"

Chapter 9: Teamwork in Action: Managing Group Dynamics in Today’s Workplace

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Recognize and understand group dynamics and development.
  2. Understand the difference between groups and teams.
  3. Compare and contrast different types of teams.
  4. Understand how to design effective teams.
  5. Explore ideas around teams and ethics.
  6. Understand cross-cultural influences on teams.

Section 9.1: Spotlight

Teamwork Breakdown in McDonald’s “Made for You” Initiative – St. Louis Metro Region

The “Made for You” initiative launched by McDonald’s in the early 2000s was intended to modernize the company’s food preparation process by offering customized, freshly made products. However, its rollout across several U.S. regions—including multiple franchise locations in the St. Louis metro—highlighted the pitfalls of poorly executed teamwork and ineffective implementation. The system required new kitchen layouts, updated equipment, and changes to long-standing work habits, but regional and store-level teams lacked adequate support and training. According to analysts from Metheus Consultancy (2023), this top-down rollout ignored key operational realities and generated frustration at nearly every level of the organization.

Problems with group dynamics emerged quickly. Corporate leaders mandated the changes without consulting regional managers or frontline employees, which led to a breakdown in trust and communication. Instead of working collaboratively, teams were forced to implement changes they didn’t fully understand or support. Feedback mechanisms were weak or nonexistent, and employees reported feeling voiceless and unsupported (Metheus Consultancy, 2023). Disconnected roles and lack of psychological safety stifled initiative and created friction, eroding morale throughout the regional network.

The team design flaws were equally significant. The new model disrupted assembly-line kitchen operations, slowing service times and confusing team roles. Regional managers were expected to enforce the system while simultaneously maintaining efficiency and customer satisfaction—goals that proved mutually exclusive under the new structure. Without dedicated cross-functional support, team members improvised solutions, leading to inconsistencies and disjointed execution (Metheus Consultancy, 2023). Many locations in the St. Louis County area saw a sharp decline in drive-thru times and customer satisfaction scores.

From an ethical standpoint, the initiative demonstrated how centralized decision-making can backfire when local teams are excluded from strategic planning. The pressure to perform under unrealistic timelines fostered resentment and, in some cases, retaliation toward those who voiced concern. Frontline employees reported being reprimanded or ignored when they suggested operational improvements, undermining the company’s stated commitment to integrity and employee input (Metheus Consultancy, 2023).

Additionally, cross-cultural impacts surfaced in urban franchise locations, particularly in St. Louis City and East St. Louis. These restaurants employed large numbers of workers from marginalized communities, many of whom experienced communication gaps and felt overlooked during training efforts. Language barriers and cultural misunderstandings worsened implementation, further fragmenting teams and lowering productivity. The lack of inclusive planning and resource support amplified the challenges and highlighted systemic blind spots.

In summary, the failure of the “Made for You” initiative in the St. Louis region reflects how ineffective team design, poor leadership communication, and ethical misalignment can sabotage collaboration. Organizations that overlook frontline voices and ignore cultural context risk eroding team trust and failing to execute even well-intended innovation.

References

Metheus Consultancy. (2023, September 20). When companies overlook teamwork: Real-world failures and consequences. https://www.metheus.co/insights/when-companies-overlook-teamwork-real-world-failures-and-consequences/

Discussion Questions

  1. How did the lack of communication between corporate leadership, regional managers, and frontline employees contribute to the failure of the “Made for You” initiative? What strategies could have been implemented to improve communication and foster collaboration across these levels?
  2. The case highlights poor team design, where roles and responsibilities were unclear, and employees were left to improvise. How might clearer role definitions and better training have impacted the success of the initiative? Reflect on a time when unclear roles affected teamwork in your own experience.
  3. Cross-cultural misunderstandings and language barriers were significant challenges in urban franchise locations. How can organizations ensure that communication and training efforts are inclusive and culturally sensitive? What steps would you recommend to address these issues in a diverse workforce?
  4. Ethical concerns arose when employees felt ignored or reprimanded for providing feedback. How can organizations create a culture where employee input is valued and acted upon? Reflect on the role of psychological safety in fostering open communication and preventing ethical lapses.

Section 9.2: Group Dynamics: Understanding the Moving Parts of Teamwork

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Identify and compare the characteristics of formal and informal groups, including how group norms may evolve differently within each type.
  2. Describe the stages of group development (forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning), emphasizing how group norms are established and renegotiated throughout the group’s lifecycle.
  3. Recognize and analyze examples of the punctuated-equilibrium model in student, work, or community groups, and discuss how this model interacts with changing norms and group processes.
  4. Assess the impact of group cohesion on team performance, considering factors such as similarity, stability, size, support, and satisfaction, and how norms contribute to or hinder cohesion.
  5. Examine how social loafing affects group participation, and explore the role of unclear or implicit norms in enabling this phenomenon.
  6. Analyze the influence of collective efficacy on group outcomes, including how shared beliefs and norms affect motivation, collaboration, and goal achievement.
  7. Explore the formation, enforcement, and impact of group norms, including their ability to enhance group functionality or unintentionally reinforce exclusion, conformity, or inequality.

In the study of organizational communication, a group is understood as a collection of individuals whose interactions affect one another’s behaviors, perceptions, and outcomes. In most modern organizations—from retail shifts to corporate project teams—work is coordinated and accomplished through group-based efforts. How these groups function has critical implications for morale, effectiveness, and overall productivity (Jablin & Putnam, 2023).

Groups that foster cooperation, mutual respect, and shared purpose tend to operate at high performance levels. In contrast, teams marked by unresolved conflict or toxic dynamics can stall progress and demotivate members. For college students balancing employment and academics, understanding group structures can help navigate both workplace hierarchies and informal networks for support and success.

Formal Groups: Designed for Specific Goals

Formal groups are intentionally established by an organization to perform designated tasks or achieve stated objectives. Membership is often defined by job roles or titles, and communication tends to follow standardized procedures. Examples include departments, committees, or customer service teams. These groups often operate with clear protocols, goals, and performance measures (Whetsell et al., 2021). For example, consider a sophomore student working in a university dining hall. That student is part of a formal group with other employees, supervisors, and shift managers. Tasks are assigned, responsibilities clarified, and work gets evaluated—all within a formal organizational framework.

For students carrying financial aid debt, such formal groups may also serve as entry points into institutional systems where advocating for better scheduling or support policies could make a meaningful difference.

Informal Groups: Connection, Community, and Support

Informal groups emerge naturally among individuals who share interests, experiences, or emotional bonds. They are not created by the organization, but rather form organically and can significantly affect group cohesion, workplace climate, and information sharing (Joya, 2020). These groups are especially powerful in helping members feel seen and supported in stressful environments. For example, a group of commuting students working at the same retail store might meet up weekly after class to swap shift tips, vent about balancing work and school, and trade strategies for maximizing their aid dollars. This informal group provides relief, practical advice, and emotional reinforcement—often more impactful than formal resources.

Informal groups also exist within formal settings. The group chat among coworkers that helps cover unexpected shifts or share mental health memes? That’s informal—and it’s shaping workplace culture.

Why Formal and Informal Groups Matter

Both group types are vital. Formal groups create structure and enable collective achievement. Informal groups cultivate interpersonal trust and reinforce resilience, especially in environments marked by low pay, high pressure, or social isolation.

For today’s students—many of whom work multiple jobs, rely on aid, and rarely have downtime—understanding group dynamics isn’t just academic; it’s survival. Whether joining a formal workplace team or finding solidarity with classmates in a study group, the ability to navigate both spheres is a communication skill worth mastering.

Group Norms: The Unspoken Rules That Shape Team Culture

Group norms are the shared expectations, behaviors, and values that guide how members interact within a team. These norms—whether explicit or implicit—help define what is considered acceptable, respectful, and productive in a group setting (Smith, 2020). They emerge organically through interaction, observation, and socialization, and they play a critical role in shaping communication patterns, decision-making, and group identity (O’Hair & Wiemann, 2004).

For college students balancing jobs and financial aid, group norms can be both a source of stability and stress. In a study group, for example, norms might include showing up on time, contributing equally, and respecting each other’s schedules. In a work-study team, norms may involve informal expectations like covering for a coworker during exams or avoiding personal phone use during shifts. These norms often develop without formal discussion, yet they strongly influence group dynamics and individual behavior (Engleberg & Wynn, 2013).

Norms can be general, applying to all members (e.g., meeting punctuality), or role-specific, guiding behavior based on assigned responsibilities (e.g., the team leader sends out agendas). They may also be explicit, such as written ground rules, or implicit, like the unspoken agreement not to interrupt during brainstorming sessions (Brilhart & Galanes, 1998). Importantly, norms help groups avoid conflict, maintain cohesion, and reinforce shared values—especially when members come from diverse backgrounds or face external pressures like financial stress or limited time availability (Feldman, 1984).

However, norms can also become problematic when they discourage dissent, reinforce exclusion, or prioritize conformity over creativity. For instance, a group that values speed over thoroughness may unintentionally silence members who raise concerns. Recognizing and revisiting norms throughout a group’s lifecycle—especially during the norming and performing stages—can help ensure they remain inclusive, effective, and aligned with the group’s goals (Hackman, 1996).

For students, learning to identify, negotiate, and challenge group norms is a vital communication skill. It empowers them to advocate for fairness, foster collaboration, and build teams that support both academic success and personal well-being.

Stages of Group Development

Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing

American organizational psychologist Bruce Tuckman introduced a foundational model of group development in 1965, identifying four key stages—forming, storming, norming, and performing—that teams typically experience as they evolve (Tuckman, 1965). Later, in collaboration with Mary Ann Jensen, he added a fifth stage, adjourning, to account for the conclusion of group work and the emotional and logistical transitions that follow (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Much like individuals progress through life stages, groups undergo a developmental journey that shapes their communication, cohesion, and productivity.

In the forming stage, group members are introduced and begin to orient themselves to the task and each other. This phase is often marked by politeness, uncertainty, and a desire to be accepted. For college students juggling multiple jobs and financial aid obligations, forming might involve negotiating meeting times around work shifts or clarifying expectations for shared responsibilities in a group project. Leaders at this stage tend to be more directive, helping establish structure and purpose (Bonebright, 2010).

The storming stage follows, characterized by conflict, competition, and the surfacing of differing opinions. This phase is essential for growth, though it can be uncomfortable. Students may clash over workload distribution, especially if some members are perceived as less available due to outside commitments. If unresolved, these tensions can resurface later in the group’s lifecycle. Effective facilitation during storming involves coaching behaviors—encouraging open dialogue, managing conflict, and fostering mutual respect (Kennedy, 2020).

Once the group navigates storming, it enters the norming stage, where members establish shared norms, roles, and expectations. Trust begins to build, and collaboration becomes more fluid. For students, this might mean agreeing on communication platforms (e.g., Slack or Google Docs), setting realistic deadlines, and recognizing each other’s strengths. Groups that invest time in social bonding during forming tend to handle norming more smoothly, as interpersonal understanding enhances resilience (Stein, 2023).

In the performing stage, the group operates at a high level of effectiveness. Members are autonomous, interdependent, and focused on achieving collective goals. For a student team, this could mean efficiently completing a research presentation while balancing work shifts and academic deadlines. Leadership becomes more delegative, with members taking initiative and solving problems collaboratively (WCU of PA, n.d.).

Finally, the adjourning stage involves wrapping up tasks and disbanding the group. This phase can evoke mixed emotions—relief, pride, or even sadness. Students may reflect on what they’ve learned, celebrate their accomplishments, and prepare for future collaborations. Recognizing this stage helps normalize transitions and encourages closure (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

While not all groups follow this model linearly, Tuckman’s framework remains a valuable tool for understanding team dynamics and guiding communication strategies in both academic and professional settings.

 

Figure 9.2 Stages of the Group Development Model

image Storming -> Norming -> Performing -> Adjourning” width=”500″>

Forming

The forming stage marks the beginning of a group’s development, when members come together—sometimes as strangers, sometimes with prior connections—and begin to orient themselves to the group’s purpose and each other. This phase is typically characterized by politeness, caution, and a desire to be accepted, as individuals grapple with uncertainty about roles, expectations, and power dynamics (Tuckman, 1965; Stein, 2023). Questions like “Will I be accepted?” or “Who’s in charge?” often linger beneath the surface. Members tend to avoid conflict, observe group norms, and engage in abstract discussions about the task at hand, which can frustrate those eager to dive into action (Bonebright, 2010).

For college students juggling multiple jobs and financial aid obligations, the forming stage may involve negotiating meeting times around work shifts, clarifying expectations for shared responsibilities, and finding common ground—such as shared academic pressures or commuting challenges. This early bonding can be crucial. Research suggests that groups who invest time in social connection during forming are better equipped to handle future challenges (Kennedy, 2020). Members may also test leadership boundaries, either by observing an appointed leader or watching to see if someone naturally emerges. During this phase, students may feel a mix of pride at being selected for a team and anxiety about whether they can contribute meaningfully given their external commitments. Establishing trust, defining acceptable behaviors, and exploring how tasks will be divided are key outcomes of this stage, which typically lasts only a few meetings before deeper dynamics begin to surface.

Storming

The storming stage is the second phase of group development, marked by rising tensions, emerging conflicts, and the surfacing of individual identities. Once members feel safe enough to shed social facades, they begin asserting themselves more authentically—often leading to disagreements over goals, roles, and processes (Tuckman, 1965; Stein, 2023). This phase is characterized by defensiveness, competition, and emotional volatility, as participants explore questions like “Can I be myself, have influence, and still be accepted?” (Bonebright, 2010). Power struggles may emerge, cliques can form, and resistance to leadership is common. For example, a student group working on a class presentation might clash over who should lead, how to divide tasks, or whether deadlines are realistic—especially when some members are juggling jobs and financial aid obligations that limit their availability. These tensions, while uncomfortable, are a natural part of group evolution and can unlock creative energy if managed constructively (Kennedy, 2020).

Although productivity may stall during storming, the group is laying the groundwork for deeper collaboration. Members begin to express their true thoughts and feelings, which—if supported by active listening and conflict resolution—can lead to stronger trust and more effective teamwork. For students, this might mean negotiating workload expectations, acknowledging external pressures, and finding ways to support one another through shared challenges. Groups that fail to navigate this stage often remain stuck, but those that embrace it as a growth opportunity are better positioned to move into norming and beyond.

Workplace Strategy Pack

Avoiding the Storming Phase in Group Development

Objective: To empower employees with proactive communication and collaboration strategies that prevent teams from stagnating in the Storming Phase of Tuckman’s group development model.

Understanding the Storming Phase

The Storming Phase is marked by interpersonal conflict, power struggles, and resistance to group norms. If unresolved, it can derail productivity and morale.

“Groups that remain in the storming stage are unlikely to succeed in completing their tasks or achieving their purpose.” — Whatcom Community College (n.d.)

Why Groups Get Stuck

  • Lack of trust or psychological safety
  • Poor role clarity or ambiguous goals
  • Ineffective conflict resolution mechanisms
  • Absence of shared norms or values
  • Leadership vacuum or micromanagement

Strategy Toolkit

1.  Establish Clear Norms Early

  • Co-create team agreements on communication, decision-making, and accountability.
  • Use kickoff meetings to define expectations and working styles.

2.  Foster Open Dialogue

  • Encourage respectful disagreement and active listening.
  • Use structured formats like “round-robin” sharing or anonymous feedback tools.

