The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Let’s be frank: Individual and team-level predictors of

improvement in student teamwork effectiveness following
peer-evaluation feedback
Antoaneta P. Petkova a, Monique A. Domingo b, Eric Lamm a, *
a
San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave., San Francisco, CA, 94132, USA
b
University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road, Unit 1041, Storrs, CT, 06269-1041, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper examines the individual and team-level predictors of improvement in student team­
Teamwork effectiveness work effectiveness following peer-evaluation (PE) feedback. The goal of this study is two-fold:
Improvement first, to understand the differences in students’ initial reactions to PE feedback, as well as their
Feedback
subsequent decisions and actions to improve; and second, to identify the team-level processes that
Team processes
Pedagogy
contribute to improvements in students’ teamwork effectiveness. The mixed-methods study
design combines the benefits of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The
sample consists of 266 undergraduate students in 51 teams, working together for the duration of
one academic semester. Data were collected in multiple waves, using open-ended surveys and
interviews, as well as a standardized online PE system. Both the qualitative and quantitative
analyses revealed that PE feedback is the most salient factor influencing students’ improvement in
their teamwork effectiveness. Moreover, students’ grade aspirations and prior experience using
the PE system are positively related to the level of improvement in teamwork effectiveness. The
team-level factors have more complex effects, with different team processes influencing
improvement along different dimensions of teamwork effectiveness. These findings have impor­
tant pedagogical implications for improving students’ teamwork effectiveness.

1. Introduction

With the increasing use of teams in organizations (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Mathieu et al., 2019; Rapp et al., 2021) – defined as “two
or more individuals who socially interact (face-to-face or, increasingly, virtually); possess one or more common goals; are brought
together to perform organizationally relevant tasks; exhibit interdependencies with respect to workflow, goals, and outcomes; have
different roles and responsibilities; and are together embedded in an encompassing organizational system, with boundaries and
linkages to the broader system context and task environment” (Kozlowski & Ilgen 2006, p. 79) – corporate recruiters have been placing
greater emphasis on hiring business school graduates with strong teamwork skills (Alsop, 2002). According to the Job Outlook 2020
survey of the National Association of Colleges and Employers, the highest ranked attribute that employers seek on a candidate’s resume

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.P. Petkova), [email protected] (M.A. Domingo), [email protected] (E. Lamm).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100538
Received 7 July 2020; Received in revised form 28 June 2021; Accepted 7 July 2021
Available online 14 July 2021
1472-8117/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

is the ability to work as part of a team, with over 86 percent of the respondents seeking evidence that college graduates have mastered
teamwork skills, as compared to 78 percent in 2015 (Job Outlook 2020).1 At the same time, business students today often come to
college with “less-developed social skills for working face-to-face with others, because they have grown up using technologies like
Facebook, texting, and email” (Loughry et al., 2014, p. 6). This apparent disconnect between students’ aptitudes and corporate re­
cruiters’ expectations, in turn, poses increasing demands on business schools, and especially on management educators to do a better
job of coaching students to develop relevant skills (Page et al., 2020).
Business educators have responded by increasingly incorporating team projects and other team assignments into learning activities,
to better prepare students for the demands of the present-day workplace (Loignon et al., 2017; O’Neill et al., 2017). However,
providing students with opportunities to work with others on team projects does not automatically produce the desired educational
outcomes – i.e., students who can work effectively in teams (Oakley et al., 2004). In fact, many students would argue that they don’t
feel like they get the chance to work with others but are required to work with others due to issues such as social loafing (Jassawalla
et al., 2009), domineering peers, and inattentive teammates (Bacon et al., 1999). Although there is undoubtedly value in
learning-by-doing (Kolb, 2014), it is up to the instructor to design effective learning experiences by guiding and coaching students
(Bacon et al., 1999) and by helping them learn how to interact with others in the most productive ways (Chapman & Van Auken, 2001;
Chen et al., 2004). Without assistance, student teams may underperform and students may walk away from their business school
experience with a negative attitude toward working in teams. Such an attitude could severely harm their employability and potential
for career success. Research shows that instructors play a key role in designing and implementing peer-evaluation (PE) and feedback
delivery systems (Brutus et al., 2013; Loignon et al., 2017; Peterson & Peterson, 2011), which increases team member effort and
performance due to the accountability measures put in place and the feedback provided (Brutus & Donia, 2010; Davison et al., 2014).
Overall, there is agreement on the importance of providing high-quality feedback in teams. However, the majority of feedback
research focuses on the relationship between feedback and various performance outcomes (see Gabelica et al., 2012, for a compre­
hensive review). Far less research attention has been devoted to the potential contingent effects of PE feedback on improvement in
students’ teamwork effectiveness – defined as the extent to which team members “effectively exchange information and resources
with, actively collaborate with, and respond to other team members’ needs and requests in an appropriate manner” (Farh et al., 2012,
p. 891) – as a function of individual and team-level factors. At the individual level, the same feedback content (e.g., ‘you are a
below-average team contributor’) may be interpreted and acted upon differently depending on the focal student’s ambitions and
aspirations. Further, individual efforts to contribute to the team may be more or less productive depending on the team processes in
place (Eddy et al., 2013; Mathieu et al., 2019). Therefore, the goal of this study is to provide management educators with an un­
derstanding of how individual- and team-level factors influence the development and improvement of students’ teamwork-related
skills following feedback. Thus, the following research questions are examined: (a) Which students improve more (or less) upon
receiving PE feedback? and (b) What factors influence the improvements in students’ teamwork effectiveness following feedback?
These research questions are addressed in a mixed-methods study combining the benefits of qualitative and quantitative data
collection and analysis. The sample consisted of 266 undergraduate students in 51 teams, working together for the duration of one
academic semester. Data were collected in multiple waves, using open-ended surveys and interviews, as well as a standardized online
PE system. The insights gained from the qualitative analysis were used to develop a set of testable hypotheses about the effects of PE
scores, individual characteristics, and team processes on students’ improvement in teamwork effectiveness.
What makes this research design unique is that it addresses the scarcity of research on individual-level learning within team
contexts (Dierdorff & Ellington, 2012). Using a longitudinal approach, similar to Peterson and Behfar (2003), this study examines the
effects of feedback on ongoing teams conducting meaningful work. Thus, it addresses concerns in the literature that research on
inter-team processes has relied heavily on laboratory settings rather than on groups that are performing meaningful tasks (Schippers,
2014). Finally, this study addresses calls for more research that explores intervention techniques to assist group reflection (Bolinger &
Stanton, 2014; Schippers et al., 2014).

2. Literature review

Research on effective feedback suggests that the timing, frequency, specificity, and constructiveness of the feedback, contributes to
its effectiveness (Hey et al., 2000). In their review, Gabelica et al. (2012) conclude that team-level feedback that is frequent, positive,
shared, and available to all team members helps teams to improve performance. Additionally, they suggest that team members that
have interdependent roles, set team goals, are incentivized, reflect on strategies to achieve these goals, trust each other, and believe
they perform well are better able to achieve positive change. Research on individual-level feedback effectiveness highlights that the
timing and the publicness of the feedback (Gabelica et al., 2012) and its exchange among the team also increases individual learning
and team consensus (Harmon & Rohrbaugh, 1990). Several studies have found a positive relationship between feedback on
individual-level performance and group performance (Hunter, 2006; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000), as well as team processes and
interactions (Andonov, 2009; Kerr et al., 2005; Smith-Jentsch et al., 1996). Conversely, process feedback, or information on the way a
task was performed, only improve team processes and cognitive emergent states (Gabelica et al., 2012). Studies providing both
team-level and individual-level feedback echo the above characteristics of effective feedback adding that feedback is more effective
when it is accurate, non-threatening, given directly to the teams it targets, and distributed equally (Gabelica et al., 2012).

