Team Assessment

TeamSTEPPS is an evidence-based training program designed to optimize performance among teams of health care professionals. It was developed by the Association for Health Research Quality.

The Team STEPPS Assessment is a publicly available 55-item instrument assessing team foundations, team functioning, team performance, team skills, team leadership, team climate and team identity.

See assessment on AHRQ website
(assessment focused on long-term care sites)

See PDF version on AHRQ website
(general assessment)

This scale, created by Wageman, Hackman and Lehman (2005), measures several of the enabling conditions underlying team success, including whether the task requires a team and whether the team has a compelling direction, a well designed team structure, a supportive context and expert coaching.

Response scale

Except where otherwise noted, all items use a five-point scale ranging from highly inaccurate (1) to highly accurate (5). Group-level composite scores are computed by averaging responses across items and respondents. Reverse-scored items are indicated by (reverse scale).

Real Team

Bounded

• Team membership is quite clear – everybody knows exactly who is and isn’t on this team.
• There is so much ambiguity about who is on this team that it would be nearly impossible to generate an accurate membership list. (reverse scale)
• Anyone who knows this team could accurately name all its members.

Stable

• Different people are constantly joining and leaving this team. (reverse scale)
• This team is quite stable, with few changes in membership.

Interdependent

• Members of this team have their own individual jobs to do, with little need for them to work together. (reverse scale)
• Generating the outcome or product of this team requires a great deal of communication and coordination among members.
• Members of this team have to depend heavily on one another to get the team’s work done.

Compelling direction

Clear

• There is great uncertainty and ambiguity about what this team is supposed to accomplish. (reverse scale)
• This team’s purposes are specified so clearly that all members should know exactly what the team exists to accomplish.

Challenging

• This team’s purposes are so challenging that members have to stretch to accomplish them.
• This team’s purposes are not especially challenging – achieving them is well within reach. (reverse scale)

Consequential

• The purposes of this team don’t make much of a difference to anybody else. (reverse scale)
• This team’s purposes are of great consequence for those it serves.

Ends vs. means

• The purposes of this team are specified by others, but the means and procedures used to accomplish them are left to the team.
• The means or procedures the team is supposed to use in its work are specified in detail by others, but the purposes of the team are left unstated.
• Both the purposes of the team and the means or procedures it is supposed to use in its work are specified in detail by others.
• Neither the purposes nor the means are specified by others for the team.

Enabling structure

Team composition

• Size
  • This team is larger than it needs to be. (reverse scale)
  • This team has too few members for what it has to accomplish. (reverse scale)
  • This team is just the right size to accomplish its purposes.
• Diversity
  • Members of this team are too dissimilar to work together well. (reverse scale)
  • This team does not have a broad enough range of experiences and perspectives to accomplish its purposes. (reverse scale)
  • This team has a nearly ideal “mix” of members – a diverse set of people who bring different perspectives and experiences to the work.
• Skills
  • Members of this work team have more than enough talent and experience for the kind of work that the team does.
  • Everyone in this team has the special skills that are needed for team work.
  • Some members of this team lack the knowledge and skills that they need to do their parts of the team’s work. (reverse scale)

Team task design

• Whole task
  • The team does a whole, identifiable piece of work.
  • The team does such a small part of the overall task that it is hard to point specifically to its special contribution. (reverse scale)
  • This team’s work is inherently meaningful.
• Autonomy/judgment
  • The work of this team leaves little room for the exercise of judgment or initiative. (reverse scale)
  • The work this team does requires the team to make many “judgment calls” as it is carried out.
• Knowledge of results
  • Carrying out the team’s task automatically generates trustworthy indicators of how well it is doing.
  • The work itself provides almost no trustworthy feedback about the team’s performance. (reverse scale)
  • The only way to figure out how well the team is performing is for other people in the organization to tell them. (reverse scale)

Group norms

• Standards for member behavior in this team are vague and unclear. (reverse scale)
• It is clear what is — and what is not — acceptable member behavior in this team.
• Members of this team agree about how members are expected to behave.

Supportive organizational context

Rewards/recognition

• Excellent team performance pays off in this organization.
• Even teams that do an especially good job are not recognized or rewarded by the organization. (reverse scale)
• This organization recognizes and reinforces teams that perform well.

