Experience in a Learning Team - Essay Example

Team Development and Functioning By Institution Lecturer Course Date Abstract Team-based approaches have the capacity to deliver excellent results in almost any field or application. The Input-Process-Output (IPO) model suggests that team performance (output) is determined by inputs and the team process (operation). Team inputs include effective leadership, motivated members and commitment among others. This paper seeks to evaluate the development and functioning of our team. The paper is a reflective essay that describes my experience in a learning team comprised of four people. The paper also analyzes the team using team development and functioning models. The team had an optimum number of members. However, members’ motivation and interaction was not the best. Further, the team did not have excellent leadership. After analyzing and evaluating the team, the paper ends with a recommendation on enhancing group and members’ performance, as well as ensuring satisfaction of its members. Key words: teamwork, motivation, leadership, interaction, team development, team functioning Team Description Our team was comprised of four students. The team was tasked with discussing organizational change with respect to drivers and resistance to change, as well as conducting a change analysis. Specifically, the team was tasked with analyzing International Business Machines (IBM) with respect change management. Team members were referred to as member A, member B, member C and member D. I was member D in the team. The first task, drivers and resistance to change, was broken down into two tasks: drivers for change (which was given to members A and B) and resistance to change (given to members C and D). Members were supposed to work in groups of two, as shown, to conduct a comprehensive research on their respective tasks, write down their findings and present them to the group during group meetings. The final report of the first task was divided into four: summary and introduction (member A); drivers for change (member B); resistance to change (member C) and recommendations and conclusion (member D). The second task, change analysis, was broken down into four: motivating change (member A), creating a vision (member B), building political support (member C) and managing the transition (member D). Each member was supposed to work individually and conduct a comprehensive research on his/her respective task, write down the findings and present them to the group during group meetings. The final report was divided into four tasks and given to the members as shown: abstract and introduction (member A); motivating change and creating a vision (member B); building political support and managing the transition (member C) and recommendations and conclusion (member D). Three meetings were held with respect to each of the two tasks. The first meeting involved dividing the task and discussing on how to handle the task with respect to tasks deliverables and time. The second meeting was held to listen to the findings of all members, and the third meeting was held to compile the final group report after each member had written his/her part as aforementioned. Team Evaluation Based on Team Development and Functioning Theories In order to sail together as a team, we realized that all the team members must share common goals and be motivated to work hard towards accomplishing the goal. Therefore, we shared a common goal, to maximize team scores, which interpreted to maximizing academic scores for the team members. Each member was given some work, and every member was supposed to present his/her findings during discussion times, which enabled the team to accomplish its goals effectively and efficiently while giving every member a chance to learn. Motivation and collaboration are essential in ensuring high team performance. Motivation is highlighted as a key team building block in Amabile’s componential theory (Zhang, Chen and Kwan, 2010, p. 3). Members A and member B were very collaborative and motivated to work, which resulted to speedy delivery of their part of the first group task. The two members delivered an excellent research work, drivers for change. Further, they did not delay in providing their findings, which were well presented. However, member A, who was allocated motivating change in the second task, did not deliver a quality piece of work as compared to member B, who delivered a quality piece of work within the given time, on change analysis. It is apparent that, in the first task, member A was pushed to work hard by member B, which implies that teamwork was advantageous for the two members (A and B). Member A benefited by improving on team leadership skills since he was able to motivate member B while member benefited in that she was able to improve on research work. Further, the two members benefited in that they improved their learning through group work, which is in accordance with Mehrotra, Pearson and Coltin, who postulates that teamwork facilitates interaction between students, which enhances individual learning (Mehrotra, Pearson and Coltin, 2007). I worked together with member C in task one, resistance to change. However, member C was not motivated at all, and did not want to work hard. In fact, I was forced to work alone on this task, with member C only seeking to know how far I had gone. The member did not conduct any research, although he turned out at the last minute seeking to assist in writing down our findings. In task 2, change analysis, member C was supposed to do building political support, which he did not do at all. We, the rest of the team, were forced to do this task (which was meant for member C) collaboratively. Only member C failed to attend all the team meetings. He only attended three out of the six meetings while every other member attended all the meetings punctually. I should be blamed for the failure of member C, especially in task one in which we were supposed to work together with the member. I did not encourage or motivate this member to work hard. In fact, I assumed that the member was mature, and there was no need of telling him what to do, which was one of my weaknesses as a team member, who could not become a team leader. Member’s B behavior can be explained by McGregor’s theory X, which postulates that workers (team members in this case) are generally lazy and will, at every opportunity available, avoid work. They must be motivated to work by being forced, coerced, controlled and directed to work (Williams, 2002, p. 64). McGregor’s theory X worked well for the first subgroup (members A and B). Member B used the theory to understand and deal with member A, which resulted into motivated member A. However, the theory was not used for the second subgroup (members C and D). Member D was motivated, but he did not