Social and Economic Aspects of Sustainable Development: Intensity of Collaboration as a Key Driver of Team Work Engagement

Abstract

Collaboration among employees is critical to achieving sustainability goals. This article explains how employee engagement fosters the socio-economic dimension of sustainability, both for the organization and society. As is well known, there is a constant search for factors that enhance engagement. Given that one of the important requirements for its formation is affiliation, it is assumed that cooperation can foster engagement. It should be noted that it is also an important element of social sustainability, as it enables the building of lasting relationships and social capital. After all, employees may, in fact, perform tasks in different ways, and this affects not only the relationship between them, but also their performance (work results achieved). While there are studies on collaboration as well as on the determinants of employee engagement, there is a lack of research on the kind of collaboration in the context of team engagement. This article aims to help reduce this gap. The goal of our research was to determine whether and how the intensity of collaboration is related to the level of team work engagement. The intensity of collaboration is analyzed through the level of behavioral, structural, and functional interdependence, and the engagement is understood according to the Schaufeli and Bakker approach. Taking this into account, 12 teams operating in various industries, who carry out various scopes of tasks, were invited to participate in the study. The assumption was confirmed. At the same time, the importance of relational aspects for team work engagement, i.e., behavioral interdependence, the method of contact between team members, and the difficulty of performing tasks, was highlighted. Based on the research results, it was indicated that leadership and environmental conditions (centralization, formalization) are crucial for working in teams in the context of team work engagement. It should be emphasized that this study is a valuable guideline for managers and organizations that want to nurture the engagement of the whole team. At the same time, like the aspect of team autonomy, it suggests a direction for further research to support the long-term sustainability of the organization.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development of organizations is a broadly understood ecological organization of operational processes, striving to meet the expectations of all stakeholders and ensure the safety and stability of employees. The complex sustainability challenges that society faces require organizations to engage in collaborative partnerships. No single actor can fully address the challenges associated with sustainable development; therefore, collaboration is recognized as an important factor in solving complex problems related to sustainable development [1,2]. Therefore, collaboration for sustainability has been recognized as a key element in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and as one of the core principles of sustainable organizations [1,3,4,5]. In addition, it is worth emphasizing that in modern organizations, the human factor is treated as a resource with a special strategic dimension; it is people who create an organization. To what extent organizations can meet the needs and expectations of their customers depends on the staff they employ. However, what is important is not only the knowledge, qualifications, skills, and predispositions of individual employees, but how willing employees are to take action, to what extent they use their capabilities as part of the activities they undertake, and how they function and collaborate with each other. The latter is because the scope and complexity of the challenges that modern organizations must meet mean that these organizations largely use group forms of work organization.

As is well known, a group is not a team [6], nor does every team work effectively. For this reason, many studies deal with the determinants of teams [7,8,9]. It is noteworthy that they consider aspects of structural interdependence on the one hand, and behavioral interdependence on the other. Although their connection is indicated, it is rarely the focus of analysis [10,11,12].

Collaboration between employees is the key to implementing sustainability policies and achieving goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals [4,13,14]. A sustainable enterprise is also one that is flexible and adaptable to constant change, i.e., able to function in a changing environment and under crisis conditions. It is worth noting that organizations that are genuinely committed to sustainable development take into account the need to respond to changes not only in the technological environment and knowledge resources, but also to changes in societal expectations (including those of the organization’s consumers and employees), as well the institutional and legal conditions that define the desired directions and frameworks for the development of the economy and individual entities. Therefore, in addition to elements such as eco-efficiency and social responsibility, a sustainable enterprise takes into account the need to shape organizational culture, leadership, and trust, as well as risk management and business continuity [15]. As highlighted by Sten et al. [16] and Ispiryan et al. [13], fostering a robust culture of employee collaboration plays a pivotal role in bolstering operational sustainability. This is achieved through the promotion of innovation, optimization of resource utilization, alignment of sustainability objectives across the organization, and enhancement of organizational resilience. Effective leadership serves as a catalyst, bridging the gap between organizational culture and sustainability initiatives. Moreover, trust is a crucial element that facilitates cooperative actions, aligning with in line with widely established studies that emphasize employee collaboration supports sustainable practices. According to the study, collaboration not only enables organizations to effectively implement sustainable development principles through joint decision-making and problem-solving, but it is also crucial for generating the innovation and creativity necessary to achieve sustainable development goals [17]. This is reflected in the standards of the SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) or GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). In both cases, the importance of cooperation and the need to develop it with various stakeholders to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals are emphasized. In the area of management, attention is paid to both the motivation of employees and their engagement in the work assigned to them. While motivation to work is identified with the reasons why people undertake, maintain, or complete specific activities, engagement refers to [18,19]:

• identification of employees with the organization’s goals and values, enthusiasm, sense of importance, inspiration, and pride (dimension: dedication);
• their willingness to take action for the benefit of their organization and invest effort in the implementation of assigned tasks, and to persevere in the face of emerging difficulties (dimension: vigor);
• how much the employee is focused on their work and to what extent they are absorbed in their work, i.e., how difficult it is for them to break away from their work and to what extent the passage of time escapes them (dimension: absorption).