1
Retrieved March 3, 2021 from https://www.naceweb.org/talent-acquisition/candidate-selection/key-attributes-employers-want-to-see-on-
students-resumes/.

2
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

Further, the performance feedback literature shows that individuals vary greatly in their openness to feedback. Feedback orien­
tation indicates the degree to which individuals are willing to be evaluated, believe that feedback can be helpful, and feel account­
ability for the feedback received (London & Smither, 2002). Feedback orientation is correlated with feedback acceptance and
proclivity for continuous learning (Smither et al., 2005). Linderbaum and Levy (2010) expand on this literature and find that
accountability and self-awareness influence positively one’s intentions to act upon the feedback. At the team level, research on team
performance has focused on the positive impact of team reflexivity, a deliberate reflective feedback process to improve team
information-processing by discussing goals, processes, and outcomes (Schippers et al., 2014). Similarly, work on debriefing has
demonstrated how teams that debrief outperform those that do not (Allen et al., 2018; Eddy et al., 2013; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli,
2013).
The few pedagogical studies examining the role of feedback for learning and performance of student teams have focused on four
relevant factors that may affect the impact of feedback on subsequent improvements in students’ teamwork effectiveness. The first is
students’ prior experience using a PE system. For example, Brutus and Donia (2010) observe that students who participated in the PE
system in the previous semester were more effective team members and performed better than those who used the system for the first
time. They explain these differences with the experience gained through exposure to the PE system, which familiarized students with
the evaluation criteria and their team members’ expectations.
A second factor is students’ increase in self-awareness. For example, Baker (2008) argues that providing feedback to students may
increase their self-awareness “by learning how they were perceived by their teammates” (Baker, 2008, p. 186). Mayo et al. (2012) had
MBA students rate themselves on their leadership qualities and had members of their teams rate them as well. In two subsequent
rounds of data collections, they found that the individuals’ self-ratings decreased to align with how their peers had rated them and the
effect was stronger for women than it was for men. From a lens of self-confidence this may be perceived as a negative result, but from a
lens of improvement, an increase in a sense of self-awareness is very important. In a study expanding on feedback orientation, social
awareness was found to positively influence intentions to respond to the feedback (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010).
A third factor has less to do with the student receiving the feedback and more with their peers. LePine and Van Dyne’s (2001)
attributional model suggests that seeing a low performer triggers the attribution process which influences team members’ behaviors.
While peers are capable of engaging in helping behavior, they will likely base their response on whether they believe the low per­
formers are able to control the outcome of their performance. Therefore, peers might respond in one of four different ways:
compensating, training, motivating, or rejecting the low performer (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). The way in which peers respond will
have a direct effect on the improvement potential of the student. Jackson and LePine (2003) used student samples and found empirical
support for significant aspects of the attribution model.
Finally, a fourth factor is the team dynamics at the time of the intervention. Peterson and Behfar (2003) looked specifically at how
the type of feedback affected subsequent student team processes. They found that negative feedback (i.e., low project grades at Time 1)
predicted relationship conflict and task conflict at Time 2. Further, intergroup trust was successful at stopping task conflict from
transforming into relationship conflict. Others find that prior team interactions change individual expectations for the next group
interaction, for member satisfaction with the group, and for member willingness to continue contributing to the group (Andonov,
2009; Behfar et al., 2008; Jehn, 1997; Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Although prior research on feedback in teams offers valuable insights about the effects of different types of feedback on individual-
and team-level outcomes, more work is needed to understand the differences among team members in their reaction to feedback and
subsequent improvement. As class projects conducted in teams are becoming more prevalent, especially within business schools, it is
important to understand how exactly high-quality feedback plays a role for different students and within different student-teams. This
study seeks to fill this gap by providing a deeper understanding of the factors that influence whether and to what extent team members
would improve upon receiving high-quality PE feedback. Further, given that the role of feedback in student teams has been rarely
studied outside of controlled laboratory experiments, the study aims to add value by providing a more realistic picture of students’
response to PE feedback when working on meaningful tasks, in real teams, for an extended time-period.

3. Study design and methods

3.1. Research setting

The mixed-methods study design combines the benefits of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The sample for
this study consists of 266 undergraduate management students at a large public university, with a highly diverse student population.
Students were enrolled in nine sections of a dedicated elective course titled Seminar in Managing Teams. The nine sections were spread
across three semesters. As the course was elective, it can be assumed that all study participants had at least some interest in learning
how to work effectively in teams. All students had previously taken lower-level management courses. Students worked together in 51
teams for the duration of one academic semester.
The course was based on experiential learning and skill development. Students had weekly reading assignments that covered
theories and concepts, with class time dedicated to translating the concepts into specific skills and processes. Skills were evaluated
while conducting competitive exercises in the classroom where teams engaged in challenging and engaging competitions. Designated
observers took notes on their performance and the full class engaged in a 30 to 60-min discussion/reflection at the end of each class
session.
Teams also had several deliverables designed to reinforce the team-members’ interdependence and accountability, including: four
small team projects (20 percent of the course grade); weekly quizzes on the material assigned for each class, for which one team-

3
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

member was chosen at random to take the quiz on behalf of the entire team (15 percent of the course grade); and a final field-based
research project (20 percent of the course grade). The final project was quite demanding. It involved finding two external work teams
in any industry, conducting interviews with five members of each team asking a minimum of 50 questions (from a list of 200 sample
questions), transcribing and content-analyzing the interviews to develop deep understanding of the workflow, team interactions, and
problems faced by these teams. This field research culminated in presenting a comparative analysis of the work teams with recom­
mendations for improvement in an oral presentation to the class. The purpose of this demanding team project was to ensure that the
teammates interact continuously outside of the classroom (about three to 5 h a week), in order to complete the task, and that the
students realize that their teams’ performance depends on everyone contributing to the best of their abilities. Collectively, all team
assignments accounted for 55 percent of the final course grade, thus making each team-member’s grade directly tied to the team’s
performance. The remaining 45 percent of the course grade were based on individual performance on class participation, a midterm,
and a final exam.

Fig. 1. A Flow Chart of the Research Methodology

Note: Dotted lines indicate data used in qualitative analyses; thick solid lines show data used in quantitative analyses.

4
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

3.2. Research methodology

Fig. 1 provides a step-by-step flowchart of the research process along with a brief summary of the type of data collected at each step
and how these data were used in subsequent analyses.

3.2.1. Step 1: Entry survey

A demographic survey was administered on the first day of the semester. The survey was used to obtain data on students’ gender,
ethnicity, work status, number of classes enrolled, experience using the PE system, and expected grade in this class. The students that
participated in this study identified themselves among 45 different nationalities and ethnicities with 32 students noting that they were
of mixed ethnicities. Further, 46% of the students (122 students) were female, 90% of the students (240 students) were enrolled in at
least three classes, and 80% of the students (212 students) worked at least part-time in addition to attending school. To avoid potential
bias, these data were kept confidential (i.e., the instructor had no access to the data).

