The research involved 442 subjects, who were members of the Academy of Management’s Organizational Development and Change Division. At first glance the selection of subjects was unequal in regard to gender and professional/scientific level of subjects since the majority of subjects, 69%, were males, while the minority, 31%, were women. Moreover, two-thirds of subjects, 66%, had PhDs., while less than a third, 29% had MDs. However, the seeming disparity is not occasional and it cannot be viewed as a drawback of the method used by the researchers. In fact, the choice of subjects was apparently determined by the actual situation in the modern management, where the solid scientific background can contribute to the successful professional career. In addition, subjects having PhDs are more competent compared to subjects having MDs or BDs and, what is more, they have extensive experience in team development practices. At the same time, the gender inequality basically mirrors the current situation in the management, especially at the top level, which still remains predominantly male and the number of women on executive positions is consistently lower compared to men and the selection of subjects mirrored the existing disparity in modern organizations.
At the same time, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that the division of subjects on the basis of their occupational status basically meets the goals of the research since 53% of subjects are academic practitioners, while 43% full-time practitioners. In such a way, the researcher have managed to combine the subjects having a strong theoretical background and who are working on theoretical development of team work and full-time practitioners who have an extensive empirical basis on the ground of which they can assess and evaluate team development practices and give their recommendations.
In this respect, it should be said that the researchers mainly focused on the use of questionnaires which provided ample opportunities to reveal the actual situation in the team development practices, get the assessment, both qualitative and quantitative, of the existing team development practices and, what is more, the researchers could get the professional opinion and recommendations concerning possible improvements or changed that can be introduced to improve the team development practices.
However, it is possible to speak about the lack of references to other studies conducted in the field of the team development practices. To put it more precisely, even though Offermann and Spiros mention some researches in this field, but they fail to conduct an in depth literature review that apparently raises the question concerning the extent to which their research and the findings correspond to the findings of other researchers or probably contradict them.
In this regard, the lack of the analysis of other researches may be considered to be a serious flaw that can affect the outcomes of the research and its perception.