Team Learning in Multiteam Systems: A Systematic Review of the External Team Learning Literature and Recommendations for Future Research

Nathanael L. Keiser & Alexandria N. Wentworth

Human Resource Development Review2026https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251410381article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This article follows calls in the HRD literature to support multiteam system (MTS) learning. The objective of this article is to review the literature on external team learning (i.e., learning outside teams) to provide insight about team learning in MTSs and associated recommendations for future research. A review of 51 studies (42 quantitative, 10 qualitative) from 42 papers is guided by fundamental questions about how to enact external team learning (i.e., what, who, and when) and how to ensure a psychologically safe environment to foster that learning. The primary impact of this review is to the scholarly literature on external team learning and MTSs by identifying considerable overlap between these topics and nuances about each that have yet to be sufficiently assessed. The findings from this review provide the basis for nine recommendations for future research on theory, methods, and practical applications of external team learning.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251410381

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{nathanael2026,
  title        = {{Team Learning in Multiteam Systems: A Systematic Review of the External Team Learning Literature and Recommendations for Future Research}},
  author       = {Nathanael L. Keiser & Alexandria N. Wentworth},
  journal      = {Human Resource Development Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251410381},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Team Learning in Multiteam Systems: A Systematic Review of the External Team Learning Literature and Recommendations for Future Research

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.