See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265965310

The Effects of a Team Charter on Student Team Behaviors

Article  in  The Journal of Education for Business · February 2014

DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763753

CITATIONS READS
13 2,902

3 authors, including:

Joshua R Aaron William C McDowell

Middle Tennessee State University Bradley University
28 PUBLICATIONS   134 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   428 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Learning Orientation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua R Aaron on 01 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 90–97, 2014
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763753

The Effects of a Team Charter on Student

Team Behaviors
Joshua R. Aaron, William C. McDowell, and Andrew O. Herdman
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA

The authors contribute to growing evidence that team charters contribute positively to perfor-
mance by empirically testing their effects on key team process outcomes. Using a sample of
business students in a team-based task requiring significant cooperative and coordinative be-
havior, the authors compare emergent team norms under a variety of team charter intervention
conditions. They find support for the assertion that the introduction of team charters does in
fact manifest improved process outcomes, including communication, effort, mutual support,
cohesion, and member satisfaction.

Keywords: group norms, student teams, team charter

While team-based organizing strategies are purported to de-
liver greater productivity, quality and creativity in the per-
formance of tasks (Hackman, 1987; Kerr & Tindale, 2004;
Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), team-based initiatives often fail to
meet expectations within organizations (Winston, 1999). As
a consequence, research and practitioner attention to inter-
ventions designed to improve team functioning have grown
significantly (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008).
For this reason, business schools face an increasing man-
date to prepare students to perform in teams (Bacon, Stewart
& Silver, 1999; Navarro, 2008). The result is the use of
student teams as a teaching tool in business school curricu-
lums. However, faculty and students understand the signif-
icant challenges in utilizing student teams effectively. Ask
the average classroom full of college students if they enjoy
working in teams and you are likely to get more rolled eyes
than raised hands.
Certainly, any faculty using teams as a teaching tool can
testify to the potential for dysfunction and performance dif-
ficulties. More and more—both in academic and applied en-
vironments, teams are understood as contexts for complex
emergent social dynamics that can operate to either enhance
or impair group performance. Indeed, there are a number
of well-documented process norms that systematically un-
dermine team effectiveness—including production blocking
(Deihl & Stroebe, 1987), evaluation apprehension (Cooper,
Gallupe, Pollard, & Cadsby, 1998), group think (Janis, 1982),
and social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). Thus, it should
not be surprising that the challenges of creating high func-
tioning teams are not isolated to the workplace.
In the present article, we build on the growing literature re-
lated to team charters as an effective intervention in building
effective process norms within student teams that, ultimately,
improve member satisfaction and performance (Hunsaker,
Pavett, & Hunsaker, 2011; Mathieu & Rapp, 2009). We in-
troduce team charters and review the literature on effective
team process norms in order to isolate those process mecha-
nisms most critical to team functioning and member satisfac-
tion. We then develop a series of team charter interventions
designed to understand the relative impact the introduction
of team charters has on these process mechanisms in student
project teams. These interventions vary in the degree of facil-
itator involvement, allowing for a direct test of the assertion
that team charters are most effective when accompanied by
ample coaching and support (Hunsaker et al., 2011). Consis-
tent with these expectations, we find evidence of the efficacy
of team charters in the educational context in fully leverag-
ing the benefits of team-based structures. The implications
for teaching and practice are discussed.
LITERATURE REVIEW

