Introduction
Examining the effects
of internal and external
team learning on team
performance
Christopher C.A. Chan
Cecil Pearson and
Lanny Entrekin
The authors
Christopher C.A. Chan is Lecturer in Management,
Faculty of Economics and Commerce, School of Business
and Information Management, Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia.
Cecil Pearson is Senior Research Fellow, Curtin Business
School, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Lanny Entrekin is Associate Professor in Management,
Murdoch Business School, Murdoch University, Murdoch,
Australia.
Keywords
Team working, Team learning, Performance appraisal
Abstract
The effectiveness of using team learning to improve team
performance has been well documented in the literature,
and this notion makes intuitive sense. However, little
empirical research has been dedicated to the relationship
between team learning and team performance, probably
owing to the lack of a widely acceptable instrument for
assessing team learning. In this study, a psychometric
(validity and reliability) examination of Edmondson's
Team Learning Survey (TLS) is undertaken. This
instrument was then used to examine the effects of
internal and external team learning on team performance.
Implications and limitations of the study findings are
discussed.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . pp. 174-181
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590310507426
174
In spite of the acknowledged relevant
importance of the connection between team
learning and team performance, little
empirical work has been dedicated to examine
the relationship. This observation has been
made by some scholars (Edmondson, 1996;
Henry, 1997; Wellins et al., 1991) despite
knowledge that the use of teams has been
associated with benefits in the form of
improved quality (Bacon and Blyton, 2000;
Batt, 2001; Sethi, 2000), increased
productivity (Meyer, 1994; Moses and
Stahelski, 1999), and reduced operating costs
(Bens, 1999; Gilbert, 1999; Goldin et al.,
2001). Moreover, Margerison and McCann
(1992) have suggested team performance
results more from team members being
satisfied with their workplace setting than
their counterparts in traditional job design. In
addition, Senge (1992) has explained the
improved performance in the workplace is a
result of the collective intelligence of a team,
which exceeds the sum of intelligence of
individual members. This reasoning
exemplifies another interpretation of synergy.
Despite the tremendous interest in team
learning, most studies are limited to
laboratory experiments (Edmondson, 1999).
Thus, an empirical examination of the effect
team learning has on team performance is
likely to make a unique contribution to the
literature.
Team learning behaviors ± team
performance linkage
Although the terminology ``team'' is applied
loosely, Kraut and Korman (1999) have
pointed out there are several types of teams.
For example, the various types of teams
include self-managing work teams,
management teams, cross-functional teams,
problem-solving project teams, and virtual
teams. According to Entrekin and Court
(2001), the use of teams offers two major
advantages to an organization. First,
teamwork has the capacity to empower
people to utilize their abilities, which have
relevance for motivation and group
cohesiveness. Second, the use of teams
allows managers to focus their attention on
strategic issues rather than supervising
individuals. Thus, teams are increasingly
 Examining the effects of internal and external team learning
Christopher C.A. Chan, Cecil Pearson and Lanny Entrekin
employed as more organizations attempt to
improve their productivity.
In response to mounting expectations for
greater productivity, more organizations are
adopting team-based structures (Castka et
al., 2001). The tenet of teamwork is based
on a belief individuals of the teams will
bring knowledge, skills, and experience to
the workplace (Avery, 2000; Coghlan,
2001; Delbridge et al., 2000; Fisher and
Fisher, 1998; Goh, 1998). Researchers and
practitioners (Brooks, 1994; Lynn, 1998)
have asserted these intellectual assets are
likely to improve organizational
functioning. Furthermore, the use of cross-
functional teams is emerging as an attractive
strategy to foster synergy (Jassawalla and
Sashittal, 1998, 1999; Taninecz, 1997),
where the output of a collection of
individuals is greater than the sum of
individual outputs. The notion about teams,
therefore, appeals to numerous
organizations that are concerned about
exacerbated competition.
