USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AS A STRATEGY TO ACCELERATE TEAM BUILDING ON SITE

Abstract

Current team building models has been designed using traditional organization development practices, which has not been proven to be effective for accelerating the process of team formation. Therefore, we designed a study aimed to contrast two different strategies of team development, in order to compare their capacity to speed up the process of team building on-site. The first strategy was based on the traditional team building approach and the second was based on appreciative inquiry (AI), which is a strength-based process of organizational development and change. We used grounded theory methods to conduct a systematic comparison of 10 construction project teams, which were randomly assigned to either the strength-based team development intervention (based on AI) or to the traditional one (based on Dyer' model of team building). Data collected from three different sources (face-to-face interviews, field notes and observations) provided strong evidence that the strength-based process of team development is better to accelerate the process of team formation, especially at the early stages of a construction project. To consolidate the outcomes of this study, we created a strength-based model of team development (called P-ICIA), which offers some interesting insights to enrich team development research and practice.

Full text

Pavez, I., Alarcón, L.F., and Salvatierra, J.L., 2015. Using appreciative inquiry as a strategy to
accelerate team building on site. In: Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction.
Perth, Australia, July 29-31, pp. 701-710, available at www.iglc.net
PEOPLE, CULTURE AND CHANGE 701
USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AS A
STRATEGY TO ACCELERATE TEAM
BUILDING ON SITE
Ignacio Pavez
1
, Luis F. Alarcón
2
, and Jose L. Salvatierra
3
ABSTRACT
Current team building models has been designed using traditional organization
development practices, which has not been proven to be effective for accelerating the
process of team formation. Therefore, we designed a study aimed to contrast two
different strategies of team development, in order to compare their capacity to speed
up the process of team building on-site. The first strategy was based on the traditional
team building approach and the second was based on appreciative inquiry (AI), which
is a strength-based process of organizational development and change. We used
grounded theory methods to conduct a systematic comparison of 10 construction
project teams, which were randomly assigned to either the strength-based team
development intervention (based on AI) or to the traditional one (based on Dyer’
model of team building). Data collected from three different sources (face-to-face
interviews, field notes and observations) provided strong evidence that the strength-
based process of team development is better to accelerate the process of team
formation, especially at the early stages of a construction project. To consolidate the
outcomes of this study, we created a strength-based model of team development
(called P-ICIA), which offers some interesting insights to enrich team development
research and practice.
KEYWORDS
Team building, appreciative inquiry, strength-based change, trust, collaboration.
INTRODUCTION
Experience has shown that there is a direct relationship between the final outcome of
a project and the capacity/quality of the project management team (Dainty, Cheng
and Moore, 2005; Pavez, 2007). Therefore, organizations have created a growing
need to thoroughly understand team design, interaction and development (Klein et al.,
2009; Millhiser, Coen and Solow, 2011).
1
PhD Candidate, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, OH 44106, USA, +1 216 772-1256, ignacio.pavez@case.edu
2
Professor, Department of Construction Engineering and Management, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, +56 2 2354-4201, lalarcon@ing.puc.cl
3
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad de
Santiago de Chile. Av. Ecuador 3659, Estación Central, Santiago, Chile, Phone +56 2 27182818,
jose.salvatierra@usach.cl