Please note that both motivation and engagement are subject to gradation, and since motivation is expressed in levels, engagement can be as well. It is important to note that commitment is strongly supported by fulfilling the need to belong. This can be realized by working in a team. What is important is that both collaboration and engagement have been identified as significant factors in reducing the occurrence of socio-economic factors such as the free-rider effect (where people do not want to bear the costs allocated to them in the hope that others will pay for them) and the tragedy of the commons (a situation where people care less about the common good than about private property), which limit the effectiveness of actions towards sustainable development [20,21,22]. Although previous studies have linked collaboration and engagement, few have explored the role of collaboration intensity as a determinant of team engagement in the context of sustainability goals. This study of the relationship between collaboration intensity and teamwork engagement aims to help fill this gap.

There are two key questions here. First, does collaboration promote teamwork engagement? Second, if such a relationship is observed, under what circumstances does it occur? The paper consists of three parts. The first presents the literature background, characterizes the issue of collaboration in organizations as well as engagement, and presents analyses of collaboration in relation to team engagement. The second presents the methodology of the study. The third describes the results and draws conclusions.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Collaboration

According to Pszczołowski [23], formal (hierarchical) relationships in the organization result in reciprocity (mutuality) and, therefore, interdependence. Thus, collaboration in an organization can be described as collective dependent action.

Referring to how compatible (or opposite) the goals of cooperating entities are, and how these entities behave with respect to each other, Pszczołowski distinguishes [23] between positive collective-dependent action (collaboration) and negative collective-dependent action (fight). In doing so, he points out the possibility of competition [23]—that is, a situation in which elements of the fight are introduced into collaboration. According to Pszczołowski [23], actual collaboration occurs when the parties involved aim for a compatible goal; additionally, “they help each other” in achieving it. When the goals of the parties remain incompatible and, at the same time, they knowingly try to counteract these actions (i.e., obstruct each other’s efforts), fights occur. According to this author, rivalry is an important form of fight. Thus, what fits in the framework of dependent collective action is: cooperation, competition, and fight.

Czarniawski [24] introduces the same division of human activities (cf. Figure 1) and distinguishes three forms, based on the analysis of human-dependent collective activities (i.e., those in which there is mutual influence of people that are in contact with each other).

The author considers collaboration as an example of “consistent” actions (the essence of which is mutual help), competition as an example of “parallel” activities (based on joint striving for something), and conflict as an example of “opposing” actions (mutual interference).

According to Kożuch [25], collaboration as a characteristic of every organized human activity is the foundation for creating all kinds of organizations. Therefore, collaboration can also occur in separate departments of the organization, in the organization as a whole, in groups of organizations (clusters), and between countries and groups of countries. For instance, cooperation among businesses, social organizations, and government is key to making progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, as Vázquez-Brust and her team [26] note, different sustainable development goals require different approaches to collaboration, as well as specific partners involved in the process. Many partnerships fail to achieve their objectives due to inappropriate collaboration management structures and ineffective mechanisms for managing collaboration to achieve specific sustainable development goals. Collaboration towards achieving the organization’s goals requires task planning (also due to the diversity and complexity of these goals).

In management sciences, the way human actions are coordinated and the extent to which individual people involved make an effort creates the distinction between cooperation and collaboration. All cooperation is collaboration, but not all collaboration can be considered cooperation. In management theory, team cooperation (which is a form of collaboration) is considered a more advanced form than group collaboration, which means that its levels of collaboration can be determined. Moczulska [27] points out that the types of interdependencies between the collaborating entities are important for the intensity of collaboration. Interdependencies can be structural (static: related to the organizational and legal aspect resulting from the assumed goals, allocated resources, and achieved results), functional (dynamic: related to activities and processes undertaken in the unit) or behavioral (related to the observed reactions of people in scope of ongoing communication, sharing information and knowledge, solving problems, resolving conflicts). Although there is no data on whether collaboration promotes team work engagement, it is known that structural interdependencies, which relate to tasks, goals, resources, and outcomes, determine the extent to which an individual (employee) is dependent on others to perform tasks, allocate resources, achieve goals, realize outcomes, or receive rewards. Functional interdependencies, which relate to the performance of functions and roles, also relate to the skills and abilities of individuals working together to perform tasks. Meanwhile, behavioral interdependencies determine the interactions between participating individuals, especially in terms of communication (frequency, quality), information and knowledge sharing, problem solving, and conflict resolution [28].

