Journal of Management
Education
http://jme.sagepub.com
Can’t We Pick our Own Groups? The Influence of Group Selection
Method on Group Dynamics and Outcomes
Kenneth J. Chapman, Matthew Meuter, Dan Toy and Lauren Wright
Journal of Management Education 2006; 30; 557
DOI: 10.1177/1052562905284872
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/4/557
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators
Additional services and information for Journal of Management Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 21 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/4/557
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
CAN’T WE PICK OUR OWN GROUPS?
THE INFLUENCE OF GROUP SELECTION
METHOD ON GROUP DYNAMICS
AND OUTCOMES
Kenneth J. Chapman
Matthew Meuter
Dan Toy
Lauren Wright
California State University–Chico
In today’s business world, the ability to work efficiently and effectively with
others in a group is a mandatory skill. Many employers rank “ability to work
with a group” as one of the most important attributes for business school graduates to possess. Therefore, it is important for instructors to understand the
factors that influence group dynamics and outcomes and students’ attitudes
toward group experiences. The objective of this research is to test whether the
method of group member assignment (i.e., random or self-selected) affects the
nature of group dynamics and outcomes, and students’ attitudes toward the
group experience. The results indicate that the method of group member
assignment does influence group dynamics, attitudes toward the group
experience, and group outcomes.
Keywords: group dynamics; group selection methods; student teams
Learning to work together in a group may be one of the most important interpersonal skills a person can develop since this will influence one’s employability, productivity, and career success.
—Johnson and Johnson (1989, p. 32)
Is the ability to work well in a group as important as Johnson and Johnson
suggest? It is interesting to note that the quotation above regarding the importance of learning how to work well in a group is from 1989. In 1989, corporaJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 30 No. 4, August 2006 557-569
DOI: 10.1177/1052562905284872
© 2006 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society
557
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
558
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2006
tions were increasingly recognizing the value of using groups and teams to
accomplish goals. In 1987, 28% of the Fortune 1000 firms reported using
work teams; by 1994, 68% of these firms were using work teams (Lawler,
Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). A survey by Gordon in 1992 indicated that
82% of companies with over 100 employees used teams, and Blanchard,
Carew, and Parisi-Carew (1996) stated that managers were spending anywhere from 60% to 90% of their time in group-related activities. Furthermore, a survey of 240 managers (Antonioni, 1996) revealed that they were,
on average, working on three different team projects, with several managers
stating they were on up to 12 teams at any given time.
Johnson and Johnson’s provocative statement made in 1989 is even more
accurate today. The ability to work efficiently and effectively with others in a
group is not merely important to a business student’s success; it is mandatory.
As the use of teams has become common within organizations, recruiters are
actively seeking students who can demonstrate their ability to work well in a
group. In fact, many employers now rank ability to work well in a group as
one of the most important attributes they look for when interviewing college
graduates (Harris Interactive, 2003). Business schools have responded by
increasing the number of group experiences students have during their college tenure (e.g., Bacon, Stewart, & Stewart-Belle, 1998; Chapman & Van
Auken, 2001; Gardner & Korth, 1998; Reingold, 1998). In a survey of 32
business schools, Chapman and Van Auken (2001) found that students had,
on average, participated in eight group projects.
The objectives of all this group work in a classroom setting are that students will (a) learn the importance of the “four C’s” of teamwork—communication, collaboration, cooperation, and compromise (Katzenbach, 1997)
and (b) be better prepared to enter the group-oriented workplace. However,
using group projects in a class can also have significant drawbacks (e.g.,
Ashraf, 2004; Batra, Walvoord, & Krishnan, 1997; Comer, 1995). Common
problems with group projects include “free riders” (i.e., students who do not
do the work but get credit because of the team’s efforts), grade inflation
because of some students getting higher grades than normal, lack of exposure
to all aspects of a project, and difficulties related to group dynamics. To avoid
many of the pitfalls of group projects, instructors should make every effort to
structure, implement, and control group projects in an extremely intentional
and well-thought-out manner (Chapman & Van Auken, 2001).
Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Kenneth J. Chapman, California State University–
Chico, College of Business, Department of Finance and Marketing, Chico, CA 95929-0051;
e-mail: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
Chapman et al. / GROUP SELECTION METHOD
559
Given the ubiquity with which group projects are used in business and
business education, it is important for instructors to better understand the factors that influence group efficiencies and effectiveness. One such factor that
is directly under the control of the instructor is the manner in which students
are assigned to their groups. The primary issue addressed in this article is
whether the method of group member selection influences student group
project dynamics, attitudes toward the group experience, and group
outcomes.
Background
Research by Connerly and Mael (2001) found that approximately 50% of
students reported that they had been allowed to select their own teammates in
their courses, whereas the remaining 50% had been assigned to teams by an
instructor. In addition, anecdotal evidence from colleagues suggests that
most instructors use one of two methods to assign students to groups:
students select their own group members or the instructor randomly assigns
students to groups. Other methods of determining group composition are certainly possible (e.g., Blowers, 2003). For example, the instructor can evaluate
students’ skills relevant to a team project and then select teams based on a
strategy of optimizing the distribution of these skills across the teams
(Michaelsen & Black, 1994). Another alternative is a hybrid approach in
which the instructor allows those students who want to select their own
groups to do so and then assigns the remaining students randomly to groups.
Because the random and self-selected methods appear to be most commonly
used for group assignment, they are the focus of the current study.
RANDOM ASSIGNMENT METHOD OF GROUP COMPOSITION
In the purest form, using random assignment for group composition
means that each student in the class has an equal likelihood of being selected
into a group. The instructor decides how many groups to have in the class and
then randomly assigns students to each group (e.g., using a random number
table).
Random assignment to groups has some advantages. This method is relatively easy for instructors to implement and gives the appearance of being fair
(Bacon, Stewart, & Anderson, 2001). Random assignment is “fair” in the
sense that each student has an equal likelihood of being in any particular
group.
In addition, some would argue that the random method more accurately
reflects the workplace (Blowers, 2003). In the work environment, employees
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
560
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2006
typically do not select their work groups but are assigned to work in crossfunctional teams, quality circles, or groups to meet project and client
demands. It is this lack of individual control over the assignment to the group
that makes the use of random assignment in the classroom similar to group
assignments in the workplace.
Although random assignment to groups has some advantages, it leaves the
process of group composition purely to chance, and groups may or may not
come together well. Bacon et al. (2001) stated, “In its reliance on chance, random assignment is not far off from a game of roulette in casting players into
winning or losing teams” (p. 8). Thus, although giving the appearance of
being fair, Bacon et al. (2001) argued that the process is actually quite unfair
and can easily lead to groups that do not have good skill sets or diversity.
SELF-SELECTION METHOD OF GROUP COMPOSITION
The self-selection method of group assignment allows students to choose
their own group members. Students appear to first select friends to work with
and then, if necessary, make additions to the group based on someone’s seating proximity or by adding students who are known as “good” group members. The self-selection method is quite easy for the instructor to administer,
and some evidence suggests that it may lead to better group dynamics and
outcomes (e.g., Bacon, Stewart, & Silver, 1999; Mello, 1993; Strong &
Anderson, 1990).
Perhaps one of the biggest problems with allowing self-selected teams is
the cronyism that occurs. This often leads to less diverse teams and students
who are left over after the initial round of selection. This “remainder problem” (Bacon et al., 2001) can lead to some students feeling left out. Even after
they are added to a group, these students may find it difficult to break into the
self-selected group’s social network. This lack of cohesiveness between the
initially self-selected group and the student assigned to the group can cause
the assigned student to not contribute as much and once again feel left out.
WHICH METHOD OF GROUP ASSIGNMENT IS BEST?
Research in this area offers little guidance regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of group assignment alternatives (see review by Bacon et al.,
2001). In fact, only a handful of published articles have specifically investigated whether the methods instructors use to assign students to groups influence a group’s efficiency and effectiveness (e.g., Bacon et al., 1999;
Connerly & Mael, 2001; Mahenthiran & Rouse, 2000; Muller, 1989). Unfortunately, most of the published work that addresses this topic has not used an
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
Chapman et al. / GROUP SELECTION METHOD
561
experimental design, is anecdotal in nature, or has only researched a single
method, thus limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from the articles.