3.2.2. Step 2: Team formation

Also, on the first day of the semester all students were guided to self-select into permanent teams for the duration of the semester.
Each team was required to have at least one team member who was: female, male, ethnic minority, native English speaker, non-native
speaker. The team-formation was monitored by the instructor to ensure that all teams were similarly diverse. Teams were asked to
develop detailed team contracts in which they addressed over 30 questions about their processes for determining procedures, ex­
pectations, and consequences. Students were advised of the purpose of the team projects, the expectation to contribute equally to the
team, and that PEs would be used to evaluate each student’s contribution to the team.

3.2.3. Step 3: Mid-semester PEs

At mid-semester, students were asked to privately and confidentially evaluate themselves, their teammates, and their team’s
processes using a standardized online PE system Students were told that the mid-semester PE would not affect their grades but was a
useful barometer of how the team was progressing. All students completed the online PEs (100 percent response rate).
The PE data were gathered using the Comprehensive Assessment for Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) system. CATME was
developed and validated by a cross-disciplinary multi-university team of researchers (Loughry et al., 2007; Ohland et al., 2012).
CATME is publicly available for educational use (see www.catme.org). This study uses CATME’s behaviorally anchored rating scales
(BARS) which were developed using Hedge et al.’s (1999) critical thinking methodology and validated through a series of studies
described in detail by Ohland et al. (2012). CATME BARS measure five dimensions of teamwork effectiveness – Contributing to the
team’s work, Interacting with teammates, Keeping the team on track, Expecting quality, and Having relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSAs). In addition, CATME provides the option to collect team-level data on several team processes, including task conflict, process
conflict, relationship conflict, cohesion, and interdependence.

3.2.4. Step 4: Feedback session

The default CATME option – used by most instructors – is to release the feedback to students electronically. The CATME-generated
feedback comes in a qualitative form (e.g. “The members of your team indicated that your contributions to the team were below
expectations”). The downside of such electronic feedback provision is that it might have marginal impact for some students as they
may not know how to interpret it or may prefer to avoid the issue rather than bringing it up for discussion with their team. To address
these limitations of the online PE system, the intervention described in this study was designed as a face-to-face feedback session where
the instructor met with each team and presented the data, in order to encourage teams to have a frank conversation and to ensure the
feedback was used for improvement.
The instructor provided feedback in quantitative form demonstrating how the CATME scores would affect the students’ course
grades should the same results appear on the end-of-semester CATME. For some teams, this proved to be an extremely awkward and
emotional revelation as teammates had received unexpectedly low individual scores. This feedback delivery method was specifically
designed to ensure all students understood the importance of their CATME scores and knew how to address feedback on their
teamwork effectiveness. The face-to-face interaction allowed the instructor to help students interpret the standardized feedback by
answering questions and guiding them in developing strategies to improve their teamwork effectiveness. The instructor used the
opportunity to also draw students’ attention to the team-level data and to point out any anomalies in their team processes, such as low
levels of task conflict or high levels of relationship conflict. This approach was designed based on research on the benefits of guided
debriefing (Allen et al., 2018; Eddy et al., 2013; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013), team reflexivity (Schippers et al., 2014), training
teams on the effective use of conflict (O’Neill et al., 2017), and the importance of peer feedback seeking on a team’s health and
effectiveness (De Stobbeleir et al., 2020).

3.2.5. Step 5: Interviews

After completing the mid-semester CATME survey, the aggregated PE scores were reviewed to identify students who fell in one or
more of the following categories: students scoring very high or very low on a team of mixed-performers, members of a team of high-
performers, and students who were under-confident or over-confident relative to their teammates’ assessment. The students with the
lowest and the highest scores (a total of 23 students) were selected for in-depth interviews because such ‘outliers’ were most likely to
exemplify the phenomenon of interest for this study (Yin, 1994). Interviewing these students was designed to provide insights into
their immediate reactions to the PE feedback, the reasons for these reactions, students’ intentions for change, and the rationale behind

5
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

them.
A few days in advance of the class session in which the feedback was going to be administered, the 23 students were contacted by a
research assistant to volunteer to be interviewed. The research assistant was unfamiliar with the students’ scores and the reasons why
they were selected for interviews. One-on-one private confidential interviews were requested for the days immediately following the
class feedback session. Securing enough volunteers was of concern because the interviews were scheduled to take about 1 h and
required students to come to the interview location outside of class time. To encourage participation by both high and low performers,
and to compensate them for their time, all selected students were offered extra credit equal to one and a half percentage points of their
course grade. This is a standard practice and consistent with prior research published in leading management education journals
(Carriger, 2016; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2009; Rosenblatt et al., 2013; Williams, 2009). In addition, to ensure honest and accurate
responses, students were guaranteed full confidentiality. To avoid any potential bias, the instructor had no access to the interviews. All
students agreed to the interview invitations unaware that an intervention was about to take place. The same research assistant con­
ducted the semi-structured interviews, which lasted from 30 to 60 min and covered 22 questions about the individual and team goals,
team environment, communication, and feedback intervention. Students were also encouraged to share any additional opinions they
felt were related to the above topics. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview transcripts were
content analyzed and coded by two independent coders who extracted the major themes within each group of questions.

3.2.6. Step 6: End-of-semester PEs

At the end of the semester, the standardized online PEs using CATME were administered again. This time the students’ scores were
factored into their final grades. All students completed the PEs (100 percent response rate). The data were used to calculate student
improvements in the five dimensions of teamwork effectiveness – Contributing to the team’s work, Interacting with teammates,
Keeping the team on track, Expecting quality, and Having relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs).

3.2.7. Step 7: Exit survey

At the end of the semester, a short survey was administered, asking open-ended questions about student perceptions of the impact
that the mid-semester feedback had on their own and their teammates’ subsequent contributions, as well as its effect on the team as a
whole. This survey was distributed to all students; 260 returned completed useable surveys (98 percent response rate). The survey
responses were content-analyzed and coded similarly to the interviews. The data was kept confidential as the instructor had no access
to the data.
Together, these steps provided robust data that enabled the performance of in-depth and systematic qualitative and quantitative
analysis. Following is a more detailed description of the variables that were used in the quantitative analysis.

3.3. Variables for quantitative analysis

The data collected in Step 1 (entry survey), Step 3 (mid-semester PEs), and Step 6 (end-of-semester PEs) were used to calculate
variables for the quantitative analysis. All variables are explained in detail below and summarized in Fig. 2.

3.3.1. Dependent variables

The raw student ratings from the mid-semester and end-of-semester CATME surveys were used to calculate students’ PEs on a given
dimension as the average of the scores received from their teammates (excluding the student’s self-ratings). The response scales have
behavioral anchors for high (5), medium (3) and low (1) team-member performance in each category, providing an option for students

Fig. 2. Summary of the variables used in the quantitative analysis.

