Groups Meet . . . Teams Improve

Abstract

Although most business students participate in team-based projects during undergraduate or graduate course work, the team experience does notalways teach team skills or capture the team members’ potential: Students complete the task at hand but the explicit process of becoming a team is often not learned. Drawing from organizational learning and group/team theory, this article presents a “learning team model” that emphasizes feedback at the team—not individual—level of analysis by establishing a team feedback tool that can be easily and regularly used to improve performance. In addition to the feedback tool, a structured process is presented in which students learn to become a team.

Keywords

team learning team building active learning team feedback team process

I learned that it is actually possible to have a team full of college students

—Premed student in business school strategy class

Despite the increasing importance of team skills in a global workplace and the seeming ubiquity of team experiences in business school curriculums (Borredon, Deffayet, Backer, & Kolb, 2011; Ferrante, Green, & Forster, 2006; Goltz, Hietapelto, Reinsch, & Tyrell, 2008; Hansen, 2006; Kalliath & Laiken, 2006; Rothenberg, 2011; Stein & Hurd, 2000; Vik, 2001), research shows mixed results of these efforts in part because team competencies and skills remain undeveloped (Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004; Holmer, 2001). Fifteen years ago, O’Neil, Allerd, and Baker (1997) identified the need for improved team skill-building curricula including an integrated approach to both assess and teach team skills, yet current business students still underperform in group settings. Furthermore, recent research by Halfhill and Nielsen (2007) continues to highlight the challenges of teaching team skills in business schools.

In addition to the lack of a systematic approach to understanding and teaching team skills (Chen et al., 2004), the role of feedback at the group level has not been adequately explored (Barr & Conlon, 1994; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Kowlowski & Klein, 2000; London & Sessa, 2006) despite a plethora of research that establishes the fundamental relationship between individual level feedback and performance improvement (Locke & Latham, 1990; London, 2003). In 2006, London and Sessa proposed a “multilevel theory of how feedback operates in groups as a learning mechanism” (p. 303) expounding on the importance of understanding the relationship between team feedback and team performance. Performance improvement from team level feedback is consistent with organization learning theory which postulates that systematic feedback improves performance by providing the information necessary to improve functioning (Edmondson, 2008; Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008).

Our approach responds to this call by focusing attention on the group as a whole rather than on individual members and emphasizes consistent, structured team feedback as a mechanism to gauge team performance. This proposed shift from individual-level feedback to team-level feedback may be preferred by students for giving and receiving feedback (Friedman, Cox, & Maher, 2008) and as a result, serve as a more effective form of feedback (Ross, Zufan, & Rosenbloom, 2008).

As a result, a team-oriented feedback approach postulates that using structural—rather than individual—levers to engage members is both an effective and efficient way to improve team performance. Additionally, by using a team feedback tool, it creates a pedagogical framework and concrete learning tool to teach team skills.

A major contribution of this article is that it integrates organizational learning theory with team theory and proposes a learning team model and pedagogy to teach and apply team theory. Drawing on research from organization learning, feedback, groups and teams, the learning team model proposes that team skills can be taught by requiring student teams to regularly and systematically collect team feedback and assess team functioning after building a foundation based on a team charter. Team performance is improved when teams discuss the feedback, identify ineffective team behaviors, and take corrective actions to improve performance.

Furthermore, by defining teams as open problem-solving cultures (Garvin et al., 2008) who improve performance by creating productive norms and regular feedback loops, the learning team model overcomes one of the biggest challenges of teaching teams—the nebulous nature of the interactive team process. Team charters, team feedback, and formal team assessments are easily understood and quickly administered concrete tools that provide a strong foundation for understanding and improving performance.

We begin our article by briefly reviewing the literature on organizational learning and feedback that provides the foundation for the learning team approach. We then present the learning team model. In the second section, we discuss how to integrate the learning team model into a course with team-based projects. The final section of the article provides feedback from student outcomes and a discussion of theoretical and practical implications for continued research on student teams at work in university settings.

