Good and interesting contributions on this discussion

by respected RG members.

Cooperative work by a team can produce remarkable results. The challenge is to move from the realm of the possible to the realm of practice. Working in Teams, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228533148_Working_in_Teams, shines a light on the characteristics of successful teams (including their culture) and singles out key stages in developing them. (Importantly, the article notes that a team is not necessarily the best organizational structure for what an organization sets out to accomplish and explains when to use them.)

Article Working in Teams

Many thanks dear@ Olivier Serrat

but the question is how to measure the team culture?

I went through the article but I couldn't find any thing related to the team culture

any way your article is very interesting and I will use it among my references

The culture of teamwork is measured by the unity of purpose between the team and the method followed. Each of its activities achieves the collective goal without thinking about whether its effort is the best or the most or the other. Working within the Organization is the prevailing culture of commitment to what is required without reservations.

تقاس ثقافة العمل الجماعي بوحدة الغاية بين الفريق اي كان الأسلوب المتبع فالكل من نشاطه يحقق الهدف الجماعي دون تفكير فيما إذا كان جهده هو الأفضل ام الأكثر ام اي صفة أخرى.ونعم يختلف عن العمل الفردي الذي يكون مقياس الأفضل والأكثر جهد هو السائد. اما العمل ضمن المنظمة فالثقافة السائدة هو الالتزام بما هو مطلوب دون تحفظات.

Many Thanks dear colleague@ Wahag Abass for your valued contribution

"The culture of teamwork is reflected in a set of common values, beliefs, and standards. Its mission is to influence the way people think, feel, and behave in the workplace. Culture is also usually transferred to the members of the organization through rehabilitation for social life, training, networks, rituals, and symbols. It is the national culture that determines, to a large extent, the standards of culture and collective action through the transfer of members of this country to a large part of the national culture to the institution in which they work."

Very important answer Dr. Issam Issa Omran many Thanks

I agree with the submissions of Drs. Wahag Abass and Isam Issa Omran on this discussion.

Good and interesting contributions on this discussion

by respected RG members.

Following!

My Christmas Message to all followers of this thread:

An university colleage abroad, emeritus now, wrote the history of his university discipline (educational science) by investigating the situation of this subject at all universites of his country - regarding the development of the discipline from the origins until our days.

To achieve this, he spent many days or even weeks at every university in his country reading and recording the files of the university archives. He had begun his work there were no computer or digitalized materials in use. It took him many, many years for his work, which he essentially did on his own. As a result of his years of research, he presented four extensive volumes in small print. Each volume has a strenght of well over 1000 pages. Now, 90 years old, he writes about his memoirs and the difficulties his colleagues encountered in his work.

Astonishing: There were not many colleagues who praised his monumental work. Most of them were indignant that they were either not so much mentioned themselves or their views were even criticized in some points.

Other university colleagues - and also some followers of this thread - might laugh at this tremendous lifetime achievement and say: "We make it much easier and faster: Each one an article and then the volume is finished!" Not to chose the quickest way to come to success in your research work, and after finishing the work to get the ironic smile of your colleages who are happily using the "culture of teamwork" that's the fate of a kind of research which is independent from the success promising paths of the know-it-alls and career makers.

This is the "culture of teamwork", and this culture is basically measurable by the effort everyone has put in.

The alone-working-culture of the independent researcher, who is prepared to take responsibility for the whole thing himself, and enduring people bother him for his results must be sought worldwide today - like a pin in a haystack.

Conclusion and finishing thesis: Not the rankings of reviewers or colleagues are capable to validate your work, only history decides if your work is valide.

The team's ideas and competitions are inspired by the correct interpretation of the results

P. Contreras

Dear Colleague, dear Pedro, thank you very much for your answer. I admit, that my writing above is somewhat one-sided, just because most of the people who are gathered here obviously live only in the tradition of researching as co-authors of essays. So years of working on one book, which for example was typical in Germany for the habilitation today does not exist in this traditional manner.

Of course, the publication practice in the team is much more common in the natural sciences; that's perfectly okay. Exactly what you write about the physicists mentioned, that they not only wrote a single paper that made them famous, but were able to prove their scientific quality through significant works, made them a role model. And these books, classics, are of course often based on the union of the most important essays in a single volume.

My intention was to say to those who are discussing here and belong to a mostly younger generation: there are also other scientific traditions than those they are used in today-practice, and these traditions are important to know. Most of the great works of the 20th century were written when there was not yet a computer that made the search for literature - apparently - easy, because everything can be downloaded on the net by keywords, and that makes forget this apparently simplification of scientific work, that very important works stand outside magazines with the highest repupation, such as "Nature", which were not included in the bibliographies. One has to hold the volumes of the journals in one's hand and look through them band by band. Who can still do that today, who still has such libraries at their university? So in many regards you spoke from my soul - and I thank you very much!

Apparently, we can analyze the work of a scientific team and the degree of interaction within it. You do not need to carefully identify the contribution of each to a particular job. It is enough to view the lists of authors of all articles made by this group. To do this, we can use some mathematical method that analyzes not only statistics, but also stable connections inside object. For example, if I see the name of the highest administrator of the group under each (or most, in this case absence of chief's name is also significant) article of this group, then it already says a lot about these. It is possible identify whether the team is unified, or splits into stable sub-groups. Additional information appears during comparison of the person’s contribution to the articles pool with his position in the formal structure. Also, an appeal to external collaborators suggests the existence of "holes" in the structure (although it may be caused by other reasons).

Briefly, it is possible highlight the three main types of teams:

1. Army (commander, his deputies, unit commanders, etc.) with "leader" subtype (chief has authority not only due administrative position, but due to his achievements);

2. Family (patriarch, older children, grandchildren, friends etc.);

3. Friendly (a union of almost equal employees connected by mutual (scientific) interest, one of them (as victim) assumes the main administrative duties, understanding that others will do more in the scientific sense if they will free from the routine work).

Of course, these are common, model representations, in reality there can be composite versions (life is always much worse than our worst ideas about it © V. Gorshkov). For example, inside administrative type team (1) sometimes frendly groups (3) exist etc, as well as patriarch (occupying a separate place) sometimes presents in friendly team.

The culture in each of these types is mostly different. It consists of folklore, traditions, experience (both individual and collective), type of communication and collaboration, type of leadership. Like any culture, it is formed as the system develops, changes and becomes more complicated. In this sense, the most interesting is the group created "from zero". In it, the elements introduced by individual members (with different expirience) gradually struggle and agree...

I am agree with my Colleagues

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov

You answer is full of knowledge

Many Thanks

I feel proud, grateful and happy that researchers like you are participating in this discussion, thank you all

Through the quality of production

Through the quality of production

Through the quality of production