Groups and Teams Journal of Management Education-2013-Hillier-704-33

Journal of Management Education http://jme.sagepub.
com/
Groups Meet . . . Teams Improve: Building Teams That Learn

Janet Hillier and Linda M. Dunn-Jensen Journal of Management Education 2013 37: 704 originally published online 26 September 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1052562912459947 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jme.sagepub.com/content/37/5/704
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators
Additional services and information for Journal of Management Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jme.sagepub.com/content/37/5/704.refs.html
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on November 20, 2013
>> Version of Record - Aug 28, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 26, 2012 What is This?
459947
of Management EducationHillier and Dunn-Jensen The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
JME37510.1177/1052562912459947Journal
Instructional Innovation
Groups Meet . . .Teams Improve:Building Teams That Learn
Journal of Management Education 37(5) 704733 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1052562912459947 jme.sagepub.com
Janet Hillier1 and Linda M. Dunn-Jensen1
Abstract Although most business students participate in team-based projects during undergraduate or graduate course work, the team experience does not always teach team skills or capture the team members potential: Students complete the task at hand but the explicit process of becoming a team is often not learned. Drawing from organizational learning and group/team theory, this article presents a learning team model that emphasizes feedback at the teamnot individuallevel of analysis by establishing a team feedback tool that can be easily and regularly used to improve performance. In addition to the feedback tool, a structured process is presented in which students learn to become a team. Keywords team learning, team building, active learning, team feedback, team process
I learned that it is actually possible to have a team full of college students Premed student in business school strategy class
Despite the increasing importance of team skills in a global workplace and the seeming ubiquity of team experiences in business school curriculums (Borredon, Deffayet, Backer, & Kolb, 2011; Ferrante, Green, & Forster, 2006;
1
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Corresponding Author: Janet Hillier, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 E. 10th Street, BU640F, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. Email: jhillier@indiana.edu
Hillier and Dunn-Jensen
705
Goltz, Hietapelto, Reinsch, & Tyrell, 2008; Hansen, 2006; Kalliath & Laiken, 2006; Rothenberg, 2011; Stein & Hurd, 2000; Vik, 2001), research shows mixed results of these efforts in part because team competencies and skills remain undeveloped (Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004; Holmer, 2001). Fifteen years ago, ONeil, Allerd, and Baker (1997) identified the need for improved team skill-building curricula including an integrated approach to both assess and teach team skills, yet current business students still underperform in group settings. Furthermore, recent research by Halfhill and Nielsen (2007) continues to highlight the challenges of teaching team skills in business schools. In addition to the lack of a systematic approach to understanding and teaching team skills (Chen et al., 2004), the role of feedback at the group level has not been adequately explored (Barr & Conlon, 1994; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Kowlowski & Klein, 2000; London & Sessa, 2006) despite a plethora of research that establishes the fundamental relationship between individual level feedback and performance improvement (Locke & Latham, 1990; London, 2003). In 2006, London and Sessa proposed a multilevel theory of how feedback operates in groups as a learning mechanism (p. 303) expounding on the importance of understanding the relationship between team feedback and team performance. Performance improvement from team level feedback is consistent with organization learning theory which postulates that systematic feedback improves performance by providing the information necessary to improve functioning (Edmondson, 2008; Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). Our approach responds to this call by focusing attention on the group as a whole rather than on individual members and emphasizes consistent, structured team feedback as a mechanism to gauge team performance. This proposed shift from individual-level feedback to team-level feedback may be preferred by students for giving and receiving feedback (Friedman, Cox, & Maher, 2008) and as a result, serve as a more effective form of feedback (Ross, Zufan, & Rosenbloom, 2008). As a result, a team-oriented feedback approach postulates that using structuralrather than individuallevers to engage members is both an effective and efficient way to improve team performance. Additionally, by using a team feedback tool, it creates a pedagogical framework and concrete learning tool to teach team skills. A major contribution of this article is that it integrates organizational learning theory with team theory and proposes a learning team model and pedagogy to teach and apply team theory. Drawing on research from organization learning, feedback, groups and teams, the learning team model proposes that team skills can be taught by requiring student teams to regularly and
706
Journal of Management Education 37(5)
systematically collect team feedback and assess team functioning after building a foundation based on a team charter. Team performance is improved when teams discuss the feedback, identify ineffective team behaviors, and take corrective actions to improve performance. Furthermore, by defining teams as open problem-solving cultures (Garvin et al., 2008) who improve performance by creating productive norms and regular feedback loops, the learning team model overcomes one of the biggest challenges of teaching teamsthe nebulous nature of the interactive team process. Team charters, team feedback, and formal team assessments are easily understood and quickly administered concrete tools that provide a strong foundation for understanding and improving performance. We begin our article by briefly reviewing the literature on organizational learning and feedback that provides the foundation for the learning team approach. We then present the learning team model. In the second section, we discuss how to integrate the learning team model into a course with teambased projects. The final section of the article provides feedback from student outcomes and a discussion of theoretical and practical implications for continued research on student teams at work in university settings.
The Learning Team Approach