The Learning Team Approach

The learning team approach proposes that the processes and procedures that facilitate organizational learning can be generalized to team learning and provide an integrative organization learning framework to improve team performance and teach team-building skills. Because the overarching goal of the learning organization and the learning team is the same—to create an open problem-solving culture (Garvin et al., 2008) that results in high-qualitydecisions representing myriad viewpoints—it can be argued that tools used to develop a learning organization can be used to build learning teams as well. Adapting organization learning principles to the team level of analysis is supported by London and Sessa (2006) who note that group learning is intertwined with organizational learning. In particular, the inclusion of a feedback tool that requires participants to systematically assess, collect, and analyze performance data creates a “concrete learning mechanism,” for team members, one of the fundamental building blocks of the learning organization (Garvin et al., 2008).

Organizational learning theory postulates that systematic feedback improves performance by providing the information necessary to enhance functioning. Feedback, at its most basic level, is a reaction to an event (Senge, 1990) that provides an opportunity to observe performance, make corrections and, as a result, learn. Feedback “guides, motivates and reinforces effective behaviors and reduces or stops ineffective behaviors” (London, 2003, p. 1). It promotes the recognition of interaction patterns that either inhibit or encourage learning (Senge, 1990).

While the relationship between individual-level feedback and performance improvement is well established (Locke & Latham, 1990; London, 2003), the role of feedback at the group level has not been explored in much depth (Barr & Conlon, 1994; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Kowlowski & Klein, 2000; London & Sessa, 2006). Feedback at the individual level of analysis often consists of individual team members reviewing other members’ performance, which can have deleterious consequences and often lead to hurt feelings, anger, finger-pointing, and withdrawal (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000). The learning team approach focuses feedback at the team level of analysis and, as a result, reduces the focus on individual as the lever for change within teams. London and Sessa (2006) argue that this level of analysis is appropriate due to the shared objectives and interdependence that is present in group settings.

Recent research suggests that feedback can improve performance. Marks and Panzer (2004) empirically determined that intrateam feedback consisting of team members monitoring others’ performance may improve overall team performance. McLeod, Liker and Lobel (1992) also found that groups made small behavior changes after feedback. Feedback, therefore, is a prerequisite for team improvement. Although groups can change for a variety of reasons, without feedback they cannot learn (London & Sessa, 2006).

The Learning Team Model

The learning team approach provides a flexible and easy methodology that can be applied as a tool to any class that uses team projects. This approach is diagrammed in the figure below.

Figure 1.

Learning team model.

At its most basic definition, team process can be understood as the quality of interactions between team members (Rentsch & Klimoski, 2001). As soon as a group forms, it “acquires direction and momentum” (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000), and members begin interacting. The learning team model improves interactions by assessing “interaction” effectiveness as a means to improve team performance through a structured but simple team feedback process. As previously noted, feedback is an important component of the team learning process because it “allows the group to recognize the effects of its actions and choices and, if need be, to change those actions and choices over time to have a different effect” (London & Sessa, 2006, p. 306).

However, although the fundamental theoretical construct of this model is feedback, it alone is insufficient to improve performance. A team charter and a formal team assessment supplement team feedback to guide and enhance the learning process.

Team Charter

Groups that set goals and receive feedback on their goals have a greater chance to improve performance (Locke & Latham, 1990; London & Sessa, 2006; McLeod et al., 1992; Nadler, 1979). One tool that has been highly effective for students to set goals and learn about teams is a team charter (Cox & Bobrowski, 2000; Cox, Bobrowski, & Spector, 2004; see Hunsaker, Pavett, & Hunsaker, 2011 for review). As Hunsaker et al. (2011) suggest, a team charter creates a psychological contract among the team members “making explicit previously implicit reciprocal social obligations and emotional commitments” (p. 128). Thus, completing a team charter encourages team members to set goals and discuss how they will work together; it begins the discussion about expectations for participation and performance. Typical issues that are discussed in the charter process include expectations about responding to messages, attendance, participation, quality, and conflict. The team charter, a necessary first step to evolve from a group to a team, is inadequate unless supplemented by the feedback mechanism to assess effectiveness and compliance.

Team charters also help define the early norms of the culture. Regardless of charter development, norms will be established during this early phase—whether explicitly or implicitly—by the behavior and interactions of participants. The charter attempts to create productive, constructive norms that enhance team functioning.

Additionally, a team charter may serve as a mediator in identifying and addressing problems as they emerge. An easy conflict resolution tactic of simply stating “we talked about this in the charter and all agreed that . . .” is a neutral starting point to begin an otherwise awkward conversation. Likewise, team members can decide to develop new norms to ensure appropriate team functioning. Although the team charter sets the initial expectations for team members, it is only a first step and must be supported by the next step of team evolution, systematic feedback, to be effective.

