No abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to develop an instrument to assess the developmental space that teams create; examine whether creating more developmental space leads to greater satisfaction with team results; and decide which of three models best predicts perceived results. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a quantitative study of individuals (N = 257). An instrument was designed to assess developmental space and was validated with a factor analysis. Multiple regression analyses were used to examine whether creating developmental space led to greater satisfaction with team results. Findings – This study confirms the four-factor structure of developmental space suggested by earlier research. Creating more developmental space is positively related to perceived team results. Practical implications – This research highlights the importance of creating developmental space and provides teams with an instrument to assess their developmental space as a starting point for improvement. Originality/value – The interactions teams use are crucial in explaining the effects of teamwork, but seem underexposed in team research. Creating developmental space is a relatively new concept, hitherto only researched qualitatively. This empirical study extends and endorses previous research on developmental space by providing a quantitative assessment.

Past research shows that teams working on a complex task need developmental space to be successful. They can create this space in their interaction by undertaking four activities: creating future, reflecting, organizing, and dialoguing. These four activities refer to two orientations: the performance orientation, limiting the space, and the sensemaking orientation, opening up the space. Teams need them both, yet it seems inconsistent and impossible to achieve together, thus a paradox. In this exploratory research, we address the way in which teams experience and handle that “developmental space paradox,” and how it affects team success. Individual team members ( N = 70) from 12 teams were interviewed. Successful ( n = 7) and unsuccessful ( n = 5) teams were compared. The results show that successful teams experience this paradox differently than the unsuccessful teams, and that both categories choose other coping strategies to handle this paradox.

No abstract

No abstract