Correspondence should be addressed to Joshua R. Aaron, East Carolina The goal of this study was to explore the impact of team
University, Department of Management, 134 Slay Hall, Greenville, NC charters on process norms that are important to team func-
27858, USA. E-mail: aaronj@ecu.edu tioning. We begin by providing a brief review of team norms
 THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM CHARTER ON STUDENT TEAM BEHAVIORS
and behaviors found to be important to team functioning.
We then introduce team charters as an intervention argued
to be important to optimizing these norms and, in turn, grow
member satisfaction and performance (Hunsaker et al., 2011;
Mathieu & Rapp, 2007).
Facets of Teamwork Quality Important
to Performance and Satisfaction
Studies investigating team-based organizing strategies have
produced conflicting results regarding performance ef-
fects (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Indeed, many organiza-
tions report continued frustration with suboptimal team
performance—with estimates suggesting that more than 70%
of teams fail or fall short of performance expectations
(Winston, 1999). The result is a growing consensus that team
performance is reliant on the development of effective inter-
mediate processes that mediate the relationship between team
establishment and team performance and calls for research
investigating team processes and dynamics that drive their
performance (Mathieu et al., 2008).
Team research suggests a number of intermediary norms
important to team functioning. These mechanisms, referred
to here as teamwork quality, are argued to be important de-
terminants of member satisfaction, growth, and performance
(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Defined broadly, teamwork
quality describes the effectiveness of collaborative behav-
ior (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). These collaborative team-
work behaviors include communication, effort, cohesion, and
mutual support.
Communication describes the level and quality of the in-
formal and formal transmission of information necessary for
task completion (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Past meta-
analytic studies affirm the importance of information shar-
ing to team performance, cohesion and member satisfac-
tion (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). To be sure, the
success and failure of student project teams are often at-
tributable anecdotally to communication quality. Similarly,
a team’s norms regarding mutual expectations for individual
effort are critical to minimizing conflict and other dysfunc-
tions inherent to teams. The phenomenon of social loafing
suggests that individuals tend to exert less effort to achieve a
goal when they work in a group than when they work alone
(Karau & Williams, 1993). Certainly instructors and man-
agers alike understand the impacts on team motivation and
interpersonal dynamics that emerge when members report
others not carrying their weight in a team-based project. It is
reasonable to argue that social loafing, though a seemingly
natural tendency in group contexts, is among the more de-
structive forces to team function, member satisfaction, and
performance.
Team cohesion represents another important facet of team-
work quality. Group cohesion, described as group members’
inclinations to forge social bonds, results in members stick-
ing together and remaining united (Carron, 1982; Casey-
91
Campbell & Martens, 2009; Mudrack, 1989). Group cohe-
sion is believed to serve as an important basis for the ful-
fillment of members’ group affiliation needs. Thus, it has
been one of most widely researched constructs in group and
team literatures (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009) and is
argued to have a positive relationship with the quality of
group output (e.g., Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003).
Of specific interest in this context is interpersonal cohesion,
which focuses specifically on the degree of attraction to the
group because of satisfactory relationships and friendships
with other group members (Festinger, 1950).
Another facet of teamwork quality important to team func-
tioning is the degree to which members develop a sense of
shared purpose regarding the goals and objectives of the
team. Models of team development assert that periods of
instability early in a team’s life are often driven by a lack
of clarity around group goals (Tuckman, 1965). For exam-
ple, Gersick (1988) reported that team development can be
best understood in terms of punctuated equilibrium—or a
period before and after clarity is achieved related to team
tasks and goals. In her model, a team’s transition from con-
flict to performance is only possible when there is a common
understanding of the task and goals.
Finally, mutual support is a facet of teamwork quality sug-
gested to be a determining factor in team performance. Mu-
tual support among team members is optimized when mem-
ber behavior is characterized by mutually affirming, support-
ive behavior. Teams that exhibit mutual support assist one
another and encourage members to share information. These
supportive behaviors enable the full collective contributions
of the group and are direct determinants of group satisfaction
and performance (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001).
The Effects of Team Charters on
Teamwork Quality
Team charters are tools believed to be important to the devel-
opment of effective teamwork quality and, in turn, member
satisfaction and performance (Hunsaker et al., 2011; Mathieu
& Rapp, 2009). A team charter is introduced to team mem-
bers upon formation and provides the team the opportunity
to discuss and, ultimately, agree on members’ expectations
related to behavior, meeting management and the allocation
of work (Barron, 2000). Team charters are rooted in the
assumption that events early in the life of a team tend to
have long-lasting effects. Consequently, attention to inten-
tional development of healthy behavioral and process norms
can lay the foundation for effectiveness (Mathieu & Rapp,
2009). Team charters can establish a common frame of refer-
