1 Introduction

Teachers are, in many ways, entangled in and affected by the school climate, but also influence it (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Horton et al., 2020; Thapa et al., 2013). In their daily interactions with the students and collaboration with colleagues, they are a part of the school climate, while at the same time having a professional responsibility to establish a positive and healthy school climate. Hence, there is no doubt that teachers are important agents regarding the process of creating and maintaining a positive school climate (Bear, 2020). Not only are teachers’ working conditions influenced by the school climate, but the organizational factors have, in turn, an impact on the teachers’ own school climate and their opportunities to work with it (Allen et al., 2018; Dietrich & Cohen, 2021; Farmer et al., 2011; Hamm & Hoffman, 2016; Horton et al., 2020; Thapa et al., 2013). Regardless of how teachers’ work situations are organized, they have a professional responsibility to continuously maintain a positive, safe, and supportive school climate for everyone in the entire school, including themselves, and to promote academic, social, and emotional learning (Bear, 2020). One way of organizing teachers’ working conditions, which can be found in several countries apart from Sweden, is to let the teachers collaborate and work in teams (Cederlund, 2018; Mintrop & Charles, 2017), with the overall objective of positively supporting teacher practice and student achievement (Griffiths et al., 2021; Meirink, et al., 2010; Vangrieken et al, 2015).

1.1 School and classroom climate

School climate is most commonly defined as the quality and character of school life (for reviews, see Grazia & Molinari, 2021; Lewno-Dumdie et al., 2020). According to Bradshaw et al. (2014), it refers to “the shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that shape interactions between students, teachers, and administrators and set the parameters of acceptable behaviours and norms for the schools” (p. 594). School climate is a multidimensional construct that includes interpersonal relationships/community, safety (including issues of rules, order, care and fairness), academic atmosphere, and institutional environments/structures (Grazia & Molinari, 2021; Lewno-Dumdie et al., 2020; Wang & Degol, 2016). Previous research emphasizes a positive and supportive school climate as advantageous for both teachers’ and students’ working conditions and wellbeing in school (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018; Gray et al., 2017; Grazia & Molinari, 2021; Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). It is linked with greater academic achievement and mitigates the negative effect that lower SES background has on academic achievement (Berkowitz et al., 2017).

Classroom climate alludes to the climate at the classroom level and refers to “the sum of all the group processes that takes place during teacher–student and student–student interaction” (Zedan, 2010, p. 76). It can be broadly defined as the quality and character of classroom life for students and teachers (Slee & Skrzypiec, 2016). A positive classroom climate conceptualized as high level of instructional support, socioemotional support, and classroom organization/management has been linked with greater social competence, student motivation, student engagement, and student achievement, and less student stress such as externalizing behaviours (Wang et al., 2020).

A previous study has shown that teachers often discuss school and classroom climate simultaneously (Hammar Chiriac et al., 2023). Moreover, while school climate is the overall climate of the school (school-level), classroom climate is a part of the school climate that varies across classrooms (classroom-level) (Thornberg et al., 2018). Therefore, they share many of the same dimensions such as safety, interpersonal relationships, and academic environment (Schweig et al., 2019). Studying classroom climate and how it is perceived by teachers (and students) is relevant, not only because of its associations with students’ achievement and wellbeing (Wang et al., 2020), but also because students have everyday direct contact with their peers and teachers at the classroom-level. “In fact, most students’ experiences in schools are situated in specific classrooms and are shaped by classroom-based interactions with peers and teachers” (Schweig et al., 2019, p. 4). This is a more proximal context than the overall school level; the proximal processes in the classroom represent the most powerful influences of students’ behaviours, learning, and wellbeing in school (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

School climate work refers to when teachers, staff, students, parents, and principals are working together to establish and maintain a positive school climate (Dary & Pickeral, 2013), which can be considered as ongoing work. It includes establishing and maintaining positive student–teacher relationships, positive classroom climate, school and classroom rules, and school safety, among other things (Bear, 2020). Teachers have a unique key position in school and a professional responsibility to contribute to establish and maintain a sustainable and healthy school climate. In their daily interaction with students, teachers constantly influence the classroom and school climate by acting as role models and managing social processes in classrooms and other school settings (Bear, 2020; Farmer et al., 2011; Schweig et al., 2019). While most research on school climate is based on student reports (Grazia & Molinari, 2021), less is known about teachers’ perspectives on school climate and how they talk about their efforts in promoting a positive school climate.

