Two Poorly Functioning Teams - Essay Example

Two poorly functioning groups Introduction Thomasina Borkman and Valeria Castleman were involved in a methodical investigation in 1996 whereby they examined and explored communication issues in a total of seven teams. The team members were graduates from Brad Cox’s PSOL course. This methodical investigation was established with the main objective of investigating and comprehending the manner in which teams or groups conduct their activities, jobs, or chores so as to increase or progress the organization as well as their bearings. All the activities were electrically related as the groups were required to design a digital invention for sale at the end of the semester. Two poorly functioning groups or teams were identified and denoted as team A and team B (Borkman). For the purpose of this assignment, the two poorly functioning groups or teams will also be denoted as team A and team B. This paper elucidates the multiple factors that caused the poor functioning of each of the two poorly functioning groups, draws a comparison between the two groups in respect to the conflict process in regard to the Tuckman’s framework or model. This paper also suggests a resolution to the conflicts and further elucidates why the resolutions will be effective. Team A It is of significance to posit that there is a range of factors that caused the poo functioning of each off the group. Team A was one of the teams involved in the project. In this group off seven members, Borkman posits that only four of the group members were unfailingly involved in the activities off the team. The other three members of the team failed to actively participate in the activities. One of the factors that caused the poor functioning of the team was leadership. Of the three constantly absent members of the group, one of them initially presumed a leadership role. This person’s name was denoted as ‘All Talk’ and was adopted by other group members. At the initial stage of the project, all the team members came together to design the way forward and decide on a common objective for the group. The concepts and philosophies proposed by ‘All Talk’ were adopted by the group. However, due to the constant absence of ‘All Talk’, the group lacked his leadership and guidance so as to effectively complete the project. As illustrated by Tuckman in his model off development, a team or group ought to identify and recognize authority, as well as role and communication arrangements or organizations. In team A, all the members had divergent views and opinions on whether there were too many or too few individuals in positions of leadership. The members had also divergent opinions on whether the leaders within the team were legitimate or not. Secondly communication issues also cause the poor functioning of the team. In the forming stage, it was agreed upon that members of the group could either contribute through emails or could physically attend group meetings. Though a common discussion tool for communication was proposed and created, the members who physically attended meetings failed to update those who missed the meetings through the discussion tool. Therefore, there was poor communication within the group hence the poor functioning off the team. According to the Tuckman’s model of development, communication is vital or critical for the normal functioning of the team (Borkman). Thirdly, the poor functioning of the team was caused by the fact that some of the members of the group were isolated by the others. When the members were interviewed, it was observed that four members of the group worked hand in hand while the other three members were isolated. Therefore, the isolated individuals had divergent opinions and views regarding the project as compared to the four members who worked collectively. There are other factors that caused the poor functioning of the group. Some lf the team members were not dedicated and devoted in their work. This is attributed to the absence of three of the members hence the sidelining. Members of a team or group are also supposed to comprehend the dynamics of their team. Borkman posits that only one of the team members was aware off the dynamics of the group as she regularly spoke to him either through emails or clandestinely in class. For a team to function normally and effectively and as well be successful in its activities, all members ought to be aware of the group dynamics. Group B This group took the longest to begin its project. It is also of significance to posit that one off the members in this team dropped off at the last minute. One off the factors that caused the poor functioning of this group included leadership issues, norms and communication issues, awareness of the group dynamics, and interaction or association between team members. The leader in this team assumed this position without much discussion and agreement between the group members. One of the members mostly unavailable was not happy of this development. As the project progressed, one of the team members skillful technically practically took over the leadership of the team. Therefore, two sources of authority emerged within the team. A single source of authority is of significance within a group as it minimizes conflicts. Members of this team also failed to obey and abide by the rules and standards of the group. Furthermore, some members of this team felt that there was the absence of a strong and flawless communication strategy, and plans of action to ensure appropriate and effective division of labor and involvement of each and every member of the group in its activities. Some members off the group were also isolate from the others. The members also had divergent opinions and views in regard to the group dynamics (Borkman). Comparison of the conflict process between the two groups As depicted in the Tuckman’s model of development, conflict occurs at the second stage of group development after the placement and coordination period. Borkman elucidates the fact that groups in this course have a higher probability of missing or hopping the conflict phase as the subsequent phase. If it happens, it usually would be at the time when the group members are working on a deadline. This is usually towards the end of the semester. Group A was in conflict practically from the initial stage of development. It is also evident that the group failed to deal with the conflict expeditiously and waited until the last minute. According to Borkman, this could have been caused by the fact that group members initially avoid hurting the feeling of others hence failed to deal with their problems effectively. When the deadline was looming, it was a must for the group to deal with their problems in order to finish the project timely and effectively. There were verbal attack and conflicts towards the completion of the project in group A. on the other hand, group B circumvented or eluded such dynamic and lively uttered fights. The skilled members of the group intervened and completed the project without expressing anger or sentiments to less skilled members of the group. Resolutions to the conflicts In group A, the conflict could have been avoided through ensuring proper leadership and communication. Sharing of chores or activities whereby each off the members of the team plays a distinctive role would have instilled a sense of responsibility among the members. In group B, less skilled members of the team could have been given less complicated roles within their capabilities. In that way, each and every member could have contributed to the success of the project without any conflicts. These resolutions would elevate the level of involvement of the group members in the project activities and hence they would be effective. Work cited Borkman, Thomasina. Case Studies of Two Poorly Functioning Teams. GMU and Virtual School, 17 Dec. 1996. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. http://virtualschool.edu/98c/Soci305/Soci305Thomasina.html Read More