ence as well as bring disagreements regarding expectations
and goals to the surface (Barron, 2000). Establishing early
consensus can be critical in combating dysfunction in task
structuring, norm development and decision-making (Cox &
Bobrowski, 2004).
92 J. R. AARON ET AL.
The content elements of a team charter map onto the
characteristics of effective teamwork quality just discussed
(Hunsaker et al., 2011; Mathieu & Rapp, 2009; Whatley,
2009). Common content addressed in the team charter in-
cludes purpose or mission statements, operating guidelines,
behavioral norms and performance management processes
(Hunsaker et al., 2011). Together, students are required to
process and ratify their expectations in each of these areas.
In doing so, the student’s attention is given to these issues
and concerns prior to attempting to carry out the assigned
task and mechanisms are created to remedy any emergent
issues or deviations from the team charter agreement. The
attention given to proactively shaping healthy and supportive
processes should lead to enhanced student satisfaction and
group performance (Hackman, 2009).
Mathieu and Rapp (2009) provided evidence that the in-
troduction of team charters to student teams is effective in
speeding the team’s development and positively associated
with subsequent team performance. Implicit in this investi-
gation is the assumption that performance effects are born
of the development of healthier group norms. This asser-
tion is supported by anecdotal evidence recently offered
by Hunsaker et al. (2011), suggesting team charters are
important to shaping expectations related to team process
norms.
The Role of Instructor/Manager Support
A clear observation of recent team charters research is the
importance of support and coaching of the instructor (Hun-
saker et al., 2011; Whatley, 2009). The degree to which teams
are able to effectively understand the charter’s content would
seem to be a critical moderating condition for its effective-
ness. The greater time and care given to the charters devel-
opment, the more utility derived from the charter. This is
especially true in an academic context where members are
often new to team membership and have limited understand-
ing team effective functioning.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the greater time, at-
tention and facilitator support a team receives through the
ratification process, the more pronounced the positive ef-
fects on team work quality. Teams afforded greater instruc-
tional guidance and emphasis on the charter’s importance
and content should experience better results than teams sim-
ply provided a team charter with little guidance or support.
This assertion has direct ramifications on the implementa-
tion of team charters in a classroom setting. We believe,
following Hunsaker and colleagues (2011), that the instruc-
tor plays a critical role in shaping the effectiveness of team
charters.
Hypotheses
In the preceding discussion, the facets of teamwork quality
were described and the team charter was introduced as a
tool important to optimizing teamwork quality. The relation-
ship between efforts to clarify and develop team behavioral
norms important to team functioning and member satisfac-
tion are supported by team development theory. The notion
that teams develop behavioral norms over time and these
norms are critical to team effectiveness has long been a fun-
damental precept of the team literature (e.g., Gully, 2000;
McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). While a wide variety of
theories have been offered specifying the ordering of the team
development phases, consensus exists among these theories
that events early in the life of the team are critically important
and have lasting effects on the nature of the norms developed
as well as member satisfaction and performance (Gersick,
1988, 1989; Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Kozlowski, Gully,
McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Morgan, Salas,
& Glickman, 1993; Tuckman, 1965). Moreover, the specific
mechanism by which teams evolve various patterns of behav-
ior include importation from outside the group and creation
in which members deliberately specify expectations related
to group functioning (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). The intro-
duction of the team charter exercise would seem to leverage
both creation and importation. In doing so, the more emer-
gent patterns that developed through spontaneous interac-
tions among team members are bypassed and, opportunities
for dysfunctional or counterproductive behavioral patterns
are diminished. Thus, team development and learning theory
support the notion that the team development process can
both be sped by the early introduction of team charters and
effectively shaped by outside intervention efforts targeting
the intentional development of healthy team norms. For ex-
ample, a critical function of team charters is eliciting member
input related to their expectations regarding communication
methods. Similarly, issues and conflict related to uneven ef-
fort among team members would be mitigated through team
charters. As stated, team charters are designed specifically
to address expectations related to shared obligations in task
completion and, as importantly, to provide a clearly defined
remedial mechanism to rectify effort imbalances. An addi-
tional component of the team charter is arriving at a shared
understanding of the task at hand and the goals and mission
of the group (Aranda, Aranda, & Conlon, 1998; Hunsaker
et al., 2011; McDermott, Brawley, & Waite, 1998). By arriv-
ing at a shared sense of purpose and acceptable interpersonal
norms, we expected that group interpersonal cohesion would
be improved in groups that employ team charters. Finally,
team charters explicitly define behaviors consistent with mu-
tual support and, therefore, likely lead to improved levels of
mutual support in teams. Taken together, the team charter
directly targets the facets of teamwork quality believed to
important to member satisfaction and performance.
Further, we argued that instructor support would figure
centrally in the relative impact of the team charter on team-
