UTILIZING TEAMS FOR CLASS ACTIVITIES

Making Course/Classroom Teams Work

Because of the increased emphasis on and utilization of teams in organizations of all types, business, not-for-profit and governmental, university professors, especially those in Colleges of Business (and related areas), have been utilizing teams in various ways in their classes. This in-class utilization of teams has been strongly endorsed and supported by these external organizations as well as alumni. Both groups, the organizations and alumni, repeatedly indicate that with the increased use of teams in the Areal world@ students need more exposure and experience with teams. Therefore, the increased utilization of teams for class/course projects, particularly long term fairly complex projects, is highly justified.

However, a problem exists with using teams for class/course activities. Often the students have bad experiences or extensive complaints about using teams. Frequently the announcement that there will be a team project for the class is received by moans, complaints or other indications of displeasure about the use of teams. (In one classroom inquiry four (4) class members indicated they had had good team experiences in classes while seventeen (17) indicated they had experienced bad team experiences. When this informal inquiry was repeated in several other classes the results were very similar.)

When asked for the reason(s) for the negative reactions toward teams the students freely expressed themselves. They felt teams were unproductive or unpopular for a number of the following reasons:

1 The teams did not work well together; that is, they were a collection of individuals, each with their own agenda, rather than a unified team objective.

2 The team members often were not clear about the expectations for the team; either as to the specific outcomes expected by the faculty nor the level of team performance expected by each of the team members. For example, some team members may be willing to settle for a AC@ while other team members were willing to settle for nothing less than an AA.@ This is an indication there were no clear objectives set for team performance.

3 Some team Amembers@ may become free riders (sometimes called Asocial loafers@) and the remainder of the team members. feel a) they must take up the slack, b) there is nothing that can be done about the free riders, c) they do not know what could be done about the free riders or d) they did not know how to do whatever might be done about the free riders.

4 Group members do not know how to build a team and to maintain team effort.

5 Team members do not know how to handle conflict within the team.

6 Teams are unaware of a) how to chose a team leader, b) do not choose the best team leader(s) for a specific task, c) what to expect from a team leader nor d) how to recognize or reward team leader performance.

7 Teams rarely make definite work assignments for each team member nor do they establish specific due dates for each assignment (completion time for the activity). Decisions may be made during team interaction (meetings), but the responsibility for the completion or implementation of the decision is not assigned to any particular individual. There is no direct assignment made for the activity or implementation of the decision, nor is there any penalty assigned for not completing the activity or meeting the due date which has been established.

8 Most classroom teams have no recourse against non-contributing nor dysfunctional members.

9 Totally inclusive meeting times may be difficult to establish, particularly if there are commuting (or distance learners), non-traditional or working members of the team.

10 Full-time students may have 4 or 5 simultaneous team projects (along with their class schedules) during a semester which further complicates establishing acceptable meeting times and greatly expands Aout-of-class@ work loads, particularly for the good, conscientious team members who often end up doing most of the work

Additionally, it has been observed that the values of generation X tend to be anti-team! As a group, the Xers are highly individualistic as well as visually oriented and aligned with information technology, not the sharing of information. These factors coupled with the fact that most class/course teams have had little or no training in team functioning leads to bad experiences with teams.

There probably are other reasons that in-class teams do not function as well as they should or as well as they could. When class/course teams do not function well, the students have bad exposure to and experience with teams. These bad experiences may sour the students on the use of teams for the future. There may be some carryover to the workplace from the bad classroom experiences. These bad experiences may make it more difficult for these students to function well in team situations in the Areal world.@ The negative experiences may carryover from the bad course/classroom experiences that would taint their attitudes toward teams, which could have a detrimental effect on their careers. These bad experiences may make it more difficult for these students to function well in team situations in the Areal world.@ What is taught poorly in College may contribute to later poor performance on the job.

Improving In-Class Team Performance and Participant Experiences

With a little in-class training about team functioning and some preliminary student team activities, the students= negative reactions to teams can be reduced or possibly even eliminated. The approach proposed in this paper has been utilized in several classes and has had significant positive results. The vast majority of students using the approach and worksheets have enjoyed the team experience, in the majority of cases, more so than any other team experiences. Some of these students have commented the team experiences using the proposed techniques provided their most rewarding team experience. Some students have stated that for the first time they have had a positive team experience.

