Teamwork doubting and doubting teamwork

Abstract

Teams of teachers and administrators have become more and more common as a framework for improving responsiveness to the ever more dynamic educational environment. Although teamwork is often expected to broaden the team’s collective knowledge base, consequently improving team effectiveness, research shows that this potential effectiveness is not always reached. The article seeks to explore the concept of collective doubting – the inquiry into routine and habitual perceptions and assumptions – and its importance to the teamwork processes, a topic that has been vastly under-investigated in the educational context. Specifically, we propose that collective doubting in the teamwork process has a dynamic nature, and that the doubting process should be carefully considered in the context of different stages in team development. Our goal is to increase both theoretical and practical knowledge about the process of collective doubt in such a way as to facilitate team effectiveness. We further seek to delineate the internal and external activities in which principals can engage to promote a constructive doubting process in the team context. Implications for principals, as well as for further avenues of research, are suggested.

Keywords

Collective doubting leadership principals teamwork

Introduction

‘Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd’.

Voltaire

The use of educational teams is rapidly becoming more common as a means to improve the responsiveness of schools to more dynamic environments (Knapp, Honig, Plecki, Portin, & Copland, 2014). A team is a group of colleagues with complementary skills who share a common purpose, with common goals and collective accountability (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Often, teamwork is necessary to address complex problems that cannot be solved by any one teacher alone (Hudson, Hudson, & Adie, 2015; Reich & Reich, 2006). Teams are often expected to broaden their knowledge base, consequently advancing school improvement (Fiore, 2008; Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, & Peetsma, 2012). However, research and practice show that school teams do not always fulfill their potential effectiveness, suggesting that when teams are not properly managed they may not reach their full potential (Benoliel & Somech, 2015, 2016).

Despite the theoretical and practical correlation between team processes and team outcomes (Abbott & Bush, 2013; Barnett & McCormick, 2012; Bush & Glover, 2012), to date only limited studies have been conducted in the educational context focused on understanding how team processes of collective doubting – the inquiry into routine and habitual perceptions and assumptions – can affect team effectiveness. This focus on process and mechanisms is rooted in more general input-process-output models of team functioning (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008), which explain team performance outcomes as determined by the processes and emergent states through which members interact to create their expertise. These interactions can create a shared expertise, which is then used as a source in future process and performance episodes (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001), thus shaping emergent cognition and behavioral processes that facilitate team effectiveness (Kozlowski, Watola, Jensen, Kim, & Botero, 2009; Zaccaro et al., 2001). In this framework, inputs are the structural variables of the constellation of individual characteristics and resources on multiple levels (individual, team, organization) and processes are considered a link between inputs and outcomes. Thus, the present theoretical model proposes that principals’ internal and external activities (Inputs) shape the work environment in which the team operates. These activities affect the team’s collective doubting (Process), which in turn affects the team’s effectiveness (Outcomes).

Accordingly, the purpose of this article is first to present a theoretical perspective from which to understand the dynamic nature of collective doubting in school teams. To this end, we consider collective doubting in the context of the different stages of team development, proposing that at different stages in the team development cycle, collective doubting can foster constructive interactive practices among members. Second, we offer suggestions about the internal and external activities in which principals can engage to promote the doubting process in a team context. Our proposed theoretical model can offer important lessons for leaders and policymakers committed to support team processes and outcomes, emphasizing a team-based approach to school leadership. Moreover, such a model may carry important implications for future research.

Teamwork

The importance of distributed leadership through teams has been recognized worldwide in the educational research (Abbott & Bush, 2013; Barnett & McCormick, 2012). Successful schools have restructured and redesigned themselves. This process has included the creation of teams and management teams and an increase in the degree of individual responsibility given to teachers (Harris, 2013). Teams have increasingly been identified as a key management tool for schools performing in a dynamic environment characterized by increasingly complex requirements arising from educational reforms and highly focused on measurable student achievements (Knapp & Feldman, 2012).

Teams bear two distinct functions, an individual function and an organizational function (Hudson et al., 2015). Regarding the individual function, teamwork enhances shared control and autonomy and provides teachers opportunities to collaborate. Also, teamwork provides a strong interpersonal social and emotional support system for teachers collaborating with each other to solve problems and meet the diverse needs and backgrounds of their students (Bush & Glover, 2012). Finally, teamwork facilitates a professional growth process in which teachers learn together and share their knowledge and expertise (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Little, 2007). Research has shown that schools which nurture collaborative work among teachers through teams can create resources that can encourage teachers to change aspects of their work and innovate (Levine, 2011). This enhances teachers’ pedagogical enrichment, which contributes to the quality of the work environment, leading to improvement in the teachers’ professional commitment (Eden, 2001).

