Effective Team and Performance Management - Term Paper Example

? EFFECTIVE TEAM AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Effective Team and Performance Management Introduction Teams in regard to management and business organization traverses beyond a mere collection of individuals. Effective team and performance management displays a focus on one motto; people as the skill and performance management as the strategy. Therefore in practice, teams are a congregation of people comprising different skills, talents and competencies and who understand each other fairly well enough with a focus of efforts on collective team objective(s). In an ever globalizing economy, organizations now turn to their greatest asset which is the people skills it has to optimize their differences and uniqueness thus generating sustainable competitive advantage necessary for surviving the increased competition within the international market (Garry & Litan, 1998). The paradigm shift in business has broadened the focus of organization beyond the achievement of its own goals and objectives to the creation of an environment where the members (in this case the employees) can also realize their individual and group objectives and desires within the organization structure. Employees are now concerned about their career paths within an organization above and beyond their monetary rewards. This career path requires the creation of programs and systems that allow for new knowledge and skill acquisition within the organization that allow for successive progression or growth of the individual alongside that of the overall organization (Berger & Berger, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the role of team cohesion and understanding on organizational performance. It examines how leadership can better enhance the relations amongst individuals, teams and management therein increasing their collective synergistic efforts towards the realization of optimal performance and achievement of set organizational targets and objectives. It also examines how the underlying differences between individuals within the organization can lead to frictions within the organization that can dent organizational performance and progress; therein showing how such frictions can be mitigated and managed as and when they arise. The paper employs several tasks involving team and individual relations; therein using theoretical team and performance management models to evaluate the usefulness of such tasks in building capacity for achieving optimum organizational performance. Reflection Group Formation and Analysis Approach I have chosen to use the Tuckman team model (1965) in organizing my reflections on the experiences gained from the various seminar activities or tasks. This is because the model offers a simple yet conclusive four- step approach involving forming, storming, norming, and performing phases for examining and managing the group dynamics of individuals within a team. The first stage is absolutely vital in identifying members for your team. Figure 1: Tuckman Model for reflection The selection of team members can be done based on the roles identified for members within the team (Belbin, 2004). The formation of my team comprised individuals from multicultural backgrounds: Mathew Stroud (British) Alena Linhartova (Spanish) Virginia Bath (British) Abdulaziz Mohammed Al-Hunayshil (Saudi Arabia) Chunlin Chen (China) The distribution of roles within the team was arrived at based on Belbin’s self-perception inventory model (1981) which argued that team roles existed based on distinct individual preferences in addition to being behavioral and thought style-dependent. The model implied the prevailing of a more natural role in most occasions. Belbin initially had an eight role model where the roles were arrived at based on six factors namely: personality, mental ability, current value and motivation, field constraints, experience, and role learning. He however failed to show the degree of variation within these factors.Later on, he added a ninth role; that of the specialist. Table 1: Belbin's Team role specifications Team roles Person specification Plant (PL) Inventive, ingenious, eccentric, solves difficult tasks, full of ideas with strong ownership and neglects practical matters. The resource investigator (RI) Sociable, excited, talkative, who discovers opportunities, makes productive contacts, loses interest once initial excitement has elapsed. The Co-ordinator (CO) Mature, assertive, a good leader with objective goals endorses decision making, delegator but prone to be lazy and want to takes credit for effort of a team. The shaper (SH) Someone who is challenging thrives on pressure and possesses the drive and courage to overcome hurdles. Monitor-evaluator (ME) Basic of such person’s attributes are sober, strategic, discerning, keep close eye to details, possess excellent judgement capability and logical. Team worker (TW) Co-Operative, Mild, perceptive and diplomatic, good listener. In summary someone who possesses the ability of calming the waters but try to escape conditions that could involves stress. Implementer (IM) Such a person should be disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient such as who turns ideas into practice. Completer (CO) Such a person should be keen to lookout for errors, delivers on time, known as perfectionist and with obsessional behaviour. Source: Belbin, 2004 The results of Beblin’s self-perception test by team members were computed as follows: Table 2: Personal self-perception results Section PL RI CO SH ME TW IM CO I. 2 2 1 2 3 3 II. 4 2 2 III. 2 3 2 2 3 IV. 3 3 2 4 V. 2 1 2 2 3 2 VI. 2 2 3 VII. 5 2 Total 14 13 10 4 11 3 16 2 The subsequent stages of storming, norming and perform are covered through the reflective section below through which the general processes of identifying required resources, team hierarchy, decision making processes and procedures and problem solving approaches are assessed through the tasks provided. Description and Reflection on Tasks Amongst the many seminar tasks there were particularly three tasks which were of particular importance to my learning. These tasks were designed to test critical lessons regarding team consensus and performance within scenarios that were a source for potential conflict therein stretching the capacity of both team members and leaders to synthesize, communicate and delegate appropriately to complete the tasks successfully. ‘Lost