Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to validate the seventeen characteristics comprising the Harvey/Drolet construct from their 1994 book, Building Teams, Building People: Expanding the Fifth Resource. Are the seventeen characteristics either suggested or accepted indicators of teams or effective teamwork; and can the seventeen characteristics be useful in predicting effective teamwork, positive team interaction, and the presence of teamness? Methodology. A descriptive approach was used to validate, by way of the literature, the seventeen characteristics as suggested or accepted indicators of teams and effective teamwork. A range of literature was accessed including classical, contemporary, conceptual, and empirical sources. A correlational approach was used to empirically validate the Harvey/Drolet construct as a predictor of effective teamwork, positive team interaction, and the quality of teamness. Availability sampling was used to identify 874 participants; members of leadership-groups in selected public high schools within five Southern California counties. Survey data were received from 613 respondents; correlational analysis, multiple regression analysis, and factor analysis were used to analyze the data. Findings. Although no one theory of the organizational team was located in the literature, support for the seventeen characteristics was found. There was sufficient material and documentation to affirm the "content validity" of the Harvey/Drolet construct. The empirical data reflected relationships between the seventeen proxy variables and three dependent variables; effective teamwork, positive team interaction, and teamness. Conclusions. The literature supports inclusion of all seventeen characteristics of the Harvey/Drolet construct as indicators of teams and effective teamwork. At the conceptual level, the construct has "content validity." Empirical results indicate a positive relationship between all seventeen characteristics and teamness. However, a conflict exists between the construct viewed at the conceptual level and the functional level. Functionally, the seventeen elements are "reflections" of the same factor, teamness. While all are predictors of teamness, they are coterminous and are reflections of one another. Certain elements serve as "key actors" having an influential role in certain situations, while other elements are "bit players" playing a support functional role. A third group of elements, "nonactors," appears to have no functional role but does possess conceptual legitimacy. While there is overlap, the complete cast of "key actors" and "bit players" differs for predicting the three criterion variables (i.e., effective teamwork, positive team interaction, and teamness). The "nonactors" appear to be identical for each of these cases. Implications. Greater impact may be obtained by targeting the "key actors" in team-building activities. Also,"targeted" (to target an appropriate dimension, "streamlined" (for focused assessment within a dimension), or "abbreviated" (for quickest assessment) versions of Harvey and Drolet's Survey of Team Characteristics, are suggested. Such versions would greatly reduce survey administration time with little impact on the predictive capabilities.