As for the organizational function, teamwork play a significant role in lowering levels of absenteeism, reducing teacher turnover, and improving workplace performance (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Studies have indicated that in schools where teachers work in collaboration to develop goals, curricula, instructional strategies, and budgets, students often achieve at higher levels (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). As the teaching field has become more complex, encompassing knowledge from a broad range of disciplines, the synergy that can be created by having experts from different disciplines work together in teams can improve the general quality of teaching in all disciplines (Bell, Thacker, & Schargel, 2011). Because of the rational-bureaucratic nature of educational systems (Porter-O’Grady & Wilson, 1998), teamwork can play a particularly strong positive role in education by reducing teacher isolation and facilitating improved adaptability and an increased ability to adjust to changes (Conner & Douglas, 2005). Moreover, teamwork can enhance teachers’ ability to identify student needs and develop responsive educational policies by giving those responsible for developing such policies improved access to important information taken directly from the focal point of the educational system, namely the classroom (Schildkamp, Poortman, & Handelzalts, 2016).

Despite the increased use of teams to respond to the challenges of a dynamic educational environment and the contributions teams can make to both the individual and organizational functions, research has indicated that teams that are not properly managed may not reach their potential for effectiveness and performance (Benoliel, 2017; Wageman, Nunes, Burruss, & Hackman, 2008). Accordingly, the trend toward distributive leadership through team-based administrative structure and management has generated an excess of new challenges for teachers in general and principals in particular (Woolner, Clark, Laing, Thomas, & Tiplady, 2014). In particular, a major challenge for principals is attempting to understand how team members experience and make sense of their learning and change in a co-developmental process (Goldspink, 2007). Durable and successful teams are expected to engage their members in analyzing and understanding why some actions seem to work and others do not. In this regard, principals’ activities aimed at encouraging and teaching team members to identify their own fallibilities can help them to share and examine their knowledge and beliefs in such a way as to facilitate positive change.

Promoting the doubting process in teamwork

The principle of doubt is to present an opposite perspective for every given opinion. Doubt can be defined as an inquiry into routine and habitual perceptions and assumptions that are generally conceived as appropriate within some social system of values and beliefs (Schechter, 2006). The team doubting process involves behaviors such as questioning, debating, exploratory learning, analyzing, divertive exploration, making use of knowledge explicitly, reviewing past events, and coming to terms over time with new awareness (West, 1996). Hence, doubt calls for every opinion and every statement to be scrutinized and analyzed, requiring continuous inquiry into the deeply rooted constructs of every perspective. Doubt invites new insights and possibilities in contrast to the Modernist rhetoric that is used by individuals to analytically defend and sustain their positions (Issacs, 1993). Beliefs should be continuously exposed to perplexities of doubt to explore the falsifiability of ideas. Therefore, the purpose of doubt is to reflect on each perspective and to attain cognitive freedom from the confinement of pre-existing opinions.

Another aspect of doubt can be found in the work of Kolb (1984), which defines collective doubting as a means for constructing an organizational learning process. Kolb’s work explored the learning process that was developed by Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget, which emphasized that learning occurs through concrete experiences, observation, doubting, formation of abstract concepts, and active experimentation. Put differently, learning will not take place without collective doubting. Moreover, Perry and McWilliam (2007) identified experimentation and risk taking as ‘conditions [that are] so important for learning’ (p. 34). That is to say, stimulation toward meaningful change can come from a problem that promotes a sense of discomfort and perplexity. For that to occur, teachers must explore the problem and find meaning in that unexpected event. Therefore, the process of doubting enables a new perspective to be integrated into a new mode of behavior.

The collective doubting process can provide several benefits. First, by encouraging the cognitive processes of doubting, team members can be encouraged to challenge each other on task issues, promoting the creation of shared understanding (Schechter, 2006; Pieterse, van Knippenberg, & van Ginkel, 2011). Second, in enhancing the use of diverse perspectives and cognitive resources (De Dreu, 2007), the collective doubting process can enhance team performance. Third, collective doubting illuminates how every entity can be perceived differently by another person, or even by one’s self. Accordingly, by encouraging questioning, debating, reflecting, and reanalyzing, the doubting process can serve as a powerful tool to utilize the knowledge, expertise, and skills of team members to enhance team learning and improvement (West, 2002). Finally, the collective doubting process can encourage communication among teachers, both within and outside the team, enhancing the exchange of information and providing the team with broader informational resources and knowledge (Schechter, 2006). In this regard, collective doubting can improve cognitive and learning processes in teams.

These possible benefits suggest that collective doubting is an important tool for inquiring into deeply rooted tacit assumptions. Henig and Stone (2008) asserted that teachers should not commit to a single paradigm, suggesting that ‘puzzling’ through complexities is more useful than attachment to dogmas (Winship, 2006). Fadipe and Adepoju (2006), for example, emphasized that doubt can be used productively when considering a new proposal for school reform to clarify the need for reform as well as to innovate useful strategies that can bring about the desired change. In other words, the doubting process can empower teachers to observe problems neither as a stigma nor as a sign of failure, but rather as a challenge that can stimulate the development of improved learning strategies (Helsing, 2007). Thus, the process of doubting current practices, while increasing the burden on decision makers, can, at the same time, be a catalyst for unlocking a tremendous potential for individual and communal growth. In short, collective doubting as a team process can facilitate positive change, innovation, and overall school improvement.