The learning team approach proposes that the processes and procedures that facilitate organizational learning can be generalized to team learning and provide an integrative organization learning framework to improve team performance and teach team-building skills. Because the overarching goal of the learning organization and the learning team is the sameto create an open problem-solving culture (Garvin et al., 2008) that results in high-quality decisions representing myriad viewpointsit can be argued that tools used to develop a learning organization can be used to build learning teams as well. Adapting organization learning principles to the team level of analysis is supported by London and Sessa (2006) who note that group learning is intertwined with organizational learning. In particular, the inclusion of a feedback tool that requires participants to systematically assess, collect, and analyze performance data creates a concrete learning mechanism, for team members, one of the fundamental building blocks of the learning organization (Garvin et al., 2008). Organizational learning theory postulates that systematic feedback improves performance by providing the information necessary to enhance functioning. Feedback, at its most basic level, is a reaction to an event (Senge, 1990) that provides an opportunity to observe performance, make corrections and, as a result, learn. Feedback guides, motivates and reinforces effective behaviors
707
and reduces or stops ineffective behaviors (London, 2003, p. 1). It promotes the recognition of interaction patterns that either inhibit or encourage learning (Senge, 1990). While the relationship between individual-level feedback and performance improvement is well established (Locke & Latham, 1990; London, 2003), the role of feedback at the group level has not been explored in much depth (Barr & Conlon, 1994; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Kowlowski & Klein, 2000; London & Sessa, 2006). Feedback at the individual level of analysis often consists of individual team members reviewing other members performance, which can have deleterious consequences and often lead to hurt feelings, anger, finger-pointing, and withdrawal (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000). The learning team approach focuses feedback at the team level of analysis and, as a result, reduces the focus on individual as the lever for change within teams. London and Sessa (2006) argue that this level of analysis is appropriate due to the shared objectives and interdependence that is present in group settings. Recent research suggests that feedback can improve performance. Marks and Panzer (2004) empirically determined that intrateam feedback consisting of team members monitoring others performance may improve overall team performance. McLeod, Liker and Lobel (1992) also found that groups made small behavior changes after feedback. Feedback, therefore, is a prerequisite for team improvement. Although groups can change for a variety of reasons, without feedback they cannot learn (London & Sessa, 2006).
The Learning Team Model

The learning team approach provides a flexible and easy methodology that can be applied as a tool to any class that uses team projects. This approach is diagrammed in the figure below.
Figure 1. Learning team model.
708
At its most basic definition, team process can be understood as the quality of interactions between team members (Rentsch & Klimoski, 2001). As soon as a group forms, it acquires direction and momentum (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000), and members begin interacting. The learning team model improves interactions by assessing interaction effectiveness as a means to improve team performance through a structured but simple team feedback process. As previously noted, feedback is an important component of the team learning process because it allows the group to recognize the effects of its actions and choices and, if need be, to change those actions and choices over time to have a different effect (London & Sessa, 2006, p. 306). However, although the fundamental theoretical construct of this model is feedback, it alone is insufficient to improve performance. A team charter and a formal team assessment supplement team feedback to guide and enhance the learning process.
Team Charter
Groups that set goals and receive feedback on their goals have a greater chance to improve performance (Locke & Latham, 1990; London & Sessa, 2006; McLeod et al., 1992; Nadler, 1979). One tool that has been highly effective for students to set goals and learn about teams is a team charter (Cox & Bobrowski, 2000; Cox, Bobrowski, & Spector, 2004; see Hunsaker, Pavett, & Hunsaker, 2011 for review). As Hunsaker et al. (2011) suggest, a team charter creates a psychological contract among the team members making explicit previously implicit reciprocal social obligations and emotional commitments (p. 128). Thus, completing a team charter encourages team members to set goals and discuss how they will work together; it begins the discussion about expectations for participation and performance. Typical issues that are discussed in the charter process include expectations about responding to messages, attendance, participation, quality, and conflict. The team charter, a necessary first step to evolve from a group to a team, is inadequate unless supplemented by the feedback mechanism to assess effectiveness and compliance. Team charters also help define the early norms of the culture. Regardless of charter development, norms will be established during this early phase whether explicitly or implicitlyby the behavior and interactions of participants. The charter attempts to create productive, constructive norms that enhance team functioning. Additionally, a team charter may serve as a mediator in identifying and addressing problems as they emerge. An easy conflict resolution tactic of
709
simply stating we talked about this in the charter and all agreed that . . . is a neutral starting point to begin an otherwise awkward conversation. Likewise, team members can decide to develop new norms to ensure appropriate team functioning. Although the team charter sets the initial expectations for team members, it is only a first step and must be supported by the next step of team evolution, systematic feedback, to be effective.
Systematic Feedback
Feedback improves group performance for several reasons. In addition to regulating actions for goal attainment, it enhances team development, strengthens member interdependence, and facilitates the creation of shared mental models (London & Sessa, 2006; Senge, 1990). Feedback enables a team to discuss what does and does not work; when a team acts on this knowledge, a team exhibits learning (Garvin et al., 2008). Learning occurs when feedback is systematic (Edmondson, 2008; Garvin et al., 2008). When team feedback becomes a team protocola regular and ongoing requirement of team functioningteam performance is enhanced by improving the quality of problem solving, the fundamental purpose of a teams existence.
Teaching Learning Teams