3.  Clarify Roles and Goals

  • Use RACI charts (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) to define responsibilities.
  • Align individual tasks with team objectives.

4.  Build Psychological Safety

  • Normalize vulnerability and mistakes as part of growth.
  • Leaders should model humility and openness.

5.  Practice Adaptive Leadership

  • Shift from directive to coaching styles as the team matures (Tuckman, 1965).
  • Intervene early when conflict arises, but avoid over-controlling.

6.  Use Team-Building Interventions

  • Schedule regular check-ins and retrospectives.
  • Incorporate personality assessments (e.g., MBTI, DISC) to understand dynamics.

Empowerment Tip

“Interstage awareness and proactive leadership can minimize the destructive effects of the storming phase.” — Lail (2021)

References
Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099

Lail, J. (2021). Between forming and storming: Interstage awareness in group formation. Journal of Educational Leadership, 23(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614298.pdf

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

Whatcom Community College. (n.d.). 2.2 Group Formation – Organizational Communication Anthology. https://textbooks.whatcom.edu/cmst245/chapter/2-2/

 

Once group members discover that they can be authentic and that the group is capable of handling differences without dissolving, they are ready to enter the next stage, norming.

Norming

The norming stage of group development is often met with a collective sense of relief and renewed energy. Having weathered the interpersonal tensions of storming, group members begin to feel more cohesive, cooperative, and committed to the team’s goals (Tuckman, 1965; Stein, 2023). This phase is marked by the emergence of shared norms—unwritten rules and expectations that guide behavior and communication. Members establish operating procedures, clarify roles, and begin making decisions more efficiently, with larger choices handled collectively and smaller tasks delegated to individuals or subgroups (Bonebright, 2010).

For college students juggling jobs and financial aid obligations, norming might involve agreeing on realistic deadlines that accommodate work shifts, choosing communication platforms that fit everyone’s schedules, and developing mutual respect for each other’s time constraints. Students may begin to ask for help more openly, offer constructive feedback, and even form friendships that extend beyond the project. This emotional openness and trust are key indicators of successful norming, as members shift from guarded interactions to genuine collaboration (Kennedy, 2020).

At this stage, the group leader transitions from a directive role to that of a facilitator, empowering members to take ownership of their work and interpersonal dynamics. With morale high and productivity increasing, this is an ideal time to host a team-building activity or informal social gathering—especially for students who rarely get downtime. Such events can reinforce cohesion and help sustain momentum as the group moves toward performing.

Performing

The performing stage represents the pinnacle of group development, where members operate with high levels of autonomy, competence, and mutual respect. Energized by a shared vision and a sense of unity, the group becomes more interdependent, embracing individual differences while functioning as a cohesive whole (Tuckman, 1965; Stein, 2023). At this point, members are not only focused on completing tasks but also critically evaluating how they work together. They ask reflective questions such as, “Are our procedures supporting productivity?” or “Do we have effective strategies for managing conflict before it escalates?” This introspection signals a mature group dynamic, where communication is intentional and aligned with collective goals (Bonebright, 2010).

For college students managing multiple jobs and financial aid obligations, the performing stage might involve coordinating a complex group presentation while navigating tight schedules and limited resources. Members take initiative, support one another, and adapt fluidly to challenges. Leadership becomes more of a coaching role, guiding skill development and encouraging peer-led problem solving (Kennedy, 2020). Students may also begin to reflect on their personal growth, asking how they can become more effective communicators, collaborators, and leaders. This stage is not guaranteed for all groups, but when achieved, it reflects a high-functioning team capable of producing quality outcomes and sustaining momentum.

Adjourning

The adjourning stage marks the final phase of group development, when a team disbands after completing its goals or due to external changes such as organizational restructuring (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Like graduating from college or leaving a familiar job, this transition can evoke mixed emotions—pride in accomplishments, sadness over parting ways, and uncertainty about what comes next. For students who thrive on routine and have built strong bonds with teammates, the ending of a group project or campus organization can feel especially bittersweet. Research suggests that acknowledging these emotions and providing closure is essential for individual and collective growth (Bonebright, 2010; Upwork Team, 2024).

In academic and workplace settings, groups often form around temporary projects. For example, a student-led financial literacy campaign or a semester-long research team may dissolve once the final deliverable is submitted. Students juggling jobs and financial aid may feel relief at reclaiming time, but also miss the camaraderie and shared purpose. Leaders and members alike should approach this stage with compassion and intentionality. Debriefing sessions—where participants reflect on lessons learned, celebrate achievements, and express appreciation—can help ease the transition and reinforce a sense of accomplishment (Planio, 2025; Project Arrive, 2024).

Celebratory rituals such as group dinners, thank-you notes, or informal meetups can also foster closure and honor the group’s journey. These practices not only validate individual contributions but also prepare members to carry forward insights and relationships into future endeavors. When done thoughtfully, adjourning becomes more than an ending—it becomes a launchpad for continued growth.

From Punctuated Equilibrium to Group Decision-Making

The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

The Punctuated Equilibrium Model (PEM) describes group development as alternating periods of stability and rapid change, often triggered by deadlines or external pressures (Gersick, 1988). While PEM is useful for understanding temporary teams, it lacks guidance on how decisions are made and why some groups outperform others in dynamic environments.

Figure 9.3 The Punctuated Equilibrium Model

The Punctuated Equilibrium Model

Recent organizational communication research recommends replacing PEM with a Group Decision-Making Process (GDMP)—a structured, inclusive framework that emphasizes communication, collaboration, and critical thinking (Yang, Jiang, & Cheng, 2025). This model is especially relevant for student teams, interdisciplinary workgroups, and collaborative organizations.

Core Stages of the Group Decision-Making Process

  1. Problem Identification – Define the issue and ensure shared understanding.
  2. Information Gathering – Collect relevant data and stakeholder input.
  3. Generating Alternatives – Use brainstorming or structured techniques like the Delphi method.
  4. Evaluating Alternatives – Compare options based on feasibility, ethics, and impact.
  5. Choosing the Best Option – Reach consensus or use structured voting.
  6. Implementation – Assign roles and execute the decision.
  7. Review and Feedback – Reflect on outcomes and refine future decisions.

This process supports continuous engagement, reduces misunderstandings, and encourages cognitive diversity—key factors in avoiding groupthink and improving decision quality (APA, 2025; SpringerLink, 2025).

Cohesion

The concept of cohesion refers to the emotional and psychological bonds that unite group members—a kind of social glue that transforms individuals into a collective (Forsyth, 2021; Beal et al., 2003). In cohesive groups, members share a sense of identity, purpose, and mutual support, often communicating in structured and effective ways. This unity fosters collaboration and enhances both group performance and individual satisfaction (Evans & Dion, 1991).

For college students balancing coursework, jobs, and financial aid, cohesion can be a lifeline. Whether in study groups, campus organizations, or work teams, cohesive environments offer emotional support, accountability, and a shared commitment to goals. Students in cohesive groups are more likely to attend meetings, contribute meaningfully, and persevere through academic or personal challenges. These groups often become safe spaces where members feel seen, valued, and empowered.

Several key factors influence group cohesion:

  • Similarity: Shared backgrounds, values, or goals—such as being first-generation students or working part-time—can strengthen bonds (Drew, 2025).
  • Stability: Groups that meet consistently over time tend to develop deeper trust and unity.
  • Size: Smaller groups allow for more intimate interactions and stronger interpersonal connections.
  • Support: Encouragement, coaching, and peer mentoring reinforce group identity and morale.
  • Satisfaction: When members feel respected and appreciated, cohesion flourishes.

The benefits of cohesion extend beyond productivity. Students in cohesive groups often report higher self-esteem, lower stress levels, and greater resilience (Lumina Foundation, 2025). For example, on-campus work-study teams that include professional development and supervisor feedback foster not only job skills but also a sense of belonging and purpose (Forward Pathway, 2025; Inside Higher Ed, 2025). These environments can buffer against the pressures of financial insecurity and academic overload, helping students thrive both socially and academically.

Workplace Strategy Pack

Creating and Maintaining a Cohesive Team

Objective: To equip managers with actionable strategies grounded in organizational communication and psychology to build and sustain team cohesion, trust, and performance.

Why Team Cohesion Matters

Cohesive teams are more productive, resilient, and innovative. They exhibit stronger interpersonal trust, faster conflict resolution, and higher engagement. According to Forsyth (2021), cohesion is a critical ingredient that transforms ordinary groups into high-performing collectives.

“Cohesion enhances motivation, which improves performance—but improvements in performance also increase cohesion.” — Forsyth (2021)

Strategy Toolkit for Managers

1.  Define a Clear Purpose and Shared Goals

  • Align team members around a compelling mission.
  • Use inclusive language (“we,” “our”) to foster group identity.
  • Revisit goals regularly to reinforce commitment.

2.  Foster Open and Inclusive Communication

  • Encourage psychological safety by modeling vulnerability and openness (Lencioni, 2002).
  • Use structured feedback loops and active listening techniques.
  • Address siloed thinking by promoting cross-functional dialogue.

3.  Build Trust Through Consistency and Transparency

  • Share personal histories and values to deepen interpersonal bonds.
  • Recognize contributions publicly and fairly.
  • Avoid micromanagement—empower autonomy with accountability.

4.  Invest in Team Development Interventions (TDIs)

  • Implement team-building exercises, leadership coaching, and debriefing sessions (Lacerenza et al., 2018).
  • Use personality assessments to understand team dynamics.
  • Schedule regular retrospectives to reflect and recalibrate.

5.  Encourage Diversity and Inclusion

  • Validate different viewpoints and foster constructive dissent.
  • Use data-driven decision-making to depersonalize conflict.
  • Promote equity in participation and recognition.

6.  Maintain Momentum with Rituals and Recognition

  • Celebrate milestones and small wins.
  • Create rituals that reinforce team identity (e.g., weekly check-ins, shared symbols).
  • Use storytelling to reinforce values and purpose.

Empowerment Tip

“Team cohesion is not a one-time achievement—it’s a dynamic process that requires ongoing attention to communication, trust, and shared identity.” — Lacerenza et al. (2018)

References
Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000163

Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000295

Capability Group. (2020, December 2). How to build cohesive teams [Video]. YouTube. Watch the tutorial

Andrews, S. (2023, July 12). Nine steps to building team cohesion and a healthy work environment. Forbes Coaches Council. Read the article

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.

Can a Group Have Too Much Cohesion?

While cohesion is often celebrated for its benefits, too much of it can backfire. When group members prioritize belonging over critical thinking, they may suppress dissent, avoid conflict, and conform to group norms—even when those norms are counterproductive (Janis, 1972). This pressure to maintain harmony can lead to groupthink, a phenomenon where the desire for consensus overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives, reducing mental efficiency, moral judgment, and reality testing.

A contemporary example of groupthink can be seen in the persistent belief among public university boards and senior administrators that offering high executive salaries is the only way to attract top talent. This assumption often goes unchallenged, despite growing evidence that such compensation practices may conflict with the public mission of higher education. According to Boyd and Tiede (2023), collaborative decision-making around salary policy is frequently undermined by internal pressures to conform to market-driven norms, even when those norms exacerbate budgetary strain and tuition increases. The belief that university presidents must earn significantly more than faculty—sometimes ten to twenty times as much—is rarely questioned within administrative circles, even though it contradicts the values of equity and stewardship that public institutions are meant to uphold.

This dynamic reflects classic groupthink symptoms: the illusion of unanimity, suppression of dissent, and rationalization of flawed assumptions (Janis, 1972). Faculty and student voices advocating for salary equity and tuition restraint are often marginalized, while governing boards reinforce a narrow definition of leadership that equates compensation with competence. As Kelman et al. (2014) note, decision-making in bureaucratic environments tends to favor decisiveness over vigilance, which can lead to the entrenchment of problematic policies.

For college students, groupthink can show up in subtle but impactful ways. In a tightly knit study group, for example, members might avoid challenging flawed ideas to preserve social bonds. Or in a campus organization, students may hesitate to speak out against problematic practices for fear of being ostracized. This self-censorship creates a superficial sense of unity while stifling innovation and accountability.

Highly cohesive groups may also become insular, viewing outsiders as inferior or threatening. This mindset can block valuable external input and reinforce biased decision-making. For students juggling work and financial aid, such environments can be especially harmful—limiting access to diverse perspectives and discouraging advocacy for change.

Even in milder forms, excessive cohesion can derail productivity. Groups may prioritize socializing over task completion, or drift from institutional goals. For instance, a student club might focus more on bonding than fulfilling its mission, or tease high-achieving members who challenge the group’s laid-back culture.

Social Loafing

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working in a group than when working alone—a phenomenon first observed by Max Ringelmann in 1913 during rope-pulling experiments (Karau & Williams, 1993). As group size increases, individual accountability often decreases, leading to diminished motivation and performance. This effect, known as the Ringelmann effect, has been replicated across cultures and tasks (Gabrenya, Latane, & Wang, 1983; Ziller, 1957).

For college students juggling academics, jobs, and financial aid, social loafing can emerge in group projects, campus organizations, or work-study teams. A student might think, “My effort won’t make a difference,” or “Others aren’t contributing, so why should I?” These rationalizations reflect a broader perception that rewards and blame are diffused in group settings (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Taylor & Faust, 1952). The result is often uneven participation, frustration among high-performing members, and reduced overall group effectiveness.

Importantly, social loafing is not simply laziness—it’s a response to perceived inequity and lack of recognition. Research shows that fairness and transparency in group dynamics can reduce loafing behavior (Price, Harrison, & Gavin, 2006). For example, when students feel their contributions are valued and their peers are equally committed, they’re more likely to stay engaged. This is especially relevant for students working part-time or managing financial stress, who may be more sensitive to time investment and group efficiency.

To counteract social loafing, instructors and team leaders can:

  • Assign clear individual roles and responsibilities.
  • Use peer evaluations to increase accountability.
  • Foster group cohesion through team-building and shared goals.
  • Emphasize the importance of each member’s contribution to the final outcome.

These strategies help ensure that group work remains equitable, productive, and rewarding for all members—especially those balancing multiple commitments.

Workplace Strategy Pack

Addressing Uneven Contribution in Group Work

Objective: To equip employees with communication strategies and leadership tools to constructively address group members who are under-contributing, while preserving team cohesion and psychological safety.

Why It Matters

Group work thrives on shared responsibility, but when one member consistently underperforms, it can lead to resentment, reduced morale, and compromised outcomes. Research shows that clear communication, role clarity, and psychological safety are essential for resolving contribution imbalances (Edmondson & Besieux, 2021; Cai et al., 2018).

“Voice and silence in workplace conversations shape the quality of collaboration and the ability to address performance issues.” — Edmondson & Besieux (2021)

Strategy Toolkit

1.  Initiate a Constructive Conversation

  • Use “I” statements to express concern: “I’ve noticed some tasks haven’t been completed, and I’m worried about our timeline.”
  • Avoid blame; focus on shared goals and outcomes.

2.  Clarify Roles and Expectations

  • Revisit the group’s task list and assign clear responsibilities.
  • Use collaborative tools (e.g., shared documents, task boards) to track progress transparently.

3.  Explore Underlying Causes

  • Ask open-ended questions: “Is there anything preventing you from contributing fully?”
  • Consider personal stressors, unclear expectations, or skill mismatches.

4.  Rebuild Accountability

  • Set short-term goals and check-in points.
  • Encourage peer feedback and mutual support.
  • If needed, escalate to a supervisor or team lead with documentation.