However, research has indicated that too much collective doubting can increase feelings of unpredictability among team members in an environment that relies heavily on the clarity of formal rules and regulations. Also, too much collective doubting can harm the sense of commitment and shared purpose and the ease and constant flow of information in teams (Carpenter, 2002). Moreover, doubting traditional ways of teaching and learning, while embracing a long-range perspective, may engender significant cognitive and emotional demands on the team because it requires a cognitive shift in perspective regarding its work, a shift that demands high mental capabilities (Kegan, 1994). This is because formality induces security and predictability, whereas doubt engenders feelings of confusion. For example, Schechter and Qadach (2013) show that doubting teamwork processes and ways of thinking may threaten the faculty’s sense of collective efficacy and agency.

Moreover, some scholars perceive doubting to be problematic for educational improvement and reform (Wheatley, 2002). Some organizational theorists do not embrace the doubting process at all, asserting that it can lead to ongoing conflicts within the team (e.g. Bolman & Deal, 1984). More specifically, teachers who experience doubt are often frustrated by repeated conflicts and by failing to solve problems. The doubting process has been assessed as a threat to the health of relationships, status, self-perceptions, habits, and routines among school staff. Furthermore, doubting can be paralyzing and is often associated with other negative consequences such as stress, burnout, and teacher turnover (Achinstein, 2002; Wichman et al., 2010). In addition, doubting can be regarded as a lack of expertise (Schuck & Buchanan, 2012), which appears as an ‘unknown intruder’. These problematic aspects can be summed up in the words of Helsing (2007), who questioned whether doubt is an asset or a liability. Even according to this point of view, however, it can still be argued that the doubting process can provide some benefits if it is implemented at the appropriate stage of team development and properly managed. Thus, it may be more relevant to consider when, rather than if, a collective doubting process can be beneficial to team performance, and how the principal can enhance the doubting process. Based on the possibilities and caveats discussed above, we propose a theoretical perspective to understand the dynamic nature of collective doubting in teamwork. Thus, we proceed to carefully consider collective doubting in the context of the different stages of team development.

Doubting process over team development cycle

Several models describe the developmental stages teams pass through over their life span (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 2010). We focused on the Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977) model of team development for two reasons. First, the Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977) model has an inherently temporal dimension because it involves several phases of team development. In order to understand the relationships between the collective doubting process and team performance, an examination of the time period in which the collective doubting process occurs over time is required. Second, McMorris, Gottleib, and Sneden (2005) have mentioned that the Tuckman model can be used easily at the practitioner level, emphasizing its concrete, valid, and practical perspective. Since we seek to increase both theoretical and practical knowledge about the process of collective doubt in relation to team effectiveness, we have chosen to build our proposition on the Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977) model of team development.

The Tuckman (1965) model proposes that teams go through the developmental stages of forming (e.g. members explore the team and attempt to establish some social structure), storming (e.g. members argue about what actions to take, conflict arises), norming (e.g. members have overcome their conflicts and differences and become more cooperative, developing a sense of cohesion and common goals), performing (e.g. members are able to deal with problems and move farther along toward their common goal), and adjourning (e.g. the team conducts an assessment, implements a plan for transitioning roles, and recognizes the contributions individual members have made) (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Teams must progress systematically through the first three stages to effectively advance to the fourth stage of performing and to the final stage of adjourning. At the core of the model is the implication that teams must pass through several developmental stages prior to effective performance. The assumption is that intra-personal and interpersonal needs must be addressed before norms of behavior are established.

We propose that at different stages in the team development cycle, collective doubting can foster constructive interactive practices. In the early stages, namely, the forming and storming stages, team members should be encouraged to focus on the procedural or administrative features of the task. At these early stages, the collective doubting process enhances information diversity, triggers divergent thinking, and increases cognitive variation in teachers’ beliefs. This can disrupt the establishment of agreed-upon and mutually understood working norms necessary for the proper functioning of the team. Moreover, collective doubting at these early stages may interfere with the discussion of important procedural issues, hampering coordination within the team, and increasing disagreement about how to proceed (He & Wong, 2004). Similarly, a doubting process that occurs too late, such as during the performing stage in the team’s development may reduce consensus, distract team members from their goal, and threaten implementation during the performance stage (Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996).

Nevertheless, in teams that have managed their relationships well and achieved consensus regarding work norms, that is, have overcome their ‘storming stage’ and have reached their norming stage, teachers are more likely to be comfortable with each other and the team may be mature enough to engage in the process of collective doubting without damaging the process. Therefore, we propose that the midpoint of a team’s lifespan, namely, the norming stage, is the point at which the collective doubting process may be the most beneficial. At this point, team members can engage in discussions of task goals, debate, and engage in collective doubting, utilizing the diverse views and perspectives of team members to the benefit of the decision-making process (Bronstein, Mizrahi, Korazim-Korösy, & McPhee, 2010). Therefore, laying the foundation in the early stages of interaction (forming, storming, and norming) may be a prerequisite for teachers to engage in the collective doubting process and confront diverse perspectives.