One of the earliest articles to give advice on ways to form student groups
was put forth by Feichtner and Davis (1985). Feichtner and Davis found that
students were more likely to report having a positive experience when their
groups were formed by the instructor. The authors proposed a “Profile for
Failure,” or what not to do when forming groups. The first item on their list is
that instructors should not allow students to form their own groups; that is,
contrary to what many instructors do, Fiechtner and Davis were strongly
against allowing students to self-select into groups.
However, Bacon et al. (1999) found that when MBAs were asked about
their best and worst group experiences, the self-selection method of group
assignment was associated with the best team experiences whereas random
team assignment was related to the worst team experiences. Connerley and
Mael (2001) also found a positive, although extremely weak, correlation (r =
.10, p < .05) between students who stated their groups had been self-selected
and reports of satisfaction with the group outcomes. Although these two
studies imply self-selection might lead to better group dynamics and outcomes, the results need to be interpreted with caution because of their
nonexperimental designs.
In one of the few comparative studies, Muller (1989) found a “modest
advantage” for balancing students’ skills across groups compared to randomly assigning students to groups. In another comparative study, Mahenthiran and Rouse (2000) found that satisfaction and grades related to group
work increased when students were allowed to be in a group with a friend
compared to groups that had been formed through random assignment. It is
important to note that in both studies, compared to the alternative, randomly
assigning students to groups led to inferior outcomes (i.e., attitudes, grades,
satisfaction). Muller and Mahenthiran and Rouse were the only two studies
that used a quasi-experimental approach to test between-group selection
methods. More research that directly compares methods is necessary to
better understand if one method is better than another.
The research to date has not rigorously or adequately addressed if method
of group assignment makes a difference in the nature or valence of group
dynamics and outcomes. In particular, an experiment needs to be conducted
that tests the two most commonly used methods of group assignment: selfselection and random assignment. Thus, the objective of the current research
is to address this issue more rigorously by testing how the method of group
member assignment (i.e., random or self-selected) affects the nature of group
dynamics, attitudes toward the group experience, and group outcomes.
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
562
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2006
Method and Sample
The research was conducted on marketing students at a residential
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)–accredited
business school in northern California. Courses selected for participation
included Consumer Behavior, Marketing Research, Sales Force Management, and Strategic Marketing Management. All of these courses included a
group project as part of the class requirements (e.g., a semester-long research
project including primary and secondary data collection, data analysis, and a
written and oral presentation). A total of 16 sections participated in the
research. Two treatment conditions, random or self-selected assignment to
groups, were achieved by having instructors utilize one method or the other
for the group project in various sections of the courses they were teaching. In
seven sections, students were allowed to select their own group members
(self-selection condition); in nine other sections, students were randomly
assigned to groups (random assignment condition) by the instructor.
At the end of the semester, surveys were administered in each class. Students were instructed verbally and in the written introduction of the survey to
focus their thoughts on the group project they had worked on for this particular course. Surveys were collected from 583 respondents. There were 337
respondents in the random condition and 246 in the self-selection condition.
Group sizes ranged from two to six, with the modal group size being four.
Most of the students were seniors (80.5%) or juniors (14.0%), and a majority
were male (61.8%).
MEASURES
A variety of group dynamic, attitude, and outcome measures were collected. The group dynamic measures assessed interactions among the students and processes within their groups (see Table 1 for details). Many of
these measures were adopted from prior research on group dynamics (e.g.,
Chapman & Van Auken, 2001; Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy, & Ramsey, 2002).
Attitude toward the group experience was assessed with a semantic differential scale. A series of eight bipolar 7-point itemized scales was used to
assess how the respondents felt about working in the group (see Table 2).
This scale has been used previously and appears to have good psychometric
properties (Chapman & Van Auken, 2001). A principal components factor
analysis with varimax rotation demonstrated the unidimensionality of the
scale as all items loaded onto a single factor, explaining 66.96% of the variance. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the attitude toward the group scale
has satisfactory reliability (alpha = .93; Nunnally, 1978).
