Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:31
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Effects of a Team Charter on Student Team
Behaviors
Joshua R. Aaron , William C. McDowell & Andrew O. Herdman
To cite this article: Joshua R. Aaron , William C. McDowell & Andrew O. Herdman (2014) The Effects of a Team Charter on Student Team Behaviors, Journal of Education for Business, 89:2, 90-97, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763753
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.763753
Published online: 17 Jan 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 346
View related articles
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,
Correspondence should be addressed to Joshua R. Aaron, East Carolina University, Department of Management, 134 Slay Hall, Greenville, NC 27858, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
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
The goal of this study was to explore the impact of team charters on process norms that are important to team func-tioning. We begin by providing a brief review of team norms
THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM CHARTER ON STUDENT TEAM BEHAVIORS 91
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 inter-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 in-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 remainstick-ing united (Carron, 1982;
Casey-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).
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 functionunderstand-ing.
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 nosatisfac-tion 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 93
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 aver-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.
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
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Sample Size
Treatment group 1: No team charter given
(n=31)
Treatment group 2: Team charter (no instruction;
n=28)
Treatment group 3: Team charter with instruction
(n=29)
Item α M SD M SD M SD
Communication .82 3.484 0.563 4.107 0.729 4.352 0.471 Effort .93 2.976 1.053 3.777 0.209 3.845 0.795 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 Satisfaction .93 3.626 0.824 4.350 0.899 4.531 0.704
members,” “I am satisfied with the leadership in my team,” and “I am satisfied with the relationship climate within my team.”
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 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-3.653 4.196
4.379 3.258 4.009
4.103 2.976
3.777
3.845 3.484
4.107
4.352 3.626
4.35
4.531
1 2 3
Sasfacon
Communicaon
Effort
Cohesion
Mutual Support
FIGURE 1 Mean plots (color figure available online).
ple and assignment only) across all hypothesized variables. This finding supportsH1in 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 supportsH22. However, the results indicate nonsignificant differences between treat-ment group two (team charter example and assigntreat-ment 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
Mean Differences Between Variables
Primary Comparing Mean
Variable group group difference SE
Communication 1 2 −.623∗∗∗ .155
Note.Treatment group 1=no team charter; Treatment group 2=team charter example; Treatment group 3=team charter example and follow-up instructions.
∗p<.05.∗∗∗p<.001.
leaders demanded by today’s organizations. However, stu-dent teams often fail to produce the desired results and more often represent a source of frustration for both student and instructor. Instructors witness a lack of quality collaboration while students deal with social loafing, personality conflicts and the challenges of coordinating schedules and group meet-ings. The institution of a team charter is designed to develop important team norms and processes and thereby mitigate these issues. In doing so, the team charter represents an im-portant instructional tool that can be invaluable to equipping students for a positive learning experience and ultimately better equip them for success as members of teams within organizations. The results of our study affirm these assertions and suggest the implementation of team charters can be im-portant to improving team quality and member satisfaction. Additionally, we provide evidence that the instructor plays a central role in the efficacy of these team charters and can enhance their effectiveness through follow-up training and support.
The results supportH1andH2for all measured variables, suggesting that teams introduced to the team charter, whether briefly or through more detailed instruction and follow-up, reported higher levels of teamwork quality than those that were not introduced to the team charter. Because previous research has found that the introduction of team charters is associated with enhanced team performance (Mathieu et al., 2008), these results suggests that this performance improve-ment is likely attributable to the enhanced teamwork quality born of team charters.
H3was not supported. This hypothesis stated that teams provided extensive training and follow-up on the team
char-ter would have higher levels of teamwork quality than those that have only been introduced to the charter. The lack of support for this hypothesis poses an interesting question. Why does the introduction to the charter plus instruction not yield greater levels of teamwork quality than the intro-duction to the charter alone? While these teams did in fact have slightly higher levels of teamwork quality, the differ-ence was not statistically significant. We believe there are at least two plausible explanations for this finding. First, it may be that the simple introduction of the team charter provides the greatest impact, while additional training and develop-ment provides only a modest incredevelop-mental gain in the selected outcomes. The introduction of a team charter alone serves as a reminder to the students of the need to work together as well as the commitment they have made to one another. Second, working through the implementation of the charter on their own may provide an active learning experience that provides better teamwork outcomes than being told what to do by an instructor.
Most research on teams focuses on greater productivity, quality and creativity in the performance of tasks (Hack-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-formance rather than perper-formance itself. As such, we pro-vide insight into the intermediate impact of the charters. As shown in Figure 1, the introduction of team charters led to increased levels of communication, effort, cohesion, and support in this sample. These outcomes suggests that team charters can serve an important role in improving team func-tioning and member satisfaction—critical gains in creating a positive experience for students learning to function and perform in teams. Ultimately, we believe doing so holds the potential to improve student experience and more fully leverage the pedagogical value of teams in the classroom, as well as student preparedness for participating in teams within organizations.
Directions for Future Research
This finding presents an interesting direction for future re-search. While this sample was taken of individuals working within teams, these team members were all current business students. It would be beneficial to test these hypotheses with teams outside of the academic arena where the team mem-bers are not exposed to concepts related to team development and functioning. Further, the data collected in this study do not provide the opportunity to investigate the impact of these outcomes on team performance. Positioning and testing the measured process variables as moderators between the team charters and performance outcomes is an important future direction. Further, testing the full causal relationships be-tween team charters and performance outcomes may reveal effects of more extensive team charter training (condition three) not found in these data. In addition, the theory utilized
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 97 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.
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