Systematic Feedback

Feedback improves group performance for several reasons. In addition to regulating actions for goal attainment, it enhances team development, strengthens member interdependence, and facilitates the creation of shared mental models (London & Sessa, 2006; Senge, 1990).

Feedback enables a team to discuss what does and does not work; when a team acts on this knowledge, a team exhibits learning (Garvin et al., 2008). Learning occurs when feedback is systematic (Edmondson, 2008; Garvinet al., 2008). When team feedback becomes a team protocol—a regular and ongoing requirement of team functioning—team performance is enhanced by improving the quality of problem solving, the fundamental purpose of a team’s existence.

Teaching Learning Teams

In this section of the article, we will discuss the structured process that can be used to incorporate the learning team model into a course. An overview of the documents to be used can be found in Table 1. In addition, an annotated timeline for the learning team model is included in Appendix A.

Table 1.

Description of Documents Used in Class.

These documents are also available online at http://jme.sagepub.com/supplemental

Team Charter: Appendix B

This form is completed by the team to identify who is on the team, what skills each member brings to the team, and how the team will function as a team

Team Effectiveness Feedback—Appendix C (this form is completed after each team deliverable)

This form is completed by each team member giving feedback on the effectiveness of the team for a project deliverable

Once the team members complete the form, one member of the team then summarizes the data

The team should then meet and discuss their results and think about strategies to improve effectiveness

The next two forms are completed halfway through the semester

Formal Team Assessment Form—Appendix D

This form is completed by each team member giving feedback on the effectiveness of the team for a period of time

Once the team members complete the form, the team then summarizes the data using the Formal Team Summary Form—Appendix E

Formal Team Summary Form—Appendix E

Using the feedback collected in the Formal Team Assessment Form—Appendix D, the team then completes an overall team effectiveness assessment on their team process. The team members will assess the team’s strengths and weaknesses and then identify lessons learned so that they may discuss strategies to be more effective as a team in the second half of the semester

Team Charter

As discussed above, a Team Charter explicitly encourages teams to set goals and discuss how they will work together; it begins the discussion about expectations for participation and performance. Creating the team charter is one of the first team projects for the newly formed team members. Although parts of the team charter are somewhat generic such as goals, skills, and roles, many of the questions we included were based on years of experience watching groups struggle. Therefore, the charter specifically asks students to identify problems they have encountered in other groups and how these problems can be addressed. It also integrates the learning team model and builds in the expectation that students need to assess their functioning and make adjustments to improve team performance.

The team charter is completed by the entire team and initialed by each team member to indicate she or he is in agreement with the expectations delineated in the charter. The charter is submitted for grading to ensure it is completed and of sufficient quality to be meaningful. Grading is based on thoughtfulness of responses; it is quickly evident which teams take the charter assignment seriously and receive the full number of points possible and the teams who offer minimal responses and receive fewer points. See Appendix B for a sample of a Team Charter available at http://jme.sagepub.com/supplemental.

Team Effectiveness Feedback Form

The Team Effectiveness Feedback Form captures a rather universally observed “meeting-after-the-meeting” phenomenon that occurs when group participants rampantly discuss what just happened in a group setting as soon as they leave the room, ensuring nothing will be done to address their concern. By formalizing the process, we are bringing the “meeting-after-the-meeting” back into boundaries of the team, giving group members an opportunity to make adjustments to team functioning if necessary. This approach teaches team process skills in a rather painless fashion. The methodology is fortuitous since most analytically minded business students—and professionals—are loathe to give performance feedback to individual team members. Although part of this hesitation is because of their lack of skills and training, it is also because team members often do not want to hurt someone’s feelings or cause dissension within the group. By keeping feedback at the macro/team level, students can discuss what is—and is not—working in the group setting.

In a class with several projects, the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form is completed at the end of each project by each team member individually; results are collated and submitted with the project for grading. With one semester-long project, two midterm assessments are completed. The half-page questionnaire consists of “1-10” ratings on five items: content, quality, communication, participation, and overall effectiveness with an optional “what can we do to improve?” This questionnaire provides team members the opportunity to reflect on team functioning. The form takes about a minute to complete, and most teams become intrigued by the resulting analysis. A team summary Team Effectiveness Feedback is submitted and graded by the faculty member for a few points (e.g., 5 points) to ensure quality and compliance. See Appendix C for a sample of the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form available at http://jme.sagepub.com/supplemental.