work quality. A team provided increased levels of instruc-
tional support and instruction should have better outcomes
than a team simply provided the charter and asked to discuss
and ratify. Therefore we offer the following hypotheses:
 THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM CHARTER ON STUDENT TEAM BEHAVIORS
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Students who receive the team charter
example without instructions on using it would have
greater levels of (a) team communication, (b) team ef-
fort, (c) team cohesion, (d) mutual support, and (e) satis-
faction than students who do not receive the team charter
example.
H2: Students who receive the team charter example and re-
ceive training and follow-up on using the team charter
would have greater levels of (a) team communication,
(b) team effort, (c) team cohesion, (d) mutual support,
and (e) satisfaction than students who do not receive the
team charter example.
H3: Students who receive the team charter example and re-
ceive training and follow-up on using the team charter
would have greater levels of (a) team communication,
(b) team effort, (c) team cohesion, (d) mutual support,
and (e) satisfaction than students who receive the team
charter example without instructions for using it.
METHODOLOGY
The data for this study were collected in an undergraduate
course at a large university in the southwestern United States
that required the development of a full business plan by stu-
dent teams. This context is especially appropriate for several
reasons. First, the task involved is sufficiently complex and
demands high degrees of student interaction and coordina-
tion. Second, the students entering the course are often naive,
in relative terms, to the challenges and issues associated with
team functioning. It is also worth noting that the decision to
implement team charters in this context was born of historic
issues with team dysfunction, lack of cooperation, and subse-
quent student dissatisfaction. Taken together, we believe the
context and sample represent an appropriate environment to
test the hypothesized effects of both team charters on group
processes as well as the relative impact of varying levels of
facilitator involvement.
We administered a survey assessing group processes and
member satisfaction during the final week of the course.
Three sections of the course were used, each with same in-
structor, but different methods of introducing and supporting
the team charter at the beginning of the course were em-
ployed. In total, the sample consisted of 88 students across
three sections. Of the respondents, 43 were women. The aver-
age age of the respondents was 23.9 years (SD = 3.968). The
mean years of work experience was 4.64 years (SD = 2.584)
with 82 of the respondents indicating that they had an average
of 1.18 years of managerial experience. In the first section (n
= 31), no team charter or associated support was provided to
the student teams. In the second condition (n = 28) the stu-
dents were provided the team charter and assignment with no
instruction or follow-up training. In the final condition (n =
29), groups were provided the team charter and assignment,
and also received training, support and instruction.
93
The design for this study was a single factor experiment
examining the effectiveness of a team charter on both the
teamwork quality measures and member satisfaction. The hy-
potheses were tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
to compare the unique pairs of means across the three condi-
tions.
Measures
The team charter administered in class was adapted from the
sample charter developed by Dowling (2003). The charter
consisted of items such as a team mission statement as well as
guidance regarding meeting management, decision making,
and handling conflict. In addition, the areas of team goals
and performance management were also included in the team
charter document to enable the development of clarity related
to the task as well as agreed-on remedial mechanisms in case
of underperforming team members. A copy of the charter
can be found in the Appendix.
The hypothesized process mechanisms of team communi-
cation, team effort, team cohesion, and team mutual support
were included in a paper-and-pencil survey format. All stu-
dents completed the survey anonymously. These items were
adapted from Hoegl and Gemuenden’s (2001) survey items
for teamwork quality. In addition, team satisfaction was ex-
amined using an adaptation of the general satisfaction scale
developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980). Each item was
measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(very little extent) to 7 (very great extent).
Team communication (α = .82) was measured with five
items. Examples of these items include “Team members
openly share project relevant information,” “My team mem-
bers are happy with the timeliness in which we receive in-
formation,” and “There is frequent communication within
our team.” Team effort (α = .93) was measured with four
items, which include “Every team member feels fully re-
sponsible for the team goals,” “Every team member fully
pushes the project,” “My team feels fully responsible for
achieving the common project goals,” and “Every team mem-
ber gives the project their highest priority.” Team cohesion
(α = .94) was measured with four items, which include “The
project has the strong commitment of my team members,”
“My team members are proud being a part of this project,”
“My team members are committed not only to the team,
but also to the overall project,” and “My team values be-
ing a part of this project.” Team mutual support (α = .86)
was measured with four items, which include “Suggestions
and contributions of team members are respected,” “Sug-
gestions and contributions of team members are discussed
and further developed,” “Discussions and controversies are
conducted constructively,” and “There is a cooperative work
atmosphere in my team.” Team satisfaction (α = .93) was
measured with five items, which include “I am satisfied
with my team,” “I am satisfied with the way my team func-
tions,” “I am satisfied with the communication between team
94 J. R. AARON ET AL.