2.2. Team Work Engagement

In the work-related context, engagement can be understood in relation to achieving company goals [29], as well as in relation to the employee [30]. In this paper, the authors adopted the latter approach, treating employee engagement according to Schaufeli and Bakker’s [18] definition of “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, absorption and dedication”. Vigor means a high level of energy and mental resistance while performing work, and willingness is to invest effort and perseverance in the face of emerging difficulties. Absorption signifies being busy (engaged) with work, experiencing a sense of meaning, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. In turn, dedication involves focusing on work and being absorbed in it, characterized by not feeling the passage of time and having difficulty detaching from a performed task.

Thus, team work engagement will mean a positive, shared state of team members’ responsibility through vigor, absorption, and dedication [31]. Please note that it is about the collective state of the team, as Costa et al. [32] pointed out, and not about the combination of individual states, i.e., the sum of the engagement of each team member, as proposed by Salanova [33].

2.3. Collaboration and Team Work Engagement

It is worth noting that many studies concern the work engagement of an individual employee, and few refer to teams. In the latter case, the importance of coherence [34] and trust [35] can be pointed out by taking into account the research results regarding collaboration and engagement [31]. Moreover, as demonstrated by Makikangas et al. [36], engaged employees with high levels of energy can thrive in teams that create workplaces together. This means allowing (taking into account) the autonomy of their actions. As determined by van Tuin et al. [37], meeting this need, along with the need for competence and belonging, explains a 57% engagement in the case of individual employees. It is also important in the case of team work engagement when working in a hybrid mode [31]. Its highest level seems to be the possibility of collective leadership. According to the analysis of Klasmeier and Rowold [34], it is positively related to team cohesion, team work engagement, and achieving daily goals.

However, research by Panteli et al. [38] regarding virtual teams showed the importance of factors such as leader support, ensuring the transfer of information, praise, and remuneration. The authors indicated that team work engagement in this type of cooperation requires continuous effort and support. Some studies analyze and confirm the importance of working in teams for employee (individual) engagement and job satisfaction [39,40]. In other studies, employee engagement was found to act as a mediator between the results (efficiency, effectiveness) and personal characteristics of teams (interpersonal trust, autonomous motivation) [41], transactional leadership [42], or between cooperation and patient satisfaction [43]. Boermans et al. [44] also found team work engagement to be a key moderator for the relationship between organizational constraints and individual psychological functioning. Please note that the team studied military teams, and the relationship occurred particularly when concerns about organizational constraints were high.

Although both individual and team work engagement can be considered in cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, it should be noted that the determinants of both types of engagement differ from each other. Based on the comparison by Haffer and Haffer [45]. The factors influencing team work engagement include task characteristics determined by the level of interdependence, team characteristics understood through the power structure in the team and atmosphere, team structure relating to the division of tasks, communication, and applicable norms, as well as interpersonal team processes. As pointedly observed by Campion et al. [46], work efficiency is higher in the case of interdependence, i.e., in teams that are characterized by a high level of interdependence of tasks, goals, results, and rewards. Please note that this interdependence promotes responsibility [47] and interactions between collaborators, i.e., more frequent communication, knowledge and information sharing, providing help in more than individual tasks [48], collaborative behavior including sacrificing self-interest to achieve common goals [49], motivation to work, coordination, and engagement [50]. It can be argued that structural interdependence is associated with behavioral interdependence [51]. The increase in the former has a positive impact on the growth of the latter.

In conclusion, there are few studies on team work engagement and its determinants. The available analyses acknowledge collaboration as a mediating factor between team work engagement and performance. The mode of collaboration refers to the type of team (virtual teams). Importantly, although the types of interdependence are indicated, they are analyzed separately (i.e., as structural, behavioral, and functional interdependence) rather than together as the intensity of collaboration. Thus, it is needed to determine whether (and how) the intensity of collaboration is related to the level of team work engagement.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Sample

Our study aimed to determine whether and how the intensity of collaboration is related to the level of team engagement. Because the literature points to a lack of dedicated research on the intensity of collaboration in the context of team engagement, our research is characterized by its exploratory nature. Due to differences in the scope of collaboration indicated in the literature on the subject, teams operating in various industries carrying out varied scopes of tasks were invited to participate in the study. In turn, due to factors that are significant from the point of view of the intensity of cooperation, teams were qualified according to the following criteria: constancy of duration: (1) permanent teams were selected (by design, the study excluded ad hoc project teams); (2) period of operation: the team had to operate for at least one year; and (3) stationary location: teams with a common physical work space were included (dispersed teams were disqualified).

