A Study on Teamwork Effectiveness for Group Research Project in Petroleum Universities, China
Hu Shi1*, Zam Zuriyati Mohamad2
1 School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
2 Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 1 April 2020 | Published: 15 April 2020
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Teamwork is a common practice in higher education to enhance the students’
professional knowledge and to achieve a specific task. The effectiveness of teamwork especially in completing the group’s research project affects the students’ academic performance. By applying Stage Model of Group Development theory, this study examines the impact of four input factors namely size of group, norms of group, mutual trust and leadership style of group on the teamwork effectiveness of group research study in Chinese Petroleum Universities. Moreover, gender was identified as a moderator to examine the different perceptions and attitudes of male and female students towards teamwork effectiveness in Chinese Petroleum Universities. The sample comprised of 119 students from six Petroleum Universities, China. The outcomes reveal that mutual trust and leadership style of group statistically significant on teamwork effectiveness while size of group and norms of group do not have an influence on teamwork effectiveness. Besides, this study found gender moderates the relationship between leadership style and teamwork effectiveness but do not have moderating impact on the relationship of other three variables with teamwork effectiveness. Theoretically, this study provides better insights on the application of Stage Model Development theory for future researchers who aims to study the team development process. Practically, this study assists students and educators in forming an effective team and achieve excellent academic performance.
Keywords: Teamwork Effectiveness, Research Study, Gender, Stage Model of Group Development theory, Petroleum Universities
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
In higher education, lecturers adopt teamwork as a teaching instrument to build students cooperative behaviour and critical thinking (Peterson, 2012). Teamwork facilitates students to learn more actively and effectively. It also helps students to enhance interpersonal skills.
The collaborative learning in teamwork needs team members to support and rely on each other. The efforts from each team member with different capacities can be relied through interaction among them (Carlsmith & Cooper, 2009). Hassanien (2006) stated that collaborative learning is suitable a learning method for higher educational institution as a critical thinking approach with active exchange of ideas between team members. As there are many projects in Science Universities, teamwork in research study is often adopted as a teaching instrument and the outcome is usually regarded as one of the estimating index for the students’ academic achievement (Yen et al., 2014). There are six Petroleum universities in China namely: China Petroleum University, Southwest Petroleum University, Northeast
Petroleum University, Xi’an Petroleum University, Liaoning Petrochemical University and Beijing Petrochemical College. The research study within the Petroleum universities aims to develop innovative projects in petroleum science and technology. Petroleum Industry belongs to one of the four traditional pillar industries in China, which makes a great contribution to Chinese economic development and Petroleum Companies tax commitment plays an important role in dedication of the country’s revenue (Global oil and gas tax guide, 2018). Therefore, the research performance and innovative breakthrough in Petroleum Universities is very vital to Chinese Petroleum Industry for further development. Hence, the teamwork effectiveness of group research in Chinese Petroleum Universities is focused in this study.
Informal study team, formal study team and student team are usually three teamwork forms in higher education (Cockrell, Caplow & Donaldson, 2000). In Petroleum Universities, research group project often belongs to the formal learning group, which needs to carry out a specific task, a project, report and paper writing or lab experiment (Lu & Lambright, 2010).
There are many benefits for collaborative learning such as knowledge and idea exchange, interpersonal skills development and a range of other skills (Onag & Tepeci, 2014). The reason why teamwork is incorporated in a university is the development of students’ social and personal skills to increase their competency when they enter into the society (García, Zárraga-Rodríguez & Diez, 2013). Despite the advantages in forming a teamwork for group research project, there are also many challenges faced by the students. For example in terms of work distribution, communication problem, conflicts between team members, inefficient leadership, group norms obey and social loafing (McGraw & Tidwell, 2001). From students’
perspectives, if equal participation and contribution of each team member couldn’t be achieved and the group result is the same, it will cause unfair feelings to excellent and hard- working group members within the group (Grimes, 2009). Bravo, Catalán, and Pina (2019) stated that cohesiveness of team members is vital to the teamwork effectiveness. The frustration and dissatisfaction of students are more likely to be induced if cooperative process is not effective (Chen & Gogus, 2008).
