From Individual Expertise to Collective Intelligence: Building Learning-Capable Teams

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Organizations increasingly rely on teams to navigate complexity, drive innovation, and adapt to rapid change, yet practitioners often lack evidence-based guidance on which investments genuinely foster team learning. This article synthesizes findings from a comprehensive meta-analysis by Nellen, Gijselaers, and Grohnert (2020) examining 50 studies across 4,778 professional teams in manufacturing, healthcare, product development, and professional services. The analysis reveals that four emergent states—psychological safety, shared cognition, team potency/efficacy, and cohesion—explain substantially more variance in team learning than direct organizational interventions. However, organizations can indirectly influence these states through strategic deployment of job resources, cultivation of supportive culture and climate, design of enabling infrastructure, and enactment of top-level leadership behaviors. The evidence challenges conventional training-centric approaches, pointing instead toward systemic environmental design. Practitioners gain specific, quantified guidance on relative effect sizes to prioritize investments; researchers receive a consolidated framework identifying robust relationships and highlighting gaps requiring further investigation.

The question confronting learning and development executives is deceptively simple: How do we get our teams to learn faster? Yet despite decades of investment in team-building workshops, leadership development programs, and knowledge management systems, many organizations struggle to cultivate the adaptive, high-performing teams they need to compete (Accenture, 2018; IBM, 2017). The challenge is not lack of effort—it is lack of clarity about which interventions actually work.

Since Peter Senge (1990) popularized the notion that teams are the fundamental learning units within organizations, research has confirmed that team learning drives performance and innovation outcomes (Bell et al., 2012; Mathieu et al., 2007). However, organizations face an inherent paradox: teams operate as semi-autonomous social systems, meaning their learning depends on interpersonal dynamics that resist direct managerial control (Decuyper et al., 2010). Leaders can shape context and provide resources, but they cannot mandate the psychological safety, shared mental models, or collective efficacy that enable genuine learning.

This tension raises urgent practical questions. When budgets are constrained and priorities compete, where should organizations invest? Which levers generate the strongest returns? And crucially, how do we move beyond anecdote and intuition toward evidence-based practice?

A 2020 meta-analytic review by Nellen, Gijselaers, and Grohnert offers remarkably clear answers. Synthesizing 50 quantitative studies encompassing 4,778 teams across diverse industries and geographies, the authors quantify the relationships between organizational interventions, team emergent states, and learning behaviors. Their findings challenge common assumptions: the most powerful drivers of team learning are not the programs organizations typically prioritize, but rather the contextual conditions that foster psychological safety, shared cognition, collective efficacy, and cohesion.

This article unpacks those findings for practitioners, translating meta-analytic statistics into strategic guidance. We examine what the evidence reveals about both what works and how much it matters—providing HR leaders, executives, and team managers with specific, quantified benchmarks to guide resource allocation and system design.

The Team Learning Landscape

Defining Team Learning in Professional Contexts

Team learning is not simply the aggregate of individual learning, nor is it synonymous with team training or knowledge sharing. Drawing on two dominant research traditions synthesized by Decuyper et al. (2010), team learning encompasses both conversational behaviors and higher-level cognitive processes through which teams collectively develop, share, and refine knowledge.

Edmondson's (1999) influential definition characterizes team learning as "an ongoing process of reflection and action, characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes" (p. 353). This behavioral lens emphasizes observable activities: teams that learn engage in constructive conflict, share diverse perspectives, test assumptions, and collectively make sense of ambiguous information.

Van den Bossche et al. (2006) offer a complementary, cognition-focused definition, viewing team learning as "the interaction among members of the group and the characteristics of their discourse...through which mutual understanding and shared cognition is reached" (p. 495). Here, learning emerges from the quality of dialogue—whether team members co-construct meaning, challenge assumptions constructively, and build genuinely shared mental models rather than superficial consensus.

Both definitions converge on a crucial insight: team learning is fundamentally social. It occurs through interaction, shaped by the psychological and structural conditions teams experience. This distinguishes team learning from training interventions (which target individual competencies) and from knowledge management systems (which focus on information repositories). Team learning happens in the space between people—in how they talk, question, challenge, and integrate diverse expertise.

State of Practice: The Gap Between Aspiration and Achievement

Contemporary organizations face unprecedented pressure to foster team learning. Global competition, technological disruption, and the shift toward knowledge work have made adaptive capacity a competitive imperative (McKinsey & Company, 2013). Recent reports from Accenture (2018) and IBM (2017) highlight learning and development as critical drivers of innovation, particularly in navigating technological transformation and workforce evolution.

