Systematic Approach to Academic Teamwork as Basis of Effective Cooperation

Abstract

A systematic approach to teamwork is important for clarifying the behavior of actors in a cooperative environment. The cooperative game as system steps is most often shown in teamwork. The aim of this article is to present the results of this research, in which two rounds of an experiment were carried out and then an interview was held to clarify the results. We pointed out academic teamwork. This article focuses on the research of team cooperation under specified conditions of an experiment on students, which were divided into organized and unorganized teams and assigned two different tasks. Within this research, team cooperation, quality of team results, and conflicts in teams were observed. Detailed results are presented in this article. The results of this research mainly present the different quality of team outputs, which is caused by the different abilities of the members of individual groups and not by the different form of team formation. The main result is also that knowledge and training on how to work together in a team had a positive impact on team results. From a managerial point of view, we see room for establishing an exact strategic procedure in the form of cooperation moves for a positive result of team cooperation in the business environment we are presenting.

1. Introduction

Teamwork represents a complex social system, which is made up of a complex set of components and activities. Due to the vastness and complexity of the issue, most authors in their research only include a certain subset of team cooperation or its individual components. Because teamwork places special demands on employees, the experience and skills needed for teamwork are significantly different from those needed for independent work. Combining organizational culture and teamwork is necessary for innovation in this area and improvement in cooperation [1].

The ability to correctly understand the goal and achieve its achievement is among the important basic characteristics of team members. There is a close connection of the abilities of individual members to be oriented towards goals and the ability to achieve team goals together and not just individually. They know the team better and know results from teamwork better, of course, especially when they know the team leader and the possibility of having a team coach in organizations [2]. The unification of a common orientation to solving problems and achieving goals is important especially for topics in which there are large professional and experienced differences [3].

Barrick [4] demonstrated that the use of team collaboration processes, such as communications and cohesion within the team, has an impact on the financial results of the entire organization. Bunderson [5] demonstrated the relationship between the results of individual teams and the profitability of the organization. Bruhnin [6] demonstrated that high self-confidence leads to greater effort and better teamwork. Knowledge and experience with teamwork should be trained and taught for a better quality of team performance [7].

The direct link between teamwork and organizational results can be measured especially in high-ranking teams. On the other hand, higher-ranking teams require a more comprehensive investigation to confirm the impact on the overall results of the organization, and this creates a gap in the investigation that we wanted with this research. This specifically involves the field of team cooperation of future managers who participate in the study of economics and management and should master this knowledge.

The following research topic serves to delineate the boundaries of investigation within the defined research gap: changes in team cooperation in organized or unorganized team building (application within cooperative game conditions in academic teamwork).

Researched teamwork in university conditions is an important part of the teaching process [8]. Joint tasks for students point to higher involvement in teamwork and the development of students’ team skills. Students learn more about these skills and can transfer them to their future professional life [9]. Teamwork should be a collective learning process where its concepts and acquisition will be relevant in the future performance of teamwork [10]. Students can have a positive perception of teamwork and its impact on the educational and professional activities that they will encounter in life [11].

The right balance of teams and the combination of individual members and their skills and personality traits are key prerequisites for the proper functioning of the teams. Equally important is the form of management that the team uses. The success of teamwork is especially important for organizations using project management and project team activities. The mentioned organizations are dependent on the activities of their project teams and on their ability to manage new and complicated problems in the long term.

The goal of this investigation was to simulate an environment resembling a small business organization using primary project teams. At the same time, however, the environment enabled the necessary observation of team activities and the repeated acquisition of subjective information from team members. Mainly, the basic attributes and principles of team cooperation were observed and not specific details that would not be generally applicable. The secondary goal was to acquaint students with the benefits of teamwork and to show them that the information gained can help them not only in their further studies, but also in their further professional career.

Observing teamwork in an academic environment is not a new idea. Due to the unique environment of a university and the use of teamwork and student teams, the academic environment provides an ideal space for research. Observation and an experiment were used in an academic environment to make teamwork more efficient in both student and faculty teams. A case study by Tarricone and Luca [12] can be one example of such cooperation research. In their study, the authors worked with 20 teams of students on a subject focused on project management methodologies. Project management and its methodologies are very closely linked to the management of team cooperation, especially when it comes to project teams, which are increasingly popular. However, only two teams were closely observed within the study, which represented opposite spectrums of the quality of team outputs. Effective and ineffective teams were then examined based on six characteristics of successful teamwork. According to the authors, the mentioned properties were

(a)

A commitment to the team and sharing common goals;

(b)

Interconnectedness;

(c)

Interpersonal skills;

(d)

Open communication and feedback;

(e)

Team building;

(f)

A commitment to team processes, team leadership, and accountability.

As can be seen, the study and its definition of the characteristics of successful teams link some components of team culture that were also defined by Google, such as shared goals, open communication, and accountability with team building. Based on the study, the authors claim that all characteristics, including creation, have a significant impact on the result. Other authors [13] tried to be actively involved in the process of managing student teams and subsequently ascertained their feedback and observed their results. One of the ways to intervene is to provide students with knowledge about managing team cooperation, or to use active learning methods such as team exercises or team building. Kapp [13] recorded the subjective opinions of students after a one-hour team exercise and found that most students perceived the education as beneficial and some even cited it as one of the main reasons for their team’s success.

Both approaches from close-up studies were used and considered in the design of the experimental form of this research being carried out. An important finding from the analysis of the existing literature dealing with student teams was the need to confront the subjective evaluation of students with the objective evaluation of team outputs and observation. At the same time, the limitations of the current studies showed the need to verify the results by changing the control group, at least with two rounds of an experiment.

At the same time, according to Sanyal and Hisam [14], teamwork in an academic environment is crucial not only for students, but also for faculty members. As part of their research, they even discovered that it is teamwork that is the independent variable with the most significant relationship to the overall performance of individual employees.

2. Materials and Methods

The basis of the methodology is to transform the natural social system into a simpler research system while preserving its main principles and attributes and their relationships. The importance and complexity of the issue is supported by a wide range of the literature and research papers dealing with teams and teamwork. Despite the extensive literary base dealing with the issue, it is clear that due to the complexity of the issue, it is necessary to study it further and examine its individual components.

After carrying out a comprehensive content analysis of literary sources and considering the complexity and breadth of the issue of team cooperation, the authors of this thesis decided to narrow down and specify the object of investigation. As already mentioned, the primary object of investigation is the organizational level of team cooperation.

The subject of research represents a complex issue of teamwork within student teams. The students study at the University of Žilina in Slovakia. They are enrolled in an engineering year of study. Their age is from 22 to 25 years. They attend the economics and management study program. Their study should correspond to the fact that it shapes the requirements for teamwork into practice, and it is necessary to transfer this knowledge and experience to the learning generation of new managers. Gender was not observed in this research.

Research in the form of an experiment with students was organized as part of the semester course. During this period, the experiment was organized in two rounds, and of course in the first round they were not provided with information about teamwork, and in the second, they were, but in the second round, a discussion was held with them. This was also subject to the organization of the teams, alternating organized teams and unorganized teams based on the results of the first round of the experiment.

The investigation of the organizational layer focuses primarily on managing the dynamic elements of teamwork, planning teamwork, supporting the organic emergence of teamwork, and building a positive team culture.

The objects of investigation are the organizational units of the organization using the principles of team cooperation. At the same time, they are also teams and the cooperation of their individual members. For a clearer specification, it is necessary to note that the authors focus only on non-production teams within the framework of this research. These are specifically smaller teams performing intellectual activity, and solving unique problems, with higher added value of work and being focused on making critical decisions.

After obtaining information through a theoretical analysis, it is important to transport the mentioned information and knowledge into comprehensive outputs. Given the breadth of the issue, it is necessary to properly understand the individual components that make up teamwork and the relationships between them.

Our research task is defining the basic components of teamwork and the attributes on the basis of which teamwork can be investigated and quantitatively measured.

Teamwork as a social system is very complex to effectively measure and investigate. Therefore, it is necessary to create a set of precisely defined attributes and a method of measuring and examining them for the individual components of team cooperation. The primary set of attributes together with a narrowed set adjusted according to the object, the subject, and the specific needs of teamwork is 71 students of the same year of the engineering degree. Two rounds of the experiment were carried out with the students, and then they were given an interview with questions related to teamwork. The first task of the experiment is shown in Appendix A. The second task of the experiment is shown in Appendix B. The goal of the experiment was to observe changes in team dynamics based on different approaches to team building. The experiment was carried out in university conditions.

3. Theoretical Research

The structure of human society’s behavior has been genetically determined since its inception (inequalities, hierarchical arrangements, power positions, and others). The partner adapts to the group only if it is made up of either genetically identical individuals or there is no competition in it. Humans cooperate for both direct (cooperate in a group, increasing group competitiveness) and indirect (genetic similarity) fitness [15]. Cooperation is a widespread phenomenon in nature and more extensive in human society, the scope of which is mainly contributed to by language, with which it is possible to define more complex rules, morals, laws, traditions, and the use of manipulative potential [16]. The disruption of relationships occurs only from the point of view of the logic and quantification of the relationship [17]. Beersm [18] investigated team cooperation depending on the task, team composition, and individual performance. Teams with extroverted and agreeable members fared better under a cooperative structure, while teams with the opposite characteristics fared better under a competitive structure.

The cooperative strategy is itself an object of investigation. The previous assumptions about cooperation, its most important elements, and their use in a cooperative environment are confirmed by several cooperative strategies from the point of view of game theory; for example, it can be as follows:

The game theory is based on more established concepts such as the continuous snow game [19], coordination game [20], reputation game [21], public goods games [21], and also prisoner’s dilemma [22]. These games are about observing a certain behavior of the subjects in the specified situations that occurred.

The economic game is suitable for a larger number of repetitions in which individuals invest their resources in a more diverse manner, thus creating three scenarios according to the level of investment and the result achieved based on cooperation or feathering. Considering this game, it is a fact that in a complex environment and difficult situations, it pays to cooperate with individuals to achieve better results [19]. The coordination game points to a system of different elements and the connections that can occur in it. This game points to the length of the bond’s duration, where elements with a shorter duration of the relationship have a preference for greater profitability in the relationship to damage the relationship [20]. This is where reputation comes in, which brings a clear picture of an individual’s reputation in the game, and changing cooperation to find out reputation is a legitimate act [21]. If investments enter them, public goods games (PGGs) point precisely to the most profitable scenario, in which individual cooperatives wait and deliver only when it is profitable; otherwise, they only benefit from cooperation [22]. Subsequently, the last and very well-known game is the prisoner’s dilemma and our equilibrium strategy. It is a competition or cooperation of individuals, while their individual moves will affect the development of the overall situation in the given game [23]. The Nash equilibrium is supposed to ensure a scenario in which no individual improves their situation by changing their strategy [24].

4. Results

At the beginning of the semester, 71 students were presented with the first task (Appendix A), which they had to solve using teamwork. Subsequently, the students were divided into four groups. Altogether, sixteen teams participated in this round of the experiment. In each of the individual groups, teams were created based on different criteria. Individual groups also used different methods of team management and teamwork.

Table 1. Results of the first round of the experiment and observation.

	Number of Teams	Average Team Cooperation Score	Number of Serious Team Conflicts	Average Quality of Team Outputs
Group 1	4	7.3	3	82.27
Group 2	4	8.4	1	84.69
Group 3	4	7.8	0	84.93
Group 4	4	8	1	75.53

presents the input results.

The interviews were used to analyze individual teams and their team dynamics. For example, an attribute called Team Cooperation Score was quantified based on the individual responses of team members. On the other hand, the attribute quality of team outputs was quantified on the basis of the success of fulfilling the set task. Other attributes, such as the number and severity of team conflicts, satisfaction with team cooperation, distribution of powers or responsibilities, and others, were also determined during the interviews.

Group 1

Four teams were formed in the first group of students. Individual members were randomly assigned to teams. No other method was applied when creating teams. The management of team cooperation was largely left in the hands of the students and they were not provided with information and advice on how to proceed in managing team activities.

Due to the random selection of team members, teams were formed in the first group whose members had conflicting personality traits. The mentioned fact greatly improved the Team Cooperation Score, which is based on the subjective evaluation of the members. Overall satisfaction with the team was also negatively affected.

On the other hand, it is necessary to note that the mentioned negative social aspects did not have a significant impact on team outputs. This is confirmed by the quality of team outputs, but also by the statements of the team members themselves. The mentioned fact represents interesting assumptions for further research.

Group 2

Students in the second group were assigned to teams based on the principles of balancing team roles according to Belbin [25,26,27]. Before being divided into teams, students completed personality tests designed to identify existing team roles. Subsequently, the tests were rigorously evaluated and four teams were created, in which all roles defined by Belbin were balanced.

At this stage, the students were not informed of the exact results of the personality test, but were only informed that their teams were formed according to the test results and were familiarized with the basic theory of team roles and the description of individual roles.

In addition, they were also familiarized with the seven basic components and principles of team cooperation and management of team cooperation according to Dickinson and McIntyre [28]. The aim of the transfer of theoretical knowledge was to find out whether students can successfully apply it to their team processes and thus improve team cooperation.

The second group showed the highest Team Cooperation Score and only one major conflict was recorded during the functioning of all teams. After overcoming the initial problems associated with team formation, members also reported the highest satisfaction of any group. The average quality of team outputs was also very high and only closely followed Group 3.

Group 3

Students from the third group also completed a personality test based on Belbin’s theory of team roles and were assigned to teams so that all roles were equally represented in them. However, they differed from the other group in the team cooperation management system.

Students were not exposed to additional information about the basic principles of teamwork and were not supported to implement them in their internal team processes.

No serious internal conflicts were noted in this group, and the average quality of team outputs was the highest among all groups. However, the subjective evaluation of the average score of team cooperation was only 7.8 and the overall satisfaction of the members was also low. The mentioned fact raises questions about the overall long-term sustainability of team cooperation in the mentioned group.

Group 4

The last group of students had the opportunity to create teams at will according to their own conditions and requirements. During the interviews, it was found that the only factor that the students took into account when forming teams was social relations and friendships.

The group was introduced to the basic principles of teamwork and was supported to apply them to their internal team processes. However, the interviews showed that the real implementation of theoretical knowledge was minimal.

The results of the latter group were mixed. Meanwhile, the number of serious conflicts was only one and member satisfaction was very high. The average quality of team outputs was significantly lower than that of the other groups. The reason was the uneven quality between the individual teams. Meanwhile, in the previous groups, the quality of outputs was relatively balanced; in Group 4, there were marked differences between the best and worst teams.

Based on the subjective statements of the team members, the mentioned phenomenon can be directly linked to the style of team formation. This assumption was also confirmed by the independent observation of the internal processes of individual teams.

The Second Task

The second round of the experiment had the task of building on the information from the first round and at the same time eliminating some of the shortcomings discovered in the first round. The main shortcoming of the first round was that the different quality of the outputs could simply be due to the different abilities of the members of the individual groups and not to the different form of team formation. For this reason, more students were involved in the second round, which made up a total of 30 teams divided into two groups of 15 teams each.

When creating teams based on the balance of team roles, the problem with the lack of some key roles appeared again. It was, for example, a role often responsible for leading a team, such as a coordinator or “shaper”. Students were more likely to be identified by tests in roles responsible for social well-being, such as a team player. In the end, however, the teams managed to be created again.

Instead of one long-term task, the teams performed two short-term tasks aimed specifically at measuring the effectiveness of team cooperation, in the most accurate and objective way possible. In the first task, one group would be formed based on team role balance and the other would not, while in the second task, team formation would be swapped between groups to show whether the difference was due to team formation or the abilities of the members in that group.

In the first task, partial information was provided to individual team members, which they had to study, and the team’s task was to share individual information as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to answer the required question. Each team had exactly the same question to answer, as well as partial information. The teams were thus on a level playing field, and the primary factor affecting success was their way of teamwork and communication. The full text of the task can be found in Appendix B.

As can be seen in Figure 1, despite the exact same conditions, the difference between the effectiveness of the teams was huge. The fastest team was able to correctly answer the required question in less than 5 min, while the slowest two teams took more than 25 min. The results also show a difference between the two groups. Ranking the 15 teams from fastest to slowest and comparing them shows a significant advantage of teams formed based on the balance of team roles. The average time of the formed teams was more than 5 min faster than the time of the teams of the other group.