The quality of teamwork in research study determines the results of collaborative learning and academic performance. This implies that understanding the variables that are related to teamwork effectiveness is very essential (Peterson, 2012). Previous researches focus on teamwork effectiveness from organizational perspective by qualitative methods such as Peterson (2012), and Shimazoe and Aldrich (2010). In the same vein, the intervention from lecturers and organization are discussed in previous study through observation, interview or focus group methodology (Li-Hua, et al., 2011). Contradict to that, this study aims to identify the factors that could influence teamwork effectiveness in group research study of Chinese Petroleum Universities and find out the strongest factor that is related with teamwork effectiveness from students’ perspective by quantitative research approach.
2. Literature Review
Teamwork Effectiveness
Cooperative quality and validity within a group are two important elements in deciding the teamwork effectiveness (Chen & Gogus, 2008). Cooperative quality means that the task requirement is achieved within the certain standard or even exceed the standard. On the other hand, validity within a group not only refers to the task achieved as expected but also there are valid coordination, communication and interaction between team members during the
teamwork process that help to build a cohesive and effective group (Hollenbeck, Beersma &
Schouten, 2012).
Velema (2015) examined the relationship between positive and negative feedbacks on teamwork effectiveness in Dutch public sector organization, which pointed out that positive feedbacks are significantly related with teamwork effectiveness. Besides, Drouin and Bourgault (2013) conducted a study in distributed project teams from organizational support perspective, which suggests that training tools and strategic staff offered to members of group are positively related with teamwork effectiveness. In term of higher education, Hassanien (2006) studied the students’ feelings and experience of group work and assessment by applying both quantitative and qualitative approach. Based on their findings, it was concluded that students’ perceptions on the advantages of group work lay on knowledge and ideas exchanged while poor communication and absenteeism in group meetings are the main challenges for students in forming a teamwork effectiveness. Golonka and Mojsa-Kaja (2013) conducted a study in science of management and empirically evidenced the relationship between emotional intelligence and team roles with teamwork effectiveness. In this study the teamwork effectiveness for group research project in Chinese Petroleum Universities is focused based on the Stage Model of Group Development theory to gain a comprehensive pictures of different preferences and management in different group stages.
Size of Group
Group size refers to the number of members within a group (Edmondson, 2012). Group size plays an important role to achieve effective communication and team coordination within a group. The complicated issues will arise if the group size is extra-large as the distribution and contribution of members becomes more difficult (Hassanien, 2006). It becomes hard to balance and handle the different needs of team members during the group cooperative process (Robert et al., 2003). However, there is no fixed number about the perfect group size should be as there is different nature of the task requirements. In a large group, social loafing phenomenon is likely to occur as the complexity of group management in a large group.
Jeffery et al. (2008) examined the relationship between group size and teamwork effectiveness, which summaries that group size is positively related with teamwork effectiveness. Moreover, Tohidi (2011) stated that group size increases the difficulty of balancing the members’ contributions and influence the teamwork effectiveness. The following hypothesis has been developed based on the discussion of previous literatures as below:
H1: Size of group is negatively related with teamwork effectiveness for group research project in Petroleum universities, China.
Norms of Group
Group norms is much more easily to be formed at the beginning stage, which are the regulations to monitor the behaviour of members and the expectations of team members (Levi, 2016). Sometimes group norms are unwritten but reach an agreement by each team member in order to accomplish the team function effectively and smoothly (Golonka &
Mojsa-Kaja, 2013). This is because the consistent targets could further facilitate team members within a group to cooperate in a normative and harmonious way (Carron, Burke, &
Shapcott, 2009). Eliasa (2014) argued that group norms has a positive relationship with teamwork effectiveness. In addition, group norms could regulate the teamwork process and the phenomenon of social loafing could be reduced accordingly (Pearson, 2012). Excellent group norms could ensure the smooth communication flow between team members and reduce the challenges within a team (Grimes, 2009). It is stated that group norms help build a
systematic way of estimating member behaviour and effective team cooperation (Onag &
Tepeci, 2014). Having considered the evidence form previous study, the following hypothesis has been created as below:
H2: Norms of group is positively related with teamwork effectiveness for group research project in Petroleum universities, China.