5.  Foster Psychological Safety

  • Create a space where team members feel safe to speak up.
  • Reinforce that feedback is about improvement, not punishment.

Empowerment Tip

“Empowering leadership enhances person-group fit, which increases engagement and accountability.” — Cai et al. (2018)

References
Cai, D., Cai, Y., Sun, Y., & Ma, J. (2018). Linking empowering leadership and employee work engagement: The effects of person-job fit, person-group fit, and proactive personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1304. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01304

Edmondson, A. C., & Besieux, T. (2021). Reflections: Voice and silence in workplace conversations. Journal of Change Management, 21(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1928910

Skills for Change. (2023). How to deal with a team member who is not contributing. https://skillsforchange.com/how-to-deal-with-a-team-member-who-is-not-contributing/

Collective Efficacy

Collective efficacy refers to a group’s shared belief in its ability to organize and execute actions required to achieve success (Bandura, 1997). This perception is shaped by several factors, including observing successful peer groups (“If they did it, we can too”), verbal encouragement (“We’ve got this”), and emotional climate (“This team feels right”). When students feel confident in their group’s capabilities, they’re more likely to collaborate effectively, persist through challenges, and achieve stronger outcomes (Gully et al., 2002; Porter, 2005; Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007).

For college students juggling coursework, jobs, and financial aid, collective efficacy can be a game-changer. In high-interdependence settings—such as group research projects, student-led campaigns, or work-study teams—each member’s success is tightly linked to others’ contributions. When students trust their peers and believe in the group’s potential, they’re more likely to stay engaged, share resources, and support one another.

Research shows that collective efficacy is especially powerful when task interdependence is high (Gully et al., 2002). For example, in a student-run tutoring program, tutors rely on each other to maintain consistent quality and scheduling. If one person falters, the whole system feels it. But when the team believes in its shared ability to succeed, performance improves across the board.

To build collective efficacy in student groups:

  • Celebrate small wins to reinforce shared success.
  • Encourage open communication and mutual support.
  • Use peer modeling—highlighting successful teams as inspiration.
  • Foster emotional safety so students feel valued and heard.

These strategies help students develop not only confidence in their group’s abilities but also a deeper sense of belonging and purpose.

Insider Edge

Empowering the Unheard in Overly Cohesive Teams

Objective: To equip employees with strategies to assert their voice and influence in teams where excessive cohesion may suppress dissent, innovation, or individual expression.

The Hidden Risk of Too Much Cohesion

While cohesion is often celebrated, excessive cohesion can lead to:

  • Groupthink and conformity pressure
  • Suppression of dissenting voices
  • Resistance to change or innovation
  • Over-identification with group norms at the expense of individual insight

“Cohesion enhances performance, but when it becomes too strong, it may stifle critical thinking and marginalize minority perspectives.” — Forsyth (2021)

Strategy Toolkit for the Unheard

1.  Reframe Silence as a Signal

  • Recognize that feeling unheard may indicate group over-conformity, not personal inadequacy.
  • Use this awareness to reframe your role as a constructive challenger.

2.  Use Strategic Voice Techniques

  • Frame dissent as a contribution to group success: “I’d like to offer a different angle that might strengthen our approach.”
  • Use data or examples to support your point and reduce emotional resistance.

3.  Build Alliances

  • Find allies who share your concerns and speak collectively.
  • Use informal conversations to test ideas before raising them in group settings.

4.  Engage in Meta-Communication

  • Suggest a team reflection on communication norms: “Can we check in on how we’re making space for different perspectives?”
  • Encourage rotating facilitation or anonymous feedback tools.

5.  Leverage Organizational Channels

  • Use skip-level meetings, employee resource groups, or feedback platforms to raise concerns.
  • Document patterns of exclusion if needed for escalation.

Empowerment Tip

“Empowering employees to speak up requires a culture that values choice and autonomy.” — Detert & Burris (2021)

References
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2021, October). Research: What makes employees feel empowered to speak up? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/10/research-what-makes-employees-feel-empowered-to-speak-up

Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000163

Espinoza Morán, H., Artiaga Bolaños, A. V., & Castro Guevara, J. (2022). Group cohesion and its relationship with organizational communication. Sapienza: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(2). https://journals.sapienzaeditorial.com/index.php/SIJIS/article/view/316

Carter, E. (2020). The impact of communication strategies on employee engagement: A comprehensive review. Academy of Organizational Communication Studies. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-impact-of-communication-strategies-on-employee-engagement-a-comprehensive-review.pdf

Discussion Questions

  1. Reflect on the most cohesive group you’ve ever been part of. How did that group establish and maintain shared norms related to similarity, stability, size, support, and satisfaction? Were these norms explicit or implicit?
  2. Why do you think social loafing occurs, especially in groups where norms aren’t clearly defined? Can implicit norms contribute to unequal participation?
  3. What communication strategies or norm-setting practices can help reduce social loafing in a group? How can general and role-specific norms promote accountability and engagement?
  4. Think of a time when collective efficacy either helped or hurt a team’s performance. What role did group norms and shared expectations play in that outcome?
  5. Have you encountered group norms that discouraged dissent or limited creativity? How would you recommend revisiting or renegotiating norms to make them more inclusive and effective?

Section 9.3: Blueprint for Collaboration: Key Features of Team Design

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Differentiate between groups and teams by examining structural, functional, and communicative distinctions.
  2. Explain the rise of team-based collaboration through organizational, technological, and social trends influencing modern work and academic environments.
  3. Describe core team roles and responsibilities—including task, social, and boundary-spanning roles—and how they contribute to team effectiveness.
  4. Identify key types of teams (e.g., functional, cross-functional, virtual) and assess how their structure impacts communication, coordination, and adaptability.
  5. Evaluate team design considerations, including optimal composition, size, diversity, and leadership autonomy, using current organizational communication research.
  6. Analyze how teams develop over time, applying models such as Tuckman’s stages and the punctuated-equilibrium model to understand shifts in norms and communication practices.
  7. Assess the role of psychological safety and trust in fostering innovation, learning, and constructive conflict resolution.
  8. Interpret collective efficacy and its influence on team performance, motivation, and resilience.
  9. Distinguish between task and relational conflict, examining their effects on team outcomes and strategies for managing each constructively.
  10. Apply feedback and recognition practices to reinforce accountability, engagement, and team learning in diverse communication settings.

Designing Teams That Work: From Structure to Strategy

Whether you’re launching a group project, leading a campus organization, or entering the workforce, understanding how teams are built—and how they actually function—is essential. Effective teams don’t just happen; they’re carefully designed with purpose, structure, and clear communication in mind.

This section unpacks the essential components of team design, from the differences between informal groups and goal-driven teams, to the roles members play, the tasks they tackle, and the diverse individuals who shape team outcomes. Drawing from organizational communication research, we’ll explore how decisions about team size, member diversity, leadership styles, and role assignments directly influence group cohesion, creativity, and success.

Whether you’re building a team from scratch or stepping into one already formed, these insights will help you recognize what makes a team thrive—and what holds it back.

From Groups to Teams: Foundational Differences

n organizational settings—whether academic, professional, or community-based—people often work in groups. However, not all groups function as teams. A group is simply a collection of individuals who may share a space or task but operate independently, with minimal coordination or shared accountability (Keyton, 2017). Groups can be formal, such as a department or committee, or informal, like coworkers who socialize during breaks. While groups may contribute to organizational outcomes, their performance is often limited by “process losses”—inefficiencies caused by poor coordination, unclear roles, or lack of shared purpose (Stewart, 2010).

A team, by contrast, is a structured and interdependent unit of individuals working collaboratively toward a shared goal. Teams are defined by mutual accountability, complementary skills, and intentional communication practices (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). For example, a student project team that divides tasks, sets deadlines, and supports each other’s learning is more likely to succeed than a group of students working in isolation. Effective teams rely on clear norms, trust, and shared expectations to navigate challenges and maintain cohesion (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001).

The rise of team-based structures in organizations reflects the growing complexity of tasks and the need for diverse perspectives. Advances in technology, globalization, and remote work have made collaboration across roles and locations more critical than ever (Keyton, 2017). Research shows that when team members perceive their outcomes as interdependent, they communicate more effectively and perform better (De Dreu, 2007). This is especially relevant for working-class college students who often juggle jobs, coursework, and collaborative assignments—making team skills essential for both academic and workplace success.

However, teams are not a universal solution. Organizations and individuals should assess whether a task requires diverse skills, shared decision-making, and coordinated effort before forming a team (Rees, 1997). When these conditions are met, well-designed teams can outperform individuals and traditional groups, delivering both measurable results and personal growth opportunities.

Understanding Team Purpose

Teams exist to accomplish tasks that are often too complex, creative, or interdependent for individuals to tackle alone. Richard Hackman (1976) identified three primary categories of team tasks: production, idea generation, and problem solving. Production tasks involve creating tangible outputs, such as a marketing plan, product prototype, or event schedule. Idea-generation tasks focus on creativity and innovation, such as brainstorming new strategies or designing a process improvement. Problem-solving tasks require teams to analyze situations, make decisions, and develop actionable plans. Many real-world teams—especially in academic and workplace settings—engage in all three types at different stages of a project.

For college students balancing coursework, jobs, and financial stress, understanding a team’s purpose helps clarify expectations and improve collaboration. For example, a student-led campaign to improve campus food access may begin with idea generation (brainstorming solutions), shift into production (creating flyers and outreach materials), and end with problem solving (adjusting strategies based on feedback). Recognizing these task types helps students align their efforts with the team’s evolving goals.

Equally important is the concept of task interdependence, which refers to how much team members rely on one another to complete their work. Research shows that self-managing teams perform best when tasks are highly interdependent—meaning members must share information, coordinate actions, and support each other to succeed (Langfred, 2005; Liden, Wayne, & Bradway, 1997). There are three main types of task interdependence:

  • Pooled interdependence: Members work independently and combine their outputs. For example, students each write separate sections of a paper and compile them at the end.
  • Sequential interdependence: One member’s output becomes another’s input. A student writes the introduction, another builds on it with findings, and a third writes the conclusion.
  • Reciprocal interdependence: Members collaborate throughout each phase, continuously sharing ideas and refining the work together.

In addition, outcome interdependence refers to how rewards or evaluations are shared. When students know their grade or recognition depends on the team’s overall performance, they’re more likely to stay engaged and support one another.

Understanding team purpose and interdependence helps students navigate group work more effectively—whether in a classroom, workplace, or community setting. It also lays the foundation for stronger communication, accountability, and shared success.

Types of Teams in Organizations

Organizations rely on diverse team structures to address goals, solve problems, and foster innovation. For college students entering academic and professional environments, recognizing how team structures function is essential. One-third of all teams in the U.S. are temporary, often assembled as task forces to address a specific issue until resolution (Gordon, 1992). Other teams, such as product development teams, may span short-term or long-term timelines depending on the nature of their assignments. In matrix organizations, individuals from various departments collaborate in cross-functional teams, allowing a range of expertise to shape project outcomes. This setup reflects many college group projects, where students contribute different strengths such as design, writing, or data analysis.

The rise of virtual teams has transformed collaboration. These teams operate across physical boundaries, connecting members from different cities, states, or even countries. Companies often form virtual teams to access specialized talent or streamline operations globally (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). For instance, BakBone Software employed a 13-member technical support team spanning offices in California, Maryland, England, and Tokyo, enabling broader hiring and stronger candidate selection due to geographic diversity (Alexander, 2000). However, managing virtual teams presents unique challenges, such as the difficulty in overseeing work directly. Organizations must rely on evaluation systems focused on deliverables rather than visibility, ensuring that team members produce measurable results. Building trust among team members becomes critical and often involves bringing teams together in person at least once (Kirkman et al., 2002). Communication tools like video conferencing, shared documents, and wikis facilitate interaction, yet disengagement and conflict avoidance can undermine team effectiveness (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001).

In modern organizations, empowered teams and self-managed teams are increasingly favored for their ability to take ownership of goals and processes. These teams demonstrate higher performance when autonomy and accountability are clearly established (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). Similarly, in student-led initiatives, decision-making and distributed leadership often mirror empowered team dynamics—especially in clubs or project-based learning environments.

At the highest level of decision-making, top management teams (TMTs) help guide an organization’s strategy and culture. Selected by the chief executive officer (CEO), these teams often include roles like chief operating officer (COO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief marketing officer (CMO), and chief technology officer (CTO). Their decisions—ranging from new market expansion to acquisitions—shape the company’s priorities and behavior throughout all levels (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004). Importantly, diverse TMTs are more effective, both functionally and demographically. Leadership expert Jim Collins emphasized that exceptional organizations prioritize team composition before strategy, “getting the right people on the bus” and positioning them properly before choosing a direction (Collins, 2001). Just as student organizations benefit from deliberate role assignment and succession planning, companies also invest in identifying future leaders to sustain high performance over time.

Understanding the structures and dynamics of different teams prepares students for collaboration in real-world settings, equipping them to contribute meaningfully across disciplines and adapt to evolving professional environments.

Designing Teams for Success

Creating effective teams requires more than assembling talented individuals—it demands thoughtful design rooted in communication, coordination, and shared purpose. Organizational communication research highlights four key dimensions that shape team success: composition, size, diversity, and leadership autonomy.

Team composition refers to the mix of skills, personalities, and experiences that members bring to the table. A well-composed team balances technical expertise with interpersonal strengths, ensuring that members complement rather than duplicate one another (Allen & O’Neill, 2015). Research shows that personality traits—especially conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness—predict both individual and team performance (Prewett et al., 2018; Costa & McCrae, 1992). For college students, this means selecting teammates who not only know the material but also communicate clearly, follow through on commitments, and adapt to challenges.

Team size plays a critical role in coordination and productivity. While larger teams offer broader expertise, they also increase communication overhead and risk social loafing (Mao et al., 2016). Studies suggest that smaller teams—typically between 4 and 7 members—perform better on complex tasks requiring high interdependence and active participation (Bumbuc, 2024; Mathieu et al., 2019). For student projects, keeping teams lean can improve engagement, accountability, and decision-making speed.

Team diversity—including cognitive, demographic, and functional differences—can enhance creativity, problem-solving, and innovation. Diverse teams bring varied perspectives that challenge assumptions and expand idea generation (Edmans, 2025; Gibbs et al., 2019). However, diversity also introduces challenges: reduced cohesion, communication barriers, and potential conflict (Budovitch, 2016; Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001). To harness diversity’s benefits, teams must establish inclusive norms, psychological safety, and shared goals (van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

Team leadership autonomy refers to how leadership is distributed within the team. Traditional manager-led teams rely on a single leader for direction, while self-managed and shared leadership models empower members to take initiative and share responsibilities (Carson et al., 2007; Klasmeier et al., 2025). Research shows that shared leadership improves team resilience, satisfaction, and performance—especially when supported by trust and clear communication (Edelmann et al., 2020; Badura & Crews, 2025). For students, rotating leadership roles or co-leading tasks can foster ownership and skill development.

Together, these design elements form a blueprint for building teams that are not only productive but also adaptive, inclusive, and rewarding. Whether in the classroom or workplace, intentional team design sets the stage for collaboration that lasts.

Team Roles and Responsibilities

Effective teamwork hinges on clearly defined roles that support both task completion and interpersonal dynamics. Organizational communication research identifies three essential categories of team roles: task roles, social roles, and boundary-spanning roles—each contributing uniquely to team success.

