The Underlying Theory
The journal of applied behavioral science on team learning has failed in its own task to convince stakeholders on the role and importance of the use of team as a tool of development. In fact, the journal totally wrong on its assumption that with the evolution of organization, teams are being used to solve complex problems. Such an assumption cannot be further of the truth. As much as teamwork is a necessary facet in organizational success, the entire article is either wrong or vague on its assertions. Team learning is one of the most tedious and grossly ineffective means of intellectual interaction. In fact modern organizations prefer to execute major tasks at an individual level where accountability is highly appreciated.
The journal represents a failed attempt to convince the reader on the author’s perceived effectiveness of team learning. The protagonists of the entire idea highly exaggerate the role of teamwork in an organization’s progress. Assertions like the role of team learning in fostering innovativeness in a typical exaggeration of the research findings. Since the days of yore, innovation has been an issue of creativity which sprouts from individual identity (Cox and Darwin, 2008, page 8). Innovation therefore has no correlation with team learning as the journal tries to propose. The entire piece of work is a collection of conclusions with no practical background. It is the opinion of the authors who want to use research as a tool of spreading their quantitative propaganda.
Team learning remains a vulnerable institution whose credibility is yet to be asserted. No organization can risk it major operations by surrendering decision making and problem solving to the faculty of team learning. Contrary to the journals assertions that organizations are running to team learning for solutions and choice-making, major companies only employ team learning for the purposes of building self esteem and leadership training. Beyond this roles team learning still trails in organizational procedures. The journal therefore unnecessarily glorifies team learning beyond its real capacity.
As far as organizational learning is concerned, training and not team learning derives significance. As a matter of fact the authors of the journal downplay the huge role played by training as a tool of organizational learning. In fact the authors don’t live in the modern world, because going by their deductions on can only marvel at their gross incompetence as far as handling organizational issues is concerned. Nowhere in the modern organizational scenario will you find and effective training method in team learning. The authors are wrong in their portrayal of team learning as the core learning and empowerment system in the organization. Reading the journal makes one think that team learning is the central knowledge exchange forum in the organization.
As stated earlier team learning is important in its own sphere, but contrary to the journal’s findings it is not an integral part of organizational effectiveness. In fact the authors agree in the article that theirs was a theoretical assumption of the role of team building. Had they conducted a comprehensive research followed by a thorough analysis the results could have been different. The first case study therefore was based on theory, speculation and not data. It can therefore be comfortably said that the case study was loosely designed so as to affirm the idiosyncrasies of the journal’s authors. They had an unproven idea in their minds and were looking for a way of rubberstamping it.
The journal’s strength and success on team learning
As much as much of the journal is based of ineffective research there are points about team learning that are worth noting. The concept of team learning has been given its due importance bearing in mind that team learning produces better results than individual processes. The essence of team learning therefore has been well analyzed and documented in this article. The authors of the article must have undertaken a deeper analysis about the whole concept.
In this way the obtained the first hand information of how teams work. The journal therefore is successful in its bid to present the essence and success of team learning as a process in organization. There theoretical arguments have been successfully proven by the practical research they conducted. Through the journal on can obtain a deeper understanding of the essence and significance of team learning as a whole.
The journals arguments about the essential conditions for team learning are very true. In fact team learning has to be supported by a variety of parameters which enable the process to go ahead. As the journal states the road to team learning is not a bed of roses. There occur many hiccups which the team members must learn and be prepared to overcome. The journal talks about group dynamics and how they affect team learning. The role played by healthy group dynamics is great and the journal has documented its essence. The journal is not isolated on the issue of team learning. Team building being the firs step towards successful team learning has been dealt with in the journal.
The facts as represented in the journal are accurate and its analysis up to the point. Another important concept that has received wide recognition is that of Appreciation of teamwork. This idea plays a crucial role in the entire process of team learning. In fact without the appreciation of teamwork nothing can take place and the while process will be a failure. It can therefore be concluded that the journal was not a total failure in its research analysis. As far as team learning is concerned the journal was successful in the discussion of the concept. The concept of team learning has therefore been discussed with accuracy and precision which it deserves.
