Teams in Management Education

Abstract

The most recent recipient of the JME Lasting Impact Award, “Lessons from the Best and Worst Student Team Experiences: How a Teacher can make the Difference,” by Bacon, Stewart, and Silver (1999) is an elegantly presented examination of how the set of decisions made by instructors regarding team assignments affect student experience. An analysis of subsequent Journal of Management Education articles finds three identifiable streams of research associated with their seminal work: the approach to peer evaluation, the impact of team formation policy, and the importance of team assignment structure to effective learning outcomes. Fruitful areas of future research for more impactful and productive team assignments are offered.

Keywords

academic discipline/subject areas assessment of students’ learning contribution/participation assessment organizational behavior and management teaching methods and approaches team-based approaches teams/team dynamics

The most recent recipient of the JME Lasting Impact Award, “Lessons from the Best and Worst Student Team Experiences: How a Teacher can make the Difference,” by Bacon, Stewart, and Silver (1999) is an elegantly presented examination of how the set of decisions made by instructors regarding team assignments affect student experience. The Journal of Management Education (JME) was a fitting home for this seminal piece given the journal’s focus on the scholarship of teaching and learning in management and its strong disciplinary emphasis on organizational behavior.

Bacon, Stewart, and Silver’s research entered the management education research stream at a critical time. While team and group assignments have always been a useful pedagogical tool in business and management education, colleges and business schools in the 1990s were coping with pressure for practical relevance driven by the publication of Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century (Porter & McKibbin, 1988). Porter and McKibbin’s treatise argued that university business curricula should provide educational experiences that were more relevant and grounded in managerial competencies and skills. Emphasis on assessment of team skills as core learning goals (AACSB International, 2015) further increased interest in developing research on the effective use of team assignments.

The research conducted by Bacon et al. (1999) demonstrates that the structure of a team assignment is directly relevant to the student experience. The publication of this work began a robust conversation on pedagogical technique, particularly in JME. A search in Google Scholar returns a citation count of 370 articles from numerous journals referencing the work of Bacon et al. (1999), including a number of subsequent articles published in JME. Beginning in 2002, a total of 19 JME articles cited the Bacon et al. (1999) findings and used the seminal work as a springboard for an examination of factors that affect the use of groups and teams in management education. An analysis of these JME articles finds three identifiable streams of research associated with Bacon et al. (1999): the approach to peer evaluation, the impact of team formation policy, and the importance of team assignment structure to effective learning outcomes. Each of these streams reflects an element identified by Bacon et al. (1999) that could potentially affect team experience and success.

Peer Evaluation Approach

In the initial publication, Bacon et al. (1999) found that the use of peer evaluation negatively affected student experience in teams. Succeeding JME publications on peer evaluation that cite Bacon et al. (1999) attempt to more clearly understand this result. Willcoxson (2006, JME) explored how to ameliorate this problem by clarifying the value of individual input into the team-work-product and developing a self- and peer assessment strategy that incorporated project management principles (i.e., scheduling, resource utilization, and accountability) completed at multiple points during the instructional project to promote positive team dynamics. Friedman, Cox, and Maher (2008, JME) found that peer rating format (holistic vs. categorical) and rating frequency significantly interacted to influence student motivation and their perceptions of their team. Baker (2008, JME) examined two common methods of peer assessment, rating scales, and single score methods, and found that both demonstrate acceptable levels of reliability. More recently, Davison, Mishra, Bing, and Frink (2014, JME) empirically determined that high- and low-performing team members had different patterns of peer evaluation scores, which could have an impact on both student grades and student experience.

Bacon et al. (1999) continued to influence research on team peer evaluations beyond work published in JME. Brooks and Ammons (2003) propose a peer evaluation structure that encourages early and frequent implementation as well as the use of specific criteria that explicitly conveys teamwork expectations. Although not web-based, the characteristics of the system are an important precursor to subsequent online peer evaluation structures.

The work of Brandyberry and Bakke (2006) develops a web-based system to document specific individual team member activities related to the quality of work, level of effort, and participation at team meetings. To incentivize the submission of accurate peer evaluation data, team members check and approve log entries that capture team member contribution and team functioning.