Similarly, at the stage of adjourning, where the team reaches some kind of termination through task completion, collective doubting can be especially useful as a feedback procedure, highlighting key points and discussing new avenues for further improvement. Thinking and communicating about previous and future accomplishments through the collective doubting process at this final stage of the team’s life cycle can help provide guidance to team members in adjusting their approach to future tasks (Vashdi, Bamberger, Erez, & Weiss-Meilik, 2007; Yukl, 2012). This collective analysis at the stage of task completion, according to Bubsy (1999), has a number of functions: (1) to explore why and how things went wrong (or right), (2) to formulate remedies, (3) to enrich the communal knowledge base, and (4) to provide a platform for interpretations of organizational history in a more open and secure space, which is less possible in the daily course of work. Furthermore, this process of analysis enables team members to demonstrate their concerns with organizational functions and to explore and appreciate their impact on these functions. In this sense, besides enriching cognitive schemas, such collective analysis also provides a space for acknowledging commitment to the institution’s vision and practices.

However, the doubting process can also be a challenging task at this point (adjourning). In particular, it can be difficult to convince team members to doubt ongoing practices, particularly practices that may have proven successful in the past (Ellis, Mendel, & Nir, 2006). Success and high performance generally do not stimulate a perceived need to doubt actions, especially in light of the unfamiliarity of the new or modified practices that would be proposed to replace old practices (Schechter, 2006). The prospect of change brings with it the possibility of uncertainty and danger, as well as an expectation of inconvenience to those that would have to implement or otherwise be affected by the change (Gino & Pisano, 2011; Sitkin, 1996).

However, the process of raising doubt with respect to existing practices that have failed can be accompanied by a different set of challenges. Failure often produces responses of denial and avoidance in which those associated with the failed practice may have defensive reactions to the doubting process (Tucker, Edmondson, & Spear, 2002). This, too, can make the process of doubting ongoing practices difficult. Failure avoidance norms, risk aversion, denial of bad news, and retrospective revision of negative past organizational actions, to mention only a few, are common responses in a culture where failure is neither tolerated nor easily admitted (Schechter et al., 2008). In the team context, team members are generally self-protective rather than eager to search for new alternatives. This type of reaction can interfere with efforts to doubt processes and products of past experiences at the adjourning stage.

Figure 1 illustrates the proposed collective doubting process variation level across the team developmental cycle. Through the team developmental stages, we highlight the timing of the collective doubting process as critical and specify the stages at which the team collective doubting process is most necessary and useful to facilitate productive teamwork and learning. Specifically, it can be beneficial to collectively doubt teamwork when the team is at the norming stage (e.g. team members have already overcome their initial conflicts, become more cooperative, and developed a sense of cohesion and common goals) as well as at the adjourning stage (e.g. the team conducts an assessment and feedback procedure). Yet, the complexity of the team developmental cycle requires considering the principal as a key player in navigating the when and how of fostering a reflective inquiry process at these specific stages in which team members can collectively doubt existing practices.

Figure 1.

The collective doubting process across the team development cycle based on Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977).

The principal’s role in the team collective doubting process

Research has emphasized how important it is for team leaders to create conditions that will encourage team members to continually question the ongoing effectiveness of the team’s established ways of thinking and to explore alternative working methods (Yukl, 2012). Research has been conducted to identify and describe the functions, strategies, and activities in which team leaders can engage to promote team effectiveness in a variety of contexts (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). The management literature (Choi, 2002; Zaccaro, Heinen, & Shuffler, 2009) has depicted, broadly categorized, and even contrasted between the internal and external activities of leaders. The former are intended to protect team resources from leaking into the environment, as well as to strengthen the feeling of belonging and to build a distinct team identity. In contrast, the latter used to acquire resources and information and to manage relationships with external stakeholders (Addi-Raccah, 2015; Benoliel & Somech, 2016). In the educational context, research has indicated that the leader’s internal and external activities can provide the team with the appropriate settings for developing learning mechanisms that facilitate team outcomes (Somech & Naamneh, 2017). Similarly, Benoliel (2017) has shown that principals promote management team outcomes when they engage in both internal and external activities, emphasizing that the team boundary requires continual management to ensure that it becomes neither too sharply delineated nor too permeable.

Research suggests that collective doubting may be best implemented when team members trust each other and feel comfortable reflecting on diverse issues, because socially connected individuals experience greater cognitive process and ease in transferring knowledge (Edmondson, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Therefore, principals’ internal activities may be important to the process of collective doubting because these activities encourage the formation of norms and the development of staff cohesion and support. This can facilitate the information flow among team members (Choi, 2002; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Honig, 2008), thus, providing the conditions for collective doubting at the norming and adjourning stages. Similarly, principals’ external activities can help improve the knowledge exchange across team boundaries, providing a more diverse pool of cognitive resources (Yukl, 2012), critical to the process of collective doubting. Thus, these activities will enable team members to challenge team principles, procedures, practices, and processes, reflecting a continual cycle of exploiting their knowledge while searching for new and better ways to do their tasks.