Mutual Trust
Zeffane (2010) defines mutual trust as the confidence and positive perceptions towards other members’ behaviour within a team. If mutual trust exists between each member within a group, the cooperation process will be in a friendly atmosphere, which leads to an efficient interaction and coordination with team members (Roth & Markova, 2012). Mutual trust is not only beneficial in the workplace cooperation but also in higher educational institutions area (Shagholi et al., 2010). Mutual trust within a team will avoid the uncertainty of the cooperation with other team members and correspondingly smoothen the whole cooperation process. Identically, mutual trust could facilitate the cooperation (Barczak, Lassk & Mulki, 2010). Previous scholars such as Fransen et al. (2011) and Barczak et al. (2010) have examined mutual trust for the teamwork effectiveness and conclude that mutual trust is positively related with teamwork effectiveness. With this regards, the following hypothesis has been develop as below:
H3: Mutual trust is positively related with teamwork effectiveness for group research project in Petroleum universities, China.
Leadership Style of Group
The choice of leadership style of group facilitates the collaborative learning process and communication between each team member (Kerpen, 2014). The selection of leadership style of a group is essential to achieve the targets of the work assigned and ensure effective conflicts solutions (Dewald, 2002). The abilities and competencies of team leader is vital during the cooperative process (Hollenbeck, Beersma & Schouten, 2012). Previous studies suggested that leadership style of group has a positive relationship with teamwork effectiveness (Ozgen et al., 2013). An effective leadership style of a group helps members build good interpersonal relationship and maintain a coordinative atmosphere to achieve certain objectives (Yang, Huang & Wu, 2011). In order to achieve the certain targets and group cohesiveness the suitable selection of leadership style of group should be taken into consideration carefully and completely (Zafft, Adams & Matkin, 2013). The following hypothesis has been proposed based on previous study as below:
H4: Leadership style of group is positively related with teamwork effectiveness for group research project in Petroleum universities, China.
Theoretical Framework
The stage model of group development theory was first known in 1965. In 1977, Tuckman and Jensen developed and expanded this theory to make it more suitable. Tuckman (1965) prompted that there are four stages in group development which are forming, storming, norming and performing. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) extended the stages of group development into five stages, which added the adjourning stage.
Forming stage refers to the start of group and the responsibility of each member within a group is identified. Next stage is the storming stage that some conflicts and problems may begin to come out. Norming stage refers to the norms of group begin to be recognized by each team member within a group. Moreover, performing stage means that group leader has more control and on this stage team members begin to get accustomed to the behaviour style
of each other. Adjourning stage is the last stage, which will happen at the end of cooperation, and a closed relationship between each team member is established finally. Several scholars such as Durkin and McKenna and Cummins (2012); Bonebright (2010); Shimazoe and Aldrich (2010) and Momen and Omar and Sultana (2014) have studied the stage model of group development theory. The stage of group development theory is identified as a ground theory in this study, which could help researchers understand the stages of group development during the cooperative process and offers the theoretical support for this study.
Figure 1 presented the proposed conceptual framework for this study based on literature review and the Stage Model of Group Development Theory.
Figure 1: Proposed Conceptual Framework
3. Methodology
Population
The population of this study is students from six Petroleum universities in China. Chinese Petroleum universities have been selected due to the nature and culture of these universities that have high involvement in group research projects. In these Universities, students are encouraged to participate in research projects within a group in order to achieve certain academic tasks. Notwithstanding to that, students have more opportunities to be exposed to many group research activities such as forum and exhibition which leads to innovation and industry networking.
Sampling Size
This study applied non-probability sampling as there is no sampling frame available. The sample size was determined by using the ratio of number of item in the questionnaire to the number of response. Based on suggestion by the previous researcher (Hinkin, 1995), an ideal sample size can be the ratio ranged as low as 1:4 to as high as 1:10. In this study, 24 questionnaire items have been used to measure all the constructs. Thus, the sample size is suggested to be within the range of 96 to 240. Hassanien (2006) studied the student experience of group work and group assignment in higher education which gets the return rate 68%. In order to achieve 68% response rate, 140 questionnaires were distributed to Petroleum Universities in China. After checking, only 119 questionnaires is usable and available. 119 sample size is acceptable as it is above the minimum suggested sample size and represent 85% rate of return.
Data Collection Method
On-line questionnaires and face-to-face questionnaires are adopted to collect data from students in Chinese Petroleum universities. Moreover, non-probability sampling in this
Gender Size of Group
Norms of Group
Mutual Trust
Leadership Style of Group
Teamwork Effectiveness
research was adopted and a cover letter that states the confidentiality and anonymity of the research purpose was sent to each respondent. As the questionnaire is English version, therefore back-to-back translation was adopted. Two linguistic experts were invited, one expert transformed the English version questionnaire to Chinese version and another linguistic expert was responsible to transform from the Chinese version to English version in order to make sure there is no ambiguity existing.