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
Chapman et al. / GROUP SELECTION METHOD
563
TABLE 1
Mean Responses on Group Dynamic Measures Based on Method of
Group Assignment
Group Dynamic Measurea
Good communication with each other
Were enthusiastic about working together
Took interest in each other
Resolved conflict effectively
Comfortable asking other members for help
Confident in group members’ abilities
Members followed through on commitments
During meetings, group was task oriented
Group used meeting times well
At meetings, group went straight to work
Completed work of other members
Worried about my grade on group project
Could have worked together better
Achieved harmony by avoiding conflict
Group argued quite a bit
Overall
Random
Assignment
5.55
5.03
5.14
5.71
5.58
5.36
5.51
5.37
5.40
4.94
3.39
3.76
4.02
5.07
1.95
5.39
4.82
4.91
5.60
5.47
5.16
5.41
5.48
5.43
5.15
3.59
3.88
4.14
4.98
1.98
SelfSelected
5.78***
5.33***
5.46***
5.86*
5.73*
5.63***
5.64*
5.22*
5.37
4.66***
3.12**
3.59
3.86
5.19
1.91
a. Ratings are based on a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.
Significance of difference between random and self-selected groups: *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01.
***p ≤ .001.
TABLE 2
Mean Attitude Measures Based on Method of Group Assignment
Attitude Measurea
Overall attitude toward group
Bad/good experience
Waste of time/good use of time
Valueless/valuable
Unsatisfactory/satisfactory
Not enjoyable/enjoyable
Useless/useful
Undesirable/desirable
Ineffective/effective
Overall
Random
Assignment
5.22
5.51
5.15
5.16
5.36
5.19
5.31
4.79
5.30
5.14
5.45
5.07
5.05
5.27
5.13
5.21
4.77
5.19
SelfSelected
5.33*
5.60
5.25
5.30*
5.49
5.27
5.44*
4.82
5.45**
a. Ratings are based on a 7-point itemized scale where 1 = unfavorable and 7 = favorable.
Significance of difference between random and self-selected groups: *p ≤ .10, **p ≤ .05.
Data on a variety of outcomes were also collected. The set of outcome
measures included such measures as achievement of goals, willingness to
work with the group again, anticipated grade for the group project, the acqui-
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
564
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2006
TABLE 3
Mean Group Outcome Measures Based
on Method of Group Assignment
Outcome Measure
a
Achieved goals
Group took pride in worka
Made new friendsa
Individual is proud of work produceda
Enjoyed working with groupa
Desire to work with group again
(1 = definitely not, 4 = definitely)
Effectiveness of group as a learning tool
(1 = very ineffective, 4 = very effective)
Degree of conflict (1 = minor, 7 = extreme)
Self-assessed grade on quality of
group’s work (0 to 100)
Overall
Random
Assignment
SelfSelected
5.47
5.33
5.17
5.51
5.43
3.13
5.39
5.21
4.94
5.39
5.27
3.06
5.58
5.49*
5.49***
5.68*
5.64**
3.22*
3.03
3.01
3.06
2.69
89.77
2.85
89.53
2.50
90.11
a. Ratings are based on a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.
Significance of difference between random and self-selected groups: *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01,
***p ≤.001.
sition of new friends, and effectiveness of the group as a learning tool (see
Table 3).
Results
MANIPULATION CHECK
The primary objective of the current research was to investigate whether
random versus self-selected group assignments made a difference on a variety of group dynamics, attitude, and outcome variables. We believed that one
of the primary differences between random and self-selected groups would
be the degree to which students knew each other in their groups. Specifically,
the randomly assigned groups should include a larger number of students
who did not know each other compared to those groups where membership
was self-selected. To test for these differences, students were asked to assess
how well they knew each of their group members prior to starting the project
(1 = did not know at all, 7 = good friend).
A new variable was created that reflected the average degree to which
each respondent knew fellow group members. Students’ average familiarity
with their group members in the random assignment condition was 1.62
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
Chapman et al. / GROUP SELECTION METHOD
565
compared to 2.23 in the self-selection condition (t = 6.24, p = .000). The students in the random assignment condition reported that prior to the group
project, they did not know 84.5% of their fellow group members (ratings of 1
and 2 combined on the 7-point familiarity scale). Students in the self-selected
groups reported they did not know 72.7% of their group members prior to
starting the group project. Furthermore, students in the random assignment
treatment reported that only 4.3% of the assigned group members were good
friends (ratings of 6 and 7 combined on the familiarity scale), whereas the
self-selected group stated that 10.4% of their group members were good
friends. These differences in initial degree of social connectedness are statistically significant (χ2 = 46.57, p < .001). Overall, these results suggest that the
random versus self-selection methods of group assignment did have the
expected effect of influencing the degree of initial social connectedness
within the groups.