Information

• It is easy for teams in this organization to get any data or forecasts that members need to do their work.
• This organization keeps its teams in the dark about information that could affect their work plans. (reverse scale)
• Teams in this organization can get whatever information they need to plan their work.

Education/consultation

• Teams in this organization have to make do with whatever expertise members already have — technical training and support are not available even when needed. (reverse scale)
• When something comes up that team members do not know how to handle, it is easy for them to obtain the training or technical advice they need.
• In this organization, teams do not receive adequate training for the work they have to do. (reverse scale)

Material resources

• Teams in this organization can readily obtain all the material resources that they need for their work.
• Scarcity of resources is a real problem for teams in this organization. (reverse scale)

Available, expert coaching

Availability of team coaching

• Focus of leader’s attention
  • Coaching individual team members.
  • Helping team members learn how to work well together.
  • Getting the team setup right — clarifying its purpose, picking members, structuring the task, setting expectations and so on.
  • Running external interference for the team — getting resources, securing outside assistance, removing roadblocks, and so on.
• Coaching availability
  • When members of teams in this organization have trouble working together, there is no one available to help them out. (reverse scale)
  • Teams in this organization have access to “coaches” who can help them learn from their successes and mistakes.
  • Expert coaches are readily available to teams in this organization.

Helpfulness of team leader coaching

The five-category response scale ranges from detrimental, to neither particularly helpful or unhelpful, to
quite helpful.

• Overall, how helpful is the team leader in building the team’s capabilities?

Extent and focus of team leader coaching

This is rated on a four-point scale, ranging from never to often, assessing how frequently the team leader engages in each behavior.

• Task-focused coaching: The team leader…
  • helps the team build a high shared commitment to its purposes;
  • helps the team sustain the motivation of all members;
  • works with the team to develop the best possible approach to its work;
  • keeps the team alert to anything that might require a change of work strategy;
  • helps members learn from one another and from the team’s work experiences;
  • helps the team identify and use well each member’s unique talents.
• Operant coaching: The team leader…
  • provides positive feedback when the team behaves or performs well;
  • provides corrective feedback when needed;
  • gives inappropriate or undeserved praise or criticism. (reverse scale)
• Interpersonal coaching: The team leader…
  • helps members resolve any conflicts that may develop among them;
  • helps members work on improving their interpersonal relationships.
• Unhelpful directives: The team leader…
  • micromanages the content and process of team discussions;
  • instructs the team in detail about how to solve its problems.
  • tells the team everything it is doing wrong.

Extent and focus of coaching provided by peers

This is rated on a four-point scale ranging from never to often.

• Task-focused peer coaching: Regular team members…
  • take initiatives to promote high shared motivation and commitment;
  • take initiatives to make sure the team develops and uses the best possible approach to its work;
  • take initiatives to help the team build and use well members’ knowledge and skills.
• Interpersonal peer coaching: Regular team members…
  • take initiatives to constructively resolve any problems or conflicts that develop among members.
• Unhelpful peer interventions: Regular team members…
  • tell other members what to do and how they should do it.

Process criteria of team effectiveness

Effort-related process criteria:

• Members demonstrate their commitment to our team by putting in extra time and effort to help it succeed.
• Everyone on this team is motivated to have the team succeed.
• Some members of the team do not carry their fair share of the overall workload. (reverse scale)

Strategy-related process criteria

• The team often comes up with innovative ways of proceeding with the work that turn out to be just what is needed.
• The team often falls into mindless routines, without noticing any changes that may have occurred in its situation. (reverse scale)
• The team has a great deal of difficulty actually carrying out the plans it makes for how it will proceed with the task. (reverse scale)

Knowledge- and skill-related process criteria

• How seriously a member’s ideas are taken by others on the team often depends more on who the person is than on how much they actually know. (reverse scale)
• Members of our team actively share their special knowledge and expertise with one another.
• The team is quite skilled at capturing the lessons that can be learned from its work experiences.

Team interpersonal processes

This is rated on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Quality of team interaction

• There is a lot of unpleasantness among members of this team. (reverse scale)
• The longer the group works together as a team, the less well it does. (reverse scale)
• Working together energizes and uplifts members of the team.
• Every time someone attempts to correct a team member whose behavior is not acceptable, things seem to get worse rather than better. (reverse scale)

Satisfaction with team relationships
(To be answered by each team member.)

