Essentials of Team Building - Literature review Example

Team Building Introduction I am an active member of the Elite Student Group (ESG) and the Young Entrepreneurs Group (YEG) in Queensland. I have been affiliated to these groups for approximately one year and five years respectively. In this paper, I will compare and contrast the functional and dysfunctional behaviours of these groups based on team building as an aspect of group behaviour. Foremost, I will briefly examine what team building entails with regards to relevant concepts and theories on team building. Secondly, I will give a brief description of the groups I belong to and describe some of the key functional and dysfunctional behaviours of these groups based on team building practices. Moreover, I will describe the similarities and differences between these groups and provide justification of the evident functional and dysfunctional team building behaviours of these groups. In addition to this, I provide recommendations on how these groups can improve their performance through team building. Team building According to Elwyn, et al (2001), a group can be defined as a unit consisting of two or more individuals interacting and working interdependently in order to achieve common objectives and goals. In most cases, groups comprise of individuals of different genders, races cultural backgrounds, beliefs, personalities, behaviour, skills, views and perspectives. When these diversities are channelled appropriately, they can be advantageous to a group in the sense that they can bring about potential benefits such as better problem solving, better decision making, increased innovation and creativity. This can in turn lead to enhanced productivity and performance (Forsyth, 2009). According to the standpoint theory, diversities within a group bring different perspective into the group that challenge status quo since their constructed views are different from those upheld by homogenous groups (Allen, 1995). Conversely, due to diversities within a group conflicts are bound to occur. This can in turn impact on how a group works and its overall productivity. In order to improve how a group works together and effectively synergise the skill sets and talents pool in a group, team building is essential (Forsyth, 2009). Team-building can be defined as a wide-range of practices or activities implemented by an organization or a group with the aim of improving how a group works and its overall performance or productivity (White, 2006). McShane & Glinow (2004) define team building as any formal practice or activity that is designed to improve the functioning and development of a team. Moxon (1998) notes that, team building is essential in any group mainly because it contributes positive communication, better working relationships and self-development. In addition to this, team building help to motivates group members and creates cohesion amongst group members (Moxon 1998). Abraham Maslow’s theory on Hierarchy of Needs (1943) provides a suitable framework that can be used to facilitate team building. According to this theory there are five hierarchies of human needs. They include; physiological or survival needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and self-actualisation needs respectively (Maslow & Frager, 1987). These five hierarchies of human needs can be linked to help group leaders to effectively facilitate team building. For instance, survival or physiological needs may refer to the presence of efficient group members. In order for any group to survive or perform accordingly there is need for efficient group members. The second needs in the hierarchy that must be met are safety or security needs. In this case, security needs may refer to organization or structure of the group. In order for group members to feel secure or perform accordingly there is need for suitable organization and structure of the group. Organization and structure may refer to the vision, mission, goals, objective, ethics, rules and regulations of the group (Dell, 1989; Maslow & Frager, 1987). The third needs in the hierarchy that must be met are the social needs such as a sense of belonging and appreciation. In order for group members to work cohesively, it is very essential for each member to feel a sense of belonging and appreciation. Other needs in the hierarchy include self-esteem and self-actualisation respectively. In this case, it is important for each member to feel that they are recognised and their contributions to the group are valued. In addition to this, group members need to feel a sense of fulfilment brought about by skill development and other attainments in order for them to realise their need for self-actualisation (Dell, 1989; Maslow & Frager, 1987). Bruce Tuckman’s “Forming, Storming, Norming performing team-development model” (1965) also provides invaluable insight that group leaders can employ when facilitating team building. In this model, Tuckman suggests that there are four phases of group development. These phases include; Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning. According to Tuckman forming is the first stage of team building. During this phase, focus is on team organization, group members also tend to gather information and form impressions of each other. The forming stage is important mainly because, it is in this stage that group members get to know each other and exchange information (Schneider, 2003). The second stage is the storming phase. In this phase, problem solving takes place, this phase is often contentious and unpleasant but it is essential for the growth of the team. The third stage is the norming stage. During this stage, team members neglect their personal views and reach a consensus on the team’s goals. The performance stage is the fourth stage in Tuckman’s model. In this stage group members function as a unit and cohesively participate in decision making. The final stage is the adjourning phase. This phase is characterised by closure and complete purpose (Tuckman, 1965; Schneider, 2003). Group 1: Elite Student Group The Elite Student Group (ESG) is one of the groups that I actively participate in. I joined this group a year ago and since then, I have learnt invaluable lessons on team building. Basically, ESG is operated by students from different universities in Queensland. The key function of this group is to promote the educational performance and the socio- economic well being of