Reflection on team working experience - Essay Example

Reflection on Team Working Experience Introduction Teamwork is a quality that is encouraged in all aspects of life, be it social or professional. It is vital for mid wives to be able to work together, in order to make certain the safe and successful delivery of delivery of babies. Teamwork being a key mention in the midwifery code of conduct; the importance of this quality among nurses was highlighted as an essential requirement for this profession (Hall, 2005, p39). Nurses learn about teamwork in school through various exercises. In my case, we were instructed to work in groups on a slide show project, and give each group member points for their input during this exercise. This appraisal was significantly influenced by the Belbin self-perception theory. Belbin self perception theory The Belbin theory on self-perception was created to assess how an individual behaves when working in a group setting. Meredith Belbin formulated this theory after studying several teams in session. This theory proved useful in my appraisal of the performance of different team members in this assignment. The following fields were evaluated for every member (Belbin, 1981, p 13). Contribution to work It is crucial for group members not to be passive and wait for the other members to do his or her part. Each group member is expected to contribute to the overall input of the group. (Luthans, 1995, p27). Organization and time management Efficiency is crucial in all tasks. It becomes especially crucial when people are working as a group. When there is a lack of organization, and time management, some members of the group may be overworked, or the work will not be done at all or completed in the expected duration (Katzenbach and Smith, 1999, p7). Attitude towards Teamwork Individuals should be team players in order to adapt well into a team. For a group to be fruitful, it is crucial for its individuals to have the right attitudes toward teamwork (McCann and Margerison, 1989, p52). Development and Implementation of Ideas In a group setting, many ideas are floated around. Some of these ideas may be pragmatic, whereas others may be farfetched. A team player should be capable to develop implementable ideas, and not ideas that are not applicable in the situation (Mullins, 2005, p43). Peer Assessments Using these four categories, as a benchmark for the assessment, the different team members performed as follows. For Each category, the score was out of five points. This made the total score attained to be out of 20 points (West, 2012, p28). Tina (Student 1) Tina served as the team leader. She did this because she took charge of the meeting of the group from the first team making her the natural candidate to be the team leader (Redman, Wilkinson, 2002, p62). She has a tough personality and is not afraid to express her opinions to the rest of the team. The reason why she performed so strongly is that she was strong in most of the categories used in the criteria of measuring performance. Tina made a significant contribution in to the work assigned to the group. She was always armed with adequate information about the topic. Her research skills were exceptional making her knowledge on the topic wide. In this category, she scored 4.5 points. Because of her strong personality and impatience, her score was average in the team player category. She also kept saying that she preferred to work alone than with the team. This contributed to her low score in this category, scoring 3points. She was strong in the formulating of ideas, since she was a critical thinker making her ideas viable for the project. She had a score of 4.5 points. She had exceptional organization skills and remarkably skilled at keeping records and schedules. She also made sure the work the group presented was outstandingly done. She put extra hours in preparing the teams work and attended all scheduled meetings (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004, p63). Her total average score was 17.5 / 20. Her role in the team according to the Belbins theory on self-perception, her identified role, was as a monitor-evaluator. Her area of weakness was she was anxious at times over the quality of the work done. Her character is defined as a complete finisher according to the Belbins theory in that she was a perfectionist (Belbin, 1993, p34). . Krystle (student 2) Krystle was the second member of the team. She made a sizable contribution to the team in that she was knowledgeable about some topics. She also contributed by availing relevant sources to the group’s research. In this area, she had a score of 4 points. In organization and time management, she usually came disorganized to the discussions .she also lacked communication skills in that she was uncomfortable in communicating outside the group (Riding and Rayner, 2001, p51).she also did not attend all the meetings however, she submitted her work on time. She scored 3 points in this category. In her team playing abilities, she was passive and went out of topic sometimes. Her shyness also affected her ability to be a team