Yet practice remains fragmented. Organizations invest heavily in leadership development programs, team-building events, collaboration technologies, and learning management systems—interventions often selected based on vendor promises, consultant recommendations, or executive intuition rather than systematic evidence (Nellen et al., 2020). The result is inconsistent outcomes and difficulty isolating what genuinely moves the needle.

Part of the challenge stems from confusion about levels of analysis. Much team learning research focuses on team-level dynamics—leadership styles, interpersonal trust, communication patterns—without systematically examining how organizational context enables or constrains those dynamics (Sivasubramaniam et al., 2012). Consequently, practitioners receive guidance on what teams should do without clear direction on what organizations can do to make those behaviors more likely.

The Nellen et al. (2020) meta-analysis directly addresses this gap by explicitly examining organization-level drivers—the policies, structures, resources, and cultural conditions that cross the boundary between the organization and its teams, creating favorable conditions for learning.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Team Learning

Organizational Performance Impacts

The business case for team learning is empirically robust. Multiple meta-analyses confirm that teams exhibiting higher levels of learning behavior achieve superior performance across diverse outcome measures (Bell et al., 2012; Mathieu et al., 2007).

In manufacturing contexts, team learning correlates with steeper learning curves when implementing new technologies or processes, reduced error rates, and faster problem resolution (Edmondson, 1999). Product development teams that engage in active learning launch more innovative products, achieve higher technical quality, and meet timelines more reliably (Akgün et al., 2014). Healthcare teams demonstrate improved patient safety outcomes, reduced adverse events, and better care coordination when they cultivate learning-oriented practices (Ortega et al., 2014).

The performance gains extend beyond task efficiency to include strategic adaptability. Teams that have developed strong learning capabilities respond more effectively to disruptions, integrate new information more rapidly, and exhibit greater resilience under pressure (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011). In professional services, team learning predicts client satisfaction, repeat business, and long-term relationship quality (Rego et al., 2015).

Importantly, these performance benefits compound over time. Unlike one-time training interventions that often show decay effects, teams that establish robust learning practices create self-reinforcing cycles: learning improves performance, which builds confidence and psychological safety, which further enhances learning capacity (Decuyper et al., 2010).

Individual and Stakeholder Wellbeing Impacts

Beyond organizational metrics, team learning influences individual experience and stakeholder outcomes. Employees in learning-oriented teams report higher job satisfaction, stronger organizational commitment, and lower turnover intentions (van Emmerik et al., 2011). The psychological safety that enables team learning also buffers against burnout and supports employee wellbeing, particularly in high-stress environments like healthcare and emergency services (Leicher & Mulder, 2016).

For customers and clients, the benefits manifest as higher service quality, more responsive problem-solving, and better alignment between service delivery and client needs (de Jong et al., 2005). In healthcare, patients experience fewer complications, shorter recovery times, and higher satisfaction when treated by teams that engage in continuous learning (Tucker et al., 2007).

These individual and stakeholder outcomes create a compelling rationale for investment: fostering team learning is not merely an operational efficiency play but a strategic lever for talent retention, customer loyalty, and sustainable competitive advantage.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

The Nellen et al. (2020) meta-analysis identified four organization-level drivers of team learning, synthesized from diverse literatures spanning management, psychology, healthcare, and education. Critically, the analysis quantifies not just whether these drivers matter, but how much—providing practitioners with effect-size estimates to guide resource allocation.

Job Resources: The Most Powerful Lever

Evidence summary. Job resources emerged as the strongest organizational driver of team learning, with a medium correlation (r = .41, explaining approximately 17% of variance). This category encompasses both general organizational support (budget, time, information access) and specific conditions afforded to teams, particularly autonomy, task enrichment, and empowerment (Nellen et al., 2020).

The relationship is robust across contexts. Studies examining general organizational support—provision of adequate budget, time allocation for reflection, and information availability—consistently found medium to strong correlations with team learning (r = .42; Edmondson, 1999; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011). Team autonomy and empowerment demonstrated similarly strong effects (r = .38; Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013; Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003).

Notably, job resources also correlated strongly with the emergent states that enable learning, particularly psychological safety (r = .40) and shared cognition (r = .44). This suggests a dual pathway: resources foster learning both directly and indirectly by creating psychological conditions conducive to interpersonal risk-taking and knowledge sharing.

