Successful Teamwork - A Case Study
Successful Teamwork - A Case Study
Research Online
2002
Joseph Luca
Edith Cowan University
This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of: Tarricone, P. & Luca, J. (2002) Successful teamwork: A case study, in
Quality Conversations, Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7-10 July
2002: pp 640-646. Available here
This Conference Proceeding is posted at Research Online.
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/4008
Quality Conversations
Proceedings of the
Tarricone, P. & Luca, J. (2002) Successful teamwork: A case study, in Quality Conversations,
Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7-10 July
2002: pp 640.
ISSN: 0155-6223
ISBN: 0 90 8557 51 5
This research paper was reviewed using a double blind peer review process that meets
DEEWR requirements. Two reviewers were appointed on the basis of their independence,
expertise and experience and received the full paper devoid of the authors’ names and
institutions in order to ensure objectivity and anonymity. Where substantial differences
existed between the two reviewers, a third reviewer was appointed. Papers were evaluated
on the basis of originality, quality of academic merit, relevance to the conference theme and
the standard of writing/presentation. Following review, this full paper was presented at the
international conference.
Copyright@ 2002 HERDSA and the authors. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review,
as permitted under the Copyright, Design and Patent Act, 2005, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any for
or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the
terms and licenses issued by the copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to
the publishers at the address above.
Successful teamwork: A case study
'(
Pina Tarricone
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
[email protected]
Joe Luca
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
[email protected]
Abstract: Why are some teams successful and others unsuccessful? What criteria
or attributes are needed for success? Contemporary teaching and learning
practice over the past few years in higher education institutions has seen a
proliferation of open-ended constructivist learning designs that incorporate
collaboration. This has promoted the need for identifying essential attributes
needed for successful teamwork. This study reviews the literature with a view of
identifying a framework that educators can use to help promote effective teamwork
in their classes. A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year
multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an
essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context. Attributes gleaned from
the literature for successful teamwork was used to compare the two diverse teams.
Introduction
With the shift from a predominately instructivist to constructivist pedagogy the need for
tertiary educators to use a variety of teaching strategies and methods is becoming increasingly
important. Learning designs need to incorporate student-centred team based learning pedagogy
such as project-based, case-based, inquiry-based and problem-based scenarios (Oliver, 2001).
Students need to be immersed in learning environments that promote real learning in real
contexts. Teams and teamwork help to promote deep learning that occurs through interaction,
problem solving, dialogue, cooperation and collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 1995).
These learning designs promote the construction of knowledge as they are embedded in a
social experience with a team environment (Vygotsky, 1978). Effective teamwork can affect
the successful delivery and implementation of these learning designs. Tertiary educators
cannot assume students will the knowledge, understanding and skills needed to create and
contribute to a synergistic team environment.
Through a review of the literature, this paper identifies a range of attributes considered
necessary for successful teamwork. These are then used to compare two contrasting teams
with a view of confirming their validity through a case study.
• participants understand their purpose and share their goals – the combination achieves
Commitment to
mission (Francis & Young, 1979)
team success and
shared goals • members must share a strong common goal (Kets De Vries, 1999)
• groups provide each member of the team with prestige and recognition (Scarnati, 2001)
• successful teams are motivated to succeed (Bradley & Frederic, 1997)
• there is strong team commitment to succeed (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
• members have strong shared values and beliefs (Kets De Vries, 1999)
• engaged in and satisfied with their work (Wageman, 1997)
• creation of a team atmosphere that is informal, relaxed, comfortable and non-judgemental
(Harris & Harris, 1996)
• promote group cohesion (Bradley & Frederic, 1997)
• people enjoy regular interaction with individuals who have similar interests and goals
(Scarnati, 2001).
• one cannot succeed unless the other members of the group succeed (Smith, 1996)
Interdependence
• together the group can deliver more than the individuals who compromise it could do in
isolation (Francis & Young, 1979)
• team members must work together effectively to produce successful systems (Bradley &
Frederic, 1997)
• team members interact to help each other accomplish the task and promote one another’s
success (Smith, 1996)
• team members build on the capabilities of their fellows – the combinations energised
through synergy (Francis & Young, 1979)
• team members must take an interest in both the group and each individuals achievement
(Harris & Harris, 1996)
• team members must never be fully self-directed or completely independent (Johnson,
Heimann, & O'Neill, 2000)
• teams are often empowered to accomplish tasks not available to individuals (Scarnati, 2001)
• Individuals experience a wide range of new ideas and skills when interacting with team
members (Scarnati, 2001)
• team members learn together so that they can subsequently perform better as individuals
(Smith, 1996)
• people must care for each other (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
Interpersonal
skills • members must protect and support each other (Kets De Vries, 1999)
• feelings cab be expressed freely; (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
• members must be respectful and supportive of one another, and realistic in mutual
expectations (Harris & Harris, 1996)
• there is a high level of trust (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
• members respect and trust each other (Kets De Vries, 1999)
• foster trust, confidence and commitment within the group (Harris & Harris, 1996)
• give and accept feedback in an non-defensive manner (Harris & Harris, 1996)
Open
communication • ideal team should be highly diversified in the talents and knowledge each member
and positive contributes, while maintaining open, non-threatening communication (Bradley & Frederic,
feedback 1997)
• value effective listening and communications that serves group needs (Harris & Harris,
1996)
• engage in open dialogue and communication (Kets De Vries, 1999)
• cultivate a team spirit of constructive criticism and authentic non-evaluative feedback
(Harris & Harris, 1996)
• team members must be open and truthful (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
• enable members to express group feelings (Harris & Harris, 1996)
• listen to all ideas and feelings; (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
• face up to conflict and work through it (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
• successful teams are a product of appropriate team composition (Bradley & Frederic, 1997)
Appropriate
team • clarify member roles, relationships assignments and responsibilities (Harris & Harris, 1996)
composition • discuss differences in what each member has to contribute to the work (Wageman, 1997).