Formal Team Assessment

Students complete a formal team assessment adopted from Schein (1988) to codify their feedback and help them understand how the behaviors they have identified enhance or hinder team performance. This assessment can be administered after several team assignments have been completed, or if there is only one assignment that is completed over the course of the semester, at the midpoint of the semester. The purpose of this assessment is to encourage students to better codify their team experience, and in doing so, better articulate what needs to change to improve.

Formal Team Assessment Form

The Formal Team Assessment Form is completed by each individual team member. The survey consists of 15 team attributes that each member assesses on a scale of 1 to 10. Furthermore, they are specifically asked to suggest ways the team can improve and how to adapt their team charter to improve team functioning. These data are then summarized on a Formal Team Summary, which is submitted for faculty review. The team also concretely identifies what the team needs to do differently to improve. Please see Appendix D for a sample of a Formal Team Assessment Form available at http://jme.sagepub.com/supplemental.

Formal Team Summary Form

The Formal Team Summary Form is completed as a team after each of the team members has completed the Formal Team Assessment Form (Appendix D). The intention of this form is to have the team formally assess the team process. The team completes this form, which provides feedback at the team level to determine the teams’ strengths and weaknesses. It requires the team to discuss the lessons they have learned and provides an opportunity to modify the team charter if necessary. The Formal Team Summary Form is submitted for grading for a small number of points (e.g., 10 points). See Appendix E for a sample of a Formal Team Summary Form available at http://jme.sagepub.com/supplemental.

Using the Learning Team Approach Within Different Class Settings

The Learning Team approach has been used in three different class settings at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, only one of which was a team-oriented class. It was originally developed for a 6-week online MBA class, “Managing Teams in a Global Environment.” After creating a detailed team charter, each team in this highly experiential online class analyzed five team-based cases which, in addition to the case analysis, required a brief team functioning assessment based on the Team Effectiveness Feedback forms. After the completion of each case, each team member completed the feedback form and submitted it to an online forum anonymously. This enabled team members to see collective ratings without knowing how individual team members perceived and rated team effectiveness. The forum was anonymous to encourage candor. Additionally at the end of 4 weeks, each team conducted the Formal Team Assessment Form and was asked to make adjustments to the team functioning based on the results of the team assessment and team feedback. Although each person’s individual response to the Team Effectiveness Feedback and Formal Team Assessment was anonymous, the team received the results as a whole and their discussion about team improvement could be followed on the team discussion forum.

The second class for which this approach was adapted was an honors-level class called “Managing Business Functions” that was designed for high-achieving nonbusiness undergraduates who were interested in business but wanted to major in premed, prelaw, or other areas within liberal arts. The focus of this class was to understand strategy, organizational alignment around strategy and the integration of marketing, finance, and operations to implement strategy. After a 6-week introduction to strategy, this class launched into a discussion of organization learning as a strategic enhancer and team development as a necessary construct of organization learning. Students then worked in teams to write their team charter and were assigned three cases to analyze from business and team perspectives. As in the team class, individual students completed the required Team Effectiveness Feedback Form at the end of each case although paper forms were used; although anonymity was encouraged, it was not guaranteed. Students also completed the Formal Team Assessment Form at the completion of the second case in which they identified changes in their team charter to improve team performance.

When grading the Formal Team Summary Form, it is easy to tell when teams are glossing over problems—especially when grades can be considered as quality check for output. By comparing the team assessment with team outcomes—grades on their case analysis—faculty can point out the inconsistency between overly high ratings and mediocre performance. However, other indicators are apparent as well. For example, when all team members rate each category a “10” and say they get along great, it can be viewed with suspicion since high-functioning teams do not develop that fast; a false harmony early on often indicates an inability to disagree with each other, a key component of a high-functioning team, or even groupthink. Additionally an individual team member may approach faculty to discuss team problems that are not identified in the team assessment including participation, personality, and quality issues. This behavior can be interpreted to mean that not only are team members not aware of problems but also that there is a lack of trust among team members to discuss issues since an individual approached faculty rather than the team itself. Thus, the faculty member has numerous opportunities to gently give them additional feedback or ask questions to probe their collective team wisdom, if necessary.