on the moon’ was a task that created a crisis scenario. It required teams to identify and rank what basic resources were required to sustain them until the crisis situation had either been weathered off or overcome (in this case until the stranded astronauts could reach the mother ship) . Essentially, it examined the ability of individuals to forego individual interests to pursue that of the team; due to the varied and distinct interests and preferences amongst different individuals there is bound to be a potential conflict amongst the team members themselves or against the team’s collective objective(s). At the organizational level, this task simulates a situation where the organization is perhaps undergoing a recession or is experiencing a situation of shortage of resources to do its operations efficiently as at normal levels. Team members one to three (as listed in the team member’s composition above) found it hard to agree on the team’s final ranking of up to 7 resources from the list of fifteen. There was a general display of hard line stance by the team as to the prioritization of the resources. The team leader, having been identified via a relatively constant score in the self-perception test, had to intervene to offer the final ranking so as to ensure completion of task within the afforded time limit. This decision was met by harsh criticism by the other dissenting members who attested that I was abusing my authority as the team’s leader in rubber-stamping my own opinion against those of the teams. This effectively formed the team’s storming phase and would create a hostile environment within the team that threatened to derail the performance of the team in future tasks (Lencioni, 2002). The ‘egg flying contest’ was a task that assessed group norming and performing processes. The task required the team to find a means with which they could safely drop an egg from a distance of two meters using any five from the seven listed resources. The task assessed both the ability of members to effectively communicate their ideas and collective deliberation amongst them over ideas and procedures so generated and in ultimately selecting the way forward in completing the task. At the organizational level, this task simulates the various decision-making mechanisms within the organization; highlighting the organizational hierarchy as well as the communication channels and leadership styles employed by C-level management (Carpenter & Sanders, 2006). The task was able to generate much excitement and creativity amongst all team members and the flow of ideas seemed to swiftly flow both in the generation of new ideas as well as in the enrichment of several alternatives chosen from this pool. From the several alternatives identified, the decision on which is the most appropriate mechanism to successfully perform the said task was much easier than the previous task. Does this signify a variance in the decision making processes amongst teams with the given task? The third task was the ‘crime in Cambridge’ which primarily required a team leader to solve a puzzle given pieces of evidence to the crime. From amongst the team members, there must be a team leader chosen or volunteered to guide the team in the task. The task assessed the leadership personality traits and style of the said individual. Most importantly, it measured the ability of the team leader to contribute to the members’ fulfillment of the given task i.e. how he or she led and influenced the team.The leadership position and role is very central for any organization. It is an act of team coaching (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Team members demonstrate certain personality traits and behavior which is purposed to create and strengthen team effectiveness (Belbin, 2004). This involves structuring the team; allocating resources appropriately as needed by the team members and helping individuals overcome personal barriers in their contributions to the team. These and so much more are geared towards aligning the collective resources of the team in pursuing team objectives (Beyerlein et al., 2002). Reflections by Team Member Team member two describes my input into the team as democratic. In the very same breathe the member is keen to highlight that my role was highly deliberative that the team could better have been served if I showed decisive leadership. In the moon challenge, the member feels that the completion of the task as almost jeopardized by the indecisiveness given a wide variety of contradicting and conflicting interests. The member gesture that certain scenarios where a multitude of interests are concerned it is incumbent upon the leader to act as a risk taker and make best decisions outside the contribution by members (Northouse, 2011). The member also explains my role in the team as accommodating and inspiring. For a team that was largely multi-cultural, the member says that my ability to gain an understanding of how such background dynamics affects behaviors and contributions within a team setting was most exceptional and contributory to team harmony (Carron et al., 2005). My commitment to the collective team objectives and involvement of all members in defining and operationalizing such objectives were at the center of undertaking each of tasks provided.Team member two commiserates with my decision to step down from my strongly-held positioneven though a vote count on the issue would have seen me victorious but condemns its sudden occurrence at the most critical point of the task activities. The member declares that the composure of the team was upset therein affecting its collective capacity to efficiently learn and shape itself in response to emergent challenges of the tasks and conflicts generated around the task environment (Forsyth, 2009). Alternative Courses of Action A major challenge for the team was on how to overcome the constant conflict in ways of performing the given task. The conflict of ideas is not necessarily a negative element; however it displays a lack of cohesion within the team. This could be easily tackled through the intervention of team cohesion efforts. Firstly, by encouraging increased social interactions between team members will help strengthen inter-personal relations. This will create greater cohesion of ideas and build trust amongst members in each other (Carron et al., 2005). Secondly, the indecision in decision making must be eliminated through a more active role by