The role of the principal in enhancing the collective doubting process in teams is similar to the ‘challenging teams’ function noted by Morgeson et al. (2010) that address the effectiveness of specific team leadership functions. Challenging teams encompasses a broader set of leadership actions aimed at promoting team functioning by stimulating the team with regard to their task performance and by opposing the team’s assumptions, methods, and processes in an effort to find better ways of accomplishing the team’s work (Morgeson et al., 2010). We propose that principals’ internal and external activities are necessary to promote the team collective doubting process at the norming and adjourning stages of their development.

The internal activities carried out by principals are those activities that are directed toward the team such as managing the team’s internal task and workflow dynamics as well as forming and enforcing team norms (Choi, 2002; Zaccaro et al., 2009). These activities primarily emphasize building team trust and caring for team members (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Principals’ internal activities enable the development of an environment in which team members are comfortable discussing their understandings and reflections about instructional approaches and new practices, conversations essential for the collective doubting process to be successful (Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2012). For example, Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002) found that individuals were more likely to use and integrate knowledge when team leaders encouraged members to draw on each other’s knowledge. Indeed, positive and trusting relationships have been identified as factors that facilitate risk taking and increase the team’s capacity for information processing and knowledge exchange (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009). Through internal activities, principals can communicate school norms and values that will enable teachers to use collective doubt as part of the team process.

Principals’ external activities involve building and maintaining positive and trusting relationships between school teams and external stakeholders, as well as scanning the environment for information and new knowledge (Benoliel, 2017; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2005). Acquiring resources enables the principal to provide faculty staff with a work environment which can trigger the process of collective doubting within teams (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2001; Somech & Khalaili, 2014). This is so because by gaining access to resources and support from external constituencies, principals provide teams with broader informational resources and knowledge (Bezzina & Burford, 2010; Marrone, 2010). Moreover, studies have indicated that knowledge acquired from external resources is more diverse and may contribute to the reconfiguration of existing knowledge bases (Tiwana, 2008). Consequently, teachers feel encouraged to attempt new and different approaches in their teamwork, enhancing the collective doubting process.

In addition to the various school staff and students within the school building, the school environment includes parents, community members, school district personnel, government agencies, and other external entities upon which the school relies for many of its resources (Addi-Raccah, 2015; Ng, 2013). Research has indicated that schools that are sensitive to their external environments do a better job than other schools in gathering information and evaluating it in light of current organizational procedures and routines (Schechter, 2006). Similarly, perceiving external information as being of a complex and dynamic nature may facilitate the inclination of team members to doubt their practices. Previous research indicates that new practices may be spread more quickly and gain acceptance more easily in schools with positive and effective professional relationships with external stakeholders (e.g. school community) (Chrispeels, Castillo, & Brown, 2000; Hargreaves, Halász, & Pont, 2008). Therefore, by creating opportunities that engage school teams and stakeholders in reciprocal relationships, by engaging in external activities, principals can shape conditions that enhance the process of doubting ongoing practices, leading to continuous adaptations and improvement (Klein, 2000).

Table 1 identifies the principal’s internal and external activities that can enhance the collective doubting process at the norming and adjourning stages of the team’s development. Both internal and external activities play an important role in satisfying the team needs that must be addressed to embrace and benefit from the collective doubting process. Accordingly, after establishing the preferable stages in which to implement the collective doubting process, by maneuvering between an internal and an external team focus behavior, principals can facilitate the team doubting process by structuring and sharpening the team boundary from within and at the same time by building relationships and scanning the team’s environment for events and information, interpreting these inputs for the team members.

Table 1.

Principal’s internal and external activities to enhance the collective doubting process.

	Internal activities	External activities
Description	Activities directed toward addressing internal team matters occurring within the team boundary, such as managing the team’s internal task and workflow dynamics.	Activities directed toward external agents in the team’s focal environment, with the goals of acquiring resources and protecting the team.
Behaviors	• Direction setting • Forming team norms • Developing staff cohesion and mutual support • Team trust-building • Caring for team members • Structuring the team	• Building and maintaining positive relationships among teams within the school and among the school teams and external stakeholders • Scanning the environment for information and knowledge • Acquiring resources for the team

Conclusion

Successful schools have restructured and redesigned themselves around teams (Harris, 2013). However, the effectiveness of teams as a focal organizational structure for learning and change is still limited. This article focused on the theory of team development (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 2010) and proposed that teams are expected to engage their members in sharing and examining their knowledge and beliefs, namely doubting their own fallibilities on the path to creating change. Nevertheless, collective doubting may not be as effective as expected if not introduced at the appropriate time in the team developmental cycle.

Furthermore, it was suggested that the increasing importance of teams in schools has implications for the principal’s role and functions in facilitating team processes and thereby team effectiveness. Through internal and external activities, principals hold a central responsibility for generating, encouraging, and improving intra-and inter-team processes that facilitate productive collective doubting. Accordingly, principals can create the conditions under which teams can doubt their processes at the team development stage that might be the most beneficial, enabling team members to adjust their behavior (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Vashdi et al., 2007; Yukl, 2012). One can say, then, that the principal’s role in team’s functioning is to pull teachers away from the comfort of their closed classroom doors and instructional routines and allow them to take the risks of learning and doubting with colleagues (O’day, Bitter, & Gomez, 2011).