IMPACT OF GROUP ASSIGNMENT METHOD ON GROUP DYNAMICS
The data presented in Table 1 suggest the method of group assignment did
influence group dynamics. Of the 15 measures of group dynamics, 10 were
statistically different because of treatment condition. Compared to students
who were randomly assigned to groups, the students in the self-selected
groups had better communication with each other, were more enthusiastic
about working together, took more interest in each other, and were more confident in other team members’ abilities. They were also more likely than students in the randomly assigned groups to resolve conflict effectively and to
be more comfortable asking others in their group for help. The students in the
self-selected groups also indicated that it was less likely that group members
would do others’ work. Compared to the self-selected groups, students in the
randomly selected groups felt that members used time in group meetings
more efficiently and that the group was more task oriented.
IMPACT OF GROUP ASSIGNMENT ON
INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE GROUP
The method of group assignment had a modest effect on students’ attitudes toward the group. Students in the self-selected groups had a slightly
more positive overall attitude toward their group experience than those in the
randomly selected groups (means of 5.33 and 5.14, respectively). These students felt that the group process was more valuable, useful, and effective than
their counterparts in the random selection groups.
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
566
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2006
IMPACT OF GROUP ASSIGNMENT ON OUTCOME MEASURES
The impact of group assignment method on outcome measures was fairly
consistent with the results found for the group dynamics variables. Of the
nine outcome variables, five were statistically significant because of treatment condition. In each case, the statistically significant differences indicated a more positive outcome in the self-selected condition. Students in the
self-selection groups took more pride in their work, tended to make more
new friends, were more proud of the work produced by the group, enjoyed
working with the group, and were more likely to say they would work with
the group again.
Looking at the results in aggregate, it is also noteworthy to consider the
relatively high (i.e., positive) ratings across all group dynamics, attitude, and
outcome measures. For example, of the eight semantic differential items
relating to group attitudes, all but one were above 5 on a 7-point scale. A similar pattern emerges on the group dynamics measures, with very few of the ratings on the 7-point scale falling below 5. These findings suggest that students
seem to enjoy their group projects. It appears that a majority of students are
working together efficiently and effectively.
Discussion and Conclusion
Feichtner and Davis’s (1985) “Profile for Failure” (p. 70) when using student groups advised instructors not to allow students to form their own
groups. Based on our results, self-selected groups are not a “profile for failure.” In fact, our findings are consistent with other research (Bacon et al.,
1999; Mahenthiran & Rouse, 2000) in indicating that the self-selection
method of group assignment is preferable to random assignment.
Compared to the earlier studies that have investigated the influence of
method of assignment on group dynamics, attitudes, and outcomes, the
experimental nature of the current study and the variety of measures used
provides a considerably improved understanding. Compared to students who
were randomly assigned to a group, students in self-selected groups consistently rated their groups higher on several dimensions of teamwork, generally had fewer concerns about working in their groups, and had slightly better
group attitude and outcome measures. However, students in the self-selected
groups reported lower assessments of their group’s efficiency and slightly
higher degrees of conflict. Our research found that randomly assigning students to groups led to inferior group dynamics ratings, slightly less positive
attitudes about the group experience, and slightly lower group outcome
ratings.
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
Chapman et al. / GROUP SELECTION METHOD
567
Fortunately, most groups were able to overcome any process challenges
they may have faced to create outcomes that were generally very favorable.
For both types of groups, the overall attitude was generally positive, degree
of conflict was moderate, and their feelings were similar about the effectiveness of the “group experience” as a learning tool. In general, these results are
consistent with the findings of Chapman and Van Auken (2001), who in a
study across 32 schools found that students’ overall attitude toward their
group experience was relatively positive (5.22 on a 7-point scale).
We believe students’ generally positive group experiences may come as a
surprise to many instructors. Conversations with colleagues suggest that professors believe many students do not have positive experiences in their
groups. It may be the case that instructor skepticism about students’ experiences in groups is adversely affecting the use of groups in business courses.
Instructors may avoid group work because of a belief that group projects
increase the likelihood of interpersonal problems between students. Furthermore, instructors who believe that students do not like group projects may
avoid them for fear of negatively affecting their course evaluations. A productive avenue for future research would be to systematically compare student and instructor perceptions regarding group projects to assess if large
differences exist.
