StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Managing Group and Teams - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
Managing Group and Teams
Introduction
Based on the potential issues associated with group decision making, it is critical that organizations discover better and more effective processes for making decisions. …
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER91.2% of users find it useful
Managing Group and Teams
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Managing Group and Teams"

? Managing Group and Teams Managing Group and Teams Introduction Based on the potential issues associated with group decision making, it is critical that organizations discover better and more effective processes for making decisions. From the ancient days when working conditions conformed to the strict rules of Taylorism, today, workers are required to possess soft skills such as appreciating the importance of effective communication and teamwork (Angeline & Pollack, 1993). Presently, organizations depend immensely on teamwork, hence the need for all employees to possess effective communication skills. Coevolutionary gaming is a scenario process developed by Jim Miskel and Jeff Cares in their article “Take Your Third Move First”. Coevolutionary gaming has revolutionized the way organizations consider aspects such as teamwork and decision making, both in issues that affect the organization internally and externally. This paper will examine coevolutionary gaming, discussing how the strategy enhances proper decision making, particularly within a group situation such as an organization or department in an organization. The paper will also describe the fundamental limitation of the coevolutionary gaming and the way through which this limitation can be resolved. Miskel and Cares’ article builds on the conception that planning, as well as resultant decision making should never be done within a vacuum. This means that it is not sufficient to just consider the present facts, as well as historical information and data in order to arrive at decisions or plans (Evans, 2012). The coevolutionary gaming also argues that it is unfeasible to presume that those who will be impacted by such planning or decision making, for instance, competitors will simply accept the decisions and not institute some form of counter action. Plans, as well as decisions, made within a vacuum process can be characterized as shortsighted at best. This is primarily because these decisions and plans typically do not take into consideration other factors such as the implications of counter plans and actions, which could be instituted by parties affected by the decision or plan. A decision made on the basis of existing data could turn out to be worse than simply sustaining the status quo, particularly if reactionary actions are taken into consideration (Branke & Rosenbusch, 2008). For instance, the decision of a newcomer to a market to implement robust price reductions so as to capture massive market share can be considered as detrimental in a coevolutional milieu (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). On the basis of existing data, this decision appears quite simplistic; however, the choice is erroneous since it wrongly presumes that the market leaders will do nothing in retaliation against the extremely low prices of the newcomer. What such existing data fails to show is that the market leaders are better equipped to retaliate in the event of a price war than the newcomer because of their robust, incumbent market volumes, which provide them the economies of scale needed to make long term decisions such as cutting prices (Ficici, 2004). Consequently, the market leaders can fight aggressively to the point where they bring their prices below the newcomer’s point of breakeven, which is often higher, until the newcomer collapses since its sales will be incapable of supporting its overall operations (Thompson, 1994). Simply put, this means that if the decision made by the newcomer is not based on coevolutionary gaming, it could prove more fatal for the company than, for instance, identifying a geographic market niche where it can build its brand. Coevolutionary gaming is an essential tool in decision making, particularly within groups when the risk factors, as well as uncertainty levels are extremely high. This is the fundamental reason why Cares and Miskel poised that the process of coevolutionary gaming lends itself particularly well to all decision making endeavors, regardless of the business, from the Department of Defense to the smallest company in the economy. Coevolutionary gaming is particularly critical when used in the process of communication, for instance, the Johari Window, as well as in other processes that involve risky or cautious shifts in group think. The Johari Window consists of both known and unknown rooms or windows through which people can perceive and decipher the factors that they are already aware of from the personality factors that are hidden. Luft & Ingham (1955) describe the Johari Window as a four-panned space in which each pane denotes a factor in the process of personal human interactions between at least two individuals. The four factors; open, blind, hidden and unknown, denote how humans perceptions shift as they interact with others. As people’s interactions progress, the panes in the Johari Window also shift and change. For instance, blind, unknown and hidden factors can become open as parties continue to interact with one another. Coevolutionary gaming, in the business environment can prove