The Use of Influence Tactics and Outcome Valence on Goal Commitment for Assigned Student Team Projects

Abstract

Project teams are a mainstay in both organizations and business schools. Despite their popularity, instructors and students often express dissatisfaction regarding assigned student team projects. In this article, we examine the effects of influence tactics available to instructors (collaborative assistance and rational persuasion) and individual student outcome valence on goal commitment for assigned team projects. Data were collected from upper-division students majoring in business administration at a large public university to examine the roles that instructors and students alike can play in increasing individual student commitment for assigned team projects. Results indicate that both instructor collaborative assistance and rational persuasion are related to individual student value placed on assigned team projects and also that this value affects overall project goal commitment. We suggest these results provide insights to assist instructors and students for increasing overall levels of student goal commitment in assigned team projects.

Keywords

student team projects influence tactics outcome valence goal commitment

Introduction

Given the ubiquitous nature of project teams in organizations (Garrison, Wakefield, Xu, & Kim, 2010; Klein, Knight, Ziegert, Lim, & Saltz, 2011), employers frequently designate teamwork skill as an essential attribute among college graduates (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000). Furthermore, Johnson (1989) emphasizes how an individual’s performance in a team context potentially affects employability, productivity, and career success. A high prevalence of teams in organizational settings and growing popularity of team assignments in university curricula (Rafferty, 2013; Sashittal, Jassawalla, & Markulis, 2011) argue for greater identification of factors that instigate project team success (Pang, Tong, & Wong, 2011) and to determine, in general, if team projects do indeed increase student learning (Bacon, 2005). Despite the popularity of assigned team projects, instructors and students alike often report dissatisfaction regarding results for these undertakings (Hansen, 2006; Lindholm, Szelenyi, Hurtado, & Korn, 2005). Consequently, we posit that academic institutions must increase research efforts to better understand the individual student experience in teams and determine pertinent instructor roles in the student project team context.

In this article, we build on existing literature describing instructor and student roles for assigned team projects. We draw on organizational behavior theory to construct a hypothesized framework based on goal-setting theory, influence tactics, and expectancy theory. Specifically, we develop a conceptual model to test constructs drawn from these theoretical areas to assess a potential way to increase individual student goal commitment toward assigned team projects.

We suggest that the importance of our work and contributions to the literature are twofold. First, we offer a combination of influence tactics and expectancy theory by testing collaborative assistance, a recently developed influence tactic (Yukl, Chavez, & Seifert, 2005; Yukl, Seifert, & Chavez, 2008), and rational persuasion, a widely accepted influence tactic (Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993), with outcome valence (Vroom, 1964) to determine their potential effects on goal commitment. Second, we examine how instructor-centric factors (influence tactics) and an individual student-centric factor (outcome valence) may improve individual student’s commitment toward assigned team projects. Given these potential contributions, the research question for this study is the following:

Research Question: How do instructor-centric influence tactics of collaborative assistance and rational persuasion affect individual student-centric outcome valence and goal commitment toward assigned team projects?

The remainder of this article includes a literature review of project teams, construct elaboration and hypotheses development, statistical methods testing, review of findings, discussion of results and implications, identification of limitations, and consideration of future research areas.

Background on Student Project Teams

Business schools increasingly assign student team projects (Hannay, 2014; Pang et al., 2011; Rafferty, 2013), perhaps in response to Standard 10 from the Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation from AACSB, which states, “For any teaching/learning model employed, students have opportunities to work together on some learning tasks and learn from each other” (AACSB, 2015, p. 33). Team learning in the classroom is accepted by many and valued as an effective teaching tool in developing students’ interpersonal skills and abilities (Jacobs, 2014; Lee & Lim, 2012). Benefits cited include collaboration, problem solving, improved communication skills, appreciation of others’ points of view, increased self-esteem, obtaining real-world knowledge, and discovering theoretical course material (Fellenz, 2006; Schultz, Wilson, & Hess, 2010).

The benefits of assigned team projects also extend beyond the direct student recipients. Team projects can enhance instructors’ productivity and time management by reducing number of assignments and by the efficiency of meeting with the entire team (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Williams, Beard, & Rymer, 1991). Furthermore, external student team projects can produce tangible accomplishments that benefit clients or society, generate income, and contribute to the school’s reputation for community involvement and business engagement (Henson, 2010; Laureani, Brady, & Antony, 2013).

Reviewing the literature, Chapman and Van Auken (2001) found that instructors play a large role in influencing student attitudes and perceived benefits of working in a team setting. Ädel (2011) refers to this as the “interactional function” of instructors. Also, McKay-Nesbitt and Zdravkovic (2013) determined that high levels of instructor involvement with client-sponsored projects resulted in students’ acceptance of such projects as effective learning methods. Additionally, Maloni, Dembla, and Swaim (2012) found that top management support, a proxy for instructor support, contributed to team success for a cross-functional IT capstone project.

Despite these potential benefits, team projects do not always lead to increased student learning, motivation, and performance (Kunkel & Shafer, 1997; Phipps, Phipps, Kask, & Higgins, 2001). To this point, Jehn and Mannix (2001) cite student project team liabilities in the development of social pressure to comply (i.e., groupthink) and excessive intrateam conflict. Students often report difficulty in giving feedback to project team members (McKeachie, 1994), dealing with cultural diversity issues (Masterson, Christophel, & Zitzmann, 1994), having a desire to be graded independently (Barfield, 2003), and experiencing dissatisfaction with instructors who fail to communicate the importance of assigned projects (Appleton-Knapp & Krentler, 2006). Tellingly, more than half of surveyed faculty use some type of cooperative learning, yet only slightly more than one third of faculty agree that students are prepared to complete such classroom assignments (Lindholm et al., 2005). These divergent results suggest that further understanding of the role that instructors can play in increasing positive outcomes for assigned student team projects is needed. More specifically, identification of the antecedents that lead to sufficient levels of commitment is critical.

