A common complaint these days seems to be folks not feeling like they've been giving (enough) credit for contributing to a project.
This isn't as much about the need for formal group recognition, as individuals seeking acknowledgment of their unique contributions to the whole.
Recently, I experimented with taking ownership when things went awry and keeping quiet when others submitted work that contained a notable chunk of my work. ('notable' meaning I did more than offer an opinion or have a brief review) I had a few 'aha' moments from this - some uncomfortable. The biggest 'aha being that it had me realise the type of credit I value most vs. having blanket acknowledgment.
So... is it right that the person who submits the final product, tacitly claims the credit for pulling it together? Should submissions come with a program listing the contributors and their roles?
Only if all the contributors are willing to share in the blame... How many folks stick up their hands when something needs to go back to the drawing board?
Perhaps we need to coach ourselves in understanding exactly why we're seeking credit for each contribution?
It's a double-edged sword and I've certainly cut myself as often as anyone else.