Task roles are goal-oriented functions that drive the team’s productivity and problem-solving. These roles include initiators, information seekers, coordinators, and evaluators—members who propose ideas, gather relevant data, organize efforts, and assess outcomes (Benne & Sheats, 2007; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). For example, the initiator-contributor sparks new ideas, while the information seeker ensures decisions are grounded in accurate evidence. These roles are especially vital in academic group projects or workplace teams tackling complex tasks, where clarity, logic, and structure are paramount.

Social roles focus on relationship-building and maintaining group cohesion. These include encouragers, harmonizers, gatekeepers, and compromisers—members who foster trust, manage conflict, and ensure inclusive participation (Williams, 2012; Lasker et al., 2001). The encourager boosts morale and validates contributions, while the harmonizer helps resolve interpersonal tensions. Research shows that teams with strong social role engagement experience higher levels of psychological safety, collaboration, and long-term effectiveness (Gruman et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020). For students, embracing social roles can transform group work from a chore into a meaningful learning experience.

Boundary-spanning roles connect the team to external environments, facilitating communication, resource acquisition, and strategic alignment. These roles are often filled by individuals who liaise with stakeholders, represent the team’s interests, or bring in outside expertise (Tushman, 1977; Aldrich & Herker, 1977). In organizational settings, boundary spanners might be project managers or client-facing team members who translate external needs into actionable goals. In student teams, this could be someone who communicates with instructors, secures resources, or integrates feedback from outside collaborators. Boundary-spanning enhances innovation and adaptability by ensuring the team remains responsive to external demands (Williams, 2012; Curnin et al., 2015).

Together, these roles form a dynamic ecosystem of responsibilities that balance task execution, interpersonal harmony, and external engagement. Understanding and intentionally adopting these roles empowers teams to function more effectively, adapt to challenges, and achieve shared goals.

Establishing Norms and Communication Practices

Group norms are the invisible architecture of team behavior—guidelines that shape how members interact, make decisions, and resolve disagreements. Organizational communication research distinguishes between explicit norms, which are formally stated or written, and implicit norms, which are understood through repeated behavior or cultural expectations (Müller-Frommeyer & Kauffeld, 2021; Dahlgren, 2021). Norms can also be general, applying to the whole group (e.g., meeting punctuality), or role-specific, tailored to individual responsibilities (e.g., a team leader facilitating discussion or a recorder documenting decisions) (Galanes & Adams, 2020; LibreTexts, 2020).

Norms play a critical role in shaping participation. When norms encourage equal speaking time, active listening, and respectful disagreement, members are more likely to contribute ideas and engage in dialogue (Engleberg & Wynn, 2013). Conversely, unclear or exclusionary norms can silence voices and reinforce power imbalances. For college students, establishing inclusive norms—such as rotating facilitators or using structured turn-taking—can foster more democratic and dynamic collaboration.

Norms also influence accountability by setting expectations for task completion, attendance, and follow-through. Explicit norms, like written agreements or shared calendars, make responsibilities visible and reduce ambiguity (Lamberton & Minor-Evans, 2002). Implicit norms, such as peer pressure or shared values, can motivate behavior but may also lead to uneven enforcement. Research shows that teams with clear accountability norms experience higher trust and performance (Dettling, 2023; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

When it comes to conflict resolution, norms act as a compass. Teams with collaborative conflict cultures—where open dialogue and mutual respect are expected—are more likely to resolve disagreements constructively (Gelfand et al., 2012). In contrast, avoidant or dominating norms can escalate tensions or suppress dissent. Establishing norms for how conflict is addressed—such as using “I” statements, pausing for reflection, or involving a neutral facilitator—can transform conflict into a source of growth and innovation (Ramirez Marin et al., 2019).

Ultimately, norms are not static—they evolve with the team. Regular reflection and renegotiation of norms help teams adapt to new challenges and maintain psychological safety. For students, learning to co-create and uphold norms is a foundational skill for effective teamwork in any setting.

 

Advanced Dynamics of Team Communication

Beyond structure and roles, high-performing teams thrive on deeper interpersonal dynamics—trust, shared belief, constructive conflict, and meaningful feedback. Organizational communication research highlights four advanced dimensions that elevate team effectiveness: psychological safety, collective efficacy, conflict types, and feedback and recognition.

Psychological safety is the shared belief that team members can take interpersonal risks—such as asking questions, admitting mistakes, or challenging ideas—without fear of embarrassment or retaliation (Edmondson, 1999; CIPD, 2024). It’s a cornerstone of innovation, learning, and conflict resolution. Teams with high psychological safety engage in more open dialogue, experiment freely, and recover quickly from setbacks (Marom, 2024; Patil et al., 2023). Trust plays a complementary role: while psychological safety focuses on how others will respond to your vulnerability, trust reflects your confidence in their character and competence (Wietrak & Gifford, 2024). Together, they create a climate where feedback is welcomed, conflict is navigated constructively, and creativity flourishes.

Collective efficacy refers to a team’s shared belief in its ability to achieve goals and perform effectively (Bandura, 1997; Elms et al., 2023). It’s not about individual confidence, but mutual confidence in the group’s capability. High collective efficacy boosts motivation, coordination, and resilience—especially under pressure (Li et al., 2020; Saleem et al., 2022). However, overconfidence can backfire, leading to complacency or poor decision-making (Rapp et al., 2014). Communication practices such as goal alignment, feedback loops, and inclusive dialogue help calibrate collective efficacy and sustain performance.

Conflict types matter more than conflict itself. Research distinguishes between task conflict—disagreements about ideas, strategies, or decisions—and relational conflict, which stems from personality clashes or emotional tension (Jehn, 1997; Jehn et al., 2008). Task conflict, when managed well, can enhance creativity and decision quality by surfacing diverse perspectives (De Dreu, 2006; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Relational conflict, however, tends to erode trust, reduce cohesion, and hinder performance. Norms that encourage respectful debate and discourage personal attacks help teams harness the benefits of task conflict while minimizing relational friction (Gaba & Joseph, 2023).

Feedback and recognition are vital communication practices that reinforce team effectiveness. Constructive feedback promotes learning, accountability, and continuous improvement (Cardenas, 2024; Pacheco, 2025). Recognition—whether formal or informal—boosts morale, engagement, and psychological safety (McKinsey, 2025; Carter, 2024). Teams thrive when feedback is timely, specific, and framed as a shared growth opportunity. Inclusive recognition practices that celebrate diverse contributions foster belonging and motivation. Together, feedback and recognition create a culture of appreciation and adaptability.

These advanced dynamics are not just “nice to have”—they’re essential for navigating complexity, building resilience, and unlocking the full potential of teams. For students and professionals alike, mastering these communication practices is key to leading and collaborating effectively in today’s fast-paced, diverse environments.

Insider Edge

Navigating Poor Delegation and Favoritism in Team Projects

Objective: To empower employees with strategies to assert their value, advocate for equitable treatment, and maintain motivation when working under managers who either fail to delegate effectively or show favoritism in task assignments.

The Problem: Delegation Dysfunction and Favoritism

Managers who struggle to delegate or favor certain team members can unintentionally:

  • Undermine team trust and morale
  • Create bottlenecks in decision-making
  • Reduce opportunities for growth and visibility
  • Foster resentment and disengagement among overlooked employees

“Delegation is empowering only when it is distributed equitably and aligned with employee capabilities and goals.” — Yukl & Fu (1999)

Strategy Toolkit for Employees

1.  Initiate a Constructive Dialogue

  • Use assertive but respectful language: “I’d love to take on more responsibility in areas where I can contribute meaningfully.”
  • Frame your request around team success and personal development.

2.  Document Your Contributions

  • Keep a record of tasks completed, ideas proposed, and outcomes achieved.
  • Use this data to advocate for fairer task distribution or recognition.

3.  Seek Clarity on Role Expectations

  • Ask for written or verbal clarification on your role in the project.
  • Suggest regular check-ins to align on goals and responsibilities.

4.  Build Peer Alliances

  • Collaborate with colleagues to share knowledge and support each other.
  • Use informal networks to stay informed and involved in key decisions.

5.  Leverage Organizational Channels

  • Use HR, mentorship programs, or employee resource groups to raise concerns.
  • Frame feedback around improving team equity and performance—not personal grievance.

6.  Reframe and Refocus

  • Focus on what you can control: your effort, attitude, and visibility.
  • Use overlooked opportunities to build new skills or innovate independently.

Empowerment Tip

“Favoritism in delegation undermines psychological safety and team cohesion. Employees must be equipped to advocate for equitable inclusion.” — Lee, Willis, & Tian (2018)

References
Yukl, G., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<219::AID-JOB922>3.0.CO;2-8

Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. (2018, March 2). When empowering employees works, and when it doesn’t. Harvard Business Review. Read the article

Robinson, C. (2025, March 21). The power of letting go: Why delegation drives organizational success. Forbes. Explore the insights

Orzach, R., & Quist, K. (2022). Empowerment in teams: When delegation prevents collaboration. MIT Department of Economics. Download the paper

Discussion Questions

  1. Think about the last team you were part of. How did the team’s communication norms (explicit or implicit) affect participation, accountability, or conflict resolution throughout the project? Give a specific example.
  2. Reflect on your usual role in teams. Do you tend to gravitate toward task, social, or boundary-spanning roles? How does this shape your experience in groups—and how comfortable would you be stepping into a different role?
  3. Have you experienced working in a virtual or hybrid team? What challenges did you face in building trust and psychological safety, and what communication strategies helped the team stay connected and effective?
  4. Based on your past experiences, what do you think is the ideal team size for high performance? Consider factors like task complexity, coordination needs, and diversity—what trade-offs should teams be aware of?
  5. Has your team ever dealt with conflict? If so, was it task-related (e.g., ideas and strategy) or relational (e.g., personalities and emotions)? How did the team handle the situation, and what could have improved the outcome?
  6. Describe a time when feedback or recognition made a difference in your team experience. Was it positive, constructive, or absent altogether? How did it affect motivation, learning, or team morale?

Section 9.4: Facilitating Team Coordination and Meetings

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

  1. Analyze the factors that contribute to the long-term viability of collaborative teams, including capacity alignment, shared purpose, and psychological safety.
  2. Evaluate strategies for navigating capacity tensions in team settings, such as internal accommodation and external orientation, using current organizational research.
  3. Design systems that foster sustained engagement, including onboarding protocols, norm maintenance, and recognition rituals that reinforce team cohesion.
  4. Assess the role of technology in collaboration sustainability, identifying both supportive and obstructive effects in hybrid and remote team environments.
  5. Apply principles of inclusive team culture to develop resilience, adaptability, and continuity in evolving collaborative projects.

Effective team coordination doesn’t happen by accident—it’s built through intentional communication, shared expectations, and structured interaction. In today’s fast-paced and increasingly virtual environments, teams must navigate complex tasks, diverse perspectives, and shifting priorities. Organizational communication research shows that the way teams establish norms, prepare for meetings, and follow through on decisions directly influences their performance, satisfaction, and long-term cohesion (Morgan et al., 2021; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

Team norms—whether explicit (written contracts) or implicit (unspoken expectations)—create psychological safety and accountability, shaping how members participate and resolve conflict (Gelfand et al., 2012; Müller-Frommeyer & Kauffeld, 2021). Meetings, meanwhile, serve as critical coordination points. Studies reveal that functional meeting behaviors—such as collaborative problem-solving and action planning—are strongly linked to team productivity and organizational success, while dysfunctional behaviors like complaining or dominating discussion can undermine outcomes (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

This section explores how teams can design and manage their coordination practices across four key phases: setting norms, preparing for engagement, facilitating meetings, and following through. Whether you’re leading a student organization, contributing to a workplace team, or collaborating on a class project, these strategies will help you build trust, streamline communication, and get results.

Establishing Norms for Effective Collaboration

Team norms are the behavioral agreements—spoken or unspoken—that shape how members interact, make decisions, and resolve conflict. These norms can be explicit, such as written team contracts or documented expectations, or implicit, emerging organically through repeated behaviors and shared assumptions (Müller-Frommeyer & Kauffeld, 2021). Whether formal or informal, norms serve as the foundation for psychological safety, accountability, and shared understanding—three pillars of effective collaboration.

Psychological safety, defined as the belief that one can speak up, ask questions, or admit mistakes without fear of embarrassment or punishment, is consistently linked to team learning, innovation, and engagement (Edmondson, 1999; Gelfand et al., 2012). When norms explicitly encourage respectful listening, inclusive participation, and openness to feedback, team members are more likely to contribute ideas and challenge assumptions. For example, meeting expectations that include rotating facilitators, structured turn-taking, and feedback protocols help democratize communication and reduce dominance by a few voices (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

Team contracts—written agreements outlining roles, responsibilities, and behavioral expectations—further reinforce accountability. These documents clarify what each member is expected to contribute, how decisions will be made, and how conflict will be addressed. Research shows that teams with clearly defined contracts and norms experience fewer misunderstandings and higher levels of trust and performance (Morgan et al., 2021; University of Minnesota, 2024). Contracts also serve as reference points when norms are violated, allowing teams to address issues constructively rather than relying on informal correction or avoidance.

Meeting expectations are another critical component of norm-setting. Before meetings, teams should align on goals, prepare agendas, and clarify roles (e.g., facilitator, note-taker, timekeeper). During meetings, norms around active listening, respectful disagreement, and staying on topic help maintain focus and psychological safety. After meetings, follow-up actions, documentation, and feedback loops reinforce shared understanding and ensure accountability (Center for Creative Leadership, 2024).

Ultimately, norms are not static—they must be revisited and renegotiated as teams evolve. Regular check-ins, norm audits, and open conversations about what’s working (and what’s not) help teams stay aligned and responsive. For college students navigating group projects, internships, or leadership roles, learning to co-create and uphold norms is a vital skill for building inclusive, high-performing teams.

Preparing for Team Engagement

Before collaboration begins, teams must intentionally prepare for engagement by aligning expectations, building trust, and cultivating inclusive communication practices. This preparation phase is critical for establishing the psychological and structural conditions that support effective teamwork.

One foundational element is engagement readiness—the degree to which individuals and institutions are equipped to collaborate inclusively. Research from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) emphasizes that successful teams assess readiness across multiple dimensions, including stakeholder access to resources, technological infrastructure, and individual commitment to inclusive collaboration (PCORI, 2024). Teams that invest time in orientation, onboarding, and relationship-building activities are more likely to overcome misperceptions and foster mutual respect.

Active listening and empathetic communication are essential during this phase. Studies show that two-way communication—where team members feel heard, valued, and understood—significantly boosts engagement, job satisfaction, and commitment (Gemeda & Lee, 2020). Leaders and facilitators should model these behaviors by encouraging open dialogue, validating diverse perspectives, and creating space for feedback. This helps establish psychological safety and sets the tone for inclusive participation.

Another key strategy is clarifying roles and expectations. Teams should co-create engagement plans that outline responsibilities, communication protocols, and decision-making processes. These plans serve as living documents that guide behavior and reduce ambiguity. According to Forbes research, organizations that foster autonomy and clearly define pathways for growth report higher levels of innovation and performance (Mendoza, 2024). When team members understand how their contributions fit into the broader mission, they are more likely to take ownership and collaborate effectively.

Technology also plays a pivotal role in preparing for engagement. Digital tools like shared documents, video conferencing, and project management platforms enable seamless collaboration, especially in hybrid or remote settings. However, teams must be intentional about how these tools are used. Over-reliance on asynchronous communication can lead to misunderstandings and disengagement. Instead, teams should balance digital efficiency with opportunities for real-time connection and relationship-building (Jhodia, 2020).

