Presentation I used to present my proposal in front of the PhD committee at Bangkok University. My model links team psychological safety and team learning, with the creation of knowledge at the team level. Happy to say the proposal defense went very well !

1. The influence of team psychological safety on team
knowledge creation: A comparative study between Thai
and French teams
Peter Cauwelier
Proposal Defense
1September 20th, 2013

2. Knowledge is the critical asset giving organizations sustainable competitive
advantage (Chen, D. H. C., & Dahlman, C. J., 2005), and teams are key units
contributing to an organization’s performance (Edmondson, A. C. 2012).
Learning leads to knowledge creation (Senge, P. 1994, Bennet, A. 2012, Kim, D.H.
2002).
Different factors impact team learning (Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche,
P. 2010), one of which is the level of psychological safety felt at the team level.
Few researchers evaluate how teams actually create knowledge at the team level,
and how factors like team psychological safety, as well as the actual team learning
behaviors, influence this.
2
Problem Statement

3. 3
Objectives
-> evaluate impact of team psychological safety and team learning
behaviors, on the knowledge created at the team level
-> evaluate nuances or differences between cultures in the model.
Significance
-> understand how team psychological safety impacts knowledge creation
-> nuances in teams with different cultural backgrounds
=> allows organizations to develop/modify conditions to optimize knowledge
creation in teams (and in the organization)
Research Objectives

4. 4
Primary research question
How do team psychological safety and team learning affect
the creation of team knowledge ?
Secondary research question
How do the components of the model differ between cultures ?
Research Questions

5. Literature review
Definitions and Key Terms
5
Team a collection of individuals, interdependent in their tasks, sharing responsibility for
outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social
entity embedded in a larger social system (Decuyper, S., et al. 2010)
note - service or production teams, not action teams (Marks, et al. 2002)
- established teams, not ad hoc teams
Individual mental model (Kim, D. H. 2002)
- a person’s view of the world
- the context in which experiences are viewed and interpreted
- defines how knowledge is created and applied
Team mental model (Mohammed, S. et al. 2010):
the mental models of the team members, about the task, the tools and technology,
understanding of procedures and strategies, awareness of team roles and
communication patterns, and knowledge of teammates’ skills and habits

6. Literature review
Team Knowledge (selected references)
6
(Wildman, J. L., et al. 2012) (Cooke, N. J. et al. 2012)
Shared cognition
= static, from structure
Team cognition
= dynamic, from interactions
Interactive Team Cognition
(ITC) theory

7. 7
(Bennet, A. 2012)
Literature review
The Learning and Knowledge-Building Environment (selected references)
(Stahl, G. 2000)

8. 7 bis
Team learning
FACTORS AFFECTING TEAM LEARNING
(Decuyper et al., 2010)
Shared mental models
Team psychological safety
Group potency or group efficacy
Cohesion
Team development and team learning dynamics
Team leadership
Interdependence
Team structure
Organizational strategy
Team member systems thinking
Literature review
Team Learning (selected references)

9. 8
(Edmondson, A. C. 2003)
Team
psychological
safety
Team learning
behavior
Team
performance
Antecedents to team psychological
safety:
- Team leader behavior
- Informal group dynamics
- Trust and respect
- Use of practice fields
- Supportive organizational context
Team learning behaviors
- Feedback seeking
- Help seeking
- Speaking up about concerns/mistakes
- Innovative behavior
- Boundary spanning
Team Psychological Safety = a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is
safe for interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, A. C. 1999)
Literature review
Team Psychological Safety

10. The collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or
category of people from others
Different frameworks and dimensions:
Hofstede, Hall, Bond, GLOBE,
Trompenaars, Gelfand
Individualism versus collectivism
“ the degree to which people’s self-image
is defined in terms of I or we “
individualistic
Literature review
National Culture: individualistic versus collectivistic
0
20
40
60
80
100
collectivistic
France
71
Thailand
20
1
(Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. 2010) 9

11. Research paradigm
Critical Realism and Mixed Methods
10
Postpositivist view (Cooke, N. J. et al. 2012, Mohammed, S. et al. 2010)
- observe and record learning behaviors
- measure knowledge, and knowledge creation, via individual or team
mental models
Constructivist view (Jashapara, A. 2011, Bennet, A. 2012)
- team learning is social in nature and depends on context and culture
- knowledge is context sensitive and situation dependent
Critical Realist view as Mixed Method approach
validate model and hypothesis
analyze underlying reasons and nuances