Stogdill (1959) argued that individuals in a team context reflect both unifying and dividing capabilities. Consequently, discounting or even dismissing individual student expectations can disrupt team outcomes when such expectations are misaligned with team goals, leading to a “self versus team” condition (Watson, Johnson, & Merritt, 1998). Therefore, a critical consideration for instructors is how they provide assistance and information to student teams, evidenced by mismatches between teachers’ expectations of students’ performance and students’ perceptions of their own achievements (Koh, Wang, Tan, Liu, & Ee, 2009). Instructors must understand the factors leading to successful development of student teams (Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy, & Ramsey, 2002), including identifying clear goals and providing adequate assistance (Connerley & Mael, 2001). Consequently, degrees of advanced planning before assigning a team project, as well as involvement with students at the appropriate level, can play a major role in overcoming the major challenges related to individual student’s goal commitment.

Prior studies have identified a number of antecedents used to predict team project success including project scope, stages of team development, cohesiveness, homogeneity, team size, project time, perceived workload, and degrees of social loafing (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). In terms of instructor-centric factors, Bacon, Stewart, and Silver (1999) investigated the relationship of clear instructor directions and team performance, while Choi and Ro (2012) examined the relationship of instructional factors (e.g., project appropriateness, instructor support, and evaluation fairness) on students’ attitudes toward team projects. Our investigation adds to the list of antecedents related to student project team success by developing an empirically and organizationally behavior-based model designed to examine underlying psychological underpinnings of both instructors and students. As such, it represents a response to the calls to action for further studies to assess the efficacy of student team projects (Bacon, 2005; Delucchi, 2006; Lightner, Bober, & Willi, 2007; Tonn & Milledge, 2002). Consequently, our purpose for this research is to develop and empirically test the aforementioned model to determine how instructor and student-centric factors affect goal commitment for assigned student projects.

We now continue our investigation regarding antecedents toward goal commitment for assigned student team projects. Specifically, we construct a conceptual model (see Figure 1) based on goal-setting theory, influence tactics, and expectancy theory to determine potential effects on individual student’s goal commitment for assigned team projects. We use the individual student working in a team for an assigned project as our unit of analysis.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Construct Elaboration and Hypotheses Development

The model constructs include goal commitment, collaborative assistance, rational persuasion, and outcome valence. Goal commitment was selected as our model dependent variable because it can be directly measured as a perceived antecedent to project performance/successful outcome. Collaborative assistance and rational persuasion, the two instructor-centric exogenous influence tactics, represent a potential synergistic way for instructors to exercise their interpersonal impact on goal commitment and outcome valence, respectively. Outcome variance was added because it represents the student’s perspective on the worthiness of the assigned project.

Face validity for the proposed constructs and their relationships proposed in the research model was established using multiple methods. First, the proposed study, as well as its components, was presented to a cohort of doctoral students for feedback and improvement. Second, management colleagues grounded in organizational behavior theory, research, and pedagogy reviewed the proposed study and verified the survey items. And third, a working paper version of the research was shared at an international management conference, providing the opportunity for both reviewer and audience feedback.

Based on theoretical and subsequent empirical support from the literature, our model proposes that collaborative assistance and outcome valence are both positively related to goal commitment, and that rational persuasion is positively related to outcome valence. We next develop construct definitions (see Table 1) and propose associated research hypotheses.

Table 1.

Research Constructs.

Construct	Definition	References
Collaborative assistance	Individual facilitating and enabling commitment to assigned tasks by providing relevant resources or removing obstacles	Yukl et al. (2005)
Rational persuasion	Individual showing how a request or proposal is feasible by using explanations, logical arguments, and factual evidence	Yukl et al. (2005)
Outcome valence	Belief that is developed and maintained where an individual believes that a valued outcome will lead to satisfaction	Locke, Motowidlo, and Bobko (1986)
Goal commitment	An individual’s internal agreement with a proposed action and decision that is often accompanied by enthusiasm and/or persistence, even when confronted by barriers	Locke (1968); Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979); Falbe and Yukl (1992); Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert (1996)

Construct Elaboration

Goal commitment, rooted in goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968), reflects an individual’s internal agreement with a proposed action and decision and is accompanied by enthusiasm and persistence (Falbe & Yukl, 1992), even when confronted with barriers (Becker et al., 1996; Mowday et al., 1979). Commitment may be of such a high degree that there is an unwillingness to lower or abandon the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). The positive impact of goal commitment on team project performance is well documented (e.g., Deeter-Schmelz et al., 2002; Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004; Werner & Lester, 2001) and, as such, is a prevailing precursor to desirable project outcomes. Contrastingly, goal commitment can also be detrimental in the presence of excessive groupthink and de-individualization, characterized by social isolation and diminished contributions by team members, which can actually reduce levels of goal commitment (Hardy, Eys, & Carron, 2005).

As discussed in the next sections, goal commitment is frequently operationalized by the efforts of individuals, most specifically in the case of influence tactics. We maintain that the value placed on a goal affects one’s level of commitment. Consequently, it is useful to review influence in general and examine specific influence tactics believed to strengthen subsequent goal commitment.

Goffman (1955) posited that individuals thoughtfully consider the impressions they create and transmit when interacting with others. This belief helped establish influence as a means of achieving favorable results in organizations beginning in the late 20th century. Borrowing from theories of power, leadership, motivation, and conflict (Mowday, 1978; Perreault & Miles, 1978), influence represents actions that people initiate to modify attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of target individuals (Kipnis, 1984).

The first influence tactic under consideration, collaboration, renamed collaborative assistance in the present study to operationalize it in an instructor to student context, is characterized by an individual facilitating and enabling commitment to assigned tasks by providing relevant resources or removing obstacles (Yukl et al., 2005). Collaborative assistance is rooted in both expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). An example of collaborative assistance is a supervisor showing a subordinate how to perform a task or reducing the subordinate’s work load to provide sufficient time to complete a new task.

The second influence tactic in this study, rational persuasion, is the most frequently applied and extensively studied influence tactic in management literature, alone and in conjunction with other tactics (Gattiker & Carter, 2010; Yukl et al., 1993). It is operationalized by an influencer offering explanations, logical arguments, and factual evidence to show how a request or proposal is feasible and relevant in achieving task objectives (Yukl et al., 2005). Examples of rational persuasion include initiating change of behavior and influencing superiors (Schilit & Locke, 1982; Yukl, Guinan, & Soitolano, 1995).