player, ( Avery, Walker and Murphy, 2001, p46), and socialized very little with the rest of the group. Her score was low in this category scoring 2.5 points. In development and idea implementation, she contributed in the development of the ideas of the other members and lacked originality. She scored 2.5 points. Her total average score was 12/ 20. In Krystle’s case, she was identified to play the role of a team worker. Her weak area was identified as role of the sharper. This is because she was willing work for the group but was not willing to participate in the actual group work. She was satisfied with being a passive member (Parker, 1996, p39). Sarah (student 3) Sara was a strong member of the team. She was exceptional at researching on topics that she was unsure of, and was very active in the discussions. She provided credible evidence for her points. Her average score was 4points.she also had superior organization skills and attended all team sessions except one theory session. Her score was 3.5 points. She was also a team player in that, she respected the view of the other members and was engaging in that she always tried to involve everyone. She scored 4 points in this category. She had some good ideas and contributed to the ideas of other members. She lacked originality and accepted what the majority decided. In this category, she scored 3 points. Her total average score was 14.5/ 20. Her key role according to the theory of perception was monitor evaluator and her weak area was identified as a researcher (Hare, 2005, p70). Marisa (student 4) Marisa showed prowess in idea formulation. She had exceptionally good ideas, and showed originality. Her ideas were also pragmatic to the topic involved. Her score in this category was 4.5 points. She was also a good team player in that she thrived in working in a team setting. However, she had her weaknesses. For example, she did not like to be opposed. She could also be passive at times and communication was a problem since English was her second language (Ancona, 1983, p30). Her score was 3 points. She was also exceptional in her organization and time management and put a lot of deliberation in her work. She attended all meeting and submitted her work in acceptable time. In the category of work contribution, she had appropriate references to support her points and was knowledgeable. In these two categories, she scored 4.5 and 3.5 points respectively. Her total score was 15.5/20. According to Belbins self-perception inventory, Marisa identified her key role as team worker (Belbin, 1993, p34). Peer Assessment Grid Students Categories 1 2 3 4 Contribution to preparatory work 4.5 4 4 4.5 Team player- support and respect 3 2.5 3.5 3 Development and implementation of ideas 4.5 3 4 4.5 Organisation and management of time 4.5 2.5 3 3.5 Total Mark out of 20 17.5 12 14.5 15.5 Conclusion Working in a team setting was an interesting experience for me. During this exercise, I interacted with people with different personalities. This made me learn how to be cope with the challenges of working in a team. I believe this was vital in preparing me for my career in midwifery. List of references Avery, C. M., Walker, M. A., & Murphy, E. O. (2001), Teamwork is an individual skill: getting your work done when sharing responsibility, San Francisco, CA, Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Ancona, G. (1983), Team work: a picture essay about crews and teams at work, New York, Crowell. Belbin, R.M., 1981, Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth,Heinemann. Belbin, R.M., 1993, Team Roles at Work. Oxford, U.K.:Butterworth Heinemann. Buchanan, D. and A, Huczynski, 2004. Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text. (5thEdn.), Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow. Hare, A. P, (2005), Analysis of social interaction systems: SYMLOG research and Applications, Lanham, Md. [u.a.], Univ. Press of America Hall, L. M, (2005), Quality work environments for nurse and patient safety. Sudbury, Mass. ; Toronto, Jones and Bartlett Pub. Katzenbach, J. and D. Smith, 1999, The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organization,,New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc Luthans, F., 1995. Organizational Behavior. (7th Edn.).McGraw-Hill, London. Herbert, C., 1994. Teambuilding heralds new spirit of co-operation. Works Manage., 47 (9): 27-28. McCann, D. and C. Margerison, 1989, Managinghigh-performance teams. Training and Development Journal, November. 52-60. Mullins, L., 2005, Management and Organisational Behaviour. (7th Edn.). Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London. Parker, G.M., 1996, Team Players and Teamwork (1st Edn.), San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey Bass Publishers.. Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2002). The informed student guide to HRM. London, Thomson Learning. Riding, R. J., & Rayner, S. (2001). Self perception. Westport, Conn. [u.a.], Ablex Publ. West, M. A. (2012), Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research. Chichester, West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons. Read More