6
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

to assign a rating between these levels, respectively equivalent to 4 or 2. Thus, each rating, and respectively each average, is allocated a
value from 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest anchor. Students’ improvement on each dimension of teamwork effec­
tiveness was calculated by subtracting the mid-semester from end-of-semester scores. All scores were standardized prior to calculating
the differences. This improvement variable can take both positive and negative values, as well as zero (no change), depending on the
focal student’s improvement in teamwork evaluations on a given dimension.

3.3.2. Independent variables

Mid-semester PEs were calculated as the averages of each student’s PEs on each of the five dimensions of CATME. The standardized
scores were used in the analysis, to take into account students’ relative performance in comparison to their classmates. Grade aspi­
rations were measured as the numerical value corresponding to the students’ aspired grade for this class as stated in the entry survey at
the beginning of the semester (e.g., 4 for A, 1.7 for C-). Familiarity with CATME was measured as a binary variable taking the value of 1
if students had used CATME before and 0 if they had not, as indicated in the entry survey.
The team-level processes were measured using the scores generated by CATME for each team, based on the aggregate mid-semester
team-members’ ratings of Task conflict, Process conflict, Relationship conflict, Interdependence, and Cohesion. Individual student
responses on each scale are automatically aggregated and averaged by the CATME system’s algorithm, so they take values from 1
(lowest) to 5 (highest) of each process. All scores were standardized prior to including them in the analysis.

4. Analysis and results

This section presents the insights derived from the qualitative analysis of the semi-structured interviews, followed by the quan­
titative analysis and results, and concluding with the observations from the qualitative analysis of the exit surveys. The results and
conclusions from the qualitative analysis of the interviews were used to develop formal hypotheses. These hypotheses were tested
using the quantitative data described earlier.

4.1. Insights from the interview analysis

The first goal of this study was to understand the differences in students’ initial reactions to feedback, as well as their subsequent
decisions and actions. Specifically, the interview data provide insights into the following questions: How did students react to the
feedback immediately upon receiving it and why? What factors influence the extent to which the students would use the feedback as an
impetus to improve?
The semi-structured interviews show that the aggregated PE feedback provided by the instructor was perceived as helpful and
beneficial by most students. Of the 23 students interviewed, 83 percent perceived the intervention as helpful, 65 percent stated that it
raised awareness and served as a beneficial self-assessment of where they stood on the team, and 63 percent specified that it provided
an opportunity for students to improve. Further, 35 percent of the students were glad that they received their scores in front of the
entire team, and 26 percent explicitly stated that the face-to-face feedback provision increased accountability. Overall, it is fair to
conclude that the feedback provision accomplished its purpose, as it was taken seriously by most of the students interviewed, whether
enthusiastically or reluctantly.
However, there was a wide range of reactions to the specific feedback received, in terms of attributions, interpretations, intended
actions, and rationales. Sixty percent of the students interviewed (14 students) intended to make a positive change in their own
contributions to the team. The other nine students planned to either keep the same level of effort or reduce their contributions and let
others do more.

4.1.1. PE scores
The lower-scoring students varied in their emotional reactions to the PE feedback they received but all stated an intention to
improve. Some students admitted that their relatively low scores were not necessarily unfair, as they did not contribute to the best of
their ability. As one student said: “At first you get hit with that original, kind of like, ‘screw these guys’ feeling. But once you think
about it, it reflects what you’ve given the group.” After receiving the feedback, this student intended to step up his contribution for the
rest of the semester: “My biggest thing is procrastination. I have to make sure I get things done and give myself some time to memorize
the material” (referring to the preparation needed to do well when taking the weekly quiz on behalf of the entire team). Another
student said: “I say it affected me positively where I want to learn from it and go from there to perform better … I want to contribute
more for the upcoming projects and presentations.”
Other students were upset with their low scores and felt that their teammates were not giving them enough credit for their work.
For example, one student said: “It really made me mad. It’s almost like them saying that they have more knowledge, skills, and ability
than me”. Another student complained: “It sucked. It didn’t feel good. Just because mine was the lowest [score] and it felt like they
plotted it against me”. Despite their initial negative emotions, these students still intended to make changes in certain behaviors
identified during team meetings. For example, one student intended to provide more input by voicing his opinions more often: “If I was
able to talk about everything that I wanted to, then I’d feel really good about it, which will for sure improve my performance.” Another
student said: “I don’t think they were aware of what I did. It did make me think about it.” Overall, the fact that all under-performing
students stated their intention to improve suggests that instructor intervention and guidance after delivering the PE feedback chan­
neled their disappointment into the right direction, preventing them from discarding the negative feedback or disengaging from their
teams.

7
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

In contrast to the lower-scoring students, the students who received the highest scores on their teams reported uniformly positive
emotional reactions. When asked how they felt when the instructor delivered the feedback in front of their teams, they responded: “I
felt juiced about mine because I know the work I do and the contribution I make” and “I felt really happy internally, thinking that I’m
doing my part and that I’m solid.” One of the highest scoring students answered: “It was really nice to see it on paper and say, ‘Oh wow,
I would have gotten a 1.22!’” (referring to the CATME adjustment factor that would be used to raise the student’s grade 22% above the
team average). However, the high-scoring students varied in their intentions for the rest of the semester. Although a few of those
students intended to work even harder, others were already happy with where they were, and yet others stated that they planned to
reduce efforts, because they realized that they were carrying teammates or by doing too much they were leaving less room for timid
teammates to contribute. For example, one student expressed an intention to delegate more: “I think I’ll just take some [tasks] away
from me. I’m a little bit of a perfectionist so it’s kind of hard for me, but I’m going to do it anyway.” Another high-scoring student said:
“It just tells me that I should continue being myself and keep doing what I’m doing.” Overall, the students who got the highest scores on
each team did not see much room for improvement because in comparison to their teammates they were already contributing much
more.
Based on these observations, the PE scores undoubtedly played a major role in both students’ initial reaction to the feedback and
their decisions to initiate subsequent behavioral changes. The lower-scoring students varied in their emotional reactions but all stated
an intention to improve. This is consistent with prior studies showing that feedback recipients who initially received low ratings
subsequently improved more than others (Smither et al., 1995; Walker & Smither, 1999). In contrast, the emotional reactions of the
students who received the highest scores on their teams were all positive. However, some of them interpreted their high scores as
indicating that they had been doing the work of others and thus planned to reduce their efforts for the rest of the semester. Therefore, it
is expected that the lower-scoring students would improve their teamwork effectiveness more following PE feedback.
Prior research suggests that feedback recipients are more likely to perceive a need for change in their behavior when there is a
discrepancy between self-perceptions and feedback from others (London & Smither, 1995). In the context of this study, the highest
discrepancy is likely to be experienced by the lowest-performers, who – as evident from the interviews – prior to the feedback sessions
were unaware of the extent to which they were underperforming relative to teammates. Finally, the lowest performers have objectively
the most room for improvement, especially when compared to the highest contributors who already are receiving close to maximum
scores. Together, these arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
H1. Students’ mid-semester PE scores will be negatively related to their improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of the
semester.