• My relations with other team members are strained. (reverse scale)
• I very much enjoy talking and working with my teammates.
• The chance to get to know my teammates is one of the best parts of working on this team.

Individual learning and well-being

This is rated on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. (To be answered by each team member.)

Internal work motivation

• I feel a real sense of personal satisfaction when our team does well.
• I feel bad and unhappy when our team has performed poorly.
• My own feelings are not affected one way or the other by how well our team performs. (reverse scale)
• When our team has done well, I have done well.

Satisfaction with growth opportunities

• I learn a great deal from my work on this team.
• My own creativity and initiative are suppressed by this team. (reverse scale)
• Working on this team stretches my personal knowledge and skills.

General satisfaction

• I enjoy the kind of work we do in this team.
• Working on this team is an exercise in frustration. (reverse scale)
• Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this team.

References

• Wageman, R., Hackman, J.R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373-398.

Response scale

These are to be rated on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Questions

• I’d rather work alone than work with others. (reverse-coded)
• I’m more comfortable working by myself rather than as part of a group.
• I generally prefer to work toward group goals rather than individual goals.
• I prefer group work to individual work.
• Whenever possible, I like to work with others rather than by myself.

References

• Karau, S.J., & Elsaid, A.M.M.K. (2009). Individual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(1), 1-13. https://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/a0013366

Overview

The TREO scale is 48 items measuring members’ propensities to occupy different team roles, including:

• Organizer
• Doer
• Challenger
• Innovator
• Team builder
• Connector

Response scale

• Not at all
• Very little
• To some extent
• To a great extent
• To a very great extent

Questions

Based on my prior experiences, as a member of different teams…

1. I learn how to get outside resources that our team needs to be successful.
2. I’m comfortable being critical of my teammates.
3. I like it when we keep busy and get things done.
4. I like to challenge peoples’ assumptions.
5. I like to be the one that sorts out the details of a team project.
6. I often volunteer new ideas and suggestions without being asked my opinion.
7. I can calm people down and get them focused on the task when things get stressful.
8. I like to be the one who decides who will do which tasks on a team.
9. I am the one who questions why we are doing things in a certain way.
10. Sometimes, I just voice a different opinion to keep my team thinking about what we should be doing.
11. I’m always ready to support a good suggestion in the common interest of the team.
12. People usually look to me when something needs to be done in the team.
13. I like to try out new ideas and approaches.
14. I question what my team should be doing to get the job done.
15. I can be counted on to follow through on any tasks which I’ve been assigned.
16. I can be counted on when a task needs to be done.
17. I keep my team on pace and aware of deadlines.
18. I make sure that my teammates are clear about their responsibilities.
19. I’m comfortable dealing with interpersonal conflicts and helping people work through them.
20. I enjoy coordinating team efforts with people or groups outside of the team.
21. My primary focus is on getting my assignments done for the team.
22. I can be counted on to spread ideas between my team and people outside of my team.
23. I’m comfortable being the spokesperson for a team.
24. I am the one who steps up and does whatever is necessary to make the team successful.
25. I’m often the first to volunteer for a difficult or unpopular assignment if that is what the team needs.
26. I like to be the one who keeps track of how well my team is doing.
27. I am usually the one who suggests a new idea or direction when the team gets stuck on something.
28. I bring a sense of organization to any job a team undertakes.
29. I get bored when we do the same task the same way every time.
30. I structure team activities.
31. I discover and connect with people who can help my team succeed.
32. I’m not afraid to question my teammates’ authority.
33. I’m known for thinking creatively and “outside the box.”
34. I typically find out what is going on outside my team and share that with my teammates.
35. I like coming up with new ways that our team can accomplish our tasks.
36. I usually suggest the appropriate steps that my team should follow to get something done.
37. I like helping different kinds of people work effectively together.
38. I’m comfortable producing and sharing new ideas with my team.
39. I often work to maintain good working relationships within my team.
40. It bothers me when I see teammates getting frustrated or depressed.
41. I’m always committed to my team tasks.
42. I often point out the potential risks or hazards of a team plan or course of action.
43. I help people move beyond their disagreements and find common ground.
44. My teammates often view my suggestions as creative or innovative.
45. I often serve as a liaison between my team and outside groups.
46. I promote my team’s mission and goals with other teams or units.
47. I can typically provide a strong rationale to refute ideas that I believe are unsound.
48. I encourage my teammates when I know they have a difficult assignment or challenge.

