Edmondson’s Framework: Five Behavioral Characteristics
Edmondson’s (1999) definition of team learning is the most widely cited in the field, and her five behavioral characteristics remain the most influential operational description of what team learning looks like in practice.
1. Exploring and Co-construction of Meaning
“Conversational actions of team members to share knowledge, opinions, perspectives, and constructively managing differences in opinion.” (Savelsbergh et al., 2009, p. 583; from Van den Bossche & Gijselaers, 2006)
Team members actively bring their knowledge into conversation with one another. They do not simply report their conclusions — they expose their reasoning, invite challenge, and build shared understanding through dialogue. This is the generative core of team learning.
2. Collective Reflection
“Collectively look back or ahead on experiences, goals, actions, working methods, strategies, and assumptions to discuss; eventually aimed at adapting working methods, strategies, or assumptions.” (Savelsbergh et al., 2009, p. 583; from Schippers et al., 2003)
Reflection in team learning is not individual introspection — it is a collective act of examining the team’s shared experience. Teams that reflect together surface assumptions, identify what worked and what didn’t, and jointly develop improvements. Without collective reflection, experience becomes repetition rather than learning.
3. Error Management
“Discussing errors collectively and exploring how to prevent them.” (Savelsbergh et al., 2009, p. 583; from Van Dyck, 2003)
Errors are information. Teams that can openly discuss mistakes — without blame or defensiveness — extract invaluable learning from failure. This requires the psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) to surface errors without fear of punishment or ridicule.
4. Feedback-Seeking Behavior
“Seeking and analyzing feedback internally among team members and externally from outsiders to the team; to measure whether the team is doing the right things and doing things right.” (Savelsbergh et al., 2009, p. 583; from Schippers et al., 2003)
Teams learn both from within (peer feedback, process review) and from outside (stakeholders, adjacent teams, customers). Chan et al. (2021) formalized this distinction as internal team learning (monitoring performance against goals, testing assumptions) and external team learning (seeking feedback from those who receive or use the team’s work).
5. Experimenting
“Collectively doing things differently than before and measuring differences in outcome.” (Savelsbergh et al., 2009, p. 583; from Van Woerkom, 2003)
Experimentation converts team reflection into action. Teams that only reflect but never try new approaches do not complete the learning cycle. Experimenting requires a tolerance for failure and the willingness to take well-conceived risks — conditions that must be deliberately created and protected.
See Also
References
Chan, K.-Y., Oerlemans, L., & Meslec, N. (2021). The impact of multiple project team membership on individual and team learning. International Journal of Project Management, 39(3), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.11.002
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Savelsbergh, C. M. J. H., van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Poell, R. F. (2009). The development and empirical validation of a multidimensional measurement instrument for team learning behaviors. Small Group Research, 40(5), 578–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409340055
Van den Bossche, P., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938