Extending our knowledge about the process of doubt in teamwork requires to scrutinize the following questions: can team members productively doubt in this uncertain environment in which quick and measurable/tangible improvements greatly influence decision-making by school administrators and oversight bodies? Can team members collectively doubt their tacit assumptions at a time of increased accountability and standardized reforms? In a competitive environment, can principals provide the necessary safety network for team members as they doubt their own practices? How and at what cost can the principal set up a constructive crisis, which productively evokes team members’ perceived need to doubt their current practices? What is the interplay between school context, the content of doubt, and the principal’s leadership style with enhancing a productive collective doubting process?

Finally, although the present study makes important theoretical contributions, it remains limited by its mode of operation because an empirical test of the proposed linkages was not within its scope. However, the proposed model can be used as a starting point for a new research agenda for researchers seeking to test it. In terms of future research, the proposed theoretical linkages require empirical support, applying both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Research investigating the team collective doubting process is likely to be longitudinal. Because collective doubting in a team is likely to be strongly influenced by the principal’s actions, studying how the activities of a principal enhance collective doubting over time is critical. Second, future research can reveal the causal mechanisms enhancing team collective doubting. For example, future research can measure how feedback within teams influences the collective doubting process and can even control for several team attributes that could affect the collective doubting process (e.g. team members’ skill, seniority, gender).

Third, considering and testing specific criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the internal and external activities as well as the collective doubting process is critical. There is no single criterion or set of criteria that is ideal. Whether affective (e.g. commitment), behavioral (task performance), or cognitive (team learning), the relevance of the chosen criteria would be in line with the research aim and the team characteristics.

Fourth, we have proposed internal and external activities to enhance the collective doubting process regardless of the context in which the team operates. However, the effectiveness of these activities may be contingent upon several factors such as team, organizational, or environmental structures and characteristics (Morgeson et al., 2010). For instance, the team’s composition may influence whether the principal’s internal and external activities will be relevant in enhancing the collective doubting process. Even the intra- and interpersonal skills that would develop among team members, across the several development stages of the team, can be seen as an antecedent regarding the benefit and/or challenges associated with the collective doubting process, shaping the principals’ activities accordingly. Similarly, differences among schools with regard to the school’s ethnic, racial, and cultural characteristics might shape the relevance of the collective doubting process and the effectiveness of the principal’s activities. In this regard, future research should explore the team, organizational, and environmental factors that might shape how and if a principal’s internal and external activities influence the team collective doubting processes and team effectiveness across several contexts.

Fifth, it was emphasized that promoting collective doubting seems to require principals to build trusting relationships not only within the team but also between the team and external stakeholders to provide sources of learning, knowledge, and ideas. This notion of building trust was present in research on social justice both at the team level and at the organizational level. At the team level, research has acknowledged the need to build and establish trust if the school staff were to work in their schools for social justice (Santamaría, 2014). This is because team processes such as reaching agreement and respecting members are similar to the characteristics of democratic leadership for social justice (Gross, 2008). In this regard, strong communication skills, emotional awareness, and also a capacity to build and maintain positive and significant relationships represent key elements of social justice leadership (Wasonga, 2009). Therefore, from a practical perspective, testing the proposed model within the educational leadership framework for social justice can carry implications for future research focusing on developing the specific content of training programs aimed at improving leadership tools and procedures to deal with diversity, multiculturalism, and inequality in school organizations worldwide (Robinson, 2011). Thus, training programs specifically focused on the specific characteristics of the school and school teams can be developed. This may be particularly important given that research has emphasized a relationship between educational inequity, on one hand, and diversity and student outcomes on the other (Shapiro, 2008).

Footnotes

Author Biographies

Pascale Benoliel, Ph.D. Lecturer, Faculty Member, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Her research areas include school leadership, teamwork and team leadership, cross-cultural and comparative analysis, and quantitative research methods. pascale.benoliel@biu.ac.il.

Chen Schechter, Professor, Leadership, Organizational Development and Policy in Education, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Chen is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Educational Administration. Chen’s research interests include Leadership Development/Preparation, Professional Learning Communities, Educational Change/Reform in Accountability Systems, Collaborative Learning Strategies, and Systems Thinking. chen.schechter@biu.ac.il.

References

Abbott

Bush

(2013). Establishing and maintaining high-performing leadership teams: A primary perspective. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 14, 586–602.

Achinstein

(2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 421–455.

Addi-Raccah

(2015). School principals’ role in the interplay between the superintendents and local education authorities. Journal of Educational Administration, 53, 287–306.

Barnett

McCormick

(2012). Leadership and team dynamics in senior executive leadership teams. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40, 653–671.

Bell

J. S.

Thacker

Schargel

F. P.

(2011). Schools where teachers lead: What successful leaders do? New York, NY: Eye on Education.