Although the use of teams in organizations
is hardly new, team learning is gaining
importance as a strategy for gaining greater
competitive advantage (Banker et al., 1996;
Osterman, 1994; Safizadeh, 1991). In fact,
many firms are realizing the potential
contributions of teams in enhancing
continuous improvement of quality,
innovation, customer satisfaction (Boyett and
Conn, 1991; J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld &
Associates, 1994; Gupta and Ash, 1994;
Hitchcock, 1993; Katzenbach and Smith,
1993; Sheinkman, 1993; Tjosvold, 1991),
improving employee satisfaction (Cohen and
Ledford, 1994; Corderey et al., 1991), as well
as reducing operating costs and improving
response to technological change (Wellins
et al., 1991). In response to a rapidly changing
marketplace teams have been given increased
autonomy and responsibilities (Walton and
Hackman, 1986). Also, the use of
cross-functional teams is becoming
widespread (Galbraith, 1982; Von Hippel,
1988). Drawing from these literatures, team
learning is, arguably, an important
determinant of an organization's
competitiveness.
Consequently, academics and
practitioners have conceived a myriad of
strategies for improving team learning.
Theories such as effective knowledge
management (Lynn et al., 1999; Mascitelli,
175
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . 174-181
2000), systems theory (Senge, 1992;
Stumpf et al., 1994), team empowerment
(Cy, 1996; Flood et al., 2001), and conflict
management (Jehn and Manniz, 2001) have
been proposed as potent tools for enhancing
team learning. In practice, a holistic
approach has been taken where the
dynamics of team learning in relation to
individuals, inter-department groups, and
an entire organization is engaged in the
process of learning and change (Ahmed et
al., 1999; Coghlan, 2001; McKenna, 1999).
Examples of practices to facilitate team
learning include the removal of barriers to
cross-functional team learning (Darian
and Coopersmith, 2001; Mezias et al.,
2001), the use of action research projects to
better understand the processes of team
learning (Ayas and Zeniuk, 2001; Coghlan,
2001), studying the learning ability of
prominent members of management teams
(Malter and Dickson, 2001), and
development of respect and trust among
members (Manfred and De Vries, 1999).
Thus, team learning success depends
heavily on the cooperation between all
organizational levels.
Although previous research has
demonstrated a relationship between team
learning and competitiveness, relatively few
studies have explicitly examined the link
between team learning and team
performance. In a study of surgical teams at
16 major medical centers, Edmondson et al.
(2001) found a positive relationship
between a team's ability to adapt to new
ways of working and the group's
performance. In an earlier study
(Edmondson, 1999) with 51 work teams in
a furniture manufacturer it was reported
team learning behavior was indirectly
related to team performance via team
psychological safety. The positive effect
of team learning on team performance has
also been reported by a number of
prominent researchers such as Cavaluzzo
(1996), Flood et al. (2001), Katzenbach
and Smith (1993), Meyer (1994), Roberts
(1997), and Senge (1992). Taken
together, these studies demonstrate the
importance of team learning on improving
team performance. Consequently, it is
predicted that team learning is positively
related to team performance.
 Examining the effects of internal and external team learning
Christopher C.A. Chan, Cecil Pearson and Lanny Entrekin
Methodology
Site and procedures
The site of this study was a medium size
Australian hospital. This organization is an
incorporated, private, metropolitan,
non-teaching hospital that has a 250-bed
capacity. Some of the facilities that are housed
in the hospital include a community hospice,
orthopedic surgical center, medical clinic for
consulting specialists, birthing suites, eight
operating rooms, endoscopy rooms, and
angiography suites. In addition to an
intensive/coronary care unit, there is a full
emergency department that sees about 2,100
patients yearly. An expansion of the day
procedure unit, emergency short stay unit and
angiography unit have been undertaken to
meet increasing demand from the
community. Another integral department of
the hospital is the quality unit, which
coordinates the hospital's quality initiatives.
In particular, the quality unit is responsible
for conducting training programs, staff
surveys, benchmarking, and handling
occupational health and safety issues of staff
members. As a questionnaire was the primary
source of data collection, primary contact for
conducting this research study was
established with the quality unit.