Teachers need to work in a comprehensive and organized manner together with other employees of the school (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016) to be able to fulfil their professional responsibility to establish and maintain a positive and supportive school climate. Although teachers’ teams can be a valuable means for working collaboratively in establishing and sustaining a positive and healthy school, teachers’ experiences of their team’s capacity to support their work has not, to our knowledge, received prior attention in research. In the present study, we aim to contribute to the school climate research field by exploring and analyzing teachers’ perspectives on how their teacher team might be linked to their school climate work and what team characteristics facilitate their work with creating and maintaining a positive and supportive school climate.

1.2 Teacher teams

As teachers are deeply influenced by the school context, their working conditions influence the quality of their work (Allen, et al., 2018; Farley, 2018; Farley & Chamberlain, 2021; Mishna et al., 2005). Organizational factors in the school influence teachers’ working conditions and quality of work, such as organizational and collegial support, organizational and team climate, shared workload and knowledge (Allen, et al., 2018; Farley, 2018; Farley & Chamberlain, 2021; Mishna et al., 2005). In several countries, including Sweden, many schools have organized a structure using teachers collaborating and working in teams (Cederlund, 2018; Mintrop & Charles, 2017) with the overarching aim of supporting teacher practice and student achievement (Griffiths et al., 2021; Meirink, et al., 2010; Vangrieken et al, 2015;). Past research has revealed that an important prerequisite for a well-functioning work environment for teachers aligns with affiliation in a supportive school organization, for instance teacher teams (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Shahid & Din, 2021).

A teacher team consists of a group of teachers who have mutual responsibility for a year group, subject area or certain group of students at the school. Regardless of its composition, the teacher team consists of colleagues with joint responsibility for the planning, implementation and development of different aspects of the school, such as teaching, but also classroom and school climate (Griffiths et al., 2021; Meirink, et al., 2010; Vangrieken et al., 2015). The term teacher team is henceforth used in the article to describe this type of collaboration between teaching colleagues in schools. Critical prerequisites for efficient teacher teams seem to be creating an atmosphere of trust (Shakenova, 2017), dialogue and creative reflection (Kafyulilo et al., 2015; Meirink et al., 2010), and interdependence (Ohlsson, 2013). Teacher collaboration has been associated with a better school climate and professional culture (Griffiths et al., 2021; Meirink, et al., 2010; Vangrieken et al, 2015). However, teachers’ perspectives on how they view the link between their teacher team and their school climate work has not been examined, despite the potential interplay. A recent qualitative study, where the teachers’ perception of different types of support structures were explored, showed that teachers appraise their teams as the most important organizational support structure for their ordinary work at the school (Hammar Chiriac et al., 2023). This finding sparked our interest in increasing our knowledge and understanding of how teachers experience and talk about their teacher teams in relation to creating and maintaining a positive and supportive school climate?

2 Applying a social psychology framework

2.1 Social interdependence theory

The theoretical framework for this study is rooted in social interdependence theory (SIT, Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013, 2021). SIT, being one of the dominant theories used to conceptualize the complexities of creating well-functioning teams (cf., Davidson, 2021; Gillies, 2016; Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, 2022), is considered useful for exploring the collaboration process in teacher teams. Even though much of the research including SIT has been focused on cooperative learning for student groups, it can also be used as scaffolding to explore work and processes in teacher teams.

According to SIT, members in the teachers’ team always develop a degree of interdependence when they realize that the probability of achieving the team’s common goals depend on their colleagues. The interdependence that develops in teachers’ teams can diverge and thereby promote different collaboration processes. Interdependence may be positive, creating opportunities for collaboration and encouraging team members to support each other. A negative interdependence, on the other hand, may cause counterproductive processes in the teacher team and cause conditions for competition with other colleagues in the team. There may also be an absence of interdependence, indicating that team members can reach their goals independently of others in the team, promoting independence and “individual work in teams” (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013).

We argue that the five essential conditions SIT highlights as necessary to increase the collaborative potential and create well-functioning teams can contribute important knowledge to the understanding of teacher teams. SIT emphasizes the importance of (a) positive interdependence—the awareness of being linked to other team members and the psychological realization that it is achieved through the pursuit of common goals and joint rewards; (b) individual and team/group accountability—each team member is responsible for their share of the work but also for the team’s joint work; (c) promotive interaction—team members encourage each other’s efforts in a positive and safe way through discussions, explanations and learning; (d) social skills—interpersonal and team skills are required to be a part of a well-functioning teamwork; and (e) team/group processing—team members discuss and evaluate their work on both the individual and group level, which is crucial for promoting and maintaining effective working relationships among members. Even though these five conditions are crucial for promoting, affirming, and maintaining effective working relationships among colleagues in teacher teams (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013), the presence of positive interdependence and individual and group/team accountability are considered as the most essential conditions for cooperative learning compared to traditional group work (Ahmar & Mahmood, 2010; Martinez Lirola, 2016; Slavin, 2014). Consequently, we argue that these two conditions can be expected to influence teacher teams and have significance for how the work in the teacher teams evolves.

