Group, team, or something in between? Conceptualising and measuring team entitativity

Vangrieken, Katrien; Boon, Anne; Dochy, Filip; Kyndt, Eva

doi:10.14786/flr.v5i4.297

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Why most contextual effects were nonsignificant and why there was even a negative contextual effect on the use of motivational regulation strategies needs to be analyzed in further studies. One possible explanation for these unexpected results may be that the working culture in a school team may be different in different subteams, as subteams are an important unit of analysis (e.g., Vangrieken et al, 2017). In this respect, further research should include a third level with subteams in the analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

School teams’ regulation strategies for dealing with school-external expectations for school improvement

Wullschleger

Rickenbacher

Rechsteiner

et al. 2022

Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

School-external expectations regarding implementation of reforms and innovations often do not lead to successful school improvement processes in schools. To better understand these processes in schools, this paper aims to investigate school improvement processes on a deep level by focusing on cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational regulation strategies used by school teams and by exploring what school-external and school-internal factors are related to this strategy use. Principals, teachers, and specialist teachers ( N = 1328) at 59 primary schools responded to an online questionnaire indicating their school’s use of regulation strategies on school improvement. Results from descriptive, variance, and hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that school teams use all forms of school-based regulation strategies but that schools differ significantly in their strategy use. These differences were mainly explained more by school-internal deeper structures (e.g., task cohesion) and less by school-internal surface structures (e.g., school size) and not at all by school-external factors (e.g., governance systems).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

School teams’ regulation strategies for dealing with school-external expectations for school improvement

Wullschleger

Rickenbacher

Rechsteiner

et al. 2022

Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Workers are required to function under the constant pressure of time and deadlines, and they need to deal with multiple tasks and sometimes conflicting goals at the same time (Lord et al, 2010). Moreover, they do not do this in isolation: workers often need to collaborate with team members with whom they share goals and responsibilities (Vangrieken et al, 2017), requiring them to collaboratively coordinate and evaluate their work. As fine-grained analysis of these regulatory team behaviours is still missing in the field of workplace learning, we will adopt the framework of social regulation as an analytical lens to study team reflexivity.…”

Section: Social Regulation As An Analytical Lens For Studying Team Re...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Social Regulation Perspective on Team Reflexivity: The Development of an Analytical Framework

Wijga

Endedijk

Veldkamp

2023

Vocations and Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teams are nowadays seen as the cornerstones of organizations. Previous research has shown that team reflexivity is positively related to team performance. Traditionally, team reflexivity is conceptualized as a process that occurs during transition moments, ignoring reflexive moments during teams’ action phases. Moreover, most studies used self-reported questionnaires and cross-sectional designs and thus provided limited insights into how team reflexivity unfolds during both the action and transition phases of teams. In this study, we adopt a social regulation perspective to develop an analytical framework to study team reflexivity in the flow of work. The study was conducted in a software development setting and included 50 h of video recordings of different types of team meetings of six professional self-managing teams (a total of 33 team members). Using concepts from social regulation theory as developed in student learning settings as an analytical lens, an analytical framework with four components of social regulation (knowledge co-construction and regulation; regulation activities; focus of regulation, and type of interaction) was developed and applied. Outcomes show that in more than half of their conversations, the teams jointly engaged in regulation-related activities, of which most concerned planning activities and a very low occurrence of evaluation activities. Different patterns of team reflexivity were found in the action and transition phase but zooming in on the interactions also showed high interrelatedness of the different activities. The analytical framework could assist future research to further study the interaction between the different components and how they mutually relate to team performance.

show abstract

“…Meanwhile the term "team" encompasses the collection of the characteristics of certain team members, such as interdependence, shared responsibility, the ability to draw the boundaries of the team, boundary crossing and the development of a shared mental model (Boon et al, 2013). A "Team" is a group of individuals, who help to develop a company with their different and necessary skills, are actively involved and take actions (Hernandez et al, 2018), help to see new opportunities (Muñoz-Bullon et al, 2015), communicate amongst themselves to achieve common goals, share responsibility, are responsible for one another (Vangrieken et al, 2017) and focus their attention on how the job is being done (Rydenfält et al, 2017).…”

Section: The Concept Of a Start-up's Right Teammentioning

confidence: 99%

The development process of the right team in early stage start-ups

Glaveckaitė¹

2020

JESI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the paper is to create grounded theory to reveal the problems of the right team development process of the early stage start-ups and to explain how the main challenges of the process are being solved. A structured grounded theory (GT) has been chosen based on the combination of deductive and inductive approaches, revealing a contextual epistemological view, which is important when explaining the phenomenon through the experience of the research participants. GT helped to reveal concepts and their relations, relevant to the understanding of a right team of start-ups. The concept of the right team of an early stage start-up includes primary founders having the right competences, having a team leader and other team members having the right competences. The competences of the right team include knowledge, experience and characteristics that influence the development process and help successfully overcome the challenges of an early stage start-up.

show abstract

Group, team, or something in between? Conceptualising and measuring team entitativity

Abstract: (Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory).

Cited by 15 publications

References 71 publications

School teams’ regulation strategies for dealing with school-external expectations for school improvement

School teams’ regulation strategies for dealing with school-external expectations for school improvement

A Social Regulation Perspective on Team Reflexivity: The Development of an Analytical Framework

The development process of the right team in early stage start-ups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About