The respondents were drawn from all
hospital staff ± nurses, managers, patient care
assistants, professions allied to health,
administration and clerical workers. Doctors
were not surveyed because they were not
considered as core staff in the hospital, as
those doctors were contracted. In total 700
questionnaires were administered by the
quality unit of the hospital and staff were
given one week to complete the
questionnaires. Completed questionnaires
were returned to a designated box (in the
hospital) in the envelopes provided. A total of
189 completed questionnaires were returned,
generating an overall response rate of 27.0 per
cent. Although the response rate was slightly
lower than other health care studies in
Australia (Abernethy, 1996; Dawson et al.,
2000; Duffy and Chan, 2001; Pearson and
Duffy, 1998), under the circumstance the
response rate was acceptable because the staff
may have been fatigued from extensive
in-house surveys, resulting in a lower than
expected response rate.
176
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . 174-181
Sample
Respondents in the study were 189 staff
members from various departments. A
prominent feature of the sample
characteristics was that a majority of the
respondents were female (84.1 per cent),
reflecting the traditional nature of the hospital
industry (Pearson and Duffy, 1998). The
second feature of the sample was related to
job function. Specifically, nurses (47.2 per
cent), managerial staff (20.6 per cent) and
administrative staff (13.2 per cent) made up a
majority of the hospital workforce. The third
feature was most of the staff had formal
educational qualifications (18.0 per cent had
secondary schooling, 37.0 per cent possessed
certificates/diplomas, 41.3 per cent held
university degrees, and 3.7 per cent obtained
hospital-based training), which illustrates the
importance of education in the hospital
industry. A final feature of the sample was
that all age groups were well represented. For
example, 15.3 per cent were 20-29 years old,
26.5 per cent were 30-39, 35.4 per cent were
40-49, and 22.8 per cent were above 49 years
old. Overall, the respondents' diverse
demographic background has the potential to
allow the study's results to be applicable
within the hospital, and perhaps other
hospitals as well.
Measures
Team learning was measured using the Team
Learning Survey (TLS). The TLS was
developed by Edmondson (1996) in a study
that investigated team learning in a large
office furniture manufacturer in the American
mid-west. In Edmondson's study, team
learning-oriented behavior has two
constructs:
(1) internal team learning behaviors; and
(2) external team learning behaviors.
Edmondson (1996, p. 164) has defined
internal team learning as:
. . . the extent to which team members engage in
behaviors to monitor performance against goals,
obtain new information, test assumptions, and
create new possibilities.
External team learning was further designated
by Edmondson (1996, p. 166) as:
. . . an assessment by several of the team's
customers and/or managers about the extent to
which team engages in behaviors such as seeking
new information or asking those who receive or
use its work for feedback.
 Examining the effects of internal and external team learning
Christopher C.A. Chan, Cecil Pearson and Lanny Entrekin
The Cronbach alpha obtained for the TLS in
the present study was 0.77 for internal team
learning and 0.80 for external team learning.
Team performance was measured with
Edmondson's (1996) Team Performance
Survey (TPS). However, Edmondson (1996)
has proposed two sets of measures for team
performance. The first set of measures
involves team members assessing their own
group's performance while the second set
requires team members to assess the
performance of other groups. Although
Edmondson (1999) claimed the latter
measure provided a better assessment of team
performance, the former was chosen for two
major reasons. First, there is evidence of the
likelihood of a significant degree of
correspondence between team members' and
observers' assessments of team performance
(r = 0.36, p < 0.01) (Edmondson, 1999).
Second, it may be difficult for each team to
assess the performance of other teams in the
organization using a single measure.
Therefore, the self-reported measure of team
performance was employed. A seven-point
Likert scale with responses that ranged from
``strongly disagree'' (1) to ``strongly agree'' (7)
was provided to the respondents to rate the
five TPS items. The Cronbach alpha for the
TPS in the present inquiry was 0.82.
Analysis
Analyses were undertaken in two stages with
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) Version 11. First, descriptive statistics
were employed to assess the demographic
profiles of the respondents. Second, the
psychometric properties (i.e. validities and
reliabilities) of the measures were assessed
with factor and reliability analyses.