Effective approaches include:

• Dedicated learning time and spaces. Organizations that formally allocate time for team reflection, after-action reviews, and collaborative problem-solving see measurable increases in learning behaviors. This goes beyond generic "innovation time"—effective practice involves structured protocols that guide teams through systematic reflection on recent experiences, extraction of lessons, and identification of process improvements (Edmondson, 2003).

• Decision-making authority at the team level. Empowering teams to make consequential decisions about their work processes, resource allocation, and problem-solving approaches correlates strongly with learning. The mechanism appears to be increased psychological ownership: when teams control meaningful aspects of their work, they invest more cognitive energy in understanding cause-effect relationships and developing expertise (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003).

• Cross-functional access to information. Providing teams with broad access to organizational information—including strategic context, performance data from other units, and customer feedback—enhances learning by enabling teams to see the wider system within which they operate. This reduces siloed thinking and facilitates integration of diverse perspectives (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006).

• Job enrichment and task variety. Teams given opportunities to engage with diverse challenges, interact with different stakeholders, and tackle novel problems develop stronger learning capabilities. The variety creates cognitive stimulation and exposes teams to multiple perspectives, both of which enhance collective sensemaking (Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013).

Pharmaceutical innovation at AstraZeneca. Bresman and Zellmer-Bruhn (2013) studied product development teams at a major pharmaceutical company, finding that teams given greater autonomy over project timelines and resource allocation demonstrated significantly higher learning behaviors. Critically, this autonomy was paired with clear accountability for outcomes and regular touch-points with senior leadership—creating what the authors term "bounded autonomy." Teams could experiment and adapt, but within parameters aligned to strategic priorities. The configuration generated both faster problem-solving and more innovative solutions, as teams felt safe to test unconventional approaches while remaining accountable to performance standards.

Manufacturing excellence at a U.S. automotive supplier. In a study of manufacturing teams implementing new production technologies, Edmondson (1999) documented how organizational support—specifically, provision of technical resources, access to engineering expertise, and protected time for team learning sessions—differentiated high-performing from struggling teams. Teams that could pause production to troubleshoot problems collectively, rather than deferring issues to individual supervisors, developed deeper process understanding and sustained performance improvements. The investment in "learning time" initially reduced output but generated long-term productivity gains as teams optimized processes and reduced error rates.

Healthcare transformation in Belgian hospitals. Leroy et al. (2012) examined intensive care units, finding that organizational investment in staffing ratios (ensuring sufficient nurses per patient to allow time for team coordination) and technological resources (real-time patient monitoring systems accessible to the full care team) significantly enhanced both psychological safety and learning behaviors. When teams were not constantly fire-fighting, they could engage in the reflective dialogue necessary for continuous improvement. The resource investment translated into measurable reductions in medical errors and improved patient outcomes.

Organizational Culture and Climate: Creating Permissive Conditions

Evidence summary. Organizational culture and climate—the values, norms, and shared perceptions that characterize an organization's environment—demonstrated a small but robust correlation with team learning (r = .28, explaining approximately 8% of variance). The effect was even stronger for emergent states (r = .38, explaining approximately 14% of variance), particularly psychological safety (Nellen et al., 2020).

This suggests culture works primarily through an indirect pathway: supportive cultures foster the psychological conditions (safety, shared cognition) that enable learning, rather than directly shaping learning behaviors. The distinction matters for intervention design—changing culture is a long-term endeavor, but the payoff comes from creating self-sustaining emergent states within teams.

Studies examining specific cultural dimensions found the strongest effects for learning-oriented cultures (environments that value experimentation, tolerate productive failure, and reward knowledge sharing) and innovation climates (where novel ideas are welcomed and risk-taking is supported; Gil & Mataveli, 2017; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011).

Effective approaches include:

• Explicit values that prioritize learning over blame. Organizations that articulate clear cultural commitments to learning—often through leader storytelling, recognition systems that celebrate learning moments, and policies that distinguish acceptable from unacceptable failures—create psychological permission for teams to engage in the risk-taking necessary for learning (Li et al., 2014).

• Error management climates. Rather than punishing mistakes, learning-oriented organizations treat errors as information. Effective practice involves systematic processes for surfacing, analyzing, and learning from failures without attributing blame to individuals. This requires both formal mechanisms (incident reporting systems, blameless postmortems) and informal norms reinforced through leader behavior (Fruhen & Keith, 2014).