In this section of the article, we will discuss the structured process that can be used to incorporate the learning team model into a course. An overview of the documents to be used can be found in Table 1. In addition, an annotated timeline for the learning team model is included in Appendix A.
Team Charter
As discussed above, a Team Charter explicitly encourages teams to set goals and discuss how they will work together; it begins the discussion about expectations for participation and performance. Creating the team charter is one of the first team projects for the newly formed team members. Although parts of the team charter are somewhat generic such as goals, skills, and roles, many of the questions we included were based on years of experience watching groups struggle. Therefore, the charter specifically asks students to identify problems they have encountered in other groups and how these problems can be addressed. It also integrates the learning team model and builds in the expectation that students need to
710
Table 1. Description of Documents Used in Class. These documents are also available online at http://jme.sagepub.com/supplemental Team Charter: Appendix B This form is completed by the team to identify who is on the team, what skills each member brings to the team, and how the team will function as a team Team Effectiveness FeedbackAppendix C (this form is completed after each team deliverable) This form is completed by each team member giving feedback on the effectiveness of the team for a project deliverable Once the team members complete the form, one member of the team then summarizes the data The team should then meet and discuss their results and think about strategies to improve effectiveness The next two forms are completed halfway through the semester Formal Team Assessment FormAppendix D This form is completed by each team member giving feedback on the effectiveness of the team for a period of time Once the team members complete the form, the team then summarizes the data using the Formal Team Summary FormAppendix E Formal Team Summary FormAppendix E Using the feedback collected in the Formal Team Assessment FormAppendix D, the team then completes an overall team effectiveness assessment on their team process. The team members will assess the teams strengths and weaknesses and then identify lessons learned so that they may discuss strategies to be more effective as a team in the second half of the semester
assess their functioning and make adjustments to improve team performance. The team charter is completed by the entire team and initialed by each team member to indicate she or he is in agreement with the expectations delineated in the charter. The charter is submitted for grading to ensure it is completed and of sufficient quality to be meaningful. Grading is based on thoughtfulness of responses; it is quickly evident which teams take the charter assignment seriously and receive the full number of points possible and the teams who offer minimal responses and receive fewer points. See Appendix B for a sample of a Team Charter available at http://jme.sagepub .com/supplemental.
Team Effectiveness Feedback Form

The Team Effectiveness Feedback Form captures a rather universally observed meeting-after-the-meeting phenomenon that occurs when group
711
participants rampantly discuss what just happened in a group setting as soon as they leave the room, ensuring nothing will be done to address their concern. By formalizing the process, we are bringing the meeting-after-the-meeting back into boundaries of the team, giving group members an opportunity to make adjustments to team functioning if necessary. This approach teaches team process skills in a rather painless fashion. The methodology is fortuitous since most analytically minded business studentsand professionalsare loathe to give performance feedback to individual team members. Although part of this hesitation is because of their lack of skills and training, it is also because team members often do not want to hurt someones feelings or cause dissension within the group. By keeping feedback at the macro/team level, students can discuss what isand is notworking in the group setting. In a class with several projects, the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form is completed at the end of each project by each team member individually; results are collated and submitted with the project for grading. With one semester-long project, two midterm assessments are completed. The half-page questionnaire consists of 1-10 ratings on five items: content, quality, communication, participation, and overall effectiveness with an optional what can we do to improve? This questionnaire provides team members the opportunity to reflect on team functioning. The form takes about a minute to complete, and most teams become intrigued by the resulting analysis. A team summary Team Effectiveness Feedback is submitted and graded by the faculty member for a few points (e.g., 5 points) to ensure quality and compliance. See Appendix C for a sample of the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form available at http://jme. sagepub.com/supplemental.
Formal Team Assessment

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

The Formal Team Assessment Form is completed by each individual team member. The survey consists of 15 team attributes that each member assesses
712
on a scale of 1 to 10. Furthermore, they are specifically asked to suggest ways the team can improve and how to adapt their team charter to improve team functioning. These data are then summarized on a Formal Team Summary, which is submitted for faculty review. The team also concretely identifies what the team needs to do differently to improve. Please see Appendix D for a sample of a Formal Team Assessment Form available at http://jme.sagepub.com/supplemental.
Formal Team Summary Form

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

The Learning Team approach has been used in three different class settings at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, only one of which was a teamoriented class. It was originally developed for a 6-week online MBA class, Managing Teams in a Global Environment. After creating a detailed team charter, each team in this highly experiential online class analyzed five teambased cases which, in addition to the case analysis, required a brief team functioning assessment based on the Team Effectiveness Feedback forms. After the completion of each case, each team member completed the feedback form and submitted it to an online forum anonymously. This enabled team members to see collective ratings without knowing how individual team members perceived and rated team effectiveness. The forum was anonymous to encourage candor. Additionally at the end of 4 weeks, each team conducted the Formal Team Assessment Form and was asked to make adjustments to the team functioning based on the results of the team assessment and team feedback. Although each persons individual response to the Team Effectiveness Feedback and Formal Team Assessment was anonymous, the
713
team received the results as a whole and their discussion about team improvement could be followed on the team discussion forum. The second class for which this approach was adapted was an honors-level class called Managing Business Functions that was designed for highachieving nonbusiness undergraduates who were interested in business but wanted to major in premed, prelaw, or other areas within liberal arts. The focus of this class was to understand strategy, organizational alignment around strategy and the integration of marketing, finance, and operations to implement strategy. After a 6-week introduction to strategy, this class launched into a discussion of organization learning as a strategic enhancer and team development as a necessary construct of organization learning. Students then worked in teams to write their team charter and were assigned three cases to analyze from business and team perspectives. As in the team class, individual students completed the required Team Effectiveness Feedback Form at the end of each case although paper forms were used; although anonymity was encouraged, it was not guaranteed. Students also completed the Formal Team Assessment Form at the completion of the second case in which they identified changes in their team charter to improve team performance. When grading the Formal Team Summary Form, it is easy to tell when teams are glossing over problemsespecially when grades can be considered as quality check for output. By comparing the team assessment with team outcomesgrades on their case analysisfaculty can point out the inconsistency between overly high ratings and mediocre performance. However, other indicators are apparent as well. For example, when all team members rate each category a 10 and say they get along great, it can be viewed with suspicion since high-functioning teams do not develop that fast; a false harmony early on often indicates an inability to disagree with each other, a key component of a high-functioning team, or even groupthink. Additionally an individual team member may approach faculty to discuss team problems that are not identified in the team assessment including participation, personality, and quality issues. This behavior can be interpreted to mean that not only are team members not aware of problems but also that there is a lack of trust among team members to discuss issues since an individual approached faculty rather than the team itself. Thus, the faculty member has numerous opportunities to gently give them additional feedback or ask questions to probe their collective team wisdom, if necessary. The third class applying the Learning Team approach was an undergraduate Organization Design and Change class. It is a required class for Management and Entrepreneurship majors in a large business school. This macro-level class would not ordinarily include team development in its content
714
but organization learning is an important topic as a means to competitive advantage (Edmondson, 2008). As with the nonbusiness majors, the Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment forms were defined as concrete learning mechanisms for teams to enhance their performance, building on team research they have learned in their Organization Behavior classes. The same process was used for this class as the nonbusiness major class described above. Additionally, the Learning Team approach is currently being used as the foundation for a Leadership, Team and Diversity Fall 2012 class required for Management and Entrepreneurship majors at a large business school.
One Teams Story