The final construct, outcome valence, is part of the expectancy theory triad (Vroom, 1964). According to expectancy theory, force toward a selected course of action is determined by investigating effort–performance expectancy (belief that a certain level of effort leads to a certain performance level), instrumentality (belief that a certain performance level leads to other valued outcomes), and outcome valence (belief that valued outcomes leads to anticipated satisfaction; Locke et al., 1986). The use of outcome valence as a separate construct is supported by Vroom’s valence model (Vroom, 1964), which captured perceived attractiveness (valence) by aggregating indicators in a latent construct (Campbell & Niles, 2006), as well as Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) who measured outcome valence as a separate expectancy theory factor, rather than as part of an expectancy–instrumentality–valence multiplicative triad.

Hypotheses Development

Collaborative assistance and rational persuasion, two influence tactics from the Influence Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ-G), a popular taxonomy (Yukl et al., 2008), have been shown to produce favorable effects, working both alone and together, on goal commitment (Yukl et al., 2005). The combined effects of these two variables reflect favorably on Case, Dosier, Murkison, and Keys’ (1993) findings that a group of tactics produce more desirable outcomes than a single tactic. Relying on such past research, it seems feasible that collaborative assistance and rational persuasion could represent two instructor-centric influence tactics that affect students’ commitment for assigned team projects.

Results have generally been favorable regarding the effects of collaborative assistance toward goal commitment. Kahn (1996) found a strong relationship between collaborative assistance and new product development performance. Also, Kochanowski, Seifert, and Yukl (2010) identified positive effects for collaborative assistance as an effective feedback intervention method at coaching workshops. Furthermore, Ohbuchi and Suzuki (2003) indicated that compared with other strategies, collaborative assistance was more effective in achieving employees’ diverse goals.

From a classroom perspective, Bruffee (1999) describes how collaborative learning increases motivation and promotes critical thinking, while Bacon (2005) presents the “collaborative learning tradition” as a context for collaborative assistance. Ädel (2011) comments on the increasing prominence of collaboration in contemporary academic settings, yet Nguyen (2007) cautions that any sort of rapport building such as collaborative assistance must be balanced with instructional tasks. In an academic teamwork survey, Oakley, Hanna, Kuzmyn, and Felder (2007) found that instructor collaborative guidance was instrumental in students reaching course learning objectives. Given this support from past research, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Instructor collaborative assistance will be positively related to individual student goal commitment toward assigned team projects.

The effective use of rational persuasion appears in all organizational status levels (superiors, peers, and subordinates; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980), in transformational leadership (Charbonneau, 2004), for environmental projects (Gattiker & Carter, 2010), and in managers’ influence on subordinates (Yukl et al., 1995; Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Adding to the role of rational persuasion toward goal commitment, Yukl, Kim, and Chavez (1999) demonstrate how a target individual’s perception of outcome valence (issue importance), as related to rational persuasion, serves as a mediator toward goal commitment. Consequently, as related to our research model, we follow expectancy theory and position outcome valence as a potential mediating construct for rational persuasion toward goal commitment.

In terms of the literature, Barbuto (2005) hypothesized and found support that rational persuasion, as part of transformational leadership, was related to outcome valence in the form of internal motivation. Also, Barbuto, Fritz, and Marx (2002) determined that rational persuasion increases high levels of importance toward predisposition for action. Given this research and theoretical support for rational persuasion as an influence tactic and outcome valence as a separate expectancy theory construct that may strengthen the effects of rational persuasion, it follows that the following relationship may be predicted:

Hypothesis 2: Instructor rational persuasion will be positively related to individual student outcome valence as related to assigned team projects.

Many students find value in assigned team projects and view effective teaching practices as a means of increasing confidence and overall favorable attitude toward such projects (Colbeck, Cabrera, & Terenzini, 2001; Gottschall & Garcia-Bayonas, 2008). Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, and Alge (1999) posited that without sufficient outcome valence, goal commitment is not likely. Multiple studies have shown significant relationships between outcome valence and goal acceptance/commitment (De Clercq, Menzies, Diochon, & Gasse, 2009; Mento, Cartledge, & Locke, 1980; Nasri & Charfeddine, 2012).

Specifically in the classroom, student outcome valence has been used as a predictor for team member ratings for project performance (Chen & Lou, 2004; Friedman, Cox, & Maher, 2008). Furthermore, van Dick, Tissington, and Hertel (2009) as well as Borrego, Karlin, McNair, and Beddoes (2013) found that increased levels of student outcome valence resulted in lower levels of student loafing for assigned team projects. Reflecting on the research efforts connecting outcome valence and goal commitment, we maintain the same relationships should hold true for the processes associated with individual student commitment for assigned team projects. Thus, the final hypothesis predicts:

Hypothesis 3: Individual student outcome valence will be positively related to student goal commitment toward assigned team projects.

Procedures, Method, and Results

The study approach is based in action learning and relies on Martineau and Hannum (2004, p. 9) who refer to action learning as a “collaborative inquiry process in which participants work and reflect on real problems with learning partners, producing a tangible outcome while at the same time learning from the experience.” Action learning represents a powerful backdrop based on potential increased levels of satisfaction for instructors and students. Also, it provides a path forward for instructors to revise pedagogical designs and practices when assigning student team projects.

Study participants were selected based on the rationale that business students of junior or senior standing typically have team project experience (Volkema, 2010). Consequently, surveys were electronically delivered to upper division business administration students enrolled in five sections for two required courses, Management and Behavioral Science and Operations Management, at a public southeastern U.S. university. To determine eligibility, it was verified that prospects had experience with assigned team projects during their college studies. This eligibility was established by student responses of “occasionally,” “moderately,” “often,” or “very frequently” to the question, “To what extent have you worked on assigned student team projects?” Once qualified, students were provided with questionnaires containing items from the four constructs under evaluation. Participant demographic information is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Respondents’ Demographic Data.

