_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest
28 July 2014 12:34
_______________________________________________________________
28 July 2014 ProQuest
Table of contents
1. Mobilizing Teams to Help Troubled Kids...................................................................................................... 1
28 July 2014 ii ProQuest
Document 1 of 1

Mobilizing Teams to Help Troubled Kids
Author: Harper, Elaine

ProQuest document link
Abstract: Effective teams are essential components of successful interventions and programming for troubled
and troubling youth. This article draws from literature that can inform our practices about team effectiveness and
team learning to maximize positive outcomes. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Links: Check for full text., Linking Service
Full text: Headnote
Effective teams are essential components of successful interventions and programming for troubled and
troubling youth. This article draws from literature that can inform our practices about team effectiveness and
team learning to maximize positive outcomes.
In the mid 1960s when Dr. Nicholas Hobbs conceived Re-ED to address complex issues presented by children
with serious emotional disturbance, the concept of working in teams was central (Hobbs, 1994). The approach
called for a number of professionals from all areas of the child's ecology to come together to provide strength-
based treatment and intervention for the child in his natural setting and away from instirutionalization.
By 1975, Congress passed Public Law 94-142 (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) which
mandated that school districts develop multi-disciplinary teams as the core of decision-making procedures in
special education for children with learning or behavior problems. Up to this point a reliance on teams had been
building due to the complexities of educational planning and placement for children with learning and behavioral
problems. Although teams had been used for years within the general human service fields, the passage of PL
94-142 marked the first time a law had explicitly required their widespread adoption in a particular context.
Re-ED focuses on working in teams to help children and their families learn and grow successfully. The
discussion includes reviewing the literature and exploring the relevance of two key concepts in Re-ED
programs-team effectiveness and team learning. What does research suggest regarding effective teams and
team learning? A clear understanding of this research can inform the practices within teams and organizations
as we strive to facilitate the best possible outcomes for the children we serve.
Effective Teams
Interest in effective teams and team learning exists in a variety of fields including geriatrics (Clark, 1994),
business (Senge, 1990), manufacturing (Edmonson, 1999), secondary schools (Leithwood, Steinvach, &Ryan,
1997), colleges and universities (Sorum Brown, 1997), and special education (Lytle &Bordin, 2001). Regardless
of field, an organization's capacity for effective teams and team learning directs its ability to achieve the results
it seeks.
First, consider the idea of an effective team. Typically, a group of very talented and dedicated individuals is put
together and asked to function as a team. Teams are usually composed of a group of two or more people who
have come together for a common purpose (Shaw, 1976). In Re-ED, the individuals include teacher counselors,
associate teacher counselors, team associates, child care workers, parents, case managers, psychiatrists,
social workers, and outdoor education teachers, among many others. Research by Belbin (2000) suggests that
the creation of effective teams is to "move from a talented individual, to a collaborative group, to a balanced
team and finally, to concurrent balanced teams as the complexity of the task increases." The importance of
creating collaborative cultures within schools and programs so that transformation of teams can occur is
emphasized (Peterson &Brietzke, 1994).
Having talented individuals who are constantly learning is not sufficient. In fact, Chan, Lim, and Keasberry
28 July 2014 Page 1 of 5 ProQuest
(2003) found that the relationship between individual learning and organizational learning is not significant. On
the other hand, a positive relationship between team learning and organizational learning is found. Capability of
an organization to learn must start at the individual level, but individual learning is not enough (Barker &Neailey,
1999).
Insights into teams that can work productively and collaboratively are described in the literature. Dukewitz and
Gowin (1996) discuss five key components that teams have in common: trust, common beliefs and attitudes,
empowerment, effective meeting management, and feedback about team functioning. Familiar aspects of each
of Dukewitz and Gowin's key teaming components exist in other literature regarding teams as well. Bell (cited in
Cardno, 2002) suggests that an effective team will have shared perceptions, a common purpose, agreed
procedures, commitment, cooperation, and capability to resolve disagreements openly by discussion.
In addition to indicators of effective teams, the literature addresses the process by which effective teams are
formed. Simply labeling a collection of persons a "team" does not in itself make them operate as a team. Group
dynamics are important for effective interpersonal interactions. Riches (cited in Crawford, Kidd, &Riches, 1997)
summarizes from the literature the following indicators of successful teams: The effective team is value driven,
has good communication, is collaborative in its dealings, maximizes the use of the abilities of its members, has
the ability to listen to others in an effective way, has a willingness to solve problems, offers enjoyment of
membership, has well-motivated people, has dynamism, has flexibility, has the ability to cope with confrontation
and conflict, relates to other teams, and has effective quality leadership.