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Sample
Size

Treatment group Treatment group Treatment group

1: No team 2: Team charter 3: Team charter
4.531
charter given (no instruction; with instruction
(n = 31) n = 28) (n = 29) 4.35

Item α M SD M SD M SD

Communication .82 3.484 0.563 4.107 0.729 4.352 0.471 3.626 4.352
Effort .93 2.976 1.053 3.777 0.209 3.845 0.795 4.107
Cohesion .94 3.258 1.093 4.009 1.017 4.103 0.760
Mutual support .86 3.653 0.697 4.196 0.647 4.379 0.604 Sasfacon
Satisfaction .93 3.626 0.824 4.350 0.899 4.531 0.704 3.484 Communicaon
3.845 Effort
3.777
members,” “I am satisfied with the leadership in my team,” Cohesion
and “I am satisfied with the relationship climate within my 2.976
Mutual Support
team.” 4.103

RESULTS
The means, standard deviations, and reliability estimates for
each of these items can be found in Table 1. Before exam-
ining the hypotheses, the demographic data were examined
to see if there were any differences among the groups that
may affect the hypotheses constructs. Age, gender, total work
experience and managerial experience all produced no sta-
tistically significant difference between the means of these
variables in the three treatment groups.
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence
of a team charter on the teamwork quality and satisfaction
of team members. Students in three treatment groups were
asked to evaluate their team communication, effort, cohesion,
mutual support, and satisfaction at the end of the semester.
The first treatment group received no team charter exam-
ple or assignment. The second treatment group received the
team charter assignment but no instruction or follow-up. The
third treatment group received the team charter example and
assignment and received instruction on how to use it and
follow-up throughout the semester. The hypotheses indicated
that a significant difference would be found on each of the
measurement items between all three groups. For graphical
comparison, the means for each of the process outcomes
and member satisfaction were plotted and are featured in
Figure 1. As shown, general support for the hypotheses are
found in these data with general improvement in the process
outcomes for the second and third conditions, in which team
charters were introduced.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to explore where the
observed magnitude of mean level differences were statisti-
cally significant. The results indicate that there is a statisti-
cally significant difference between treatment group one (no
team charter) and treatment group two (team charter exam-
4.009
3.258
4.379
4.196
3.653
1 2 3
FIGURE 1 Mean plots (color figure available online).
ple and assignment only) across all hypothesized variables.
This finding supports H1 in that the introduction of the team
charter significantly improved member reports of the effec-
tiveness of their team’s processes. In addition, the results in-
dicate a positive statistically significant difference between
treatment group one (no team charter) and treatment group
three (team charter example and assignment with follow-up)
across all measurement items. This supports H22. However,
the results indicate nonsignificant differences between treat-
ment group two (team charter example and assignment only)
and treatment group three (team charter example and assign-
ment with follow-up) across all variables. While these data
suggests there is improvement in absolute terms between
condition two and three, this difference was not statistically
significant. Thus, H33 is rejected. The mean differences and
significant values can be found in Table 2.
DISCUSSION
The increasing use of student teams in project-based as-
signments in higher education is an appropriate and impor-
tant response to producing the capable team members and
 THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM CHARTER ON STUDENT TEAM BEHAVIORS 95

