08832323.2013.763753
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
View Crossmark data
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, 89: 90–97, 2014
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
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
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
The authors contribute to growing evidence that team charters contribute positively to performance 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 behavior, 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 deliver greater productivity, quality and creativity in the performance 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 interventions designed to improve team functioning have grown
significantly (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008).
For this reason, business schools face an increasing mandate 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 curriculums. However, faculty and students understand the significant 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 difficulties. More and more—both in academic and applied environments, 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 undermine 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 functioning teams are not isolated to the workplace.
In the present article, we build on the growing literature related 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 introduce team charters and review the literature on effective
team process norms in order to isolate those process mechanisms most critical to team functioning and member satisfaction. 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 facilitator 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). Consistent with these expectations, we find evidence of the efficacy
of team charters in the educational context in fully leveraging 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 functioning. 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).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
Facets of Teamwork Quality Important
to Performance and Satisfaction
Studies investigating team-based organizing strategies have
produced conflicting results regarding performance effects (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Indeed, many organizations 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 intermediate 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 determinants of member satisfaction, growth, and performance
(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Defined broadly, teamwork
quality describes the effectiveness of collaborative behavior (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). These collaborative teamwork behaviors include communication, effort, cohesion, and
mutual support.
Communication describes the level and quality of the informal and formal transmission of information necessary for
task completion (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Past metaanalytic studies affirm the importance of information sharing to team performance, cohesion and member satisfaction (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). To be sure, the
success and failure of student project teams are often attributable anecdotally to communication quality. Similarly,
a team’s norms regarding mutual expectations for individual
effort are critical to minimizing conflict and other dysfunctions 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 managers 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 destructive forces to team function, member satisfaction, and
performance.
Team cohesion represents another important facet of teamwork quality. Group cohesion, described as group members’
inclinations to forge social bonds, results in members sticking together and remaining united (Carron, 1982; Casey-
91
Campbell & Martens, 2009; Mudrack, 1989). Group cohesion is believed to serve as an important basis for the fulfillment 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 functioning 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 example, 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 conflict 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 suggested to be a determining factor in team performance. Mutual support among team members is optimized when member behavior is characterized by mutually affirming, supportive 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 development 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 members 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 intentional development of healthy behavioral and process norms
can lay the foundation for effectiveness (Mathieu & Rapp,
2009). Team charters can establish a common frame of reference 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).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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 includes 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 introduction of team charters to student teams is effective in
speeding the team’s development and positively associated
with subsequent team performance. Implicit in this investigation is the assumption that performance effects are born
of the development of healthier group norms. This assertion 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 (Hunsaker 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 effectiveness. The greater time and care given to the charters development, 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 understanding team effective functioning.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the greater time, attention and facilitator support a team receives through the
ratification process, the more pronounced the positive effects on team work quality. Teams afforded greater instructional guidance and emphasis on the charter’s importance
and content should experience better results than teams simply provided a team charter with little guidance or support.
This assertion has direct ramifications on the implementation of team charters in a classroom setting. We believe,
following Hunsaker and colleagues (2011), that the instructor 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 satisfaction 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 fundamental 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 behavior include importation from outside the group and creation
in which members deliberately specify expectations related
to group functioning (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). The introduction of the team charter exercise would seem to leverage
both creation and importation. In doing so, the more emergent patterns that developed through spontaneous interactions 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 example, a critical function of team charters is eliciting member
input related to their expectations regarding communication
methods. Similarly, issues and conflict related to uneven effort 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 additional 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 arriving 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 mutual 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 teamwork quality. A team provided increased levels of instructional 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:
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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 effort, (c) team cohesion, (d) mutual support, and (e) satisfaction than students who do not receive the team charter
example.