extremely useful when considered through the Johari Window (Steward, Davies & Dick, 1999). As the processes inherent in the game continually progress, factors or adjectives, which were not known previously, become clear and known. For instance, two parties that are prominent players in key decision making can hide crucial factors from each other in order to facilitate successful negotiations (De Jong & Pollack, 2004). Coevolutionary gaming, therefore, unveils these critical factors without necessarily producing the risk factor of real-time information. Hidden, unknown and blind factors, in this case, therefore, represent risks. This can, however, be migitated through the process of coevolutionary gaming. This is because the process involved in coevolutionary gaming enhances interaction and the possibility of effective outcomes. This means that business decisions can be facilitated through the use of coevolutionary gaming (Hofbauer & Sigmund, 1998). Unknown factors are effectively minimizes, thus business decision making can be based on the most advantageous outcome of the assessment (Luft & Ingham, 1955). In this manner, group decision making, for instance, the risky and cautious shift, as well as groupthink are also made useful when they are integrated into coevolutionary gaming. The primary advantage lies in the fact that risks, as well as plausible costly decision mistakes are significantly alleviated, thus saving an organization from incurring massive costs. It is clear that coevolutionary gaming can also be utilized to deter the risk factors linked to the dynamics of groupthink. According to Axelrod & Hamilton (1981), this includes the following factors: the illusion of vulnerability, bounded rationality, as well as associated presumptions, stereotyping of outsiders, belief in morality, direct pressure on rebels, mind guards and self censorship. Therefore, the risk of group decision-making typically involves the factor of groupthink, which influences the communication process according to majority shared group consciousness. However, perhaps the biggest limitation of conventionary gaming is that the strong members within a group often influence weak members, resulting in decisions, which can be considered as unsound, or not the most appropriate choices among those available. This limitation is, however, resolved as coevolutionary gaming offers an opportunity for the realization of multiple decisions with diverse outcomes. This ultimately mitigates the conflict associated with the element of groupthink (Ficici, 2004). In this way, coevolutionary gaming uncovers the limitations inherent in the groupthink process and offers the group or organization with extremely rational and viable decisions; this would not be the case within a group situation. Conclusion In the case of a company, conventional coevolutionary war game would involve conducting extensive market research to discover the products and services that will best cater for the market. Additionally, a competitive analysis would show the plausible reactions of major market players. A senior management team would ultimately develop a strategic plan to deal with these reactions. The primary problem with this approach is that the company will not notice the actual adaptive responses adopted by the incumbents until it is too late and the strategic initiative is lost (Branke & Rosenbusch, 2008). Therefore, coevolutionary gaming strategy is the most effective approach to decision making since it considers all elements that could affect the business, for instance, competition and incumbent retaliation and unexpected innovative competition. Coevolutionary gaming provides decision makers with strategic dynamics through which they can consider both sides; the existing and future occurrences that could impact the decisions made. References Angeline, P. J., & Pollack, J. B. (1993). Competitive environments evolve better solutions for complex tasks. Sydney: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms International Computer Games Association. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W.D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390–1396. Branke, J., & Rosenbusch, J. (2008). New approaches to coevolutionary worst-case optimization. New York: Springer-Verlag. De Jong, E. D., & Pollack, J. B. (2004). Ideal evaluation from coevolution. Evolutionary Computation Journal, 12(2), 159–192. Evans, J R. (2012). Business analytics. New York: Pearson. Ficici, S. G. (2004). Solution concepts in coevolutionary algorithms. Massachusetts: Brandeis University Department of Computer Science. Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolutionary games and population dynamics. London: Cambridge University Press. Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. Steward, H., Davies, A., & Dick, B. (1999). The Johari window and the dark side of organizations. Queensland: Southern Cross University. Thompson, J. N. (1994). The coevolutionary process. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Managing Group and Teams Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Managing Group and Teams Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/business/1475870-mgt
(Managing Group and Teams Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
Managing Group and Teams Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words. https://studentshare.org/business/1475870-mgt.
“Managing Group and Teams Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/business/1475870-mgt.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Managing Group and Teams