TABLE 2 ter would have higher levels of teamwork quality than those
Mean Differences Between Variables that have only been introduced to the charter. The lack of
Primary Comparing Mean
support for this hypothesis poses an interesting question.
Variable group group difference SE Why does the introduction to the charter plus instruction
not yield greater levels of teamwork quality than the intro-
Communication 1 2 −.623∗∗∗ .155 duction to the charter alone? While these teams did in fact
1 3 −.868∗∗∗ .154 have slightly higher levels of teamwork quality, the differ-
2 3 −.245 .158
ence was not statistically significant. We believe there are at
Effort 1 2 −.801∗ .259
1 3 −.869∗ .257 least two plausible explanations for this finding. First, it may
2 3 −.068 .263 be that the simple introduction of the team charter provides
Cohesion 1 2 −.751∗ .253 the greatest impact, while additional training and develop-
1 3 −.845∗ .250 ment provides only a modest incremental gain in the selected
2 3 −.095 .257
outcomes. The introduction of a team charter alone serves
Mutual support 1 2 −.543∗ .170
1 3 −.726∗∗∗ .168 as a reminder to the students of the need to work together
2 3 −.183 .172 as well as the commitment they have made to one another.
Satisfaction 1 2 −.724∗∗∗ .211 Second, working through the implementation of the charter
1 3 −.905∗∗∗ .209 on their own may provide an active learning experience that
2 3 −.181 .215
provides better teamwork outcomes than being told what to
Note. Treatment group 1 = no team charter; Treatment group 2 = team do by an instructor.
charter example; Treatment group 3 = team charter example and follow-up Most research on teams focuses on greater productivity,
instructions. quality and creativity in the performance of tasks (Hack-
∗ p < .05. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
man, 1987; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
Our study extends the understanding of team functioning by
focusing on the process mechanisms that lead to team per-
leaders demanded by today’s organizations. However, stu- formance rather than performance itself. As such, we pro-
dent teams often fail to produce the desired results and more vide insight into the intermediate impact of the charters. As
often represent a source of frustration for both student and shown in Figure 1, the introduction of team charters led
instructor. Instructors witness a lack of quality collaboration to increased levels of communication, effort, cohesion, and
while students deal with social loafing, personality conflicts support in this sample. These outcomes suggests that team
and the challenges of coordinating schedules and group meet- charters can serve an important role in improving team func-
ings. The institution of a team charter is designed to develop tioning and member satisfaction—critical gains in creating
important team norms and processes and thereby mitigate a positive experience for students learning to function and
these issues. In doing so, the team charter represents an im- perform in teams. Ultimately, we believe doing so holds
portant instructional tool that can be invaluable to equipping the potential to improve student experience and more fully
students for a positive learning experience and ultimately leverage the pedagogical value of teams in the classroom, as
better equip them for success as members of teams within well as student preparedness for participating in teams within
organizations. The results of our study affirm these assertions organizations.
and suggest the implementation of team charters can be im-
portant to improving team quality and member satisfaction.
Directions for Future Research
Additionally, we provide evidence that the instructor plays
a central role in the efficacy of these team charters and can This finding presents an interesting direction for future re-
enhance their effectiveness through follow-up training and search. While this sample was taken of individuals working
support. within teams, these team members were all current business
The results support H1 and H2 for all measured variables, students. It would be beneficial to test these hypotheses with
suggesting that teams introduced to the team charter, whether teams outside of the academic arena where the team mem-
briefly or through more detailed instruction and follow-up, bers are not exposed to concepts related to team development
reported higher levels of teamwork quality than those that and functioning. Further, the data collected in this study do
were not introduced to the team charter. Because previous not provide the opportunity to investigate the impact of these
research has found that the introduction of team charters is outcomes on team performance. Positioning and testing the
associated with enhanced team performance (Mathieu et al., measured process variables as moderators between the team
2008), these results suggests that this performance improve- charters and performance outcomes is an important future
ment is likely attributable to the enhanced teamwork quality direction. Further, testing the full causal relationships be-
born of team charters. tween team charters and performance outcomes may reveal
H3 was not supported. This hypothesis stated that teams effects of more extensive team charter training (condition
provided extensive training and follow-up on the team char- three) not found in these data. In addition, the theory utilized