The Credibility of the Journal Reviewed
The entire journal is based on a rudimentary piece of research whose credibility is highly wanting. The context of the first case study is also a matter of concern. A company of twenty eight employees cannot be a basis of such an enormous piece of research. How can such a small company with very few employees be the cornerstone of a crucial topic? The authors of the journal were not serious in trying to make major conclusions from such a small piece of work. Poor research work can never be the basis of constructive analysis.
The entire work was poorly planned and thus led to such narrow deductions of the nature and conclusions of the journal. On realizing that their research is not sufficient, the three authors go ahead and try to defend the journal’s credibility. Their insecurity concerning their work is well expressed in their defense that their analysis in not only based on the two case studies but also from their experiences. There is no way in which a major research can be based on things like experience. This confirms how mediocre and disorganized thee journal is. Nobody can believe a finding that cannot be supported substantially.
The second case study is based in a single department of a company. One wonders what the researchers were up to in selecting a single department to conduct such a wide topic of research. I t is more surprising to see the kind of major conclusions in the journal vis-à-vis the context of the case study. Furthermore in the second case study conclusions on team differences are made by analyzing only three teams. It is a wonder that the researchers didn’t find it appropriate to include more teams in order to make the conclusions more realistic.
The team learning model is faulty from its definition. The explanation on the meaning of team learning in the journal is just a combination of verbal and grammatical jargons with no real practical significance. No matter the entire concept is faulted due to total reliance on philosophy and theory rather than practical reality. Team learning is a forum where knowledge is disseminated; knowledge cannot be created so the journal’s definition is out of shape with organizational realities.
The journal’s assertions are just a piece of fantasy. The authors hail group learning without citing and acknowledging the challenges associated with teams. For instance the journal claims that individuals in groups share information and synergize. However, the harsh reality is that groups not only co operate but conflict. In fact it is fast and convenient to handle people as individuals than as group. Different personalities bring with it a lot of challenges making team learning a very complex process. Contrary to such realities the authors only glorify the model as though it is a bed of roses. The authors therefore fail to realistically tackle the issue of team learning.
It could have been in the interest of the journal to cite the challenges that accompany team learning and come up with ways of handling them. Instead, the journal simply hails the model as the most effective tool of organizational efficiency.
The diversity of a group sometimes works for its utter detriment. Different perspectives and perceptions can dismantle the group’s fabric. As much as working as a team can lead to great results the very process of working together is technical. The authors therefore can not convince the world that team learning has no challenges. In order for team learning to succeed there are various factors that must be considered. The journal is therefore a fabrication of half baked notions of organizational team learning.
For instance managing a team can be so hectic that nothing ends up taking place in the group. Each member of a group must feel accommodated and accepted in the group in order for them to give their full contribution. Failure to integrate every member in the group is a recipe for tragedy. Such recommendations and observations were supposed to be included in the journal. Without such inclusions, the journal remains a hapless suggestion.
The journal promotes laissez fair attitude by trying to portray group learning as an automatic model as long as people gather. Its comparison to color in a painting portrays the authors’ incompetence in handling the entire topic. Individual do not automatically lose their identity and are swallowed in a group. In fact, the hardest part is that of making individuals work as a group. Group learning is not as easy as the journal reports. One can easily conclude that group learning is a smooth sailing based on the findings of the journal. However, the journal ignores important parameters that define group learning and activities at large. In general, the journal uses simple assumptions about very complex parameters. The authors assumes a non-serious approach to a very serious topic, this makes the journal a total mess.
The journal is so vague in addressing the issue of relationships among the group. In fact the journal assumes that the groups will automatically work together without conflicts. In writing about group dynamics, the authors give very little space for conflicts and their resolutions among the groups which is the determining factor in any group activity. Therefore it is true that the journal takes the entire issue of team work lightly. The authors therefore have no competence to handle a topic of prime significance such as the one they have chosen. The journal uses phrases like healthy group dynamics, individual expression and teamwork appreciation without necessarily explaining on their meaning in relation with the context of discussion.