• Cross-boundary communication norms. Cultures that encourage communication across hierarchical levels, functional boundaries, and geographical locations enhance team learning by exposing teams to diverse perspectives and preventing insular thinking. This often requires explicit normalization—making it safe and expected for junior team members to challenge senior colleagues, or for technical experts to question strategic assumptions (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003).

• Justice and fairness perceptions. When team members perceive organizational decisions as procedurally fair and distributively just, they exhibit higher psychological safety and engage more actively in learning behaviors. The mechanism appears to be trust: fair treatment signals that the organization values employees genuinely, making it safer to admit uncertainty or propose unconventional ideas (Lyu, 2016).

Tech sector learning culture at a global software firm. Kostopoulos and Bozionelos (2011) studied innovation teams at a multinational technology company with an explicit "fail fast, learn faster" culture. The organization celebrated learning milestones—teams that discovered why an approach didn't work received similar recognition to teams achieving breakthroughs. This cultural norm was reinforced through quarterly "failure showcases" where teams presented lessons from unsuccessful experiments. The result: significantly higher rates of experimentation, faster abandonment of unproductive paths, and ultimately more successful innovation outcomes. The culture created permission structures that formal policies alone could not achieve.

Justice climate in Indian public sector organizations. Saha and Kumar (2017) examined teams in government agencies, finding that organizational climates characterized by participation in decision-making (teams had voice in policies affecting their work) and procedural justice (transparent, consistent decision processes) correlated strongly with team learning. In contexts often characterized by rigid hierarchy, creating genuine channels for team input signaled that learning and improvement were valued over compliance and blame-avoidance. Teams in higher-justice climates engaged in more knowledge sharing, constructive conflict, and collaborative problem-solving.

Spanish wine production cooperative. Gil and Mataveli (2017) documented how an organizational learning culture—characterized by shared commitment to continuous improvement, openness to new methods, and collective responsibility for quality—shaped team behaviors in a traditional industry. The cooperative invested in regular cross-team knowledge exchange sessions, created peer mentoring structures, and established a shared measurement dashboard visible to all teams. The cultural shift from individual craftsmanship to collective learning generated both process innovations (more efficient production methods discovered through cross-pollination) and product innovations (new wine varieties developed through collaborative experimentation).

Top-Level Leadership: Cascading Influence Through Multiple Pathways

Evidence summary. Top-level leadership—referring to leadership above the team level, distinct from direct team leadership—showed a small direct correlation with team learning (r = .26, explaining approximately 7% of variance), but a notably stronger relationship with emergent states (r = .37, explaining approximately 14% of variance). This pattern suggests senior leaders most effectively foster team learning indirectly, by shaping the psychological and structural conditions teams experience (Nellen et al., 2020).

Studies focusing on specific leadership behaviors found that supportive leadership (characterized by genuine concern for employee development, accessibility, and active removal of obstacles) and integrity (alignment between espoused values and enacted behaviors) correlated most strongly with both team learning and emergent states (Bstieler & Hemmert, 2010; Leroy et al., 2012).

Effective approaches include:

• Visible commitment to learning initiatives. When senior leaders personally participate in learning activities, allocate significant resources to capability development, and speak consistently about learning as a strategic priority, teams perceive genuine organizational commitment. This creates a "top cover" that makes learning feel safe and valued (Edmondson, 2003).

• Behavioral integrity and value alignment. Leaders whose actions consistently match their stated values—particularly around learning, transparency, and employee development—foster higher psychological safety and team efficacy. The mechanism is credibility: when leaders "walk the talk," teams trust that learning-oriented behaviors will genuinely be supported rather than punished (Leroy et al., 2012).

• Servant leadership orientations. Leaders who prioritize developing others, removing obstacles, and facilitating team success (rather than commanding and controlling) create conditions for learning. Servant leadership correlates particularly strongly with team potency—teams' belief in their collective capability—which in turn enables learning (Hu & Liden, 2011).

• Strategic communication of context and purpose. Senior leaders who effectively communicate the "why" behind work—connecting team activities to organizational mission and customer impact—enhance shared cognition and collective motivation. Teams with clearer strategic understanding engage in more purposeful learning, focusing effort on areas of genuine organizational value (Jansen et al., 2016).

