Keywords

1 Introduction

Almost every textbook on communication skills will dedicate a section to teamwork, emphasizing the fact that, no matter what career path one chooses to pursue, they will need to collaborate in at least some work-related tasks. The centrality of teamwork in today’s marketplace is undeniable. Organizations use a wide variety of groups and teams to perform tasks, and the benefits of such a decision are well-researched in the literature: increased productivity, improved employee morale, reduced risks, and less resistance to change, to name just a few [1,2,3]. At the same time, not every individual with experience in teamwork has found the process effective or rewarding. As a matter of fact, there are various challenges that come hand in hand with team activities [2]. Instead of enhancing creativity and productivity, a team setting can cultivate social loafing (i.e., allowing individuals to put in less effort and hide behind the group), as well as effects of groupthink (i.e., peer pressure causing some members to withhold contrary opinions and go along with decisions made by the majority). To these group phenomena, we should add the possibility of hidden agendas led by counterproductive individual motives, as well as practical difficulties regarding aligning schedules, arranging meetings and/or coordinating individual parts of projects [4]. Similar challenges are also reflected in students’ perceptions of obstacles to teamwork. According to Wilson et al. [5], when asked about negative aspects of their group assignment, undergraduate students pointed to difficulties in scheduling time together, unfair workload distribution, and interpersonal conflict. Both the many advantages and the equally numerous challenges associated with teamwork make it a valuable part of the soft skills toolkit that students need to acquire or improve in communication courses. Although this need has long been acknowledged [6] and effective teamwork assessments have been proposed [7], the need for a more holistic implementation of teamwork pedagogy persists [5]. This paper proposes a tool for teaching teamwork in the classroom, as well as for maximizing team performance in organizational settings, by capitalizing on each team member’s active and critical reflection. Adopting a group-analytic perspective, the SPeCS tool (see Sect. 3) foregrounds two interrelated dimensions of self-reflection, namely Self-Perception of each member and Communication Style he/she adopts in interacting with the team.

2 Background

2.1 Team Effectiveness

Team effectiveness is not a new concept. On the contrary, researchers have invested a lot in studying the specific characteristics of a team that will make it successful. A series of descriptive models for analyzing team phenomena has been proposed over the years, like the Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) model [8], and the Input-Mediator-Outcome-Input (IMOI) model [9]. Taking these into consideration, various articles and book chapters propose research-based mechanisms for successful work teams [9,10,11]. Numerous textbooks on communication skills rely on this rich field of research, turning such analytical accounts into applicable knowledge and transferable skills. As a result, we can find multiple lists of useful and insightful ways in which teams can perform more effectively (indicatively [1, 3, 4, 12]). Among other things, textbooks alert their readers of the fact that successful teams embrace diversity, communicate effectively, confront conflict, collaborate rather than compete, place individual rights beneath the best interest of the team, acknowledge that each member brings special strengths etc.—the list could go on for several pages. The significance and accuracy of such listings is not questionable. Students need to be conscious of the key ingredients of team success. However, a question does arise: are lists enough for such knowledge to be mastered experientially? Similar to every human interaction (and activity, in general), teamwork processes are dynamic and negotiable, rather than static and unchangeable. This means that simply learning about the successful mechanisms or even managing to apply them once cannot secure success in real-life collaborations. One of the main arguments that the present paper seeks to make is that the key to team accomplishments is constant self-regulation and critical reflection.

2.2 Critical Reflection

Reflection has been associated with productive, deep learning in a range of disciplines across higher education. Its significant benefits were introduced decades ago, in accounts that associated it with the ability of metacognitive thinking [13, 14]. As Dewey emphasizes in his seminal texts, it’s not mere experience we learn from; rather, we eventually learn by reflecting on experience [15]. The notion of reflective practice is introduced in work by Schön [14, 16], as a way of comparing what professionals do to what they say they do. In line with this, concepts such as ‘(critical) reflection’ and ‘reflexivity’ emerge, emphasizing the benefits of examining and, if necessary, changing deeply held, fundamental assumptions or power dynamics. In sum, awareness of such assumptions can provide a platform for transformative action and a change in perspective [17, 18]. Taking into consideration the above, numerous approaches promote the integration of critical reflective practices in various disciplines across higher education as engaging mechanisms for professional and academic development, both from the perspective of instructors and students (indicatively [19, 20]). The premise is well-described by Hetzner et al. [21]: a reflective practitioner can become a skillful professional, who is capable of controlling, maintaining, changing, or negotiating their professional action. Fook [17] argues for the need to “establish a culture in which it is acceptable to be open and to expose professional vulnerabilities for the sake of learning”. To the general professional advantages that this culture would entail for students and future practitioners, we could add the specific positive effects that critical reflection would have on team collaborations. Studying lists of key mechanisms and descriptions of successful teams is not enough for students to perform. Rather, we would argue that team members need to cultivate an ongoing process of critical self-reflection which will unlock the power of hands-on learning. Fully aligned with this idea, the present paper proposes a self-reflective tool which enables individuals working together to examine pre-existing assumptions and interactional patterns while these unravel in action, and to transform them accordingly. Before introducing this tool in detail (see Sect. 3), we should briefly elaborate on the theoretical framework on which the tool draws, namely Group Analysis.