Extent worked on assigned team project
Occasionally	5.3%
Moderately	12.8%
Often	44.5%
Very frequently	37.4%
Age (years)
17-19	0.4%
20-22	36.1%
23-25	26.4%
26-28	7.5%
29-31	12.3%
>32	17.6%
Gender
Male	43.6%
Female	56.4%
Ethnicity
Caucasian	60.4%
African American	9.3%
Hispanic	8.4%
Middle Eastern	8.8%
Asian	1.3%
Other	11.8%

To minimize common methods variance issues associated with self-report/single time-frame answers, to increase construct discriminant validity (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), and to reduce the effects of survey question order priming (Strack, 1992), data were collected electronically using a staggered schedule (e.g., using time₁ and time₂ approaches). At time₁, participants answered questions related to the goal commitment and provided their demographic information. One week later at time₂, they answered questions related to collaborative assistance, rational persuasion, and outcome variance. This procedure enabled respondents to provide responses concerning goal commitment without being instigated or “primed” to think about any potential antecedents to this construct.

Survey items using a 7-point scale were developed from existing research scales to obtain answers based on individual student perceptions of their experiences on assigned team projects. Six items were used to measure goal commitment (Earley, 1985; Earley & Kanfer, 1985; Mowday et al., 1979). An example was “I am willing to put in more effort than normal to make my team projects successful.” Collaborative assistance was measured using seven items taken from Yukl et al. (2005, 2008), illustrated by “My instructor is willing to meet with me outside of normal classroom or office hours.” Seven items were used for rational persuasion (Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl et al., 2008). An example was “My instructor explains why participating on team projects is a valuable experience.” Finally, six items measured outcome variance (Chen, Gupta, & Hoshower, 2006; Oliver, 1974; Renko, Kroeck, & Bullough, 2012). An example of these scales was “It’s worthwhile to spend time working on team projects.”

Covariance-based structural equation modeling was used to examine model fit and evaluate the hypothesized effects of collaborative assistance, rational persuasion, and outcome valence. Also, control variables were investigated for possible study effects. Power analysis calculation for this study yielded a minimum sample size of 155 based on three independent variables in the research model, a significance level of .05, an a priori desired power level of .95, and a small estimated effect size of .10 (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Two hundred and thirty-seven responses were examined for missing data, completeness, and outliers, and the final sample size used for the study was 197.

A reliability analysis was then run to assess the consistency of items used in the entire scale. Cronbach’s alpha scores, while initially exceeding the minimal standard of .70 (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991), were improved by deleting four of five reverse-coded questions with low factor loadings (one item each for collaborative assistance and rational persuasion, and three for goal commitment indicators). Support for removing these items is provided by Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma (2003) and Swain, Weathers, and Niedrich (2008), who suggest that such items can produce unexpected factor loadings or negative wording misinterpretation. Final alpha scores were .85 for collaborative assistance, .93 for rational persuasion, .91 for outcome valence, and .77 for goal commitment. No significant multicollinearity across factors was detected as tolerances ranged from .60 to .78, and variance inflation factors ranged from 1.29 to 1.67, well within acceptable guidelines (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010; see Table 3).

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	Tol	VIF
1. Collaborative assistance	5.15	1.02				.62	1.61
2. Rational persuasion	4.89	1.33	.57**			.60	1.67
3. Outcome valence	4.66	1.39	.46**	.48**		.62	1.61
4. Goal commitment	5.78	0.88	.21**	.32**	.46**	.78	1.29

Note. Tol = tolerance; VIF = variance inflation factor.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Analysis of the measurement and structural models was performed in IBM PASW (SPSS) Statistics and AMOS. Regarding the confirmatory factor analysis (see Table 4), construct and convergent validity was established by all construct factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) falling into acceptable ranges (standardized loading estimates .5 or higher and ideally .7 or higher, AVE .5 or greater; Hair et al., 2010). Also, construct reliability exceeded .77 for all constructs, and discriminant validity was demonstrated since AVEs were larger than the corresponding squared interconstruct correlation estimates, ranging from .05 to .42 for all construct pairs. The overall confirmatory factor analysis fit indices demonstrated a strong match between the data and model: χ²/df = 2.07 (p = .000, χ² = 387.09, df = 187), comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.93, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.074.

Table 4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Construct	Item		Factor loading	Cronbach alpha	AVE
Collaborative assistance	C1	When I have difficulties working on team projects, my instructor offers to help.	.80	.85	0.52
	C2	My instructor offers to provide assistance in analyzing problems related to my team project.	.80
	C3R	My instructor is NOT available to answer questions about the intent of team projects.	Removed during CFA
	C4	My instructor offers to provide resources to help me complete team project tasks.	.70
	C5	My instructor offers to help me deal with an uncooperative team member	.62
	C6	If I need hands-on help, my instructor is willing to show me how to complete a project task.	.77
	C7	My instructor is willing to meet with me outside of normal classroom or office hours.	.61
Rational persuasion	RP1	My instructor explains why participating on team projects is a valuable experience.	.86	.93	.71
	RP2	When working on team projects, my instructor clearly explains how classroom projects can benefit me in the future.	.92
	RP3	To show how teams can accomplish project outcomes better than individuals, my instructor provides justification.	.89
	RP4	My instructor presents facts that convince me about the benefits of working on team projects.	.85
	RP5	My instructor uses business examples to show the value of working on team projects.	.77
	RP6R	My instructor DOES NOT provide information to show that a team approach for working on projects is better than working as an individual.	Removed during CFA
	RP7	To make a case for team projects, my instructor presents logical arguments.	.77
Outcome valence	OV1	The benefits of working on team projects are worth the effort.	.88	.91	.64
	OV2	Working on team projects is an important activity.	.91
	OV3	It’s worthwhile to spend time working on team projects.	.87
	OV4	My non-team member classmates benefit from the outcomes of my team projects.	.65
	OV5R	Working on team projects is a waste of my time.	.77
	OV6	The benefits obtained from the final results of team projects exceed the time I spend working on the project.	.66
Goal commitment	GC1	I really care about doing a good job when working on team projects.	.81	.77	.56
	GC2	I am willing to put in more effort than normal to make my team projects successful.	.82
	GC3R	There’s not really that much to be gained by working on team projects.	Removed during CFA
	GC4	I am committed to doing all I can so my project team reaches its goals.	.60
	GC5R	It is unrealistic for my team members to expect me to devote extra time to reach project goals.	Removed during CFA
	GC6	My personal philosophy is to do “whatever it takes” when it comes to making team projects successful.	Removed during CFA

All fit indices for the proposed structural model remained acceptable as χ²/df = 2.01 (p = .000, χ² = 372.24, df = 185), CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, and RMSEA = 0.072. Regression weights for the rational persuasion → valence and valence → goal commitment path displayed statistical significance stronger than .01, thereby providing support for Hypotheses 2 and 3 (see Figure 2). The expected collaborative assistance → goal commitment path representing Hypothesis 1 was not significant. However, post hoc analysis did reveal a significant relationship between collaborative assistance and outcome valence at p < .01, regression weight 0.30, suggesting a mediating role of outcome valence for the influence of collaborative assistance on goal commitment.