The third class applying the Learning Team approach was an undergraduate Organization Design and Change class. It is a required class for Management and Entrepreneurship majors in a large business school. This macro-level class would not ordinarily include team development in its content but organization learning is an important topic as a means to competitive advantage (Edmondson, 2008). As with the nonbusiness majors, the Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment forms were defined as “concrete learning mechanisms” for teams to enhance their performance, building on team research they have learned in their Organization Behavior classes. The same process was used for this class as the nonbusiness major class described above.

Additionally, the Learning Team approach is currently being used as the foundation for a Leadership, Team and Diversity Fall 2012 class required for Management and Entrepreneurship majors at a large business school.

One Team’s Story

A student team composed of geographically dispersed online MBA students included five members with “long-standing relationships” formed months before the team class began, since these members had taken several weeklong in-residence classes required by their MBA program. As a result of interacting face-to-face with each other prior to this class, they described themselves as highly cohesive at the onset. They created a team charter primarily to set ground rules and admitted that some charter items were tougher to agree on than others, such as when to schedule weekly team telephone planning calls and weekly deadlines for individual assignments to be completed. They acknowledged that although they did not frequently refer back to the charter and they

. . . didn’t discuss it specifically in meetings after it was drafted, the simple process of addressing some of the work issues ahead of time had value in setting norms, clearing up some ambiguities, and setting overarching team goals. (Student’s reflection in a required “How did you function as a team?” final course paper)

The team found the Team Effectiveness Feedback forms served as a

Good source of ideas for tweaks to our team operations. . . . Specific ideas were brought up that were incorporated into team processes. . . . It was suggested that a recurring agenda for our weekly meeting . . . be established to give some structure to our discussion. The idea was adopted, and had the desired effect. Later, a desire was expressed to discuss more class content, rather than simple logistics of completing assignments. As a result . . . we established an as-needed weekend call to discuss class content which enriched our team learning in the course . . . (Student’s reflection)

In the meantime, they had gotten an “A” or an “A−” on each of their first six team assignments.

In Week 4, the team was assigned the Mount Everest Team Simulation (Roberto & Edmondson, 2011) for their weekly project. The team was quite surprised and highly disappointed that they did not reach the summit. In the team debriefing that occurred as a result of the Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment process, they determined that the team cohesion which had served them so well during the formation of the charter may have

led to groupthink at certain points . . . as characterized by the Everest simulation where an arbitrary level of performance was suggested without considering feasibility. This ultimately led to the team failing to reach the summit. . . . Individuals would yield to the majority and fail to voice concerns and engage in sustained debate in order to maintain harmony. This could possibly be a function of the cohesion that was existent from the onset and individuals did not want to create discord going forward after the class had concluded. (Student’s reflection on team functioning assessment based on Team Feedback forms)

The team summarized their experience by stating that their team “spent a lot of time on the logistical side and [were] able to successfully navigate the projects, but we could have learned much more from each other with open debate about theory, implementation, and practical experience.” Finally, the team members realized the importance of “a devil’s advocate that will argue the other side of the issue . . . to allow the team to see the issue from multiple angles and allow us to better analyze the issues and projects presented to us.”

Through feedback this team was able to openly assess a team failure and come to an agreement about what had happened using theoretical team concepts—how group cohesion can lead to groupthink—and apply them to their team dynamics. If they remember nothing other than the importance of feedback to facilitate a frank conversation to diagnosis groupthink, and how cohesion can inhibit performance, they will have learned some of the most important tools for developing a learning team in the classroom—or in the workplace.

Student Learning Outcomes

Although various aspects of the learning team model have been used in many classes, the approach was codified in the fall of 2009 after a student government review of the authors’ undergraduate curriculum indicated that the “throw them in the water and see if they can swim” (Vik, 2001) approach to learning teams was ineffective. Since then, seven undergraduate business school classes and two online MBA classes have been introduced to the learning team model as a mechanism to improve team performance.