2.3 Group Analysis

Founded by S.H. Foulkes in the mid-twentieth century [22], Group Analysis is a group-focused approach to psychotherapy which focuses on understanding the dynamics of groups and their impact on individual behavior, emotions, and relationships. It involves bringing individuals together in a group setting to explore their thoughts, feelings, and interactions within the group context, be it a therapy group, an organization, or an institution.

Group analysis views the group as a whole entity with its own unique dynamics, rather than just a collection of individuals. The interactions and relationships between group members, the roles they adopt, and the group’s collective psychosocial environment are taken to be essential aspects of analysis. In laying the theoretical background of Group Analysis, Foulkes [22] draws on sociological work by Elias [23], who argues that socialization and individuation are interconnected processes that shape human behavior, and that such processes are permeated by interaction and communication. In this sense, a group-analytic approach acknowledges the dual nature of personal development, where individuals are both products of their social environment and active agents shaping that environment through communication and interaction.

Since its emergence, group analysis has been enriched by numerous theoretical and analytical contributions that explored common group phenomena (see Bion’s [24] concepts of “basic assumptions” and “group mentality”, de Maré’s take on the significance of the “here-and-now” of in-group interactions [25], as well as Dalal’s focus on the power interplay of different social identities within groups [26]). Importantly, the destructive forces operating within group settings have also been analyzed in detail. Nitsun’s [27] account of the so-called “anti-group” delves into the dark aspects of group life, such as aggression, hostility, jealousy, and rivalry, arguing, at the same time, that acknowledging and harnessing such aspects can lead to their potential transformation into positive and constructive forces. From this perspective, Group Analysis pays significant attention to verbal and nonverbal communication within the group, emphasizing both what is explicitly expressed and what remains unsaid. Relatedly, explicitly or implicitly emerging conflict is considered a natural aspect of group life which needs to be explored and resolved, so as to promote healthier group dynamics. While its primary application is in clinical settings, the interdisciplinary group-analytic framework can be used in various organizational and educational settings. It offers an informed and systematic way for individuals to explore their relationships with others, gain insights into their own patterns of behavior, and develop interpersonal skills within a supportive group environment. At the same time, it can offer valuable insight for managers, group facilitators and individuals seeking to understand and transform destructive group dynamics into sources of growth and innovation. By shedding light to group dynamics, by unearthing underlying assumptions, and by maintaining the communication channel open at all times, a group-analytic perspective can lead to efficient and productive teams in both educational and organizational contexts. Adopting this claim, the present paper proposes a self-reflective tool which aims to enhance teamwork experience by integrating some of the beneficial group-analytic insights into the process of team collaboration.

3 SPeCS

SPeCS is a tool that seeks to enhance team effectiveness by promoting members’ active self-reflection, drawing on group-analytic concepts and theorizations. It is an acronym which relies on two interrelated dimensions of critical reflection in team settings, namely Self-Perception and Communication Style (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
A 4-quadrant graph of communication style versus self-perception, with I and we positioning on the x-axis and open and blocked communication channels on the y-axis. Team effectiveness is denoted by a semi-circle with endpoints on the x-axis. Regions beyond the semi-circle signify counterproductive.

SPeCS tool: reflecting on self-perception and communication style

Full size image

The horizontal axis represents Self-Perception, which refers to the ways in which each member positions himself/herself onto a spectrum of self-identifications, ranging from an ‘I’ to a ‘we’. According to group-analytic accounts (see Sect. 2.3), personal development is accomplished through the dual process of individuation and socialization [23] which take place simultaneously. That is, the self is both individual and social at the same time, and self-perception takes a different valence (‘I’ or ‘we’) depending on the different ‘here-and-now’. Therefore, Self-Perception explores the degree to which each member of a given team operates on an individual or a collective basis at different stages of the collaborative project. It practically foregrounds reflective questions about the ways in which the self is perceived in the team context: “Do I feel part of a ‘we’?” “Am I making decisions on my own?” “Am I (not) doing this to accommodate the team or myself?” etc.

