High performance teams  
       technologyhas escalated global marketing, globalmarketing has intensified competition,competition has intensified the demandfor creativity, and creativity has intensifiedthe need for diversity and teamworkin organizations. Thus, this need hasresulted in an attempt by tertiary institutionsto teach team skills and to useteamwork and team learning as a teachingmethod. One of the biggest problemsis communication within the team.  
      
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE    

      In a textbook devoted to teachingteamwork and communication in areasof aviation, the authors quoted GeorgeBernard Shaw’s observation that “Thegreatest problem in communication is theillusion that it has been accomplished”(Kanki & Smith, 2001, p. 95). If thebasics are inherently problematic, thetask of teaching team skills is monumental,as evidenced by current thinking inthe area. However, research has shownthat interpersonal skills are vital to successin the workplace (Caldwell, 2006;Camp, 2007; Messmer, 2007; Ruderman& Ohlott, 2006; “Tips for taking,” 2006).Importance of Communication        
   
    The Bureau of Vocational Guidanceat Harvard reported that about two thirdsof those who lose their jobs experiencethis failure because of poor people skills(Arrien, 2001), and the Center for CreativeLeadership in Greensboro, NC,found that most terminated executivesexhibited poor communication skills(Arrien). A report from the CarnegieInstitute of Technology’s analysis of10,000 personnel records reveals thatonly 15% of job success is a result oftechnical proficiency, whereas theremaining 85% is attributable to peopleskills (Arrien). This interpersonal communicationoccurs often in team or meetingsituations, especially for managers.Characteristics of EffectiveTeams       
    According to Kinlaw (1991), effectiveteams can be identified by fourcharacteristics—they produce results,develop informal processes, developspecial feelings, and take leadership.In other words, a team becomes a functionalbody whose members complementeach other to achieve their commonend. Brown (1996) said that thefirst requirement for team success is thatit must actually be needed; the second isthat the teamwork skills must be developedbecause these skills do not comenaturally to most people.In their analysis of 15,000 team members,LaFasto and Larson (2001) identifiedfour personal qualities or teamworkTeam Climate and Productivityfor Similar Majors Versus Mixed Majors       
     ABSTRACT.  
    Teamwork and interper- Msonal communication are indispensableskills for business workers, and most companiesare promoting diversity in teams togain a competitive edge. Although findingssuggest that diversity may not be as valuableas it seems for most teams, businessworkers need to manage diversity successfully.Therefore, the present authors tried todetermine whether teams of business studentswith similar majors held perceptionsabout issues including conflict, leadership,and friendship that differed from thoseof mixed majors. Analyses of varianceindicated that teams with similar majorsexpressed their ideas more freely and developedfriendships more easily than did teamsof mixed majors.            #p#分页标题#e#
 Keywords: friendships, mixed majors, similarmajors, teams   
       Businessfactors that must be present for a team tobe successful: openness, supportiveness,action orientation, and a positive personalstyle. LaFasto and Larson’s research suggeststhat the approach and personality ofthe team member have a greater bearingon the person’s effectiveness within theteam than do differences in background.Losoncy (1997) outlined sevenrequirements for a successful team:synergy, cooperation, determined focus,mutual respect, reality base, optimism,and progress. Although differences inbackgrounds, approaches, and beliefscan get in the way, Losoncy’s findingssuggested that diversity is not a requirementor an obstacle, particularly fora normal work group. However, manyfirms today use teams to promote creativityand innovation to meet and beatthe competition. Theoretically, the morediverse a team is, the more creative andproductive it can be. However, researchon the impact of diversity on team effectivenesshas been inconclusive.               
    Benefits and Drawbacks ofDiverse Multicultural TeamsOne of the biggest sources of differencewithin a team can be culture.According to Adler (1991), “Multiculturalgroups have more potential forhigher productivity than do homogeneousgroups, but they also bear the riskof greater losses due to faulty process”(p. 128). Adler described the causes ofdysfunction in a multicultural group:Diversity makes group functioning moredifficult because it becomes more difficultto see situations in similar ways,understand them in similar ways, andact on them in similar ways. Diversitymakes reaching agreement more difficult.Employees from the same culture aregenerally easier to manage; they are morelikely to communicate clearly and to trusteach other more readily. (pp. 128–129)Some additional problems describedby Adler (1991) include attitudinal problemsof dislike and mistrust, perceptualproblems involving stereotyping andundervaluation, communication problemsresulting in inaccuracy and inefficiency,and stress leading to tensionand decreased effectiveness. However,Adler asserted that the advantages of aculturally diverse group include limitedgroupthink and more and better ideas.            