Sheard and Kakabadse (2002) clarify significant elements of the transformation of a "loose group into an
effective team" (p. 139). Tuckman's (1965) understanding of the four-stage team development process is
considered in terms of nine key factors.
These nine key factors are meant to capture all that is important to the transformation of the team. Sheard and
Kakabadse detail that their entire "team landscape" (p. 139) is theoretically relevant to the transformation of a
team. However, it is understood that in practice some factors would be relatively more important than others.
Key factors include: clearly defined goals, priorities, roles and responsibilities, self awareness, leadership, group
dynamics, communications, content, and infrastructure. Tuckman's stages-forming, storming, norming, and
performing-each depend on different key factors.
Team Learning
Regarding team learning, Isaacson and Hamburg (1992) write, "we are accustomed to learning as an individual
phenomenon" (p. 43). Senge was one who redefined learning to include the collective learning of groups. Team
learning, as he defines it, is "the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results
its members truly desire" (Senge, 1990, p. 236). The learning organization will be the one most capable of
adapting and changing to meet ever-evolving challenges.
Leithwood, Steinvach, and Ryan (1997) identify three conditions that enhance team learning. One is shared
norms, beliefs, and assumptions. Re-ED philosophy (Hobbs, 1994) offers principles to fortify a team learning
environment. Briefly described:
1. Life is to be lived now.
2. The group is important.
3. Trust is essential.
4. Competence makes a difference.
5. Time is an ally.
6. Intelligence can be taught.
7. Feelings should be nurtured.
8. The body is the armature of the self.
9. Self-control can be taught.
10. Ceremony and ritual give order.
28 July 2014 Page 2 of 5 ProQuest
11. Communities are important.
12. A child should know some joy in each day.
A second condition Leithwood, Steinvach, and Ryan identify involves team self-talk and efforts by each team
member to continually improve individual capacities. Peter Senge (1990) suggests a similar practice that he
calls "personal mastery." Personal mastery is "the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal
vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively" (p. 7). In short, this is
the discipline of personal growth and learning.
The third condition that enhances team learning is group vision-the team's overall purpose and goals. Peterson
and Brietzke (1994) describe three dimensions of team learning inherent in the nature of ReED work. First is the
need to think insightfully about complex issues. The team must think about multiple interrelated elements of a
child's difficulties. The need to think insightfully is crucial. Second is the need for innovative, coordinated action.
Innovation is everywhere in Re-ED from individualized strength-based behavior management interventions to
strength-based programming surrounding the child within his community. Coordinated action is essential as
solutions are generated to include all aspects of the child's ecology. The third critical dimension of team learning
according to Senge is the role of team members on other teams. Team members contribute to treatment teams,
crisis teams, intervention assistance teams, multidisciplinary teams, classroom teams, and debriefing teams to
name a few. The complexity of tasks increases. The final step of "concurrent balanced teams," as Belbin (2000)
suggests, is part of what effective teams are. Along with systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models,
and shared vision, team learning provides important insight into how to achieve meaningful change and
transform programs into learning organizations so that youth benefit.
Team Learning Opportunities and Challenges
Cardno (2002) suggests, "If the potential of a team as an agent for organizational learning is to be realized, then
the critical issue of team development must be addressed" (p. 125). The manner in which a team deals with
conflict and learns from mistakes is central. Defensiveness creates a tendency to bypass learning opportunities
(Cardno, 2002). Chris Argyris (1985) labels these behaviors defensive routines.
Given a foundation of trust and openness, teams can practice two distinct ways of conversing: dialogue and
discussion, which can be practiced to facilitate the discipline of team learning. Senge (1990) says:
In dialogue, there is a free and creative exploration of subtle and complex issues, a deep listening to one
another and suspending of one's own views. By contrast, in discussion different views are presented and
defended and there is a search for the best view to support decisions that must be made at this time. (p. 237)
Team learning also involves dealing creatively with the powerful forces that oppose productive dialogue and
discussion in working teams. The following practical and interpersonal challenges are inevitable (Cardno, 2002):

Defensive patterns of behavior are not always challenged by colleagues; time constraints work against the
intention of understanding a problem at a deep level before moving on to considering solutions; often there are
too many pressing problems to deal with resulting in superficial examination of the issue at hand before moving
on to the next issue, (p. 220)
Furthermore, Kransdorff (cited in Barker, 1999) cites reasons for failing to effectively capture team learning: a
disinclination of managers to be reflective, the uncertain nature of accurate memory recall, and a tendency for
those involved in the process to be defensive. Anyone working in teams may find familiarity with these types of
challenges. The good news is that the barriers can be overcome.