Measurement of variables
Although there is no clear boundary between small and large group size, Hoegl (2005) suggested that team within four team members can be defined as a small group while 6 to10 members is judged as a large team. Size of group consists of five items developed by the researchers based on the group size analysis from Hoegl (2005). The example items such as ‘I prefer large group size (between 6 and 10 team members) than small group size (within 4 members)’ and ‘Large sized group makes communication between all members become increasing difficult’. Norms of group contained five items adopted from Chatman and Flynn (2001) with good reliability (ɑ=.78). Mutual trust includes six items adopted from Barczak, Lassk, and Mulki (2010). Half of them are from affective trust (ɑ=.84) and the others are from cognitive trust (ɑ=.94). Cognitive trust refers to individual beliefs about reliability, dependability, and competence while affective trust is defined as having mutual interpersonal care and concern or emotional bonds (Barczak, Lassk & Mulki, 2010). Leadership style of group consists of four items adopted from Ozgen et.al. (2013) the four items scale were identified with high reliability (ɑ=.95). Teamwork effectiveness contains four items adapted from Hassanien (2006). The example item such as ‘Teamwork provides me with more confidence as help is at hand from other group members at the time of uncertainty.’and
‘Teamwork allows me to share and exchange knowledge with others with reduced workload’.
All the answers are given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Data analysis
Data was analysed using SmartPLS 3.0 software and partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) analysis was performed to achieve the objectives of this study. PLS path modelling is an iterative algorithm that requires two-model assessment, which are measurement model and structural model.
4. Results
Respondent Profiles
119 respondents involve in this study which comprise of 55 male (27%) and 64 females (73%). Among the respondents, 63 of them are degree holders, 42 postgraduates and 14 are diploma holders. Besides, 20 respondents are in the Art stream and remaining 99 respondents are in Science stream. In term of mode of study, 3 respondents doing coursework, 48 are doing research mode and 68 doing mixed mode.
Measurement model
The first stage in PLS-SEM is evaluating the measurement model and the second stage is performing the analysis for structural model. Few rule of thumbs should be met in assessing the measurement model before proceed to the second stage. It includes indicator loading, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Table 1 presented the result of measurement model. The first step is examining the indicator loading where the recommended loadings value is above 0.70. The second step is assessing the
internal consistency reliability by using composite reliability and Cronbach Alpha. The results of composite reliability reported in Table 1 indicates that the values are within the suggested value of ‘satisfactory to good’ (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019). In addition, the outcomes of Cronbach Alpha presented in Table 1 meet the rule of thumb as the value is more than 0.70. The third step is examining the convergent validity by conducting the average variance extracted (AVE). Table 1 evidenced that the AVE achieved the acceptable value of above 0.50.
Table 1: Measurement Model Assessment Items Loading Composite
Reliability
Cronbach Alpha Rho A Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
GS1 0.719 0.838 0.713 0.754 0.634
GS2 0.872
GS4 0.789
GN3 0.759 0.869 0.791 1.065 0.691
GN4 0.782
GN5 0.941
MT1 0.725 0.828 0.724 0.730 0.546
MT2 0.710
MT5 0.709
MT6 0.806
LS3 0.954 0.944 0.882 0.897 0.894
LS4 0.937
TE1 0.906 0.930 0.899 0.901 0.768
TE2 0.862
TE3 0.859
TE4 0.878
Whereby, GS = group size, GN = group norm, MT= mutual trust, LS =leadership style, TE = teamwork effectiveness
The final step in measurement model is to ensure that heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) is less than 0.85 to establish the discriminant validity (Henseler.et.al, 2015). The findings of HTMT presented in Table 2 reveals that all HTMT is less than 0.85; which indicates the establishment of discriminant validity. The highest HTMT value is between leadership style and teamwork effectiveness.