Figure 2.

Structural model: Results of hypotheses testing.

In addition to the data collected related to the hypotheses in the conceptual model, demographic data were also gathered from students regarding their experience working on assigned team projects, ethnicity, age, and gender. A significant correlation was found for ethnicity and outcome valence (.18 at p < .01) as well as age and goal commitment (.20 at p < .01). These relationships were substantiated by adding the control variables to the structural model (see Figure 3). Significant path coefficients were found for ethnicity and outcome valence (.16, p < .05) and for age and goal commitment (.22, p < .01). Adding the four control variables marginally affected the outcomes for the three hypothesized relationships. Also, fit indices for structural model changed slightly as χ²/df = 1.88 (p = .000, χ² = 474.44, df = 253), CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, and RMSEA = 0.067.

Figure 3.

Structural model: Results of adding control variable.

Discussion and Implications

The study results confirm the prediction that instructor support for assigned student team projects does make a difference. Given our research question, the hypotheses results and the post hoc analysis indicate that collaborative assistance, rational persuasion, and outcome valence are instrumental in enhancing individual student levels of goal commitment for team projects. As such, our findings support the notion of goal-setting theory, influence tactics, and expectancy theory working together to generate insights for assigned student team projects and thus create a conceptual framework to better understand how instructors may help increase individual student goal commitment.

Hypothesis 1: Collaborative Assistance—Goal Commitment

Collaborative assistance, as contrasted with any other dynamic team category, is viewed as having the greatest potential to determine levels of team performance (Streiner, Deibler, Besterfield-Sacre, & Shuman, 2010). Yet, surprisingly, there was lack of support for the collaborative assistance hypothesis in our study (Hypothesis 1), suggesting that instructor active involvement (e.g., helpfulness, offering suggestions) does not directly influence individual student goal commitment. However, post hoc analysis indicates that collaborative assistance can influence goal commitment, but only indirectly and in the presence of outcome valence as a mediator.

A possibility for the lack of support for the collaborative assistance → goal commitment path may be that many students do not directly desire the active involvement of instructors in their assigned projects. This condition could apply to both younger and older students. Younger students might prefer to work with their teammates on projects and desire to “figure things out on their own.” To this point, Bennett, Pitt, and Price (2012) indicate that millennials (born as recently as the late 1990s) are inclined to seek out autonomy. Nearly two thirds of student respondents for this study were 25 years of age or younger and fall into this category. Also, 18% of respondents were 32 years or older and approximately 30% were 29 years or older. It is possible that this older age group may not require much or even any collaborative assistance from instructors. To this point, Rafferty (2013) suggests the preference of part-time MBA students for autonomy and learning from each other in a form of cooperative learning, especially when instructors are not perceived as effective in offering assistance.

Regarding the post hoc findings, we propose that when students believe their instructors are willing to offer collaborative assistance for a project, it sends a message that this project is valuable, thus raising student outcome valence levels and consequently increasing goal commitment. Instructors play a role in monitoring team performance and providing assistance and feedback to assess students’ interpersonal and team skills (Choi & Ro, 2012; Johnson & Johnson, 1999). As part of this monitoring role, it seems plausible for educators to collaborate with students through facilitation (contributing structure and resources) and mentoring (supplying instructions and suggestions; King & Behnke, 2005; Tideswell, 2005). Supporting this idea, Coker and Davies (2006) state that there is no replacement for hands-on training before a project commences.

Hypothesis 2: Rational Persuasion—Outcome Valence

Our Hypothesis 2 results confirm that logical and persuasively created messages play a role in increasing individual student’s outcome valence for assigned team projects. In the classroom, instructors can demonstrate rational persuasion by discussing the benefits of working as a team (Chapman & Van Auken, 2001) as well as describing the significance of connecting classroom project activities with career aspirations. Also, educators can increase overall effectiveness by explaining theory, background, and context for student team projects (Coker & Davies, 2006). Consequently, it behooves instructors to determine classroom project learning objectives and to assess students’ pre-project valence levels. The latter can be accomplished through classroom discussions or by administering a short anonymous survey. The primary requirement of these activities is the instructor’s willingness to understand students’ current views of the value of team projects and then emphasizing the direct value of such projects for students’ future careers. These methods strengthen instructors’ roles as sources of rational information while enriching student perceptions of the applicability of classroom projects to real-world business practices.

Although not measured in this study, the influences of subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991) on outcome valence within the classroom can be complex as value perceptions are set in accordance with ideals and beliefs established by different resources (e.g., classmates, other instructors, work colleagues). Furthermore, students may have varying perspectives on the attractiveness of team projects in terms of types of learning outcomes, current and future rewards, satisfying social needs by working with classmates, and solving difficult problems. So, it is beneficial for educators to understand the social networks affecting students’ value systems. For example, student colleagues may maintain negative attitudes regarding assigned team projects and hence minimize instructor contributions regarding their importance.

Hypothesis 3: Outcome Valence—Goal Commitment

The research findings also reveal that increased levels of outcome valence lead to greater degrees of goal commitment (Hypothesis 3). These results confirm studies where outcome valence is considered to be an immediate predecessor of goal commitment. As participants in team projects, students must believe in the intrinsic worth of assigned work before they develop adequate levels of goal commitment. Given the frequent dialogue between instructors and students, it is essential that educators provide opportunities for student feedback and adjust levels and types of collaborative assistance and rational persuasion.