In the Areal world,@ organizations successfully utilizing teams spend long hours and millions of dollars to train individuals to work in teams, to train team leaders and to train managers to manage teams. (Motorola spends $30 million a year in training, mostly on teams and it has taken them 10 years to develop teams to their satisfaction.) Other organizations successfully utilizing teams spend significant amounts training their teams. Following this model it was thatconcluded some guidance for faculty as well as guidance for students would significantly enhance team performance and the reactions students have toward teams.

To assist faculty to prepare and train students to work in teams for course/class projects the attached annotated AFaculty Guide@ and AStudent Guide@ were prepared. The Guides were originally prepared for colleagues to utilize in their classes.. These colleagues suggested the Guides should be shared with other faculty, both within the University and more broadly. The AFaculty Guide@ should assist faculty members in preparing students for working in teams. The AStudent Guide@ should assist students with better performance in and experience with teams. The combination of these guides should improve student experiences with in-class teams. The AFaculty Guide@ has more narrative included to briefly explain to faculty the theory behind some of the recommendations and to support the reasoning behind these recommendations.

The Guides may seem to be overly formalized and overly complex. There is a justifiable reason for the formalization. Teams are formal manifestations of groups. Effective groups require extensive development time, often years. To provide the climate for course/classroom teams to be successful would require extensive development time also. Course/Classroom teams do not have the extended time periods required to develop into effective teams. Time Constraints (semester lengths) require course/classroom teams to develop and mature very quickly (according to normally accepted standards). The process of developing a successful course/classroom team is really the quantum acceleration of the processes necessary to develop effective groups. The best way to facilitate this rapid development is to formalize the processes groups evolve through during their development. Therefore, to develop successful teams quickly, it is necessary to formalize the process and perhaps appear to be over complex in their preparation.

Therefore, the formalized approach in the guide is used purposefully. It has been found that using the suggestions in the guidelines, almost as a Arequired,@ has enhanced team course/classroom performance and substantially improved student experiences. The proposed steps for classroom teams are closely related to the requirements for the development of successful teams in the Areal world.@ The guides were developed based on group characteristics and team development experiences from the Areal world@ and have been modified to fit the classroom based on classroom utilization of teams.

The guides are intended for use with teams that will be working together for an extended duration. They are not intended for groups whose sole purpose is to discuss a single topic in a single class and then be disassembled. The guides are directed toward teams which would be working together for a partial term or whole term project. Classroom teams with whom these guides have been utilized, for the preparation of team presentations, for team operations in extended game simulations, and similar activities, have extolled the virtues of these guides. The students have stated that in these circumstances, adherence to the principles proposed in the Guides has improved the team cooperation and performance as well as the student attitude toward participation in team activities. Their receptiveness toward the utilization of teams for course/classroom activities has been enhanced.

Brief Theoretical Support for AMaking Classroom Teams Work@

Teams are formalized groups. Effective informal groups go through a process of development which meet certain conditions. It is through these conditions that groups gain the unity and singleness of purpose that makes them a cohesive operational unit, the same type of singleness of purpose and cohesiveness required of course/classroom teams. Teams are formed by an outside entity, the instructor, not the centrality of purpose upon which successful informal groups are formed. Therefore, the formed teams (course/classroom) usually do not have the unity, singleness of purpose, cohesiveness, as well as the required Aconsensus@ that successful informal groups generate during their development. Since formed teams do not naturally possess these essential characteristics of successful informal groups, the characteristics must be developed in teams, usually by outside guidance and support. That is why these formalized Guides are so extremely helpful in the development of successful course/classroom performing teams. The Guides provide the basis for the outside guidance and support needed to develop the course/classroom teams in the processes and structures that characterize successful informal groups.

Table I

Determinants of Successful Group Formation

1. Location and Proximity

1.2 Interaction

1.3 Communication

1.4 Common Interests

1.5 Size

The above leading to CONSENSUS the glue that binds successful groups together!

As indicated above, informal groups form spontaneously; they are not formed by an outside agent. Informal groups come together to provide some perceived benefit specifically for the group members. The ADeterminants of Successful Group Formation,@ identified in Table I, are generally accepted requirements for informal group formation. The ALocation and Proximity@ (of group members) leads to the AInteraction@ and ACommunication@ that is essential to identify and reach substantive agreement upon the ACommon Interests@ (the group benefit) that acts as the bond that holds the group together. All of these conditions lead to a group AConsensus@ an agreement about what the group is to provide for the members, that is, a) conditions of membership, b) what the group is to achieve (objective or benefit), c) rules of behavior (mores or culture), d) performance roles, and e) generally tacit agreement upon sanctions for noncompliance with group norms. ASize@ is a limiting factor. When the size of the group becomes too large for the group to reach a consensus on the common interests or the methods of attaining the common interest, the group either splinters or begins to formalize, that is, it begins to develop structured relationships, formal objectives and rules, etc. Without the above conditions the groups never really come together to form a cohesive group. Without these same conditions, formed teams will not come together either. Since it is not likely these conditions will develop quickly enough in formed teams to facilitate cohesive productive teams, some artificial (formalized) assistance is required.

