Teaming Up for a Worthy Project - Case Study Example

?Teaming Up for a Worthy Project Working with a team is like peeking through a kaleidoscope of colors and shapes. Members have different personalities, and at one time or another, such personalities may merge or clash. The team leader has the best vantage point of these colorful personalities, as he is in a position of authority, somehow apart from his members, and yet with them, in the implementation of the group’s work functions. For most people, there is a prevailing need to reach out to others and somehow connect with them in one way or another. In order to do this, individuals try to adjust some part of their personality to accommodate someone who may be very different from them in order to maintain harmonious interpersonal communication and relationships. For instance, if the personality of A is extroverted and B is introverted, A should be able to use that engaging personality to draw B out of her shell, while keeping it tamer so that B will not be overwhelmed. On the other hand, B will just have to reach out a little more just so she gets to connect with A as a compromise. That is usually the dynamics of working to get along with others. In doing so, more productive relationships ensue and there is more likelihood of common goals being achieved. This paper will discuss how teams can work more effectively according to some theories and considering members’ personality profiles as analyzed from the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. The team project to be discussed is the organization of a proposal to be presented for bidding for a special event. The team is composed of five individuals with varying backgrounds and skills. The members are tasked to work on organizing a seminar-workshop on Work-Life Balance for middle management. The designated leader of the group has worked with various companies and has developed his network of credible resource people that he can invite as speakers for the seminar. Aside from the leader, the team is composed of an accountant, a mother, an artist and a researcher. The team members all work for an events management company. Working in Groups Collaborative work can bring about group process gains as well as group process losses (Thatcher and de la Cour, 2003). Group process gains are positive outcomes derived from working with other members. One such gain is the provision of synergy or a group member being creatively stimulated by the other members. Other benefits of working in groups are the efficient exchange of ideas and information, exposure to different views, collection of objective feedback and a host of other learning effects. However, groups may not always be as effective as expected, and group process losses negate the positive outcomes of group process gains. Dominance is one such group process’ downside (Hiltz et al, 1986). This is because in groups discussions, only one person can talk at a time and this may block out, forget, neglect or not give enough time other members’ ideas if the speaker is dominant. Diehle and Stoebe (1991) also identify evaluation apprehension, which is the fear of members to be negatively evaluated by other members when they become more active and visible in the group participation. Social loafing may then be the result. This happens when an individual member feels less inclined to participate in the expectation that his efforts may not hold water with the group. Finally, free-riding is another group process loss. This happens when a group participant feels that his contribution may be dispensable (Barry & Stewart, 1997). Hence, he reduces his participation to just going along with the majority and exert less effort in contributing his share. Thatcher & de la Cour (2003) identify more group process losses that groups should be wary of in order to be more effective. These are cognitive inertia or getting stuck in usual patterns of thought and routine; information overload or coming up with too many ideas that focus on the main objective may be lost; and excessive socializing, that little time is left for actual productive work. Stages in the Growth of Groups Usually, groups go through growth patterns, especially if members stay with each other for a prolonged period of time. Various theories on group development commonly identify the stages groups go through. Wheelan’s (1994) Integrated Model of Group Development describes the first stage as a period of member dependency on the leader and powerful group members to lead and to provide guidance and direction. The second stage is referred to as a period of Counter-dependency and Fight, where members begin to disagree among themselves and assert their own individual opinions about group procedures and procedures. Since the group’s task is to develop a unified set of goals and operational procedures, this stage inevitably develops conflicts. Such conflict tests the strength of the member’s trust in each other, and if they are successful in overcoming the conflicts, a climate of trust and safety in expressing oneself is established. This paves the way for the third stage, which is the Trust and Structure phase, wherein commitment to the group and willingness to cooperate is very much evident. Mature negotiation about roles, organization and procedures are transacted, and members work to solidify positive relationships with each other. The fourth stage, which is the Work stage of group development lives up to its name as team productivity and effectiveness are intensified. The members of the group are assumed to have resolved many of the issues of the previous stages and are more ready to work towards the achievement of group goals and task accomplishment. Wheelan’s developmental description of the integrated model somehow parallels Tuckman’s model (1965), which is one of the most commonly cited models of group development (Cassidy, 2007). It was formed from a meta-analysis of 50 research-based studies of group