The first time the model was used, team performance improved, but students did not know why. They rated the question, “I think my team improved based on the project feedback we did after each case” a 7.01 on a 1 to 10 scale, whereas the question, “I am learning from the team approach” only received a 4.3. So although teams were improving, the students did not perceive that they were learning about teams in the process. A minor revision the next semester allowed scores to improve by explicitly linking team feedback process to team development. Specifically, the team development segment of the class was moved so that it followed the organization learning assignments. The Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment were then identified as examples of “concrete learning mechanisms” as defined by Garvin et al. (2008) in their organization learning research. As such, these concrete team learning mechanisms were defined as tools to create team learning and improve team performance.

Table 2 summarizes the mean scores and standard deviations for six undergraduate classes on two questions: “I think my team improved based on the team feedback after each case” and “I am learning from the team approach.”

Table 2.

Student Ratings by Class.

	Team Process Is Working Effectively		I Am Learning From the Team Process
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Class 1	7.26	2.30	7.59	2.13
Class 2	7.86	1.53	8.04	1.89
Class 3	7.68	1.97	8.44	1.84
Class 4	7.07	1.77	7.10	2.33
Class 5	8.09	1.47	7.96	1.89
Class 6	7.64	1.95	7.42	2.02
All classes	7.53	1.87	7.65	2.63

There was strong agreement that the team process was working effectively. The mean for the six classes was 7.53/10, with one class reporting a score of 8.09 and another class reporting a 7.07, indicating a range of success in different classes. Students were in slightly more agreement that they were learning from the team process. They rated this question an average of 7.65/10, with one class reporting a high of 8.44 and another class reporting a low score of 7.42 with the other four classes in between.

Additionally, two classes were asked if the emphasis on developing teams should be continued in a strategy-based class. Specifically the question read, “How important is developing the team concept to this class?” Survey results indicate that both classes were in strong agreement that the team emphasis was important with a mean of 7.95 out of 10 for the two classes although the standard deviation was considerably higher in one class indicating more disparity in the responses than the other class despite the nearly identical means. Please refer to Table 3 for the means and standard deviations of student ratings regarding team performance.

Table 3.

Student Ratings Regarding Team Process.

	Class 1 Mean	Class 1 SD	Class 2 Mean	Class 2 SD
How important is developing the team concept to this class (1 = not important, 10 = important)	7.95	1.50	7.96	2.01

Several comments are revealing. On a midterm course evaluation, a premed student who had the highest grade in a business school class rated the team process question a “4” (out of 10) and the “I am learning about teams” question a “3.” He wrote:

I am never a fan of team-based work because I always end up picking up other people’s slack . . . I find it really frustrating having to do other people’s work because I am busy enough as it is.

On the final course content evaluation he rated the question, “How important is developing the team in this class?” a “10” and commented:

I learned that it is actually possible to have a team full of college students. I was resistant to the team concept at first, but it has really grown on me because of the good experience in this class. I have learned a lot about myself and other team members as well.

Other comments on the end-of-the-semester course content evaluation that each individual student completes include:

I learned how to look at companies and teams differently. [I can] see team interactions better and also learned how to become an efficient and effective team member.

Another student commented:

I learned how to be part of a team—not a group.

In responding to “Lessons Learned from this team experience” question found on the required Final Team Summary that each team completes, one team wrote:

Group work is not just about meeting, putting the work together and turning it in. Collaboration, communication and criticism are all part of teamwork. It is about finishing your individual work as well as participating in criticizing another member’s work for a better paper overall. The little things such as finding time to meet are essential to the group’s work because it makes sure everyone is equally involved in completing the work. The social environment of the group needs to be friendly for if the group members do not get along, discrepancies will be observed in the final project.

On the same Team Summary Form another team commented:

It is an adjustment, especially for students that are used to facilitating all the group work in groups where other students are slacking, to be able to work as a team.

Finally, a comment from an MBA online team class formal course evaluation:

Thank you for an excellent course. Our team agreed that it was probably the most exciting course of all we had so far.

This student feedback suggests that the learning team model is indeed doing what it has set out to do—build teams to improve performance and learn.

Conclusion, Contributions, and Limitations

O’Neil et al. (1997, p. 24) identified the need for improved team skill-building curricula, “What remains largely undone is the development of methods to assess the necessary [team] skills that have been identified . . . the teaching of such skills . . . and the integration into the curriculum.” Nine years later, London and Sessa (2006) identified the need for a better understanding of the role of feedback and performance in groups. A major contribution of this article is that it addresses both these needs by offering a model of team learning that builds on a foundation of team feedback. We propose that teaching students how to be effective team leaders and participants can be achieved with a formal team feedback tool that is supplemented with a team charter and team functioning assessment. This approach not only improves team performance, it also teaches team “process” skills and team dynamics, concepts that are often considered vague to students and as a result, difficult to teach.