Pharmaceutical R&D leadership in South Korea. Bstieler and Hemmert (2010) studied cross-organizational product development teams in the pharmaceutical sector, examining how senior leadership behaviors influenced team learning. They found that when senior executives demonstrated authentic interest in team challenges (through regular skip-level meetings focused on learning rather than status reporting) and visibly intervened to remove organizational obstacles flagged by teams, both psychological safety and learning behaviors increased markedly. Critically, this was supportive rather than directive leadership—executives asked questions, listened actively, and then mobilized resources, rather than imposing solutions.

U.S. hospital executive integrity study. In a healthcare context, Leroy et al. (2012) examined how hospital executive behavioral integrity—the consistency between leaders' words and actions—influenced intensive care unit teams. Units working under executives who demonstrably prioritized patient safety over throughput pressures (evidenced through staffing decisions, resource allocation, and response to errors) exhibited significantly higher psychological safety. This translated into more frequent speaking up about risks, more collaborative problem-solving, and ultimately measurably better patient outcomes. The leadership effect operated entirely indirectly, shaping the climate within which frontline teams operated.

Chinese financial services transformation. Hu and Liden (2011) studied banking teams implementing new service models, finding that senior leaders who enacted servant leadership principles—particularly goal clarity (articulating what success looks like) and process clarity (explaining how teams were expected to work together)—significantly enhanced team potency. Teams that understood both what they were trying to achieve and how they should collaborate felt more capable and engaged in more systematic learning. The leadership investment in clarity created cognitive scaffolding that enabled more effective team functioning.

Organizational Infrastructure: Enabling Systems and Structures

Evidence summary. Organizational infrastructure—encompassing HR systems, knowledge management platforms, performance management processes, and formal structures—showed a medium correlation with team learning (r = .34, explaining approximately 12% of variance), though this relationship was not statistically robust across studies. The heterogeneity suggests infrastructure effects are highly context-dependent, working well in some settings but failing in others (Nellen et al., 2020).

The infrastructure category includes two distinct facets: procedural elements (formalization of roles, hierarchy, coordination mechanisms) and systems elements (HR practices, knowledge management technologies, performance management processes). Evidence is strongest for HR-related systems, particularly high-performance work systems that bundle multiple supportive practices (Ma et al., 2017).

Effective approaches include:

• Integrated high-performance HR systems. Organizations that implement coherent bundles of HR practices—selective hiring for collaborative capability, extensive development opportunities, team-based incentives, and participative decision-making structures—see stronger team learning effects than organizations implementing isolated practices. The bundling creates mutually reinforcing signals about the organization's commitment to team effectiveness (Ma et al., 2017).

• Knowledge management systems designed for interaction, not just storage. Effective knowledge management infrastructure facilitates conversation and connection, not merely document repositories. This includes platforms that surface expertise (helping teams find knowledgeable colleagues), communities of practice that enable cross-team learning, and collaborative spaces (physical and virtual) designed for joint work (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003).

• Performance management emphasizing team-level metrics and learning goals. When performance appraisal systems measure and reward team outcomes (alongside individual contributions) and explicitly evaluate learning behaviors (not just task results), teams engage in more collective problem-solving and knowledge sharing. The key is balance—purely team-based incentives can create free-riding problems, while purely individual metrics undermine collaboration (Bednall et al., 2014).

• Formal coordination mechanisms for distributed teams. For teams spanning multiple locations or working in matrix structures, formal coordination infrastructure—regular cross-team meetings, structured handoff protocols, shared planning tools—reduces ambiguity and creates cognitive space for learning. Without such structure, teams expend cognitive energy navigating complexity rather than extracting lessons (Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013).

Spanish university research teams. Cabeza Pullés et al. (2013) examined how HR management practices and knowledge management infrastructure influenced research collaboration in academic settings. Universities that implemented transparent promotion criteria valuing collaborative output (not just individual publication), provided dedicated collaboration spaces, and established cross-disciplinary seminar series saw significantly higher levels of shared cognition and collaborative learning. The infrastructure created both incentive alignment and logistical enablement for teamwork—addressing motivation and capability simultaneously.

U.S. high-tech performance management. Ma et al. (2017) studied engineering teams in technology firms, finding that HR system strength—the consistency, visibility, and perceived fairness of HR practices—moderated the impact of specific policies on team learning. Organizations with well-designed but inconsistently applied HR practices saw little benefit. In contrast, when HR systems were implemented consistently, communicated clearly, and perceived as fair, even relatively standard practices (performance appraisals, development planning, team-based incentives) significantly enhanced collective efficacy and learning. The lesson: infrastructure quality depends not just on design but on disciplined implementation.