Table 2: Results for Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT)
GS GN MT LS
GN 0.291
MT 0.243 0.825
LS 0.149 0.395 0.534
TE 0.155 0.365 0.605 0.836
Whereby, GS = group size, GN = group norm, MT= mutual trust, LS =leadership style, TE = teamwork effectiveness
Structural Model
Once the measurement model meets the criteria suggested by previous researcher (Hair et al., 2019), the next step is evaluating the structural model. This study assesses the collinearity among the constructs by using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) (Hair et al., 2019). The findings show that VIF value is 3 and below. The VIF values is in accordance with the recommended value of VIF1. Thereafter, the significance and relevance of hypothesized relationships was assessed using R2 of endogenous construct. The result shows the R2 of 0.625 that reflects the four independent constructs moderately explain 62.5% of the changes
1 Hair et al., (2019) suggested that the VIF values of 5 or above indicate critical collinearity issues.
in teamwork effectiveness in this study. Furthermore, Q2 was accomplished by applying blindfolding procedures to determine the quality of the PLS path model. The result of Q2 for construct cross validated redundancy is 0.437, which concludes that the path model’s predictive model relevance is adequate for the endogenous construct. The recommended Q2 value is greater than zero (Hair et al., 2019). Next outcome is on the analysis of path model using 10,000 subsamples bootstrapping procedure, to evaluate the hypotheses. The results are reported in Table 3. It shows that the p value for path is less than 0.05 for mutual trust and leadership style, which represent the acceptance of H3 and H4. In other words, mutual trust and leadership style have positive influence on teamwork effectiveness. On the contrary, p value of group size and group norm is more than 0.05. It reveals that both constructs do not have an influence on teamwork effectiveness.
Table 3: Path Model Analysis to Test Hypothesis
Path Mean Standard
deviation
T statistic
P Value Remark
GS -> TE 0.046 0.061 0.56 0.576 H1 Do not accept
SN -> TE -0.056 0.081 0.651 0.515 H2 Do not accept
MT -> TE 0.262 0.077 3.154 0.002* H3 Accepted
LS -> TE 0.65 0.063 10.436 0.000** H3 Accepted
Whereby, GS = group size, GN = group norm, MT= mutual trust, LS =leadership style, TE = teamwork effectiveness
Note:*p<o.o5, **p<0.01
This study extended the analysis by examining whether gender moderate the relationship between group size, group norms, mutual trust and leadership style with teamwork effectiveness. The moderating effect was tested by generating the interaction term that link the influence of the exogenous construct (group size, subjective norms, mutual trust and leadership style with teamwork effectiveness) and moderator (gender) on the endogenous construct (teamwork effectiveness). The result is shown in Table 4. The result of p value is more than 0.05 which signify that gender do not moderate the relationship between group size, group norm and mutual trust with teamwork effectiveness. Gender was found as a moderating effect on the association between leadership style and teamwork effectiveness with T Statistics and p values of 2.142 and 0.032 respectively.
Table 4: Path Model Analysis to Test Moderation Role Mean
Standard Deviation
T Statistics
P
Values Remark
Moderating Effect Gender * GS -> TE -0.096 0.073 1.437 0.151 Do not accept Moderating Effect Gender * SN -> TE 0.001 0.082 0.106 0.915 Do not accept Moderating Effect Gender * MT -> TE -0.067 0.081 0.857 0.392 Do not accept Moderating Effect Gender *LS -> TE 0.151 0.068 2.142 0.032 Accepted
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The findings from this study reveal that mutual trust and leadership style of research group have a positive significant influence on teamwork effectiveness for group research project of Chinese Petroleum universities. The outcomes on relationship between mutual trust and teamwork effectiveness is consistent with prior study conducted by Fransen and Kirschner and Erkens (2011). Mutual trust is crucial in teamwork effectiveness, as build up the confidence among the team members. Members with mutual trust will know their responsibilities and others’ responsibilities well. They will know what are expected from themselves and what supposed to receive from others. With this understanding, the teamwork will be more effective. Corresponding to the results on leadership style and teamwork
effectiveness, the finding is in line with past study (Choi, Kim, & Kang, 2017). Leadership style shapes the willingness and respectful environment among team members within a group. It encourages the team members to exchange ideas and enhance cooperation in an orderly way. Coupled with that, the leadership style on delegation of duty also affects the teamwork effectiveness. Delegation of tasks will improve the teamwork effectiveness as repetitive and overlapping tasks can be avoided. In addition, in order to achieve teamwork effectiveness in higher education institutions teamwork-training programs need also to be implemented (Fathi, Ghobakhloo & Syberfeldt, 2019). On the other hand, group size and group norm are not the influencer to teamwork effectiveness for group research project of Chinese Petroleum universities. The reason is in Chinese universities group size and group norms prefer to be speculated by the faculty in advance as rules and standards before the formation of the group, which has been integrated into syllabus (Carron, Burke, & Shapcott, 2009). The lecturers would follow the pre-set rules and standards of faculties in universities to design and arrange group research project to students. The lecturers usually determine the number of group members in one group and group norms before the final group formation for a project.