• tolerate of ambiguity, uncertainty and seeming lack of structure (Harris & Harris, 1996)
Commitment to
team processes, • instil approaches that are goal-directed, divide labour fairly among members and synchronize
leadership & efforts (Harris & Harris, 1996)
accountability • accept individual accountability/personal responsibility; (Smith, 1996)
• team members are accountable for their share of the work (Smith, 1996)
• members subscribe to distributed leadership (Kets De Vries, 1999)
• decisions are made by consensus (Critchley & Casey, 1986)
• effective leadership is needed (Bradley & Frederic, 1997)
• encourage group participants, consensus and decisions (Harris & Harris, 1996)
• experiment with new ways to work more effectively; (Wageman, 1997)
• seek best practice from other teams and other parts of the organizations; (Wageman, 1997)
• be open to change, innovation and creative, joint problem solving (Harris & Harris, 1996)
• take action to solve problems without waiting for direction (Wageman, 1997)
• monitor the team’s progress (Johnson, Heimann, & O'Neill, 2000)
• perform post-project analyses to find out what worked and what didn’t (Johnson, Heimann,
& O'Neill, 2000)
Successful Team
This team of students was highly successful in developing a quality product, as well as being
highly collaborative. Their journal entries continually reflected positive comments about other
team members, and at no stage during the semester was there a request or requirement to
transfer marks from one team member to another. Team meetings were always friendly, and at
no stage were team issues discussed as being problematic. The team always focused on the
project and how the process of development could be improved by exploring expectations of
the tutor, client and end users. An analysis of the data collected from this team indicated that
they showed the attributes needed for successful teamwork. In almost all of their responses in
interviews, focus group meetings and questionnaires it was evident that this team was
committed to:
• Commitment to team success and shared goals - the team was highly focused on delivering
a quality product, and not pre-occupied by personal issues that might have interrupted
The results from this study indicate that these key attributes need to be carefully considered
by both tutors and students when teamwork activities are proposed. Further research needs to
be considered on how best to implement these strategies in a methodological fashion to ensure
tutors and students acknowledge and understand the importance of how to implement each
attribute i.e. a template outlining implications for best practice when designing and
implementing constructivist learning designs which incorporate teamwork activities.
Bradley, J. H., & Frederic, J. H. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of
Management Development, 16(5), p. 337-353.
Critchley, B., & Case, D. (1986). Teambuilding – At what price and at whose cost? In A.Mumford (Ed.)
Handbook of Management Development. Gower Publishing Company Limited, University Press
Cambridge
Fisher, S. G., Hunter, T. A., & Macrosson, W. D. K. (1997). Team or group? Managers' perceptions of the
differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(4), 232-242.
Flynn, G. (1997). How do you know if your work teams work? Workforce, 76 (5), May p. 7
Francis, D., & Young, D. (1979). Improving Work Groups. San Diego, California: University Associates.
Harris, P. R., & Harris, K. G. (1996). Managing effectively through teams. Team Performance Management:
An International Journal, 2(3), 23-36.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Social Interdependence - Cooperative Learning in Education. In B.
Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice (pp. 205-251). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning ( 5th ed.). Needham Heights: Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, P. R., Heimann, V. L., & O'Neill, K. (2000). The wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century.
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, 12(4), 159-164.
Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (1999) High-performance teams: Lessons from the Pygmies. Organisational Dynamics,
Winter, p. 66-77.
Luca, J., & Tarricone, P. (2001). Does emotional intelligence affect successful teamwork? Proceedings of the
th
18 Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education at
the ASCILITE, p. 367 – 376, Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Luca, J., & Oliver, R. (2001). Developing Generic Skills through On-line Courses. Paper presented at the Ed-
Media 2001, Tampere, Finland.
Oliver, R. (2001). Developing e-learning environments that support knowledge construction in higher
education. Presented at the 2nd International We-B Conference, p. 407 – 416. Perth, Western Australia.
Parker, G. M. (1990). Team Players and Teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scarnati, J. T. (2001). On becoming a team player. Team Performance Management: An International Journal,
7(1/2), 5-10.
Smith, K. (1996). Cooperative Learning: make groupwork work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
67, Fall, pp. 71-82.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams. Organsiational
Dynamics, 26 (1), Summer, 49-62.
Copyright © 2002 Tarricone & Luca: The authors assign to HERDSA and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to
use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is
reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to HERDSA to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web
(prime sites and mirrors) on CD-ROM and in printed form within the HERDSA 2002 conference proceedings. Any other usage is
prohibited without the express permission of the authors.