Results
In assessing the psychometric properties of
the scales, factor and reliability analyses were
conducted. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA)
were performed to establish the underlying
structure of the relationships among internal
team learning, external team learning, and
team performance. Reliability analyses were
used to assess the internal consistency of the
three scales.
The EFA procedure employed principal
components method for extraction and
factors with eigenvalues greater than one were
177
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . 174-181
retained. The purpose of factor analysis was
to examine the construct validities of the
variables. Orthogonal rotations were
performed with Varimax because of the
technique's success in obtaining factors for
the purposes of regression and other
prediction techniques (Hair et al., 1998).
Given that the sample size is 189, Hair et al.
(1998) suggested that conservative factor
loadings of greater than ‹0.40 were to be
considered significant at the 0.05 level. Once
the dimensionalities of the instruments were
verified, the internal consistencies of the
scales were checked with reliability analyses.
The reliability for each construct scale was
estimated using Cronbach alpha coefficient
(Cronbach, 1951). Nunnally's (1978)
seminal work has been widely chosen for
estimating the reliability of multi-item scales.
Generally, items were retained in the scale
when the item-to-total correlation was at least
0.35, when there were at least three items in
the scale, and a coefficient alpha value in the
order of 0.70 was obtained (Nunnally, 1978).
Overall, the reliability estimates are
acceptable, demonstrating adequate internal
consistency for most of the scales. The results
of factor and reliability analyses are shown in
Table I.
Table II shows significant relationships
between team learning behaviors and team
performance. In order to test the hypothesis
that team learning (i.e. internal team learning
and external team learning) is positively
related to team performance, regression
analysis was used. Internal team learning was
entered into the model at the first step. Next,
external team learning was added to the
model. Finally, internal team learning and
external team learning were added to the
model. In three instances, the relationships
were significant, providing support for the
hypothesis.
Discussion
The main goal in this study was to examine
the relationship between team learning and
team performance. Results of regression
analysis support a positive relationship
between team learning and team
performance. Moreover, this study found
team performance was enhanced by the
presence of internal team learning (or learning
within a team) and external team learning (or
 Examining the effects of internal and external team learning Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Christopher C.A. Chan, Cecil Pearson and Lanny Entrekin Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . 174-181

Table I Factor loadings of internal team learning, external team learning and team performance items (n = 189)
Factors
Variables 1 2 3
Internal team learning
In our group, people discuss ways to prevent and learn from mistakes 0.24 0.10 0.81
We regularly take time to figure out ways to improve our work processes 0.14 0.32 0.74
Problems and errors in our group are never communicated to the appropriate people so
that corrective action can be taken 0.49 0.10 0.57
In my group, someone always makes sure that we stop to reflect on our work process 0.10 0.36 0.69
People in my group often speak up to test assumptions about issues under discussion ±0.11 0.40 0.64

External team learning

My group frequently coordinates with other groups to meet organizational objectives 0.10 0.82 0.27
My group keeps others in the organization informed about what we plan and accomplish 0.13 0.78 0.36
Group members go out and get all the relevant work information they possibly can from others
± such as customers, or other parts of the organization 0.18 0.80 0.14
We invite people from outside the group to present information or have discussions with us 0.11 0.52 0.38
We don't have time to communicate information about our group's work to others who are
not in the group 0.27 0.46 0.10

Team performance
Recently, my group seems to be ``slipping'' a bit in its level of performance and accomplishments 0.75 0.10 0.14
Others often complain about my group's work 0.81 0.12 0.10
Quality errors occur frequently in my group 0.85 0.10 0.10
The quality of work provided by my group is improving 0.52 0.20 0.26
Others in the company who interact with my group often complain about how we function 0.71 0.26 0.00

Cronbach alphas 0.81 0.80 0.82

Eigenvalues 5.63 2.25 1.12
Percentage of variance explained 37.54 14.99 7.45
Cumulative percentage of variance explained 37.54 52.54 59.99

Table II Results of regression analysis for team

cross-functional team learning). Hence, the
performancea results of this study provided empirical
confirmation of the long-standing hypothesis
Variable  s.e.
that team learning is an important influence
Step 1 on team performance (Galbraith, 1982;
Internal team learning 0.38*** 0.08 Banker et al., 1996; Osterman, 1994).