Finally, preparing for engagement means embracing diversity and inclusion as core values. Multidisciplinary teams thrive when members feel respected and empowered to contribute their unique perspectives. Leaders should facilitate team-building exercises, establish inclusive norms, and ensure that all voices are heard. This not only enhances collaboration but also drives creativity and problem-solving.

For college students, learning to prepare for team engagement is a vital skill—whether in group projects, internships, or leadership roles. By investing in readiness, communication, and inclusion, teams lay the groundwork for meaningful collaboration and lasting impact.

Building Inclusive Communication Practices

Inclusive communication is the cornerstone of effective collaboration in diverse teams. It ensures that all members—regardless of background, identity, or ability—feel heard, respected, and empowered to contribute. In today’s increasingly global and multidisciplinary work environments, inclusive communication is not just a value—it’s a strategic imperative.

At its core, inclusive communication involves active listening, empathy, and accessibility. Research shows that when team members feel their voices are valued, they are more likely to engage authentically, share ideas, and collaborate productively (Ylmaz, 2024). This is especially important for underrepresented groups, who may face barriers in traditional communication environments. Inclusive practices help level the playing field by validating diverse perspectives and reducing marginalization (Wolfgruber et al., 2022).

One key strategy is using plain language and avoiding jargon. This makes communication more accessible to individuals with varying literacy levels, language proficiencies, or cognitive styles (Changing Paces, 2024). Teams should also provide multiple communication channels—such as written, verbal, and visual formats—to accommodate different preferences and needs. For example, offering meeting notes in both text and audio formats ensures broader accessibility.

Visual representation matters too. Inclusive teams use visuals that reflect diverse identities and avoid stereotypes. This helps create a welcoming environment and signals that all members belong. Additionally, teams should be mindful of nonverbal cues, such as body language and tone, which can either reinforce or undermine inclusion (Ylmaz, 2024).

Feedback is another pillar of inclusive communication. Teams should establish feedback loops that encourage open dialogue and continuous improvement. This includes anonymous surveys, one-on-one check-ins, and structured reflection sessions. When feedback is welcomed and acted upon, it builds trust and psychological safety.

Leaders play a pivotal role in modeling inclusive communication. By setting the tone, addressing barriers, and advocating for inclusive practices, they create a culture where everyone feels safe to speak up. Formal interpersonal communication—such as structured meetings and documented protocols—has been shown to have a greater impact on perceived inclusion than informal interactions alone (Wolfgruber et al., 2022).

For college students, mastering inclusive communication means learning to adapt, listen deeply, and communicate with intention. Whether in group projects, student organizations, or internships, these skills foster stronger relationships and more innovative outcomes.

Navigating Conflict and Repairing Trust

Conflict is an inevitable part of teamwork—but when managed constructively, it can strengthen relationships, clarify misunderstandings, and spark innovation. The key lies in how teams respond to conflict and whether they have the tools to repair trust when it’s strained or broken.

Constructive conflict management begins with recognizing that not all conflict is harmful. Task-related disagreements, when handled respectfully, can lead to better decisions and deeper understanding (Elgoibar et al., 2021). Teams should normalize conflict as a natural part of collaboration and establish norms that encourage open dialogue, active listening, and emotional regulation. Facilitators can use techniques like structured turn-taking, emotion check-ins, and reframing to guide tense conversations toward resolution (Olekalns & Caza, 2024).

When trust is violated—whether through broken commitments, miscommunication, or perceived disrespect—repairing it requires intentional effort. Research identifies several mechanisms for trust repair: effective information sharing, ethical behavior, and collaborative problem-solving (Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2017; Elgoibar et al., 2021). Leaders play a critical role by acknowledging harm, offering sincere apologies, and modeling transparency. Teams should also revisit their contracts and norms to clarify expectations and prevent future breakdowns.

A powerful strategy for trust repair is reframing the conflict as a shared challenge. This involves shifting from blame to collective problem-solving, using language like “we” and “us” to reinforce unity (Olekalns & Caza, 2024). Teams that cultivate a shared vision and emotional resilience are better equipped to bounce back from conflict and deepen their relationships.

Importantly, trust repair is not a one-time fix—it’s a process. Teams should build an “emotional bank account” of positive experiences, which can buffer against future disruptions. Regular reflection, feedback loops, and appreciation rituals help reinforce trust and foster psychological safety.

For college students, learning to navigate conflict and repair trust is essential for leadership, collaboration, and personal growth. These skills empower teams to turn challenges into opportunities and build lasting, resilient relationships.

Facilitating Constructive Meetings: Real-Time Strategies for Inclusion and Collaboration

Constructive meetings are more than just well-run—they’re spaces where ideas flourish, norms are reinforced, and every voice is valued. Facilitators play a pivotal role in shaping these environments by guiding communication, balancing participation, and proactively addressing tension before it escalates.

In-meeting communication strategies begin with clarity and neutrality. Facilitators should open meetings by reviewing goals, setting expectations, and inviting participants to co-create ground rules (Harvard Office of Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging, 2024). This establishes psychological safety and signals that all contributions are welcome. Throughout the meeting, facilitators can use techniques like round-robin sharing, progressive stacking, and structured turn-taking to ensure balanced participation and prevent dominance by a few voices (Diversio, 2023).

Inclusive participation requires intentional design. Providing agendas and materials in advance allows attendees to prepare, especially those who process information differently or speak English as a second language (Voltage Control, 2024). During meetings, facilitators should offer multiple ways to contribute—spoken, written, visual, or anonymous—to accommodate diverse communication styles. For example, using anonymous polling tools or shared documents can surface ideas from quieter members and reduce social pressure.

Norm reinforcement happens in real time. Facilitators should model respectful listening, redirect interruptions, and gently remind participants of agreed-upon behaviors. When norms are violated, facilitators can pause the conversation, name the issue, and invite reflection. This helps maintain psychological safety and accountability without escalating conflict (Seeds for Change, 2024).

Conflict prevention is woven into the meeting structure. Facilitators should monitor emotional tone, surface tensions early, and use reframing to shift from blame to curiosity. Techniques like emotion check-ins, breakout groups, and silent reflection moments allow space for processing and reduce reactive responses. When disagreements arise, facilitators can guide the group toward shared understanding by summarizing perspectives and identifying common ground (Voltage Control, 2024).

Ultimately, constructive meetings are co-created. Facilitators are not directors—they’re stewards of process, inclusion, and trust. For college students, learning to facilitate with empathy, structure, and adaptability is a powerful skill that transforms group projects into collaborative experiences.

Sustaining Collaboration Over Time

Sustaining collaboration is not a passive process—it requires ongoing attention to relationships, resources, and relevance. As teams evolve, they must adapt to shifting goals, membership, and external conditions while preserving trust, engagement, and shared purpose. Long-term collaboration thrives when teams build systems that support continuity, resilience, and mutual benefit.

One key challenge is managing capacity tensions, which occur when the demands of collaboration exceed the time, energy, or resources available to team members. Research shows that successful teams navigate these tensions through strategies like internal accommodation (redistributing tasks, adjusting expectations) and external orientation (seeking new partners, creating spin-off projects) to stay viable over time (Seo, 2025). These strategies allow teams to “hang in there” even when facing constraints.

Shared purpose and mutual benefit are essential for sustaining engagement. Collaborations endure when members feel ownership over both the process and outcomes. This includes aligning goals, clarifying roles, and maintaining open communication. Teams should regularly revisit their mission and adapt it to changing circumstances, ensuring that collaboration remains relevant and motivating (Social Entrepreneurs Inc., 2019).

Trust and psychological safety must be nurtured continuously. As new members join or roles shift, teams should invest in onboarding, relationship-building, and norm reinforcement. Celebrating small wins, acknowledging contributions, and creating space for reflection help maintain morale and cohesion (McClellan, 2023).

Technology can support sustainability, but only when used intentionally. Digital tools should enhance—not replace—human connection. Teams should balance asynchronous efficiency with real-time engagement, and ensure that platforms are accessible, inclusive, and aligned with team values (Holubčík et al., 2025).

Finally, sustainable collaboration is rooted in culture. Teams that embrace feedback, value diversity, and remain open to change are better equipped to weather challenges. Leaders should model adaptability, facilitate learning, and foster a sense of belonging that transcends individual projects.

For college students, sustaining collaboration means learning to lead with empathy, communicate across differences, and build systems that support long-term teamwork. These skills prepare students not just for successful group projects—but for meaningful careers in inclusive, resilient organizations.

Bringing It All Together: Strategies for Inclusive, High-Performing Collaboration

Effective collaboration doesn’t just happen—it’s intentionally built, sustained, and evolved over time. Each phase of teamwork, from setting norms to navigating challenges, shapes the quality of group interactions and outcomes. By cultivating inclusive communication, psychological safety, shared accountability, and resilient systems, teams unlock their collective potential.

It starts with establishing norms that create a foundation of trust and clarity. Whether documented in team contracts or reinforced through meeting expectations, these agreements foster psychological safety, reduce misunderstandings, and align behavior with shared values (Edmondson, 1999; Morgan et al., 2021).

Preparing for engagement means activating empathy, listening, and inclusion. Teams that clarify roles, build readiness, and invest in relationship-building create environments where diverse perspectives are welcomed and respected (Gemeda & Lee, 2020; PCORI, 2024).

Through inclusive communication practices, teams ensure that all voices are heard—across backgrounds, styles, and access needs. Using plain language, multiple formats, and intentional feedback loops, inclusive teams build trust and belonging while driving innovation (Wolfgruber et al., 2022).

During meetings, skilled facilitation supports real-time collaboration and conflict prevention. Facilitators balance participation, reinforce norms, and guide teams through tense moments with neutrality, empathy, and structure (Harvard Office of Diversity, 2024; Voltage Control, 2024).

Even in the face of conflict, teams can grow stronger by leaning into trust repair. Constructive communication, shared problem-solving, and intentional reflection turn challenges into opportunities for learning and resilience (Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2017; Elgoibar et al., 2021).

Lastly, sustaining collaboration over time requires adaptability, shared purpose, and cultural strength. Teams must balance capacity, revisit goals, and nurture relationships to thrive across shifting contexts (Seo, 2025; McClellan, 2023).

Together, these strategies offer a roadmap for college students navigating group projects, internships, and leadership roles. By embracing inclusion, structure, and care, students become not just collaborators—but change agents equipped to lead the diverse teams of tomorrow.

Insider Edge

Managerial Norm Violations

When managers disregard team-established norms (e.g., transparency, equitable participation, feedback protocols), it can:

  • Undermine psychological safety
  • Erode trust and morale
  • Create confusion and disengagement
  • Signal that norms are conditional or irrelevant

“Violations of cooperative norms by leaders can destabilize group cohesion and reduce willingness to collaborate.” — Eriksson et al. (2021)

Strategy Toolkit for Employees

1.  Use Respectful Confrontation

  • Frame your concern around shared values: “I wanted to revisit the norms we agreed on as a team—some recent decisions seem to diverge from those, and I’m wondering how we’re aligning moving forward.”
  • Avoid accusatory language; focus on impact and clarity.

2.  Reference the Original Agreement

  • Bring documentation or meeting notes that reflect the agreed-upon norms.
  • Use neutral language: “Here’s what we outlined together—can we clarify if something has changed?”

3.  Suggest a Norm Review Session

  • Propose a team check-in to revisit norms and expectations.
  • Frame it as a proactive alignment tool, not a critique.

4.  Build Peer Support

  • Discuss concerns informally with trusted colleagues to gauge shared perceptions.
  • If appropriate, raise the issue collectively to reduce personal risk.

5.  Use Organizational Channels

  • If the violation persists or escalates, consider speaking with HR, a mentor, or a skip-level leader.
  • Document instances factually and professionally.

Empowerment Tip

“Employees are more likely to speak up when they perceive fairness and psychological safety—even in hierarchical relationships.” — Detert & Burris (2021)

References
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2021, October). Research: What makes employees feel empowered to speak up? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/10/research-what-makes-employees-feel-empowered-to-speak-up

Eriksson, K., Strimling, P., Gelfand, M., Wu, J., Abernathy, J., Akotia, C. S., … Van Lange, P. A. M. (2021). Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 1481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9

Kemper, N. S., & Newheiser, A.-K. (2018). To confront or to avoid: How do people respond to violations of moral norms? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), 734–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722831

Robinson, B. (2024, March 22). Employees say ‘unwritten workplace rules’ cause miscommunication and disconnection. Forbes. Read the article at https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2024/03/22/employees-say-unwritten-workplace-rules-cause-miscommunication-and-disconnection-analysis-finds/

Discussion Questions

  1. What are some signs that a team’s collaboration may be losing momentum, and how might teams proactively address them before relationships break down?
  2. How can teams strike a balance between flexibility and structure when adapting roles or redistributing tasks over time?
  3. In what ways do celebrations, recognition, and shared rituals contribute to long-term team resilience?
  4. How can technology both help and hinder sustained collaboration, especially in hybrid or remote teams?
  5. What does a sustainable team culture look like, and what can student teams do to build one that endures beyond a single project or semester?

Section 9.5: Communication Breakdowns and Barriers to Team Effectiveness

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

  1. Identify and analyze common communication barriers that impact team effectiveness, including ambiguity, imbalanced participation, trust erosion, and engagement gaps.
  2. Evaluate the systemic factors—such as cultural norms, technological fragmentation, and organizational structures—that contribute to communication breakdowns in collaborative environments.
  3. Apply inclusive communication strategies to promote equity, clarity, and psychological safety within diverse teams.
  4. Critically examine the role of leadership in addressing communication challenges and fostering resilient, high-performing team cultures.
  5. Distinguish between individual and systemic sources of communication friction, and propose interventions that target root causes rather than surface-level symptoms.
  6. Design adaptive communication systems that integrate inclusive design principles, support neurodiverse and multicultural teams, and mitigate the effects of information overload.

Even the most promising teams can falter when communication breaks down. Whether it’s unclear goals, uneven participation, or unresolved conflict, barriers to effective teamwork often stem from deeper issues in how information is shared, interpreted, and acted upon. Organizational communication research reveals that these breakdowns are rarely isolated—they’re systemic, shaped by power dynamics, cultural differences, technological misalignment, and the absence of feedback mechanisms (Mukhopadhyay, 2023; Musheke & Phiri, 2021).

This section explores the most common and consequential barriers to team effectiveness, reframed through a communication lens. From ambiguity in purpose and process to imbalanced participation, engagement gaps, and trust erosion, each challenge is examined not as a flaw in individuals, but as a signal of misaligned systems and norms. We also introduce additional barriers often overlooked in traditional team models, including information overload, cultural and linguistic friction, and technological fragmentation—all of which can silently undermine collaboration.

By understanding these barriers and their root causes, students and professionals can better anticipate challenges, design inclusive communication systems, and foster resilient, high-performing teams. This isn’t just about fixing what’s broken—it’s about building teams that communicate with clarity, equity, and purpose.

7 Common Problems Faced by Teams

1. Ambiguity in Purpose and Process

Ambiguity in a team’s purpose and process can undermine performance in subtle yet powerful ways. When team members lack a shared understanding of why they’re working together or how they’re supposed to collaborate, confusion spreads, often unnoticed until it’s too late. Vague goals—like “increase innovation” or “do better this quarter”—may sound inspiring but leave room for conflicting interpretations (Mukhopadhyay, 2023). Without clearly defined roles, team members might duplicate tasks or miss important responsibilities entirely. And when decision-making or feedback mechanisms are poorly articulated, people are left guessing, breeding inconsistency and frustration (Musheke & Phiri, 2021).