Based on the results, gender has no moderating effect on the relationship between size of group, norms of group and mutual trust on teamwork effectiveness for group research project in Chinese Petroleum Universities. The possible justification is that no matter female or male university students, the challenges and problems that they faced during the cooperation process in teamwork is almost similar. However, gender has a moderating effect between the leadership style of group and teamwork effectiveness in group research project in Chinese Petroleum Universities. It indicates that female and male leaders in research group may influence the teamwork effectiveness. This finding is interesting and help lectures and tutors to rethink the different attitudes and perception between male students and female students towards leadership style selection within a group research project in Chinese Petroleum Universities and find the method of balancing this difference by a suitable leadership style selection within a group.
Finally, a comprehensive evaluation system with criteria and standard such as rubric is the insurance for the final effectiveness of teamwork in high education (Carron, Burke, &
Shapcott, 2009). Previous study argued that women leadership style would be more on social skills while men tend to be more authoring style (Rodríguez et al., 2017). Thus, they will have different way of handling the team management.
Conclusion
Theoretically, this study contributes to Bruce Tuckman’s Stage Model of Group Development theory by connecting size of group, norm of group, mutual trust and leadership style of group with teamwork effectiveness in Chinese Petroleum Companies. It provides new perspective in this theory and serve as references for future researchers in higher education area. Practically, this study provides new insights for students in managing group research project with effective methods. This study also contributes to the potential relationship between higher educational institution and workplace in fulfilling the supply and demand of employability with teamwork ability. Notwithstanding to that, this also could contribute to community by producing a holistic graduates.
Limitation and Recommendation
This study identified size of group, norm of group, mutual trust and leadership style of group as exogenous variables. It is recommended that future researchers may concern on other
factors that might have impact on teamwork effectiveness such as task complexity. Next limitation is only students from Petroleum universities in China are targeted as respondents.
In the future, other types of universities could be considered in order to achieve a good generalization of population and get a whole picture in teamwork effectiveness in higher educational institutions.
References
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345.
Bonebright, D.A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development, 13 (1), 111-120.
Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2019). Analyzing teamwork in higher education: an empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness. Studies
in Higher Education, 44(7), 1153–
1165.https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1420049
Carlsmith, K.M., & Cooper, J. (2009). A persuasive example of collaborative learning.
Teaching of Psychology, 29 (2), 132–135.
Carmen Jaca García, Marta Zárraga-Rodríguez., & Elisabeth Viles Diez. (2013). Tool to assess teamwork performance in higher education. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.163B80 67&site=eds-live&scope=site
Carron, A.V., Burke, S.M., & Shapcott, K.M. (2009). Enhancing team effectiveness. B.W.
Brewer (Ed.), International Olympic Committee Medical Commission handbook of sports medicine and science, Sport psychology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams, 44(5), 956–
974.
Chen, G., & Gogus, C. I. (2008). Motivation in and of work teams: A multilevel perspective.
Work motivation: Past, present, and future. New York, NY, US: Routledge, 27, 285–
317.
Choi, B. S., Kim, K., & Kang, S. W. (2017). Effects of transformational and shared leadership styles on employees’ perception of team effectiveness. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(3), 377–386.
Cockrell, K.S., Caplow, J.A.H., & Donaldson, J.F. (2000). A context for learning:
Collaborative groups in the problem-based learning environment. Review of Higher Education, 23 (3), 347-363.
Dewald, S.L. (2002). Collaborative Leadership in Law Enforcement Teams, Dissertation, University of Denver, 166.
Drouin, N., & Bourgault, M. (2013). How organizations support distributed project teams.
Journal of Management Development, 32(8), 865-885.
Durkin, M., Mckenna, S., & Cummins, D. (2012). Emotional connections in higher education marketing. Emerald insights.
Edmondson, Amy C. (2012). Teamwork on the fly. Harvard Business School, 90(4).
Eliasa, I.E. (2014) Increasing Values of Teamwork and Responsibility of the Students through Games: Integrating Education Character in Lectures. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 123,196 – 203.
Fathi, M., Ghobakhloo, M., & Syberfeldt, A. (2019). An Interpretive Structural Modelling of Teamwork Training in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 9(1), 16. doi:
10.3390/educsci9010016
Fransen, J., Kirschner, P.A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(3), 1103–1113.