make use of McGregor’s theory X to understand and change member’s C behavior, who ought to have been motivated by being coerced to work. On the other hand, McGregor’s theory Y, which states that, workers (or team members in this case) are motivated and will put every effort to complete their allocated tasks (Dutt, 2008, p. 355), can be used to describe members B and D. these two members were self-motivated, self-directed and committed to their tasks and the entire team work. McGregor’s theory Y, therefore, suggests that motivation is a paramount team-building element. Therefore, I ought to have come up with a motivating environment for our subgroup, just like member B did. The IPO team building model suggests that there are three crucial elements of a team that ensure improved team output through improved member performance: clear and inspiring tasks and high level of autonomy (Linley, Harrington and Garcea, 2010, p. 235). In the second group task, in which every member was supposed to work individually, member C failed to carry out the task because he did not have political interests, implying that he was not inspired to work on the task. I feel that I was supposed to handle the task (building political support) since I have an interest in politics. I feel that I should have done excellent in building political support. The team out to have allowed the member to select the parts they felt they were interested, which would have ensured that the members were motivated in their tasks (Dyer and Dyer, 2007, p. 7). Communication is exceedingly crucial in a team since it ensures that members understand one another towards accomplishing the common goal. An effective team requires the team members and leaders to develop excellent communication and interaction strategies and skills (Toole et al., 2011). Communication was poor between member C and I since we did not communicate often regarding our task. On the other hand, members A and B established and maintained an excellent communication strategy, which involved meeting every day, for one hour, to work on the task and discuss on the various issues regarding their task. Therefore, member C and I failed because we did not establish an excellent communication strategy, which is deemed as exceedingly necessary in teamwork. Our team demonstrated that interaction is paramount to team performance (Mehrotra, Pearson and Coltin, 2007). Interaction between member A and member B in the first task resulted into positive results since the two member presented an excellently and promptly done research on the task they were given to work together (drivers for change). According to member B, the two members interacted in that they did not divide their subtask so that each of them worked individually. Instead, they worked together on every detail, conducting research and discussing on the relevant issues that needed to be included in the report, which enabled the two members to work effectively and efficiently. On the other hand, member C and I (member D) did not interact in the task that we were supposed to work together. Firstly, member C was not motivated to work, which forced me to divide the task so that each one of us could do some individual research, after which we could write down the findings together. This strategy did not work at all since member C remained unmotivated. In fact, it became hard for me since I had to work out the entire task (change resistance) alone. In the second task, we agreed that every member would work individually, which resulted into rather poor results since members A and C did not provide the team with properly done research. Our team demonstrated that team leadership is indispensable. An effective team requires the team members and leaders to develop excellent communication and interaction strategies and skills (Toole et al., 2011, p. 12). Our team did not have a leader. We assumed that every member had some interest and was motivated due to his/her desire to learn. Lack of leadership should be considered as the greatest weakness of the team that can be attributed to the various challenges that faced the team. The team ought to have selected a team leader, who ought to have been member B since he demonstrated excellent team leadership skills, such as the ability to motivate others and establish good communication and interaction skills. Conclusion A number of conclusions can be drawn from the functioning of our team, and in accordance with team development and functioning. Firstly, team members must share a common goal and be highly motivated towards accomplishing the goal, through accomplishment of various tasks geared towards accomplishing the common goal. Dedicated team members and team leaders, who are indispensable for high performance teams, should motivate others to work hard. Further, members should be given tasks that there are interested to ensure they are motivated to accomplish them. Finally, members must establish and maintain excellent communication skills, which ensure high-level interaction between the members. Recommendations Future teams should allow members to select the tasks that they have interest instead of just delegating tasks, which will lead to improved performance. In addition, future teams should encourage a high level of interaction between its members. This is especially the case for groups that are formed for academic purposes, which should allow for members’ interaction by providing tasks that require members to work together instead of working individually. Further, future teams should establish excellent leadership in which they select leaders to lead the teams. The leaders will ensure effective and efficient completion of individual tasks, which will ensure high team performance. References Dutt, R. (2008). Krishna’s Principles of Management. Meerut, India: KRISHNA Prakashan Media (P) Ltd., p. 355. Dyer, W. G., and Dyer, J. H. (2007). Team Building: Proven Strategies for Improving Team Performance. Market Street, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 7. Linley, P. A., Harrington, S., and Garcea, N. (2010). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 235. Mehrotra, A., Pearson, D., and Coltin. L. (2007). The Response of Physician Groups to P4P Incentives. American Journal of Managed Care, 13, 249–255. Toole, T. P., Cabra, R., Blumen, J., and Blake, D. (2011). Building High Functioning Teams Through Quality Improvement Initiatives. Quality in Primary Care, 19, 13-22. Williams, J. (2002). Professional Leaders in Schools: Effective Middle Management & Subject Leadership, London, UK: Kogan Page Limited, p. 64. Zhang, X., Chen, Y., and Kwan, H. K. (2010). Empowering Leaders and Team Creativity: The Roles of Team Lerning Behavior, Team Creative Efficacy, and Team Task Complexity. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, p. 3. Read More