96 J. R. AARON ET AL.
previously on the use of the team charter is based on the
charter being administered to newly forming teams. Unex-
plored are the effects of the team charter introduction on
existing teams, where team behavioral norms are already in
place. The effectiveness of team charters on changing exist-
ing behavioral patterns, therefore, is another important future
research direction. What would the introduction of the team
charter do for these teams? We would expect there would still
be some benefit due to the need to continually adapt to the
surroundings and new team members, but what would this
difference be?
Additionally, future research could examine the impact
of team charters in relation to other team building skills.
We believe team charters compare favorably with other team
building skills. First of all, many team-building skills are
experiential, making the learning derived from them more
implicit. Team charters explicitly state the expectations for
group members, removing doubt about communicating ap-
propriate learning outcomes. Second, the benefit from most
team building skills occurs late in the team’s development or
even as a person reflects on the overall experience of team-
work. Team charters force team members to consider their
roles and responsibilities before any real teamwork begins,
providing ample time for benefits to be derived and learn-
ing to be applied. Additionally, we believe team charters
and other team building skills need not be mutually exclu-
sive. Team charters serve to reinforce healthy team norms,
whether learned from general team experience or a specific
team-building exercise. To that extent, team charters would
work well to enhance the efficacy of other team building
exercises.
Guidance to Instructors
We believe our findings have important ramifications for in-
structors. As stated previously, instructors are well aware of
the difficulties and headaches associated with team projects.
We assign a major project, weight the student’s grade heav-
ily toward the successful completion of the project, and still
receive substandard work. Our results suggest that as teams
form, we have a golden opportunity to alleviate some of these
problems and concerns. The introduction of the team charter
helps to develop mutual understanding about how the team
may function. To the extent that students outline expectations
for each individual early in the process, they will feel more
accountability throughout the process. We also believe a brief
tutorial of the facets of teamwork would seem to be time well
spent—even if students are likely to have been exposed to
the core concepts in other courses. The instructor has the
capacity to set the tone and expectations regarding the team
charter, providing critical evidence to the student regarding
the importance of the team charter. Also, the instructor should
encourage students to revisit the team charter throughout the
semester especially as incidences of dysfunction occur. Fi-
nally, despite the finding that there are diminishing returns
for greater instructional effort, instructors would be well ad-
vised to provide more rather than less support as incremental
differences were found—albeit not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, research has shown there are many benefits
of utilizing teams and that teams have the potential for high
performance. This study takes steps to examine the validity
of utilizing a team charter to proactively shape important
team process outcomes during their formation process. We
were primarily interested in the intermediate outcomes that
may lead to higher performance. We found teams that use the
charter have a statistically significant higher level of the many
facets of teamwork quality. These findings are important for
both research and practice. Researchers must continue to
examine teams, team norms, the team formation process, and
how team charters can enable this development. In addition,
managers and organizations are increasingly relying on teams
and need to be keenly aware of the benefits of utilizing a team
charter in the team formation process. Further examination
of the team charter and teaming process will continue to
improve team success.
REFERENCES
Aranda, E. K., Arnada, L., & Conlon, K. (1998). Teams: Structure, process,
culture, and politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving
groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion
and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct
relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.
Carron, A. V. (1982).Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and
considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123–138.
Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A
critical assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature. Inter-
national Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 223–246.
Cooper, W. H., Gallupe, R. B., Pollard, S., & Cadsby, J. (1998, April). Some
liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming. Small Group
Research, 29, 147–178.
Cox, P. L., & Bobrowski, P. E. (2004). Power tools for teams: A model for
improving the teamwork skills of first-year business students. Journal of
Behavioral & Applied Management, 5, 204–227.
Deihl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups:
Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 53, 497–509.
Dowling, K. (2003). Chartering your team for peak performance. In M. M.
Beyerlein, C. McGee, D. Klein, J. E. Nemiro, & L. Broedling (Eds.), The
collaborative work systems fieldbook (pp. 77–87). San Francisco, CA:
Wiley.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review,
57, 271–282.
 THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM CHARTER ON STUDENT TEAM BEHAVIORS
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new
model of group development. The Academy of Management Journal, 31,
9–41.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Making time: Predictable transitions in task groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309.
Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990).Habitual routines in task-
performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 47, 65–97.
Gully, S. M. (2000). Work team research: Recent findings and future
trends. In M. M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Work teams: Past, present, and future
(pp. 25–44). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 309–319.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success
of innovative projects. A theoretical concept and empirical evidence.
Organization Science, 12, 435–449.
Hunsaker, P., Pavett, C., & Hunsaker, J. (2011). Increasing student learning
effectiveness with team charters. Journal of Education for Business, 86,
127–139.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions
and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic
review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 65, 681–706.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision
making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organi-
zations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Limoski (Eds.), Handbook
of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375).
London, England: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., McHugh, E. R., Salas, E., & Cannon-
Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effec-
tiveness: Development task contingent leader roles. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 253–305).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effec-
tiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into
the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful
team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and perfor-
mance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 90–103.
McDermott, L., Brawley, N., & Waite, W. W. (1998). World class teams.
New York, NY: Wiley.
McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups:
Past, present and future. Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 95–105.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and
team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
535–546.
Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team
evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277–
291.
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: A closer look.
Human Relations, 42, 771–785.
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business
schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning & Edu-
cation, 7, 108–123.
97
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 63, 384–399.
Whatley, J. (2009). Ground rules in team projects: Findings from a prototype
system to support students. Journal of Information Technology Education,
8, 161–176.
Winston, B. (1999). Be a manager for God’s sake: Essays about the perfect
manager. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
APPENDIX—TEAM CHARTER
The purpose of this document is to develop a charter
for your team to systematically establish many of the
necessary ground rules for team meetings, interaction, and
performance. This charter should cover at the bare minimum
the items listed subsequently. Hopefully, by establishing
this document, the team will function more smoothly and
efficiently.
Aspects of the charter (Items in italics indicate example)
• Mission statement
• Team Norms
왌 Meeting Management
■ Start and end on time
■ Have an agenda; circulate beforehand if possible
■ Have a deliverable or outcome for the meeting
■ If you are unable to attend a meeting, let the organizer
know as far in advance as possible, and it is your respon-
sibility to find out what happened
왌 Meeting Behavior Norms (Code of Conduct)
■ Listen without interrupting
■ Be open and honest
■ Give honest feedback
왌 Decision Making
• Clearly state the problems or decisions to be made
• Define the solutions and options the group is facing
• At least half the team needs to be present for making a
decision
왌 Communication Plan
• What information do people need to know?
• How should this information be provided?
• Who will provide it?
• When should the information be provided?
왌 Handling Conflict
• Acknowledge there is a disagreement and describe how it
is affecting the team
• Get commitment from individuals and or team to resolve
disagreements
• Have each party state his or her point of view
• Have each party suggest a solution based on facts, mutual
needs and team goals
• Examine solutions
• Evaluate process
• Team Goals
• Performance Measurement
 Copyright of Journal of Education for Business is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

View publication stats