This proves that the entire journal is a collection of theories and philosophies held by the authors. The journal is full of unproven notions about teamwork and learning in an organization. The authors of the journal have no idea of what they are trying to present in the journal; a critical analysis of the journal portrays a wide loophole in the so called research report. Their arguments in the journal are more of a confused philosophy of human relations and tem building.
Weaknesses
The journal’s greatest weakness however comes to light at a point when the author’s try without success to illustrate team learning. This is in fact the point which determines the credibility of a research report. Anything that is said to be true must be substantially verified by illustrations of its practical reality. The three stories of self managed teams in a set company are so inappropriate for the research. A study of this magnitude needs a setting that complements it. It would have served the purpose well had the authors chosen various companies of international stature where comparisons could have been done to prove the hypothesis.
The authors chose a very inappropriate setting for such an important piece of research because a company which exhibited declining profit margins was used as a case in the research (Cox and Darwin, 2008, pages 11-16). The so called teams do not meet the necessary requirements of being called a team; they are mere fabrications of individual groupings. The authors should have undertaken the study in a well established organization with real functional groups.
Based on these three stories the authors establish their case. They are however quick to deny that the whole analysis in the journal is not based on the minute studies. Contrary to their assertion, analysis of any study is normally based on their research and not on other theoretical notions. Therefore, the journal is rendered insufficient by their claim that it revolves around theory and philosophy rather than practical study.
The journal gives a very wide analysis of a minutely small piece of research. The story about the three teams is insufficient to be accorded the wide coverage of analysis in the journal. In fact reading the journal one wonders if there was nothing more the authors could have done. Two narrow case studies are not sufficient to cover such a significant topic of research. The analysis is therefore nothing but an affirmation of philosophical theories on the topic of discussion.
On interpretation of the data the journal assumes a general interpretation mode which is still based on the loosely conducted case study. This in the first place denies the study the credibility it deserves. The authors use very rudimentary methods of interpretation where deductions are arrived at in a very direct manner without qualitative analysis. The reader is left to wonder whether the journal is anything serious to go by.
The authors give very short illustrations of their interpretations making the journal quite unconvincing. The pieces of illustration are scattered all over the pages making qualitative analysis by the readers quite difficult. This is further complicated by the manner in which the journal approaches the whole issue of interpretative analysis. From hollow illustrations to unconvincing arguments the journal is a typical failure in its purpose of presenting a piece of research based work (Michaelsen, Knight & Fink 2002, page 152).
The journal’s conclusions are highly wanting, it leaves the reader thinking and trying to figure out what the research was all about. The context of the study does not feature anywhere in the conclusion section of the journal. This portrays the futility of the authors in their efforts to present the findings of a study. The three models that feature in the conclusion part of the journal have no correlation with what the study is supposed to present.
The fragmented, pooled and synergistic models used by the author in presenting team learning are three different parameters that portray different features. The difference in results of these three aspects makes the analysis of the findings difficult to compare. As a result, the three represent different findings that have no relationship with each other as well as the topic of study. The journals findings contradict themselves with one factor nullifying the other. This makes it appear; as such, the journal is an incompetent piece of work. Under normal circumstances, studies are conducted in a manner that their different findings support one another in order to arrive at the intended conclusion.
Conclusion
The journal is a failed attempt to analyze the process and impact of team learning in modern organization. The choice of case studies as well as the companies where the studies were conducted was done in a rudimentary manner. The researchers therefore not only failed to plan the study but also presented a poor analysis of theoretical data without full practical backing. Therefore, the journal is not an analysis of the case studies but a manifestation of data based on theory and philosophy. The entire journal thus cannot be relied upon as reference on the topic of study. The authors did a shoddy work that has no place in the world of professionalism.
Reference List
Cox, J., and Darwin N., 2008. “Quantifying emotional intelligence: the relationship between thinking patterns and emotional skills”, Journal of humanistic counseling, education and development, 47 pp. 9-23.
Michaelsen, L., Knight, B. & Fink, L., 2002. Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. Washington: Greenwood publishing group.