R2 0.14 The findings of this study suggest some
Adjusted R2 0.14 important directions for effective team
F 31.55 management. Team members may have
Step 2
concluded that continual inquiries into the
IExternal team learning 0.37*** 0.07
work processes and sharing of knowledge
R2 0.14
across teams have great potential for
Adjusted R2 0.13
improving their performance. This is
F 30.02
particularly important when team rewards are
at stake. The use of reflective learning, where
Step 3 team members reflect on the work processes
IInternal team learning 0.24** 0.10 (Brockbank et al., 2002), also has tremendous
External team learning 0.22* 0.09 potential in improving team performance.
R2 0.17 Furthermore, other team-related performance
Adjusted R2 0.17 factors such as keeping pace with the needs of
F 19.64 customers, development of technology,
Notes: a n = 189. Standardized regression coefficients marketplace, shorter product life cycles, and
are shown; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.0001
social factors are also important
178
 Examining the effects of internal and external team learning
Christopher C.A. Chan, Cecil Pearson and Lanny Entrekin
considerations for teams (Cavaluzzo, 1996;
Van Engelen et al., 2001). Accordingly, there
is an opportunity for future investigators to
explore the factors promoting or hindering
team learning and team performance.
A major theoretical contribution of this
study is in the development of a team learning
scale. Although team learning has received
considerable attention (Brooks, 1994;
Edmondson et al., 2001; Gay, 1996;
Hernandez, 2002; Lynn, 1998; Thompson
and Zondlo, 1995), there has been little
reported empirical research on team learning.
The design of the TLS by Edmondson (1996)
provided researchers with an opportunity to
test the team learning construct. In
Edmondson's (1996) investigation and the
study reported here, the TLS had reasonable
construct validity and reliability dimensions.
This finding provides added assurance for
future researchers who may be employing the
TLS to study the antecedents or outcomes of
team learning.
The findings and conclusions drawn from
the results of this study may be interpreted
with the following two limitations in mind.
First, as this study was cross-sectional in
design, causality among the variables cannot
be determined, but inferences can be made
from the associations. The second constraint
of this study is related to the sample, which
was limited to 189 staff members (27.0 per
cent) within the examined hospital. It may be
necessary for the model to be tested with a
larger and more diverse sample, perhaps from
other hospitals and industries. Thus, future
researchers are encouraged to examine the
model in other health care sectors, not only
within Australia, but also in other countries.
Such endeavors have great potential to
advance understanding of organizational
learning across cultures and may contribute to
the development of a more robust theory of
organizational learning.
Conclusion
Teamwork and team learning are increasingly
applied in many organizations in an effort to
improve performance, yet empirical evidence
demonstrating the relationship between team
learning and team performance is scarce.
Consequently, this study has undertaken an
empirical assessment of the linkages between
team learning and team performance in an
179
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . 174-181
Australian hospital. There is support for the
hypothesis that team learning has significant
effects on team performance. Future
endeavors may include testing this
relationship in other hospitals and industries
operating in Australia and overseas.
References
Abernethy, M.A. (1996), ``A field study of control system
`redesign': the impact of institutional processes on
strategic choice'', Contemporary Accounting
Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 569-606.
Ahmed, P.K., Loh, A.Y.E. and Zairi, M. (1999), ``Cultures
for continuous improvement and learning'', Total
Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 4/5,
pp. S426-S434.
Avery, C.M. (2000), ``How teamwork can be developed as
an individual skill'', Journal for Quality &
Participation, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 6-13.
Ayas, K. and Zeniuk, N. (2001), ``Project-based learning:
building communities of reflective practitioners'',
Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 61-76.
Bacon, N. and Blyton, P. (2000), ``High road and low road
teamworking: perceptions of management
rationales and organizational and human resource
outcomes'', Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11,
pp. 1425-58.
Banker, R.D., Field, J.M., Schroeder, R.G. and Sinha, K.K.
(1996), ``Impact of work teams on manufacturing
performance: a longitudinal field study'', Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 867-90.