4.1.2. Individual level factors

In addition to the PE scores, which were very salient on students’ minds at the time of the interviews, some students mentioned
their grade aspirations and/or experience with CATME from previous classes. Students with various scores referred to their aspired
grades as a reason for putting more effort into their team’s work. For example, one student said: “[the feedback] is motivating because
it’s like being in last place and I want to be in first place.” Another student explained: “If I didn’t get the CATME, I may have even stayed
on the original road I was on and at the end of the day I wouldn’t have gotten the full credit of our grade.”
Since the team project and the other team assignments constituted a substantive portion of the course grade (55 percent), it is
logical to expect that students with higher aspirations would be motivated to put more effort into improving their teamwork effec­
tiveness in order to receive higher ratings from their peers. For example, some of the lower-scoring students interviewed aspired for an
A in the class and thus were determined to do everything needed to improve their teamwork effectiveness. Based on these observations,
the second hypothesis is:
H2. Students’ grade aspirations will be positively related to their improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of the semester.
A few students mentioned experience with CATME from previous classes as a point of comparison. Although they did not explicitly
discuss this experience as a source of better understanding of the PE system and criteria, prior research suggests that such students may
be better able to improve their teamwork effectiveness by engaging in the desired behaviors. In a study of a similar standardized PE
system, Brutus and Donia (2010) found that students exposed to the system in one semester were rated higher by their teammates in
the subsequent semester, and concluded that the experience with using the system itself helped students improve their teamwork skills.
Recent studies of rater experience with standardized PE systems also provide evidence that student understanding of teamwork
effectiveness improves with repeated exposure to the system (Brutus et al., 2013; Loignon et al., 2017). Therefore, it is hypothesized
that:
H3. Students’ familiarity with the PE system will be positively related to their improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of
the semester.

4.1.3. Team processes

Several students referred to either positive or negative aspects of their team interactions to explain their reactions to the mid-
semester scores and/or their intention for improvement. On the positive side, most salient were considerations related to team

8
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

interdependence and cohesion, especially accountability and trust among team members.,2,3 Students on more cohesive teams seemed
to have an easier time understanding what was needed to improve and felt motivated to contribute to the best of their ability. As one
student said: “I think we are all in it together now.” Another student explained: “I definitely do feel like I have trust from my teammates
and it really motivates me to work harder for the project.” Robust team processes also made the discussion of gaps in students’
teamwork skills easier, which left those students with a clear understanding of what they needed to do to address teammates’ concerns.
For example, after discussing with their teammates, some students realized the importance of timeliness when working on a team with
tight deadlines: “Members are opening their availability. Members are trying to meet deadlines. I requested a day off [from work] for
the final project. Members are volunteering instantly” – explained one student. Another under-performing student justified confidence
that his team will meet its goals with his own intention to contribute more: “Seeing that I wasn’t contributing to the fullest of my ability
and now knowing I will put in more, they are getting more effort from another person, which is only going to help.” Another student
expressed satisfaction with the fact that the ‘difficult’ conversation "… definitely improved cohesion and established better re­
lationships in the team, which will lead us to perform better in the future. Since we have good trust, it will definitely bring better
conflict. We didn’t have a lot of task conflict.”
Productive resolutions of process conflict, especially those regarding expectations about communications, were also shared in a
positive tone.4 As one student explained, “We agreed that communication is key. If you don’t communicate, then others won’t really
know how much you actually contributed to the group. From now on, we should communicate what we have done for the group so that
others don’t misinterpret that we haven’t done as much as we should and think that we have to do more.” Another student summed up:
“The more we talked about it the better it got.” It did not appear that process conflict was too high in any of the teams though, which
could be explained by all teams being required to sign team contracts at the beginning of the semester that specified roles and
responsibilities.
On the negative side, relationship conflict was discussed as something negative and disruptive to the team’s work.5 For example,
one student explained his disappointing score as follows: “They rated my score based on the fact that they hate me not my performance,
because I pretty much did the most work out of everyone.” He clearly stated his intention to keep the same level of effort (not to
improve) but to keep record of everything he does for the rest of the semester, so that he could report to the instructor if his teammates’
ratings at the end of the semester were again unfair. Another student, despite having received a high mid-semester score, was really
concerned with the relationship conflict on her team, and discussed her intention to try to remedy the situation: “I think maybe we all
need to sit down and talk about the priorities that we have and how everyone is contributing. I might do a one-on-one thing.” Overall,
whenever students referred to relationship conflict it was viewed as an obstacle to their own and/or their teammates’ improvement in
teamwork effectiveness.
These observations suggest that the (positive) team processes may increase students’ motivation to improve their teamwork
effectiveness. Since all processes, except for relationship conflict, were used in a positive connotation by the students, it is expected that
they would contribute favorably to student improvement in teamwork effectiveness. In contrast, relationship conflict was discussed
only in a negative connotation, which is consistent with prior research showing that relationship conflict has detrimental effects on
team outcomes (de Wit et al., 2012; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Mathieu et al., 2019). Although task conflict was only mentioned briefly in
the interviews, it is included in the hypotheses, because prior research typically studies the three types of conflict (task, process, and
relationship) in comparison (de Wit et al., 2012; Mathieu et al., 2019).6 Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated:
H4. Teams’ task conflict will be positively related to students’ improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of the semester.
H5. Teams’ process conflict will be positively related to students’ improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of the semester.
H6. Teams’ relationship conflict will be negatively related to students’ improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of the
semester.
H7. Teams’ interdependence will be positively related to students’ improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of the
semester.
H8. Teams’ cohesion will be positively related to students’ improvement in teamwork effectiveness by the end of the semester.

4.2. Quantitative analysis and results

Table 1 shows the correlations and descriptive statistics for all variables in the study. The highest correlations are of students’ mid-
semester scores on Contributing to the team with Interacting with teammates and Keeping the team on track (0.80 and 0.81, p < .001).
The correlations among the improvements on the five dimensions of teamwork effectiveness are between 0.60 and 0.77 (p < .001),
with the highest correlation between improvements in Contributing to the team’s work and Keeping the team on track. These

2
Team cohesion reflects “emotional attraction among group members and the ties that bind the group together” (Thompson, 2018, p. 94).
3
Interdependence means that “team members cannot achieve their goals single-handedly, but instead, must rely on each other to meet shared
objectives” (Thompson, 2018, p. 94).
4
Process conflict is defined as “disagreements among group members about the logistics of tasks” (de Wit et al., 2012, p. 362).
5
Relationship conflict is defined as “disagreements among group members about interpersonal issues, such as personality differences or differ­
ences in norms and values” (de Wit et al., 2012, p. 362).
6
Task conflict is defined as “disagreements about the content and outcomes of the task itself” (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 29).