development and identifies the stages as Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) later added the stage Adjourning, as they wanted closure in the life cycle of groups (Cassidy, 2007). The Myer-Briggs Type Indicator Test (MBTI) Before discussing team strategies that the team in question can adopt, it is important to understand the personality profiles of the members as assessed with MBTI. As a backgrounder, the MBTI assumes that each individual has personal preferences that dictate his personality and how he would behave in certain situations. This assessment was developed by Isabel Myers, based on Carl Jung’s theories about personality. A self-assessment questionnaire was created to help individuals become more aware of their own preferences and to understand their own preferences, tendencies and over-all personalities (Passmore et al, 2010). MBTI has four bipolar type scales that indicate people’s preferences, namely: Extraversion – Introversion (E –I), Sensing – Intuition (S – N), Thinking – Feeling (T– F) and Judging – Perceiving (J – P). Myers (1993) explains that extraverted preference shows a desire to act on the environment in order to create an effect while introverted preference draws energy from the environment and focuses it inward in order to generate ideas and emotions. A judging preference shows a desire to make the final decisions in order to seek closure through purposeful action while a perceiving preference shows openness to new ideas, changes and a spontaneous and adaptable nature. Sensing preference shows acquisition of experiences through the senses and focus on current experiences while intuitive preference looks into possibilities for future and feels around on what happens in the present. Finally, individuals with thinking preference like linking ideas and creating connections, which may cause them to be thought of as analytical and cold, while the feeling person is empathetic and understanding or others (Hirsch and Kummerow, 1998). These preferences may be combined to form sixteen possible psychological types. Since team members work very closely together, it is important to understand each one’s personality and preferences to avoid clashes. For example, the leader of the group is expected to be strong and decisive in order to lead the group to success but at the same time, understanding of members’ concerns. The MBTI can guide how members can adjust to each other’s personalities if they are aware of each other’s preferences and understand where they are coming from. To illustrate how it works, one member will be assumed to have the ESFJ personality type. This means that his preferences as found in the MBTI test lean more on the Extrovered, Sensing, Feeling and Judgmental qualities. The individual, being extroverted, directs his energy outwards, meaning he tries to establish relationships with others. As a sensing person, he prefers facts gathered from the use of his senses over guesses in describing his observations of the world. As a feeling individual, he can be emotional and sensitive when dealing with others. As a judging individual, he knows how to weigh things in order to make a well-thought out final decision. To more comprehensively describe the personality profile of an ESFJ person, he is a loving, kind and considerate person. Being a people-person, there is a tendency to put others’ needs before his. He has a great need to be liked by others so he goes out of his way to do them favors. He is an adaptable person and can adjust his personality according to who he is with in order to maintain harmony. It also follows that he has a good sense of judging people and be influential to them. ESFJ’s are known to be sticklers for organization and structure and easily gets upset if set up plans are not followed. Considering that each personality type has its own strengths and weaknesses, being able to understand them as well as knowing their similarities and differences now becomes key in maintaining harmony in the group. This is because members need to adjust to each other’s quirks. For example, the interactions between a person with an ESFJ personality type and a person with an ENTJ type may very well clash. An ENTJ person may be very focused on some things like his career that he has the tendency to tune other people out. His tolerance for mistakes may be very low and he can be impatient with inefficient people. To make the group more cohesive, these two individuals may still get along well because they can complement each other. One may be displeased by the other’s lack of organization. One may be bothered by the other’s lack of sensitivity to others. However, if they both make a lot of compromises to resolve such conflicts and focus their energies on the aspects of their personalities that fit together instead of drive them apart, then they can manage to work together well. Team Project The team project involves the preparation of a proposal for a corporate seminar-workshop on Work-Life Balance for the middle management teams. Its objective is to help people working in the corporate world to learn time management and organization skills so they can lead balanced lives both at work and at home. It will also teach stress-busting relaxation procedures to enhance the lives of the participants. The team composed of five people from various backgrounds will present the detailed plans for this project in front of prospective clients for their events management company. The team is composed of an accountant, a mother, an artist and a researcher, headed by the team leader who is an organizational development consultant for various companies. The main tasking of the team members are as follows: Team Leader: oversees the general planning and supervises the implementation of the plans of each member; in charge of correspondences with the speakers, sponsors and invited companies. Accountant: prepares the budget and financial statement for the project; disburses allowances to