Teamwork Experience Based on Organizational Behavior Theories - Coursework Example

Teamwork Experience Based on Organizational Behavior Theories Name: Student Number: Institution Affiliation: Date: Teamwork Experience Based on Organizational Behavior Theories The group video project was not the first time I have taken part in a group. In my previous experiences, I learned a lot of things that helped me cope well with other members during the activity. However, it was a learning experience in several ways because some of the strategies I thought would work in the beginning failed. We all had high expectations about how the team would function from start to conclusion. It was relatively easy in the initial stages, but a few days into the process we realized we had to adjust our thinking. This paper talks about the stages we went through as we struggled to form a cohesive partnership that would give us the perfect platform to do good quality work for our assignment. It is not a new concept that members of every group have to go through misunderstandings before they can accept each other’s shortcomings and maximize their strengths. Youssef and Luthans (2007) quote the guide of positive psychology that states, “Whatever is good concerning life are as valid as the evil, deserving same attention.” The authors, therefore, assert that there is evidence of positively learning human behavior in every organization. George (2009) proposes that a lot of human behavior is non-conscious or automatic and that these mechanical feelings and thoughts are the primary drivers of reactions. In this paper’s group and individual behavior analysis, the focus will be on both the active and adverse results experienced during the collective activity. Just as Hamilton (2014) outlines in her book, there are instances in a firm where teams are more efficient than individuals. Forsyth (2009) defines group dynamics as the influential processes, changes, and actions that occur within groups over time. Groups connect people together and have a social meaningfulness to them, but human behavior complexities give them flaws (Pinder, 2014, p.4). For instance, the team members I had trouble selecting a leader amongst ourselves. We kept going back and forth since the first people we picked refused to take on the role. I associated this behavior with the fear of failure so that no one person wanted to handle the group just in case we did not do well (Moorehead & Griffith, 2010, p.204). We pondered this problem for a while until we decided that since the group was not permanent, we could rotate the leadership role on a weekly basis. In that order, every person had a chance to guide the group through the meetings we held on a rotational basis. Therefore, no one felt like they had too much responsibility or more work than other group members. Another problem we encountered was making joint decisions, and we opted to fragment the work and assign it to group members according to their ability and competence (Pinder, 2014, p.19). We worked well for a short time before we realized that some people had difficulty trusting each other to fulfill their role well. We were working on an academic assignment, so it was understandable that we wanted the video presentation to be perfect and reflect positively on us (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008, p.148). As a solution to the first and the second setbacks that we had, we decided to keep the fragmented roles but carry the responsibility of each activity as a group. That meant that we would go over the work that an individual did on their own so we could restructure it to fit what we all wanted (Moorehead & Griffith, 2010, p.66). It was time-consuming, but since we had gone through a few solutions, and they did not seem to work, we were willing to put in the extra hours required. To gauge the usefulness of our work, we held “mock” presentations with fellow students and friends. We encouraged our audience to give feedback, especially on the value increasing aspect of the information we put across, and our ability to capture their attention. However, these activities resulted in highly competitive behavior among us (George, 2009, p.1324). For example if we received criticism for our work, we were quick to point out the person carrying the most responsibility for it. No one desired to be on the receiving side of an adverse comment since it meant that the individual was pulling down the commendable efforts of team members instead of adding value. Due to our method of shared responsibility, we easily learned from one another, forming a technique that Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009) call authentic leadership. As we tackled obstacle after obstacle, I was amazed at how many problems we were having when the group was so small. I thought it effortless to work with a group of fewer than seven people since I never participated in a group that small before. I knew that in a team with many members, some people did more work than others, especially when the time frame for delivery was short (Hamilton, 2014, p.38). I also found out that it was very hard to ensure accountability unless everyone had an intense dedication to the group’s activities. Hamilton (2014) supports my other observation that in large teams, the leadership strategy that worked best was either authoritative or direct supervision. Without a strong leader to conclude on matters that needed resolving, decision-making would drag on and on because it is rare for more than ten people to take the same side on an issue. Despite the disappointing fact that we faced one hurdle after another, I learned much from the few people I interacted with since a small group ensured we knew one another well (Forsyth, 2009). In a short time, it was fairly easy to distinguish who was competitive from one who was not, and those who thrived on arguments (Luthans & Avolio, 2009, p.325). The positive side of the experience was that we would all get the same reward for our efforts. An excellent presentation meant a good grade for all of us. It guaranteed that no one would abandon the exercise half-way, or reduce their participation simply because they could not get along with someone else. Seeing other teams making real progress also helped steer us in the right direction since we felt we had to be the best (Hamilton, 2014, p.267). Therefore, I can draw one right conclusion, which is “having a common goal is the best way to motivate a group or an organization”. When a company fails to meet its objectives through teams, it is the divided focus of the employees that causes incomplete dedication to the firm’s vision and mission (Hannan, et.al, 2006, p.780). Also, if everyone in a business or a team would gain something they desire from its success, they will work tirelessly towards that direction. I quote F.W. Taylor’s statement “The principal object of management must be securing maximum prosperity for its employer, blending it with the utmost prosperity for every employee (Pinder, 2014, p.3). In the team I was in, we all had points to earn from the group presentation. Higher marks increased our chances of a good grade at the end of the semester. In a way, even though one person would feel like they did more than another person in the group, our success would be good payback. From the group assigned activity, I also learned that work culture is relevant in small groups as much as it is in corporate bodies. It is because a culture creates an invisible but fully existent law that outlines how things would flow from one point or action to another (Hannan, et.al, 2006, p.757). In our team, for example, we developed an informal procedure of how we would tackle the day’s activity so that we would give it our best and not miss a thing. As it helped us get work done, it sharpened our leadership skills because we mostly led through observation (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009, p.433). Forsyth (2009) outlines McGrath’s circumflex task model of group activities. It distinguishes the actions that require cooperation from those that result in conflict, and the behavioral tasks from the more conceptual and intellectual tasks. One of the activities that are likely to invoke conflict is the one that requires members to resolve differences in viewpoint. We faced that in our group so that we realized we were beneficiaries as much as we were contributors to the process. Using the Youssef and Luthans (2007) quote, positive experiences came out from the group activity. As stated earlier, all the arguments and problems we had to solve helped us understand each other better so with time, our meetings became friendly encounters. It also caused us to realize that for a team to be efficient and carry out its role as intended, the members have to solve contradictions as they arise. Such proactive behavior will increase the hope and confident belief that the members and outside parties have on the group’s activities (Luthans & Avolio, 2009, p.326). Proper organization of work is an additional trait that distinguishes a successful team from an unsuccessful one (Hamilton, 2014, p.265). One critical characteristic to keep under observation is group-thinking because it is a sign of lack of individuality. When members are not actively making contributions, there will be little or no progress. In our small group, we were able to manage cultural diversity. It manifested itself in the ways that each of us would want to involve the other, how we interacted, and even how we wanted to communicate (Trivedi, Patel & Guru, 2010, p.162). It was very helpful that we were working on a class assignment because that meant we had similar things to talk about, and areas to draw comparisons. Helping one another with other class assignments encouraged our support and made us seem less different. Along the way, we tried to balance tactics and outcomes, in the way we handled every stage of our assignment (Youssef & Luthans, 2007, p.776). When there was time, for example, we would work on a topic step by step, going over it again and again until we were all satisfied with the outcome. In a few instances, we revisited work already done so we could verify our previous answers or put additional information into it. When the occasion comes where I find myself in a group setting again, I am sure that I will be wiser to deal with the obstacles that arise. Forming a group is not hard. That is the simplest of stages compared to finding cohesion and making the collective activities count. In an organizational setting, teams are very familiar, though they will have different names for identification. Committees, worker unions, and quality circles are examples of groups in a company. They vary in size, membership, rules, and function, but always bear the distinguishing feature, which is that they are a collection of people. All tactics that a person learns from group activity is helpful for future encounters no matter where they will be. References Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current Theories, Research and Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology. 60: p.421-449. Annual Reviews. Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged Employees in Flourishing Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147-154. Wiley Online Library. Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics (5th Edition). Belmont, CA, USA. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. George, J. M. (2009). The Illusion of Will in Organization Behavior Research: Non-Conscious Processes and Job Design. Journal of Management - Southern Management Association. 35(6): p. 1318-1339. Sage Journals. Hamilton, C. (2014). Communicating for Results A Guide for Business and the Professionals (10th Edition). Boston. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Hannan, M. T., Baron, J. N., Hsu, G. & Koçak, O. (2006). Organizational Identities and the Hazard of Change. Industrial and Corporate Change. 15(5): p. 755-784. Oxford Journals. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2009). Inquiry Unplugged: Building on Hackman’s Potential Perils of POB. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 30(2): p. 323-328. JSTOR. Moorehead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations (10th Edition). Mason, OH. South-Western, Cengage Learning. Pinder, C. C. (2014). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior (2nd Edition). Hove, East Sussex. Psychology Press. Trivedi, H. C., Patel, R., & Guru, S. (2010). Managerial Trust and Organizational Behavior. Management and Labor Studies. 35(2). p. 149-167. Sage Journals. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive Organizational Behavior in the Workplace - The Impact of Hope, Optimism and Resilience. Journal of Management. 33(5). p. 774-800. Sage Journals. Read More