Batt, R. (2001), ``The economies of teams among
technicians'', British Journal of Industrial Relations,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Bens, I. (1999), ``Keeping your team out of trouble'',
Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 45-7.
Boyett, J.H. and Conn, H.P. (1991), Workplace 2000: The
Revolution Reshaping American Business, Penguin,
New York, NY.
Brockbank, A., McGill, I. and Beech, N. (Eds) (2002),
Reflective Learning in Practice, Gower, Andover.
Brooks, A.K. (1994), ``Power and the production of
knowledge: collective team learning in work
organizations'', Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 213-35.
Castka, P., Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M. and Belohoubek,
P. (2001), ``Factors affecting successful
implementation of high performance teams'', Team
Performance Management, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 123-34.
Cavaluzzo, L. (1996), ``Enhancing team performance'', The
Healthcare Forum Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 57-9.
Coghlan, D. (2001), ``Insider action research projects:
implications for practicing managers'', Management
Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E. Jr (1994), ``The
effectiveness of self-managing teams: a
quasi-experiment'', Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 13-43.
Corderey, J.L., Mueller, W.S. and Smith, L.M. (1991),
``Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous
 Examining the effects of internal and external team learning
Christopher C.A. Chan, Cecil Pearson and Lanny Entrekin
group working: a longitudinal field study'', Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 464-76.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), ``Coefficient alpha and internal
structure of tests'', Psychometrika, Vol. 16,
pp. 297-334.
Cy, C. (1996), ``Self-directed peer training in teams'',
Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 34-7.
Darian, J.C. and Coopersmith, L. (2001), ``Integrated
marketing and operations team projects: learning
the importance of cross-functional cooperation'',
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 128-35.
Dawson, W., Brown, S., Gunn, J., McNair, R. and Lumley,
J. (2000), ``Sharing obstetric care: barriers to
integrated systems of care'', Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 401-6.
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), ``Shopfloor
responsibilities under lean teamworking'', Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1459-79.
Duffy, C. and Chan, C.C.A. (2001), ``Pressures and stress in
a West Australian hospital'', Personnel Review,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 227-39.
Edmondson, A.C. (1996), ``Group and organizational
influences on team learning'', Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Edmondson, A. (1999), ``Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams'', Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 350-83.
Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R. and Pisano, G. (2001),
``Speeding up team learning'', Harvard Business
Review, October, pp. 125-32.
Entrekin, L. and Court, M. (2001), Human Resource
Management: Adaptation and Change in an Age of
Globalization, International Labor Office, Geneva.
Fisher, K. and Fisher, M.D. (1998), ``Shedding light on
knowledge work learning'', Journal for Quality &
Participation, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 8-16.
Flood, P., MacCurtain, S. and West, M. (2001), Effective
Top Management Teams: An International
Perspective, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin.
Galbraith, J.R. (1982), ``Designing the innovating
organization'', Organization Dynamics, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 5-25.
Gay, T. (1996), ``How ``team learning`` raises customer
service levels'', Health Industry Today, February, p. 9.
Gilbert, T. (1999), ``Great teamwork pays off for Xerox'',
Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 48-51.
Goh, S.C. (1998), ``Toward a learning organization: the
strategic building blocks'', S.A.M. Advanced
Management Journal, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 15-22.
Goldin, D.S., Venneri, S.L. and Noor, A.K. (2001), ``Fresh
air, wide-open space'', Mechanical Engineering,
Vol. 123 No. 11, pp. 48-55.
Gupta, Y.P. and Ash, D. (1994), ``Excellence at Rohm and
Haas Kentucky: a case study of work teams
introduction in manufacturing'', Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 186-200.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.
(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Henry, A.R. (1997), ``Team learning and productivity'',
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA.
180
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . 174-181
Hernandez, S.A. (2002), ``Team learning in a marketing
principles course: cooperative structures that
facilitate active learning and higher level thinking'',
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 73-85.
Hitchcock, N.A. (1993), ``Employee participation paves
way to product perfection'', Modern Material
Handling, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 44-5.
Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (1998), ``An
examination of collaboration in high-technology
new product development processes'', Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 237-54.
Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (1999), ``Building
collaborative cross-functional new product teams'',
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 50-63.
J. Cutcher-Gershenfield & Associates (1994), ``Japanese
team-based work systems in North America:
explaining the diversity'', California Management
Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 42-64.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), ``The dynamic nature
of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup
conflict and group performance'', Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 238-51.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993), ``The discipline of
teams'', Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 111-20.
Kraut, A.I. and Korman, A.K. (1999), Evolving Practices in
Human Resource Management: Responses to a
Changing World of Work, Jossey-Bass Publishers,
San Francisco, CA.
Lynn, G.S. (1998), ``New product team learning:
developing and profiting from your knowledge
capital'', California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 4, pp. 74-93.
Lynn, G.S., Skov, R.B. and Abel, K.D. (1999), ``Practices
that support team learning and their impact on
speed to market and new product success'', Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 439-545.
McKenna, S. (1999), ``Learning through complexity'',
Management Learning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 301-20.
Malter, A.J. and Dickson, P.R. (2001), ``The effect of
individual learning on competitive decision making
and firm performance'', International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 99-117.
Manfred, F.R. and De Vries, K. (1999), ``High-performing
teams: lessons from the pygmies'', Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 66-77.
Margerison, C. and McCann, D. (1992), ``Measures which
help you work together as a team'', Executive
Development, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 6-9.
Mascitelli, R. (2000), ``From experience: harnessing tacit
knowledge to achieve breakthrough innovation'',
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 179-93.
Meyer, M.A. (1994), ``The dynamics of learning with team
production implications for task assignment'',
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 109 No. 4,
pp. 1157-84.
Mezias, J., Grinyer, P. and Guth, W.D. (2001), ``Changing
collective cognition: a process model for strategic
change'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 71-95.
 Examining the effects of internal and external team learning
Christopher C.A. Chan, Cecil Pearson and Lanny Entrekin
Moses, T.P. and Stahelski, A.J. (1999), ``A productivity
evaluation of teamwork at an aluminum
manufacturing plant'', Group & Organization
Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 391-412.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Osterman, P. (1994), ``How common is workplace
transformation and who adopts it?'', Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, Vol. 17, pp. 173-88.
Pearson, C.A.L. and Duffy, C. (1998), ``The importance of
job content and social information on organizational
commitment and job satisfaction: a study in
Australia and Malaysian nursing contexts'', Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 17-30.
Roberts, E. (1997), ``When is enough . . . enough?'',
Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 39 No. 5,
pp. 16-20.
Safizadeh, M.H. (1991), ``The case of workgroups in
manufacturing operations'', California Management
Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 61-82.
Senge, P.M. (1992), The Fifth Discipline: The Art &
Practice of the Learning Organization, Random
House Australia, Milson Point, New South Wales.
Sethi, R. (2000), ``New product quality and product
development teams'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64
No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Sheinkman, J. (1993), ``Amalgamated clothing and textile
workers union'', Quality Progress, Vol. 26 No. 9,
pp. 57-8.
181
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 9 . Number 7/8 . 2003 . 174-181
Stumpf, S.A., Watson, M.A. and Rustogi, H. (1994),
``Leadership in a global village: creating practice
field to develop learning organizations'', Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 13 No. 8,
pp. 16-25.
Taninecz, G. (1997), ``Best practices and performances'',
Industry Week, Vol. 246 No. 22, pp. 28-43.
Thompson, C.J.C. and Zondlo, J.A. (1995), ``Building a
case for team learning'', Healthcare Forum Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 36-43.
Tjosvold, D. (1991), Team Organization: An Enduring
Competitive Advantage, Wiley, New York, NY.
Van Engelen, J.M.L., Kieweit, D.J. and Terlouw, P. (2001),
``Improving performance of product development
teams through managing polarity'', International
Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 46-63.
Von Hippel, R. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Walton, R.E. and Hackman, J.R. (1986), ``Groups under
contrasting management strategies'', in Goodman,
P. (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 168-201.
Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C. and Wilson, J.M. (1991),
Empowered Teams: Creating Self-directed Work
Groups that Improve Quality, Productivity, and
Participation, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco,
CA.