Item mapping

Organizer: 5O, 8O, 17E, 18E, 26O, 28O, 30E, 36E

Doer: 3O, 12E, 15E, 16O, 21E, 24E, 25O, 41O

Challenger: 2O, 4O, 9E, 10E, 14E, 32O, 42E, 47O

Innovator: 6E, 13O, 27E, 29O, 33E, 35O, 38O, 44E

Team-builder: 7E, 11O, 19O, 37O, 39E, 40O, 43E, 48E

Connector: 1E, 20O, 22O, 23O, 31E, 34O, 45E, 46E

Note: E represents experience subscale; O represents orientation subscale.

References

• Copyright 2008 to 2012 The Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc. Permission is granted to use the TREO for research purposes. All other uses require permission from The Group for Organizational Effectiveness.
• Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kukenberger, M.R., Donsbach, J.S., & Alliger, G.M. (2015). Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management, 40(1), 6-34.

This scale assesses the fit between individuals and the group on several dimensions.

Response scale

The extent to which the person performing the self-assessment agrees with the fit-related items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Needs–supplies match

• There is a good fit between what my group offers me and what I need from it.
• My group gives me the support I need.
• My group gives me just about everything that I want from it.
• My current group has the attributes that I look for in a group.

Shared interests

• Outside of work, I like to do the same things as other members of my group.
• The leisure activities that I engage in are similar to those of other group members.
• Other group members and I have the same hobbies and pastimes.
• My group members are similar to me in terms of interests.

Perceived demography similarity

• I feel demographically different from my group members. (reverse scale)
• My group members and I share many demographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, etc.).
• My group members are demographically similar to me.
• In terms of visible characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) I think I am different from other group members. (reverse scale)

Complementary attributes

• I contribute unique talents to my group.
• My particular competencies are important in this group.
• I bring unique personality traits to this group.
• My abilities meet the demands of my group.

Values congruence

• My group members are similar to me in terms of values.
• My group shares my values.
• My group’s values reflect my own values.
• I have values that are similar to my group’s.

Goals similarity

• My work-related goals match those of the other members of my group.
• My group members are similar tome in terms of work-related goals.
• The things I want to achieve in work are the same as what other group members want to achieve.
• The work-related goals of my other group members reflect my own goals.

Common workstyle

• I tend to have the same work pace as the other members of my group.
• My group members and I tend to work at the same speed.
• My group members are similar to me in terms of work style.
• I am similar to my group in how I approach my work.

References

• Li, C.S., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Nielsen, J.D. Fitting in a group: Theoretical development and validation of the Multidimensional Perceived Person–Group Fit scale. Personnel Psychology. 2019;72:139–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12295

This scale measures interpersonal and task-oriented cohesion.

Response scale

7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)

Interpersonal Cohesion

• There is a feeling of unity and cohesion in my team.
• There is a strong feeling of belongingness among my team members.
• Members of my team feel close to each other.

Task-oriented cohesion

• Members of my team share a focus on our work.
• My team concentrates on getting things done.
• My team members pull together to accomplish work.

References

• Mathieu, J.E., Kukenberger, M.R., D’Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion–performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713-734.

This scale measures workload sharing.

Response scale

5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

Points to evaluate

• Everyone on my team does their fair share of the work.
• No one in my team depends on other team members to do the work for them.
• Nearly all the team members on my team contribute equally to the work.

References

• Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., and Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel psychology, 46(4), 823-847.

This scale measures group members’ perceptions of the group’s ability to succeed.

Response scale

5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = most of the time)

Points to evaluate

• I feel confident about the capability of my group to perform the tasks very well.
• My group is able to solve difficult tasks if we invest the necessary effort.
• I feel confident that my group will be able to manage effectively unexpected trouble.
• My group is totally competent to solve the task.

References

• Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I.M., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Perceived Collective Efficacy, Subjective Well-Being And Task Performance Among Electronic Work Groups: An Experimental Study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402239577.

Response scale

5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 7 = always)

Points to evaluate

• We regularly take time to figure out ways to improve our team’s work processes.
• This team tends to handle differences of opinion privately or offline, rather than addressing them directly as a group.
• Team members go out and get all the information they possibly can from others — such as customers or other parts of the organization.
• This team frequently seeks new information that leads us to make important changes.
• In this team, someone always makes sure that we stop to reflect on the team’s work process.
• People in this team often speak up to test assumptions about issues under discussion.
• We invite people from outside the team to present information or have discussions with us.

