CONCLUSIONS

Though not in the expected direction, feedback concerning success, in this case a lack of success, does appear to have had an effect on the performance of teams in this course. Those teams who were not successful on either of the group consensus exercises turned out to be the most successful in the end when it counted the most. It is at least plausible that the teams that were not successful on the group consensus exercises were the ones who were more likely to take the feedback to heart and try to do something to improve the functioning of their teams. The successful teams may have felt that there was nothing to be learned or improved upon after experiencing success on the exercises and thus did not continue to apply the teamwork lessons gained in the course.

A shortcoming of the current research effort was a lack of information concerning the students’ actual teamwork behaviors. Subsequent research will attempt to collect behavioral measures similar to those developed by Hobson, et al. (2013). Obtaining such measures for all of the team’s interactions would be extremely difficult in the course as it is currently structured. However, a sample of such measures during one of the consensus-seeking exercises and again, shortly before the teams complete their group projects should add insight into the extent to which the students’ teamwork behaviors are improving and having an impact on their success.

Another very interesting line of research will be to examine the effects of positive and negative team feedback on subsequent teamwork behaviors. In the current research it was expected that those experiencing success would have

higher collective self-efficacy and would thus continue to be successful in the future. Perhaps what is missing is an assessment of the collective attribution for the team’s success. In order to continue to function together as a team, and possibly even improve, team members may need to attribute the team’s success to their teamwork behaviors and not to teammates’ personal capabilities. Thus, the difference between “resting on the team’s laurels” and continuing to work together will be an interaction of the success experience and the team’s perception of its source.

This study has hopefully added to the evidence that students do in fact benefit from classroom instruction on the effective functioning of teams. The somewhat longitudinal nature of the current effort and the fact that the students’ performance on multiple tasks was assessed are also positive features of the research. The students advanced from rather abstract tasks to others that are more indicative of those found in work environments and many became more successful as they did so. One would hope that team-based education will continue to flourish as its value to “real world” applications is further documented.

REFERENCES

Bailey, J., Sass, M., Swiercz, P. M., Seal, C., & Kayes, D. C. (2005). Teaching with and through teams: Student-written instructor-facilitated case writing and the signatory code. Journal of Management Education, 29, 39-59.

Barry, D. (1989). Twincorp: Extensions of the classroom-as-organization model. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 14(1), 1-15. Buckenmyer, J. A. (2000). Using teams for class activities: Making course/classroom teams work. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 98- 107.

Chen, G., Webber, S. S., Bliese, P. D., Mathieu, J. E., Payne, S. C., Born, D. H., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Simultaneous examination of the antecedents and consequences of efficacy beliefs at multiple levels of analysis. Human Performance, 15: 381–409.

Chen, G., Donahue, L.M., & Klimoski, R.J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 27-40.

Davison, H.K., Mishra, V., Bing, M.N., & Frink, D.D. (2014). How individual performance affects variability of peer evaluations in classroom teams: A distributive justice perspective. Journal of Management Education, 38, 43-85.

Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1985). Why some groups fail: A survey of student learning experiences with learning groups. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4), 58-71.

Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.

Hall, J. (1963). NASA moon survival task. Waco, TX: Teleometrics International Inc.

Hobson, C.J. & Kesic, D. (2002). A behavioral framework for skills assessment and development in teamwork training. International Journal of Management, 19, 147-154.

Hobson, C.J., Strupek, D., Griffin, A., Szostek, J., Selladurai, R., & Rominger, A.S. (2013). Facilitating and documenting behavioral improvements in business student teamwork skills. Business Education Innovation Journal, 5, 83-95.

Hoffman, J. R., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2001). All together now? College students’ preferred project group grading procedures. Group Dynamics, 5: 33–40.

Jassawalla, A., Sashittal, H., & Malshe, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 42-54.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213-240.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Books Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kirkman, B. L., Jones, R. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Why do employees resist teams? Examining the “resistance barrier” to work team effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 74-92.

Knox, G. Lost at sea. www.insight.typepad.co.uk Retrieved September 5, 2014.

Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M., & McIntyre, J. (1971). Organizational psychology: An experiential approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, J. A. (1999). A project in small-group decision making. Journal of Management Education, 23(1), 71-79. Lippitt, R. (1949). Training in Community Relations, New York: Harper and Row.

Lyons, P. R. (1991). Accelerating team interdependence with a cooperative learning paradigm. Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 265- 267.

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.

Osland, J.S., Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M., Turner, M.E. (2006). Organizational psychology: An experiential approach, 8th _{ed. Englewood Cliffs,}

N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Reynolds, M. (1994). Group work in education and training: Ideas in practice. New York: Routledge.

Roethlisberger FJ and Dickson WJ. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press . Stevens, M. J. & Campion, M. A. (1994a). Staffing teams: Development and validation of the Teamwork-KSA test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.

Stevens, M. A., & Campion, M. J. (1994b). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20: 503–530.

Management, 25: 207–228.

APPENDIX

Suggestions for Improving Team Interactions 1. Everyone’s opinion is valuable.

a. After you’ve voiced your opinion, wait till everyone has at least had an opportunity to voice theirs, before you continue.

b. Encourage your teammates to offer their inputs if they are hesitant. 2. Listen to your teammates.

a. Ask for clarification if you are unsure of what a teammate has said or written. b. Do not interrupt a team member while they are speaking.

3. Avoid dysfunctional conflict.

a. Avoid arguing just to “save face.”

b. Separate conflicts based upon “personalities” from those that are related to the team’s task. 4. Resolve conflicts in ways that are beneficial to the group.

a. Avoid short cuts to “consensus.” Don’t vote, split the difference, or flip coins. b. Recognize that agreeing with teammates may be preferable to “getting your way.” c. Seek win-win solutions to conflicts.

5. Don’t be a “free rider.”

a. Prepare for the team’s meetings.

b. Contribute your ideas whenever they are relevant. c. Do your share of the team’s work.

d. Offer help to others when they need it.

6. Give the team your undivided attention during meetings. a. Meet in an environment that is free from distractions. b. Meet at a time that is convenient for all teammates.

c. Turn off your electronic devices unless they are needed to help the team.

d. Don’t be distracting by doing extraneous things (e.g., talking while others are talking) 7. Keep in mind that you and your teammates are interdependent.

a. Look for opportunities to help your teammates. b. Explicitly ask for help when you need it.

c. Recognize which of your efforts will be most beneficial to your teammates.

d. Realize that you must sometimes put others’ interests ahead of your own for the good of the team. 8. Provide encouragement to your teammates.

a. Use everyone’s inputs as much as possible. b. Compliment teammates for their inputs. 9. Cooperate with the team’s structure and norms.

a. Help teammates to develop schedules and agendas and stick to them. b. Try to meet your teammates’ expectations of you.