Ignacio Pavez, Luis F. Alarcón, and Jose L. Salvatierra
702 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia
Currently, team development has become a recognized technique in the field of
organizational development (French and Bell, 2001), which accounts for its
permanent use by consultants, scholars and researchers. Team development
interventions have evolved from an approach focused on solving problems
(traditional model) to the study of exceptional performances, which promote the
development of social systems through the enhancement and cultivation of strengths
(Cooperrider, Whitney and Stavros, 2008). Given the differences between traditional
and positive forms of team development, this research has been designed to compare
the capacity of both models to speed up the process of team building on-site. To
accomplish that goal, we used grounded theory methods (Glaser and Strauss, 2009) to
carry out a systematic comparison of 10 construction project teams, which are part of
a group of Chilean construction companies that currently conducts research in
partnership with the Centro de Excelencia en Gestión de Producción de la Pontificia
Universidad Católica (GEPUC) [Center for Excellence in Production Management at
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile]. Those teams were randomly assigned to
either the strength-based team development intervention (based on appreciative
inquiry) (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987; Whitney et al., 2004) or to the traditional
one (based on Dyer’ model of team building) (Dyer, 1987).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Team building has been described as one of the most popular intervention techniques
in the field of organization development (OD) (Buller and Bell, 1986; Klein et al.,
2009; Salas, Rozell, Mullen and Driskell, 1999). The main objective of a team
building process is to increase the effectiveness of work teams. This is achieved by a
process that allows team members effectively acquiring new skills and perceptions to
produce a simultaneous change in interpersonal relations and performance (Buller and
Bell, 1986).Team building embraces the central notion that enlisting the participation
of team members in planning and implementing their own change will be more
effective than simply imposing change on the team from outside (Salas et al., 1999).
Thus, the foundation of the team building process is closely related to the principles
that guide any OD intervention. A team building intervention has a clear
methodological basis (specific steps) but the focus or the topics for change might vary
based on the purpose of the process, the team composition (diversity of team
members), the nature of the team (e.g. stable teams, temporary teams, or inter-
organizational teams), and the context in which the intervention is carried out, among
others (Klein et al., 2009).
Therefore, we selected team building approaches that were distinctive in terms of
the process that characterize each methodology. Taking into account that criteria, we
selected two models/approaches of team development: 1) Dyer’s model of team
building (Dyer, 1987; Dyer, Dyer and Dyer, 2013) and 2) the appreciative team
building approach (Bushe and Coetzer, 1995; Whitney et al., 2004). We chose Dyer’s
model of team building because is the one that best resembles the classic mode of
action-research (focused on problems). On the other hand, we chose the appreciative
team building model because it proposes a new to way to addresses the process of
team development, which is focused on leveraging the strengths of the social system.

USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AS A STRATEGY TO ACCELERATE TEAM BUILDING ON
SITE
PEOPLE, CULTURE AND CHANGE 703
DYER’S MODEL OF TEAM BUILDING
Dyer’s model of team building is probably one of the best known approaches of team
development under the problem-solving framework. This model is a great
representation of the traditional mode of action-research, which starts with a
diagnosis and ends with an evaluation of the main learnings and the effectiveness of
the intervention (Susman and Evered, 1978). Grounded on the traditional approach of
action research, Dyer’s model of team building is described as follows: “Ordinarily a
team-building program follows a cycle similar to that depicted in Figure 1.A. The
program begins because someone recognizes a problem or problems. Either before or
during the teambuilding effort, data are gathered to determine the root causes of the
problem. The data are then analyzed, and a diagnosis is made of what is wrong and
what is causing the problem. After the diagnosis, the team engages in appropriate
planning and problem solving. Actions are planned and assignments made. The plans
are then put into action and the results honestly evaluated.”
Figure 1: The two approaches of team development.
APPRECIATIVE TEAM BUILDING
Appreciative team building (ATB) is an approach of team development grounded on
the application of AI (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987) as the methodological basis
for change (Bushe and Coetzer, 1995; Whitney et al., 2004). AI is both a method of
action research and a theory of how social systems develop and evolve, which
rethinks the foundations of OD. In particular, it challenges the assumption that the
purpose of an OD intervention is to solve a problem, because under that paradigm,
groups and organizations are treated not only as if they have problems, but as if they
are problems to be “solved.” Instead, AI invites to rethink the practice of OD through
the following question: What if, instead of seeing organizations as problems to be
solved, we saw them as miracles to be appreciated? How would our methods of
inquiry and our theories of organizing be different?. This re-formulation of the
symbolic interpretation of social systems constitutes the basis of this new form of
action-research which, stood on the shoulders of social constructionism, can be
defined as “the cooperative co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their
organizations, and the world around them. As a team building approach, AI embraces
the premise that all teams have images of themselves that underlay self-organizing
processes and that social systems have a natural tendency to evolve toward the most
positive images held by their members (Bushe and Coetzer, 1995). Therefore, ATB
can be defined as a praxis of collective action aimed to positively transform the team