Cardno (2002) points out that a great deal will depend on the extent to which a school has developed processes
to review practice and improve, as well as whether or not team practice features programming for review and
staff development. Reviewing and improving practice comes in the forms of treatment staffings, classroom team
meetings, incident debriefings, focus reviews, staff meetings, and informal exchanges in the hallway. Resources
exist for building and enhancing teams and team learning in general (Scearce, 1992; Williams, 1993; Argyris,
28 July 2014 Page 3 of 5 ProQuest
1985) and specifically for IEP teams (Lytie &Bordin, 2001).
The complexity and challenges of coordinating successful interventions and programming for troubled and
troubling youth are evident. Making effective teams and building substantial team learning capacity are essential
aspects working towards providing what is best for kids.
References
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change and defensive routines. Boston: Pitman.
Barker, M., &Neailey, K. (1999). From individual learning to project team learning and innovation: A structured
approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(2), 60-67.
Belbin, R. M. (2000). Beyond the team. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Campion, M. A., &Medsker, G. J. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness:
Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4).
Cardno, C. (2002). Team learning: Opportunities and challenges for school leaders. School Leadership
&Management, 22(2), 211-223.
Chan, C, Lim, L., &Keasberry, S. K. (2003). Examining the linkages between team learning behaviors and team
performance. The Learning Organization, 10(4), 228-236.
Clark, P. G. (1994). Learning from education: What the teamwork literature in special education can teach
gerontologists about team training and development. Paper presented in a symposium on "Learning about
Teamwork from Other Settings: What the Team Literature in Business, Mental Health, and Special Education
Can Teach Us in Gerontology and Geriatrics" at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Gerontology in
Higher Education, Cleveland, Ohio, March 10-13,1994.
Crawford, M., Kydd, L., &Riches, C. (Eds.). (1997). Leadership and teams in educational management.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Dukewitz, P., &Gowin, L. (1996). Creating successful collaborative teams. Journal of Staff Development, 17,12-
16.
Edmonson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(2).
Hobbs, N. (1994). The troubled and troubling child. Cleveland, OH: American Re-Education Association.
Isaacson, N., &Bamburg, J. (1992). Can schools become learning organizations? Educational Leadership,
50(3), 42-44.
Leithwood, K., Steinvach, R., &Ryan, S. (1997). Leadership and team learning in secondary schools. School
Leadership &Management, 17(3), 303-325.
Lytle, R. K., &Bordin, J. (2001). Enhancing the IEP team: Strategies for parents and professionals. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33(5), 40-44.
Peterson, K. D., &Brietzke, R. (1994). Building collaborative cultures: seeking ways to reshape urban schools.
Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Library.
Scearce, C. (1992). 100 ways to build teams. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shaw, M. F. (1976). Croup dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sheard, A. G., &Kakabadse, A. P. (2002). From loose groups to effective teams: The nine key factors of the
team landscape. Journal of Management Development, 21(2), 133-151.
Sorum Brown, J. (1997). On becoming a learning organization. About Campus, 1(6), 5-10.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequences in small groups. Psychology Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
Williams, R. B. (1993). More than 50 ways to build team consensus. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.
AuthorAffiliation
Elaine Harper is assistant program coordinator at the Positive Education Program-Eastwood Day Treatment
28 July 2014 Page 4 of 5 ProQuest
Center, South Euclid, Ohio. Her focus is on effective practices promoting therapeutic growth in children and
youth with emotional disturbance. She is a doctoral student with an emphasis in urban education at Cleveland
State University. She can be contacted by phone: 1-216-486-2999 or e-mail: eharper@pepcleve.org
Subject: At risk youth; Learning; Special education; Behavior modification; Group dynamics;
Publication title: Reclaiming Children and Youth
Volume: 15
Issue: 3
Pages: 167-170
Number of pages: 4
Publication year: 2006
Publication date: Fall 2006
Year: 2006
Section: Re-ED in action
Publisher: Starr Global Learning Network (dba Reclaiming Youth International)
Place of publication: Bloomington
Country of publication: United States
Publication subject: Children And Youth - About, Psychology
ISSN: 10895701
CODEN: RCYOFU
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: References Diagrams
ProQuest document ID: 214193802
Document URL: http://0-search.proquest.com.topcat.switchinc.org/docview/214193802?accountid=9367
Copyright: Copyright PRO-ED Journals Fall 2006
Last updated: 2011-08-31
Database: ProQuest Education Journals
_______________________________________________________________

Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2014 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions
28 July 2014 Page 5 of 5 ProQuest