Participants were recruited with their consent and voluntarily. Ultimately, twelve teams were included in the study. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, its aim, and the sample size (number of teams), a comparative analysis of the teams in the aforementioned scope used multivariate cluster analysis.

Table 1. Basic characteristics of the studied teams.

	Team Code
	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Number of people in the team	25	12	9	10	13	3	6	9	5	6	7	12
Diversity of composition (gender criterion)	M	M	F	F	FM	F	FM	F-M	FM	F-M	FM	FM
Constancy of composition	US	S	U	S	S	S	S	U-S	S	S	SU	SU
Type of composition (structural affiliation of members to organizational units)	N	N	B	B	B	B	B	N	B	B	B	N
Type of tasks	In-Ph	Ph	In-Ph	In	In	In	In	Ph	In	In-Ph	In-Ph	In-Ph
Extent of task differentiation	Fi	V	Fi-V	Fi	Fi-V	V	Fi-V	Fi-V	Fi-V	Fi-V	V	Fi
Degree of difficulty of tasks	Md	Md	Md	E	D	D	Md	Md	D	Md	Md	Md

summarizes the basic characteristics of the studied teams in relation to:

• the number of people in the team,
• diversity of team composition due to gender (F: female, M: male, F-M: with equal number of women and men, F-M: teams with a higher number of women, M-F: teams with a higher number of men),
• stability of the team composition (S: closed teams, U: open teams, S-U teams in which the number of permanent (basic) and ad hoc (temporary) members remained at the same level, SU: teams with mostly permanent members, but additional people were added from time to time, US: teams composed of a small group of permanent members),
• type of composition due to the formal bond of team members—i.e., their structural affiliation to organizational units (B: block assignment when team members are employed in the same department, N: network assignment, where team members come from different organizational units),
• type of tasks as per their nature (In: requirements within typically intellectual tasks, Ph: tasks related to physical work, Ph-In: types of tasks of a mixed nature),
• scope of diversity of tasks (Fi: rather repeatable/fixed range, V: rather diverse/variable scope of tasks, Fi-V: some tasks of a permanent nature and some of a variable nature,
• degree of difficulty of the tasks performed (E: easy and rather easy tasks, Md: tasks of moderate difficulty, D: difficult and very difficult tasks).

As mentioned, the teams qualified for the study carried out various scopes of tasks in various areas. These included: mining and excavation (team I), construction (team II), trade (team III: textile industry), support (team IV: protection of classified information), financial and insurance services (team V: banking services), administration and support (team VI: real estate maintenance), professional, scientific, and technical (team VII: accounting, team VIII: legal, team IX: architecture, team XII: art), and education (teams: X and XI). Importantly, the qualified teams were dominated by those operating for 3 to 10 years. In only two teams, the work experience of some members was shorter. Please note that for the majority of respondents, their seniority corresponded to their work experience in the team. Thus, the professional experience of most team members was largely gained by working in the team.

3.2. Research Tool

The Team Work Engagement (TWE) tool was used to measure engagement [32]. The intensity of collaboration was determined based on: structural, functional and behavioral interdependence, where:

• Structural interdependence was based on tools by Campion et al. [46] and by Arthur et al. [52].
• Functional interdependence was based on the tool by Alves, Lourenco [53].
• Behavioral interdependence was based on the tools by Simsek et al. [54], Baer et al. [55], Boerner et al. [56], Gittel [57], Pekruhl [58], or those presented in the work by Richter et al. [59] and Marlow et al. [60]. A factor analysis was performed, in which 19 significant factors were separated (Cronbach’s alpha index of internal consistency for the entire scale was 0.87). Ultimately, the following aspects were included: focus on cooperation, decision-making, knowledge sharing, problem (conflict) solving, and communication (frequency and quality).

Given the exploratory nature of the study, its aim, and the sample size (number of teams), a multidimensional cluster analysis was applied in the comparative analysis of teams in the above scope. Euclidean distance was used as the distance function [61]. The single bond method, also called the nearest neighbor method, was adopted as the principle for cluster connection. The distance between two clusters is determined by the distance between the two closest objects (nearest neighbors) belonging to different clusters [62]. However, the grouping of objects (factors) was done in two ways: the hierarchical agglomeration method and non-hierarchical grouping using the k-means method. The first was used to explore the data structure and identify the potential number of clusters without prior assumptions. The number of clusters was determined based on a dendrogram, which presents the distances between objects. Next, the k-means method was used as a tool to confirm the results obtained from hierarchical clustering. This method also made it possible to precisely assign objects to a predetermined number of clusters. In order to verify the stability of the results, a methodological triangulation was applied by comparing the results of two independent clustering methods (hierarchical and k-means). The convergence of the obtained groups in both approaches was considered as evidence confirming the internal consistency of the identified clusters. The combination of both methods increased the reliability of the cluster analysis results.

