Development and functioning of Teams

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Introduction

I had a humbling experience to be part of the research project team on management of corporate parastatals. It is thrilling to realize that participating in people oriented teams reflects an impaired and enriched human activities and deficiencies alike. As opined by Larson & La Fasto (2007) teams constitute units of two or more people interacting and coordinating their activities so as to fulfill unique and specific objectives.  I noticed from my team that building relationships was very crucial not only for our success but also survival. Individual relations were pegged on neutrality with positive and personal relation, an important aspect in the success of any team.  Our team comprised five colleagues or students of which four of us share same nationality (Australian) while the fifth guy was from New Zealand which made it easy for us to communicate as we share a common traditions and culture making our understanding effective and fulfilling. In order to realize a high success in our project team, the principle of team effectiveness played a crucial rule, based on both personal and productive outputs (Hogan, 2003). I learned that fulfillment concerns the team’s capacity to congregate its member’s personal needs. It helps to maintain   their   commitment and membership since productive outputs pertains to quantity and quality of output tasks. This apparently was absent in my group.

Group developmentFive stages are associated to the life of a group. This include forming stage where in this initial stage, the team members were familiarized and got acquainted with one another. In the fourth semester, our group called Dockers Group literally sounded the loudest as many of our members were outstanding and outgoing at the same time. We had occasional sessions to recognize our abilities and talents. It was an introductory and a warm up session for all of us. The second process of storming involved our members who sat to develop a pattern of interaction and a group structure. Our team divided the work we had into sub group of two and three members who handled various stages of the project. The norming stage was attained when the team began to progress on the objectives, tasks and development of team spirit. One member of the team was bestowed with leadership. The team was determined in addressing problems as they arose rather than heaping on an individual. Our team developed a great ability to constructively express criticism. There was unanimous acceptance of membership in our team which brought a relief pointing out to everything working out as planned. I saw a great progress towards fulfillment of team objectives. The team made attempts to attain harmony by shying away from conflicts. We ensured that we created a friendly atmosphere, shared personal problems and confided in each other. We also had an opportunity to discuss the team’s dynamics. Little did we know that we had inculcated a sense of team cohesion, with a strong shared goals and team spirit. I was happy when we established and charted the ground rules (boundaries) and methods. I had not noticed that the team was performing until we evaluated our progress. All members usurped a high morale, loyalty, and an identity of what was in the name “Dockers”. Members had equal participation. We developed insights into group and personal processes for deeper understanding of our strengths and weaknesses. We developed the strength to work through or prevent team inconsistencies, close attachment and disagreeing constructively.

According to Smith and Katzenbach (2003), a team should be a small number of people possessing complementary skills and devoted to a common objectives, goals, and direction since they have a strong held belief of mutual accountability. The outstanding features are coordination, distinctive roles, regular communication, interdependent tasks and shared norms (Brannick & Prince 2005; Ducanis & Golin 2007).

Theoretically, teams have a three-stage system that exploits resources while sustaining internal processes so as to generate particular products. Taking an assumption of this model, the obligatory antecedent environment alongside the internal processes of sustaining teams, describe the uniqueness of effective teams. Antecedent situation analysis and team processes points out to great and important issues in team training and development. On the contrary, outputs help to evaluate or judge teams’ effectiveness.

A tripartite analysis shows that the teamwork’s systems model intertwines the individual contributions and organizational structure by referring to antecedent environment and team processes.

Through group work, I had the opportunity to learn and reflect on the critical aspects leadership, independence and interpersonal relationships. I also noticed that team work poses some potential dangers. I discovered that there is less concern on how much it has been learned as well as initial parochial exposure to course concepts.

In many cases, content applications need to be understood since the project instructor, may need to help group members in integrating and reviewing their learning points and its applications. This can be done by assigning teams to solve unstructured problems which are those that require application of concepts from content areas that are multiple. For instance, in this semester, the tutor on research methods gave the project groups the mandate to decide the possibility of some treatment generating a significant result in a provided circumstance. Later on, the tutor opted to use a case in which diverse groups applied research methods to argue for divergent policies. The group was delighted to decide and point out to the soundest argument for each members point of view. In my own case, I opted to exploit the strength of teamwork in harnessing the complex behaviors and understanding of group members. I found it to be a practice that borrows from an integration of managerial and organizational behavioral concepts.

Team experience

The major objective of learning in teams is the ability to appreciate and understand the importance of team work in problem solving involving challenging situations at all levels of human life. In mid semester, our group recognized the great performance we had but ran short of appreciating the outperformance of best members and the pervasiveness or magnitude of the effect. Therefore, while approaching the end of the semester, I developed a rating questionnaire which was about learning, challenges and recommendation of group work. I created a rating scale of ordinal elements. The measurements were placed in the order of low, average and high member score. The team score then learned of the difference our opinions could result to in the case of highest and lowest member score versus the team score. My group members were literally stunned upon realizing their pattern of scores when compared to other groups.

According to Watson & Black (2008) in a previous research, an average of nearly 11% has been touted as the margin that 99% of the teams outperform their own best members. In many teams, the best individual score in the entire class is less than the lowest team score. I came to recognize the need for effective team interaction owing to observation that teams are tools to solve complex problems. Teams in most case fail to appreciate the changes in the behavior of members where improvements have been made possible. I learned that to increase awareness of why there are changes in individual behavior, I recognized two different rationale that looks into the relationship between group effectiveness and group processes. I found out that an individual assignment demands group members to review previous observations regarding the group. It also gives the meaning of “events or changes that gave a difference”.

