8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
(i) Teamwork Rubric
(ii) Herbert Rau Ph.D.
(iii) Although student team activities are frequently incorporated into post-secondary school
learning activities, it is not clear how best to measure the interpersonal aspects of teamwork. It is
proposed that a rubric addressing teamwork might be of some benefit.
(iv) Teaching, Rubric, Team Work
(v) A20
Herbert Rau Ph.D.
Utica College
School of Business and Justice Studies
1600 Burrstone Road
Mail Stop 99
Utica, New York 13502-4892
hrau@utica.edu
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
1
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
315-223-2571 (office)
315-792-3173 (fax)
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
2
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Teamwork Rubric
ABSTRACT; Although student team activities are frequently incorporated into post-secondary
school learning activities, it is not clear how best to measure the interpersonal aspects of
teamwork. It is proposed that a rubric addressing teamwork might be of some benefit.
Teamwork and collaboration have become a significant factor of corporate life. The April 28,
2008 edition of BusinessWeek magazine [Vella (pp 58)] reported the results of Knoll Inc. data
regarding perception of teams. The data indicates that 80% of U.S. corporations are involved
with some type of collaborative work. From a “worker” perspective, the survey data shows that
9% of the people involved in group work, prefer working in a group of two people, 54% prefer
working in teams of three people, and 27% of the survey respondents prefer working in an
assemblage of four or more. Only 10% of the workers prefer working alone. It is also interesting
to note that 42% of the collaboration is done constantly, 40% is performed occasionally, and
18% are performed rarely.
It is interesting to note that the Knoll data also reports that most team members do not enjoy the
process of “teaming”. Only 25% of women, and 36% of men like working on teams, while 51%
of women and 40% of men like working together to learn from other people. With collaborative
work being common, and the satisfaction level of the team members being so low, the expected
gains for the organizations that utilize team work may not be achieved to the extent desired, and
improvement in employee satisfaction may not be increased.
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
3
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
A number of questions should be addressed regarding the process of working on teams. If the
Knoll data is accurate, why do we find so many workers dissatisfied with working on teams?
After all, collaborative work has been advocated in the corporate world for many years. The
Quality Circle movement of the late 70’s and early 80’s was designed to take advantage of the
collective knowledge and skills of a group of people. The teaching of the 6-sigma movement also
relies heavily on teams of workers jointly understanding and resolving issues. The drive to
implement High Performing teams, and Self-Managed teams is based on the belief of the
benefits of collaborative work. If teaming is as prevalent as the Knoll data suggests, and
corporate America has been implementing teaming activities for greater than thirty years, why
don’t we see greater satisfaction levels? Many questions arise from the Knoll data, and most of
the questions are beyond the scope of this paper. Questions such as why are team members not
more satisfied, how should teams be structured, is there a lack of knowledge on how to work
together, what types of problems are best addressed by teams, how does the culture of the
organization, the reward and recognition systems, or other factors impact teams, these all need to
be explored. However, that is not the focus of this paper. This paper begins with the assumption
that team work will continue to be a common method of structuring work in the corporate world,
and that colleges and universities must not only be aware of the need for teams, but must also
help facilitate an improvement in team performance.
Since it is clear that collaborative work is prevalent in the corporate world, it is prudent for
colleges and universities to include collaborative work in their courses, so that students will have
a “practice field” in which to work together. It is frequent that undergraduate and graduate class
assignments involve students working together for successful assignment completion. However,
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
4
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
beyond the finished “product”, it is difficult for the professor to determine the quality of
performance regarding the individual aspects of successful team work. Leaving aside the
question of what is the preferred method of teaching the process of effective collaborate work
(via lecture, case study, experiential activities, or some other means), how does the instructor
assess whether the student is proficient in working with colleagues in a team environment? Is a
test the best assessment vehicle for that task? What are the “dimensions” of the teaming process
that must be assessed? How may effective feedback of the student’s team process be assessed if
the instructor is not available for constant monitoring of that process?
While the grading of the final assignment may be accomplished with traditional assessment
methodologies, it is proposed that the utilization of a “teamwork” rubric may be of assistance in
assessing the teaming process of the individual student, and the composite of the team members
for a particular project. It is further suggested that a potential technique for using a teamwork
rubric for teaching collaborative work processes, is through problem-based learning that extends
over an entire semester, and the problem-based exercise has the teamwork rubric embedded