The two main concerns with allowing students to self-select into groups
appear to be the potential for cronyism within the groups and the idea that
when students are employed they will be assigned rather than allowed to selfselect into a work group. As far as cronyism is concerned, we found that the
degree to which students select friends into their groups is not as great as we
previously thought. Given the social nature of marketing students, the camaraderie within the major, and the residential setting of the college where the
research was conducted, we expected that self-selected groups would have a
much larger number of acquaintances and friends than the random selection
groups. Although the degree of social connectedness was statistically different between the conditions, to our surprise, the current results did not indicate
the presence of a substantial friendship network within the self-selected
groups.
Contrary to our a priori beliefs, we now believe that self-selected groups
may simulate “real-world” work groups more closely than randomly assigned
groups. The composition of a team in the workplace would likely include a
person or two who knew each other plus others. This is very similar to the
composition of the groups in the self-selection condition. In fact, it is highly
unlikely that a team in the workplace would be selected on a completely random basis.
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
568
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2006
Although the current study results tend to support the use of self-selected
groups over random assignment, the knowledge of which activities are typically performed better by each type of group is informative. With the understanding that self-selected groups are weaker at time management, instructors can provide specific tips and training tools to address this skill if selfselected groups are used in a classroom setting. When randomly assigned
groups are formed, instructors should stress the need for teamwork (perhaps
through team-building exercises before the semester-long group project
begins).
Overall, it appears that self-selected groups do add more value to students’
experiences with group work. If allowing students to select their own groups
means they communicate better with each other, have a greater degree of
enthusiasm, take more pride in their work, and have a slightly more positive
attitude toward working in a group, we say, “Fantastic! Let them select their
own groups.”
References
Antonioni, D. (1996). How to lead and facilitate teams. Industrial Management, 38(6), 22-25.
Ashraf, M. (2004). A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of
Education for Business, 79(4), 213-216.
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Anderson, E. S. (2001). Methods of assigning players to teams: A
review and novel approach. Simulation & Gaming, 32(1), 6-17.
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Silver, W. S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student
team experiences: How a teacher can make a difference. Journal of Management Education,
23(5), 467-488.
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Stewart-Belle, S. (1998). Exploring predictors of student team
project performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(1), 63-71.
Batra, M. M., Walvoord, B. E., & Krishnan, K. S. (1997). Effective pedagogy for student-team
projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(2), 26-42.
Blanchard, K., Carew, D., & Parisi-Carew, E. (1996). How to get your group to perform like a
team. Training and Development, 50(9), 34-38.
Blowers, P. (2003). Using student skill self-assessment to get balanced groups for group projects.
College Teaching, 50(3), 106-110.
Chapman, K. J., & Van Auken, S. (2001). Creating positive group project experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group projects. Journal of
Marketing Education, 22(2), 117-127.
Comer, D. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48(6),
647-668.
Connerley, M. L., & Mael, F. A. (2001). The importance and invasiveness of student team selection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25(5), 471-494.
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., & Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of
student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 114-124.
Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1985). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’experiences
with learning groups. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4), 77-88.
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008
Chapman et al. / GROUP SELECTION METHOD
569
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1998). A framework for learning to work in teams. Journal of Education for Business, 74(1), 28-33.
Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training, 29, 59-65.
Harris Interactive. (2003). The Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive Business School Survey.
Retrieved October 30, 2003, from www.harrisinteractive.com/bschools/
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Social skills for successful group work. Educational
Leadership, 47(4), 29-33.
Katzenbach, J. R. (1997). The myth of top management teams. Harvard Business Review, 75(6),
82-92.
Lawler, E. E., III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in
Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mahenthiran, S., & Rouse, P. J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance
and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(6), 255-264.
Mello, J. A. (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings.
Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 253-259.
Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key to harnessing the
power of small groups in higher education. In S. Kadel & J. Keehner (Eds.), Collaborative
learning: A sourcebook for higher education (Vol. 2, pp. 65-81). State College, PA: National
Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Muller, T. E. (1989). Assigning students to groups for class projects: An exploratory test of two
methods. Decisions Sciences Journal, 4, 623-634.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reingold, J. (1998, October 19). Special report: The best B-schools. Business Week, 87-108.
Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and
preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61-67.
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on September 24, 2008