References

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.

Response scale

5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

Points to evaluate

• I have to obtain information and advice from my colleagues in order to complete my work.
• I depend on my colleagues for the completion of my work.
• I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check of work with others.
• I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly.
• In order to complete their work, my colleagues have to obtain information and advice from me.

References

• Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., and Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team Members’ Affective Responses to Patterns of Intragroup Interdependence and Job Complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600403.

This four-item scale measures how emotionally committed members are to their team.

Response Scale:

7-point scale (1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree)

To what extent do members of the team:

• feel emotionally attached to their team?
• feel a strong sense of belonging to their team?
• feel as if the team’s problems are their own?
• feel like part of the family in their team?

References

• Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532-547.

Response scale

7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent)

Points to evaluate

• My team had trouble coordinating the pace members wanted to work at (i.e., some members wanted to work faster or slower than others).
• My team had difficulty with timing interactions between members (i.e., when members would work or consult with one another).
• My team experienced interruptions or delays in the flow of work between members.

References

• Janicik, G.A., and Bartel, C.A. (2003). Talking about time: Effects of temporal planning and time awareness norms on group coordination and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(2), 122-134. http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.122.

Response scale

7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a lot)

Task conflict scale

• How much conflict of ideas is there in your work group?
• How frequently do you have disagreements within your work group about the task of the project you are working on?
• How often do people in your work group have conflicting opinions about the project you are working on?

Relationship conflict scale

• How much relationship tension is there in your work group?
• How often do people get angry while working in your group?
• How much emotional conflict is there in your work group?

Process conflict – Jehn and Mannix (2001)

• How often are there disagreements about who should do what in your work group?
• How much conflict is there in your group about task responsibilities?
• How often do you disagree about resource allocation in your work group?

References

• Jehn, K.A., and 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.

Response scale

5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = a lot)

Points to evaluate

• Team members disagreed about time allocation in our work team (how much time to spend on tasks).
• There was conflict about how we should pace task activities in our team.
• There were disagreements about how long to spend on specific tasks in our team.

References

• Mohammed, S., Alipour, K., Martinez, P., Livert, D., and Fitzgerald, D. (2017). Conflict in the Kitchen: Temporal diversity and temporal disagreements in chef teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 21(1), 1-19.

Response scale

7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)

Points to evaluate

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

• Conflict is dealt with openly on a team.
• If conflict arises on this team, the people involved in the conflict initiate steps to resolve the conflict immediately.
• This team knows what to do when conflicts between team members arise.
• This team is able to avoid the negative aspects of conflicts before they occur.

References

• Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R., and Tesluk, P E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205.

This team process scale measures three categories of team processes:

• Transition processes – teams engage in evaluation and planning activities
• Action processes – teams perform activities that directly contribute to goal attainment
• Interpersonal processes – teams foster motivation, manage emotions, and resolve conflict

Response scale

1 = not at all; 2 = very little; 3 = to some extent; 4 = to a great extent; 5 = to a very great extent.

Note: The first three items listed under each subscale comprise the 30-item shorter form. Items marked with an asterisk comprise the 10-item short form.

Transition processes

To what extent does our team actively work at…

Mission analysis

• Identify our main tasks?
• Identify the key challenges that we expect to face? *
• Determine the resources that we need to be successful?
• Develop a shared understanding of our purpose or mission?
• Understand the needs of our primary stakeholders (e.g., customers, top management, other organizational units)?

Goal specification

• Set goals for the team?
• Ensure that everyone on our team clearly understands our goals? *
• Link our goals with the strategic direction of the organization?
• Prioritize our goals?
• Set specific timelines for each of our goals?

Strategy formulation and planning

• Develop an overall strategy to guide our team activities? *
• Prepare contingency (“if-then”) plans to deal with uncertain situations?
• Know when to stick with a given working plan, and when to adopt a different one?
• Periodically re-evaluate the quality of our working plans?
• Specify the sequence in which work products should be accomplished?