within the work. It is proposed that the use of a rubric, in conjunction with a class structure that
combined lecturing on team principles, the incorporation of a 15-week simulation requiring team
work, and feedback through the process will help a team process. Further, even though the
Business and Economics Department at Utica College is cognizant of the need to assess all
aspects of the student’s academic experience, and while each course follows standard protocol
for teaching at the post-secondary level – qualified instructors, college-level materials (texts and
other resources), peer-reviewed syllabi and peer-reviewed teaching, exams and papers – some
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
5
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
aspects of learning are not effectively assessed with the traditional assessment methodologies.
Consequently, the Department has instituted rubrics as a tool to enhance the assessment process.
A sequence of activities is followed in utilizing rubrics for assessment. At the beginning of the
semester copies of the appropriate rubrics are given to each student and the rubrics are discussed.
A specific challenge exists for using rubrics in assessing teamwork. It is relatively easy for a
professor to use rubrics to assess writing, oral presentation, use of technology, etc. However, if
an assignment requiring teamwork results in the students working together outside of the
classroom, how is the instructor going to determine the effectiveness of this portion of the
process? In this regard, a second aspect of assessment needs to be included in the process. The
professor may easily view the final results of the teaming process, but the professor lacks the
knowledge of what has transpired since the beginning of the class assignment (beyond classroom
activity), and the final product. Therefore, the student’s input is required. Each student evaluates
the other members who are on their team, using the team rubric as the tool. Since each team is
composed of four to five members, each individual will have a composite assessment from three
or four team members regarding their performance. The teamwork rubric has been used at both
the undergraduate and graduate level. At the undergraduate level, the students only needed to
“check” the box corresponding to their perception of their teammate’s performance. At the
graduate level, in addition to “checking” the appropriate box, the students were also requested to
write additional comments that would more fully explain the rating of their colleagues. It should
be noted that all feedback via the rubric is voluntary by the students. Student participation for the
teamwork rubric was 86% in the graduate class, and 59% for the undergraduate class. Following,
are examples of the undergraduate and graduate rubrics.
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
6
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
7
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Figure 1: Undergraduate teamwork assessment rubric
1
(poor)
Project Planning
Team member identified and utilized the
other member’s knowledge and expertise
Team member focused on issues that
facilitated solving the problem
Team member established actionable goals
for his/her part of the problem
Team member used appropriate tools and
processes to resolve the problem/task,
including establishing sub tasks,
milestones, and quality levels (as
necessary)
Team Management
Team member was accountable for
managing the problem/task, resolving
personnel issues, and actively working to
achieve the goals
Team member demonstrated collaboration,
negotiation & compromise
Team member gave & received
constructive feedback
Team Mechanics
The team member communicated with
stakeholders as appropriate
Team member was flexible to changing
conditions and build contingency plans as
needed
Team member contributed to success
Team Interaction
Team member was respectful of
stakeholders
All viewpoints were heard & recognized –
including stakeholder positions not
represented actively on the team
Roles & responsibilities were effectively
managed by the team member (i.e., team
leader, timekeeper, recorder, etc.)
Project Result / Output
Team member’s work was of professional
quality
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
8
2
3
4
5
(excellent)
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Team member achieved all required
milestones and timelines
Team member achieved project completion
in collaborative manner
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Overall, the team member was:
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
9
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Figure 2: Graduate teamwork assessment rubric
Project Planning
Team members identify and utilize
each member’s knowledge and
expertise
Team members focus on issues that
facilitate solving the problem
Team members establish actionable
goals
Team members use appropriate tools
and processes to resolve the
problem/task, including establishing
sub tasks, milestones, and quality
levels
Team Management
Team members are accountable for
managing the problem/task,
resolving personnel issues, and
actively working to achieve the
goals
Team members demonstrate
collaboration, negotiation &
compromise
Team members give & receive
constructive feedback
Team Mechanics
The team communicates with
stakeholders as appropriate
Team members are flexible to
changing conditions and build
contingency plans as needed
Each team member contribute to
success
Team Interaction
Team members are respectful of
stakeholders
Multiple viewpoints are heard &
recognized – including Stakeholder
positions not represented actively on
the team
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
Does Not
Meet
Expectations
Somewhat
Deficient
Meets
Expectations
 0
 1
 2
 0
 1
 2
 0
 1
 2
 0
 1
 2
 0