A student team composed of geographically dispersed online MBA students included five members with long-standing relationships formed months before the team class began, since these members had taken several weeklong in-residence classes required by their MBA program. As a result of interacting face-to-face with each other prior to this class, they described themselves as highly cohesive at the onset. They created a team charter primarily to set ground rules and admitted that some charter items were tougher to agree on than others, such as when to schedule weekly team telephone planning calls and weekly deadlines for individual assignments to be completed. They acknowledged that although they did not frequently refer back to the charter and they . . . didnt discuss it specifically in meetings after it was drafted, the simple process of addressing some of the work issues ahead of time had value in setting norms, clearing up some ambiguities, and setting overarching team goals. (Students reflection in a required How did you function as a team? final course paper) The team found the Team Effectiveness Feedback forms served as a Good source of ideas for tweaks to our team operations. . . . Specific ideas were brought up that were incorporated into team processes. . . . It was suggested that a recurring agenda for our weekly meeting . . . be established to give some structure to our discussion. The idea was adopted, and had the desired effect. Later, a desire was expressed to discuss more class content, rather than simple logistics of completing assignments. As a result . . . we established an as-needed weekend call to discuss class content which enriched our team learning in the course . . . (Students reflection)
715
In the meantime, they had gotten an A or an A on each of their first six team assignments. In Week 4, the team was assigned the Mount Everest Team Simulation (Roberto & Edmondson, 2011) for their weekly project. The team was quite surprised and highly disappointed that they did not reach the summit. In the team debriefing that occurred as a result of the Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment process, they determined that the team cohesion which had served them so well during the formation of the charter may have led to groupthink at certain points . . . as characterized by the Everest simulation where an arbitrary level of performance was suggested without considering feasibility. This ultimately led to the team failing to reach the summit. . . . Individuals would yield to the majority and fail to voice concerns and engage in sustained debate in order to maintain harmony. This could possibly be a function of the cohesion that was existent from the onset and individuals did not want to create discord going forward after the class had concluded. (Students reflection on team functioning assessment based on Team Feedback forms) The team summarized their experience by stating that their team spent a lot of time on the logistical side and [were] able to successfully navigate the projects, but we could have learned much more from each other with open debate about theory, implementation, and practical experience. Finally, the team members realized the importance of a devils advocate that will argue the other side of the issue . . . to allow the team to see the issue from multiple angles and allow us to better analyze the issues and projects presented to us. Through feedback this team was able to openly assess a team failure and come to an agreement about what had happened using theoretical team conceptshow group cohesion can lead to groupthinkand apply them to their team dynamics. If they remember nothing other than the importance of feedback to facilitate a frank conversation to diagnosis groupthink, and how cohesion can inhibit performance, they will have learned some of the most important tools for developing a learning team in the classroomor in the workplace.
Student Learning Outcomes

Although various aspects of the learning team model have been used in many classes, the approach was codified in the fall of 2009 after a student govern-
716
Table 2. Student Ratings by Class.
Team Process Is Working Effectively Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 All classes Mean 7.26 7.86 7.68 7.07 8.09 7.64 7.53 SD 2.30 1.53 1.97 1.77 1.47 1.95 1.87
I Am Learning From the Team Process Mean 7.59 8.04 8.44 7.10 7.96 7.42 7.65 SD 2.13 1.89 1.84 2.33 1.89 2.02 2.63
ment review of the authors undergraduate curriculum indicated that the throw them in the water and see if they can swim (Vik, 2001) approach to learning teams was ineffective. Since then, seven undergraduate business school classes and two online MBA classes have been introduced to the learning team model as a mechanism to improve team performance. The first time the model was used, team performance improved, but students did not know why. They rated the question, I think my team improved based on the project feedback we did after each case a 7.01 on a 1 to 10 scale, whereas the question, I am learning from the team approach only received a 4.3. So although teams were improving, the students did not perceive that they were learning about teams in the process. A minor revision the next semester allowed scores to improve by explicitly linking team feedback process to team development. Specifically, the team development segment of the class was moved so that it followed the organization learning assignments. The Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment were then identified as examples of concrete learning mechanisms as defined by Garvin et al. (2008) in their organization learning research. As such, these concrete team learning mechanisms were defined as tools to create team learning and improve team performance. Table 2 summarizes the mean scores and standard deviations for six undergraduate classes on two questions: I think my team improved based on the team feedback after each case and I am learning from the team approach. There was strong agreement that the team process was working effectively. The mean for the six classes was 7.53/10, with one class reporting a score of 8.09 and another class reporting a 7.07, indicating a range of success in different classes. Students were in slightly more agreement that they were learning from the team process. They rated this question an average of