Ignacio Pavez, Luis F. Alarcón, and Jose L. Salvatierra
704 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia
to its most promising and positive future. From a practical standpoint ATB follows
the traditional AI 4-D cycle (Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny – See Figure
1.B).
RESEARCH METHOD
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
The research questions central to this study is: How to accelerate the process of team
formation on site? Based on those questions, this research has four main objectives:
(1) To compare a traditional team building approach with a strength-based approach
of team development; (2) To assess the effect of each approach into the process of
team development; (3) To explore which approach is more effective for the process of
team formation; and (4) To produce a model of team development that will help
accelerating the process of team formation on site.
SAMPLE
The study was carried out with construction project teams belonging to 5 different
Chilean medium-size construction companies. The unit of analysis was the
construction project team and participants were people who belong to 10 different
teams. The average size of a team varied from 5 to 14 people, based on the type and
the stage of the construction project. The research was carried out at the construction
site, in order to work with and observe teams in their natural setting. We selected 10
teams that embraced diversity in terms of the variables that might have a higher
influence in team dynamics: type of construction project, type of contract, ownership
of the project, project duration, project stage, and team performance. Then, we
formed 5 pairs of teams that matched in one or more variables, in order to have
similar groups of teams implementing the two types of intervention. After that, we
used a randomized paired design for the intervention, which means that, within a pair,
we randomly assigned one team to the strength-based team development cohort and
one team to the problem-based (or traditional) team development cohort.
DATA COLLECTION
The research team collected data over a 4-month period, from April 2014 to July
2014 and consisted of field notes, face-to-face interviews and group observations.
Field notes were focused on registering the activities and outcomes of each team
development session. All team sessions were audio or video recorded, in order to
have a complete record of the activities and outcomes of the intervention process. We
implemented 5 sessions with each team, so we carried out 50 sessions in total (25 for
each type of intervention). Data analyzed were equivalent to approximately 5345
minutes of team development work. Face-to-face interviews focused on eliciting
lengthy narratives detailing participants’ actions, thoughts, feelings, and social
interactions that occurred to them during the team development process. Special
effort was made to trigger vivid recollections of team members’ experiences on each
stage of the process; so one interview protocol was prepared for each team
development intervention. Interviews lasted between 30 and 70 minutes and all of
them were transcribed by the research team. We did 16 interviews for each
methodology. Finally, group observations were used to generate data about team

USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AS A STRATEGY TO ACCELERATE TEAM BUILDING ON
SITE
PEOPLE, CULTURE AND CHANGE 705
interactions as they naturally occurred in each team development session. They were
focused on the social dynamics deployed by teams during the intervention, including
observer’s interpretations based on the analysis of the body language and other
emotional expressions. We produced full observation records of 4 randomly selected
teams (2 teams per intervention method). Each team was observed using the same
observation protocol, which was focused on perceived power distance, positive and
negative interactions, team member roles, and group norms.
DATA ANALYSIS
The audio recording for each interview and the video/audio recording for each session
was reviewed multiple times, and each transcript was read repeatedly. The procedure
of data analysis followed the four-stage procedure of grounded theory’s constant
comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 2009): (1) comparing incidents applicable
to each category; (2) integrating categories and their properties; (3) delimiting the
theory; and (4) writing the theory. During the first stage, all transcripts (field notes,
interviews and observations) were first coded using “open-coding” techniques, which
involve rigorous line-by-line examination of every transcript to identify “codable
moments” or segments of text with potential research significance (Corbin and
Strauss, 2007). This process resulted in the identification of 480 fragments of text that
were sorted on the basis of similarity into 112 initial categories. After the open coding
an initial codebook for each methodology was developed. The initial codebook of
Dyer’s methodology consisted of 18 categories, and the initial codebook of the ATB
methodology consisted of 16 categories. The whole coding process was carried out
collaboratively by the research team using Dedoose. See Pavez (2014), for a detailed
description of categories and properties. Theory delimitation started to take place
when underlying uniformities in the original set of categories and/or properties were
discovered. Thus, we started to delimitate the theory by using a small set of higher-
level concepts. In doing so, first-order codes were grouped according to their
similarity and second-order codes (higher-level concepts) were created (Saldaña,
2012). Finally, theory formulation occurred in a developmental way. A continuing
process of data analysis and literature review informed several adjustments of the
initial conceptual model to provide theoretical support of discovered variables.
Tacking back and forth between the data, research materials, literature, and the
original conceptual model, a grounded theory of a model of team development that
accelerates the process of team formation on site emerged.
FINDINGS
The goal of this study was to characterize a team development process that would
help to accelerate the process of team formation on site. Data suggest that the ATB
model works better than the traditional approach, because of three key findings
related to group behavior which are described as follows:
PATTERN 1: A REVERSAL FOCUS OF GROUP NEEDS CONSIDERATION
Data coming from the analysis of the outcomes of every team meeting—which were
focused on the dialogues, agreements and deliverables of every stage of the process—
showed an interesting pattern. It was clear that instrumental (task-related) and
expressive (interpersonal-related) needs were present in all teams and they tried to