2.2 Psychological safety

Psychological safety has been identified as a significant factor that influences collaboration in team work (Edmondson, 2012, 2018; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Newman, et al., 2017; O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020) and considered to be “one of the most important conditions for team learning” (Shahid & Din, 2021, p. 122). Therefore, we have included it as a theoretical and analytical tool in this study. Psychological safety is a multidimensional phenomenon that can be conceptualized on the individual-, team-, and organizational level. Since we focus on teacher teams in this study, we use psychological safety as a group-level concept (also see Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Newman, et al., 2017). Contemporary research on the group-level has shown how increased psychological safety positively influences team performance and knowledge sharing (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Kessel et al., 2012; Newman, et al., 2017; O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020). Research on psychological safety in educational settings is still scarce (Shahid & Din, 2021), and there is also a request for research concerning the underlying processes through which psychological safety occurs and develops (Newman et al., 2017).

In this study, psychological safety describes a dimension of the group climate that provides the opportunity for individual risk-taking and reduces the fear of “making mistakes” in teams (Edmondson, 2012, 2018). It describes a teacher team characterized “as a team” rather than consisting of individual teachers, and creates space for collaborative behaviours needed in complex, insecure, interdependent teams, thus corresponding well with the characteristics for teachers’ teams. Psychological safety is dynamic; it can be expressed in slightly different ways and varies across teams (Edmondson, 2012, 2018; Newman et al., 2017).

According to Gerlach and Gockel (2018), the propensity for psychological safety exists as a resource in teacher teams and can, in a promotive context, be used for the good of the team and the school. When psychological safety exists in a teacher team, teachers feel comfortable being themselves and dare to express themselves without worrying about being ridiculed or reprimanded (cf., Edmondson, 2012, 2018; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Newman, et al., 2017; O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020; Shahid & Din, 2021). Psychological safety increases team members’ willingness to speak out and share their genuine points of view in the team as it makes them less fearful of being seen as (a) ignorant, (b) incompetent, (c) negative, or (d) disruptive (Edmondson, 2012). A teacher may, for instance, attend a team meeting, recount a classroom failure and seek support from colleagues without worrying about being branded incompetent (cf., Shahis & Dim, 2018). Psychological safety also promotes constructive problem solving, creativity and learning (e.g., from mistakes) in teams (Edmondson, 2012, 2018; Newman et al., 2017).

In sum, previous reviews reveal the following benefits of obtaining psychological safety in teams: it (a) encourages speaking up, (b) enables clarity of thought and reflection, (c) supports constructive conflicts, (d) softens failures, (e) facilitates innovations, (f) moderates interpersonal risks and joint goal achievement, and (g) increases individual accountability (Edmondson, 2012; Newman et al, 2017; O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020; Shahid & Din, 2021). Hence, psychological safety in this context is a group-level concept that takes into consideration teachers’ perceptions of the consequences of their individual risk-taking in teachers’ teams at school.

3 The current study

The aim of this study is to contribute to the school climate research field by exploring and analyzing teachers’ perspectives on how their teacher team might be linked to their school climate work and what team characteristics facilitate their work with creating and maintaining a positive and supportive school climate. Because the overall objective for this study was to examine teachers’ perspectives, we used focus group interviews where teachers’ first-hand information and understanding of teacher teams work with the school climate issues were imperative. This leads to the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    How do teachers relate their teacher teams to their work on creating and maintaining a positive school climate?

  2. 2.

    What are the characteristics of the teacher teams that align with a positive school climate work?

  3. 3.

    How useful are the concepts interdependence, accountability, promotive interaction, social skills, team/group processing, and psychological safety to interpret and understand teachers’ perspectives on the link between their teacher team and their school climate work?

4 Method

This study is part of a larger research project focusing on school and classroom climate and classroom management. In the current study, we have adopted a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014), which rejects pure induction with its tabula rasa position. Instead, theories can be used as a starting point and a loose framework, and data collection and analyses are always influenced by researchers’ perspectives, training, and sociocultural context. Because constructivist grounded theory is developed to examine how people make meaning of and understand their social practices and interactions, we used focus group interviews where teachers could discuss their teacher teams and school climate work with their colleagues, and thus in their natural collegial settings in school.