Team members can share their lists while developing a written analysis that removes barriers to effectiveness of teams and solutions to overcoming such challenges (Rodgers, 2009). Another method I found effective is in the use of similar assignments though team members have to get prepared along the way by keeping an observation ongoing “log” on team functioning. I had a chance to learn about others and them about me. The crucial contribution to team learning is the creation of conditions that gave members an opportunity to interact with others (Harkins, 2004). By and large, this measure arises from intensive and extensive interaction within the project teams.

Over the course of project time, team members came to know each others’ strengths and understand their weaknesses. Consequently, this has clear insights on the kind of feedback required. I observed that vast majority of members had developed strong interpersonal relationships which had given a moral obligation of providing an honest feedback to one another. I realized that we had fulfilled one of the functions of a good peer evaluation technique. I was interested in formal data collection from team members showing what way and how much it has helped to avail information individual members while enhancing our learning.

Challenges of group work and team functioning

Development of Interpersonal Skills is a difficult yet necessary component to team development. Our case was a temporary group which demanded tough interpersonal choices. Though this can be avoided by waiting for re-formation of groups, members in team learning may not escape the challenges faced in their groups. Consequently, many team members learned lessons about each other while allowing for more productive and effective team leadership in college and later in the work force (Brounstein, 2002).

Additionally, members have strength in working together since they develop the skills and the understanding of what is needed in productive work by group members. Eventually, a portion of effective group work is idealizing the benefits of work as outweighing the related costs. Unlike supplementary application of groups, many team learning groups gives a solid evidence of the wonderful prospects of effective team learning for fulfilling tough intellectual tasks.

I found a challenge in maintaining and building an enthusiasm for learning given that the utmost benefit in team learning is the tremendous positive impact on the behavior of its members. The responsibility of developing excitement and enthusiasm on the project work and course content of this semester is a load that few can withstand without fatigue (Brannick & Prince, 2005).

Through team learning, groups handle greater aspects of learning which in most cases is full of drudgeries. For instance, the team leader almost failed to get through fundamental concepts or answer basic questions. In the end there was no cause for alarm because members were committed and came to the group because of the inner convictions. Despite such challenges, team learning has generated a lot of enthusiasm by tapping into the energy released when our group developed into a learning team. With some initial struggles, the group’s capabilities improved to the point we could not regard ourselves as colleagues and not “empty vessels.” I saw this as a natural outcome meant to bolster groups into structuring to maximize required resources, and get exposure to performance evaluation systems. This gave me the opportunity to engage in challenging and meaningful assignments in future.

Overcoming challenges of teams

I found that time management is essential. According to Zsambok, et al, (2002), one should not proceed in process planning before assigning resources to time allowable to each part of the team’s planning process. Time schedule should be outlined that should include the periodic “alarm bells” which gives the team alerts if the deadlines are quickly approaching. There is need to safeguard the last portion of a work period which help in completion of the final revision and review the team’s product (Brannick, & Prince 2005). This demands regular monitoring of the schedule which avoids a last minute crash. One aspect is in development of cushions into time schedules.

The team should be structured by giving consideration to tasks that need to be completed. Teams need to be tailored to get the work done by employing designated subgroups when necessary. This can be in the form of fact finding subgroup though care should be taken in the integration subgroup work and the plan of the team’s process. Care should be taken to ensure subgroups are not employed parallel in a case where their products are naturally sequential.

The experience I had helped in determination of assignment of member roles and functions through definition. In the stage of team forming, few pertinent functions ought to be assigned. These roles are those of recorder, spokesman, maker/report writer, time keeper and chart. The roles and functions should relate team members to each another. This basis of roles and functions interrelationship allows team members to integrate work, expectations and contingencies accordingly.

The works of Eisenhardt, and Bourgeois, (2002) verged on planning and control of internal politics. By empowering team members, internal politics will have been controlled. In a situation where leaders empower members, there will be minimal need or desire to go politics. I stand to support the plan for reflective debate, through establishment of critical ground rules that foster productive policy debate.

All affected members should be included in the debate (Yates, 2007). Proper conduct and protocol should be adhered. There is need for use of ordinary non-technical terms and neutral language. The “we-they” discourse should be revisited and discouraged. Members should avoid old grievances regarding historical injustices. Full access to information should go alongside keeping the channels of communication open.

References

Brannick, C., & Prince, E. (2005). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brounstein, M. (2002). Managing teams for dummies, New York, Wiley Publishing

Ducanis, L. & Golin Y. U (2007). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.

Eisenhardt, R., & Bourgeois, T. (2002). Team roles analysis: Self-assessment form for team building. Allan and Wayne.

Harkins, P. (2004). 10 Leadership Techniques for Building High-Performing Teams. The Linkage Leader.

http://www.corneliusassociates.com .

Larson, A., & La Fasto U. (2007). Practical facilitation-a tool kit of techniques. London, Kogan page.

Smith, A. & Katzenbach, Y. (2003). Relations between work group characteristics and efficiency: Implications for designing effective work groups. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Rodgers, J. (2009). Facilitating groups. London, Management Futures.

Watson, D. & Black D.L. (2008). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Yates, R. F. (2007). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yates, E. E. (2007). Theory of psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zsambok, et al (2002). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.