribute significantly to team-perceived effectiveness and also to team productivity.

Recently the idea of distributed /shared leadership has received increasing attention, including distributed leadership in education (Day et al., 2004; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamon, 2000). Distributed leadership conceptualises leadership as something that emerges within a team (it goes beyond the attributes of the individual/leader; Day et al., 2004); it is not concentrated in one person (the leader), instead leadership behaviour is performed by multiple team members (Nicolaides et al., 2014). Meta-analysis of empirical studies demonstrated that shared leadership has important effects on performance over and above the effects of vertical leadership (ibid.).

Two complementing implications arise for ESL multi-professional leadership. On one hand, team leaders need to be trained in both task- and person-focused types of behaviour. On the other hand, the whole team rather than an individual leader may be the most appropriate target for developing leadership expertise, i.e. behaviours, mind-set, actions (Spillane et al., 2000). Given the nature of ESL teams and their functioning within the school system, it seems that task- and person- focused leadership are more appropriate – thus, the leader deals with the task as well as with the socio-emotional aspects of the team.