Pharmaceutical knowledge management across borders. Gibson and Vermeulen (2003) examined geographically distributed product development teams in pharmaceutical companies, finding that formal knowledge management systems—particularly structured repositories for lessons learned, codified best practices from previous projects, and expert directories—significantly enhanced team learning, but only when paired with rich communication practices. Teams that used systems to augment rather than replace human interaction gained the most. The infrastructure worked best as a complement to, not substitute for, direct collaboration.

Building Long-Term Team Learning Capability

While the preceding section addresses organization-level interventions, sustaining team learning over time requires embedding capability into how organizations fundamentally operate. The meta-analytic evidence points to three forward-looking pillars for building durable team learning capacity.

Cultivating Emergent States as Strategic Assets

The Nellen et al. (2020) findings reveal a crucial insight: emergent states—psychological safety, shared cognition, potency/efficacy, and cohesion—explain more variance in team learning (r = .60 overall) than any organizational intervention. Moreover, these states are both inputs to and outputs of team learning, creating potential for virtuous or vicious cycles (Ilgen et al., 2005).

Strategic implication: Organizations should invest in monitoring and actively managing emergent states, treating them as leading indicators of team learning capability rather than as soft, unmeasurable constructs.

Practical actions:

• Pulse measurement of psychological safety. Implement brief, frequent surveys (quarterly or bi-annually) assessing team members' perceptions of interpersonal safety. Use items like "On this team, it is safe to take risks" and "Team members value others' unique skills and talents" (adapted from Edmondson, 1999). Aggregate to team level and track trends.

• Shared mental model assessment. Periodically evaluate alignment within teams on critical dimensions: task understanding (do members agree on priorities?), role clarity (do members understand each other's responsibilities?), and interaction patterns (do members share expectations about communication and coordination?). Misalignment signals need for facilitated dialogue to build shared cognition (Mathieu et al., 2005).

• Efficacy-building interventions during team formation. When teams form or undergo significant membership changes, invest in early experiences of success. Assign achievable initial challenges, ensure adequate resources, and provide positive feedback on collective accomplishment. Early wins build team efficacy, which enables riskier learning later (van Emmerik et al., 2011).

• Cohesion maintenance through rhythms and rituals. Establish predictable team rhythms—regular check-ins, reflection sessions, shared meals, or social activities—that build relational bonds. Task cohesion (shared commitment to goals) and social cohesion (interpersonal warmth) both enable learning, and both require intentional cultivation (Veestraeten et al., 2014).

Designing for Temporal Dynamics and Developmental Stages

The IMOI (Input-Mediator-Output-Input) framework emphasized by multiple team learning models (Ilgen et al., 2005; Decuyper et al., 2010) highlights that team learning is not static but evolves over time. Early-stage teams have different needs than mature teams; high-performing teams require different support than struggling teams.

Strategic implication: Organizations should adopt differentiated support strategies that adjust to team developmental stage and learning maturity, rather than one-size-fits-all programs.

Practical actions:

• Stage-appropriate resourcing. New teams benefit most from high structure: clear goals, explicit role definitions, and frequent checkpoints. As teams mature and develop self-management capability, gradually increase autonomy while maintaining resource availability. The key is responsive calibration rather than rigid standardization (Raes et al., 2015).

• Learning intervention timing. Team development activities (facilitated retrospectives, collaborative planning sessions, conflict resolution coaching) generate strongest effects when timed to team readiness. For example, after initial task orientation but before dysfunctional patterns harden, or following a significant challenge or failure when learning motivation is high (Bednall et al., 2014).

• Longitudinal tracking and early-warning systems. Monitor team performance and emergent state indicators over time, using trends to trigger supportive interventions. A team showing declining psychological safety or increasing coordination difficulties may need facilitation before problems compound. Proactive, data-informed support prevents crises and sustains learning capacity (Zhu & Wholey, 2018).

Integrating Multilevel Perspectives: Individual, Team, and Organizational Alignment

The nested nature of teams within organizations creates both opportunities and risks. Team learning depends on individual member capabilities, team-level emergent states, and organizational context—all of which must align (Decuyper et al., 2010).

Strategic implication: Organizations should adopt multilevel coherence as a design principle, ensuring individual development, team processes, and organizational systems reinforce rather than contradict each other.