Ignacio Pavez, Luis F. Alarcón, and Jose L. Salvatierra
706 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia
fulfil both during the process of team development. However, the time when those
needs appeared—which reflects the focus of team interactions during the intervention
process—was different for both types of interventions.
Dyer’s model of team development
During the initial stages of the problem-solving approach (problem identification and
data collection) the team was primarily focused on task-related needs. This means
that most conversations, interactions and the collective processes of sense-making,
were focused on understanding some gaps in productivity, the availability of
resources, the organization of the work, the planning process and/or the coordination
among different work-groups. The analysis of those gaps was translated into key
areas of work for each team, which repeatedly included: lack of good economic
incentives, lack of organization and planning, lack of efficacy in team meetings, and
the need for improvement in some relational dynamics (e.g. leadership,
communication and decision making). As teams got to understand the root causes of
the problems, the expressive (or socio-emotional) needs of the group emerged. This
happened because teams had to deal with three important relational issues:
acknowledging different viewpoints, managing conflicts, and generating agreement
among team members. Finally, in order to solve their problems, teams had to create
an action plan and then to implement it. At this stage of the process, the initiatives
were mainly focused on solving the relational issues that prevented the team to get the
desired results. Therefore, at the end of the process, the team was primarily oriented
to address (and work on) its expressive needs.
Appreciative team building
During the ATB intervention the focus went in the opposite direction regarding the
time frame in which instrumental and expressive needs were addressed. At the
discovery phase, most stories about the best team experience were based on
emotional memories about relationships, human values, recognition, friendship and
individual valuation. Consequently, conversations were mostly focused on sharing
and revealing expressive needs. During the dream phase, most images of the ideal
future and/or the “ideal team” were based on rich narratives of team achievements
and how they should approach work. Consequently, conversations focused more on
sharing and revealing the instrumental needs of the team. At the design phase, each
team worked on crafting a more concrete version of the desired future by devising
one or two specific statements related to some important elements of team
dynamics: 1) goals or purpose, 2) roles and responsibilities, 3) relationships, 4)
procedures, 5) leadership, 6) team spirit, 7) productivity and performance, and 8)
communication (Cooperrider, Whitney and Stavros, 2008; Whitney et al., 2004). At
this phase, the focus was slightly oriented to instrumental needs, but it was possible to
see more balance. This happened because teams integrated the main elements of both
the best team experience (discovery) and the ideal team (dream). Finally, the destiny
phase was dedicated to create and implement some change initiatives that would help
the team reaching the ideal future. Here, teams included both instrumental and
expressive needs (slightly loaded to instrumental needs). In summary, it was possible
to observe that both methodologies went into opposite directions in terms of the time
frame in which they addressed the expressive and instrumental needs of the team. The
problem-solving approach started with great attention to instrumental needs and it

USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AS A STRATEGY TO ACCELERATE TEAM BUILDING ON
SITE
PEOPLE, CULTURE AND CHANGE 707
ended up shifting that focus to expressive needs. On the other hand, the ATB
approach started by giving great attention to expressive needs, then it shifted to
instrumental needs, and it ended up balancing both of them.
PATTERN 2: DISTINCTIVE DYNAMICS OF GROUP PROGRESSION
Data collected from interviews, which focused on eliciting lengthy narratives
detailing participants’ actions, thoughts, feelings, and social interactions that occurred
to them during the team development process, showed another interesting pattern.
The later stages of the coding process (second-order coding) naturally converged into
a set of themes that progressively appeared during the team building process. This
resembled what previous studies in this area has shown, which tell us that groups
engage in an identifiable set of activities, during different periods of time, that can be
categorized as stages or phases of group development (Tuckman, 1965; Miller, 2003).
The content and focus of team interactions, however, were different for both
methodologies. Dyer’s problem solving approach followed a very similar pattern
compared to traditional team building models. This pattern can be characterized as
restorative dynamics oriented to remove the problems that are blocking the
development of the team. We called this pattern “fix to develop”, because the team
explored their major problems in detail and, after that, they developed the required
skills to overcome those challenges together. On the other hand, the collection of
team member experiences on each stage of the ATB process helped to observe a
different pattern of group progression compared to the problem-solving approach.
The main characteristic of this pattern was the nurturing dynamics of team
interactions that propelled team development. We called this pattern “nurture to
grow”, because as teams moved along the ATB process, upward spirals of positive
interactions helped the teams growing in the direction they wanted. During the
process of data analysis, the codes naturally converged into four different, and unique,
progressive stages when compared to the conventional models of group development.
These stages were named illumination, connection, inspiration, and achievement.
These stages represent the highest level of abstraction for the categories generated
during the coding process; and each of them included well-defined properties (Corbin
and Strauss, 2007; Glaser and Strauss, 2009). Interestingly, in none of those stages
conflict resolution appeared as central aspect of group development.
PATTERN 3: POSITIVITY AS THE ENGINE OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL
PROCESS
Analysis of the data showed that only one variable remained stable in both types of
interventions. That variable was the positive affective tone of the team (PATT),
which can be described as the shared pattern of consistent (or homogeneous) positive
affective reactions (George, 1990). However, this only occurred during the ATB
intervention. The PATT came out constantly and with great frequency during the
process of analysis of each source of data. This helped to explain the upwards spirals
of generative interactions that aided teams (under the ATB methodology) growing in
the direction that they wanted.
As we previously stated, we called this dynamic “nurture to grow”, because the
team had to nourish itself to sustain the transformational energy that this process
required. The nutrients of the system, in this case, were the positive emotions that the
ATB intervention sparked on every team member; which were transformed into the

Ignacio Pavez, Luis F. Alarcón, and Jose L. Salvatierra
708 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia
PATT trough the diffusion of those feelings. At the beginning, positivity was mainly
sparked by the facilitator using the tools that AI provides (e.g. appreciative interview
and visioning exercise). However, as the process continued, the team started to
integrate that element into their natural encounters. Initially, focusing on the positive
was something new for the team, but when they were able to understand and integrate
those concepts, they started to leverage and intensify positivity as a tool to develop
and grow as a team.
THE P-ICIA: A MODEL OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT THAT
ACCELERATES THE PROCESS OF FORMATION ON SITE
This study contributes to understand team building as a generative phenomenon. In
other words, as a process characterized by dynamics of excellence, appreciation and
abundance; where the PATT is something regular and stable rather than exceptional.
Moreover, our data suggest that these processes of team development works better for
accelerating the process of team formation, because it eliminates the need for conflict
and resolution (e.g. Tuckman’s forming and storming stages) to reach the stage of
“performing” (Tuckman, 1965) in a quicker way. This is particularly important for
teams that have not previously worked together (as most construction project teams),
because for that types of teams take longer to achieve the levels of trust that allow the
emergence of good processes of feedback that characterize high performance (Bennis
and Shepard, 1956; Tuckman, 1965; Miller, 2003).
This research provides interesting insights into the elements that might
characterize a strength-based model of team development, which we propose that
accelerates the process of team formation on site for three reasons. First, a strength-
based team development approach starts by building strong relationships among team
members (expressive needs) and uses that basis to accomplish the instrumental needs
of the team (productivity, efficiency and performance). Second, the group progression
is characterized by dynamics that nurture positive emotional states, rather than
managing conflicts, to increase trust and collective efficacy. In particular, we suggest
that a strength-based model of team development starts by illuminating the strengths
of the team; then relationships are reinforced by increasing the levels of connectivity;
after that, the team is inspired to work in its own transformational process and; finally,
the group collectively implement developmental initiatives to achieve the desired
future and to become the team of their dreams. Third, a strength-based model of team
development uses positivity as the engine of the developmental process. This means
that positive emotional states are sparked, diffused, and sustained over time to
energize the team in its transformational endeavor. Based on the data collected during
the process, we created a strength-based model of team development called P-ICIA
(positive affect-P; illumination-I; connection-C; inspiration-I; achievement-A). The
model is presented in Figure 2.

USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AS A STRATEGY TO ACCELERATE TEAM BUILDING ON
SITE
PEOPLE, CULTURE AND CHANGE 709
Figure 2: The P-ICIA model of strength-based team development (Pavez, 2014).
CONCLUSIONS
The results presented in this article show that there is a vast potential to improve the
performance of construction project teams, which is simply wasted by not considering
the team development process as a critical activity for project execution. This
represents a latent opportunity for organizations where Lean is part of their strategies,
because in these types of companies people are the key to success (Pavez, 2007).
Based on lessons learned from the participants’ experiences, some initiatives that can
facilitate and/or improve teamwork at the construction site are the following: (1)
Organizing work meetings with instances to execute team activities: As our study
shows, this activities will have more impact on accelerating the process of team
formation if they are carried out at early stages of the project and using a positive
approach (i.e. ATB or similar); (2) Establishing structures and/or incentives that
encourage the implementation of team development practices: This element strongly
appeared when we talked to participants about how to sustain the level of teamwork
that they reached as a consequence of the intervention process; and (3) Incorporating
qualified professionals who can support team formation and development: This
conclusion came out from the analysis that participants made about the role of the
facilitator (researcher). Participants found value in having an external expert that
would help the team to progress and to keep the focus on teamwork. Thus, they called
for replicating this strategy at the beginning of each project, but ideally using internal
staff. Finally, the main limitation of this study was the aim of studying the process of
team development rather than its results.
REFERENCES
Bennis, W.G. and Shepard, H.A., 1956. A Theory of Group Development. Human
Relations, 9(4), pp.415–437.
Buller, P.F. and Bell, C.H., 1986. Effects of Team Building and Goal Setting on
Productivity: A Field Experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2),
pp.305–328.
Bushe, G.R. and Coetzer, G., 1995. Appreciative Inquiry as a team-development

Ignacio Pavez, Luis F. Alarcón, and Jose L. Salvatierra
710 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia
intervention: A controlled experiment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
31(1), pp.13–30.
Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S., 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life.
In: Pasmore and Woodman, ed. Research in organizational change and
development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp.129–169.
Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D.K. and Stavros, J.M., 2008. Appreciative inquiry
handbook: For leaders of change. San Francisco, CA: Crown Custom Pub.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A., 2007. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Dainty, A.R.J., Cheng, M. and Moore, D., 2005. Competency-Based Model for
Predicting Construction Project Managers’ Performance. ASCE, Journal of
Management in Engineering, 21(1), pp.2–9.
Dyer, W.G., 1987. Team building: issues and alternatives. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Dyer, W.G., Dyer, J.H. and Dyer, W.G., 2013. Team building proven strategies for
improving team performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H., 2001. Organization development : behavioral science
interventions for organization improvement. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice
Hall.
George, J.M., 1990. Personality, Affect, and Behavior in Groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(2), pp.107–116.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L., 2009. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C.S., Lyons, R. and Goodwin,
G.F., 2009. Does Team Building Work?. Small Group Research,40 ,pp.181-222
Miller, D.L., 2003. The Stages of Group Development: A Retrospective Study of
Dynamic Team Processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 20(2), pp.121–134.
Millhiser, W.P., Coen, C.A. and Solow, D., 2011. Understanding the Role of Worker
Interdependence in Team Selection. Organization Science, 22(3), pp.772–787.
Pavez, I., 2007. Desarrollo del recurso humano para apoyar la implementación de
‘Lean Construction’ : perfil de competencias y capacitación. Master of
Engineering Sciences. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Pavez, I., 2014. The P-ICIA: Using appreciative inquiry to create a strength-based
model of team development. (in press), Cleveland, OH: Weatherhead School of
Management, Case Western Reserve University.
Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B. and Driskell, J.E., 1999. The Effect of Team
Building on Performance An Integration. Small Group Research, 30(3), pp.309–
329.
Saldaña, J., 2012. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D., 1978. An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of
Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), pp.582–603.
Tuckman, B.W., 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 63(6), pp.384–399.
Whitney, D.K., Trosten-Bloom, A., Cherney, J. and Fry, R.E., 2004. Appreciative
team building: positive questions to bring out the best of your team. New York:
iUniverse,Inc.