Table 3. Student Ratings Regarding Team Process. Class 1 Mean How important is developing the team concept to this class (1 = not important, 10 = important) 7.95 Class 1 SD 1.50 Class 2 Mean 7.96
717
Class 2 SD 2.01
7.65/10, with one class reporting a high of 8.44 and another class reporting a low score of 7.42 with the other four classes in between. Additionally, two classes were asked if the emphasis on developing teams should be continued in a strategy-based class. Specifically the question read, How important is developing the team concept to this class? Survey results indicate that both classes were in strong agreement that the team emphasis was important with a mean of 7.95 out of 10 for the two classes although the standard deviation was considerably higher in one class indicating more disparity in the responses than the other class despite the nearly identical means. Please refer to Table 3 for the means and standard deviations of student ratings regarding team performance. Several comments are revealing. On a midterm course evaluation, a premed student who had the highest grade in a business school class rated the team process question a 4 (out of 10) and the I am learning about teams question a 3. He wrote: I am never a fan of team-based work because I always end up picking up other peoples slack . . . I find it really frustrating having to do other peoples work because I am busy enough as it is. On the final course content evaluation he rated the question, How important is developing the team in this class? a 10 and commented: I learned that it is actually possible to have a team full of college students. I was resistant to the team concept at first, but it has really grown on me because of the good experience in this class. I have learned a lot about myself and other team members as well. Other comments on the end-of-the-semester course content evaluation that each individual student completes include:
718
I learned how to look at companies and teams differently. [I can] see team interactions better and also learned how to become an efficient and effective team member. Another student commented: I learned how to be part of a teamnot a group. In responding to Lessons Learned from this team experience question found on the required Final Team Summary that each team completes, one team wrote: Group work is not just about meeting, putting the work together and turning it in. Collaboration, communication and criticism are all part of teamwork. It is about finishing your individual work as well as participating in criticizing another members work for a better paper overall. The little things such as finding time to meet are essential to the groups work because it makes sure everyone is equally involved in completing the work. The social environment of the group needs to be friendly for if the group members do not get along, discrepancies will be observed in the final project. On the same Team Summary Form another team commented: It is an adjustment, especially for students that are used to facilitating all the group work in groups where other students are slacking, to be able to work as a team. Finally, a comment from an MBA online team class formal course evaluation: Thank you for an excellent course. Our team agreed that it was probably the most exciting course of all we had so far. This student feedback suggests that the learning team model is indeed doing what it has set out to dobuild teams to improve performance and learn.
Conclusion, Contributions, and Limitations