       “Multicultural teams have the potentialto become the most effective andproductive teams in an organization.Unfortunately, they frequently becomethe least effective” (Adler, 1991, p.134). Diversity, like any resource, mustbe effectively used and managed to addvalue to the team’s function. Unless it ismanaged properly, diversity may actuallyderail the team if diverse members goin different  directions. Where creativityis needed, diversity can jump-start theproject, especially in the early stages.However, for more routine projects,diversity may be a hindrance, ratherthan a help, to the team function.Too much emphasis on diversity may bea stumbling block for a team, as Gardenswartzand Rowe (1994) found. Accordingto their research, the four layers ofdifference are, in order of importance,(a) personality; (b) age, gender, physicalability, ethnicity, etc.; (c) appearance,work experience, religion, personal habits,etc.; and (d) seniority, work location,management status, field, etc.www.ukthesis.org#p#分页标题#e#

   If, as theirresearch suggests, managing differencesin personality is more important thandealing with differences in cultural backgrounds,diversity may be a minor elementnecessary only for special projects—despite the current emphasis on it.Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen’s(1993) research on cultural diversity inteams suggested that similar groups aremore effective in the early stages butthat process and performance levels arealmost identical after about 17 weeks. In adiscussion of ways to effectively managediversity, Cox and Blake (1991) prefacedtheir discussion with the bold statementthat “the specific link between managingdiversity and organizational competitivenessis rarely made explicit, and noarticle has reviewed actual research datasupporting such a link” (p. 45). O’Reilly(1997) supports this view. However, Hobman,Bordia, and Gallois (2003) reportedthat both team success and team memberrelationships were affected when diversitywas not managed and team relationshipswere not encouraged.                 
    The Present Study               
   According to the aforementionedresearch, diversity of backgrounds, attitudes,and values is not an importantcomponent of team effectiveness. However,managing diversity ineffectivelymay have a negative effect.                 

  Therefore, the purpose of the presentstudy was to determine if significantdifferences existed between the perceptionsof students in teams with the samebusiness majors and the perceptions ofstudents in diverse teams with mixedbusiness majors (including accounting,computer information systems, finance,marketing, and management). We askedstudents to address several items abouthow their teams operated (see questionsin Table 1) and how they would describetheir teams (see descriptors in Table 2).               

METHOD

ParticipantsWe conducted this study at a Midwestern,regional, comprehensive universitywhose business college was accreditedby the Association to Advance CollegiateSchools of Business International. Duringthe first week of the semester, 188full-time students (89 men, 81 women,18 unspecified) who were enrolled inbusiness communication courses wererandomly assigned to teams with thesame business majors or to teams withmixed majors. The sample was almostequally divided on the dimension of sex,and 78% of the students were youngerthan 23 years. The percentages ofstudents reporting each major were asfollows: 14% accounting, 3% businesseducation, 13% computer informationsystems, 13% finance, 6% graphic arts,24% management, 13% marketing, and14% other. We tried to balance teams interms of men and women, and the fewinternational students were randomlyassigned#p#分页标题#e#

 to teams. Because we useda convenience sample, researchers cangeneralize the findings and conclusionsonly to the students in this study.         
    Procedure              

   At the beginning of the semester, weinstructed students on team development,the phases of team development(forming, storming, norming, and performing),steps in dealing with conflict,and the decision process (Guffey, 2003).Teams worked on projects such as writingletters and memos and responding to readiness-assessment tests throughoutthe semester.   

           We conducted a face-validity checkon the Questionnaire on Team Climateand made changes to clarify the items.The Questionnaire on Team Climatewas adapted by us from the StudentReaction Questionnaire  that Neal (1994)developed and analyzed. Analysis ofthe questionnaire resulted in a coefficientCronbach’s alpha reliability of .84,which is above the .70 acceptance levelrecommended by Nunnally (1978).At the end of the semester, studentsresponded to 18 statements onthe Questionnaire on Team Climate. Ofthose statements, 17 had 7-point Likerttypescales ranging from 1 (little) to7 (much). We conducted an analysisof variance (ANOVA) to determine ifsignificant differences existed betweenteams of similar majors and teams ofmixed majors on any of the statements.Also, we ran a chi-square test on onestatement that presented six options,where team members chose one optionthat best described their teams.