Ohland et al. (2012) provided a breakthrough in web-based team peer evaluation. This Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) system uses a behaviorally anchored rating scale peer evaluation tool. Students rate themselves and their team members on the following five behavioral dimensions of individual performance: (1) contributing to the team’s work, (2) interacting with teammates, (3) expecting quality, (4) keeping the team on track, and (5) having relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities. The algorithm in the CATME system creates a standardized score for each student calculated both with and without the students’ self-rating. The system analyzes these ratings to produce a grade adjustment factor that instructors can use to appropriately award credit for individual contributions to team assignments.

In a follow-up piece, Loughry, Ohland, and Woehr (2014) describe how CATME facilitates collecting several rounds of self- and peer evaluations allowing instructors to monitor whether skill development is taking place as planned within a course and across the curriculum. Brutus, Donia, and Ronen (2013) found that repeated use of a standardized peer evaluation over time in different courses and teams improved students’ ability to evaluate the contribution of their peers. The repetitive experience generated data that more accurately appraised student teamwork skills, producing a roadmap to close the gap between current and desired teamwork skills in subsequent team experiences.

Taken together, findings suggest that careful attention to the method and process of peer evaluation can offset the negative impact on student experience identified by Bacon et al. (1999). Setting clear teamwork expectations and incorporating early and frequent formative (i.e., developmental) assessments in addition to summative (i.e., grading) assessment all emerged as important characteristics for effective peer and self-evaluation.

Team Formation Policy

The second major research stream identified from JME citations of Bacon et al. (1999) deals with the issue of forming teams for group assignments. In the original work, Bacon et al. (1999) argued that self-selected teams had better experiences than instructor-assigned teams. This recommendation was challenged by Shaw (2004, JME), who looked at demographic characteristics and found that students were disadvantaged in their grade performance depending on group composition and that instructor assignment increased diversity in student teams. However, Chapman, Meuter, Toy, and Wright (2006, JME) found support for the Bacon et al. (1999) conclusion that self-selected teams improved group dynamics and outcomes. The findings of these two studies demonstrate the conflict between the benefit of diverse teams formed by the instructor and the benefit of team cohesiveness found in self-selected teams. The merits of team assignment methods are still hotly debated. Swaim and Henley (2017, JME) contributed to this discussion by demonstrating that instructors who adopt a coaching approach and provide a rational context for the team assignment methodology may offset some of the negative effects of instructor-assigned teams.

Research in this stream citing Bacon et al. (1999) describes the value of using online tools to assist with the creation of teams balanced by gender, race, disciplinary area, GPA (grade point average), and so on. (Jahanbakhsh, Fu, Karahalios, Marinov, & Bailey, 2017; Morgan & Stewart, 2017). These online tools have provided greater rationality to student assignment, consistent with Swaim and Henley (2017, JME), and has resulted in better distribution of talents and backgrounds, and opportunities to hone conflict management skills (Oakley, Hanna, Kuzmyn, & Felder, 2007) within teams.

Structure of the Team Assignment

The overall message of Bacon et al. (1999) was that the structure of the team assignment mattered. It is not surprising that several of the articles in JME citing Bacon et al. (1999) look at structure of the team assignment and class policies. There are at least three subthemes that have emerged from research based on the original Bacon et al. (1999) article; structures to prevent social loafing in teams, structures emphasizing leadership within teams, and structures that attempt to improve the learning content and the transfer of team skills and knowledge.

Social loafing, which Bacon et al. (1999) found to be a significant process variable contributing to negative team experiences, has continued to provide fertile ground for research. Beyond articles published in JME, techniques to reduce social loafing have been positively related to practices associated with team assignment (Brandyberry & Bakke, 2006; Pieterse & Thompson, 2010), team task structure (Morgan & Stewart, 2017), and characteristics of peer evaluation (Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Fellenz, 2006, JME). Many of these research contributions articulate possible root causes behind free-riding behavior and advocate for its early detection and resolution (Hall & Buzwell, 2012). Communication barriers, fear of exposing a lack of knowledge, and differing work styles can all lead to the misidentification of social loafing (Hall & Buzwell, 2012; Pieterse & Thompson, 2010). Reducing the dysfunctional impact of free riding via best practices stems from the initial conclusions of Bacon et al. (1999), which emphasized its important impact on team experience.