ONeil et al. (1997, p. 24) identified the need for improved team skill-building curricula, What remains largely undone is the development of methods to assess the necessary [team] skills that have been identified . . . the teaching of
719
such skills . . . and the integration into the curriculum. Nine years later, London and Sessa (2006) identified the need for a better understanding of the role of feedback and performance in groups. A major contribution of this article is that it addresses both these needs by offering a model of team learning that builds on a foundation of team feedback. We propose that teaching students how to be effective team leaders and participants can be achieved with a formal team feedback tool that is supplemented with a team charter and team functioning assessment. This approach not only improves team performance, it also teaches team process skills and team dynamics, concepts that are often considered vague to students and as a result, difficult to teach. Although the Team Effectiveness Feedback and the Formal Team Assessment forms are easy to administer, we have found a few challenges with the process we would like to highlight. One caveat when using the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form and the Formal Team Assessment Form is rating inflation. Scores show a tendency for students to rate themselves fairly high (averages in the 8s and 9s) on the Feedback itemscontent, quality communication, participation, effectivenessdespite some significantly difficult team dynamics described in the team comments that are inconsistent with the high average for Team Feedback items. However, the scores themselves are less important than the discussion that occurs as a result of team members completing the forms individually and talking about them collectively. Therefore, it is important to encourage written comments along with the rating scales. Additionally students must be reminded several times that the Team Effectiveness Feedback Form must be turned in with the case or project assignment. Because they have never before been required to assess how they functioned as a team, this part of the assignment is easy to forget. Additionally there is an abundance of paper flowing among team members and between teams and faculty. This process can be greatly simplified by using electronic communication. The learning team model presents a highly efficient team feedback tool that is neither time-consuming nor labor intensive, which are critical qualities since it must be used regularly to be effective. The Team Effectiveness Feedback Form enables student teams to quickly and easily collect data on team effectiveness. Having teams regularly assess their team-level performance on a few critical scales provides the team an opportunity to discuss what is working and not working in the group without pointing the finger or blaming certain members for either bad outcomes or problematic individual behaviors. The simplicity of this model provides both a great strength and a weakness. That it can be added to an existing course to improve team functioning in a manner that is easy and not time-consuming makes it attractive. Depending on course objectives and time, team feedback can be coupled with a team
720
charter to facilitate discussion around goals and ground rules as well as a formal team assessment for a more potent effect. However, anyone who has worked in-depth with teams recognizes that this approach only scratches the surface. It does not create the psychological safety necessary to engender the risk taking and creative problem solving that can occur when a team has evolved to a high level of functioning. That being said, creating a charter and beginning to regularly assess performance with team feedback facilitates the building of trust and creates dialogue as team members capitalize on the availability of feedback and begin to make adjustments to the collective team behavior. The model introduces two concrete steps any team can take to improve performance over the short term and build trust over the long term. However, as Katzenbach and Smith (2005) point out, team norms such as the team charter and team feedback must be mandatory and not occasional for them to be effective. What is interesting to notice is how quickly most student teams gravitate toward improvement when required to assess their performance although every year a couple of teams fail to adjust feedback despite problems and have subpar performance as a result. Additionally, the flexibility of the model is important. At a minimum, basic team process components (charter, team feedback, and team assessment) can be added to an existing management course with project assignments to not only teach team skills but also help manage the team process itself when it goes awry, a not insignificant problem in business school teams. A third advantage of this approach is its generalizability since it can be used in other classes and easily transferred to the workplace. In fact, the team feedback form was originally developed for the workplace in one of the authors consulting practice. One of the best team development classroom techniques created by Michaelson (2009), provides an outstanding team development process but is limited in its lack of generalizability to the work setting. In Michaelsons model, students take chapter quizzes individually and then as a team. The team quizzes are graded immediately, therefore providing teams with immediate feedback identifying the most valuable contributors. This process helps address the dominantbut often incorrectteam member at the expense of the more introverted participant who may have valuable information to contribute but does not getor takea chance to speak. As a result, more introverted members are encouraged to participate and engage in the team problem-solving process. Although Michaelsons classroom methodology offers a critical team lesson to learn and improves classroom team functioning immensely, the quiz-reliant methodology does not readily transfer to the work setting.
721
Finally, more empirical research is needed to demonstrate the potency of team feedback on team performance and further testing of the learning team model. Additionally, an enhanced model of team effectiveness that incorporates readings on team dynamics, peer and self assessments, and both individual and group MyersBriggs Type Indicator will add rigor to the model. But the foundation for team feedback has been theoretically demonstrated and the teaching of teams in business school will continue to increase as the workplace demands for these important skills grows. Although teaching team theory is important, this model of team learning aims to generate easy-to-use, rigorous application tools to build teams that learn so that students can not only improve team performance but also add an important tool to their managerial toolbox.
Appendix A Annotated Timeline for Learning Team Model

Once students are assigned to teams: Complete the Team Charter (see Appendix B)
Ongoing Systemic Feedback

Team Effectiveness Feedback Form (see Appendix C) to be com-
pleted either after every three to four team meetings or at end of project if multiple projects are used 1. Each team member completes Team Effectiveness Feedback Form (see Appendix C). 2. Each team turns in one summary sheet of results with average and range of scores and areas of improvement.
Formal Team Assessment

At midpoint of project: Formal Team Assessment: Each individual team member completes
1. Formal Team Assessment Form (see Appendix D) which the students share with their teammates to create the Formal Team Summary Form The team will then do two things together 1. Complete the Formal Team Summary Form (see Appendix E) based on team members individual surveys 2. Evaluate their progress to date based on their individual ratings and revise team charter to become more effective for the remainder of the project or the semester.
722
Appendix B Team Charter

Appendix B: Team Charter
Iparticipatedinthecreationof thischarterandagreewithits content.
Name
Phone 1
Phone 2
Email
Initial
Team Goals (Project assignment goals, quality goals including grade expectations, etc.) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Team member skills and style (Who is good in this subject matter? Who has other skills we need? What are our working styles?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Team roles and responsibilities (Who will do what and by when?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
When is the best time to meet? ______________________________________________________________________________
How do we want to give each other feedback on assignments? (What shall we do about missing deadlines, different views on content or quality standards?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
(continued)
723
Appendix B (continued)
What are expectations for group participation? (Preparation for meetings, participation in group discussion and overall contribution to group.) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
How do we want to give each other feedback on group performance? (Attitude/respect/tone, level of involvement. What do we do about members not fully contributing?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Potential barriers to the achievement of team goals: ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Ground Rules (Meeting schedule, attendance expectations, being on time, checking for and responding to team messages, assignment (non)completion, keeping each other informed, communication methods, etc.) ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Conflict Management (What are potential conflicts that might arise among or between team members during this course? How will team members deal with these and other conflicts?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
How will we assess our functioning? How often will we assess our functioning? (Every session, once a week, twice a semester?)
(continued)
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Conflict Management (What are potential conflicts that might arise among or between team members during this course? How will team members deal with these and other conflicts?) 724 Journal of Management Education 37(5) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B (continued) How will we assess our functioning? How often will we assess our functioning? (Every session, once a week, twice a semester?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
How will we change to improve our performance if necessary? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
What has happened on other team projects that had inhibited performance? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Based on your different MBTI types, what are your collective strengths and weaknesses as a team? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
What problems might we anticipate over the course of the semester and what can we do about them? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Other comments about how we can function together for good and improving performance. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
725
Appendix C Team Effectiveness Feedback Form