 1
 2
 0
 1
 2
 0
 1
 2

 0

 1

 2
 0
 1
 2
 0
 1
 2
0
1
2
 0
 1
 2
10
N/A
Or
Comments

8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
Roles & responsibilities are
managed (i.e., team leader,
timekeeper, recorder, etc.) as
appropriate
Team members effectively utilize
electronic media for timely and
collaborative work
Project Result / Output
The team project is of professional
quality
Team achieves all required
milestones and timelines
Team achieves project completion in
collaborative manner
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Overall, the student:
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
0
 1
 2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
 0
 1
 2
11
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
A particular concern with this process is whether the student takes the easy way out and “rates”
each member as being exemplary. However, the results of a pilot implementation of this
assessment process, indicates that this was generally not the case. The students approached the
task with maturity and professionalism, and took to task those colleagues who did not fully
participate, while recognizing those individuals who were instrumental to their success.
As noted above, this team assessment process was conducted at both the undergraduate and
graduate level. Regarding the graduate level, this was a particularly interesting activity. The
graduate course chosen for the rubric assessment had the challenge of being a distance-learning
course that required a significant team project that extended over the entire semester. Since
students in this course were literally housed around the globe (the most recent semester had a
student in Paris, France, another student in Hawaii, and students from almost every region of the
United States), teamwork becomes a particular challenge. Using the teamwork rubric helped the
various graduate students address unproductive behavior of their teammates, and to call to task
students that were not helping the team to succeed.
The structure of the graduate course was a fifteen-week six-credit hour course. The course begins
with a three-day residency consisting of an orientation, lecture, and an introduction to an
embedded simulation from Marketplace. The students were randomly assigned to teams of four
or five members by the instructor, and the simulation ran for the entire fifteen-week semester.
During the residency, the students were presented with a brief overview of teams and their
structures, and they spent approximately half of the residency learning the simulation, making
joint decisions, and completing assignments for their respective businesses. As the class was
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
12
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
structured, the students were required to complete bi-weekly decisions (corresponding to
financial quarters), and they needed to determine how they would accomplish their tasks in a
distributed manner. As noted above, the teams did not choose their members, and the team
members needed to determine how to effectively work together to complete their simulation
exercise. In addition to the Marketplace simulation, the students also were required to complete
other assignments that focused on strategy, marketing, and financial management. The students
were graded on the composite of their individual work for each module, the results of their
virtual company in the simulation, and the generation of a Venture Capital report that was
submitted mid-way through the semester. During the residency, the students worked
collaboratively, and performed all requirements on time, at the expected quality level, and in a
congenial manner.
For the 15-week undergraduate course, the structure was a traditional case study that also
included a team project due at week 10. The students were allowed to choose the members of
their teams, and the team work needed to be conducted external of the classroom activities. The
team project focused on a specific business case chosen by the instructor. The student’s task was
to create a strategy that addressed the issue presented in the case, and to determine the
implementation strategy, sequence of steps, resources necessary, and time-line of actions that
would result in the chosen action. Particular attention for this assignment was directed towards
implementation issues generating from the strategy creation.
Regarding the graduate class teaming activities, it became apparent that the “honeymoon” period
of the residency was not sustainable. While some teams performed efficiently and effectively in
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
13
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
their distributed team activity, other teams floundered. Feedback to the instructor regarding nonparticipation of some members suggested the need for an intervention. In that regard, the
teamwork rubric was used to elevate the concerns of the teams, and to allow for feedback in a
formal manner. The students were requested to submit assessments regarding each member of
their team, and to include written comments that further explained their rating of their
teammates. A requirement regarding the written comments was that those comments must be
professional and non-inflammatory, based on fact, and to be of use by the receiving individual in
correcting problem behavior. Additionally, it was noted that the instructor reserved the right to
not include comments that did not adhere to the norms of professionalism.
The graduate students did demonstrate professionalism in their comments. Several examples of
the graduate class member assessments suggest the seriousness the students demonstrated in
completing this activity:

____ was always there but seemed to never be there. As a team member he met deadlines
but never tried to give direction in the group. He would always ask what is left for me to
do, instead of offering to do. His quality of work was limited to copying reports and
charts from the simulation. He never made any commentary reports to the charts or
graphs. His idea of contributing was basically copying and pasting of information from
the simulation to a word document and emailing it to ___ to add to the paper. _____
seemed to think this quality of work was acceptable.