Although the Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment forms are easy to administer, we have found a few challenges with the process we would like to highlight. One caveat when using the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form and the Formal Team Assessment Form is rating inflation. Scores show a tendency for students to rate themselves fairly high (averages in the 8s and 9s) on the Feedback items—content, quality communication, participation, effectiveness—despite some significantly difficult team dynamics described in the team comments that are inconsistent with the high average for Team Feedback items. However, the scores themselves are less important than the discussion that occurs as a result of team members completing the forms individually and talking about them collectively. Therefore, it is important to encourage written comments along with the rating scales. Additionally students must be reminded several times that the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form must be turned in with the case or project assignment. Because they have never before been required to assess how they functioned as a team, this part of the assignment is easy to forget. Additionally there is an abundance of paper flowing among team members and between teams and faculty. This process can be greatly simplified by using electronic communication.

The learning team model presents a highly efficient team feedback tool that is neither time-consuming nor labor intensive, which are critical qualities since it must be used regularly to be effective. The Team Effectiveness Feedback Form enables student teams to quickly and easily collect data on team effectiveness. Having teams regularly assess their team-level performance on a few critical scales provides the team an opportunity to discuss what is working and not working in the group without pointing the finger or blaming certain members for either bad outcomes or problematic individual behaviors.

The simplicity of this model provides both a great strength and a weakness. That it can be added to an existing course to improve team functioning in a manner that is easy and not time-consuming makes it attractive. Depending on course objectives and time, team feedback can be coupled with a team charter to facilitate discussion around goals and ground rules as well as a formal team assessment for a more potent effect.

However, anyone who has worked in-depth with teams recognizes that this approach only scratches the surface. It does not create the psychological safety necessary to engender the risk taking and creative problem solving that can occur when a team has evolved to a high level of functioning. That being said, creating a charter and beginning to regularly assess performance with team feedback facilitates the building of trust and creates dialogue as team members capitalize on the availability of feedback and begin to make adjustments to the collective team behavior.

The model introduces two concrete steps any team can take to improve performance over the short term and build trust over the long term. However, as Katzenbach and Smith (2005) point out, team norms such as the team charter and team feedback must be mandatory and not occasional for them to be effective. What is interesting to notice is how quickly most student teams gravitate toward improvement when required to assess their performance although every year a couple of teams fail to adjust feedback despite problems and have subpar performance as a result.

Additionally, the flexibility of the model is important. At a minimum, basic team process components (charter, team feedback, and team assessment) can be added to an existing management course with project assignments to not only teach team skills but also help manage the team process itself when it goes awry, a not insignificant problem in business school teams.

A third advantage of this approach is its generalizability since it can be used in other classes and easily transferred to the workplace. In fact, the team feedback form was originally developed for the workplace in one of the author’s consulting practice. One of the best team development classroom techniques created by Michaelson (2009), provides an outstanding team development process but is limited in its lack of generalizability to the work setting. In Michaelson’s model, students take chapter quizzes individually and then as a team. The team quizzes are graded immediately, therefore providing teams with immediate feedback identifying the most valuable contributors. This process helps address the dominant—but often incorrect—team member at the expense of the more introverted participant who may have valuable information to contribute but does not get—or take—a chance to speak. As a result, more introverted members are encouraged to participate and engage in the team problem-solving process. Although Michaelson’s classroom methodology offers a critical team lesson to learn and improves classroom team functioning immensely, the quiz-reliant methodology does not readily transfer to the work setting.

Finally, more empirical research is needed to demonstrate the potency of team feedback on team performance and further testing of the learning team model. Additionally, an enhanced model of team effectiveness that incorporates readings on team dynamics, peer and self assessments, and both individual and group Myers–Briggs Type Indicator will add rigor to the model. But the foundation for team feedback has been theoretically demonstrated and the teaching of teams in business school will continue to increase as the workplace demands for these important skills grows. Although teaching team theory is important, this model of team learning aims to generate easy-to-use, rigorous application tools to build teams that learn so that students can not only improve team performance but also add an important tool to their managerial toolbox.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Denny Organ, Cindi Fukami, and two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and encouragement on this article. A workshop version of this article was presented at the 38th Annual Organization Behavior Teaching Conference 2011 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; feedback from session participants is also acknowledged.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arrow

McGrath

J. E.

Berdahl

J. L.

(2000). Small groups as complexsystems: Formation, coordination, development and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barr

S. H.

Conlon

E. J.

(1994). Effects of distribution of feedback in workgroups. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 641-655.