The literature on assessing engagement in teams [44,63,64] points to the role of leadership and conditions in which the team operates in the organization. Therefore, questions that allow identifying the supervisor’s management style [65], as well as the degree to which teams are formalized and centralized [66], were added to the survey questionnaire.

4. Results

4.1. Collaboration and Team Work Engagement

Four groups were distinguished, showing similarities between teams in terms of the intensity of collaboration (Chart 1).

In each group, the highest values are related to behavioral collaboration. The first group (cluster 4—team VI) is characterized by the highest behavioral and functional collaboration of all groups and the lowest structural collaboration (

Table 2. Elements of individual clusters by intensity of interaction.

Cluster Number	Team Code	Distance	Structural Collaboration		Behavioral Collaboration		Functional Collaboration
			M ± SD	Variance	M ± SD	Variance	M ± SD	Variance
1	IV	0.00	7.28 ± 0	0.00	18.6 ± 0	0.00	6.5 ± 0	0.00
2	III	0.72	14.89 ± 1.14	1.29	21.69 ± 1.44	2.08	5.63 ± 0.26	0.07
	V	0.73
	IX	1.11
3	I	0.32	13.68 ± 1.1	1.21	16.11 ± 1.03	1.05	4.58 ± 0.59	0.35
	II	0.85
	VII	0.58
	VIII	0.47
	X	0.80
	XI	1.01
	XII	1.48
4	VI	0.00	5.33 ± 0	0.00	25.13 ± 0	0.00	7 ± 0	0.00

Abbreviations: M—mean; SD—standard deviation. Source: own elaboration based on research.

). In the second group (cluster 1—team IV), the value of structural interdependence is close to functional interdependence, and at the same time, is more than half lower than that of behavioral interdependence. In the third group (cluster 2—teams V, III, and IX), the values of behavioral interdependence are high, exceeding the values of structural interdependence by 1/3. In the fourth group (cluster 3—the remaining seven teams), the value of functional interdependence is the lowest, and the level of other interdependencies can be described as moderate and most clustered (Chart 1—M ± SD).

Comparing teams by engagement, cluster analysis revealed two groups. The first one, with the highest engagement, included two teams: VI and IX. The second one shows the remaining teams with lower engagement (Chart 2). It can be seen that teams from the first cluster show a higher level of engagement in three of its dimensions (vigor, absorption, dedication), but at the same time, they are more diverse. Teams from cluster 2 are characterized by lower engagement and lower diversity (

Table 3. Elements of individual clusters by team work engagement.

Cluster Number	Team Code	Distance	Team Work Engagement
			Vigor		Absorption		Dedication
			M ± SD	Variance	M ± SD	Variance	M ± SD	Variance
1	VI	0.64	5.6 ± 0.57	0.32	5.13 ± 1.23	1.50	5.43 ± 0.8	0.64
	IX	0.64
2	I	0.30
	II	0.51
	III	0.50
	IV	0.55	3.02 ± 0.34	0.12	3.13 ± 0.53	0.28	2.94 ± 0.37	0.13
	V	0.40
	VII	0.36
	VIII	0.20
	X	0.52
	XI	0.26
	XII	0.18

Abbreviations: M—mean; SD—standard deviationSource: own elaboration based on research.

).

Analyzing the results of team work engagement in relation to the intensity of collaboration, it can be noticed that team IX, with the highest level of engagement, is also a team with the highest level of intensity of collaboration. The level of intensity of collaboration in team VI is also slightly lower, but still high. It is worth adding that a significant statistical relation was identified between the intensity of collaboration and team work engagement (R = 0.72; t(N − 2) = 3.28; p = 0.007—

Table 4. Collaboration variables vs. team work engagement.