Benoliel

(2017). Managing school management team boundaries and school improvement: An investigation of the school leader role. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(1), 57–86.

Benoliel

Somech

(2015). The role of leader boundary activities in enhancing interdisciplinary team effectiveness. Small Group Research, 46(1), 83–124.

Benoliel

Somech

(2016). Functional heterogeneity and senior management team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(4), 492–512.

Bezzina

Burford

(2010). Leaders transforming learning and learners: An Australian innovation in leadership, learning and moral purpose. In Normore

A. H.

(Ed.), Global perspectives on educational leadership reform: The development and preparation of leaders of learning and learners of leadership (pp. 265–283). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

10.

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

11.

Bronstein

Mizrahi

Korazim-Korösy

McPhee

(2010). Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education in the USA, Israel and Canada: Deans’ and directors’ perspectives. International Social Work, 53, 457–473.

12.

Bubsy

J. S.

(1999). The effectiveness of collective retrospection as a mechanism of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 109–129.

13.

Bush

Glover

(2012). Distributed leadership in action: Leading high performing leadership teams in English schools. School Leadership and Management, 32, 21–36.

14.

Carmeli

Gittell

J. H.

(2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 709–729.

15.

Carpenter

M. A.

(2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 275–284.

16.

Choi

J. N.

(2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33, 181–192.

17.

Chrispeels

J. H.

Castillo

Brown

(2000). School leadership teams: A process model of team development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 20–56.

18.

Clement

Vandenberghe

(2001). How school leaders can promote teachers’ professional development. An account from the field. School Leadership & Management, 21, 43–57.

19.

Conner

D. S.

Douglas

S. C.

(2005). Organizationally-induced work stress: The role of employee bureaucratic orientation. Personnel Review, 34, 210–224.

20.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 35–47.

21.

De Dreu

C. K.

(2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–643.

22.

DiPaola

M. F.

Tschannen-Moran

(2005). Bridging or buffering: The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 60–71.

23.

Druskat

Wheeler

J. V.

(2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435–457.

24.

DuFour

Marzano

R. J.

(2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

25.

Eden

(2001). Who controls the teachers? Overt and covert control in schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 29, 97–111.

26.

Edmondson

(2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1420–1452.

27.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

Martin

J. A.

(2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

28.

Ellis

Mendel

Nir

(2006). Learning from successful and failed experiences: The moderating role of a kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 669–680.

29.

Fadipe

J. O.

Adepoju

T. L.

(2006). Planning for educational reform and innovation. In Babalola

J. B.

Ayeni

A. O.

Adedeji

S. O.

Suleiman

A. A.

Arikewuyo

M. O.

(Eds.), Educational management: Thoughts and practice (pp. 81–106). Ibadan, Nigeria: Codat Publication.

30.

Fiore

(2008). Interdisciplinary as teamwork: How the science teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39, 251–277.

31.

Gino

Pisano

(2011). Why leaders don’t learn from success. Harvard Business Review, 89, 68–74.

32.

Goldspink

(2007). Rethinking educational reform. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 35, 27–50.

33.

Gross

S. J.

(2008). (Re-)constructing a movement for social justice in our profession. In Normore

(Ed.), Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice (pp. 257–266). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

34.

Hambrick

Cho

Chen

(1996). The influence of top management teams heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.

35.

Hargreaves

Halász

Pont

(2008). The Finnish approach to system leadership. Improving School Leadership, 2, 69–109.

36.

Harris

(2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41, 545–554.

37.

Z. L.

Wong

P. K.

(2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494.

38.

Helsing

(2007). Regarding uncertainty in teachers and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1317–1333.

39.

Henig

J. R.

Stone

C. N.

(2008). Rethinking school reform: The distractions of dogma and the potential for a new politics of progressive pragmatism. American Journal of Education, 114, 191–218.

40.

Honig

M. I.

(2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627–664.

41.

Hudson

Adie

(2015). The school-community integrated learning pathway: Exploring a new way to prepare and induct final-year preservice teachers. Improving Schools, 18, 221–235.

42.

Isaacs

W. M.

(1993). Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organization Dynamics, 24–38.

43.

Kegan

(1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44.

Klein

(2000). Conditions that accelerate learning in schools. Studies in Educational Organization and Administration, 24, 57–72.

45.

Knapp

M. S.

Feldman

S. B.

(2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability: Challenge for urban school leadership in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 666–694.

46.

Knapp

M. S.

Honig

M. I.

Plecki

M. L.

Portin

B. S.

Copland

M. A.

(2014). Learning-focused leadership in action: Improving instruction in schools and districts. New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

48.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams (Monograph). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.

49.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Watola

D. J.

Jensen

J. M.

Kim

B. H.

Botero

I. C.

(2009). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of dynamic team leadership. In Salas

Goodwin

G. F.

Burke

C. S.

(Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 113–155). New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Levine

T. H.

(2011). Experienced teachers and school reform: Exploring how two different professional communities facilitated and complicated change. Improving Schools, 14, 30–47.

51.