Already introduced are some of the characteristics observable in groups. The ACharacteristics of Groups@ are identified in Table II. These are the characteristics that can be observed attendant to groups after they have formed and become established. These characteristics are common to all groups and are the characteristics which permit them to function cohesively. For teams to emulate and experience the success of small groups, it becomes necessary for the teams to construct and incorporate the ACharacteristics of Groups@ (Table II). Since these characteristics frequently do not occur naturally or quickly enough in a formed team, it is necessary for the team to consciously construct them

Table II

Characteristics of Groups

1. Develop structure and structural relationships - A status hierarchy

2. Develop and preserves a culture - Norms, mores, taboos, jargon, and acceptable behavior

3. Exercise social control - Establish discipline to maintain Consensus

4. Resist change

5. Develop roles - Including leadership roles (2)

6. Have objectives - Stated or implied

7. Have open communication

8. Maintains Consensus

9. Address and resolve conflict - Both intragroup and intergroup conflict

10. Develop trust - A Must!

11. Develop cohesiveness

12. May develop synergy

In small groups, individuals either gather around a leader or, as the group defines its objectives, a leader emerges. The leader is the individual the group feels will best enable them to achieve their objective(s) although the originally chosen leader is often the most popular. Since a formed team does not have the naturally evolved objectives of a group, it is necessary for the team to consciously construct the objectives which lead to consensus. In a hastily formed classroom team there is no beginning consensus, nor is there other than a vague objective--get the assignment done. Often there is no agreement on the level of work to be done, i.e., the grade to be targeted. Therefore, there is no leader for the team to rally around.

Particularly in undergraduate classes, some team members may take the responsibilities of their roles lightly or engage in Asocial loafing,@ some team members may just want to complete the assignment at a minimum level, while other team members may strive for an AA.@ Without a previously stated agreement on an objective, those individuals striving for the AA@ must assume a disproportionately large portion of the work load. They must do enough to earn the AA@ from their standpoint while also picking up the slack from the others. In Areal world@ work teams, the team members can exert some formal pressure on uncooperative team members. If the project earns an AA@, is it then equitable to give all members of the team an AA@? Additionally, if an agreement has been developed regarding such behaviors as shirking or social loafing then the members of the team can deal with those individuals during the process of the project completion rather than waiting until the final project has been completed and the team members evaluated.. That is, they can direct the shirkers and social loafers to do certain activities. If they do not complete their assigned tasks, the team can impose some sort of sanctions against uncooperative team members. This is the Aexercise of social control@ and the Adevelopment and preservation of a culture.@ These activities permit the team to Amaintain consensus.@ Most professors have observed that different classes have different personalities (or cultures). So too will teams have different cultures. These cultures need to be developed Aup-front.@

AOpen communication@ helps to encourage the trust that must develop between team members for the team to function effectively. Open communication, as well as the potential to Adiscipline@ a dysfunctional or disruptive team member will permit the team to develop a trusting relationship with the professor. The team will believe that the professor is concerned with the welfare of the team members, not simply work in the professor=s own comfort zone.

Unresolved conflict, particularly intragroup conflict, can significantly reduce a team=s effectiveness. The resolution of conflict either conflict about goals, process or final outcome can pave the way for the development of Acohesiveness,@ the stick togetherness that is evident in effective teams. Resolving conflict within the team usually brings the team closer together. That is, solving conflict within the team usually increases cohesiveness.

In classroom teams, with the ARules of the Game@ established up-front, the classroom team can function more as a successful group would do naturally, or as a well-trained team in business would perform. Most importantly, the animosity toward team members and the antagonism against teams that often develops in the classroom teams would be greatly reduced. The proposed guidelines are not a panacea, they will not solve all of the problems, partly because teams will not totally participate in the spirit of the guidelines but may just go through the motions. Teams which utilize the guidelines will almost surely increase their performance as a team and improve their attitudes toward team participation and working in teams.