	N = 12	Team Work Engagement
		Vigor	Absorption	Dedication	Total
Structural collaboration	Interdependence of tasks	R = 0.19; t(N−2) = 0.62; p = 0.552	R = 0.05; t(N−2) = 0.16; p = 0.879	R = −0.17; t(N−2) = −0.53; p = 0.607	R = 0.08; t(N−2) = 0.26; p = 0.802
	Interdependence of goals	R = −0.29; t(N−2) = −0.95; p = 0.364	R = −0.39; t(N−2) = −1.33; p = 0.212	R = −0.02; t(N−2) = −0.07; p = 0.948	R = −0.17; t(N−2) = −0.54; p = 0.601
	Resource interdependence	R = 0; t(N−2) = −0.01; p = 0.991	R = 0.19; t(N−2) = 0.61; p = 0.557	R = 0.06; t(N−2) = 0.2; p = 0.846	R = 0.12; t(N−2) = 0.38; p = 0.713
	Interdependence of rewards	R = 0.15; t(N−2) = 0.48; p = 0.64	R = 0.34; t(N−2) = 1.13; p = 0.286	R = 0.37; t(N−2) = 1.26; p = 0.236	R = 0.39; t(N−2) = 1.35; p = 0.208
	Overall level	R = 0.1; t(N−2) = 0.32; p = 0.753	R = 0.2; t(N−2) = 0.65; p = 0.527	R = 0.24; t(N−2) = 0.77; p = 0.457	R = 0.27; t(N−2) = 0.87; p = 0.404
Behavioral collaboration	Information flow	R = 0.36; t(N−2) = 1.24; p = 0.243	R = 0.45; t(N−2) = 1.61; p = 0.138	R = 0.57; t(N−2) = 2.17; p < 0.055	R = 0.51; t(N−2) = 1.88; p < 0.09
	Frequency of contacts	R = 0.22; t(N−2) = 0.71; p = 0.496	R = 0.25; t(N−2) = 0.82; p = 0.429	R = 0.39; t(N−2) = 1.33; p = 0.212	R = 0.26; t(N−2) = 0.86; p = 0.409
	Method of contact	R = 0.71; t(N−2) = 3.19; p < 0.01	R = 0.75; t(N−2) = 3.58; p < 0.01	R = 0.54; t(N−2) = 2.03; p < 0.07	R = 0.65; t(N−2) = 2.69; p < 0.05
	Process of cooperation	R = 0.35; t(N−2) = 1.2; p = 0.258	R = 0.69; t(N−2) = 2.98; p < 0.05	R = 0.52; t(N−2) = 1.95; p < 0.08	R = 0.56; t(N−2) = 2.13; p < 0.059
	Overall level	R = 0.55; t(N−2) = 2.09; p < 0.063	R = 0.61; t(N−2) = 2.42; p < 0.05	R = 0.55; t(N−2) = 2.06; p < 0.067	R = 0.54; t(N−2) = 2.02; p < 0.071
Functional collaboration		R = -0.02; t(N-2) = -0.06; p = 0.957	R = 0.23; t(N−2) = 0.75; p = 0.471	R = 0.3; t(N−2) = 1; p = 0.342	R = 0.15; t(N−2) = 0.47; p = 0.649
Intensity of collaboration		R = 0.53; t(N−2) = 1.99; p < 0.074	R = 0.62; t(N−2) = 2.51; p < 0.05	R = 0.73; t(N−2) = 3.42; p < 0.01	R = 0.72; t(N−2) = 3.28; p < 0.01

).

The intensity of collaboration in the case of both teams is also characterized by a high level of behavioral collaboration. However, these teams differ in other types of collaboration. Taking into account the above, as well as team IV’s results, which demonstrated the lowest level of collaboration intensity, it seems that both the level of behavioral collaboration as well as the proportions (ratio) of individual types of collaboration could be important for the team’s engagement. Teams V and III were included in the same cluster as team IX in terms of intensity of collaboration; however, they were included in a different cluster than the above-mentioned team in terms of the team’s engagement. Therefore, it can be concluded that for the intensity of collaboration to favor engagement, other conditions must be met.

4.2. Condition of Intensity of Collaboration to Favor Engagement

When comparing teams V, III, and IX, it should be noted that they differ in cohesion results (

Table 5. Elements of individual clusters by cohesion.

Cluster Number	Team Code	Distance	Task Coherence		Relational Coherence
			M ± SD	Variance	M ± SD	Variance
1	II	0.41	19.3 ± 0.71	0.50	15.1 ± 0.42	0.18
	XI	0.41
2	VI	0.00	18 ± 0	0.00	26 ± 0	0.00
3	I	0.50	16.98 ± 0.72	0.51	18.02 ± 0.69	0.48
	VII	0.66
	VIII	0.54
4	III	0.46	16.04 ± 1.82	3.30	12.51 ± 1.59	2.54
	IV	2.24
	V	1.22
	XII	1.43
5	IX	0.53	14.33 ± 0.11	0.01	18.75 ± 1.06	1.13
	X	0.53

). In the first case, task coherence prevails over relational coherence, and in the second case, the opposite is true. Team VI is similar to team IX. This can also be concluded about the importance of relationships in the team, which is also due to the fact that all four teams (IV, V, VI, and IX) have a permanent and fixed composition.

Since behavioral collaboration is important for engagement, it is worth noting that teams with the highest level of engagement in this area are distinguished by (

Table 6. Characteristics of interdependence in the surveyed teams.