Appendix C: Team Effectiveness Feedback Form Team: Case: Date:
TEAM FEEDBACK Directions: At the end of every case project, each team member completes this form. One person should be designated as the person who reads/reports all of the feedback to the group. The group discusses the range of scores and the comments. It is important that the team discusses the results of this informal survey if you are going to improve your effectiveness. Remember to turn in one summary sheet with your case. Please assess your team on a scale of 1-10 for each item, with 1 being the least effective and 10 being the most effective Content 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Open, straight-forward and direct communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Participation
10
Overall effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(continued)
What would you suggest to improve our team effectiveness?
Overall effectiveness
726
5 Journal 6 of
Management 37(5) 7 8 Education 9 10
Appendix C (continued)
What would you suggest to improve our team effectiveness?
Appendix D Formal Team Assessment Form

Appendix D: Formal Team Assessment Form Please assess your team on a scale of 1-10 for each item, with 1 being the least effective and 10 being the most effective. Goals 1 Poor Confused; diverse; conflicting; group going in different directions 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Clear to all; shared by all; purpose and direction is understood; all our goals were met Participation 1 Poor Few dominate; some passive; several talk at once or interrupt 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Everyone participates nearly equally
Communication 1 Poor Close, guarded, secretive, members are careful Respect for Others 1 Poor 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Open, sharing; no need to sensor thoughts related to team activity
(continued)
10 Effective
Communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Open, sharing; no need to sensor thoughts related to team activity
Hillier and Dunn-Jensen Poor
727
Appendix D (continued) are careful

Respect for Others 1 Poor No one listens; cant hear anyone but self. Members lack regard for each 2 3 4 5 6 7
Close, guarded, secretive, members
10 Effective
Active listening and high interest in what others are saying. Members
other
appreciate each other Feelings/Conflict
1 Poor
10 Effective
Unexpected; ignored or criticized; not dealt with openly Climate 1 Poor Oppressive; negative atmosphere members dread 2 3 4 5 6
Freely expressed; empathic responses open discussion around issues
10 Effective
Exciting; members look forward to participation Diagnosis of Team Problems
1 Poor
10 Effective
Jump directly to remedial proposals; treat symptoms rather than root causes
When problems arise, situation is carefully diagnosed before action proposed; remedies attack root cause
Time Management 1 Poor Time wasted and not managed 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Time managed well in order to get the job done Leadership 1 Poor
(continued)
7 8 9 10 Effective
Time Management
728
Poor

Effective Time managed well in order to get the job done
10
Appendix D (continued)
Leadership 1 Poor Leadership needs not met; team depends too much on single person or a few persons 2 3 4 5 6
Time wasted and not managed
10 Effective
Various members meet leadership needs as they arise (distributed leadership); anyone feels free to volunteer as s/he sees team need Decisions
1 Poor
10 Effective
Needed decisions dont get made; decisions made by part of team; others often silent or uncommitted
Consensus sought and tested; alternative thinking appreciated and used to improve decision; decisions are fully supported when made Trust
1 Poor
10 Effective
Members distrust one another; they are polite, careful, closed, guarded; they listen superficially but inwardly reject what others say; they are afraid to disagree Creativity and Growth 1 Poor Members and team in a rut; operate routinely; people stereotyped and rigid in their roles; no progress 2 3 4 5 6 7
Members trust one another; they disagree respectively, they respect and use the responses they get; they can freely express negative reactions without fearing reprisal
10 Effective
Team is flexible; seek new and better ways; individuals changing and growing; creative; members supported
(continued)
Members Contribution Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on November 20, 2013
Members and team in a rut; operate routinely; people stereotyped and
Team is flexible; seek new and better ways; individuals changing and growing; creative; members supported
Hillier and rigid in theirDunn-Jensen roles; no progress
729
Appendix D (continued)
Members Contribution 1 Poor No one felt they worked well or contributed 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Individuals felt like they gave it their all
Control and Structure/Norms 1 Poor No control just chaos, no agreed or accepted structure Quality 1 Poor Poor quality; embarrassed by output Source: Adapted from Schein (1988) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Quality was outstanding 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Effective Internal controls worked well, structure very appropriate
Appendix E Formal Team Summary Form

Appendix E: Formal Team Summary Form 10 points Team members names ______________
1. Each team member completes the Team Effectiveness Assessment (Form C) found in Resources /Team 2. As a team, average the scores and determine the range of scores for each item. Report average and range below. 3. Based on this assessment, determine what are your teams strengths and weaknesses 4. What are the lessons you are learned from this team about what you should do to improve effectiveness. This is to be a thoughtful assessment, not random bullet points from the survey. You need to determine what the scores mean and what you could do to improve. Team Attributes (from team survey) Goals ParticipationDownloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on November 20, 2013 Average Range of scores
(continued)
730
Appendix E (continued)
Team Attributes (from team survey) Goals Participation Communication Respect Feelings/Conflict Climate Diagnosis of team problems Time management Leadership Decisions Trust Creativity & growth Members contribution Control/structure/norms Quality
Discuss a couple strengths and weaknesses behaviorally based on survey results. DO NOT make a list of highest and lowest attributes from above list. Strengths Weaknesses
Average
Range of scores
Discuss a couple strengths and weaknesses behaviorally based on survey results. DO NOT make a list of highest and lowest attributes from above list. Lessons Learned from this team experience Strengths Weaknesses Whatchangesdoweneedtomaketoteamchartertoimproveourperformance? Lessons Learned from this team experience
Whatchangesdoweneedtomaketoteamchartertoimproveourperformance?
Use back or second sheet if necessary
Use back or second sheet if necessary