group members and that of students in the affiliated universities. Some of the strategies used by this group in order to achieve this goal include; publication of a student magazine and organisation educational tours, cultural events, performing arts events and career development workshops. The ESG comprises of 21 group members who are all students from different universities. Functional behaviours In order for this group to be effective, team work is essential. Over the years, this group has taken considerable steps to create cohesiveness, promote better communication and performance through a wide range of team building activities. For instance last year we attended a team building retreat at Kings Canyon situated as the Watarrka National Park. Before embarking on this retreat, our group had recruited five new members thus we felt that it was essential to carry out team building activities in order to get to know new group members and introduce them to the group. This is in line with Tuckman’s model on team building in which the initial phase of team building is forming. The forming stage is important mainly because, it is in this stage that group members get to know each other and exchange information (Schneider, 2003). During this retreat, we participated in a wide range of games and activities. We also embarked on various bonding exercises and practices designed to develop understanding and cohesion within the group. These team building activities played an important role in the development of our group since they helped to initiate new members into the group and helped other group members to get acquainted with the new members. Furthermore, when embarking on big projects we use team building as a preparatory measure for the project. Members consider team building as an approach of harnessing cooperation and synergizing the various talents, skills and knowledge of group members towards a common goal. For example, three months ago we had the task of organizing a three day career development program. In order for the program to be successful, we had to advertise the program in over 20 universities, invite elite and professional speakers and well-known entrepreneurs. We also had to identify the appropriate venue and efficiently prepare a three day career development program. Evidently, this task was very demanding thus we required maximum cooperation from each group member. So as to ensure that each group member was motivated enough and prepared to work together on this task, the team member suggested that team building should be used as a preparatory measure for the project. In this case we used sports as a team building activity. We organised a two-side football team and played against group members from the competing side. During this activity groups members had fun, felt challenged and efficiently interacted with each other. This activity helped group members to learn how to cooperate and efficiently work with each other. Dysfunctional behaviour In as much as the members of ESG occasionally participate in team building activities, the effects or results of these team building activities are often short-lived. This is mainly because team building practices are not carried out regularly by team members. In most cases, team building is used as preparatory measure for up-coming projects and as a result the outcomes of these team building activities are often short-lived. According to Glover, & Midura (2005), it is essential to conduct team building activities on a regular basis in order to promote both long-term and short-term cohesiveness in the team. Consequently, after the project, the team becomes disintegrated and lacks a common purpose. For instance, after the three day career development program, a good number of group members absconded group meetings and other group activities. As a result, only a few members were left to work on recurring tasks such as the publication of the student magazine. In reference to Maslow’s theory of Hierarchy of needs, it is evident that security needs of the group have not been met since this group lacks appropriate organization and structure for team building (Dell, 1989). Group 2: Young Entrepreneurs Group For the past five years, I have been an active participant of the Young Entrepreneurs Group (YEG). This group mainly focuses on nurturing and developing young people to become successful entrepreneurs. Furthermore, this group also focuses on sensitising young people about financial responsibility and intelligence by using social media networks as platform and creating and organizing financial book clubs and group discussion on entrepreneurship and financial matters in general. Currently, the group has a total of nine members, who equally participate in the leadership of the group. Since its formation, five years ago, this group has had only nine consistent members. Functional behaviors Members of this group are very close and acquainted to each other. They understand each other’s personalities, beliefs, views, strengths and weaknesses. Close relationships within the groups can be attributed to continuous interactions amongst group members. For instance group members attend the same school and live in close proximity to each other. Over the years, the close proximity of group members to each other, has provided group members with a platform and opportunity to bond and build a strong rapport. Group meetings of this group take place twice in a week. In some instances during these group meetings, group members carry out team building activities like playing of board games such as chess, monopoly and scrabbles. In addition to this, group members participate in sporting activities such as football, hockey and basketball. Over the years, these team building activities have helped this group to become cohesive and as a result group members work cohesively as a unit to achieve their set goals. Based on Tuckman’s model (1965), this group has attained the requirements of the forming and performance stages of team building. Moreover, based on Maslow’s theory, it is plausible to conclude that the social and esteem needs of the group members since group members recognise, appreciate and value each other contributions to the group. Dysfunctional behaviour Despite the fact that, members of this group are very close and acquainted to each other, this group lacks structure and organisation when it comes to team building. In this group team building