The mean outcome valence for this study was 4.7 on a 7-point scale (between “neither agree nor disagree” and “somewhat agree”), the lowest mean of the four constructs. This indicates that instructors have a great opportunity to increase individual student’s importance for assigned team projects. One way for instructors to achieve this is to allow students to play a role in project selection (Volkema, 2010). This could occur by asking students to propose a few projects and having the instructor make the final choice. Educators could also employ several pedagogical techniques including guest speakers and expert panels from companies and nongovernmental organizations, site visits (field trips), and videos that illustrate the value of team projects. Regardless of the method, instructors can potentially increase effectiveness by recognizing students’ low valence and emphasizing the correlation between low undesirable attitudes and behaviors and the consequences of the behavior (Hancock, 1995).

Limitations and Future Research

Overall, the structural model results demonstrate predictive relevance. The research thus provides a behaviorally based approach for instructors and individual students to work together more effectively on course assigned team projects. One limitation of the study deals with generalizability of the results. Given that respondents were drawn from one business school at a single university, our study should be viewed as exploratory and as such, should be expanded to a greater cross-section of students from other fields of study and universities.

Also, the studied model was relatively parsimonious, so additional variables should be considered to enhance predictive relevance. Adding other constructs based on such theories as efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) could provide additional explanatory insights regarding goal commitment. As earlier mentioned, as a source of subjective norms, research could examine how instructors might alter students’ perceptions of an assigned team project’s value. Furthermore, it would be interesting to determine if different teams have divergent perceptions regarding the value of assigned projects. Reflecting on the relationships between ethnicity and outcome valence and between age and goal commitment, it would be interesting to hypothesize and determine the effects of these variables, perhaps as conceptual model moderators. Also, team size, gender composition, opportunities for team building, student perception of team cohesion, and student autonomy in project selection (Bettenhausen, 1991) could be examined for their effects on goal commitment for assigned team projects. Finally, the degree of student interdependence, the reward system (team grade only vs. individual and team grade), type of peer evaluation system used, and project grade contribution to the course grade could potentially affect goal commitment.

Given the exploratory nature of our study, a number of future research opportunities are worth considering. Examining our research direction in a laboratory experiment where instructor behaviors could be manipulated to see direct effects of such persuasive behaviors toward students could provide unique insights. Another area includes exporting the conceptual model to a nonacademic setting. Altering the unit of analysis from student to company employee could be a potential fertile area to research to further understand the management of teams in organizational settings. As mentioned earlier in the article, team projects are an organizational mainstay. Testing our organizationally based model in a corporate setting and substituting supervisors for instructors and subordinates for students could possibly render handsome dividends in terms of satisfying organizational objectives.

In terms of theoretical directions, social identity theory could be useful in assessing perception regarding social group belongingness together with emotional and value created through team membership (Tajfel & Billic, 1974). While our study’s context was one of instructor influence on individual student’s outcome valence and goal commitment, it would be intriguing to determine how students of particular social groups might affect outcome valence and subsequent goal commitment. Drawing on research relating social identity theory to commitment (Bettenhausen, 1991; Curtis & Eby, 2010), perhaps a construct representing the effects of social identity could be modeled as a moderating variable on the outcome valence → goal commitment path to determine how other types of groups could alter the influences of instructors.

Assessing projects of varying length during the class session (e.g., week, month, semester) would create a varied data collection processes which could provide additional insights into student and instructor changes based on modifications in collaborative assistance and rational persuasion. Long projects could also provide the opportunity for longitudinal studies through various courses to assess variations in assigned project goal commitment for individual students and/or specific instructors. Such studies would allow for development and assessment of trends and identify areas of improvement.

It would be interesting to collect additional data to examine split samples based on age and develop more insights on this topic. Creating these samples could be useful to determine how younger and older students respond to influence, develop outcome valence, and create goal commitment, or determine the effects of other individual factors such as gender, personality, and so on. In addition to creating split samples, Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis could be applied to determine the effects of age or other differentiating variables as measured antecedents on goal commitment. Results from these types of studies could potentially guide instructors to use a flexible approach, for example, provide greater levels of rational persuasion and less collaborative assistance to younger students, and perhaps just the opposite for older students, requiring instructors to become more versatile in assigning and leading classroom projects.

Investigating the effects of perceived and assigned team tasks and the same for team roles could potentially explicate varying levels of both student outcome valence and goal commitment for assigned student projects. One example that operationalized team tasks reflects incorporating team task skills to moderate the relationship between application and performance for IT projects (Chan, Jiang, & Klein, 2008). Another instance is confusion pertaining to team roles in terms of assumed roles (based on subject matter expertise) versus team member expectations (based on assignments on prior projects). These dichotomies were shown to be instrumental in generating conflict for self-directed work teams (Perry, Karney, & Spencer, 2013).

Conclusion

The empirical evidence in this study is significant given the low incidence of psychologically based studies in identifying the drivers for individual student goal commitment for assigned team projects. Instructors now have additional insights to draw on to influence student outcome valence for cooperative team assignments. Although not hypothesized, both collaborative assistance and rational persuasion play a joint role in affecting levels of outcome valence and goal commitment, considered to be a primary antecedent for goal achievement.

We hope that the research in this article ultimately provides inroads for instructors to better facilitate student classroom cooperative activities. Support for our conceptual model should diminish levels of instructor and student dissatisfaction identified at the beginning of this article. As such, it can improve the overall individual student experience for assigned team projects and thereby better prepare students to work effectively in a team configuration and consequently enhance their potential for employability, productivity, and career success.

Footnotes

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

AACSB International. (2015). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author.

Ädel

(2011). Rapport building in student group work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2932-2947.

Aggarwal

O’Brien

C. L.

(2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 255-264.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Appleton-Knapp

S. L.

Krentler

K. A.

(2006). Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 254-264.

Bacon

D. R.

(2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 248-267.

Bacon

D. R.

Stewart

K. A.

Silver

W. S.

(1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23, 467-488.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. London, England: Macmillan.

Barbuto

J. E.

(2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 26-40.

10.