Global oil and gas tax guide. (2018).EY.Retrieved from:
https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-global-oil-and-gas-tax- guide/$FILE/ey-global-oil-and-gas-tax-guide.pdf
Golonka, K., & Mojsa-Kaja, J. (2013). Emotional Intelligence and Team Roles – Analysis of Interdependencies with Regard to Teamwork Effectiveness. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 12 (4), 32-44.
Grimes, F. C. (2009). Team building. Accel-team. Retrieved from: http:// www.accel- team.com.
Hair, J. F. et al. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31 (1), 2–24.
Hassanien, A. (2006). Student Experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in Higher Education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6 (1), 17-39.
Henseler, J.et.al. (2015).A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling, 115–135.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.
Hoegl, M. (2005). Smaller teams-better teamwork: How to keep project teams small.
Business Horizons, 48(1), 209-214.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82–106.
How many Petroleum Universities in China? (2019). Baidu Zhidao. Retrieved from:
https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/582713883584722685.html
Jeffery, A.L. et al. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria, 61 (1), 273-307.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F, P. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills.
Upper Saddle River. NJ: Pearson.
Kerpen, D. (2014). 15 Quotes to Inspire Great Teamwork. Midnight oil agency. Retrieved from: http://www.inc.com/dave-kerpen/15-quotes-to-inspire-great-team-work.html Levi, D. (2016). Group Dynamic for Teams.5th ed. SAGE Publications.
Li-Hua, R., Wilson, J., Aouad, G., & Li, X. (2011). Strategic aspects of innovation and internationalization in higher education, the Salford PMI2 experience. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3 (1), 8-23.
Lu, Y., & Lambright, K.T. (2010). Looking beyond the undergraduate classroom: Factors influencing service learning’s effectiveness at improving graduate students’
professional skills. College Teaching, 58 (4), 118–126.
McGraw, P., & Tidwell, A. (2001). Teaching group process skills to MBA students: A short workshop. Education & Training, 43(3), 162-170.
Momen, A.M., Omar, A., & Sultana, S. (2014). Exploring the Brand Image of an Islamic Higher Educational Institution: A Qualitative Approach. Middle East Journal of Business, 9(2), 35-40.
Onag, Z., & Tepeci, M. (2014). Team Effectiveness in Sport Teams: The Effects of Team Cohesion, Intra Team Communication and Team Norms on Team Member Satisfaction and Intent to Remain. Science Direct, 150,420-428.
Ozgen, S. et al. (2013). Assessment of Engineering Students’ Leadership Competencies.
Leadership and Management in Engineering, 13(2), 65-75.
Peterson, H.C. (2012). Building the Emotional Intelligence and Effective Functioning of Student Work Groups: Evaluation of an Instructional Program. College teaching, 60 (2), 112-121.
Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37-45.
Robert, F., Easley, S.D. & Crant, J.M. (2003). Relating Collaborative Technology Use to Teamwork Quality and Performance: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247-265.
Roth, M. L., & Markova, T. (2012). Essentials for Great Teams: Trust, Diversity, Communication and Joy. Journal of the American Board of Family medicine. Retrieved from:
http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/2/146.full.
Shagholi, R.et al. (2010). Value creation through trust, decision making and teamwork in educational environment. Science Direct, 2(2), 255-259.
Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58 (2), 52–57.
Tohidi, H. (2011). Teamwork productivity & effectiveness in an organization base on rewards, leadership, training, goals, wage, size, motivation, measurement and information technology. Science Direct, 3, 1137-1146.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited.
Croup & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Velema, S.S. (2015). The Influence of Feedback on Team Effectiveness. Retrieved from:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Influence-of-Feedback-on-Team- Effectiveness-Velema/00fbe569525e9a7ea7a18dc932321afe8d80e306
Yang, R, L., Huang, F, C., & Wu, S.K. (2011). The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project process. Science Direct, 29,258-267.
Yen, H. S.et.al. (2014). Social capital and organizational commitment at higher education institutions. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 1–21.
Zafft, C.R., Adams, S.G., & Matkin, G. S. (2013). Measuring Leadership in Self-Managed Teams Using the Competing Values Framework. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 273-282.
Zeffane, R. (2010). The Central Role of Communication Effectiveness in Building Trust Climates: A Longitudinal Confirmatory Study. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership, 393-400.