Action processes

To what extent does our team actively work at…

Monitoring progress toward goals

• Regularly monitor how well we are meeting our team goals?
• Use clearly defined metrics to assess our progress?
• Seek timely feedback from stakeholders (e.g., customers, top management, other organizational units) about how well we are meeting our goals? *
• Know whether we are on pace for meeting our goals?
• Let team members know when we have accomplished our goals?

Systems monitoring

• Monitor and manage our resources (e.g., financial, equipment, etc.)?
• Monitor important aspects of our work environment (e.g., inventories, equipment and process operations, information flows)? *
• Monitor events and conditions outside the team that influence our operations?
• Ensure the team has access to the right information to perform well?
• Manage our personnel resources?

Team monitoring and backup

• Develop standards for acceptable team member performance?
• Balance the workload among our team members?
• Assist each other when help is needed? *
• Inform team members if their work does not meet standards?
• Seek to understand each other’s strengths and weaknesses?

Coordination

• Communicate well with each other?
• Smoothly integrate our work efforts?
• Coordinate our activities with one another? *
• Re-establish coordination when things go wrong?
• Have work products ready when others need them?

Interpersonal processes

To what extent does our team actively work at…

Conflict management

• Deal with personal conflicts in fair and equitable ways? *
• Show respect for one another?
• Maintain group harmony?
• Work hard to minimize dysfunctional conflict among members?
• Encourage healthy debate and exchange of ideas?

Motivating and confidence-building

• Take pride in our accomplishments?
• Develop confidence in our team’s ability to perform well?
• Encourage each other to perform our very best? *
• Stay motivated, even when things are difficult?
• Reward performance achievement among team members?

Affect management

• Share a sense of togetherness and cohesion?
• Manage stress?
• Keep a good emotional balance in the team? *
• Keep each other from getting overly emotional or frustrated?
• Maintain positive work attitudes?

References

• Mathieu, J.E., Luciano, M.M., D’Innocenzo, L., Klock, E.A., and LePine, J.A. (2020). The development and construct validity of a team processes survey measure. Organizational Research Methods, 23(3), 399-431.

Response scale

7-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)

Points to evaluate

• This team should not have continued to function as a team.
• This team was not capable of working together as a unit.
• This team probably should never work together in the future.
• If I had the chance, I would have switched teams.
• I would be happy to work with the team members on other projects in the future.

References

• Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R., and Tesluk, P.E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205.

Response scale

7-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)

Points to evaluate

• I feel proud to belong to this team.
• I am glad that I belong to this team and not to another team.
• I feel very committed to this team.
• I am willing to exert extra effort to help this team succeed.

References

• Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., and Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team Members’ Affective Responses to Patterns of Intragroup Interdependence and Job Complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600403.

Response scale

7-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)

Points to evaluate

• I am satisfied with my present team members.
• I am pleased with the way my team members and I worked together.
• I am very satisfied with working in this team.
• I am satisfied with the team processes we used in the last two weeks before turning in the final paper.

References

• Tekleab, A G., Quigley, N.R., and Tesluk, P.E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205.

Response scale

5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always)

Points to evaluate

• Recently, this team seems to be “slipping” a bit in its level of performance and accomplishments.
• Those who receive or use the work this team does often have complaints about our work.
• The quality of work provided by this team is improving over time.
• Critical quality errors occur frequently in this team.
• Others in the company who interact with this team often complain about how it functions.

Reference

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.

Likert short version

This instrument is designed for self- and peer-evaluations of team members in five areas:

• Contributing to the team’s work
• Interacting with teammates
• Keeping the team on track
• Expecting quality
• Having relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs)

Response scale

5-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

Contributing to the team’s work

• Did a fair share of the team’s work.
• Fulfilled responsibilities to the team. Completed work in a timely manner.
• Came to team meetings prepared. Did work that was complete and accurate.
• Made important contributions to the team’s final product.
• Kept trying when faced with difficult situations.
• Offered to help teammates when it was appropriate.

Interacting with teammates

• Communicated effectively.
• Facilitated effective communication in the team.
• Exchanged information with teammates in a timely manner.
• Provided encouragement to other team members.
• Expressed enthusiasm about working as a team.
• Heard what teammates had to say about issues that affected the team.
• Got team input on important matters before going ahead.
• Accepted feedback about strengths and weaknesses from teammates.
• Used teammates feedback to improve performance.
• Let other team members help when it was necessary.