Barbuto

J. E.

Jr. Fritz

S. M.

Marx

(2002). A field examination of two measures of work motivation as predictors of leaders’ influence tactics. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 601-616.

11.

Barfield

R. L.

(2003). Students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with group grades and the group experience in the college classroom. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 355-370.

12.

Becker

T. E.

Billings

R. S.

Eveleth

D. M.

Gilbert

N. L.

(1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-482.

13.

Bennett

Pitt

Price

(2012). Understanding the impact of generational issues in the workplace. Facilities, 30, 278-288.

14.

Bettenhausen

K. L.

(1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381.

15.

Borrego

Karlin

McNair

L. D.

Beddoes

(2013). Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A research review. Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 472-512.

16.

Brooks

C. M.

Ammons

J. L.

(2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in pee r assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 268-272.

17.

Bruffee

K. A.

(1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

18.

Campbell

S. V.

Niles

M. S.

(2006). The effect of monetary incentives on accounting student motivation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 10, 69-83.

19.

Campion

M. A.

Lord

R. G.

(1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 265-287.

20.

Case

Dosier

Murkison

Keys

(1993). How managers influence superiors: A study of upward influence tactics. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 9, 25-31.

21.

Chan

C. L.

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

(2008). Team task skills as a facilitator for application and development skills. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55, 434-441.

22.

Chapman

K. J.

Van Auken

(2001). Creating positive group project experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 117-127.

23.

Charbonneau

(2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 565-576.

24.

Chen

Gupta

Hoshower

(2006). Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 179-189.

25.

Chen

Lou

(2004). Students’ perceptions of peer evaluation: An expectancy perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 275-282.

26.

Choi

(2012). An empirical study of hospitality management student attitudes toward group projects: Instructional factors and team problems. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 9, 303-312.

27.

Cohen

J. C.

Cohen

West

Aiken

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

28.

Coker

J. S.

Davies

(2006). Ten time-saving tips for undergraduate research mentors. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education, 35, 110-112.

29.

Colbeck

C. L.

Campbell

S. E.

Bjorklund

S. A.

(2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 60-83.

30.

Colbeck

C. L.

Cabrera

A. F.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2001). Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students’ self-perceptions, and gender. Review of Higher Education, 24, 173-191.

31.

Connerley

M. L.

Mael

F. A.

(2001). The importance and invasiveness of student team selection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25, 471-494.

32.

Curtis

S. L.

Eby

L. T.

(2010). Recovery at work: The relationship between social identity and commitment among substance abuse counselors. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 39, 248-254.

33.

De Clercq

Menzies

T. V.

Diochon

Gasse

(2009). Explaining nascent entrepreneurs’ goal commitment: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 22, 123-139.

34.

Deeter-Schmelz

D. R.

Kennedy

K. N.

Ramsey

R. P.

(2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 114-124.

35.

Delucchi

(2006). The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an undergraduate statistics course. College Teaching, 54, 244-248.

36.

Earley

P. C.

(1985). The influence of goal setting methods on performance, goal acceptance, self-efficacy expectations and expectancies across levels of goal difficulty. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.

37.

Earley

P. C.

Kanfer

(1985). The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 378-390.

38.

Falbe

C. M.

Yukl

(1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638-652.

39.

Fellenz

M. R.

(2006). Toward fairness in assessing student group work: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30, 570-591.

40.

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.

41.

Garrison

Wakefield

R. L.

Kim

S. H.

(2010). Globally distributed teams: The effect of diversity on trust, cohesion and individual performance. ACM SIGMIS Database, 41, 27-48.

42.

Gattiker

T. F.

Carter

C. R.

(2010). Understanding project champions’ ability to gain intra-organizational commitment for environmental projects. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 72-85.

43.

Goffman

(1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 18, 213-231.

44.

Gottschall

Garcia-Bayonas

(2008). Student attitudes towards group work among undergraduates in business administration, education and mathematics. Educational Research Quarterly, 32, 3-29.

45.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

46.

Hancock

D. R.

(1995). What teachers may do to influence student motivation: An application of expectancy theory. Journal of General Education, 44, 171-179.

47.

Hannay

(2014). Fairness in peer evaluations: Ensuring organizational justice in the classroom. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14, 61-68.

48.

Hansen

R. S.

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

49.

Hardy

Eys

M. A.

Carron

A. V.

(2005). Exploring the potential disadvantages of high cohesion in sports teams. Small Group Research, 36, 166-187.

50.

Henson

K. L.

(2010). Student projects as a funding source. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21, 291-298.

51.

Hoegl

Weinkauf

Gemuenden

H. G.

(2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15, 38-55.

52.

Jacobs

(2014). Engaging students in online courses. Research in Higher Education Journal, 26, 1-9.

53.

Jehn

K. A.

Mannix

E. A.

(2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251.

54.

Johnson

D. W.

(1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.

55.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67-73.

56.

Kahn

K. B.

(1996). Interdepartmental integration: A definition with implications for product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 137-151.

57.

King

P. E.

Behnke

R. R.

(2005). Problems associated with evaluating student performance in groups. College Teaching, 53, 57-61.

58.

Kipnis

(1984). The use of power in organizations and in interpersonal settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 179-210.

59.

Kipnis

Schmidt

S. M.

Wilkinson

(1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

60.

Klein

K. J.

Knight

A. P.

Ziegert

J. C.

Lim

B. C.

Saltz

J. L.

(2011). When team members’ values differ: The moderating role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 25-36.

61.

Klein

H. J.

Wesson

M. J.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Alge

B. J.

(1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 885-896.

62.

Kochanowski

Seifert

C. F.

Yukl

(2010). Using coaching to enhance the effects of behavioral feedback to managers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 363-369.

63.

Koh

Wang

C. J.

Tan

O. S.

Liu

W. C.

(2009). Bridging the gaps between students’ perceptions of group project work and their teachers’ expectations. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 333-348.

64.

Kunkel

J. G.

Shafer

W. E.

(1997). Effects of student team learning in undergraduate auditing courses. Journal of Education for Business, 72, 197-200.

65.

Laureani

Brady

Antony

(2013). Applications of lean six sigma in an Irish hospital. Leadership in Health Services, 26, 322-337.