This ambiguity often arises from rapid environmental changes, where goals shift faster than communication can keep up (Hoffjann, 2022). Leaders may intentionally leave messages vague to maintain flexibility or avoid uncomfortable conversations—a practice known as strategic ambiguity. Cultural and linguistic differences also play a role; a directive that’s clear in one context may be perplexing in another (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Overreliance on written communication—especially emails or shared documents—can compound these issues by stripping away tone and nuance, leading to misinterpretation and second-guessing (Adler & Elmhorst, 2016).

The consequences are significant. Without clarity, efforts become misaligned, morale declines, and avoidable conflicts bubble up. Time is lost clarifying instructions rather than executing tasks, and motivation wanes when people don’t understand the value or direction of their work. Instead of cohesive collaboration, the team risks devolving into isolated pockets of activity with little synergy (Leonardi, 2020).

To combat this, teams must invest in clarity from the outset. SMART goals and role matrices can define expectations (Guffey & Loewy, 2018). Creating shared language—where terms and priorities are agreed upon collectively—reduces misunderstandings. Encouraging feedback loops helps ensure instructions are understood as intended, and visual aids like flowcharts and dashboards transform abstract processes into digestible formats. In a world driven by speed and complexity, clarity isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity.

2. Imbalanced Participation

Imbalanced participation occurs when certain team members dominate discussions, decision-making, or task execution, while others remain passive or excluded. This dynamic can stem from differences in personality, status, expertise, or cultural norms, and it often leads to skewed outcomes and diminished team cohesion (Adler & Elmhorst, 2016). When only a few voices are consistently heard, the team loses access to diverse perspectives and risks reinforcing existing power structures (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Such imbalance may be unintentional. For instance, extroverted individuals or those with formal authority may naturally speak more, while introverted or junior members hesitate to contribute (Guffey & Loewy, 2018). Cultural communication styles also play a role—some cultures value assertiveness, while others prioritize deference and group harmony, which can affect who speaks up and when (Hofstede et al., 2010). Additionally, virtual collaboration tools can exacerbate participation gaps by favoring those who are more tech-savvy or comfortable with asynchronous communication (Leonardi, 2020).

The consequences of imbalanced participation are far-reaching. Teams may experience reduced creativity, lower morale, and increased conflict due to perceived inequities in influence and workload (Mukhopadhyay, 2023). Silent members may disengage, while dominant voices may unintentionally suppress dissent or alternative ideas. Over time, this can erode trust and psychological safety, making it harder for teams to adapt and innovate (Musheke & Phiri, 2021).

To address this barrier, teams should actively cultivate inclusive communication practices. Structured turn-taking, anonymous input tools, and rotating facilitation roles can help balance participation (Adler & Elmhorst, 2016). Leaders should model inclusive behavior by inviting quieter members to share and acknowledging all contributions. Training in intercultural communication and emotional intelligence can also equip teams to recognize and respond to participation gaps more effectively (Guffey & Loewy, 2018). Ultimately, equitable participation isn’t just a fairness issue—it’s a strategic imperative for high-performing teams.

3. Engagement Gaps

Engagement gaps emerge when team members are physically present but mentally or emotionally disengaged. These gaps can manifest as minimal participation, lack of initiative, or passive agreement without genuine investment in the team’s goals. Unlike imbalanced participation, which centers on unequal airtime, engagement gaps reflect a deeper disconnect from the team’s purpose and process (Adler & Elmhorst, 2016). They often result from unclear expectations, low psychological safety, or a mismatch between individual motivations and team objectives (Mukhopadhyay, 2023).

One major contributor to disengagement is the absence of meaningful feedback and recognition. When team members feel their contributions go unnoticed or undervalued, their motivation to participate diminishes (Guffey & Loewy, 2018). Additionally, excessive workloads or poorly designed meetings can lead to cognitive overload, causing individuals to mentally check out even if they’re physically present (Leonardi, 2020). Cultural norms also play a role—some individuals may be conditioned to avoid conflict or assertiveness, leading to silent disengagement rather than open dissent (Hofstede et al., 2010).

The consequences of engagement gaps are subtle but damaging. Teams may experience reduced creativity, slower decision-making, and a lack of accountability. Disengaged members rarely challenge assumptions or offer new ideas, which can lead to groupthink and stagnation (Musheke & Phiri, 2021). Over time, this erodes trust and collaboration, making it harder for teams to respond to challenges or innovate effectively.

To close engagement gaps, teams must foster environments that support psychological safety and intrinsic motivation. This includes setting clear expectations, offering regular feedback, and recognizing contributions in meaningful ways (Adler & Elmhorst, 2016). Leaders should also design meetings and workflows that encourage active participation—such as using breakout groups, polls, or rotating facilitation roles. By aligning individual purpose with team goals and creating space for authentic engagement, teams can transform passive presence into active contribution.

4. Trust Erosion

Trust erosion is a gradual breakdown in the confidence team members have in one another, often triggered by unmet expectations, repeated miscommunications, or perceived breaches of integrity. Unlike distrust, which is marked by active suspicion, trust erosion is more subtle—it unfolds over time, often unnoticed until collaboration begins to suffer (Elangovan, Auer-Rizzi, & Szabo, 2007). In team settings, trust is foundational to psychological safety, open dialogue, and shared accountability. When it begins to erode, members may withdraw, second-guess others’ intentions, or avoid taking risks, all of which undermine team effectiveness (Mukhopadhyay, 2023).

Several factors contribute to trust erosion. Repeated communication failures—such as missed deadlines, vague updates, or inconsistent messaging—can signal unreliability, even if unintentional (Leonardi, 2020). Attribution theory suggests that team members interpret these failures based on perceived intent: if they believe a colleague didn’t care enough to follow through, trust erodes more quickly than if they believe the failure was circumstantial (Elangovan et al., 2007). Cultural differences also influence how trust is built and maintained. In high-context cultures, trust may depend on relational cues and shared history, while in low-context cultures, it may hinge on transparency and task performance (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).

The consequences of trust erosion are profound. Teams may experience increased conflict, reduced cooperation, and a reluctance to share information. Innovation stalls when members fear judgment or retaliation, and decision-making slows as individuals seek to protect themselves rather than collaborate (Musheke & Phiri, 2021). Over time, even high-performing teams can fracture under the weight of eroded trust.

To rebuild trust, teams must prioritize consistency, transparency, and empathy. Leaders play a critical role by modeling accountability, acknowledging missteps, and creating space for honest dialogue (Guffey & Loewy, 2018). Restoring trust also requires time and intentional effort—quick fixes rarely work. By understanding the dynamics of trust erosion and addressing its root causes, teams can reestablish the psychological safety needed for effective collaboration.

5. Information Overload

Information overload occurs when the volume, complexity, or frequency of incoming data exceeds an individual’s ability to process it effectively. In team environments, this barrier can manifest as excessive emails, redundant meetings, or conflicting updates across multiple platforms. Rather than enhancing collaboration, too much information can lead to cognitive fatigue, decision paralysis, and disengagement (Fan et al., 2021). The paradox is clear: while information is essential for coordination, its unchecked accumulation can become a source of dysfunction.

This overload is often exacerbated by digital tools that prioritize speed over clarity. Notifications, chat threads, and shared documents can create a constant stream of stimuli, making it difficult for team members to distinguish signal from noise (Lehman & Miller, 2020). The psychological toll includes anxiety, reduced attention span, and impaired judgment—especially when individuals feel pressured to respond instantly or multitask across platforms (Grabovska & Musakovska, 2020). Moreover, disparities in digital literacy and access can deepen the divide, leaving some team members overwhelmed while others navigate the flow with ease.

The consequences of information overload are both individual and systemic. Teams may experience slower decision-making, increased errors, and diminished innovation. Members may withdraw from communication channels or rely on heuristics rather than thoughtful analysis, leading to oversights and missed opportunities (Fan et al., 2021). Over time, this can erode trust, reduce engagement, and fragment collaboration.

To mitigate information overload, teams should adopt intentional communication strategies. This includes curating content, setting boundaries around digital availability, and using centralized platforms to reduce redundancy (Lehman & Miller, 2020). Training in digital literacy and time management can empower individuals to filter and prioritize effectively. Ultimately, managing information flow is not just a technical challenge—it’s a cultural one, requiring shared norms and leadership support to foster clarity and focus.

6. Cultural and Linguistic Friction

Cultural and linguistic friction arises when differences in language, communication styles, and cultural norms disrupt team dynamics. These barriers are especially prevalent in diverse or global teams, where members may interpret messages through different cultural lenses or struggle with language proficiency. Misunderstandings can stem from idiomatic expressions, indirect communication, or differing expectations around hierarchy and feedback (Altarriba & Basnight-Brown, 2022). Even non-verbal cues—such as eye contact, gestures, or silence—can carry vastly different meanings across cultures, leading to unintended offense or confusion (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).

Language proficiency plays a critical role in shaping participation and psychological safety. Individuals with limited fluency in the dominant team language may hesitate to contribute, fearing misinterpretation or judgment (Bhatti & Alzahrani, 2023). This can result in disengagement, reduced influence, and feelings of exclusion. Moreover, cultural norms around assertiveness, conflict, and decision-making can clash, creating tension and slowing collaboration (Ting-Toomey, 2012). For example, while some cultures value directness and debate, others prioritize harmony and consensus, making it difficult to navigate disagreements constructively.

The consequences of cultural and linguistic friction include reduced trust, fragmented communication, and diminished team performance. Teams may fall into patterns of miscommunication, where assumptions go unchallenged and feedback is misread. Over time, this can erode cohesion and limit the team’s ability to innovate or respond to change (Altarriba & Basnight-Brown, 2022).

To address these barriers, teams must cultivate intercultural competence and inclusive communication practices. This includes providing language support, encouraging paraphrasing and clarification, and creating space for diverse communication styles. Leaders should model cultural humility and actively seek input from all members, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds. Training in intercultural communication and conflict resolution can also equip teams to navigate friction with empathy and effectiveness. When embraced thoughtfully, cultural and linguistic diversity becomes a source of strength rather than a stumbling block.

7. Technological Fragmentation

Technological fragmentation refers to the breakdown or incompatibility of digital tools, platforms, and systems that teams rely on to communicate and collaborate. As organizations adopt a growing array of apps, devices, and cloud services, the lack of integration between these technologies can create silos, disrupt workflows, and hinder information sharing (Leonardi, 2020). Fragmentation is not just a technical issue—it’s a communication barrier that affects how teams coordinate, make decisions, and build shared understanding.

This fragmentation often stems from decentralized decision-making, where different departments or individuals choose tools based on personal preference rather than organizational strategy (Fan et al., 2021). As a result, teams may juggle multiple messaging apps, project management platforms, and file-sharing systems, each with its own interface, notification settings, and data formats. These inconsistencies can lead to missed messages, duplicated efforts, and confusion over where to find critical information (Riles, Pilny, & Tewksbury, 2018). Moreover, disparities in digital literacy and access can exacerbate the problem, leaving some team members struggling to keep up while others navigate the tech landscape with ease.

The consequences of technological fragmentation are wide-ranging. Teams may experience reduced efficiency, increased cognitive load, and diminished trust in digital communication channels. Decision-making slows when information is scattered across platforms, and collaboration suffers when members are unsure which tool to use for which task (Evenett & Fritz, 2022). Over time, fragmentation can erode team cohesion and create barriers to innovation, especially in remote or hybrid work environments.

To address technological fragmentation, organizations must prioritize interoperability and user-centered design. This includes consolidating platforms, standardizing communication protocols, and offering training to ensure equitable access and understanding (Leonardi, 2020). Leaders should also involve end-users in technology decisions and regularly assess the impact of digital tools on team dynamics. By aligning technology with communication goals, teams can reduce friction and foster more seamless collaboration.

Systemic Solutions and Inclusive Communication Design

Addressing communication barriers in teams requires more than isolated fixes—it demands systemic solutions rooted in inclusive design. Rather than treating breakdowns as individual shortcomings, inclusive communication design reframes them as signals of misaligned structures, norms, and technologies (Nagda, 2006). This approach emphasizes proactive strategies that embed equity, clarity, and accessibility into the very fabric of team interactions.

Inclusive communication begins with recognizing the diversity of team members’ identities, experiences, and communication preferences. By applying principles from universal design and equity-centered leadership, teams can create environments where all voices are heard and valued (Lacourse, 2022). This includes using bias-free language, offering multiple modes of participation, and designing workflows that accommodate neurodiversity, language differences, and varying levels of digital literacy (American Psychological Association, 2023). Leaders play a critical role in modeling inclusive behaviors, facilitating dialogue across differences, and dismantling systemic barriers that limit access and engagement.

Technology also plays a pivotal role in inclusive design. Rather than defaulting to the latest tools, teams should assess whether platforms support equitable participation and reduce cognitive load. Centralized systems, clear protocols, and user-centered interfaces can help streamline communication and minimize fragmentation (Leonardi, 2020). Additionally, inclusive design requires ongoing reflection and adaptation. Teams must regularly evaluate their communication practices, solicit feedback, and remain open to change as needs evolve.

Ultimately, systemic solutions are not one-size-fits-all—they are iterative, context-sensitive, and grounded in empathy. By embedding inclusive communication design into team culture, organizations can move beyond reactive problem-solving and toward resilient, high-performing collaboration.

Reframing Communication Challenges as Design Opportunities

Communication barriers aren’t just inevitable—they’re instructive. They reveal the hidden architecture of team dynamics, exposing gaps in clarity, trust, participation, and inclusion. From ambiguity and disengagement to cultural friction and technological fragmentation, each challenge outlined in this section reflects not a failure of individuals, but a misalignment of systems and norms. When we shift our lens from blame to design, we begin to see these breakdowns not as flaws to fix, but as opportunities to reimagine how teams work together.

What emerges from this reframing is a call for systemic, inclusive approaches to collaboration. By addressing barriers holistically—with strategies grounded in research, empathy, and adaptability—teams can build communication ecosystems that foster equity, innovation, and resilience. Inclusive communication design empowers all members to contribute meaningfully, navigate differences constructively, and remain engaged across changing contexts and technologies.

Ultimately, effective teamwork isn’t defined by the absence of barriers, but by the capacity to recognize, respond to, and evolve beyond them. In classrooms, organizations, and communities, the path to high-performing collaboration begins with communication that is intentional, inclusive, and deeply human-centered.

Insider Edge

Rebuilding Trust After Team Breakdown

Objective: To help employees restore trust, re-engage with their team, and foster a healthier collaborative environment after experiencing trust erosion.

 The Problem: Erosion of Trust in Teams

Trust erosion can result from broken promises, favoritism, poor communication, or perceived betrayal. When trust breaks down, teams often experience:

  • Reduced collaboration and openness
  • Increased conflict or avoidance
  • Lower morale and psychological safety
  • Disengagement from shared goals

“Trust violations—whether competence-based or integrity-based—can destabilize team dynamics and hinder performance.” — Kähkönen (2021)

Strategy Toolkit for Employees

1.  Acknowledge the Breakdown

  • Reflect on what caused the erosion: Was it a misunderstanding, misalignment, or repeated behavior?
  • Avoid blame; focus on identifying the root issue.

2.  Initiate Repair Conversations

  • Use non-confrontational language: “I’d like to revisit what happened and explore how we can move forward.”
  • Focus on shared goals and mutual respect.