As shown in Fig. 1, positioning the self on the extreme left or right point of the x-axis blocks productive teamwork. Typically, a member who understands himself/herself as an ‘I’ (left side of the x-axis) tends to do everything on his/her own, because he/she doesn’t trust anyone else in the team. Team-related problems like imposing one’s decisions on the whole group, forcing leadership, or completing tasks for which other members have been responsible, fall under this category. On the contrary, a member who systematically positions himself/herself on the extreme right point of x-axis tends to put in the minimum effort, leaving the whole project up to the team and benefiting from other people’s work. This is directly linked to typical group-related problems such as lack of accountability, social loafing, free-riders, and groupthink [4]. Both tendencies described here are counterproductive as they fail to benefit from the main asset of teamwork, i.e., diversity. Each team is unique, in the sense that its exact composition cannot be replicated [2]. If handled successfully, this uniqueness can lead to faster responses, increased productivity, and less resistance to change. If not, teamwork will be reduced to work done by a couple of individuals, who are even challenged by the need to interact and negotiate. Consequently, the proposed area for positioning oneself is found towards the middle of the x-axis. Reflecting Elias’ [23] idea of simultaneous individuation and socialization, this is to emphasize that active members of a team need to be able to flexibly move from an ‘I’ to a ‘we’ and back to an ‘I’ location at all times. In practical terms, they need to be able to take initiatives, bring ideas, and assume responsibilities, i.e., embracing their individuality within the team setting, but to also listen, take a step back, trust the group and the process [22], and share (ideas, time, decisions), i.e., embracing the collective aspect of their self.

The second dimension of SPeCS is represented in the vertical axis and refers to Communication Style i.e., the communicative pattern that a member adopts in the context of team interactions. It relies on a continuum, based on whether the communication channel is blocked or open. In the process of interacting, collaborating, and negotiating, various challenges will come up, the most important of which involves conflict. As Group Analysis highlights, the exploration and resolution of conflict leads to healthier group dynamics (see Sect. 2.3) and, by extension, more productive collaborations. Maintaining the communication channel open at challenging moments (i.e., top side of the y-axis), is the key to this goal. The continuum ranges from complete withdrawal and blocked communication, to honest, constructive and consciously designed feedback. This dimension invites self-reflective questions about personal interactional patterns that lie behind the completion of particular tasks: “Am I giving honest feedback?” “Am I avoiding confrontation?” “Do I know how to give negative feedback without messing with our in-group relationships?” “Am I listening?” “Am I open to change?” etc. As such, this dimension encloses a series of interpersonal skills [3, 4], such as listening skills, control of verbal and non-verbal cues (e.g., body language, intonation, facial expressions), audience-centered design of messages, awareness of the context, strategic framing etc.

Overall, SPeCS can be particularly useful in educational settings, where group assignments systematically lead to heated discussions, with the vast majority of students expressing frustration and reservations. Previous negative experiences that students report, systematically point to unequal workload distribution, difficulties in scheduling meetings, free-riders, and painful negotiations. An in-class synthesis of such experiences always leads to the same conclusion: the fact that team members have been unable to give each other negative yet constructive feedback and hold each other accountable. In other words, in problematic situations it always becomes clear that communication is withdrawn and that members fail to switch from an ‘I’ to a ‘we’ perspective or vice versa (i.e., red areas of SPeCS). On the contrary, the green area of SPeCS calls for a flexible, simultaneous self-perception as an individual and a member of a team, and for a personal responsibility to maintain the communication channel open, even when the message to be conveyed is unpleasant. The important advantage of SPeCS is the fact that it systematizes much of group dynamics into a tangible visualization, a schematic representation which helps students and future professionals orient themselves more easily. Far beyond theoretical concepts and listings of positive and negative team practices, this tool encourages individuals to directly put prior experience into use, critically reflect on ongoing team-related situations, and benefit from the positive outcomes of hands-on learning.

4 Discussion and Conclusion

Taking the centrality of teamwork in today’s marketplace as a starting point, this paper proposed a tool that promotes active and conscious involvement in team interactions. Drawing on rich literature on the benefits of critical reflection, and relying on the theoretical framework of Group Analysis, SPeCS foregrounds two dimensions that are inextricably linked to team processes, i.e., self-perception of each member from an ‘I’ and a ‘we’ perspective, and communication style that each member adopts while dealing with specific tasks. A dynamic is developed between groups that may create communities [28]. One of the main conclusions that can be drawn is that teamwork is not a soft skill on its own, as popular conceptualizations have it: simply assigning group projects while teaching students about positive and negative team practices cannot lead to spectacular results. Rather, teamwork should be conceptualized as a combination of interpersonal skills (e.g., audience-centered message, listening skills, professional confrontation) and personal development. With that in mind, SPeCS offers a tangible visualization of teamwork which may be of use by both students and future professionals as a self-reflective tool which promotes critical thinking and engaging collaborations. In discussing the idea of reflective practices, Fook [17] writes: “It might be argued that the essentially subjective processes of critical reflection are antithetical to the more technocratized systems of managerialism. However, the move towards reflective practice can be seen as part of the same imperative—to make professional practice more accountable through ongoing scrutiny of the principles upon which it is based.” In line with this approach, this paper has proposed a reflective practice that increases the accountability of professional practice by allowing us to further explore the SPeCS and the (technical) ‘specs’ of effective teams.