Team Code	Structural Collaboration				Behavioral Collaboration					Functional Collaboration
	Interdependence				Information Flow	Frequency of Contacts		Method of Contact	Process of Cooperation
	Tasks	Goals	Resources	Rewards		In Work	Outside Work
I	EI/S	WZ	UZ	UZ	D	U	N	B	U	W
II	EI/AT	WZ	UZ	UZ	D	W	W	B	N	W
III	IC	NZ	WZ	WZ	BD	W	U	B	D	W
IV	EI/IC	BNZ	NZ	NZ	D	W	N	B	D	BW
V	ET (4 pers.) /IC (5 pers.)	BNZ	UZ	WZ	D	W	N	T	U	W
VI	EI	BNZ	NZ	NZ	BD	BW	N	T	BD	BW
VII	IC	UZ	UZ	UZ	D	U	N	B	U	U
VIII	IC	UZ	NZ	UZ	D	W	N	P/B	U	U
IX	CI	UZ	WZ	WZ	BD	BW	U	T	BD	W
X	EI/AT	UZ	UZ	UZ	D	W	N	P	U	W
XI	S/AT	WZ	WZ	UZ	D	U	N	B/P	U	U
XII	EI/S/AT	NZ	NZ	UZ	D	U	N	B	U	U

EI—Each individually, S—Sequentially, IC—Individually in collaboration with others, AL—All together; N—low, U—moderate, W—high, BW—very high, D—good, BD—very good, P—indirect, B—direct, T—"face to face", WZ—high dependency, UZ—moderate dependency, NZ—low dependency, BNZ—very low dependency.

): very high frequency of contacts at work, very good collaboration, and face-to-face contact. The last one also has a statistically significant impact on engagement (R = 0.65; t(N−2) = 2.69; p = 0.021).

Please note also that teams with the highest level of engagement are those that perform difficult or very difficult tasks (cf. Table 1). Taking into account the two issues above (method of contact and difficulty of tasks), attention should be paid to team V, which is identical in this respect to teams VI and IX. Bearing in mind the remaining results, please note that this syndrome is characterized by a large discrepancy between the interdependence of goals (very low) and rewards (very high). This result is surprising and puzzling, and even questionable in the context of differences in team members’ perception of how tasks are performed.

Taking into account the results of the supplementary part of the questionnaire (concerning the management style and the assessment of the degree of centralization and formalization of the teams’ functioning conditions), it can be indicated that team members chose a passive leadership style in teams VI, XI, XII, IV, and III, despite some differences in the scope of individual assessments of individual members). Personal style was noted in teams IX and V, and the compromise style was noted in relation to teams II, X, I, VII, and VIII (cf. Figure 2).

Teams V and IV are considered both formalized and centralized. The rest includes groups that experience these issues at a moderate level and at the same time are centralized rather than formalized, and vice versa (cf. Figure 3).

The data obtained, combined with the results discussed above, create some additional possibilities for interpreting the results regarding both the intensity of collaboration and the level of engagement. It seems particularly interesting that, according to the data obtained, both the degree of centralization and the degree of formalization in teams IV and V were very high. Therefore, the operating conditions of both teams can be considered to be much more restrictive to the possibilities of collaboration than those of other teams. The aspect of leadership also turns out to be extremely interesting. Personal style was identified in both team IX (i.e., the team with the highest level of engagement and the most intensive collaboration) and in team V. However, in team V, a higher level of employee orientation was declared on the part of the superior, with the same level of task orientation. In turn, the passive style was recorded in both teams VI and IV. At the same time, to a small but noticeable extent, team VI could expect a higher level of support from their superior with a significantly lower degree of pressure on results from them than team IV.

5. Conclusions

In the context of the global Sustainable Development Challenges (SDGs), the analysis of collaboration in teams is of particular importance. The literature to date does not identify direct relationships between team interaction and team engagement. Our study attempts to fill this gap while contributing to the understanding of the social dimension of sustainability. Our study aligns with Agenda 2030, with particular focus on Goal 17, Partnerships for the Goals, by exploring mechanisms for fostering effective collaboration.

