A person on a team I was coaching recently asked, “Wait, we have to be trained on how to have a team meeting?”
Fair question. The simple answer is this:
It depends.
Okay, that was tongue-in-cheek because that answer is not simple at all. But, it is accurate.
Teams seeking transactional relationships usually don’t need training. If your team shares ideas, discusses upcoming deadlines and events, makes copies for each other, and takes turns buying coffees, you are doing great as a transactional team. This definition of “transactional” from dictionary.com can further help us understand this type of relationship:
Transactional: of or relating to personal or social interaction characterized by mutual influence and exchange
-Dictionary.com
Conversely, coaching and support are crucial for teams aiming for transformative relationships. The reality is that most of our relationships are transactional. That doesn’t mean they are bad, it just means that they are about influence and exchange. Here is the definition of transformative from dictionary.com:
Transformative: causing a radical and typically positive change in outlook, character, form, or condition
-Dictionary.com
Who wouldn’t want a radical positive change in outlook, character, form, or condition? Isn’t this exactly what we need to be fulfilled in our work? The beautiful thing is that our teams have the power to make it happen.
Moving from transactional to transformative teams opens the door to tap into the power of collective efficacy. Much research around collective efficacy has been conducted in the field of education, but certainly can be applied to any industry where professionals work in teams. John Hattie found collective teacher efficacy to have the most profound impact of all the practices and strategies he studied for his breakthrough 2009 meta-analysis and book, Visible Learning.1, which held when he updated his research for his 2023 book, Visible Learning: The Sequel.2 Dr. Rachel Eells studied the impact of collective efficacy in her 2011 dissertation, discovering, “Collective teacher efficacy was found to be strongly and positively correlated with student achievement. This held true for all subject areas measured, and regardless of timing of measurement.”
Collective teacher efficacy was found to be strongly and positively correlated with student achievement. This held true for all subject areas measured, and regardless of timing of measurement.
Dr. Rachel Eells, in her 2011 doctoral dissertation3
Self-efficacy is the firmly held belief that what I do can make a positive difference. Collective efficacy is the belief that by working together as a team, we can achieve outstanding results. The late and great Rick DuFour was a pioneer in the Professional Learning Community (PLC) movement, and he describes three things that distinguish a team from a group: Teams have shared goals, mutual accountability, and interdependence. 4
I have the honor of working alongside researcher and author Dr. Douglas Reeves in the organization he founded, Creative Leadership Solutions. Over the past few years I’ve had many, “Pinch me, is this real?!?” moments sitting beside Dr. Reeves and my colleagues, discussing research and how to best support the schools and districts we serve. One recent discussion centered on the spectrum of collaboration and helping teams move from transactional to transformative. In mere seconds, Dr. Reeves drafted a matrix that illustrates this concept perfectly.
Looking at this matrix, we can identify that the way to be transformative as a team is with strong shared beliefs coupled with efficient and clear processes. When we have low levels of shared beliefs and inefficient or nonexistent processes, we have fragmentation. We are not a team. When we have high levels of shared beliefs but inefficient or nonexistent processes, we have enthusiasm without results. When we have low levels of shared beliefs but excellent processes, we have transactional relationships that do not tap into the power of collective efficacy.
How do transactional teams interact, and how is that different from how transformative teams interact? Analyzing the difference in actions between transactional teams and transformative teams can help us understand how to make the shift, and help us identify our team’s strengths and areas for growth.
If you are like me, you are a systems person and like an easy-to-follow formula. Tapping into the transformative power of collective efficacy is not simple, but here are steps your teams could take to begin to bridge the gap between their current state and desired state.
To initiate the development of shared beliefs around collective efficacy, start by learning together to build a common understanding of its principles and how it can drive transformative teams. One way to springboard this collaborative discussion is by reading an article together, like this one.
There is no place where uniting for a common goal is more powerful and essential than in our organizations. We are not aiming for occasional success or exceptional leaders; we want consistent excellence and remarkable achievements every year. This can only be accomplished through transformative teams that harness the power of collective effort. Together we are so very strong.
- Hattie, John. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. (London: Routledge, 2009). ↩︎
- John Hattie, Visible Learning: The Sequel (New York: Routledge. 2023). ↩︎
- Eells, Rachel Jean. “Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Collective Teacher Efficacy and StudentAchievement.” PhD diss., Loyola University Chicago, 2011.
https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=luc_diss. ↩︎ - Solution Tree. “Solution Tree: Rick DuFour on Groups vs. Teams.” YouTube, October 9, 2009, https://youtu.be/0hV65KIItlE?si=v142VwVvgU1OokjB. ↩︎