9
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

Table 1
Correlations.
Variable name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Improvement in CT
2. Improvement in IT .74
3. Improvement in KTT .77 .74
4. Improvement in EQ .70 .68 .70
5. Improvement in KSAs .64 .60 .66 .65
6. Mid-semester score on CT -.50 -.32 -.34 -.36 -.26
7. Mid-semester score on IT -.46 -.56 -.43 -.44 -.33 .80
8. Mid-semester score on KTT -.40 -.34 -.55 -.38 -.32 .81 .77
9. Mid-semester score on EQ -.32 -.24 -.25 -.54 -.27 .76 .73 .71
10. Mid-semester score on KSAs -.34 -.28 -.34 -.41 -.51 .77 .71 .77
11. Grade aspirations -.01 -.04 -.02 -.07 .05 .20 .14 .21
12. Familiarity with CATME -.01 -.02 -.02 -.06 -.00 .20 .21 .20
13. Task conflict -.01 .05 .17 .10 .11 .03 -.02 -.08
14. Process conflict .15 .10 .21 .24 .14 -.28 -.29 -.31
15. Relationship conflict .16 .15 .18 .26 .19 -.31 -.33 -.27
16. Interdependence -.00 .03 .05 -.02 -.01 .18 .21 .12
17. Cohesion -.17 -.12 -.15 -.25 -.13 .44 .44 .37

Variable name 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

10. Mid-semester score on KSAs .77

11. Grade aspirations .20 .16
12. Familiarity with CATME .26 .27 -.03
13. Task conflict -.01 .00 -.01 -.01
14. Process conflict -.31 -.25 -.03 -.04 .57
15. Relationship conflict -.36 -.35 -.12 -.08 .47 .75
16. Interdependence .27 .19 .13 -.00 -.12 -.21 -.20
17. Cohesion .50 .41 .16 .09 -.36 -.64 -.72 .51

Note: N = 266. All correlations with an absolute value of 0.12 and higher are significant at p < .05 level. CT=Contributing to the teamwork;
IT=Interacting with teammates; KTT=Keeping the team on track; EQ = Expecting quality; KSAs=Having relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities.

correlations suggest that the common variance between any two dependent variables is between 36 and 59 percent, which is not high
enough to warrant combining them into one aggregate variable. Therefore, separate sets of analyses were performed for each
dimension of teamwork effectiveness.
The effects of the individual and team-level variables were tested using a series of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analyses.
Table 2a–e shows the results of the OLS regressions for students’ improvement in each dimension of teamwork effectiveness (labeled
from “a” to “e” respectively). Model 1 in each set of analysis includes the individual-level variables, mid-semester scores, grade as­
pirations, and familiarity with CATME. Models 2 through 6 introduce each team-level process, and Model 7 includes all variables
together.
As predicted by H1, the five mid-semester PE scores have significant negative relationships with students’ improvement in the
respective dimensions of teamwork effectiveness (b = -.54, p < .001 for Contributing to the team’s work; b = -.58, p < .001 for
Interacting with teammates; b = -.59, p < .001 for Keeping the team on track; b = -.57, p < .001 for Expecting quality; and b = -.58, p <
.001 for Having KSAs). These results provide strong support for H1. Grade aspirations have positive relationships with students’
improvement in Contributing to the team’s work (b = 0.11, p < .05), Keeping the team on track (b = 0.11, p < .05), and Having KSAs
(b = 0.15, p < .01), but not on Interacting with teammates and Expecting quality. Thus, H2 is partially supported. Consistent with H3,
prior experience with CATME has positive relationships with students’ improvement in all dimensions of TE (b = 0.10, p < .10 for
Contributing to the team’s work; b = 0.10, p < .05 for Interacting with teammates; b = 0.11, p < .05 for Keeping the team on track; b =
0.09, p < .10 for Expecting quality; b = 0.15, p < .01 for Having KSAs).
Hypotheses 4 to 8 are tested by examining the effects of team-level processes on students’ improvement in the five dimensions of
teamwork effectiveness (Models 2 through 6). Task conflict has a significant positive relationship with students’ improvement in
Keeping the team on track (b = .12, p < .01), Expecting quality (b = 0.09, p < .10), and Having KSAs (b = 0.12, p < .05), providing
partial support to H4. Process conflict has a positive relationship only with students’ improvement in Expecting quality (b = .10, p <
.10), providing weak support to H5. Relationship conflict has no significant relationship with any of the dependent variables. Thus, H6
is not supported. Team interdependence has significant positive relationships with students’ improvement in all dimensions of
teamwork effectiveness except for Contributing to the team’s work (b = 0.16, p < .01 for Interacting with teammates; b = 0.11, p < .05
for Keeping the team on track; b = 0.15, p < .01 for Expecting quality; b = 0.09, p < .10 for Having KSAs). These results support H7.
Finally, team cohesion has significant positive relationships with students’ improvement in Interacting with teammates (b = 0.15, p <
.01), providing weak support to H8. Together, the individual and team-level factors explain between 28 percent and 36 percent of the
variance in students’ improvement in teamwork effectiveness (see R-squared in Table 2a–e, Model 7).

10
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

Table 2a
DV = Improvement in “Contributing to the teamwork”.
Variable name Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Mid-semester score on CT -.54*** -.54*** -.54*** -.54*** -.56*** -.56*** -.56***

Grade aspirations .11* .11* .11* .11* .10+ .10+ .10+
Familiarity with CATME .10+ .10+ .10+ .10+ .10+ .10+ .10+
Task conflict .01 .00
Process conflict .01 .02
Relationship conflict .02 .06
Interdependence .09 .06
Cohesion .05 .08

R-squared .27 .27 .27 .27 .27 .27 .28

Table 2b
DV = Improvement in “Interacting with teammates”.
Variable name Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Mid-semester score on IT -.58*** -.58*** -.60*** -.59*** -.61*** -.64*** -.66***

Grade aspirations .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .03
Familiarity with CATME .10* .10* .10* .10* .11* .10* .11*
Task conflict .04 .12*
Process conflict -.07 -.11
Relationship conflict -.03 .09
Interdependence .16** .11+
Cohesion .15** .13

R-squared .32 .32 .32 .32 .34 .34 .36

Table 2c
DV = Improvement in “Keeping the team on track”.
Variable name Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Mid-semester score on KTT -.59*** -.58*** -.58*** -.58*** -.60*** -.61*** -.61***
Grade aspirations .11* .11* .11* .11* .10+ .11* .10*
Familiarity with CATME .11* .10* .10* .11* .11* .10* .11*
Task conflict .12** .15**
Process conflict .04 -.04
Relationship conflict .04 .06
Interdependence .11* .09
Cohesion .05 .08

R-squared .32 .34 .32 .32 .33 .32 .35

Table 2d
DV = Improvement in “Expecting quality”.
Variable name Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Mid-semester score on EQ -.57*** -.57*** -.54*** -.55*** -.61*** -.59*** -.61***

Grade aspirations .04 .05 .04 .05 .03 .04 .03
Familiarity with CATME .09+ .10+ .09+ .09+ .11* .10+ .10*
Task conflict .09+ .07
Process conflict .10+ .10
Relationship conflict .07 .02
Interdependence .15** .14*
Cohesion .03 .09

R-squared .30 .31 .31 .30 .32 .30 .34

4.3. Insights from the end-of-semester survey analysis

The end-of-semester survey confirmed the benefit of the detailed feedback provided mid-semester. Specifically, 62 percent of the
students believed that without the face-to-face meetings with the instructor they would have not discussed the CATME results,
indicating that requiring them to talk about the feedback had a positive effect. In addition, 12 percent felt more accountable following

11
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

Table 2e
DV = Improvement in “having KSAs”.
Variable name Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Mid-semester score on KSAs -.58*** -.58*** -.57*** -.57*** -.59*** -.61*** -.64***
Grade aspirations .15** .15** .15** .15** .14** .14** .14**
Familiarity with CATME .15** .16** .15** .15** .16** .15** .16**
Task conflict .12* .17**
Process conflict .01 -.07
Relationship conflict .02 .09
Interdependence .09+ .04
Cohesion .08 .16+