Specifying leadership roles is another structural element of team assignment that has been explored by researchers citing Bacon et al. (1999)’s work. Ferrante, Green, and Forster (2006, JME) found that teams with incentivized leaders had better performance and team members experienced fewer dysfunctional behaviors. O’Connor and Yballe (2007, JME) emphasize that leadership of a team is a skill to be developed as part of the team project. They offer advice for leader skill development in each phase of a team project, including assignment of tasks within the team, norms of sharing ideas among team members, and team responses to poor or incomplete work by a team member. André (2011, JME) presents a team structure that gives every student the opportunity to lead a group during the class term, arguing that the opportunity to lead a team is a critical skill for future managers.

A great number of JME articles citing Bacon et al. (1999) are concerned with adjusting the team assignment structure so that the learning content can be maximized. Ettington and Camp (2002, JME) were among the first to identify a problem with how team assignments are often structured. They found that many team assignments were not designed in ways that would reinforce collaborative learning. They also point out that teams within the workplace are different from teams in an educational environment in terms of (1) role definition, (2) formal leadership power with the organization, (3) longevity, (4) infrastructure, and (5) performance expectations. Tonn and Milledge (2002, JME) describe the lessons learned from trying to build specific team competencies within part-time MBA students. They explicitly argue that teaching team skills is not the same as teaching theories of groups and teams and requires different approaches and assignment structures. This point is reinforced with similar research by Rafferty (2013, JME) who emphasizes the importance of best practices among groups, the situational nature of team assignments, and the value of incorporating the lived experience of the group members.

Zeff, Higby, and Bossman (2006, JME) describe the relative value of permanent or temporary teams to develop team skills and emphasize that faculty must be trained to understand how each type of team structure fits with different learning outcomes. Bacon (2005, JME) compared the task structure characteristics of business school group projects, peer-learning projects, and group projects in the workplace and found that without proper attention to how the assignments are structured, business school group projects may result in less learning than assigning a similar task to individuals.

An unfortunate theme in much of the research canvassed for this curated review on the structure of team assignments is that such assignments are not always as effective for learning outcomes and team skill building as instructors would like them to be. As a field, business and management instructors understand more about teaching the theories and concepts associated with teams than understanding how to systematically and consistently develop individual team skills and effective group process (Avramenko, 2012; Crichton, Moffat, & Crichton, 2017; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Tonn & Milledge, 2002; Vos, 2015).

Final Thoughts on Future Directions

A review of the literature emerging from the Bacon et al. (1999) article shows that almost every finding of the original work has been built on, expanded, or challenged. As a result, there is an abundance of literature on teams in management education and elsewhere to assist faculty in (1) more systematically and accurately incorporating peer evaluation, (2) creating teams that reflect the reality of diversity and lack of choice that exists in organizational team assignments, and (3) developing team assignments with awareness of pedagogical elements that reduce social loafing, incentivize leadership, and develop better collaborative skills. Mining the research stream built from work like that of Bacon et al. (1999) and adding to that steady flow will eventually lead us to even more impactful and productive team assignments in the management field.

Finally, to return to the topic of business and management curricula, issues raised by Porter and McKibbin (1988) still challenge the field. Building a business and management program that is relevant for good business practice is almost as important and elusive today as it was then. Pedagogies that develop skills allowing students to contribute to teams across functional areas, face to face, virtually, and in multicultural contexts are still an aspiration. As the research identified in this curation shows, instructors have still not identified all relevant elements of the team assignment structure that ensure a good team experience, teamwork skill development, and significant content learning.

Fruitful areas of future research should continue to pursue and understand what pedagogical structure and techniques are needed to build teamwork competencies. The context of 21st-century organizations suggests that this effort must also be better understood in the context of virtual team environments, multicultural team environments, and technologically focused team environments. Team management and collaboration skills will continue to be valuable; therefore, the investment in time and energy to develop and assess necessary pedagogy is a worthwhile endeavor for management educators. Additional research to determine exactly what types of skills might be most fungible across a variety of team contexts would be useful as faculty continue to pursue this unique learning structure.

The research on team formation, particularly studies showing a potential tradeoff between diversity and team cohesion, also requires additional study. Greater diversity in teams has value, but diverse teams may have challenges that more homogeneous groups do not. What skills and techniques are valuable for creating both diversity and cohesion in newly formed teams?

From the research on permanent and temporary teams, further work on team stability may be warranted. What are the effects of team stability over time? Research points to phenomena that instability decreases performance (Koppenhaver & Shrader, 2003). Thus, more research is needed to understand team recovery time after a change in membership. How does membership loss (or gain) affect a team’s position in the phases of team development and overall team effectiveness?