Keeping the team on track

• Stayed aware of fellow team members’ progress.
• Assessed whether the team was making progress as expected.
• Stayed aware of external factors that influenced team performance.
• Provided constructive feedback to others on the team.
• Motivated others on the team to do their best.
• Made sure that everyone on the team understood important information.
• Helped the team to plan and organize its work.

Expecting quality

• Expected the team to succeed.
• Believed that the team could produce high-quality work.
• Believed that the team should achieve high standards.
• Cared that the team produced high-quality work.

Having relevant knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs)

• Had the skills and expertise to do excellent work.
• Had the skills and abilities that were necessary to do a good job.
• Had enough knowledge of teammates jobs to be able to fill in if necessary.
• Knew how to do the jobs of other team members.

References

• Ohland, M.W., Loughry, M.L., Woehr, D.J., Bullard, L.G., Felder, R.M., Finelli, C.J., Layton, R.A., Pomeranz, H.R., and Schmucker, D.G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 609-630.

This 14-item scale (short-version) measures the team climate in the areas of vision, participative safety, task orientation, and support for innovation.

Response Scale:

5-point scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)

Vision

1. How far are you in agreement with these objectives?
2. To what extent do you think your team’s objectives are clearly understood by other members of the team?
3. To what extent do you think your team’s objectives can actually be achieved?
4. How worthwhile do you think these objectives are to the organization?

Participative safety

5. We have a “we are in it together” attitude
6. People keep each other informed about work-related issues in the team
7. People feel understood and accepted by each other
8. There are real attempts to share information throughout the team

Task orientation

9. Are team members prepared to question the basis of what the team is doing?
10. Does the team critically appraise potential weaknesses in what it is doing in order to achieve the best possible outcome?
11. Do members of the team build on each other’s ideas in order to achieve the best possible outcome?

Support for innovation

12. People in this team are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems
13. In this team we take the time needed to develop new ideas
14. People in the team cooperate in order to help develop and apply new ideas

References

• Kivimaki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the Team Climate Inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(2), 241-246.

Strating, M. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2009). Psychometric test of the Team Climate Inventory-short version investigated in Dutch quality improvement teams. BMC Health Services Research, 9(1), 1-7.

This 10-item scale measures the extent to which group members feel included in their team along two dimensions:

• belonging (supportive and caring relationships among members) and
• uniqueness (differences between members are valued and respected)

Response Scale:

5-point scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)

Please indicate the degree to which you personally agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the work group in which you work (not including your supervisor or manager).

Belonging

• I am treated as a valued member of my work group.
• I belong in my work group.
• I am connected to my work group.
• I believe that my work group is where I am meant to be.
• I feel that people really care about me in my work group.

Uniqueness

• I can bring aspects of myself to this work group that others in the group don’t have in common with me.
• People in my work group listen to me even when my views are dissimilar.
• While at work, I am comfortable expressing opinions that diverge from my group.
• I can share a perspective on work issues that is different from my group members.
• When my group’s perspective becomes too narrow, I am able to bring up a new point of view.

References

• Chung, B., Ehrhart, K., Shore, L. M., Randel, A., Dean, M., & Kedharnath, U. (2020). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and model. Group and Organization Management, 45(1), 75-102.

Response scale

7-point scale (1 = very inaccurate, 5 = very accurate)

Points to evaluate

• If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.
• Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.
• People on this team sometimes reject others for being different.
• It is safe to take a risk on this team.
• It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help.
• No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
• Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized.

Reference

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

This integrative measurement tool assesses 15 team leader function categories divided into two primary phases:

• transition phase (planning the team’s work and ensuring that taskwork and teamwork goals will be reached)
• action phase (activities that contribute directly to goal accomplishment)

Response Scale:

7-point scale (1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree)

Transition Phase Leadership Functions

Compose team

1. Selects highly competent team members
2. Selects team members who have previously worked well together
3. Selects team members that have previously worked well with the leader
4. Selects team members so there is the right mix of skills on the team
5. Selects highly motivated team members

Define mission

1. Ensures the team has a clear direction
2. Emphasizes how important it is to have a collective sense of mission
3. Develops and articulates a clear team mission
4. Ensures that the team has a clear understanding of its purpose
5. Helps provide a clear vision of where the team is going