Borredon

Deffayet

Baker

A. C.

Kolb

(2011). Enhancing deep learning: Lessons from the introduction of learning teams in management education in France. Journal of Management Education, 35, 324-350.

Bunderson

J. S.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

(2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552-560.

Chen

Donahue

L. M.

Klimoski

R. J.

(2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 27-40.

Cox

P. L.

Bobrowski

P. E.

(2000). The team charter assignment: Improving the effectiveness of classroom teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 1, 92-103.

Cox

P. L.

Bobrowski

P. E.

Spector

(2004). Gateway to business: An innovative approach to integrating writing into the first-year business curriculum. Journal of Management Education, 28, 62-87.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 60-67.

Garvin

Edmondson

Gino

(2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, March, 3-10.

10.

Goltz

S. M.

Hietapelto

A. B.

Reinsch

R. W.

Tyrell

S. K.

(2008). Teaching teamwork and problem solving concurrently. Journal of Management Education, 32, 541-562.

11.

Falchikov

Goldfinch

(2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287-322.

12.

Ferrante

C. J.

Green

S. G.

Forster

W. R.

(2006). Getting more out of team projects:Incentivizing leadership to enhance performance. Journal of Management Education, 30, 788-797.

13.

Friedman

B. A.

Cox

P. L.

Maher

L. E.

(2008). An expectancy theory motivation approach to peer assessment. Journal of Management Education, 32, 580-612.

14.

Halfhill

T. R.

Nielsen

T. M.

(2007). Quantifying the “softer side” of management education: An example using teamwork competencies. Journal of Management Education, 31, 64-80.

15.

Hansen

R. S.

(2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestion for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 11-19.

16.

Holmer

L. L.

(2001). Will we teach leadership or skilled incompetence? The challenge of student project teams. Journal of Management Education, 25, 590-605.

17.

Hunsaker

Pavett

Hunsaker

(2011). Increasing student-learning team effectiveness with team charters. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 127-139.

18.

Kalliath

Laiken

(2006). Use of teams in management education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 747-750.

19.

Katzenbach

Smith

(2005). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1-11.

20.

Kowlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multi-level approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

Kowlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Locke

Latham

(1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

22.

London

(2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

London

Sessa

V. I.

(2006). Group feedback for continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 303-329.

24.

Marks

M. A.

Panzer

F. J.

(2004). The role of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Human Performance, 17, 25-41.

25.

McLeod

P. L.

Liker

J. K.

Lobel

(1992). Process feedback in task groups: An application of goal setting. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, 15-41.

26.

Michaelson

(2009, November). Team based learning. Presentation at the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) meeting, Bloomington, IN.

27.

Nadler

D. A.

(1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of the experimental research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 309-338.

28.

O’Neil

H. F.

Allerd

Baker

E. L.

(1997). Review of workplace readiness theoretical frameworks. In O’Neil

H. F.

(Ed.), Workforce readiness: Competencies and assessment (pp. 3-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

29.

Rentsch

J. R.

Klimoski

R. J.

(2001). Why do great minds’ think alike? Antecedents of team members schema agreement. Journal of Organization Behavior, 22, 107-120.

30.

Roberto

M. A.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2011). Leadership and team simulation II. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

31.

Ross

D. N.

Zufan

Rosenbloom

(2008). Experiences from cross-institutional exchanges of undergraduate business student written cases. Journal of Management Education, 32, 444-475.

32.

Rothenberg

(2011, June). Measuring up: How does your project team approach compare to best practices from applied research? Paper presented at the 38th Annual Organization Behavior Teaching Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

33.

Senge

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.

34.

Schein

E. H.

(1988). Process consultation: Vol. 1. Its role in organization development. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

35.

Stein

Hurd

(2000). Using student teams in the classroom: A faculty guide. Bolton, MA: Anker.

36.

Vik

(2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 112-119.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB