Check the shared output, not only your own piece
Six behaviors revisit integration, other people’s constraints, disagreements, wanted help and joint checkpoints. They describe actions you recall without evaluating whether others enjoy working with you.
Items 31–36 keep their selected values from 1 to 5. Add all six and divide by six, rounded to one decimal. There are no reversed items. One unscored answer withholds this group alone.
A shared result can differ from a collection of finished parts
People can complete their individual pieces while leaving contradictions or gaps between them. This group asks whether you considered integration, constraints and the group’s purpose in recent shared work. It does not measure friendliness, popularity or preference for group work. Someone can prefer solitary tasks and still coordinate well when a shared task actually requires it.
Keep all six answers in the calculation
Responses of 4, 5, 3, 4, 4 and 4 add to 24, yielding 4.0. The mean summarises self-reported frequency without giving a teamwork level. It does not show whether help was useful or conflict was resolved fairly. Equal means in this and another theme do not imply equal competence; the behaviors and opportunities differ.
Resolve a mismatch at the point of integration
Imagine two classmates prepare different sections of a presentation using incompatible definitions. A joint review can compare those definitions with the agreed question before changing either person’s section. Silently replacing a teammate’s work might remove the visible conflict while creating an ownership problem. The example concerns a shared output and an agreed purpose, not a requirement to avoid all disagreement.
Helping needs room for the other person’s answer
Taking over more work is not automatically better teamwork. The other person may not want the help, the task may require particular permission, or the workload may already be unfair. A larger mean cannot settle those questions. If you had no shared-work situation or cannot judge a behavior, select unscored; missing information is not proof that you are difficult to work with.
Ask one integration question
At an agreed checkpoint, ask what the combined output still needs and which difference should be discussed before merging the pieces. If offering help, check whether it is wanted and how ownership will be handled. A useful result can be a clarified boundary or a smaller shared next step. There is no need to volunteer for extra unpaid work or disclose private disagreements.
Invite an example, not a verdict about team fit
If safe and appropriate, ask someone involved for one example of what helped the shared work and one remaining difficulty. They do not need to agree with your self-rating. This original reflection has no norms, validated team-fit model or cross-language equivalence study. It cannot rank colleagues, decide hiring or infer future team performance. Keep the discussion attached to the particular task and its constraints.