Practical actions:

• Competency alignment across levels. Ensure individual development plans cultivate collaborative capabilities (active listening, constructive conflict, knowledge sharing), team charters establish norms that leverage those capabilities, and organizational culture rewards their enactment. Misalignment—for example, developing collaborative skills but rewarding individual heroics—undermines all levels (Jansen et al., 2016).

• Cross-level feedback loops. Create mechanisms for teams to surface organizational obstacles to learning (bureaucratic processes, conflicting priorities, resource constraints) and for leaders to respond meaningfully. When teams see that raising issues leads to tangible organizational changes, they engage more actively in learning-oriented voice (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011).

• Boundary-spanning roles and responsibilities. Designate individuals or functions (HR business partners, learning and development professionals, operational excellence teams) with explicit responsibility for connecting organizational strategy to team learning needs. These boundary spanners translate strategic priorities into team-level support and elevate team insights to inform organizational decisions (Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013).

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: fostering team learning is neither mysterious nor dependent on charismatic leadership alone. Organizations wishing to build adaptive, high-performing teams have four robust levers at their disposal—job resources, organizational culture and climate, top-level leadership, and infrastructure—though not all levers are equally powerful or work through the same pathways.

The highest-impact investment is job resources: providing teams with autonomy, time, information access, and general organizational support. These resources directly foster team learning (r = .41, explaining 17% of variance) and create the psychological conditions—particularly psychological safety and shared cognition—that enable collective sense-making. Practically, this means questioning whether teams have sufficient slack to reflect, adequate authority to experiment, and genuine access to the information and expertise they need.

The second strategic priority is culture and climate: cultivating shared values around learning, error tolerance, and knowledge sharing. While culture change is slow and diffuse, it works powerfully through emergent states (r = .38, explaining 14% of variance in emergent states versus 8% in team learning). Organizations serious about learning must move beyond slogans to genuine normative shifts—celebrating productive failures, making cross-boundary communication safe and expected, and demonstrating fairness in how mistakes are handled.

Top-level leadership matters most as enabler of other factors: leaders who model learning, demonstrate behavioral integrity, and prioritize employee development create permission structures and allocate resources that make team learning possible. The effect is largely indirect (r = .37 for emergent states vs. r = .26 for team learning), suggesting senior leaders should focus on shaping context rather than directly managing team processes.

Infrastructure plays a supporting role: HR systems, knowledge management platforms, and performance management processes enhance team learning when thoughtfully designed and consistently implemented, but effects are variable and context-dependent. The lesson is not to neglect infrastructure, but to ensure it aligns with and reinforces the more powerful drivers of resources and culture.

Critically, the evidence reveals that organizations often optimize the wrong targets. Training programs that develop individual competencies, team-building events that temporarily boost morale, or technology platforms that facilitate information storage—all common investments—are insufficient if teams lack the psychological safety to engage in constructive conflict, the shared cognition to coordinate effectively, the collective efficacy to tackle challenging problems, or the cohesion to persevere through difficulty.

The path forward requires systemic thinking. Team learning emerges from the interaction of individual capabilities, team-level emergent states, and organizational context. Optimizing any single level while neglecting others produces suboptimal results. Organizations must simultaneously invest in developing collaborative competencies in individuals, actively cultivating the emergent states that enable team learning, and shaping the organizational environment to support both.

The meta-analytic evidence provides specific, quantified guidance to inform these investments. When budget allocations are debated or priorities compete, practitioners can now point to robust effect sizes: job resources explain 17% of variance in team learning; psychological safety explains 36%; shared cognition explains 38%. These are not marginal differences—they represent the difference between teams that continuously improve and teams that stagnate.

Ultimately, the question is not whether organizations can foster team learning, but whether they will make the necessary systemic commitments. The evidence shows the way—the challenge now is execution.

References

1. Accenture. (2018). Reworking the revolution: Are you ready to compete as intelligent technology meets human ingenuity to create the future workforce? 

2. Agarwal, P., & Farndale, E. (2017). High-performance work systems and creativity implementation: The role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 440–458.

3. Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Lynn, G., & Dogan, D. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of team sensemaking capability in product development projects. R&D Management, 42(5), 473–493.

4. Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., Keskin, H., & Dogan, D. (2014). Team learning in IT implementation projects: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 37–47.

5. Bednall, T. C., Sanders, K., & Runhaar, P. (2014). Stimulating informal learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and HRM system strength: A two-wave study. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 45–61.