each member; handles all collections for the project and expenses of the team. Mother: plans out the food to be served in the seminar; takes care of the needs of the invited speakers. Artist: lays-out the design for advertising materials; in charge of the web design of the webpage of the team project. Researcher: coordinates with the speakers and prepares the accompanying kit of seminar handouts and other collaterals; prepares the text of the advertising materials. The team holds regular meetings as to the progress of their tasks and collaborates on the preparation of the proposal presentation. Apart from providing the details of the seminar-workshop, they will also show the panel all the necessary files and materials pertinent to the project. Dealing with Conflicts It is inevitable that conflicts arise during various processes that teams engage in. Since there are five people in the team, five unique personalities are bound to both be bonded together due to the intensity of the planning and implementation of the project, as well as undergo challenging rifts and arguments that may even threaten the harmony shared by the group. Conflicts may arise from a variety of sources. Cassidy (2007) identifies some as “(a) trying to establish independence from the group, (b) vying for control or leadership of the group, (c) disagreeing about values and the expression of individual ideas, and (d) disagreeing about the task and goals of the group.” (p. 416) Although a group develops its own culture, as Wilfred Bion, a renowned psychoanalyst claims, it is not immune to the surfacing of its members’ individual psychodynamics every so often. This usually creates tension and anxiety within the group, often resulting in some members leaving the group if their ideas are not accommodated or at least acknowledged. However, what is usually emphasized in groups is conformity to its culture. David Armstrong, commenting on Bion’s work, concludes, “To achieve a full understanding of human behaviour in the round called for what Bion came to refer to as ”binocular vision”: the ability to view the same phenomena: human experience and behaviour, now through the vertex of the individual, now through the vertex of the group.” (Armstrong, n.d., n.p.) Psychoanalysts explain that a person going through anxiety responds with defense mechanisms such as rationalization, denial, projection, reaction-formation, sublimation and so on. When he is with his group, and they are faced with a crisis, each member may have his own default defense mechanism to cope with, at the same time, as a group, they tend to develop mechanisms to defend against emotion – especially uncertainty/ anxiety. These defenses work unconsciously. In the case of the group at hand, the members “scapegoat” on a particular member so as not to attract blame on themselves for going off-task. Bion has observed how groups go ‘off task’, when the emotional levels become too high. Dealing with problems as a group can be overwhelming. Groups seem to forget what the tasks are really there for and assume another task instead. In some instances, they revert to their own individual anxiety-coping ways. Wheelan (2003) offers the keys to successful team intervention to include the following elements: “First, an accurate, detailed assessment of a group’s current developmental level is critical. Second, successful intervention is guided by information. That is, educating members about group development, the characteristics of effective teams, and the importance of taking a systemic view of group problems is an important step in the intervention process. If members can take a systemic view, then they can work together to improve the functioning of the team processes and procedures” (p. 187). If all the team members take the effort to understand each other, aided by MBTI personality profiles and the team dynamics theories discussed, then there is no excuse for them to fail on their project. Going back to seeing the team as a kaleidoscope of colors, an efficient and harmonious team presents amazing patterns that all merge into a spectacular show! It is just hoped that such synchronicity is sustained. References Armstrong, D. (n.d.) “Making absences present: the contribution of W. R. Bion to understanding unconscious social phenomena.” Retrieved on August 17, 2012 from http://human- nature.com/group/chap3.html Barry, B. And Stewart, G. L. (1997) Composition, process and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 62 – 78. Cassidy, K. (2007) “Tuckman Revisited: Proposing a New Model of Group Development for Practitioners”, Journal of Experiential Education, Volume 29, No. 3 Diehl, M. And Stroebe, W. (1991) Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: tracking down blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392 – 403. Hiltz, S., Johnson, K. And Turoff, M.(1986) Experiments in group decision-making. Human Communication Research,13(2), 225 – 252. Hirsh, S. K. And Kummerow, J. (1998) Introduction to Type in Organizations, California: Consulting Psychologists Press). Myers, I. B. (1993), Introduction to Type, 5th edn, California: Consulting Psychologist Press Passmore, J., Holloway, M. and Rawle-Cope, M. (2010) Using MBTI type to explore differences and the implications for practice for therapists and coaches: Are executive coaches really like counsellors?, Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1–16 Thatcher, A. & De La Cour, A. (2003) Small group decision-making in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments: the role of personality, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 203–218 Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages in small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427 Wheelan, S. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wheelan, S.A. (2003) “An Initial Exploration of the Internal Dynamics of Leadership Teams”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 55, No. 3, 179– 188 Read More