is taken casually and is not considered as formal and imperative aspect of group behaviour. Consequently, team building practices are not carried out regularly by team members. This has in turn inhibited the group’s capacity to enhance its performance. For instance, for the past five years this group has achieved few of its goals. Some of its key goals are yet to be met. In reference to Maslow’s theory of Hierarchy of needs, one can conclude that the security needs of the group have not been met since this group lacks appropriate organization and structure for team building (Dell, 1989). Moreover, when group members work together as a team, their performance level is less than what is expected if the individual effectiveness of group members is measured. This shows that, despite the fact that each member has brought about different behavioural, emotional and cognitive styles to the group, the group has failed to synergise these diversities so as to promote better problem solving, better decision making, increased innovation and creativity. Instead members of this group suppress their unique and individual capabilities in order to maintain the group’s status quo. This has in turn contributed to minimal creativity and productivity within the group. Similarities and differences between Group 1 and Group 2 Based on Maslow’s theory on hierarchy of needs, there are apparent similarities and differences between the team building behaviours in the ESG and the YEG. One of the evident similarities in these groups is that both these groups have not met the security needs of the group since these groups’ lacks appropriate organization and structure for team building (Dell, 1989). On the other hand, these groups differ in the sense that YEG has met the social and esteem needs of the group members. In this group, group members recognise, appreciate and value each other’s contributions more than in the ESG. Moreover, based on Tuckman’s model (1965), there are apparent similarities and differences between the team building behaviours in ESG and YEG. One of the evident similarities in these groups is that both these groups have implemented team building activities that are in line with the forming, norming and performance stages of team building. For instance, both teams have embarked on team building activities that incorporate a wide range of sporting activities and games. This has in turn helped these teams to work cohesively as a unit in order to achieve their set goals. Nevertheless, the norming and performance stage of the (YEG) has been more intense and effective than in (ESG) due to the fact that YEG was formed much earlier than and it has less members this in turn makes the norming and forming process more easier and efficient than young groups with more group members (Tuckman, 1965; Schneider, 2003). Recommendations In order for these groups to improve their performance, it is important for the group members to create organisation and structure when it comes to team building. This will enable these groups to have an appropriate framework on how and when to conduct team building activities. Glover, & Midura (2005), note that it is essential to conduct team building activities on a regular basis in order to promote both long-term and short-term cohesiveness in the team. Therefore, it is essential for these teams to regularly conduct team building activities. Team building activities should not be considered as casual events or prompted by up-coming projects, rather team building should be incorporated in to the culture of these groups. When embarking on team building activities, these groups should follow some of the framework provided by theorists such as Maslow and Tuckman. For instance, they should ensure that the recruit efficient group members to form their group, they should put into place structures and rules that guide the team building process. Moreover, they should ensure that the efforts and contributions of each group member are recognised, valued and appreciated. In addition they should provide challenges for team members in order build a sense of achievement and fulfilment amongst group members (Dell, 1989; Maslow & Frager, 1987). Additionally, these groups should tap into the different skill set, cognitive abilities and knowledge brought about group members in order to promote better problem solving, better decision making, increased innovation and creativity. Conclusion This paper has compared and contrasted the functional and dysfunctional aspects of team building in two groups that I belong to. Team building theories proposed by Maslow (1953) and Tuckman (1965) have provided invaluable insight on the similarities and differences of these teams when it comes to their team building behaviours. Based on these theories, some of the evident similarities in these groups are that they both these groups have implemented team building activities that are in line with the forming, norming and performance stages of team building. Another similarity is that both groups have not met the security needs of the group since they lack appropriate organization and structure for team building (Dell, 1989). On the other hand, some of the evident differences is that Young Entrepreneurs Group has met the social and esteem needs of the group members more than the Elite Student Group. References Allen, B. (1995). "Diversity and Organizational Communication". Journal of Applied Communication Research 23 (2): 143–155. Dell, T. (1989). How to motivate people. New York: Kogan Page Elwyn, G., Greenhalgh, T. & MacFarlane, F. (2001). Groups: A Guide to Small Group Work in Healthcare, Management, Education and Research. London: Radcliffe Publishing. Forsyth, D. (2009). Group Dynamics. London: Cengage Learning. Glover, D. & Midura, D. (2005). Essentials of team building: principles and practices New York: Human Kinetics. Maslow, A. & Frager, R. (1987). Motivation and Personality. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. McShane, S. & Glinow, M. (2004). Organizational behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill. Moxon, P. (1998). Building a Better Team: A Handbook for Managers and Facilitators. Farnham: Gower Publishing. Schneider, M. (2003). Building a Team. London: Cengage Learning. Tuckman, B. (1965). ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’. Psychological Bulletin 63(6):384-399. White, T. (2006). Make It Happen. Ontario: Golfside publications. Read More