Focus group interviews were adopted in this study even though we were aware of their possible drawbacks. For example, in contrast to individual interviews, focus group interviews may be vulnerable to group process biases, such as social inhibition, peer pressure, power imbalance and polarization. Different levels of willingness to speak up in a group context (Edmondson, 2012, 2018) could lead to dominant voices becoming prevalent while others stay silent, thus compromising the findings. However, focus group interviews with natural groups such as teacher teams are more ecologically valid than individual interviews because the interviews are located in participants’ everyday social contexts. In other words, focus group interviews “create a milieu in which social relations are forged and processes of discussion initiated which are similar to those experienced in everyday settings” (Wellings et al., 2000, p. 265). Focus groups “tap into ordinary social processes and everyday social interchange … maximize this by studying preexisting or naturally occurring social groups, such as friendship groups, work colleagues” (Wilkinson, 1998, p. 120). This made focus groups more ecologically valid than individual interviews, which instead study people in a more decontextualized and socially isolated condition.

Instead of considering various group processes in the focus group as possible sources of bias, Wilkinson (1998) argues that “whatever the effect of groups on the contribution of individuals within them … [focus group can be used] to understand the person as situated in, and constructed through, the social world” (p. 119). In accordance with this, constructivist grounded theory assumes that people’s understandings, meanings and concerns about their social practices are co-constructed in their social interactions, which further strengthened our choice of using focus group interviews in this study.

4.1 Participants

The participants in the current study consisted of 73 teachers (49 women and 24 men) from 11 naturally existing teacher teams in two compulsory schools in southeast Sweden. School A was a K-9 municipal school located in a small village, whereas School B was a K-6 independent school located in a medium-sized city. The present research project received ethical approval from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Linköping, and we obtained informed consent from all participants prior to data collection.

4.2 Data collection

Data were collected through focus group interviews with the naturally existing teacher teams at both schools. This data collection method is suitable when researchers want to study individuals within their social context—or, as Wilkinson (1998) puts it, focus groups “offer an important opportunity to explore issues relevant to the person-in-context” (p. 112)—and when researchers are “interested in the ways in which individuals as members of a group discuss a certain issue, rather than simply as individuals” (Bryman, 2001, p. 336). In the current study, we were interested in how teachers as members of teacher teams discussed school climate work in relation to their teams.

Focus groups can give the participants the opportunity to use their everyday language and raise questions and concerns of relevance for themselves (Wilkinson, 1998). The teams included in the study were mainly organized based on year groups, i.e., a team included teachers who had joint responsibility for students in the same year group. To enhance the possibility of every teacher participating in the interviews, three of the teams, each including more than eight teachers, were divided into two focus groups, because over-large focus groups might inhibit teachers’ voices and participation in the interview (Krueger & Casey, 2014). As a result, 14 focus group interviews with an approximately equal number of teachers in each group (m = 5; range 3–7) were conducted.

The focus group interviews were conducted by the first and second author using a semi-structured interview guide, utilizing broad and open-ended questions on school, classroom and group climate, for instance “How do you work with improving the school, classroom and group climate challenges or opportunities?”, “What support do you perceive in this work and from whom?” To further elaborate the teachers’ perspectives, probing questions were used (e.g., “How come…?”, “Could you tell me more about…?”, “What do you think…”). The moderator (interviewer) influenced the focus group interview by using an interview guide and asking interview questions, but at the same time adopted a sensitive, flexible, and non-judgmental approach. In this way, data were co-constructed in the interaction between focus group members and between focus group members and the moderator. Although the interview guide offered a structure to the focus groups, the moderator adjusted the order of the questions based on the flow of the group discussion. The focus group interviews took place at the schools in the teachers’ familiar conference rooms and ranged from 39 to 75 min (m = 54; in total 812 min). All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, anonymized and imported to the qualitative analysis program MAXQDA 18.

4.3 Analysis

The data were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014; Lindqvist & Forsberg, 2023) in which the teachers’ perspectives and voices were viewed as co-constructed through the interaction taking place between the teachers themselves and between them and the researcher. While being guided by the main concern(s) of the participants and staying close to their wordings and meaning in the analysis, the researcher is still the co-constructor of the final analysis. This approach is especially suitable in qualitative studies where data are collected in focus group interviews and the researcher is interested in the participants’ perspectives on a phenomenon. According to Lindqvist and Forsberg (2023), a constructivist grounded theory approach is especially useful in educational research to explore teachers’ work in the school as a social process. It gives the researchers opportunities to study and analyse teachers when they are discussing aspects of their teaching practice in their natural everyday collegial context.

In our analysis, we adopted initial, focused and theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2014). The coding process started with several perusals of the data, with an initial line-by-line coding carried out simultaneously (Charmaz, 2014). During the initial coding, we identified that a current pattern from the analysis was that teachers emphasized the importance of collaboration with teacher colleagues for their work on the school climate. According to the teachers’ narratives, it became apparent that feeling connected to a specific school group or setting was perceived as important, and that the teacher team had an exclusive role. So we then analyzed the codes concerning teacher teams in more detail and compared them with each other.

In the focused coding it became apparent that all codes were associated with school climate and influenced both the teachers’ work on the school climate at the school in general as well as their own working climate at the school. Through theoretical coding that took place in parallel with focused coding, the relationships between our focused concepts grounded in the focus group data were explored (Charmaz, 2014; Lindqvist & Forsberg, 2023). In the coding process we adopted a social psychology framework by using SIT and the concept of psychological safety as tentative analytical tools—or what Blumer (1969) calls sensitizing concepts. These were used as a starting point and a loose framework (Charmaz, 2014) in the analysis.

5 Results

Based on the teachers’ narratives, collaboration with teacher colleagues in the team was a significant organizational support structure, constituting a valuable means for their work on creating and maintaining a positive and sustainable school climate. “You have very great support in general in the team, or really all colleagues at school” (Lower elementary school teacher, School B). Although it does not explicitly contain words such as “school climate” or “classroom climate”, this and all other excerpts are quotations from focus group interviews about school climate (see under ‘Method’ section). This applies to the entire results presentation.

In line with the teachers’ perspectives, classroom climate was a part of the school climate at the classroom level as the teachers talked about the two processes simultaneously. The findings reported below therefore apply to both school and classroom climate. Although several different types of support structure were mentioned in the narratives (e.g., the school management, student health team, school safety team, school nurse, school psychologist and trade union), the teachers’ team was given a special position and perceived as the most significant support structure in the school.

I would probably say my support, I feel I have it [support] from my colleagues. Then the principal isn't invisible in that way, but I probably feel most that my support, I get it from my closest, [colleagues] and then the team then, I think. (Upper elementary school teacher, School B)

Interviewer: But would you say that the work [with school and the classroom climate] primarily takes place in the team?

Teacher: Yes, absolutely, that's how it is. (Lower secondary school teacher, School A)

As the excerpts above show, teachers’ teams consisted of colleagues who continuously and regularly met in the school to work on issues of importance for the team members, such as the school and the classroom climate. The teacher team was considered as the closest teacher collaboration, and linked with the most significant support for the teachers at their school.

In line with the purpose of the study, the results report teachers’ perspectives on how their teacher team might be linked to their school climate work and what team characteristics teachers appraised as facilitating their work with creating and maintaining a positive and supportive school climate. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the teachers refrained from highlighting any negative aspects. For example, some described that, historically, collaboration between colleagues had not always worked well. In the past there have been other types of organized collaborations in various types of constellations.

We have worked in subject councils where we could plan together. But I think we have a greater opportunity to be more interconnected now than a few years ago. (Upper elementary school teacher, School A)

The problem is that you have to sit and listen to maybe 25 students that you don't teach at all, and then it comes, yes, I have that student, then it's interesting, but then 1.5 hours have passed when you should have done a lot of other things. (Lower secondary teacher, School A)

Furthermore, the teachers criticized the lack of inter-group cooperation between the teacher teams and that intra-group collaboration was disturbed by the fact that some teachers did not prioritize participating in the teacher team meetings.

Then I think, one thing that this school needs to think about, too, is that we are three teams and in between there is no cooperation. (Upper elementary school teacher, School B)

We have identified and conceptualized three characteristics of why, according to the teachers, the team was so highly appreciative when working on the school climate: Shared responsibility; Support and help; Safety and an open Climate. Even though these sometimes overlap, we will deal with them one by one for clarity.

5.1 Shared responsibility

The teachers reported the regularity and continuity of face-to-face promotive interaction in the team, with mutual encouragement to participate and contribute, as essential to their evaluation of it as important. “Yes, it feels like we are committed to work here [in the school]. Like everyone is concerned with the children’s best interests in some way” (School-age educare teacher, School B). A positive interdependence between the teachers in the team emerged as important since the teachers were dependent on each other regarding their shared responsibility for the students.

Yes, yes for me, the team is important. I really think so. I believe we have good teams and good meetings, and especially the meetings when we “do class rounds” [when each teacher described their current situation in a shared/common class or group of students]. (Upper elementary school teacher, School B)

The group processes in the team were characterized by a working relationship among the teachers where they treated each other in a positive manner with respect for each other’s knowledge and skills. Listening to each other's stories regarding the current situation in a class or a group before continuing to work together on the classroom climate, for example, created an opportunity for continuous joint work on the climate based on a common understanding. Individual and group accountability were prevalent as teachers showed responsibility for both their own group of students (typically a class) and for the team’s joint students (e.g., all students in Grade 8, or all students in Upper elementary level). The shared responsibility could, for example, lead to team-based decision-making of common rules aligned with the school or classroom climate. “And then we have joint wellbeing rules. They apply to the entire team” (Lower elementary school teachers, School B). Furthermore, shared responsibility also meant that each teacher took responsibility for the class and incidents that occurred during their lessons.

