Yesterday we noted that there was little support for the Belbin team model. The idea that there is a prescribed model for a team is simply not supported and the Belbin model does not improve organisational effectiveness. Taking this into consideration, does training to improve team functionality actually make a difference?
I’m pleased to note that training to improve team performance is an area that is both well researched and the research is generally positive. Not only do interventions appear to improve team effectiveness, we also have an idea through research as to what moderates the success of team interventions.
In terms of the research around team training, the seminal work in the area was a meta-analysis conducted in 2008. For those not from a research background, a meta-analysis can be thought of as an analysis of analysis. The researchers bring together various studies and re-analyse the data to gain greater confidence in the results by establishing a larger sample size. While the technique has its critics and may lead to statistical overestimates, this is one of the better methods we have to establish an evidence base for generalisable trends in applied research.
The team training effectiveness meta-analysis was extremely thorough in examining both outcomes and moderators. A range of outcomes was assessed, including:
- Cognitive outcomes predominantly consisted of declarative knowledge gains.
- Team member affective outcomes included socialisation, trust and confidence in team members’ ability and attitudes concerning the perceived effectiveness of team communication and coordination processes.
- Team processes included behavioural measures of communication, coordination, strategy development, self-correction, assertiveness, decision making and situation assessment.
- Team performance integrated quantity, quality, accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness outcomes.
Moderator variables included:
- Training content (taskwork, teamwork, mixed)
- Team stability (intact, ad hoc)
- Team size (large, medium, small)
While a blog post is not sufficient to explore the research in-depth, suffice to say that moderate to strong positive outcomes were found for all four outcomes. Team process appears to be the most malleable. Training teams to communicate better, avoid groupthink, make effective decisions and think strategically, is likely to be an investment that delivers returns for organisations. Training to improve affective outcomes, such as trust and confidence in team members, appears less effective. This was especially the case when applied to large teams.
Aside from team size, the results were moderated by team stability with well-established teams responding better to training than ad hoc teams. Training content had a limited effect on the outcomes of the training with both task work and teamwork-oriented interventions producing positive results.
The results of this meta-analysis are encouraging for i/o psychology. Team effectiveness is an area where there is a strong research basis for intervention and where intervention is likely to have a positive impact. This is an area where the scientist-practitioner model that is central to our discipline appears to be alive and well. We have interventions that are well researched and have some understanding of the levels of effectiveness taking into account other variables. Does this lead to the science of training? Are there principles we can take from the literature that can be applied to make training effective? Or is training an art and not a science? This is the question for tomorrow.