_____ was very easygoing and she kept our team on task. She took the lead to compile
our Venture paper. Great teammate.
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
14
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics

ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Overall, the student _____ had no communication with the team for nearly the first full
month. Yet, he appeared to be able to complete his individual assignments. He is
however a true team member for the second half of Module 1, so that’s why I put him
between a 1 and a 2.

As far as the discussion and decision making in the simulation, _____ did start meeting
us on the telephone conferences after our candid telephone conversation, yet very rarely
had major input. He would continually ask if we were almost done because he was tired.
At one point I told him to if he was that tired to go to bed. He did! (It was only 9:30 at
night in the same time zone that he was use to.) The rest of us stayed and finished the
wrap. Like ___, it seems _____ believed if he was dialed in, then he was participating.
Once in a while he would make a comment or two, but very rarely.

Overall, _____ was not there and very rarely to my knowledge met any deadlines. Again,
_____ has had very little direct impact on the venture capital project that I am aware of
and has very little if a consequence on what we do as a team in the simulation.

_____ is another great teammate to have. He is very conscientious of his work and the
effort he contributes to the group. _____ stepped up and took the leadership role in trying
to communicate with group members that were not contributing as much as they should
have. He tried to steer them in the right direction. I believe he thought I was going to be a
little too honest and therefore thought he could be more diplomatic. This may or may not
have worked since the information from one group member seemed to flow through
_____. Therefore, I am not sure if _____ just covered for him or not. I believe _____
assisted in keeping everyone on task for this portion of our semester. He contributes
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
15
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
much insight to the simulation since he has logged on numerous times to ensure a good
understanding of the simulation.

_____ has also contributed immensely with the venture capital prospectus. He is very
thorough in his portions that he contributed. _____ is very knowledgeable in the areas
that he contributed in. He always is willing to assist anyone in their portions if need be
(again I am not sure if this was to cover for some weaker group members). _____ always
met his deadlines and assisted in any editing or group discussions. _____ is always ready
to take on more responsibilities for the betterment of the group and sometimes to shield
other group members.

______ was also a vital team member who contributes to being the person to work on the
Marketplace simulation. Great teammate.

_____ was great to work with, a definite team player I would definitely choose to be a
part of her team if given the choice again. The only constructive criticism I would offer is
that she does have a tendency to become a bit domineering. She has great ideas and
obviously takes tremendous pride in her work or achievements but sometimes she
inadvertently dismisses ideas of others.

I enjoyed working with _____ and would do so again if given the opportunity. I can’t say
that I have any additional comments, _____ did his part, listened to input of all team
members and was supportive.
The written feedback from all team members of the various teams was compiled by the
instructor. The comments were electronically forwarded to the specific team member to whom
the specific comments were addressed, and the names of the team members writing the
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
16
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
comments were not attached to the comments. No team member saw the composite comments
that were written about other students. That is, if “Jane Doe” received comments regarding her
performance from four other team members on her team, she was the only person who received
the complete set of comments. Therefore, only she, the instructor, and the writer of the original
comment knew what the individual comments were, and only she and the instructor knew the
complete set of the composite comments regarding her specific performance.
If we look beyond the written comments of the graduate students regarding their colleagues, we
also note that they fully utilized the rubric in assessing their colleagues. Scores may not always
total to the same amount, because some students did not assess every element. The numbers in
the boxes are the tallies of the students regarding their colleagues for each element, and each
level of performance.
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
17
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Figure 3: Graduate teamwork assessment rubric tally
Project Planning
Team members identify and utilize
each member’s knowledge and
expertise
Team members focus on issues that
facilitate solving the problem
Team members establish actionable
goals
Team members use appropriate tools
and processes to resolve the
problem/task, including establishing
sub tasks, milestones, and quality
levels
Team Management
Team members are accountable for
managing the problem/task,
resolving personnel issues, and
actively working to achieve the
goals
Team members demonstrate
collaboration, negotiation &
compromise
Team members give & receive
constructive feedback
Team Mechanics
The team communicates with
stakeholders as appropriate
Team members are flexible to
changing conditions and build
contingency plans as needed
Each team member contribute to
success
Team Interaction
Team members are respectful of
stakeholders
Multiple viewpoints are heard &
recognized – including Stakeholder
positions not represented actively on
the team
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
Does Not
Meet
Expectations
Somewhat
Deficient
Meets
Expectations
 3
8
53
 2
9
53
 1
8
55
 0
9
51
2

