Oscillation in Team Reflection
The guiding distinction reflecting/unreflected with regard to the goal processing in teams is an expression of a paradox. Its processing, as with all paradoxes, leads to oscillating effects.
Shared reflection creates transparency, because one cannot speak about something for which there is no open information or common perception. Thus, everybody participates in team reflection. However, as soon as something has been spoken about (“Are those who work on the hotline efficient?”), it is easily perceived as interference by those who have been spoken about. Often, this quickly triggers reactions from the affected, who appear defensive and withdrawn and are also usually intending to be (“Of course we know what we are doing! We think we should talk about matters which affect everyone and not just a few. This is our affair!”). However, the more this is respected, the greater the pressure will usually be in the direction of participation and transparency.
The oscillating sequence then looks like this: Need for reflection >> need for transparency and participation >> shielding effects >> banning of black box and reflection >> need for reflection >>.
Such oscillations between the decision-making poles are often lamented, because they are interpreted so that one does not know how to proceed and what is now right. In this theory, however, this phenomenon is seen as the unfolding of a paradox in time and is, therefore, an unavoidable aspect of team dynamics.
The guiding distinction reflecting/unreflected with regard to the goal processing in teams is an expression of a paradox. Its processing, as with all paradoxes, leads to oscillating effects.
Shared reflection creates transparency, because one cannot speak about something for which there is no open information or common perception. Thus, everybody participates in team reflection. However, as soon as something has been spoken about (“Are those who work on the hotline efficient?”), it is easily perceived as interference by those who have been spoken about. Often, this quickly triggers reactions from the affected, who appear defensive and withdrawn and are also usually intending to be (“Of course we know what we are doing! We think we should talk about matters which affect everyone and not just a few. This is our affair!”). However, the more this is respected, the greater the pressure will usually be in the direction of participation and transparency.
The oscillating sequence then looks like this: Need for reflection and vice versa, and the opposite, need for transparency and participation and vice versa, and the opposite, shielding effects and vice versa, and the opposite, banning of black box and reflection and vice versa, and the opposite, need for reflection and vice versa, and the opposite.
Such oscillations between the decision-making poles are often lamented, because they are interpreted so that one does not know how to proceed and what is now right. In this theory, however, this phenomenon is seen as the unfolding of a paradox in time and is, therefore, an unavoidable aspect of team dynamics.