I have sports. If I have [a problem in a specific class] then I don’t go to Eva and say: “Now you must fix this, it is not my class, it is your class.” That’s not how we work, but instead I inform Eva [about my actions], I called these two homes because the students have been arguing at the gym, sent Snapchat or whatever they have done. (Upper elementary school teacher, School B)

As can be seen above, the teachers took responsibility during their lessons while at the same time forwarding the information to colleagues in the team. In line with shared responsibility and positive interdependence, there was an exchange of information between the teachers in the team about what had happened and what action was taken. This also connects to the next characteristic of getting support and help as a crucial aspect when something has happened.

5.2 Support and help

A main characteristic of teachers’ teams identified by the teachers was all colleagues’ willingness to support and help each other, no matter what the issue. Teachers from both schools and at all school levels highlight the support available in the team.

I’m sure that if I need help, I can reach out to anyone in this team and get support. (Lower secondary school teacher, School A)

I also think it’s good that we support each other, and we help each other. That we’re there for each other if something bigger occurs, for instance, some parents who have got in touch or—yes, whatever it may be. (Upper elementary school teacher, School B)

The teachers in the excerpts above reported how they worked closely and could reach out to others if needed. One example of how teachers in a team supported each other was by jointly replying to emails from parents. Instead of answering emails from parents individually, which the teachers found frustrating, they awaited the next teachers’ team meeting where parental emails were discussed and answered by the whole team.

We have decided in the team that we don’t answer [emails from the parents] ourselves, but we bring it up in the team, discuss it there, and then we write a joint answer and sign from the team. (Upper elementary school teacher, School B)

The excerpt above is one example of how teacher collaboration in the team was perceived to have a beneficial impact on teachers’ working conditions and, by extension, the school climate for the teachers. In order to be able to use the team as a resource, psychological safety and a collaborative, open climate were acknowledged as important.

5.3 Safety and an open climate

Teachers’ teams were associated with psychological safety. The teachers reported that they had a social group climate in their teams, and they considered them as their security base in school. “My safety in this school, it’s the team. That’s how it is” (Upper elementary school teacher, School B). One explanation for why this feeling of safety existed was that teachers felt safe with each other. “I think it is based on this security that we have in the group of teachers” (Lower secondary school teacher, School A).

Teacher 1: Which means that there is incredible safety in the group, I think.

Teacher 2: Yes, I agree.

Teacher 1: Because we know that we want and we have each other’s back somehow, right? We’re pulling in the same direction.

Teacher 2: Yes, I think that’s so nice. We talk a lot when we sit in our staff room. We’re not just talking at the group meeting. I can say: “Yes, but then I did this. What do you think I should do next”. I can always just reach out a hand: “Does anyone have time to listen to me?”

Interviewer: So, this is the team?

Teacher 2: Yes.

Interviewer: This is where you get the most support as a teacher?

Several teachers: Yes.

Teacher 1: Yes, definitely.

(Lower secondary school teachers, School A)

Even though the excerpt does not include the terms school or classroom climate, it is taken from a context where school climate was discussed. Teachers’ perceived safety made them comfortable being themselves in the team without worrying about being ridiculed or reprimanded. With reduced anxiety, the teachers dared to make mistakes and were thus more comfortable asking for help or speaking out about mistakes, challenges or problems.

And then, also that we have, as we mentioned before, that you yourself dare to say when you haven’t had a good lesson, when you kind of realize that today it wasn’t good. Then you dare to come and say it. Because it’s easy to have that door closed and kind of, “Phew, I didn’t have a good day today”. But it happens, and then we must take another turn like, “What can we do?” And talk to each other. You can feel safe in each other. (Upper elementary school teacher, School B)

As seen from this example, the open climate in the team made it possible for them to seek support. The teachers also talked about a lack of status consciousness in the groups: “It’s not prestige or anything, but if you have worries, you dare to reveal it to each other, absolutely” (Lower elementary school teachers, School B). “And I don’t feel that there’s any prestige there, but that there is a high ceiling, and you can feel the support” (Upper elementary school teacher, School B). The appreciation of a high ceiling in the team (e.g., “High ceilings, everyone gets to say what they think, and everyone respects each other as well”—School-age educare teacher, School B) is closely connected to the concept of an open climate, which is also mentioned.

Teacher 1: But we have an open climate between us.