3.  Practice Transparent Communication

  • Share information openly and consistently.
  • Clarify intentions and expectations to reduce ambiguity.

4.  Model Ethical Behavior and Collaboration

  • Be consistent, reliable, and fair in your actions.
  • Support others publicly and privately to rebuild goodwill.

5.  Rebuild Psychological Safety

  • Encourage inclusive dialogue and validate others’ perspectives.
  • Reinforce that mistakes are part of growth—not grounds for exclusion.

6.  Use Third-Party Support if Needed

  • Involve HR, a mediator, or a trusted leader to facilitate trust-repair if direct efforts stall.
  • Document efforts and outcomes to maintain accountability.

Empowerment Tip

“Trust repair is not a one-time fix—it’s a process of ethical behavior, emotional intelligence, and collaborative renewal.” — Kähkönen (2021)

References
Kähkönen, T. (2021). Repairing trust within teams after organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(5), 957–968. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2020-0348

Liu, X., & Ren, X. (2022). Analysis of the mediating role of psychological empowerment between perceived leader trust and employee work performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), Article 6712. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116712

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. (2020). Improving employee performance by developing empowering leaders and companies. Behavioral Science & Policy, 6(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/237946152000600103

Discussion Questions

  1. How can ambiguity in goals and roles impact psychological safety within a team, and what strategies can help clarify purpose without stifling flexibility?
  2. In what ways do cultural and linguistic differences shape team dynamics, and how might inclusive communication design address these challenges across diverse work environments?
  3. Technological fragmentation and information overload are increasingly common—how can teams balance the need for connectivity with the importance of clarity and focus?
  4. Considering the systemic nature of communication barriers, what leadership practices can proactively foster trust, engagement, and equitable participation in collaborative settings?

Section 9.6: The Role of Ethics and National Culture

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Analyze how self-managing teams can create informal control systems that impact ethical behavior within organizations.
  2. Evaluate the ethical dynamics of team decision-making and peer monitoring in various organizational settings.
  3. Differentiate between high and low collectivist cultures and explain how these cultural values influence team relationships and responsibilities.
  4. Assess the impact of power distance on team communication, leadership expectations, and conflict resolution strategies.
  5. Interpret cross-cultural differences in team metaphors and how they reflect deeper societal norms and communication preferences.
  6. Apply key cultural dimensions (e.g., collectivism, power distance) to real-world team scenarios across national and organizational boundaries.
  7. Synthesize how ethical voice and inclusive communication design contribute to principled, high-performing teams.
  8. Design strategies for fostering intercultural competence and ethical mindfulness in global team environments.

Teams are often celebrated as antidotes to rigid hierarchies—especially self-managing teams, which promise autonomy, empowerment, and distributed decision-making. However, organizational communication research reveals a more complex reality. While decentralization can foster inclusion and innovation, it can also intensify peer surveillance and normative pressure. James Barker’s seminal study (1993) of a manufacturing firm that transitioned to self-managing teams found that workers felt more closely monitored by their peers than they had under traditional supervision. One employee noted, “Now the whole team is around me and the whole team is observing what I’m doing,” illustrating how informal control mechanisms can become more pervasive than formal ones.

This phenomenon aligns with recent research on team ethical cultures, which shows that ethical norms can vary significantly across teams within the same organization (Cabana & Kaptein, 2021). In some cases, strong team norms may promote accountability and integrity; in others, they may foster conformity or silence dissent. For example, a sales team operating under a “sales above all” mantra may rationalize unethical behavior—such as misrepresenting products to customers—as necessary for success (DiModica, 2008). Without systemic checks and inclusive communication design, team pressure can erode ethical standards and damage long-term trust.

Ethical behavior in teams is not just about individual choices—it’s shaped by shared values, leadership modeling, and communication climate. Research suggests that team ethical voice—the extent to which members feel safe speaking up about ethical concerns—is a key predictor of ethical performance (Huang et al., 2019). Leaders and facilitators must create psychologically safe environments where ethical dialogue is normalized, not penalized.

Teams Across Culture

Cultural values profoundly influence how teams communicate, collaborate, and define success. The GLOBE Project (Javidan et al., 2006) identified nine cultural dimensions that shape organizational behavior, including collectivism and power distance—two particularly relevant to team dynamics.

In collectivist cultures, such as Mexico and Taiwan, interpersonal relationships and group loyalty are prioritized over individual achievement. Teams in these contexts often emphasize harmony, long-term commitment, and shared responsibility. In contrast, individualistic cultures like the United States and Australia tend to value autonomy, assertiveness, and personal initiative. These differences affect everything from conflict resolution to leadership expectations.

For example, Harrison et al. (2000) found that Australian managers reported greater adaptability among employees when shifting between teams and leadership roles, compared to their Taiwanese counterparts. This suggests that cultural norms around flexibility and hierarchy influence how fluidly individuals navigate team structures.

Power distance—the extent to which unequal power distribution is accepted—also shapes team communication. In high power distance cultures (e.g., the Philippines, Puerto Rico), authority is respected and decision-making is centralized. Team metaphors in these contexts often reflect hierarchical values, such as “military” or “family.” In low power distance cultures (e.g., Australia, the U.S.), metaphors like “sports” or “associates” reflect egalitarian norms and collaborative interaction (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001).

These metaphors are more than linguistic quirks—they signal underlying assumptions about roles, accountability, and inclusion. Teams in high power distance cultures may struggle with open feedback or shared leadership, while those in low power distance cultures may prioritize consensus and role fluidity.

Implications for Inclusive Team Design

Understanding cultural and ethical variation is essential for designing inclusive, high-performing teams. Organizational communication research emphasizes the importance of intercultural competence, ethical culture differentiation, and inclusive facilitation in global and diverse teams. Leaders must avoid assuming uniform norms and instead co-create team contracts that reflect shared values while accommodating cultural differences.

Moreover, ethical culture should be assessed not only at the organizational level but also within teams. Studies show that team-level ethical cultures can differ significantly, influencing both behavior and outcomes (Cabana & Kaptein, 2021). Facilitators should monitor these microcultures and intervene when norms become exclusionary or unethical.

In sum, ethics and national culture are not peripheral concerns—they are central to how teams function, communicate, and evolve. By integrating ethical reflection and cultural awareness into team design, organizations can foster collaboration that is not only effective but also principled and inclusive.

Discussion Questions

  1. Have you ever felt pressured by your team—formally or informally—to behave in a way that conflicted with your personal values or ethical standards? What factors influenced your decision to speak up, stay silent, or comply?
  2. How might cultural dimensions such as collectivism and power distance influence team dynamics, decision-making, and expectations of individual roles? Can you think of a time when cultural differences affected how team members collaborated or communicated?

Section 9.7: Spotlight

Strategic Teamwork and Culture at Keeley Companies

Keeley Companies, headquartered in downtown St. Louis, is known for its vibrant and intentional “Keeley’n Culture,” which promotes collaboration, empowerment, and purpose-driven work across its constru

ction, properties, and restoration divisions. Rather than building teams reactively, Keeley strategically implements group structures aligned with long-term business objectives. Through its KeeleyWay growth model and goal-setting frameworks like the i404 Planning Process, employees develop their own scorecards and action plans, embedding ownership and accountability into everyday operations (Keeley Companies, 2023a).

The organization’s approach to group dynamics is shaped by psychological safety and role clarity. Employees report strong interpersonal trust and open communication, fostered by leadership’s hands-off facilitation style. Weekly huddles and structured feedback loops ensure that cross-functional collaboration remains fluid and intentional. This setup reflects a blend of project teams and functional teams, adapted to match evolving business goals and client needs (Keeley Companies, 2022).

Team design at Keeley emphasizes shared strengths and diversity of skillsets. Field and office personnel work side by side on projects like the Stellar Manufacturing expansion, which required seamless coordination among civil, industrial, and restoration experts. Complementarity in team composition, paired with tools for training and leadership development through KeeleyU, results in high-performing, adaptable teams (Keeley Companies, 2023b). These team structures are reinforced by recognition programs and personal wellness initiatives like KeeleyLife, which sustain morale and alignment.

One way Keeley gauges team success is through quantifiable performance outcomes and cultural metrics, including safety benchmarks, client satisfaction scores, and individual growth tracking. Projects that hit million-hour safety goals or outperform efficiency targets are celebrated, reinforcing team cohesion and boosting retention (ENR Midwest, 2021). Keeley’s monthly spotlight features and peer-nominated awards further highlight collaborative excellence and encourage continuous learning.

Ethically, Keeley’s foundation rests on its PRIDE values: People, Respect, Integrity, Discipline, and Empowerment. The KeeleySafe program, which promotes zero unsafe acts, exemplifies how ethical behavior is operationalized. Importantly, Keeley’s ethics are not limited to compliance—they’re rooted in trust and care. Conflict resolution, when needed, is handled through structured conversations and coaching, ensuring dignity and psychological safety are maintained (Keeley Companies, 2023c).

In summary, Keeley Companies offers a compelling model of how strategy, culture, and team design converge to produce successful, resilient, and ethical teams. From the early planning stages to post-project reflection, their approach shows that high-functioning teams aren’t built by accident—they’re cultivated through values, leadership, and shared ownership.

References

ENR Midwest. (2021, December 1). Keeley Companies hits million-hour safety milestone. https://www.enr.com/articles/53045-keeley-companies-hits-million-hour-safety-milestone

Keeley Companies. (2022). KeeleyU leadership development overview. https://www.keeleycompanies.com/keeleyu

Keeley Companies. (2023a). The KeeleyWay planning and execution framework. https://www.keeleycompanies.com/keeleyway

Keeley Companies. (2023b). Project collaboration case study: Stellar Manufacturing. https://www.keeleycompanies.com/projects/stellar-manufacturing-expansion

Keeley Companies. (2023c). KeeleySafe and PRIDE values in action. https://www.keeleycompanies.com/keeleysafe

Discussion Questions

  1. What steps does Keeley Companies take to build and maintain cohesive teams? How might those steps be adapted to a different industry or organization you’ve worked with or studied?
  2. Keeley uses multiple types of teams, including cross-functional and project-based groups. How can organizations determine which team structure fits a particular challenge or goal? Have you ever been part of a team where the structure either helped or hindered success?
  3. Success at Keeley is measured through safety benchmarks, recognition programs, and performance metrics. What other indicators might help evaluate team effectiveness? Reflect on a time when you felt part of a successful team—what made it work?
  4. Imagine a conflict arises within a Keeley project team over roles and responsibilities. How would you approach resolving the issue while staying true to the company’s PRIDE values and emphasis on psychological safety?
  5. Keeley incorporates leadership development through KeeleyU and employee-led planning through the i404 framework. In your experience, how does empowering individuals to shape their own goals influence team morale and performance?

Section 9.8: Conclusion

Research underscores that group formation is a valuable yet fluid process, often mirroring the developmental stages individuals experience. To sustain effectiveness, members must recognize these stages and proactively address potential obstacles that may impede progress. Strong leadership—paired with a deep understanding of group dynamics—can elevate performance and foster resilience.

While teams and groups share similarities, they differ in scope and composition. Groups typically consist of a small, diverse set of individuals assembled to solve specific problems, whereas teams often involve larger, more integrated units working collaboratively toward a shared objective.

Challenges such as social loafing and groupthink can undermine both groups and teams. These risks can be mitigated through intentional role clarity, well-defined expectations, transparent performance metrics, and equitable reward systems. As organizational tasks grow increasingly complex, the strategic use of groups and teams becomes vital. Ultimately, their success hinges on thoughtful member management and a commitment to fairness, inclusion, and shared accountability.

Section 9.9: Case Study and Exercises

The Missing Chair at the Table

Background

Riley, a mid-level analyst at a regional healthcare organization, has consistently contributed to team projects and recently led a successful initiative that improved patient data accuracy. During a quarterly strategy meeting—attended by the entire unit—Riley was publicly excluded by their manager, Dana, who stated, “This meeting is for core contributors only,” despite Riley’s direct involvement in the project being discussed.

The exclusion occurred in front of the entire team, causing visible discomfort and confusion. Riley was left out of critical discussions and decisions, and later learned that his contributions were presented without attribution.

The Ethical Dilemma

Dana’s decision raises several ethical concerns:

  • Exclusion and Public Embarrassment: Was it ethical to exclude Riley publicly without prior notice or justification?
  • Recognition and Attribution: Is it ethical to present someone’s work without acknowledging their role?
  • Power and Communication: Did Dana misuse positional authority to silence or marginalize a team member?

This situation challenges the principles of fairness, transparency, and respect in organizational communication.

Organizational Communication Insights

  • Facework and Identity: Public exclusion threatens an employee’s “face” or social identity, potentially leading to disengagement and reputational harm (Goffman, 1967; Tracy & Trethewey, 2005).
  • Psychological Safety: Exclusion undermines psychological safety, which is essential for team learning and innovation (Edmondson, 1999).
  • Ethical Leadership: Ethical leaders foster inclusive environments and recognize contributions fairly (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Discussion Questions

  1. What alternative actions could Dana have taken to address her concerns without excluding Riley?
  2. How might this exclusion affect team morale and trust?
  3. What organizational policies or communication norms could prevent similar incidents?

References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.

Tracy, S. J., & Trethewey, A. (2005). Fracturing the real-self↔fake-self dichotomy: Moving toward “crystallized” organizational discourses and identities. Communication Theory, 15(2), 168–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00332.x

References

Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2016). Communicating at work: Strategies for success in business and the professions (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management, 29(2), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900203

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409044

Alexander, S. (2000). Virtual team secrets. Computerworld, 34(9), 78–80.

Allen, N. J., & O’Neill, T. A. (2015). Personality and team performance: The importance of personality composition and work tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.020

Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. (2022). The psychology of communication: The interplay between language and culture through time. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(7–8), 860–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221114046

American Psychological Association. (2023). Inclusive language guide (2nd ed.). https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2025). Decision-making within evidence-based practice in psychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/evidence-based-decision-making.pdf

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393475

Badura, K., & Crews, J. (2025). Shared leadership in teams. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.442

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (2007). Functional roles of group members. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 8, 30–35. (Reprinted from Journal of Social Issues, 1948, 4(2), 41–49)

Bhatti, M. A., & Alzahrani, S. A. (2023). Navigating linguistic barriers: Exploring the experiences of host national connectedness among multilingual individuals. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 96–112.

Boyd, F., & Tiede, H.-J. (2023). Collaborative decision making regarding salary policy: A case study. Academe. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/99/collaborative-decision-making-regarding-salary-policy-case-study

Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099

Brilhart, J. K., & Galanes, G. J. (1998). Effective group discussion: Theory and practice (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Bumbuc, Ș. (2024). Team size and its influence on teamwork and communication. Knowledge-Based Organization, 30(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2024-0061

Cabana, G. C., & Kaptein, M. (2021). Team ethical cultures within an organization: A differentiation perspective on their existence and relevance. Journal of Business Ethics, 170, 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04376-5

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Team effectiveness and competencies. In W. B. Ritchie & P. H. Thompson (Eds.), Organizations: Theory and practice (pp. 151–174). Prentice Hall.