66.

Lee

Lim

(2012). Peer evaluation in blended team project-based learning: What do students find important? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15, 214-224.

67.

Lightner

Bober

M. J.

Willi

(2007). Team-based activities to promote engaged learning. College Teaching, 55, 5-18.

68.

Lindholm

J. A.

Szelenyi

Hurtado

Korn

W. S.

(2005). The American college teacher: National norms for the 2004-2005 HERI Faculty Survey, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

69.

Locke

E. A.

(1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.

70.

Locke

E. A.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Bobko

(1986). Using self-efficacy theory to resolve the conflict between goal-setting theory and expectancy theory in organizational behavior and industrial/organizational psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 328-338.

71.

Maloni

Dembla

Swaim

J. A.

(2012). A cross-functional systems project in an IS capstone course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 23, 283-296.

72.

Martineau

Hannum

(2004). Evaluating the impact of leadership development: A professional guide (No. 187). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

73.

Masterson

Christophel

Zitzmann

(1994). Communication, culture and the classroom. Florida Journal of Communication, 22, 34-42.

74.

McKay-Nesbitt

Zdravkovic

(2013). Student attitudes toward client sponsors and learning: An analysis of the effects of incorporating a client-sponsored project in an introductory marketing course. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 13, 113-125.

75.

McKeachie

W. J.

(1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: DC Heath.

76.

Mento

A. J.

Cartledge

N. D.

Locke

E. A.

(1980). Maryland vs Michigan vs Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 419-440.

77.

Mowday

R. T.

(1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137-156.

78.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

79.

Nasri

Charfeddine

(2012). Motivating salespeople to contribute to marketing intelligence activities: An expectancy theory approach. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4, 168-175.

80.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Bearden

W. O.

Sharma

(2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

81.

Nguyen

H. T.

(2007). Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education, 21, 284-303.

82.

Oakley

Hanna

D. M.

Kuzmyn

Felder

R. M.

(2007). Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering student respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education, 50, 266-272.

83.

Ohbuchi

Suzuki

(2003). Three dimensions of conflict issues and their effects on resolution strategies in organizational settings. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 61-73.

84.

Oliver

R. L.

(1974). Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen’s performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 243-253.

85.

Pang

Tong

Wong

(2011). Key determinants of student satisfaction when undertaking group work. American Journal of Business Education, 4, 93-104.

86.

Pedhazur

E. J.

Schmelkin

L. P.

(1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

87.

Perreault

W. D.

Miles

R. H.

(1978). Influence strategy mixes in complex organizations. Behavioral Science, 23, 86-98.

88.

Perry

E. E.

Jr. Karney

D. F.

Spencer

D. G.

(2013). Team establishment of self-managed work teams: A model from the field. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 19, 87-108.

89.

Pfaff

Huddleston

(2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 37-45.

90.

Phipps

Kask

Higgins

(2001). University students’ perceptions of cooperative learning: Implications for administrators and instructors. Journal of Experiential Education, 24, 14-22.

91.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.

92.

Rafferty

P. D.

(2013). The evaluation of MBA group work: A case study of graduate student experiences and perceptions of positive group work outcomes. Journal of Education for Business, 88, 43-50.

93.

Renko

Kroeck

K. G.

Bullough

(2012). Expectancy theory and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39, 667-684.

94.

Sashittal

H. C.

Jassawalla

A. R.

Markulis

(2011). Teaching students to work in classroom teams: A preliminary investigation of instructors’ motivations, attitudes, and actions. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15, 93-106.

95.

Schilit

W. K.

Locke

E. A.

(1982). A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304-316.

96.

Schultz

J. L.

Wilson

J. R.

Hess

K. C.

(2010). Team-based classroom pedagogy reframed: The student perspective. American Journal of Business Education, 3, 17-24.

97.

Stogdill

R. M.

(1959). Individual behavior and group achievement: A theory; the experimental evidence. London, England: Oxford University Press.

98.

Strack

(1992). “Order effects” in survey research: Activation and information functions of preceding questions. In Schwarz

Sudman

(Eds.), Context effects in social and psychological research (pp. 23-34). New York, NY: Springer.

99.

Streiner

Deibler

Besterfield-Sacre

Shuman

(2010). Design process maps: A look at team dynamics. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2010 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Cancun, Mexico.

100.

Swain

S. D.

Weathers

Niedrich

R. W.

(2008). Assessing three sources of misresponse to reversed Likert items. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 116-131.

101.

Tajfel

Billic

(1974). Familiarity and categorization in intergroup behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 159-170.

102.

Tideswell

(2005). A student perspective on the use of team-based assessment to achieve the requirement to be creative: A study of entrepreneurship students. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 4, 1-22.

103.

Tonn

J. C.

Milledge

(2002). Team building in an MBA “gateway” course: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 26, 415-428.

104.

van Dick

Tissington

P. A.

Hertel

(2009). Do many hands make light work? How to overcome social loafing and gain motivation in work teams. European Business Review, 21, 233-245.

105.

Van Eerde

Thierry

(1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575-586.

106.

Volkema

R. J.

(2010). Designing effective projects: Decision options for maximizing learning and project success. Journal of Management Education, 34, 527-550.

107.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

108.

Watson

W. E.

Johnson

Merritt

(1998). Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in task groups their connection to team performance over time. Group & Organization Management, 23, 161-188.

109.

Werner

J. M.

Lester

S. W.

(2001). Applying a team effectiveness framework to the performance of student case teams. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 385-402.

110.

Williams

D. L.

Beard

J. D.

Rymer

(1991). Team projects: Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13, 45-53.

111.

Yukl

Chavez

Seifert

C. F.

(2005). Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 705-725.

112.

Yukl

Falbe

C. M.

Youn

J. Y.

(1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group & Organization Management, 18, 5-28.

113.

Yukl

Guinan

P. J.

Soitolano

(1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organization Management, 20, 272-296.

114.

Yukl

Kim

Chavez

(1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as determinants of target commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 137-143.

115.

Yukl

Seifert

C. F.

Chavez

(2008). Validation of the extended influence behavior questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 609-621.

116.

Yukl

Tracey

J. B.

(1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.