Teacher 2: Yes, we have.

(Lower elementary school teachers, School B)

Based on the teachers’ perspectives, we can conclude that their recognition of safety and an open climate as characteristic of the team positively influences their group climate and working conditions, but also paves the way for their work with the school and classroom climate.

6 Discussion

The aim of this study was to contribute to the research field on school climate by exploring and analysing teachers’ perspectives on how their teacher team might be linked to their school climate work, and what team characteristics facilitate their work to create and maintain a positive and supportive school climate. Our findings clearly support but also expand previous research on school climate (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Grazia & Molinari, 2021; Thapa et al., 2013) by suggesting that, from teachers’ perspectives, a positive climate in teacher teams is a significant condition for teachers’ work to establish and maintain a positive school climate. The school climate literature emphasizes positive and supportive student–teacher relationships and student–student relationships, students’ perception of school safety, and students’ school belonging as essential dimensions of the positive school climate (Bear, 2020; Grazia & Molinari, 2021; Lewno-Dumdie et al., 2020; Wang & Degol, 2016).

The teachers in the present study highlighted the importance of positive and supportive teacher—teacher relationships, team safety, and team belonging as significant dimensions of their teacher team climate in order to facilitate their school climate work. In other words, teachers cannot promote a positive school climate if they fail to establish and maintain a positive climate among themselves—in their teams and collaborations—at least according to the teachers in the current study. In addition, developing a shared understanding, listening to each other’s challenges in the classrooms, and engaging in joint work through the teams helped the teachers to establish and maintain school and classroom rules with their students in a more similar, fair and consistent manner across the classrooms. Consistent and fair enforcement of rules conducted by warm, caring and supportive teachers has been found in the literature to be a key factor of a positive school climate and school safety (Bear, 2020; Thapa et al., 2013).

Conceptualizing teachers’ positive appreciation of their team at the school (cf., supportive community; Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Shahid & Din, 2021), showed that teachers perceive the team as a significant organizational and collegial support factor aligned to school climate work (Allen, et al., 2018; Farley, 2018; Farley & Chamberlain, 2021; Mishna et al., 2005). Belonging to and being a member of a team is associated with safety, trust and collegial support (Shahid & Din, 2021; Shakenova, 2017), and provides an opportunity for the teacher to (a) be themselves, (b) take individual risks without the fear of being ridiculed, and (c) make mistakes and learn from them (Edmondson, 2012, 2018). Teachers’ teams thus serve as a safe context for supporting collaborative and creative work on the school climate (Hammar Chiriac, et al., 2023).

The teachers’ narratives in the present study depicted a positive sense of belonging to a team that meets regularly and was characterized by (a) positive interdependence, (b) individual and team/group accountability, and (c) promotive interaction (cf. Ahmar & Mahmood, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013, 2021; Martinez Lirola, 2016; Slavin, 2014). The findings can be linked to the importance of supportive organizational factors such as allocating sufficient time at regular intervals (Binkhorst et al., 2015; Hargraves, 2019; Vangrieken et al., 2015). The teachers’ perspectives in our study further support the significance of collaborative processes at both the individual and group level, including creating a team atmosphere of trust (Shakenova, 2017), dialogue and creative reflection (Kafyulilo et al., 2015; Meirink et al., 2010), and interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013, 2021). Knowing that the colleagues in the team have an accepting attitude and are disposed to support and give advice increases the collaborative potential to work on the school climate. Hence, from the teachers’ perspectives, this interdependent supportiveness seems to be a vital contribution to a well-functioning teacher team (cf. Davidson, 2021; Gillies, 2016; Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, 2022) that facilitates teachers’ individual and collective work on creating and maintaining a positive school climate. The teachers may use their positive experiences of interdependent supportiveness in their teams to foster interdependent supportiveness in their classrooms and among their students as part of their school climate work.

By employing a social psychological approach, adopting SIT (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013, 2021) and the concept of psychological safety (Edmondson, 2012, 2018; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Kessel et al, 2012; Newman, et al., 2017; O’Donovan & McAuliffe, 2020) as a theoretical framework, this study contributes with a new perspective and expanded knowledge on the importance of teachers’ teams as an organizational support structure vis-à-vis school climate. Thus, we found these theoretical concepts from the literature useful to interpret and understand teachers’ perspectives on the link between their teacher team and their school climate work, as the concepts fitted with the focus group data, showed relevance, and earned their way into the analysis, in accordance with an informed and constructivist grounded theory approach (Thornberg, 2012). Teachers need a good working environment to be able to carry out their professional work (with all that teaching entails). In this study, we have verified the importance of teachers having a support team where together with colleagues they can work on their professional assignments (e.g., school climate work). Our findings expand previous research by elucidating why teachers’ teams are so highly appreciated by teachers as a means for their school climate work.