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen Acknowledgments
731
The authors are grateful to Denny Organ, Cindi Fukami, and two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and encouragement on this article. A workshop version of this article was presented at the 38th Annual Organization Behavior Teaching Conference 2011 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; feedback from session participants is also acknowledged.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barr, S. H., & Conlon, E. J. (1994). Effects of distribution of feedback in workgroups. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 641-655. Borredon, L., Deffayet, S., Baker, A. C., & Kolb, D. (2011). Enhancing deep learning: Lessons from the introduction of learning teams in management education in France. Journal of Management Education, 35, 324-350. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552-560. Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 27-40. Cox, P. L., & Bobrowski, P. E. (2000). The team charter assignment: Improving the effectiveness of classroom teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 1, 92-103. Cox, P. L., Bobrowski, P. E., & Spector, M. (2004). Gateway to business: An innovative approach to integrating writing into the first-year business curriculum. Journal of Management Education, 28, 62-87. Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 60-67.
732
Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, March, 3-10. Goltz, S. M., Hietapelto, A. B., Reinsch, R. W., & Tyrell, S. K. (2008). Teaching teamwork and problem solving concurrently. Journal of Management Education, 32, 541-562. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287-322. 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. 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. Halfhill, T. R., & Nielsen, T. M. (2007). Quantifying the softer side of management education: An example using teamwork competencies. Journal of Management Education, 31, 64-80. Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestion for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 11-19. Holmer, L. L. (2001). Will we teach leadership or skilled incompetence? The challenge of student project teams. Journal of Management Education, 25, 590-605. Hunsaker, P., Pavett, C., & Hunsaker, J. (2011). Increasing student-learning team effectiveness with team charters. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 127-139. Kalliath, T., & Laiken, M. (2006). Use of teams in management education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 747-750. Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (2005). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1-11. Kowlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multi-level approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kowlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. London, M., & Sessa, V. I. (2006). Group feedback for continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 303-329. Marks, M. A., & Panzer, F. J. (2004). The role of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Human Performance, 17, 25-41.
733
McLeod, P. L., Liker, J. K., & Lobel, S. (1992). Process feedback in task groups: An application of goal setting. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, 15-41. Michaelson, L. (2009, November). Team based learning. Presentation at the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) meeting, Bloomington, IN. Nadler, D. A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of the experimental research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 309-338. ONeil, H. F., Allerd, K., & Baker, E. L. (1997). Review of workplace readiness theoretical frameworks. In H. F. ONeil (Ed.), Workforce readiness: Competencies and assessment (pp. 3-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). Why do great minds think alike? Antecedents of team members schema agreement. Journal of Organization Behavior, 22, 107-120. Roberto, M. A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Leadership and team simulation II. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ross, D. N., Zufan, P., & Rosenbloom, A. (2008). Experiences from crossinstitutional exchanges of undergraduate business student written cases. Journal of Management Education, 32, 444-475. Rothenberg, N. (2011, June). Measuring up: How does your project team approach compare to best practices from applied research? Paper presented at the 38th Annual Organization Behavior Teaching Conference, Milwaukee, WI. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency. Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation: Vol. 1. Its role in organization development. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Stein, R., & Hurd, S. (2000). Using student teams in the classroom: A faculty guide. Bolton, MA: Anker. Vik, G. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 112-119.

Groups and Teams Journal of Management Education-2013-Hillier-704-33

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Groups and Teams Journal of Management Education-2013-Hillier-704-33

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Management Education http://jme.sagepub.

Groups Meet . . . Teams Improve: Building Teams That Learn

OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators

Groups Meet . . .Teams Improve:Building Teams That Learn

Janet Hillier1 and Linda M. Dunn-Jensen1

Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

The Learning Team Approach

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

The Learning Team Model

Figure 1. Learning team model.

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Teaching Learning Teams

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Team Effectiveness Feedback Form

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Formal Team Assessment

Formal Team Assessment Form

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Formal Team Summary Form

Using the Learning Team Approach Within Different Class Settings

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

One Teams Story

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Student Learning Outcomes

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Conclusion, Contributions, and Limitations

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Appendix A Annotated Timeline for Learning Team Model

Ongoing Systemic Feedback

Formal Team Assessment

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Appendix B Team Charter

When is the best time to meet? ______________________________________________________________________________

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Potential barriers to the achievement of team goals: ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

How will we change to improve our performance if necessary? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen

Appendix C Team Effectiveness Feedback Form

Open, straight-forward and direct communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Management 37(5) 7 8 Education 9 10

Appendix D Formal Team Assessment Form

Hillier and Dunn-Jensen Poor

Appendix D (continued) are careful

Close, guarded, secretive, members

appreciate each other Feelings/Conflict

Freely expressed; empathic responses open discussion around issues

Exciting; members look forward to participation Diagnosis of Team Problems

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Time wasted and not managed

Members and team in a rut; operate routinely; people stereotyped and

Hillier and rigid in theirDunn-Jensen roles; no progress

Appendix E Formal Team Summary Form

Journal of Management Education 37(5)

Use back or second sheet if necessary

Use back or second sheet if necessary

Potential barriers to the achievement of team goals: __ _

How will we change to improve our performance if necessary?