R-squared .30 .31 .30 .30 .31 .31 .34

Note: N = 266 for all models. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, + p<.10.
CT=Contributing to the teamwork; IT=Interacting with teammates; KTT=Keeping the team on track; EQ = Expecting quality; KSAs=Having relevant
knowledge, skills, and abilities.

the feedback, and 17 percent stated that the feedback raised awareness and served as a beneficial self-assessment of where they stood
on the team. In terms of improvement, 83 percent of the students believed that their teammates’ contributions improved following the
feedback, and 18 percent specified that the teammates with the lowest scores increased their contributions. Most notably, all teams
(100 percent) had at least one member who reported an improvement, with 73 percent of the respondents listing specific improve­
ments in team-level processes following the feedback. Overall, the survey provides evidence consistent with the insights from the post-
feedback interviews and the results from the quantitative analysis. One important observation is that the students with the lowest
scores – who all stated intentions to improve – indeed made the efforts that were needed and appreciated by their teammates.

5. Discussion

The qualitative and quantitative results of this study provide important insights into the effects of PE feedback, together with
individual aspirations and experience, and team processes, on teamwork effectiveness. In the quantitative analysis, the PEs emerged as
the strongest predictor of student improvement in all five dimensions of teamwork effectiveness. Moreover, the interview analysis
shows that the feedback sessions were essential for students to understand the reasons for receiving certain PE scores and to be able to
devise strategies for improvement. Of the team processes included in this study, task conflict has positive effects on improvement in
Keeping the team on track, Expecting quality, and Having relevant KSAs. In contrast, process conflict only has a weak effect on
Expecting quality, whereas Relationship conflict has no significant effects on any of the five dimensions. Team interdependence is
related to improvements in Interacting with teammates, Keeping the team on track, and Expecting quality, while cohesion is related to
improvements in Interacting with teammates. These results have some important pedagogical implications that are discussed below.

5.1. Feedback sessions as a pedagogical tool

As hypothesized, the lowest performers at mid-semester improved the most by the end of the semester. Undoubtedly, this is
partially due to the fact that the lower scoring students have the most room for improvement (Smither et al., 1995; Walker & Smither,
1999). However, they can easily find excuses to ignore the critical feedback (London & Smither, 2002; Smither et al., 2005). Even the
students who want to improve are often confused about the exact corrective steps they need to take, not knowing why they received the
critical feedback in the first place. The PE feedback sessions devised in this study were beneficial in that they ensured that all teams had
an open and honest discussion – something most teams would have avoided, according to the exit survey. The students who received
lower PE scores clearly benefited from the discussion, as several of them acknowledged during the interviews that they did not realize
their teammates perceived them as underperforming. Even though the higher scoring students had less room for improvement, the
interview analysis shows that the feedback sessions were beneficial to them as well, because they received recognition for the quality of
their work in front of the entire team and felt appreciated by their teammates. Therefore, although it may be tempting to focus on the
most troubled students or dysfunctional teams only, it is beneficial to provide all teams with detailed and developmental feedback that
can enhance their team development and learning.
Whereas it is well established that feedback is critical for learning and skill development in teams (Gabelica et al., 2012), providing
constructive feedback that is taken seriously by students and leads to improved behaviors and outcomes is not an easy task for
management educators. Incorporating a dedicated feedback session as a part of the class, as done in this study, serves the triple purpose
of: 1) allowing students to take the time to understand and reflect on the feedback they gave and received; 2) stimulating in-depth,
constructive discussions to generate actionable steps for improving individual contributions; and 3) prompting students to reflect
on and improve their teams’ internal processes.7 Although this method requires some dedicated class time plus extra effort to prepare

7
The semi-private feedback sessions discussed in this study are face-to-face, whether in a physical classroom or in an online format (e.g., via
breakout rooms in Zoom).

12
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

the feedback for sharing with student teams, the benefits in terms of student engagement and reflection fully justify the effort. In
addition to the learning benefits and direct improvement in teamwork skills, the experience of discussing critical feedback in teams and
being able to face criticism from teammates can benefit students in their future professional careers.
It is also essential that the instructor put the teamwork into perspective, by explaining to students the benefits of teamwork and PEs
for their overall professional development, beyond the scope of the current class. The feedback provision gives students first-hand
experience into real-world interpersonal interactions and job evaluations, which can have a lasting impression on them. One of the
students interviewed reflected on the feedback session by saying: “It’s realistic anyway. If you get a 360 or something like that, you’re
going to be subject to some kind of peer review anyway. You might not know who is leveling criticism at you, but you can expect things
like that in the real world. It’s just something that’s going to happen.” If students understand that the feedback session is not just
addressing issues on their current teams but also preparing them for the workplace, it helps put the scores in perspective and makes
them more open to feedback.

5.2. Influencing the teamwork processes

This study also highlights the role that team processes play in facilitating (on inhibiting) students’ improvement in teamwork
effectiveness. For example, the robust effect of task conflict is not surprising in light of recent developments in the team literature that
has consistently shown that task conflict can be beneficial for team performance under the right circumstances (de Wit et al., 2012). To
ensure that student teams maintained a healthy level of task conflict, these benefits were discussed in class as part of the course
content. Further, students were repeatedly encouraged by the instructor to push each other and critically analyze all ideas. Such simple
steps can be very effective and are easy to implement in the context of any class.
The weak effect of process conflict observed in this study is likely due to the fact that all teams had created and signed team
contracts at the beginning of the semester, which they also had to revise in the fourth week of the semester. The contracts were required
to include team procedures (e.g., meetings, management and communications inside and outside of class, decision-making, and setting
deadlines), team expectations (e.g., work quality, distribution of tasks and responsibilities, rewards, and sharing of ideas), and team
consequences (e.g., enforcing accountability, distribution of team points among members, and seeking intervention from the
instructor). These detailed contracts may have left little room for process conflict, as evident by the team-level data. In other classes
where such a clear upfront agreement on team processes is not required, it is likely that process conflict has a stronger influence on
student improvements in teamwork effectiveness.
Further, the fact that nearly all of the students interviewed discussed some of their teams’ processes suggests that there are
pedagogical benefits of explaining to students the importance of team processes such as different types of conflict, interdependence and
cohesion. In this study, students were familiar with the team processes conceptually but some did not internalize how critical they were
in accomplishing the teams’ goals. Further, none of the teams had a clear idea how their processes compared to those of other teams,
until the feedback session where the instructor brought to their attention anomalies in their team processes. For example, some teams
were surprised that their relationship conflict was much higher than other teams, while others did not realize that their level of task
conflict was so low that they were likely lacking constructive discussions. Given the role that team processes play in facilitating (or
impeding) improvement in individual team-members’ effectiveness, it is important for instructors to build into their classes some
guidance for students on building functional and supportive team processes. Further, online teamwork evaluation systems like CATME
make the assessment of team-level processes fast and convenient for the instructor, who can easily download and use the aggregated
team-level data.