6.1 Theoretical and practical implications

The current findings have theoretical and practical implications. Applying a social psychology theoretical framework to an educational phenomenon can be considered a fruitful way to elucidate a new perspective on one of the organizational support structures in schools, namely the teachers’ team. By incorporating SIT (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013, 2021) and psychological safety (Edmondson, 2012, 2018) as theoretical concepts into a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014; Lindqvist & Forsberg, 2023; Thornberg, 2012), the study supplies a better understanding of why the team is so highly appreciated by teachers as a means to work on creating and maintaining a positive school climate. In addition, the research contributes with concepts describing the characteristics of a well-functioning teacher team.

The findings also contribute valuable knowledge for school practice, reinforcing the importance of organizing support structures regarding the teachers’ work environment and their work on the school climate in a well-thought-out and sustainable way. To create environments associated with safety, trust and collegial support, where the teachers feel included, enhances the climate of the entire school. One way to create well-functioning support structures for the teachers highlighted in this study is to invest in teachers’ teams.

The present findings suggest that a positive and supportive climate in everyday teacher teams is a condition for teachers’ work with establishing and maintaining a positive school climate. According to the teachers, the quality of their teacher teams in terms of supportiveness, relationship quality, safety and shared responsibility influenced their capacities and efforts to establish positive and supportive classroom climates conducive for learning, including positive relationships, safety, and order and rules being upheld in a fair and consistent manner. Promoting teachers to develop positive and supportive teacher teams and collaborations should therefore be prioritized in school policy and practice in order to promote a positive school climate.

6.2 Limitations and further directions

Although the current study contributes with a new perspective and expanded knowledge to the school climate research area, it has, like any other research study, some limitations. First, the results rely on focus group interview data, which can be affected by social desirability, recall and perception biases. What people do and what people say what they do are not the same. To strengthen the ecological validity, we propose ethnographic and video observations of teachers’ teams as a further direction.

Secondly, using a social psychology perspective and theoretical concepts from SIT and psychological safety could have contributed to new innovative findings (Charmaz, 2014; Lindqvist & Forsberg, 2023). On the other hand, the theories could have undermined the researchers’ openness to the diversity of the data material, leading to tunnel vision, and resulting in some aspects remaining undiscovered. A suggested further direction could be using another theoretical perspective in a new, similar study. In accordance with a constructivist grounded theory, our findings should not be considered as an exact picture but rather an interpretive portrayal of the phenomenon studied (Charmaz, 2014). This means that our findings are both provisional and fallible interpretations, constantly open to modification as new data are gathered (Glaser, 1998).

Third, the current study was exploratory, meaning that its findings should be considered as provisional and hypothetical, and thus in need of further studies to test and further elaborate our results. Our findings, showing that a positive and supportive climate in teacher teams is a condition for teachers’ school climate work, should be further explored and tested in large-scale research. For example, quantitative studies may examine whether the constructs of shared responsibility, support/help, safety, and an open climate of teacher teams in the present findings are associated with teacher wellbeing, instruction and classroom management, student wellbeing, engagement and achievement, and more generally with classroom climate, school climate, and school effectiveness.

Fourth, the small and non-probability sample of teachers with scant background information from two different schools in southeast Sweden may not reflect the population of teachers and schools in general and therefore limits the findings’ transferability. Using natural teacher teams in authentic situations affects the availability of participants and what information it is possible to collect in relation to the purpose of the study regarding ethic restrictions and agreements with participants included. Further studies could adopt large-scale data gathering approaches (e.g., surveys and structured observations) with probability samples of schools and teacher teams in order to overcome the problems of external validity and generalizability.

7 Conclusion

The study supports the importance of teachers having a support group/team where they can work together with colleagues on their professional assignments. By employing a social psychological approach—adopting SIT and the concept of psychological safety as a theoretical framework—the study contributes with a new perspective and expanded knowledge on the school climate research area. Our findings expand previous research by elucidating why teachers’ teams are so highly appreciated by the teachers as a valuable means for creating and maintaining a positive and supportive school climate. Furthermore, our results illustrate that well-functioning working teams characterized by shared responsibility, support and help, as well as safety and an open climate, are highly appreciated by teachers. By elucidating teachers’ insider perspectives on their working conditions aligned to their work on school climate, we conclude that well-functioning teachers’ teams, under these well-functioning conditions, are experienced as a safe place to work on the school climate.

8 Data availability

The data generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to existing ethical agreements in the project, participants’ anonymity and confidentiality, and out of respect for sensitive nature of the participants' contributions. However, data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.