H2: Students who receive the team charter example and receive 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 receive 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 student teams. This context is especially appropriate for several
reasons. First, the task involved is sufficiently complex and
demands high degrees of student interaction and coordination. 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 subsequent 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 instructor, but different methods of introducing and supporting
the team charter at the beginning of the course were employed. In total, the sample consisted of 88 students across
three sections. Of the respondents, 43 were women. The average 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 students 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 hypotheses were tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
to compare the unique pairs of means across the three conditions.
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 communication, team effort, team cohesion, and team mutual support
were included in a paper-and-pencil survey format. All students completed the survey anonymously. These items were
adapted from Hoegl and Gemuenden’s (2001) survey items
for teamwork quality. In addition, team satisfaction was examined 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 members are happy with the timeliness in which we receive information,” and “There is frequent communication within
our team.” Team effort (α = .93) was measured with four
items, which include “Every team member feels fully responsible 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 member 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 being 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,” “Suggestions 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 functions,” “I am satisfied with the communication between team
94
J. R. AARON ET AL.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Sample
Size
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
Treatment group Treatment group Treatment group
2: Team charter 3: Team charter
1: No team
(no instruction; with instruction
charter given
(n = 29)
n = 28)
(n = 31)
Item
α
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Communication
Effort
Cohesion
Mutual support
Satisfaction
.82
.93
.94
.86
.93
3.484
2.976
3.258
3.653
3.626
0.563
1.053
1.093
0.697
0.824
4.107
3.777
4.009
4.196
4.350
0.729
0.209
1.017
0.647
0.899
4.352
3.845
4.103
4.379
4.531
0.471
0.795
0.760
0.604
0.704
4.531
4.35
3.626
4.352
4.107
Sasfacon
3.484
Communicaon
3.845
3.777
members,” “I am satisfied with the leadership in my team,”
and “I am satisfied with the relationship climate within my
team.”
Effort
Cohesion
2.976
Mutual Support
4.103
4.009
3.258
RESULTS
4.379
The means, standard deviations, and reliability estimates for
each of these items can be found in Table 1. Before examining 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 statistically 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 example 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 statistically significant. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between treatment group one (no
team charter) and treatment group two (team charter exam-
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 effectiveness of their team’s processes. In addition, the results indicate 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 treatment group two (team charter example and assignment only)
and treatment group three (team charter example and assignment 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 assignments in higher education is an appropriate and important response to producing the capable team members and
THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM CHARTER ON STUDENT TEAM BEHAVIORS
TABLE 2
Mean Differences Between Variables
Variable
Communication
Effort
Cohesion
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
Mutual support
Satisfaction
Primary
group
Comparing
group
Mean
difference
SE
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
−.623∗∗∗
−.868∗∗∗
−.245
−.801∗
−.869∗
−.068
−.751∗
−.845∗
−.095
−.543∗
−.726∗∗∗
−.183
−.724∗∗∗
−.905∗∗∗
−.181
.155
.154
.158
.259
.257
.263
.253
.250
.257
.170
.168
.172
.211
.209
.215
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, student 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 meetings. 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 important 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 important 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 support H1 and H2 for 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 improvement is likely attributable to the enhanced teamwork quality
born of team charters.
H3 was not supported. This hypothesis stated that teams
provided extensive training and follow-up on the team char-
95
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 introduction to the charter alone? While these teams did in fact
have slightly higher levels of teamwork quality, the difference 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 development provides only a modest incremental 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 (Hackman, 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 performance rather than performance itself. As such, we provide 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 functioning 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 research. 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 members 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 between 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
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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. Unexplored 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 existing 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 appropriate 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 teamwork. 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 learning to be applied. Additionally, we believe team charters
and other team building skills need not be mutually exclusive. 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 instructors. 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 heavily 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. Finally, despite the finding that there are diminishing returns
for greater instructional effort, instructors would be well advised 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. International 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 Psychology, 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.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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 taskperforming groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 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 Psychology, 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 organizations. 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., & CannonBowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: 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 effectiveness 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 performance 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 & Education, 7, 108–123.