5.3. Teamwork assignments design

Finally, it is important for educators to consider the benefits of designing teamwork assignments that require higher levels of
interdependence among team members and provide iterative opportunities for students to improve on their teamwork effectiveness.
The team projects and assignments described in this study offer examples of demanding assignments that are complex enough to ensure
that teammates interact extensively outside of the classroom in order to complete them. Making the team projects highly consequential
is also important, as it motivates students to take seriously both the teamwork and the PE feedback they receive. Depending on the
class, multiple team-based assignments should be considered, as a way to give students multiple opportunities to practice and improve
their teamwork skills.

5.4. Future research

The study results show the importance of both individual and team-level factors for students’ improvement in teamwork effec­
tiveness, as well as the differences among the five dimensions of teamwork effectiveness in terms of which factors influence im­
provements along each dimension. Future research can extend the study by further exploring how these factors may play out in other
contexts, such as more homogenous classroom environments, classes in other management areas and beyond, and graduate classes.
Also, it would be interesting to examine potential interactions between individual and team-level factors, as well as possible self-
perpetuating or diminishing returns on some of these factors over multiple semesters.

13
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

Author statement

Antoaneta Petkova: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing-Original draft preparation, Supervision.
Monique Domingo: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing-Review & Editing, Investigation.
Eric Lamm: Conceptualization, Writing-Original draft preparation, Supervision, Project administration.

References

Allen, J. A., Reiter-Palmon, R., Crowe, J., & Scott, C. (2018). Debriefs: Teams learning from doing in context. American Psychologist, 73(4), 504–516.
Alsop, R. (2002). Playing well with others. Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1030139288666555. (Accessed 9 September 2012).
Andonov, F. (2009). Interactive methods for group decision making. International Book Series: Information Science and Computing, 10, 25–30.
Bacon, D., Stewart, K., & Silver, W. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management
Education, 23(5), 467–488.
Baker, D. F. (2008). Peer assessment in small groups: A comparison of methods. Journal of Management Education, 32(2), 183–209.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type,
conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170–188.
Bolinger, A. R., & Stanton, J. V. (2014). The gap between perceived and actual learning from group reflection. Small Group Research, 45(5), 539–567.
Brutus, S., & Donia, M. B. L. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of students in groups with a centralized peer evaluation system. The Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 9(4), 652–662.
Brutus, S., Donia, M. B. L., & Ronen, S. (2013). Can business students learn to evaluate better? Evidence from repeated exposure to a peer-evaluation system. The
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(1), 18–31.
Carriger, M. S. (2016). What is the best way to develop new managers? Problem-based learning vs. lecture-based instruction. International Journal of Management in
Education, 14, 92–101.
Chapman, K. J., & Van Auken, S. (2001). Creating positive group project experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group
projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 117–127.
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3
(1), 27–40.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23,
239–290.
Davison, H. K., Mishra, V., Bing, M. N., & Frink, D. D. (2014). How individual performance affects variability of peer evaluations in classroom teams: A distributive
justice perspective. Journal of Management Education, 38(1), 43–85.
De Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S., & Zhang, C. (2020). Shifting focus: Antecedents and outcomes of proactive feedback seeking from peers. Human Relations, 73(3),
303–325.
Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2012). Members matter in team training: Multilevel and longitudinal relationships between goal orientation, self-regulation, and
team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 661–703.
Eddy, E. R., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psychology, 66(4),
975–1008.
Farh, C. I. C. C., Seo, M.-G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: The moderating role of job context. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97, 890–900.
Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7, 123–144.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2009). Student identification with business education models. Journal of Management Education, 33(2), 166–195.
Harmon, J., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1990). Social judgment analysis and small group decision making: Cognitive feedback effects on individual and collective performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46(1), 34–54.
Hedge, J. W., Bruskiewicz, K. T., Logan, K. K., Hanson, M. A., & Buck, D. (1999). Crew resource management team and individual job analysis and rating scale development
for air force tanker crews. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. Technical Report: 336.
Hey, A. H., Pietruschka, S., Bungard, W., & Joens, I. (2000). Feedback as a supporting system for work groups. In M. Vartiainen, F. Avallone, & N. Anderson (Eds.), 67
Innovative theories, tools, and practices in work and organizational psychology (pp. 125–140). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Hunter, P. E. (2006). Viability of the job characteristics model in a team environment: Prediction of job satisfaction and potential moderators. Texas: Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of North Texas.
Jackson, C. L., & LePine, J. A. (2003). Peer responses to a team’s weakest link: A test and extension of LePine and van Dyne’s model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
459–475.
Jassawalla, A., Sashittal, H., & Malshe, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom
teams. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 42–54.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 530–557.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., Park, E. S., & Sambolec, E. J. (2005). Identifiability, performance feedback and the Köhler effect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(4),
375–390.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. NJ: Pearson Education.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. Job Outlook
reference: Retrieved March 3, 2021 from https://www.naceweb.org/talent-acquisition/candidate-selection/key-attributes-employers-want-to-see-on-students-
resumes/.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26,
67–84.
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the feedback orientation scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372–1405.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Loignon, A. C., Woehr, D. J., Thomas, J. S., Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Ferguson, D. M. (2017). Facilitating peer evaluation in team contexts: The impact of
frame-of-reference rater training. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(4), 562–578.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes?
Theory-based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 803–839.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management
Review, 2, 81–100.
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 67, 505–524.
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Woehr, D. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36,
5–19.

14
A.P. Petkova et al. The International Journal of Management Education 19 (2021) 100538

Mathieu, J. E., Gallagher, P. T., Domingo, M. A., & Klock, E. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17–46.
Mayo, M., Kakarika, M., Pastor, J. C., & Brutus, S. (2012). Aligning or inflating your leadership self-image? A longitudinal study of responses to peer feedback in MBA
teams. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(4), 631–652.
Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117–133.
O’Neill, T. A., Hoffart, G. C., McLarnon, M. M. J. W., Woodley, H. J., Eggermont, M., Rosehart, W., & Brennan, R. (2017). Constructive controversy and reflexivity
training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2), 257–276.
Oakley, B., Felder, R., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student-Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Finelli, C. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., & Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive
assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. The Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 11(4), 609–630.
Page, N. C., Nimon-Peters, A. J., & Urquhart, A. (2020). Big need not be bad: A case study of experiential leadership development in different-sized classes. Journal of
Management Education, 1–27.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 102–112.
Peterson, C. H., & Peterson, N. A. (2011). Impact of peer evaluation confidentiality on student marks. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 5
(2), 13.
Rapp, T., Maynard, T., Domingo, M. A., & Klock, E. A. (2021). Team emergent states: What has emerged in the literature over 20 years. Small Group Research, 52(1),
68–102.
Rosenblatt, V., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2013). From contact to development in experiential cultural intelligence education: The mediating influence of expectancy
disconfirmation. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(3), 356–379.
Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 13(1), 62–81.
Schippers, M. C., Edmondson, A. C., & West, M. A. (2014). Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Research, 45(6),
731–769.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Baker, D. P. (1996). Training team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 909–936.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of
empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Salvemini, N. (1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over
time. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 1–34.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55, 231–245.
Thompson, L. L. (2018). Making the team: A guide for managers (6th ed.). Pearson.
Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393–423.
Williams, M. (2009). Evaluating a model of business school students’ acceptance of web-based course management systems. International Journal of Management in
Education, 8(3), 59–70.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

15