Another interesting phenomenon visible in Figure 1 is the relatively clear division of teams in both groups into three basic categories. In both groups, the majority of teams form the middle category, whose results differ only slightly from each other and approach the average. Subsequently, teams representing positive and negative extremes appear on both sides.

In order to explain the mentioned phenomenon, interviews were conducted with the teams, and according to the subjective opinion of the teams from both extremes, the phenomenon can be explained by the following facts (they were sorted based on the number of answers):

(a)

Individual abilities of members;

(b)

Passion for meeting team goals;

(c)

They did not feel like a team;

(d)

Poor team composition;

(e)

Coincidence.

From the answers of the students, it can be seen that not all teams were able to quickly create a team identity and adopt the team goals. The personal skills and charisma of individual members, based on observation, played a significant role in creating both extremes. A capable and charismatic leader was able to quickly motivate other members to achieve team goals, and the overall task solving time was thus significantly reduced. Conversely, if the team saw a less capable or apathetic team member, it carried over to the entire team and its solution time.

Despite the simplicity of the conditions of the first task of the experiment, its findings are interesting, and the principles obtained by the experiment and observation can be applied in wider contexts. When applying to the conditions of large organizations, however, it is necessary to consider practical limitations. Project teams in organizations work on various demanding tasks, in different time intervals; therefore, dynamic management and team building are much more complicated. It is not possible to assign all employees to teams at the same time, because they are at full capacity. The mentioned problem can manifest itself even more critically in some team roles, which, as was demonstrated in the solved experiment, are much rarer.

Prior to the second task, 15 new teams were created in each group, with the method of creation alternated between groups. The students worked on developing a task that was equally focused on measuring aspects of teamwork as accurately as possible. Specifically, it was about team communication regarding the ability of team agreement and compromise. First, the team members had to individually, without any team communication, sort a set of objects according to their importance for survival in the given model situation. Subsequently, in teams, they had to justify their decision, communicate as a team, and reach a team consensus on a unified team ranking.

The measure of team cooperation in this case was not team performance (the difference between the team’s rank and the survival experts’ rank) because it would not give a true picture of teamwork in the team. The mentioned method of measurement was never even planned as a primary indicator, because it depended on knowledge from a specific field in combination with logical thinking.

The real quantifiable measure was the average difference between individual and team results. It points to one of the very important aspects of team culture, which was also defined by the Google organization [29,30], Kerrissey et al., and Sten et al., and that is whether individual members felt safe enough to express their opinion and defend it. The logical assumption was that the team with the lowest mean difference incorporated the opinions of all its members into the cooperation team decision and thus did not leave out some members.

At the same time, it was seen from the team results that communication and synergy brought better results in most cases compared to the alignment of an expert. As many as 21 teams out of 30 achieved better overall results after the team consensus than the average of the individual results of its members. The mentioned finding again brings interesting information for research and points to the benefits of teamwork even in tasks that are based primarily on knowledge or expertise. Spreading knowledge within the team and common synergy can help the overall results and especially improve knowledge work and logical thinking of the members.

In the following Figure 2, it is possible to see again the teams within the two groups ranked from the best to the worst. As with the previous task, the lower the score, the better the team worked. However, unlike the previous comparison, the absolute best team came from a group with non-role-balanced teams. During the interviews, the cause of the phenomenon was again determined and the team subjectively evaluated that they worked excellently together and that the coincidence contributed to a very good composition of the team.

However, if we look at the comparison more comprehensively, it can be seen that the group that in the previous task achieved lower results when comparing all teams ranked from best to worst now achieves better results in 13 out of 15 cases. And the only changed variable was the composition of the teams in the individual groups, apart from the assignment of the task.

When comparing the average results shown in

Table 2. Average results of student teams in both tasks.

	Average Result of the First Task	Average Result of the Second Task
Created teams	12.21	7.4
Unformed teams	17.97	11.1

, the difference is obvious. The average difference between the teams in the group with created teams based on the balance of team roles and the other teams is almost 4, which is about 33%.

Due to the results of the team role tests, additional information was obtained from the students in the form of interviews. The team role test did not directly prompt students to subjectively rank themselves. They were brought model situations and the students had to choose what they would do in that situation. As already mentioned, the team roles of a “team player” responsible primarily for the social aspect of team cooperation were disproportionately represented, and on the contrary, roles such as a coordinator and “shaper”, which are mostly responsible for leading the team, were absent. An interview was conducted with the students, where they had to subjectively evaluate their abilities, which they can provide and use in teamwork. The list of abilities can be seen in

Table 3. List of abilities investigated in the experiment.