97
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological 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 responsibility 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
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
View Crossmark data
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, 89: 90–97, 2014
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
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
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
The authors contribute to growing evidence that team charters contribute positively to performance 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 behavior, 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 deliver greater productivity, quality and creativity in the performance 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 interventions designed to improve team functioning have grown
significantly (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008).
For this reason, business schools face an increasing mandate 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 curriculums. However, faculty and students understand the significant 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 difficulties. More and more—both in academic and applied environments, 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 undermine 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 functioning teams are not isolated to the workplace.
In the present article, we build on the growing literature related 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 introduce team charters and review the literature on effective
team process norms in order to isolate those process mechanisms most critical to team functioning and member satisfaction. 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 facilitator 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). Consistent with these expectations, we find evidence of the efficacy
of team charters in the educational context in fully leveraging 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 functioning. 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).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
Facets of Teamwork Quality Important
to Performance and Satisfaction
Studies investigating team-based organizing strategies have
produced conflicting results regarding performance effects (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Indeed, many organizations 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 intermediate 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 determinants of member satisfaction, growth, and performance
(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Defined broadly, teamwork
quality describes the effectiveness of collaborative behavior (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). These collaborative teamwork behaviors include communication, effort, cohesion, and
mutual support.
Communication describes the level and quality of the informal and formal transmission of information necessary for
task completion (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Past metaanalytic studies affirm the importance of information sharing to team performance, cohesion and member satisfaction (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). To be sure, the
success and failure of student project teams are often attributable anecdotally to communication quality. Similarly,
a team’s norms regarding mutual expectations for individual
effort are critical to minimizing conflict and other dysfunctions 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 managers 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 destructive forces to team function, member satisfaction, and
performance.
Team cohesion represents another important facet of teamwork quality. Group cohesion, described as group members’
inclinations to forge social bonds, results in members sticking together and remaining united (Carron, 1982; Casey-
91
Campbell & Martens, 2009; Mudrack, 1989). Group cohesion is believed to serve as an important basis for the fulfillment 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 functioning 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 example, 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 conflict 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 suggested to be a determining factor in team performance. Mutual support among team members is optimized when member behavior is characterized by mutually affirming, supportive 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 development 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 members 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 intentional development of healthy behavioral and process norms
can lay the foundation for effectiveness (Mathieu & Rapp,
2009). Team charters can establish a common frame of reference 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).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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 includes 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 introduction of team charters to student teams is effective in
speeding the team’s development and positively associated
with subsequent team performance. Implicit in this investigation is the assumption that performance effects are born
of the development of healthier group norms. This assertion 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 (Hunsaker 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 effectiveness. The greater time and care given to the charters development, 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 understanding team effective functioning.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the greater time, attention and facilitator support a team receives through the
ratification process, the more pronounced the positive effects on team work quality. Teams afforded greater instructional guidance and emphasis on the charter’s importance
and content should experience better results than teams simply provided a team charter with little guidance or support.
This assertion has direct ramifications on the implementation of team charters in a classroom setting. We believe,
following Hunsaker and colleagues (2011), that the instructor 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 satisfaction 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 fundamental 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 behavior include importation from outside the group and creation
in which members deliberately specify expectations related
to group functioning (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). The introduction of the team charter exercise would seem to leverage
both creation and importation. In doing so, the more emergent patterns that developed through spontaneous interactions 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 example, a critical function of team charters is eliciting member
input related to their expectations regarding communication
methods. Similarly, issues and conflict related to uneven effort 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 additional 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 arriving 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 mutual 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 teamwork quality. A team provided increased levels of instructional 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:
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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 effort, (c) team cohesion, (d) mutual support, and (e) satisfaction than students who do not receive the team charter
example.