Indeed, it is worth noting that teamwork and sustainable development are not isolated concepts, but mutually reinforcing elements driving organizational growth and innovation. In the context of her analyses, L. Šalkauskienė [17] not only recognizes teamwork and sustainable development as key factors enhancing competitiveness in the long-term development of an organization, but also demonstrates that the role of teamwork in implementing the ideas of sustainable development within an organization is crucial. According to her, the concept of sustainable development cannot be separated from the concept of teamwork, as the very idea of sustainability implies the organization’s ability to adapt to changes in its environment, apply best practices, and achieve and maintain competitive advantage. Moreover, this author emphasizes that sustainability within an organization must involve the transformation of attitudes and behaviors, and that a sustainable team should be defined through a set of components such as actions, structure, people, and ideas. This is confirmed by the findings of Sten, Ingelsson, and Häggström [16], which demonstrate that teamwork within the TMT (Top Management Team) is a crucial factor for organizational sustainability, particularly in creating a sustainable quality culture within the organization. Moreover, engaged governance is included in the criteria for social sustainability, alongside social capital, social infrastructure, social justice, and equity [67]. As noted by Ćwikła [68], sustainable project management is increasingly regarded as a conditio sine qua non in the contemporary understanding of projects within organizations. The results of our research on teams carrying out different scopes of tasks and working on-site (having a permanent and single location for each team member) confirmed a significant statistical relationship between the intensity of collaboration and the team’s engagement. It also allowed for comparing the characteristics of collaboration (in the context of established structural, behavioral, and functional interdependence) in teams with the highest and lowest diagnosed levels of engagement. Our findings indicate that both the level of behavioral collaboration and the proportion (ratio) of individual types of collaboration could be important for team work engagement. Based on the obtained statistical significance of team relationships (cohesion), the importance of the way team members communicate for team work engagement was recognized. It is worth emphasizing that the recommendations developed by Holubčík et al. [69] regarding the implementation of sustainable approaches to organizing team collaboration and shaping effective teamwork require prioritizing training in communication and collaboration.

Taking into account the characteristics (composition, nature of the tasks performed, operating conditions, and leadership style), the degree of difficulty of the tasks and the stability of the team composition can be considered significant. These findings correspond to the conclusion of Mao et al. [70]. However, team work engagement seems to depend both on certain external factors, especially on the management style of the immediate superior and the degree of formal limitation of employees’ autonomy. The issue of the first of these two factors, identified as significant for team work engagement according to our findings, is highlighted in the work of Boeske [71]. The challenges of sustainable development require leaders to direct, plan, manage, implement revised strategies, collaborate with employees, and mobilize resources to achieve desired sustainability goals. Boeske [71] identified shared responsibility as one of the key aspects of sustainable leadership.

The latter is due to the conditions of the environment in which the team operates (specifically, the aspect of formalization and centralization of the environment). Providing support can stimulate engagement, but not in all conditions. The potential benefits of engagement, which can be obtained with leadership that excludes pressure for results, have not been noted in teams with highly unfavorable conditions. These include a high degree of formalization and centralization, which limits the autonomy of employees.

5.1. Implications

In accordance with this study’s findings (survey results) and from the point of view of high team work engagement, it can be considered advisable that teams are created from employees of the same organizational unit (department) and that the team composition remains constant (i.e., no changes were made to the established composition). A higher level of engagement can be expected when a team is delegated to perform difficult or very difficult intellectual tasks. However, in our opinion, the emphasis should be placed on developing a high level of behavioral interdependence in the team, in particular to ensure that team members contact each other not only directly, but also, above all, in person. These premises, especially those regarding a stable team composition and the method of communication, seem particularly interesting from the perspective of fostering measurable and proactive engagement in the organization’s sustainable actions by its external stakeholders. Supervisors should respect a high degree of employee autonomy and avoid putting pressure on results. In our opinion, it is also desirable to clearly define work standards and ensure the development of a formal framework for the team’s work. However, in our opinion, regardless of how supportive the supervisor’s management style is, when a high level of centralization coexists with a high level of formalization, the expected potential benefits of the impact of the management style on engagement will be nullified.

5.2. Future Research

Taking the above into account, it can be concluded that the intensity of collaboration can be treated not only as an indicator of engagement, but also as its determinant. The conclusions about the importance of engagement to collaboration itself, but also of leadership and the conditions of collaboration, bring to mind an analogy for strengthening employee potential. It is possible to believe that team work engagement can also be the result of a combination of three main elements, similar to strengthening the potential of an individual. In our opinion, this is one direction for further research on team work engagement. Especially in terms of the team–leader conditions configuration. To a greater extent, in the context of key aspects of sustainable leadership, cultivating loyalty within the staff team and building effective employee engagement in actions related to sustainability are considered particularly significant [72].

5.3. Limitations

At the same time, the limitations of this study are due to its exploratory nature and purposeful sampling. Because the study qualified teams that met a specific set of criteria, the results cannot be applied to “young” teams (newly established, operating for less than a year), geographically dispersed (working remotely), or temporary teams (established to perform a specific task). The teams included in the study did not represent all industries. Selected teams from the health care and information and communication (ICT) industries refused to participate in the study.