12. 11
Conceptual framework
The Research Model

13. 12
H0 Teams with higher team psychological safety engage in more team learning behavior than teams with
lower team psychological safety
H1 Teams with higher team learning behavior create more team knowledge than teams with lower team
learning behavior
P1 Teams with higher intensity and frequency of team learning behaviors have more and more meaningful
occurrences of knowledge creation moments than teams with lower intensity and frequency of team
learning behaviors
H2 Teams with higher team psychological safety create more team knowledge than teams with lower team
psychological safety
H3 Psychological safety in teams in Thailand has a more pronounced effect on the creation of team
knowledge than in France:
H3a low psychological safety has a more negative impact on team knowledge creation for Thai
teams in comparison with French teams
H3b high psychological safety has a more positive impact on team knowledge creation for Thai
teams in comparison with French teams
P2 Elements affecting team psychological safety are different between cultures, and their relative
importance is different
Conceptual framework
Hypotheses and propositions

14. 13
corrected
page 93
Research Design
Instruments and Measurement Results for each Construct

15. The research uses
- established teams with 8 members
- teams from engineering departments in 1 organization
- total 6 teams, 3 from Thailand and 3 from France
2-part team challenge around problem solving: team psychological safety, team
learning and team knowledge creation are measured before, during and after the
challenge
Glasstap® team challenges (1) A Welsh Holiday
(2) Professor Warmkote’s Safe
14
Research Design
Empirical Research
pilot
(1 team)
update/
adjust
experiment
(6 teams)

16. 16
Data Collection
Instruments Validity and Reliability

17. preparatory
assessment
T – 1 week T T + 3 weeks
timeline
team psychological safety
task-related team knowledge
team-related team knowledge
main
experiment
post
assessment
team
challenge #1
team learning
overall team
knowledge created
team
challenge #2
team learning
assessment
overall team knowledge created
task-related team knowledge
team-related team knowledge
assessment
task-related team knowledge
team-related team knowledge
Qualitative measurement
Quantitative measurement
Data Collection
Sequence of Experiment and Assessments, and Instruments used
16

18. 17
Data Collection
Concept-map based Mental Model / Construction of Shared Mental Model
Methodology from Johnson T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008)
option 1 option 2

19. 18
Methodology from Johnson T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A
B C
D E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A
B C
D E
FG
H
I
J
K
L
M
NO
Step 1 Determining key concepts around team problem
solving, by subject matter experts and
management -> ± 15 concepts
Step 2 Elicitation of ICMM Individually Constructed
Mental Models, with basic guidance and
practice about concept maps
Step 3 Analyzing and coding of the team’s different
ICMM by researcher: identifying similarity of
 concepts
 links or or
 clusters
A F A F A F
Data Collection
Concept-map based Mental Model / Construction of Shared Mental Model

20. 19
Methodology from Johnson T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008)
Step 4 Determine which concepts, links, clusters are shared by the team
members, with a threshold (ex. 75%)
Step 5 Construction of the Analysis-Constructed Shared Mental Model AC-SMM,
from the shared concepts, links and clusters
Step 6 Compare changes in the AC-SMM over time
A
B C
D
G
H
I
J
K
L
N
Data Collection
Concept-map based Mental Model / Construction of Shared Mental Model

21. Timeline
Q4
2013
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
2014
Complete pilot run (1 team)
Experiment (6 teams)
Codification and Data Analysis
Dissertation writing
Dissertation submission
20

22. Setting of the experiment:
- single multinational organization
- Thailand and France
- 8-member engineering teams
Mixed method with 6 teams (3 from France, 3 from Thailand)
Only team psychological safety as an element impacting team learning and team
knowledge creation
Additional research could validate this model by
- studying other teams (size, team profession, organization, cultural make-up)
- evaluating other impacts on learning and knowledge creation in teams
21
Limitations

23. Bennet, A. (2012). Information, Knowledge and Learning. In Bangkok. University (Ed.) Teaching session at PhD in KIM. Bangkok.
Chen, D. H. C., & Dahlman, C. J., (2005). The Knowledge Economy, the KAM Methodology and World Bank Operations. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Durand, J. L. (2012). Interactive Team Cognition. Cognitive Science, 1-31.
Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: an integrative model for effective team learning in
organizations. Educational Research Review, 5, 111-133.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Psychological Safety, Trust, and Learning in Organizations: A Group-level Lens. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival
(3rd ed.): McGraw Hill.
Jashapara, A. (2011). Knowledge Management An Integrated Approach (2 ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Johnson, T. E., & O'Connor, D. L. (2008). Measuring Team Shared Understanding Using the Analysis-Constructed Shared Mental Model Methodology.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 113-134.
Kim, D. H. (2002). Organizing for Learning: Strategies for Knowledge Creation and Enduring Change. Singapore: Cobee Publishing House.
Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3-13.
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor No More: A 15-Year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct. Journal of Management, 36(4),
876-910.
Senge, P. M. 1994. The Fifth Discipline, New York NY, Doubleday Business.
Stahl, G. (2000). A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Mahwah, NJ,
USA.
Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Pavlas, D., Salas, E., Stewart, J. E., & Howse, W. R. (2012). Team Knowledge Research : Emerging Trends and Critical Needs. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(1). 22
References