Page 130 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Cooperation Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 130
Team design
Even though this may seem obvious, it is important to ensure that the team
is designed in accordance with the organisational context (does the organ-
isation/government provide rewards, education/training and information
at the individual and team level for team work) and has support and re-
sources (competence and finance) to accomplish the task (Kozlowski &
Ilgen, 2006). This is not only important at the time of establishing the team,
but throughout its lifetime.
With regard to ESL teams, this means they have to find (be given) their
place in the school functioning – they have to be embedded in the school
life, but also in the wider education system. Team members and the team
as a whole have to be given relevant information as to what is the ESL team
mission (task) and some guidelines on how to accomplish it (how to organ-
ise their work, how to address specific problems, which responsibilities and
jurisdictions they have etc.). Their appropriate training and financial in-
centives also have to be provided for (being a member of an ESL team re-
quires time – either this is paid separately or other workload is decreased).
Team composition
Team composition research examines the attributes of team members
and how combinations of these characteristics across team members in-
fluence processes, emergent states and outcomes (Mathieu, Tannenbaum,
Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). These researchers have posited the four differ-
ent theoretical models about team composition listed below; in parenthe-
ses empirical studies supporting each model are listed. In the area of team
composition, one must simultaneously consider all four different aspects/
models:
(1) the level of individuals’ task-related competencies (high levels of
task-related skills are better; Devine & Philips, 2001; Cooke et al.,
2003);
(2) the level of individuals’ team-related competencies (high levels
of teamwork competence are better; Stevens & Campion, 1994;
Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005);
(3) the combination of relevant characteristics across members (e.g.
what does each member bring in relation to the other members
– the ‘strongest’ and the ‘weakest’ level of a characteristic, the
130
Even though this may seem obvious, it is important to ensure that the team
is designed in accordance with the organisational context (does the organ-
isation/government provide rewards, education/training and information
at the individual and team level for team work) and has support and re-
sources (competence and finance) to accomplish the task (Kozlowski &
Ilgen, 2006). This is not only important at the time of establishing the team,
but throughout its lifetime.
With regard to ESL teams, this means they have to find (be given) their
place in the school functioning – they have to be embedded in the school
life, but also in the wider education system. Team members and the team
as a whole have to be given relevant information as to what is the ESL team
mission (task) and some guidelines on how to accomplish it (how to organ-
ise their work, how to address specific problems, which responsibilities and
jurisdictions they have etc.). Their appropriate training and financial in-
centives also have to be provided for (being a member of an ESL team re-
quires time – either this is paid separately or other workload is decreased).
Team composition
Team composition research examines the attributes of team members
and how combinations of these characteristics across team members in-
fluence processes, emergent states and outcomes (Mathieu, Tannenbaum,
Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). These researchers have posited the four differ-
ent theoretical models about team composition listed below; in parenthe-
ses empirical studies supporting each model are listed. In the area of team
composition, one must simultaneously consider all four different aspects/
models:
(1) the level of individuals’ task-related competencies (high levels of
task-related skills are better; Devine & Philips, 2001; Cooke et al.,
2003);
(2) the level of individuals’ team-related competencies (high levels
of teamwork competence are better; Stevens & Campion, 1994;
Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005);
(3) the combination of relevant characteristics across members (e.g.
what does each member bring in relation to the other members
– the ‘strongest’ and the ‘weakest’ level of a characteristic, the
130