the team leader in this process (Northouse, 2011). Subsequent to the gathering of opinions on pending issues, the leadership of the team must take it upon him to use the information so gathered only to enrich his own course of action but not as a substitute for it. In so doing, there is an establishment of a hierarchy in the decision making such that the conclusion of this process however undesirable by certain members of the team shall still be unreservedly enforced as instructed. My decision to let go on a widely unpopular position that would have seen the efficient fulfillment of the given task for fear that it would upset the cohesiveness of the group was unnecessary. As a leader one must understand and be ready to make sometimes highly unpopular or controversial decisions if in the leader’s own rational assessment it seems to be the most favorable alternative (Carpenter & Sanders, 2006). Team members must also realize it is not always the case that their point of view must be taken into consideration in the final decision making. However, team cohesion theory postulates that the more the interaction between the members of a team, the more alike or similar they become such that in the long-run, the decisions of the team would display fewer and fewer conflicts and variations (Behar, 2008). Learning/Conclusion My experience working as part of a team in these series of seminars can best be summed as an opportunity to learn and create new ideas about how to approach various tasks and responsibilities through active storming sessions. Particularly the presence of being in an environment with little or no competition and where the focus is primarily on working together has greatly helped me to assess my personal strength and weaknesses; highlighting areas of my personality and group skills that can be improved to make me in a better position to participate in and manage task teams. I have also learnt that teams develop through an experiential learning cycle. Some team members perceive new knowledge through a tangible experience of the scenario or task at hand; relying on their intuition and immersing themselves directly into the realm of the importance of that task. Others prefer a more scientific approach to new information by analyzing and systematically planning beforehand how to undertake a task before embarking on it. These variations in learning styles are necessary for managing team dynamics and operations and ensuring that the leadership style adopted by management is flexible to the attributes of each individuals; treating their contributions in the decision making process with equal importance. In terms of fellowship I learned that one should cooperate, listen, communicate effectively and for most part enjoy the tasks as it leads to personal and emotional attachment with group members. Successful teams have been found to be more cohesive than unsuccessful teams such that the emotional attachments generated herein will make it more difficult for entry of an ‘outsider’ into such teams i.e. the threat of group think is very real and can be a self-destructive agent for successful teams unless properly managed. Going forward, as a leader I must be flexible to the selection of team members allowing for a fusion of both experienced and senior team members with new or younger less experienced members (Berger & Berger, 2010). The purpose of this being to ensure there are systems in place for succession planning by allowing the younger members to acquire skills and competencies from the more experienced members for the future benefit of the organization. Teams must also collectively learn to operate with changes in the business environment. As a future leader, the ability to foresee, analyze and communicate a vision to overcome such uncertainties in the business environment will be the first and fundamental step towards the team’s success.As a future leader in a team I must ensure there are effective systems and practicesdesigned to allow the team to learning from its environment so as to survive some of the dysfunctional effects of teams such as mistrust(especially of outsiders), fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability and lack of focus on results. Reference Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S. & Senior, B., 2007. Belbin’s Team Role Model: Development, Validity and Applications for Team Building. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), pp.96-118. Behar, K., 2008. Conflict in Organizational Groups. Kogan Page Ltd. Belbin, R.M., 2004. Management Teams. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Berger, L. & Berger, D., 2010. The Talent Management Handbook: Creating a Sustainable Competitive Advantage by Selecting, Developing, and Promoting the Best People. McGraw-Hill. Beyerlein, M.M., Freedman, S., McGee, C. & Moran, L., 2002. Beyond Teams: Building the Collaborative Organization (Collaborative Work Systems Series). Pfeiffer. Carpenter, M.A. & Sanders, W.G., 2006. Strategic Management : A Dynamic Perspective, Concepts and Cases. Prentice Hall. Carron, V.A., Hausenblas, A.H. & Eys, A.M., 2005. The Nature of Cohesion: Group Dynamics in Sports. Sheridan Books. Forsyth, D.R., 2009. Group Dynamics. Wadsworth Publishing. Garry, T.B. & Litan, R., 1998. Globaphobia: Confronting Fears About Open Trade. New York: Brookings Institution Press. Goleman, D., 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. Bantam. Hackman, R.J. & Wageman, R., 2005. A Theory of Team Coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), pp.269-87. Kayes, C. & Kayes, A.B., 2001. Team Leadership Questionnaire - Leader Edition: Improving leadership through learning. CreateSpace. Koman, E.S. & Wolff, S.B., 1987. Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), pp.216-35. Lencioni, P., 2002. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable (J-B Lencioni Series). Jossey-Bass. Maxwell, J.C., 2007. The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the Person Others Will Want to Follow. Thomas Nelson. Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B. & Fink, L.D., 2004. Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Stylus Publishin. Northouse, P.G., 2011. Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and Practice. Sage Publications, Inc. Thompson, L.L., 2010. The Truth About Effectively Preparing for Negotiations. FT Press. Thompson, L., 2011. Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Prentice Hall. Read More