9
53
3
5
56
2
8
54

1

8

55
1
7
56
2
6
46
1
3
56
2
3
58
18
N/A
Or
Comments

8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Roles & responsibilities are
managed (i.e., team leader,
timekeeper, recorder, etc.) as
appropriate
Team members effectively utilize
electronic media for timely and
collaborative work
Project Result / Output
The team project is of professional
quality
Team achieves all required
milestones and timelines
Team achieves project completion in
collaborative manner
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
2
5
55
2
7
56
2
3
57
1
4
60
1
2
61
Overall, the student:
2
5
57
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
19
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
The feedback to this rubric was conducted mid-way through the semester. The purpose was to
determine if any problems were occurring on the teams (it was evident that some teams were
having problems, and it was desirable to know how extensive the problems were), and to create a
hoped-for “positive” intervention for the known problems, and to resolve other issues that might
not have been immediately apparent to the instructor. The above information, in addition to the
monitoring of team performance on the simulation, suggested that although some teams were
working effectively, other teams were struggling. At the end of the semester (and simulation),
the class was queried regarding the effectiveness of the rubric intervention. A reduced response
rate was noted with only 51% of the students responding. 42% of the responders stated that no
change was observed. Out of this group, 38% stated their teams worked well together from the
start, and 50% of the students in this group were on teams that demonstrated successful
performance on their simulation and Venture Capital report work. One student rated his team
performance as being excellent midway through the semester, yet the team did not perform well
on the simulation. 47% of the students stated the intervention helped. This was also evident in
the performance of the teams, with the team having the worst issues midway through the
semester finishing the simulation in first place. In this particular case, the students on that team
noted that the intervention was of help. 11% of the students noted that the rubric intervention
actually made things awkward for their teams. It is also interesting to note, that one student
responded that their team demonstrated good teamwork throughout the class, and yet two other
members stated that their team was dysfunctional. In fact, this team did poorly on the simulation.
The disjoint in perception helps to indicate the challenges that team members face in working
together. Mental models and perceptions of behavior, frame our understanding of the world, and
this likely is an element in improving team performance and satisfaction, that is, to baseline what
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
20
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
good performance looks (and feels) like, and the actions that may be taken to move a team into
good performance.
The rubric analysis is also helpful in understanding the particular aspects of team work that cause
problems for the team members. Recognizing that the rubric information for the graduate
students presented above only represents a small number of individuals engaged in distance team
work, it is still interesting to note that the components of team work that need additional
attention include:

Team members identify and utilize each member’s knowledge and expertise

Team members focus on issues that facilitate solving problems

Team members are accountable for managing the problem/task, resolving personnel
issues, and actively working to achieve the goals

Team members demonstrate collaboration, negotiation & compromise

Team members give & receive constructive feedback

Each team member contributes to success

Team members effectively utilize electronic media for timely and collaborative work.
Consequently, additional attention should be focused on these aspects of working together.
If one of the reasons for using a rubric is to help individual students improve their mastery of
necessary skills for professional work, it would be useful to understand how the student
perceives the value of that rubric in acquiring the specific skill the rubric is intended to address.
Following are comments from the undergraduate students (the undergraduate students appeared
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
21
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
not to be as “verbose” in their comments as compared to the graduate students) regarding their
perceptions of the use of the team rubric:

Helped to work in a group

Experience of the challenges of teamwork

Get a problem solved together

Allowed me to rate my teammates involvement

I don’t think the scales provided enough range to accurately assess the work

Always good to know what our peers think about your skills set

See where we were slacking

It gave me an idea of how my teammates thought I did

Indifferent

Let me know where I stand and what I needed to do to change

I lied for everybody
Although, the observations noted above were with regard to the use of the rubrics from their
personal perspective, the scoring of the rubrics by the individual undergraduate students,
suggests a broader perspective. Generally, the undergraduates fully used the range of scores
available for each element when assessing their teammates. As was noted for the graduate
students, some of the undergraduate students did not assess every component of the rubric, and
consequently, the totals do not always add to the same amount. Again, the numbers in the boxes
are the tallies of the undergraduate student’s rating for their colleagues.
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
22
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Figure 4: Undergraduate teamwork assessment rubric tally
1
2
(poor)
Project Planning
Team member identified and utilized the
3
other member’s knowledge and expertise
Team member focused on issues that
2
facilitated solving the problem
Team member established actionable goals
2
for his/her part of the problem
Team member used appropriate tools and
2
processes to resolve the problem/task,
including establishing sub tasks,
milestones, and quality levels (as
necessary)
Team Management
Team member was accountable for
1
managing the problem/task, resolving
personnel issues, and actively working to
achieve the goals
Team member demonstrated collaboration,
2
negotiation & compromise
Team member gave & received
2
constructive feedback
Team Mechanics
The team member communicated with
1
stakeholders as appropriate
Team member was flexible to changing
2
conditions and build contingency plans as
needed
Team member contributed to success
2
Team Interaction
Team member was respectful of
1
stakeholders
All viewpoints were heard & recognized –
2
including stakeholder positions not
represented actively on the team
Roles & responsibilities were effectively
1
managed by the team member (i.e., team
leader, timekeeper, recorder, etc.)
Project Result / Output
Team member’s work was of professional
2
quality
Team member achieved all required
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
23
3
4
5
(excellent)
8
19
13
6
16
19
7
13
21
11
15
15
10
16
16
5
18
18
6
12
23
6
17
19
7
16
18
4
16
21
5
15
22
3
17
20
4
13
18
4
20
17
6
17
20
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
milestones and timelines
Team member achieved project completion
in collaborative manner
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
1
5
13
24
Overall, the team member was:
1
4
19
19
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
24
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
It seems that the teamwork rubric achieved modest success. Although it is apparent that the tool
is not a perfect instrument, its use by the students in both the tabular and written comment
formats suggests that students have an internal mental model of what constitutes acceptable team
performance. It is not clear what are the origins of their mental models, but it is likely that a
combination of class lecture, textual materials assigned in class, the existence of a rubric, and
previous personal experience with other team related activities all contribute to the student’s
individual models of what acceptable team performance looks like.
Although 47% of the graduate students noted improvement in their team performance after the
rubric intervention, 26% of the responding students indicated that no change occurred (teams that
were having problems, and who did not self-report as being on teams that were already
performing well). Unfortunately, there is no data available from this class to determine the cause
for this percentage of students still reporting problems. Several possible reasons for lack of
improvement are possible:

some students are unskilled at team work because of previous role models

a lack of alignment on what constitutes effective team performance is prevalent amount
the students

some students were not motivated to improve their performance

the rubric intervention was too little, too late

not enough education and feedback regarding team work was incorporated in the course

students “process” the world in distinct ways, and there may be a lack of understanding
by all team members on how each member processes events in their world
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
25
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics

ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
negative behavior modification might need to be included in the course, such as making
successful team performance a component of the final grade, in order to encourage
greater collaboration.
It is planned that these potential issues will be addressed in the next class in the hopes of
improving the success rate of the teams, and improving the satisfaction level of the team
members. Anticipated changes include more focus on team structures and feedback mechanisms,
and incorporation of team member assessments as a composite element of the final grade for
each student.
It is highly likely that collaborative work external to the college will continue to flourish. As
companies grapple with global business issues – time-to-market, specific market needs, reducing
costs, improving customer service, etc. – team work is becoming more prevalent. However, as
noted by the Knoll Inc. data (briefly discussed above), workers tend to not be impressed with
collaborative work – only 25% of women, and 36% of men enjoy working together to complete
tasks. The issue is most pronounced with younger workers; 13% of 18-24 year olds, 27% of 2564 year olds, and 36% of 65+ year olds enjoy working together on tasks. This issue needs to be
seriously addressed by both business and education. Meaningful practice must be conducted in
the classroom setting, and the teaching, coaching and mentoring of effective and satisfying group
behavior needs to be taught and reinforced. External to the college environment, business needs
to institute structures that support effective teaming in order to facilitate the achievement of
organizational goals, and exceeding customer satisfaction. This task will not be easy to achieve,
but effective monitoring and guidance of students will help the process.
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
26
8th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-5-9
Vella, M., (2008), “indata”, BusinessWeek, April 28, 58.
October 18-19th, 2008
Florence, Italy
27