Abilities in Experiment
S1 Obtain information—Collect	S5 Present information	S9 Lead a team	S13 Work in a team
S2 Analyze information	S6 Evaluate information	S10 Prevent conflicts	S14 Resolve conflicts—Make compromises
S3 Cooperate	S7 Compete—Compete	S11 Distribute resources, work—Cooperate	S15 Work on assigned task
S4 Check the accuracy of information	S8 Check formalities	S12 Gain knowledge and collect points	S16 Gain knowledge and experience

.

As can also be seen in the following Figure 3, the subjective assessment greatly supports the findings from the test. Working in a team was the most common answer given by students as their contribution to the team. On the contrary, leading a team was among the least frequent answers. An interesting finding was that fewer students in the self-assessment stated that they are able to lead a team than the number of leaders defined by the test. The phenomenon shows that students tend to underestimate rather than overestimate their abilities in self-assessment. A positive indicator for this research was also the ratio of students evaluating the ability to cooperate to the number of students focused more on competitiveness. Specifically, it was 50 to 18. The fact that only 50 students said that they could cooperate compared to 85 who said that they could work in a team is less positive.

Preliminary research in the form of work with student teams brought a lot of findings for further research. The aim was mainly to observe the main principles that are the same within the team cooperation process, whether it is an academic or a business environment. However, this does not necessarily mean that any step from the experiment can be applied to the conditions of a real business organization without considering the conditions. Practical conditions can be very restrictive especially in team formation, especially when taking into account time and personal capacities and a set of multiple concurrent projects with different durations requiring different numbers of employees with different combinations of unique knowledge and skills.

5. Discussion

For the success of a company in the current market environment with the growing need to maintain long-term competitiveness, it is necessary to define a suitable way of how the company can be managed in order to achieve a synergistic effect. Cooperation represents a new evolutionary direction, the interactions of which are supported by mutual ties between individual companies and their teams. Therefore, it is necessary to coordinate and manage these interactions with the help of a team (an appropriate structure), which will help create a favorable environment between the individual actors of the cooperation.

The results of this research mainly present the different quality of team outputs, which is caused by the different abilities of the members of individual groups and not by the different form of team formation. Among the main results confirmed by this research, we include

Teamwork.

• The composition of teams according to the results of the role test had a positive impact on team results.
• The formation of teams according to the results of the role test had a positive impact on satisfaction only if training and training in cooperation were set before the joint task.
• Teams that were assembled based on the balance of team roles and their representation in the team show the best results in the shortest time.

Quality of team outputs.

• Conflicting personality traits did not have negative consequences on team results.
• Knowledge and training on how to work together in a team had a positive impact on team results.
• The own formation of teams based on social relations and camaraderie did not contribute to better results; the results were average to low.
• A capable and charismatic leader can quickly motivate team members to achieve team goals and shorten the time to achieve them.
• Spreading knowledge within the team and common synergy can help overall results and especially improve knowledge work and logical thinking of members.

Conflicts in teams.

• Conflicting personality traits did not support the satisfaction of individual team members.
• Conflicts in teams, so-called team extremes, arise from the individual abilities of team members, passion for the fulfillment of the team’s common goals, the feeling of belonging to the team, the composition of the topic, and also a random variable.

It is at this point that the important optimization of cooperative relations in teams occurs. Managers’ thinking then needs to be guided by the intentions of the current environment, which is characterized by the dynamics of changes and the increasing number of mutually influencing interactions on the market (external environment) and the internal environment of the enterprise [31,32,33]. The number of company connections is currently growing precisely because of the growth of the worldwide phenomenon of globalization. Therefore, management is becoming more and more complex, and it is necessary to find the right cooperation connections with the right companies at the right time—to create synergy, from which synergistic effects can arise. This innovation of managerial thinking is important for the correct understanding and setting of cooperation in teams.