Cardenas, E. (2024). Providing and receiving feedback: Strategies for engaging in teams. Toolbox Dialogue Initiative. Webinar summary. Retrieved from https://catalyst.harvard.edu/team-science/feedback/

Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.001

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921

Carter, E. (2024). The impact of communication strategies on employee engagement: A comprehensive review. Academy of Business Studies. PDF. Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-impact-of-communication-strategies-on-employee-engagement-a-comprehensive-review.pdf

Center for Creative Leadership. (2024). 10 steps for establishing team norms. Retrieved from https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/the-real-world-guide-to-team-norms/

Changing Paces. (2024). Inclusive communication practices: Ensuring effective communication and collaboration for all. Retrieved from https://changingpaces.com/inclusive-communication-practices-ensuring-effective-communication-and-collaboration-for-all/

CIPD. (2024). Trust and psychological safety: An evidence review. Practice summary. Retrieved from https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/evidence-reviews/2024-pdfs/8542-psych-safety-trust-practice-summary.pdf

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. HarperBusiness.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources.

Curnin, S., Owen, C., & Trist, C. (2015). Managing the boundary: The role of boundary spanners in emergency management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12066

DBEM. (n.d.). Groupthink: Overcoming its dangers in decision-making

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277790

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628

DiModica, P. (2008, March 13). Managing sales team ethics and sales morality. Value Forward Group. https://biz.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Management/Organizational_Behavior/09%3A_Managing_Groups_and_Teams/09.6%3A_The_Role_of_Ethics_and_National_Culture

Diversio. (2023). Inclusive meeting practices: Strategies for effective communication retrieved from https://diversio.com/inclusive-meeting-practices-strategies-for-effective-communications/

Drew, C. (2025). Group Cohesion: Definition and 10 Examples. Helpful Professor. Group Cohesion Overview

Edelmann, C. M., Boen, F., & Fransen, K. (2020). The power of empowerment: Predictors and benefits of shared leadership in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 582894. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582894

Edmans, A. (2025). The power of diverse thinking: How the best teams make decisions. Diversity Project. https://diversityproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/DP-Cognitive-Diversity-Full-Research-Paper.pdf

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Elangovan, A. R., Auer-Rizzi, W., & Szabo, E. (2007). Why don’t I trust you now? An attributional approach to erosion of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710721910

Elgoibar, P., Munduate, L., & Euwema, M. (2021). Building trust and constructive conflict management in organizations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31475-4

Elms, A. K., Gill, H., & Gonzalez-Morales, M. G. (2023). Confidence is key: Collective efficacy, team processes, and team effectiveness. Small Group Research, 54(2), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221104218

Engleberg, I. N., & Wynn, D. R. (2013). Working in groups: Communication principles and strategies (6th ed.). Pearson.

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222002

Evenett, S. J., & Fritz, J. (2022). Emergent digital fragmentation: Regulatory heterogeneity and the future of digital connectivity. Global Political Economy, 4(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1332/251660021X16734412123456

Fan, M., Huang, Y., Qalati, S. A., Shah, S. M. M., Ostic, D., & Pu, Z. (2021). Effects of information overload, communication overload, and inequality on digital distrust: A cyber-violence behavior mechanism. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 643981. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643981

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277934

Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000163

Forward Pathway. (2025). Reimagining University Student Employment retrieved at https://www.forwardpathway.us/reimagining-university-student-employment-a-strategic-shift-from-subsidy-to-career-development

Fripp, G. (2025). The punctuated-equilibrium model: Stop/start patterns in team development. Organizational Behavior Insights. The full article

Gaba, V., & Joseph, J. (2023). Content and process: Organizational conflict and decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1227966. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227966

Gabrenya, W. K., Latane, B., & Wang, Y. (1983). Social loafing in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002183014003006

Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & de Dreu, C. (2012). Conflict cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their organizational-level consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1131–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029993

Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & de Dreu, C. (2012). Conflict cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their organizational-level consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1131–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029993

Gemeda, H. K., & Lee, J. (2020). The impact of communication strategies on employee engagement: A comprehensive review. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(6), 1–15. PDF link. Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-impact-of-communication-strategies-on-employee-engagement-a-comprehensive-review.pdf

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41. https://doi.org/10.5465/256496

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/256496

Gibbs, K. D., Han, A., & Lun, J. (2019). Demographic diversity in teams: The challenges, benefits, and management strategies. In Strategies for Team Science Success (pp. 197–205). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20992-6_15

Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 274–303. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667088

Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556338

Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 121–173.

Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training, 29(10), 59–62.

Grabovska, S., & Musakovska, O. (2020). Information overload: The psychological area. Psychological Journal, 6(7), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2020.6.7.2

Green, D. A. T. (2025, May 23). Understanding the sentence of Lucy Connolly. Prospect Magazine. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/the-weekly-constitutional/69986/understanding-the-sentence-of-lucy-connolly

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications.

Guffey, M. E., & Loewy, D. (2018). Business communication: Process and product (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819

Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1455–1525). Rand McNally.

Hackman, J. R. (1996). Work teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 877–1029). Consulting Psychologists Press.

Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1214

Harrison, G. L., McKinnon, J. L., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2000). Cultural influences on adaptation to fluid workgroups and teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(3), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490918

Harvard Office of Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging. (2024). Tips for facilitating inclusive meetings retrieved from https://odib.fas.harvard.edu/files/fasodib/files/tips_for_facilitating_inclusive_meetings.pdf

Hoffjann, O. (2022). Between strategic clarity and strategic ambiguity—Oscillating strategic communication. Corporate Communications, 27(2), 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2021-0037

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Holubčík, M., Soviar, J., Rechtorík, M., & Höhrová, P. (2025). Sustainable development of teamwork at the organizational level—Case study of Slovakia. Sustainability, 17(5), 2031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052031

Huang, L., Paterson, T. A., & others. (2019). Ethical leadership and ethical voice: The mediating mechanisms of value internalization and integrity identity. Journal of Management, 48(4), 973–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211002611

Inside Higher Ed. (2025). Deepening On-Campus Job Experience retrieved at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/life-after-college/2025/01/31/four-ways-develop-campus-student-workers

Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (2023). The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393737

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. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069453

Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0

Jhodia, G. (2020). Enhancing organizational performance through effective workplace communication strategies. Journal of Organizational Communication, 15(4), 267–274. PDF link. Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/enhancing-organizational-performance-through-effective-workplace-communication-strategies.pdf

Joya, Q. (2020). Formal and informal organizations and their intellectual differences. International Journal of Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Field. https://www.ijirmf.com/wp-content/uploads/IJIRMF202010020.pdf

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press.

Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599

Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599

Kelman, S., Sanders, R., Pandit, G., & Taylor, S. (2014). Tell it like it is: Groupthink, decisiveness, and decision-making among U.S. federal subcabinet executives. Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Retrieved from https://appext.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1092

Kennedy, R. (2020). Tuckman Ladder: 5 Stages of Team Development. All Things Project Management.

Keyton, J. (2017). Communication in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 501–526. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113341

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (2000). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00012-2

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2002.8540322

Klasmeier, K. N., Güntner, A. V., & Schleu, J. E. (2025). Leadership dynamics in teams: The reciprocity of shared and empowering leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-025-10008-9

Lacourse, J. L. (2022). Systemic barriers to inclusion: Leadership practices that support inclusion [Master’s thesis, National University System]. https://repository.nusystem.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b0e70f85-34df-48ea-a2d9-5bb84ccc5aba/content

Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272192

Lasker, R. D., Weiss, E. S., & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership synergy: A practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00203

Lehman, A., & Miller, S. J. (2020). A theoretical conversation about responses to information overload. Information, 11(8), Article 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11080379

Leonardi, P. M. (2020). Collaboration and technology: Transforming communication. Business Horizons, 63(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.11.006

Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C. (2017). Trust repair. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147

Li, J., Jia, L., Cai, Y., Kwan, H. K., & You, S. (2020). Employee–organization relationships and team performance: Role of team collective efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 206. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00206

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Bradway, L. K. (1997). Task interdependence as a moderator of the relationship between group control and performance. Human Relations, 50(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679705000203

Lumina Foundation. (2025). Financially Stressed Students retrieved at https://www.luminafoundation.org/topics/todays-students/financially-stressed-students/

Mao, A., Mason, W., Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2016). An experimental study of team size and performance on a complex task. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0153048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153048

Marom, L. (2024). The critical link between psychological safety and innovation. Forbes Coaches Council. Article. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2024/06/03/the-critical-link-between-psychological-safety-and-innovation/

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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106

Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.97

McClellan, J. G. (2023). Collaboration in organizations. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.1276

McKinsey & Company. (2025). Cracking the code of team effectiveness. Report. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/go-teams-when-teams-get-healthier-the-whole-organization-benefits

Mendoza, J. (2024). Research-backed tactics to keep your team engaged in 2025. Forbes. Article link. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicamendoza1/2024/12/31/research-backed-tactics-to-keep-your-team-engaged-in-2025/

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069399

Morgan, S. E., Ahn, S., Mosser, A., Harrison, T. R., Wang, J., Huang, Q., Ryan, A., Mao, B., & Bixby, J. (2021). The effect of team communication behaviors and processes on interdisciplinary teams’ research productivity and team satisfaction. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 24, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.28945/4857

Morgan, S. E., Ahn, S., Mosser, A., Harrison, T. R., Wang, J., Huang, Q., Ryan, A., Mao, B., & Bixby, J. (2021). The effect of team communication behaviors and processes on interdisciplinary teams’ research productivity and team satisfaction. Informing Science, 24, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.28945/4857

Mukhopadhyay, R. (2023). Enhancing organizational communication: Addressing challenges in management. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 10(5), 1–15. Full article retrieved at https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2305943.pdf

Müller-Frommeyer, L. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2021). Gaining insights into organizational communication dynamics through the analysis of implicit and explicit communication. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation, 52, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-021-00559-9

Müller-Frommeyer, L. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2021). Gaining insights into organizational communication dynamics through the analysis of implicit and explicit communication. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation, 52, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-021-00559-9

Musheke, M. M., & Phiri, J. (2021). The effects of effective communication on organizational performance based on the systems theory. Open Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 659–671. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.92034

Nagda, B. A. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00473.x

O’Hair, D., & Wiemann, M. O. (2004). The essential guide to group communication. Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Olekalns, M., & Caza, B. B. (2024). Resetting relationship trajectories: A reconceptualization of the relationship repair process. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(1), 12–29. Read summary. Retrieved from https://mbs.edu/news/The-best-way-to-repair-conflict-at-work-based-on-research

Pacheco, R. (2025). Why feedback can make work more meaningful. Harvard Business Review. Article. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2025/01/why-feedback-can-make-work-more-meaningful

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). (2024). Best practices in engaging stakeholders. Retrieved from https://research-teams.pcori.org/stakeholders

Patil, R., Raheja, D. K., Nair, L., Deshpande, A., & Mittal, A. (2023). The power of psychological safety: Investigating its impact on team learning, team efficacy, and team productivity. The Open Psychology Journal, 16. https://doi.org/10.2174/18743501-v16-230727-2023-36

Planio. (2025, July 9). How to use the 5 stages of team development to be a better leader. https://plan.io/blog/stages-of-team-development

Porter, C. O. L. H. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.811

Prewett, M. S., Brown, M. I., Goswami, A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2018). Effects of team personality composition on member performance: A multilevel perspective. Group & Organization Management, 43(2), 316–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116668633

Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. (2006). Withholding inputs in team contexts: Member composition, interaction processes, and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.001

Project Arrive. (2024). Adjourning stage. Georgia State University. https://sites.gsu.edu/project-arrive/adjourning-stage

PsyForU. (n.d.). The dangers of harmony: Understanding groupthink in decision-making. https://psyforu.com/the-dangers-of-harmony-understanding-groupthink-in-decision-making/

Rapp, T., Gilson, L., & Mathieu, J. (2014). Collective efficacy and team performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1120–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037855

Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.502.10637

Rees, F. (1997). Teamwork from start to finish. Jossey-Bass.

Riles, J. M., Pilny, A., & Tewksbury, D. (2018). Media fragmentation in the context of bounded social networks: How far can it go? New Media & Society, 20(4), 1415–1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817696242

Saleem, S., Ayub, M., Raziq, M. M., & Iqbal, M. Z. (2022). A multilevel study of authentic leadership, collective efficacy, and team performance and commitment. Current Psychology, 42, 18473–18487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04029-3

Seeds for Change. (2024). Facilitating meetings: A guide to making your meetings effective, inclusive and enjoyable retrieved from https://commonslibrary.org/facilitating-meetings-a-guide-to-making-your-meetings-effective-inclusive-and-enjoyable/

Seo, D. (2025). Hang in there: Capacity constraints and processes of sustaining collaboration over time. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf003

Smith, J. R. (2020). Group norms. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.453

Social Entrepreneurs Inc. (2019). Building and sustaining effective collaborations retrieved from https://atlasabe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Building_Sustaining_Effective_Collaborations.pdf

SpringerLink. (2025). Group decision-making and team collaboration. In Organizational Communication Research Advances. https://link.springer.com/chapter/group-decision-making-2025

Stein, J. (2023). Using the Stages of Team Development. MIT Human Resources.

Stewart, G. L. (2010). The past twenty years: Teams research is alive and well at the Journal of Management. Journal of Management, 36(4), 801–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310373732

Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17

Taylor, D. W., & Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty questions: A study in group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(3), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057461

Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Communicating across cultures. Guilford Press.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404

Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392402

University of Minnesota Office of Human Resources. (2024). Establishing norms and expectations. Retrieved from https://hr.umn.edu/supervising/resources/Establishing-Norms-and-Expectations

Upwork Team. (2024, June 11). The 5 stages of team development, with examples. https://www.upwork.com/resources/stages-of-team-development

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

Voltage Control. (2024). Inclusive facilitated sessions: Strategies for participation retrieved from https://voltagecontrol.com/articles/inclusive-facilitated-sessions-strategies-for-participation/

WCU of PA. (n.d.). Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development. Retrieved from https://www.wcupa.edu/coral/tuckmanStagesGroupDelvelopment.aspx

Whetsell, T. A., Kroll, A., & DeHart-Davis, L. (2021). Formal hierarchies and informal networks: How organizational structure shapes information search in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab003

Wietrak, E., & Gifford, J. (2024). Trust and psychological safety: An evidence review. CIPD. Practice summary. Retrieved from https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/evidence-reviews/2024-pdfs/8542-psych-safety-trust-practice-summary.pdf

Williams, P. (2012). Collaboration in public policy and practice: Perspectives on boundary spanners. Policy Press.

Wolfgruber, D., Stürmer, L., & Einwiller, S. (2022). Talking inclusion into being: Communication as a facilitator and obstructor of an inclusive work environment. Personnel Review, 51(7), 1841–1860. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2021-0013

Woo, D., & Myers, K. K. (2020). Organizational membership negotiation of boundary spanners: Becoming a competent jack of all trades and master of interactional expertise. Management Communication Quarterly, 34(1), 85–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919887371

Yang, Y., Jiang, L., & Cheng, Z. (2025). Development and validation of the Group Decision-Making Performance Scale: A structural equation modeling approach. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 29(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000201

Ylmaz, A. (2024). Inclusive communication practices: Building stronger connections and embracing diversity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Communication, 15(2), 101–118. PDF link. Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/inclusive-communication-practices-building-stronger-connections-and-embracing-diversity-in-the-workplace.pdf

Ziller, R. C. (1957). Group size and conformity. Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1957.9916203

 

 

    Media Attributions

    License

    Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

    THRIVE 2025: Teamwork, Harmony, Resilience, Innovation, Vision, & Empathy: Organizational Communication Open Text Copyright © 2025 / 2023 / 2017 / 2010 by [Author removed at request of original publisher] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

    Share This Book