6. Bell, B. S., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Blawath, S. (2012). Team learning: A theoretical integration and review. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (pp. 859–909). Oxford University Press.

7. Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2013). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120–1139.

8. Bstieler, L., & Hemmert, M. (2010). Increasing learning and time efficiency in interorganizational new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 485–499.

9. Cabeza Pullés, D., Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, L. J., & Lloréns-Montes, F. J. (2013). Transactive memory system and TQM: Exploring knowledge capacities. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(2), 294–318.

10. de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: A study of self-managing service teams. Management Science, 51(11), 1610–1625.

11. Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111–133.

12. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

13. Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452.

14. Fruhen, L. S., & Keith, N. (2014). Team cohesion and error culture in risky work environments. Safety Science, 65, 20–27.

15. Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 202–239.

16. Gil, A. J., & Mataveli, M. (2017). Learning opportunities for group learning: An empirical assessment from the learning organization perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 29(1), 65–78.

17. Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862.

18. IBM. (2017). The enterprise guide to closing the skills gap: Strategies for building and maintaining a skilled workforce. https://www.ibm.com

19. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

20. Jansen, J. J. P., Kostopoulos, K. C., Mihalache, O. R., & Papalexandris, A. (2016). A socio-psychological perspective on team ambidexterity: The contingency role of supportive leadership behaviors. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 939–965.

21. Janz, D. B., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351–384.

22. Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 385–415.

23. Leicher, V., & Mulder, R. H. (2016). Team learning, team performance and safe team climate in elder care nursing. Team Performance Management, 22(7–8), 399–414.

24. Leroy, H., Dierynck, B., Anseel, F., Simons, T., Halbesleben, J. R. B., McCaughey, D., ... & Sels, L. (2012). Behavioral integrity for safety, priority of safety, psychological safety, and patient safety: A team-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1273–1281.

25. Li, J., Wu, L. Z., Liu, D., Kwan, H. K., & Liu, J. (2014). Insiders maintain voice: A psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 853–874.

26. Lyu, X. (2016). Effect of organizational justice on work engagement with psychological safety as a mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behavior and Personality, 44(8), 1359–1370.

27. Ma, Z., Long, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., & Lam, C. K. (2017). Why do high-performance human resource practices matter for team creativity? The mediating role of collective efficacy and knowledge sharing. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(3), 565–586.

28. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2005). Scaling the quality of teammates' mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–56.

29. Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2007). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.

30. McKinsey & Company. (2013). The eight essentials of innovation performance. https://www.mckinsey.com

31. Nellen, L. C., Gijselaers, W. H., & Grohnert, T. (2020). A meta-analytic literature review on organization-level drivers of team learning. Human Resource Development Review, 19(2), 152–182.

32. Ortega, A., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Rico, R. (2012). Enhancing team learning in nursing teams through beliefs about interpersonal context. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(1), 102–111.

33. Ortega, A., Van den Bossche, P., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Rico, R., & Gil, F. (2014). The influence of change-oriented leadership and psychological safety on team learning in healthcare teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(3), 311–321.

34. Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Dochy, F. (2015). An exploratory study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1), 5–30.

35. Rego, A., Reis Júnior, D., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2015). Authentic leaders promoting store performance: The mediating roles of virtuousness and potency. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 617–634.

36. Saha, S., & Kumar, S. P. (2017). Influence of participation in decision making on job satisfaction, group learning, and group commitment: Empirical study of public sector undertakings in India. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 22(1), 79–101.

37. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday.

38. Sivasubramaniam, N., Liebowitz, S. J., & Lackman, C. L. (2012). Determinants of new product development team performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 803–820.

39. Tucker, A. L., Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2007). Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science, 53(6), 894–907.

40. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M. S. R., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.

41. van Emmerik, H., Jawahar, I. M., Schreurs, B., & de Cuyper, N. (2011). Social capital, team efficacy and team potency: The mediating role of team learning behaviors. Career Development International, 16(1), 82–99.

42. Veestraeten, M., Kyndt, E., & Dochy, F. (2014). Investigating team learning in a military context. Vocations and Learning, 7(1), 75–100.

43. Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 501–518.

44. Zhu, X., & Wholey, D. R. (2018). Expertise redundancy, transactive memory, and team performance in interdisciplinary care teams. Health Services Research, 53(6), 4921–4942.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). From Individual Expertise to Collective Intelligence: Building Learning-Capable Teams. Human Capital Leadership Review, 29(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.29.1.1