From the results of the issue, it is necessary to point out the key starting points of the cooperation strategy—cooperation moves supporting the management of cooperation teams:

• The definition of the cooperative relationship: In this first move, it is about assessing the intention of the cooperation from the position of the individual members of the cooperation comparatively and building the common goals of the cooperation. These goals will subsequently result in a common strategy for their realization.
• As a second move, it is necessary to ensure cooperation in a mutually created environment through information sharing and communication. This leads to the dissemination of knowledge and experience in the cooperative relationship and thus builds the development and growth of the members of the cooperative.
• Support for mutual cooperation is necessary for building a relationship, building individual joint activities to fulfill the goals of cooperation. Establishing and strengthening common relationships are necessary for the creation of long-term partnerships. This constitutes the third move of the strategy.
• The fourth move of the strategy is the very adaptation and coordination of joint activities in a cooperative relationship and mutual acceptance of the cultures of the cooperating companies, which will create an efficient and creative work environment.
• The cooperative relationship is built on common values, which means that it is trust in the relationship, loyalty, and the principle of reciprocity that need to be developed for bilateral cooperation as it gradually advances to the set goals as the fifth move of the strategy.
• The sixth move of the strategy concerns human capital. Cooperation based on the development of human potential and two-way interaction of employees of cooperating enterprises supports the positive direction of cooperation.
• A cooperative relationship needs to formulate the conditions and rules of cooperation as the seventh move. After the previous steps and fine-tuning of mutual and functioning cooperation, the company management can look at the conditions and rules they have created for a functioning relationship and evaluate and possibly change them so that the cooperation becomes sustainable in the long term.
• The eighth step is the creation of common solutions that fulfill the common goals of cooperation established at the beginning. This contributes to the very justification of the importance of cooperation.

With the use of cooperative tools provided by the theory and practice of the cooperative game, we can achieve a knocking experience of those who are learning to work as a team, and therefore, when applying the team task in practice, they can solve the problem more effectively and achieve better results. For example, in our equilibrium, they can consider in advance individual situations within the payoff matrices. On the other hand, during repeated cooperation and thus teamwork, they know better how to assess the individual who is in their team and, based on this, they know how to better coordinate their joint work. The result can be the self-emergence of topics for solving specific problems. Of course, this depends on if individuals have experience and knowledge about teamwork and individual participants in teamwork. All of this is very well demonstrated within this article as a study of academic teamwork and its importance in the learning process of future team members.

Limitation and future work

During this research, a number of methods were used in order to obtain the most comprehensive view of the issue. However, each method brings specific limitations and problems as well as the entire chosen research method. Therefore, for research, it is necessary to transform the natural system into a simplified form that can be investigated. Among the basic determination of the basic set, it could also distort the findings achieved and thus limit the relevance of the data obtained; therefore, different teams, two, were determined that had to fulfill this research, by which we tried to minimize this final phenomenon.

Considering the complexity of the issue, it was necessary to clearly specify the subject, the object of this research. In this way, the research of academic teamwork was precisely defined. Based on the analyses performed and the conclusions drawn, the following two areas for further potential research were defined. Future work should focus on (1) virtual teams and their effectiveness within team collaboration; (2) exploring and proposing options for measuring the effectiveness of team cooperation.

6. Conclusions

The identified elements of a cooperating team also have a great impact on the expansion of partner relations within organizations. Team management needs to achieve the full potential of cooperation. The full potential of cooperation means not only the fulfillment of expectations and goals, but also the opening of new possibilities—synergy within cooperative relations, or the creation of a synergistic effect (expected and unexpected added value).

Cooperation should use cooperative decision making, but also look at the added value of cooperation, the synergistic effects that can arise from cooperation. Individual elements of cooperation also create the dynamics of the relationship of elements in the environment in question. These elements may not only be present at the beginning of the relationship, but also occur during it in decision making to create teamwork. The starting cooperation elements for the subject environment are evaluation, similarity, experience, competitiveness, culture, rules, mutual interactions (power, aggression, punishment, associative learning, altruism, reciprocity), the structure of human society behavior, and the synergistic effect. Cooperation works in various researched areas. It is important to see the contribution of cooperation, which can solve current problems, but also contribute to development and progress in various areas and activities of human knowledge, research, and activities. Business managers should build credibility and responsibility and strengthen compliance with individual decision making of cooperation moves with their stakeholders.