Furtherance of the work begun by Bacon et al. (1999) continues to be important. Research on team skill development and the use of team assignments as a tool for deeper content learning is still emerging. The full impact of this research stream remains to be felt both in business schools and in the workplace.

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.

ORCID iD

Alice C. Stewart

References

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

André

(2011). Using leadered groups in organizational behavior and management survey courses. Journal of Management Education, 35, 596-619.

Avramenko

(2012). Enhancing students’ employability through business simulation. Education + Training, 54, 355-367.

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.

Baker

(2008). Peer assessment in small groups: A comparison of methods. Journal of Management Education, 32, 183-209.

Brandyberry

A. A.

Bakke

S. A.

(2006). Mitigating negative behaviors in student project teams: An information technology solution. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17, 195-209.

Brooks

C. M.

Ammons

J. L.

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

Brutus

Donia

Ronen

(2013). Can business students learn to evaluate better? Evidence from repeated exposure to a peer-evaluation system. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12, 18-31.

10.

Chapman

K. J.

Meuter

Toy

Wright

(2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30, 557-569.

11.

Crichton

Moffat

Crichton

(2017). Developing a team behavioral marker framework using observation of simulator-based exercises to improve team effectiveness: A drilling team case study. Simulation & Gaming, 48, 299-313.

12.

Davison

H. K.

Mishra

Bing

M. N.

Frink

D. D.

(2014). How individual performance affects variability of peer evaluations in classroom teams: A distributive justice perspective. Journal of Management Education, 38, 43-85.

13.

Ettington

D. R.

Camp

R. R.

(2002). Facilitating transfer of skills between group projects and work teams. Journal of Management Education, 26, 356-379.

14.

Fellenz

M. R.

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

15.

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.

16.

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.

17.

Hall

Buzwell

(2012). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 37-49.

18.

Jahanbakhsh

W. T.

Karahalios

Marinov

Bailey

(2017). You want me to work with who? Stakeholder perceptions of automated team formation in project-based courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘17) (pp. 3201-3212). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/3025453.3026011

19.

Kolb

(2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 193-212.

20.

Koppenhaver

G. D.

Shrader

C. B.

(2003). Structuring the classroom for performance: Cooperative learning with instructor-assigned teams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 1, 1-22.

21.

Loughry

Ohland

Woehr

(2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 5-19.

22.

Morgan

S. D.

Stewart

A. C.

(2017). Continuous improvement of team assignments: Using a web-based tool and the plan-do-check-act cycle in design and redesign. Decision Science Journal of Innovative Education, 15, 303-324.

23.

Oakley

Hanna

Kuzmyn

Felder

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

24.

O’Connor

Yballe

(2007). Team leadership: Critical steps to great projects. Journal of Management Education, 31, 292-312.

25.

Ohland

M. W.

Loughry

M. L.

Woehr

D. J.

Bullard

L. G.

Felder

R. M.

Finelli

C. J.

. . . Schmucker

D. G.

(2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self-and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 609-630.

26.

Pieterse

Thompson

(2010) Academic alignment to reduce the presence of “social loafers” and “diligent isolates” in student teams. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 355-367.

27.

Porter

McKibbin

(1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

28.

Rafferty

P. D.

(2013). Group work in the MBA classroom: Improving pedagogical practice and maximizing positive outcomes with part-time MBA students. Journal of Management Education, 37, 623-650.

29.

Shaw

(2004). A fair go for all? The impact of intragroup diversity and diversity-management skills on student experiences and outcomes in team-based class projects. Journal of Management Education, 28, 139-169.

30.

Swaim

Henley

(2017). The use of influence tactics and outcome valence on goal commitment for assigned student team projects. Journal of Management Education, 41, 118-145.

31.

Tonn

J. C.

Milledge

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

32.

Vos

(2015). Simulation games in business and marketing education: How educators assess student learning from simulations. International Journal of Management Education, 13, 57-74.

33.

Willcoxson

L. E.

(2006). “It’s not fair!”: Assessing the dynamics and resourcing of teamwork. Journal of Management Education, 30, 798-808.

34.

Zeff

L. E.

Higby

M. A.

Bossman

L. J.

Jr. (2006). Permanent or temporary classroom groups: A field study. Journal of Management Education, 30, 528-541.