Little

J. W.

(2007). Teachers’ accounts of classroom experience as a resource for professional learning and instructional decision making. In Moss

P. A.

(Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 217–240). Boston, MA: Blackwell Synergy.

52.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.

53.

Marrone

J. A.

(2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36, 911–940.

54.

Mathieu

J. E.

Maynard

M. T.

Rapp

Gilson

(2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.

55.

McMorris

L. E.

Gottlieb

N. H.

Sneden

G. G.

(2005). Developmental stages in public health partnerships: A practical perspective. Health Promotion Practice, 6, 219–226.

56.

Moolenaar

N. M.

Sleegers

P. J.

Daly

A. J.

(2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 251–262.

57.

Morgeson

F. P.

DeRue

D. S.

Karam

E. P.

(2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39.

58.

P. T.

(2013). Developing Singapore school leaders to handle complexity in times of uncertainty. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 67–73.

59.

O’day

J. A.

Bitter

C. S.

Gomez

L. M.

(2011). Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation’s most complex school system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

60.

Okhuysen

G. A.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13, 370–386.

61.

Perry

McWilliam

(2007). Accountability, responsibility and school leadership. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 7, 32–43.

62.

Pieterse

A. N.

van Knippenberg

van Ginkel

W. P.

(2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153–164.

63.

Porter-O’Grady

Wilson

C. K.

(1998). The health care teambook. St. Louis, MI: Mosby.

64.

Reich

S. M.

Reich

J. A.

(2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 51–62.

65.

Robinson

V. M. J.

(2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

66.

Santamaría

L. J.

(2014). Critical change for the greater good: Multicultural perceptions in educational leadership toward social justice and equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 347–391.

67.

Schechter

(2006). Doubting schoolwork: Exploring an emerging concept. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2517–2539.

68.

Schechter

Sykes

Rosenfeld

(2008). Learning from success as leverage for school learning: Lessons from a national program in Israel. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(3), 301-318.

69.

Schechter

Qadach

(2013). From illusion to reality: Schools as learning organizations. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(5), 505–516.

70.

Schildkamp

Poortman

C. L.

Handelzalts

(2016). Data teams for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27, 228–254.

71.

Schuck

Buchanan

(2012). Dead certainty? The case for doubt in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 1–11.

72.

Shapiro

J. P.

(2008). Ethics and social justice in the new DEEL: Addressing the paradox of control/democracy. In Normore

A. H.

(Ed.), Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice (pp. 287–301). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

73.

Sitkin

(1996). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. In Cohen

M. D.

Sproull

L. S.

(Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 541–578). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

74.

Somech

Khalaili

(2014). Team boundary activity: Its mediating role in the relationship between structural conditions and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39, 274–299.

75.

Somech

Naamneh

(2017). Subject coordinators as boundary managers: The impact on team learning and organizational outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–18. doi:10.1177/1741143217728082

76.

Szczesiul

Huizenga

(2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal’s role in teacher collaboration. Improving Schools, 17, 176–191.

77.

Thoonen

E. E.

Sleegers

P. J.

Oort

F. J.

Peetsma

T. T.

(2012). Building school-wide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 441–460.

78.

Tiwana

(2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 251–272.

79.

Tschannen-Moran

(2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 217–247.

80.

Tucker

A. L.

Edmondson

A. C.

Spear

(2002). When problem solving prevents organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 122–137.

81.

Tuckman

B. W.

(1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

82.

Tuckman

B. W.

Jensen

M. A. C.

(1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Organization Study, 2, 419–427.

83.

Tuckman

B. W.

Jensen

M. A. C.

(2010). Stages of small-group development Revisited. Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, 10, 43–48.

84.

Vashdi

D. R.

Bamberger

P. A.

Erez

Weiss-Meilik

(2007). Briefing-debriefing: Using a reflexive organizational learning model from the military to enhance the performance of surgical teams. Human Resource Management, 46, 115–142.

85.

Vescio

Ross

Adams

(2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91.

86.

Wageman

Nunes

Burruss

Hackman

(2008). Senior leadership teams: What it takes to make them great. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

87.

Wasonga

T. A.

(2009). Leadership practices for social justice, democratic community, and learning: School principals’ perspectives. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 200–224.

88.

West

M. A.

(1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

89.

West

M. A.

(2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51, 355–387.

90.

Wheatley

M. J.

(2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the future. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

91.

Wichman

A. L.

Briñol

Petty

R. E.

Rucker

D. D.

Tormala

Z. L.

Weary

(2010). Doubting one’s doubt: A formula for confidence? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 350–355.

92.

Winship

(2006). Policy analysis as puzzle-solving. In Michael

Rein

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of public policy, (pp. 109–123). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

93.

Woolner

Clark

Laing

Thomas

Tiplady

(2014). A school tries to change: How leaders and teachers understand changes to space and practices in a UK secondary school. Improving Schools, 17, 148–162.

94.

Yukl

(2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 66–85.

95.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Heinen

Shuffler

(2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In Salas

Goodwin

Burke

(Eds) Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

96.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Rittman

A. L.

Marks

M. A.

(2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.