H2: Students who receive the team charter example and receive 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 receive 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 student teams. This context is especially appropriate for several
reasons. First, the task involved is sufficiently complex and
demands high degrees of student interaction and coordination. 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 subsequent 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 instructor, but different methods of introducing and supporting
the team charter at the beginning of the course were employed. In total, the sample consisted of 88 students across
three sections. Of the respondents, 43 were women. The average 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 students 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 hypotheses were tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
to compare the unique pairs of means across the three conditions.
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 communication, team effort, team cohesion, and team mutual support
were included in a paper-and-pencil survey format. All students completed the survey anonymously. These items were
adapted from Hoegl and Gemuenden’s (2001) survey items
for teamwork quality. In addition, team satisfaction was examined 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 members are happy with the timeliness in which we receive information,” and “There is frequent communication within
our team.” Team effort (α = .93) was measured with four
items, which include “Every team member feels fully responsible 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 member 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 being 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,” “Suggestions 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 functions,” “I am satisfied with the communication between team
94
J. R. AARON ET AL.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Sample
Size
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
Treatment group Treatment group Treatment group
2: Team charter 3: Team charter
1: No team
(no instruction; with instruction
charter given
(n = 29)
n = 28)
(n = 31)
Item
α
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Communication
Effort
Cohesion
Mutual support
Satisfaction
.82
.93
.94
.86
.93
3.484
2.976
3.258
3.653
3.626
0.563
1.053
1.093
0.697
0.824
4.107
3.777
4.009
4.196
4.350
0.729
0.209
1.017
0.647
0.899
4.352
3.845
4.103
4.379
4.531
0.471
0.795
0.760
0.604
0.704
4.531
4.35
3.626
4.352
4.107
Sasfacon
3.484
Communicaon
3.845
3.777
members,” “I am satisfied with the leadership in my team,”
and “I am satisfied with the relationship climate within my
team.”
Effort
Cohesion
2.976
Mutual Support
4.103
4.009
3.258
RESULTS
4.379
The means, standard deviations, and reliability estimates for
each of these items can be found in Table 1. Before examining 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 statistically 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 example 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 statistically significant. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between treatment group one (no
team charter) and treatment group two (team charter exam-
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 effectiveness of their team’s processes. In addition, the results indicate 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 treatment group two (team charter example and assignment only)
and treatment group three (team charter example and assignment 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 assignments in higher education is an appropriate and important response to producing the capable team members and
THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM CHARTER ON STUDENT TEAM BEHAVIORS
TABLE 2
Mean Differences Between Variables
Variable
Communication
Effort
Cohesion
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
Mutual support
Satisfaction
Primary
group
Comparing
group
Mean
difference
SE
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
−.623∗∗∗
−.868∗∗∗
−.245
−.801∗
−.869∗
−.068
−.751∗
−.845∗
−.095
−.543∗
−.726∗∗∗
−.183
−.724∗∗∗
−.905∗∗∗
−.181
.155
.154
.158
.259
.257
.263
.253
.250
.257
.170
.168
.172
.211
.209
.215
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, student 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 meetings. 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 important 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 important 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 support H1 and H2 for 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 improvement is likely attributable to the enhanced teamwork quality
born of team charters.
H3 was not supported. This hypothesis stated that teams
provided extensive training and follow-up on the team char-
95
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 introduction to the charter alone? While these teams did in fact
have slightly higher levels of teamwork quality, the difference 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 development provides only a modest incremental 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 (Hackman, 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 performance rather than performance itself. As such, we provide 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 functioning 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 research. 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 members 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 between 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
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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. Unexplored 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 existing 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 appropriate 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 teamwork. 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 learning to be applied. Additionally, we believe team charters
and other team building skills need not be mutually exclusive. 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 instructors. 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 heavily 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. Finally, despite the finding that there are diminishing returns
for greater instructional effort, instructors would be well advised 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. International 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 Psychology, 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.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:31 11 January 2016
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 taskperforming groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 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 Psychology, 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 organizations. 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., & CannonBowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: 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 effectiveness 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 performance 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 & Education, 7, 108–123.
97
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological 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 responsibility 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