Establish expectations and goals

1. Defines and emphasizes team expectations
2. Asks team members to follow standard rules and regulations
3. Communicates what is expected of the team
4. Communicates expectations for high team performance
5. Maintains clear standards of performance
6. Sets or helps set challenging and realistic goals
7. Establishes or helps establish goals for the team’s work
8. Ensures that the team has clear performance goals
9. Works with the team and individuals in the team to develop performance goals
10. Reviews team goals for realism, challenge, and business necessity

Structure and plan

1. Defines and structures own work and the work of the team
2. Identifies when key aspects of the work need to be completed
3. Works with the team to develop the best possible approach to its work
4. Develops or helps develop standard operating procedures and standardized processes
5. Clarifies task performance strategies
6. Makes sure team members have clear roles

Train and develop team

1. Makes sure the team has the necessary problem solving and interpersonal skills
2. Helps new team members learn how to do the work
3. Provides team members with task-related instructions
4. Helps new team members to further develop their skills
5. Helps the team learn from past events or experiences

Sense-making

1. Assists the team in interpreting things that happen inside the team
2. Assists the team in interpreting things that happen outside the team
3. Facilitates the team’s understanding of events or situations
4. Helps the team interpret internal or external events
5. Helps the team make sense of ambiguous situations

Provide feedback

1. Rewards the performance of team members according to performance standards
2. Reviews relevant performance results with the team
3. Communicates business issues, operating results, and team performance results
4. Provides positive feedback when the team performs well
5. Provides corrective feedback

Action Phase Leadership Functions

Monitor team

1. Monitors changes in the team’s external environmental
2. Monitors team and team member performance
3. Keeps informed about what other teams are doing
4. Requests task-relevant information from team members
5. Notices flaws in task procedures or team outputs

Manage team boundaries

1. Buffers the team from the influence of external forces or events
2. Helps different teams, communicate with one another
3. Acts as a representative of the team with other parts of the organization (e.g., other teams, management)
4. Advocates on behalf of the team to others in the organization
5. Helps to resolve difficulties between different teams

Challenge team

1. Reconsiders key assumptions in order to determine the appropriate course of action
2. Emphasizes the importance and value of questioning team members
3. Challenges the status quo
4. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete work
5. Contributes ideas to improve how the team performs its work

Perform team task

1. Will “pitch in” and help the team with its work
2. Will “roll up his/her sleeves” and help the team do its work
3. Works with team members to help do work
4. Will work along with the team to get its work done
5. Intervenes to help team members get the work done

Solve problems

1. Implements or helps the team implement solutions to problems
2. Seeks multiple different perspectives when solving problems
3. Creates solutions to work-related problems
4. Participates in problem solving with the team
5. Helps the team develop solutions to task and relationship-related problems

Provide resources

1. Obtains and allocates resources (materials, equipment, people, and services) for the team
2. Seeks information and resources to facilitate the team’s initiatives
3. Sees to it that the team gets what is needed from other teams
4. Makes sure that the equipment and supplies the team needs are available
5. Helps the team find and obtain “expert” resources

Encourage team self-management

1. Encourages the team to be responsible for determining the methods, procedures, and schedules with which the work gets done
2. Urges the team to make its own decisions regarding who does what tasks within the team
3. Encourages the team to make most of its own work-related decisions
4. Encourages the team to solve its own problems
5. Encourages the team to be responsible for its own affairs
6. Encourages the team to assess its performance

Support social climate

1. Responds promptly to team member needs or concerns
2. Engages in actions that demonstrate respect and concern for team members
3. Goes beyond own interests for the good of the team
4. Does things to make it pleasant to be a team member
5. Looks out for the personal well-being of team members

References

• Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5-39.

This scale measures the extent to which leaders schedule deadlines, synchronize team member behaviors, and allocate temporal resources.

Response Scale:

5-point Likert scale: (1 = Not at all, 3 = Moderate, 5 = A great deal)

1. To what extent does your team leader remind members of important deadlines?
2. To what extent does your team leader urge members to finish subtasks on time?
3. To what extent does your team leader prioritize tasks and allocate time to each task?
4. To what extent does your team leader prepare and build in time for contingencies, problems, and emerging issues?
5. To what extent does your team leader set milestones to measure progress on the project?
6. To what extent does your team leader pace the team so that work is finished on time?
7. To what extent is your team leader effective in coordinating the team to meet client deadlines?

References

• Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderating role of temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 489-508.