Managing Teams

Managing teams Name of the of the student Date Table of Contents Introduction 3 Teamwork in a work environment 3 The traits and skills of leadership in a group dynamic 6 Traits 6 Skills 8 Building effective teams and leading productive teams 10 References 13 Introduction The relationship between a leader and the team is very interesting and has given rise to lots of debate among the research scholars.... The rise of quality circles and dominance of self- managed teams has come to exemplify this movement throughout the work organizations....
9 Pages (2250 words) Research Paper

Team/Group Dynamics

Various sociologists, psychologists and organizational behaviorists have attempted to develop theories of group dynamics which… Every individual is a part of the social group and hence the outcome and productivity of an individual depends upon the group dynamics.... Several types of teams exist in an organization and different types of relationships are experienced.... teams could be of different types which include project teams, work teams, operational teams, service teams or cross-functional teams....
11 Pages (2750 words) Essay

Managing Group Dynamics

This paper "managing group Dynamics" supports the idea that individuals in group life have been using up much of their working hours gathering in groups.... hellip; Numerous of the issues and problems of group life can be addressed in either of these two ways, by providing information and recommendation or by creating opportunities wherein direct and the individual experience itself discloses meaning and proposes resolution.... group work is a creative, healthy, and productive experience, performed based on open agreements, explicitly practised and clearly attained, about the task and goal of the group, responsibilities, rights of members (Greenberg 2000)....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

Managing Virtual Teams

As an observation, every member became motivated to learn that the group leader will demand progress on Managing Virtual teams Q1.... A different perspective is given by Balsmeier, Bergiel and Bergiel (2008) who argue that virtual teams face many challenges among them is the remote capacity to deal with conflicts since the members cannot have an open forum for immediate response likely to iron out differences.... (2008) “Nature of Virtual teams: A Summary of their Advantages and Disadvantages,” Management Research News, 31(2):99-110Briggs, R....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Differences between Group and Team

In the website of Leadership Development Coaching, the comparative differences between a group and a team were evaluated and classified according the implications to the leaders, as noted: (1) determination of focus on responsibility where accountability in teams were considered a mutual and collective effort versus the groups' individual accountability; (2) ownership of outcome or results: in teams, the final outcome is shared by the whole teams; while in groups, each individual member accounts for one's outcome but the leader bears the overall weight of the aggregate results of all collective members; (3) the behavior of members differ where team exhibits innate and genuine effort to assist members whose performance could be low and could significantly affect the overall performance of the team; whereas in groups, the each member is not innately responsible to take care of the responsibilities of other members since performance is measured on the basis of individual results; (4) behavior of leader apparently are similar for both groups and teams in terms of commitment towards ensuring that all members collaborately perform since the leader is always assessed on the basis of the outcome; (5) emergence of self-managing teams where leaders realize that as groups form into cohesive collection of people, members become more empowered to relay crucial inputs that are deemed contributory to their success – a facet shared in high performing teams; and (6) leadership roles becoming more complex and emerging from specific instances; where the emergence of more varied roles are possible in both teams and groups....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Project Management - Group Dynamics for Project Teams

The paper "Project Management - Group Dynamics for Project teams" concerns the Belbin Model as a team insight engine, the group dynamics approach, the validity of the implementer.... hellip; Coghlan (1994) emphasizes that cohesive teams react favorably to change provided there is no threat to the team while non-cohesive teams feel threatened because they do not have any framework for support.... It is also used for building and developing corporate managers and work teams....
10 Pages (2500 words) Report

Challenges of Managing Groups or Teams in a Criminal Justice Organization

"Challenges of Managing Groups or teams in a Criminal Justice Organization" paper briefly analyses the challenges faced by Criminal Justice Organizations in managing groups or teams at present and the possible challenges they may face in the next 5 years.... Investigating teams or groups are essential for most of the inquiries of criminal activities.... “A teams strength depends on the commonality of purpose and interconnectivity between individual members, whereas a groups strength may come from sheer volume or willingness to carry out a single leaders commands” (What is the Difference Between a Team and a Group?...
7 Pages (1750 words) Coursework

Work Groups and Teams

In the essay “Work group and teams” the author focuses on team structures, that work together in order to achieve the organizational goals with high effectiveness and efficiency.... Groups and teams do not mean the same thing even though both these terms are used interchangeably these days.... It's not only the design of the workgroups or teams that are of importance but once the teams have been properly structured they should be effectively managed....
6 Pages (1500 words) Term Paper
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us