Positive and Negative Issues Surrounding Team Dynamics - Case Study Example

Electron’s Team Work Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Introduction 2 Team Dynamics and Team Formation 3 Phase Three: Formalization and Stabilising Of Rules 5 Forming 5 Storming 5 Norming 6 Performing 6 Factors Affecting Team Performance 7 Recommendation for Change 9 Stress Management 10 Decision making 10 Change in Leadership Style 10 Comfortable with ambiguity 11 Open Communicators 11 Creativity 12 Conclusions 12 Bibliography 13 Executive Summary Team work is a joint action normally performed by two or more individuals who have varied opinions working together with the purpose of attaining a common goal. Leaders or managers should put into their minds a major focus on team work in organisations to evaluate and improve individuals’ performances (Belbin, 2010). Collaborative work by various teams at the work place has a positive impact on the performance of an organization. Teams are more effective and complete tasks faster than individuals. Teams are able to produce good results because of the individuals strengths are brought in the team and contribute to new ideas. For any team to be successful there are various factors that are supposed to be in put place (Levi, 2007). They include full participation, individual must be committed to attain a mutual goal, share similar belief and the team must have more similarities than differences. There are various reasons that cause conflicts among team members. The reasons include perception between members of the teams, decisive factor, fear and poor communication (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2010). These problems have made many organisations to perform poorly in terms of goods and service production. Team leaders should put in place measures that seek to prevent sabotages that hinder teams to be effective in organisations. Such measures include coming up with strategies which prevent the occurrence of conflicts among team members. Introduction In order for Electron to accomplish its strategic direction, the company’s teams need to work efficiently in all aspects of production. At Electron Company, the idea of the team is expansive and it includes various teams across engineering, sales and marketing, manufacturing, finance and human resources. Team work enables most organisations to achieve success which is dependant on team member’s direction, commitment and drive to work for a common purpose and goal (Robbins & Judge, 2012). A team is a small number of individuals with complimentary expertise and committed to a common goal, purpose, approach and performance for which they believe to be accountable. Electron has established various guides that include staff who represents and directs new members of the staff. The company has also mandated staffs to guide the teams which perform poorly. Those teams that do not meet the set achievement deadline are give a warning and members threatened to be fired (Belbin, 2010). Electron has established potential issues found within respective teams and find ways of advising teams to improve their performances. However, a team is different from a group of individuals who come together for a common interest. Forming a team involves assembling a group of individuals to work together with the purposes of achieving a common goal. Teams have directions and purposes and all the team members have clear defined responsibilities within those teams (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2010). Team Dynamics and Team Formation Many researchers have established that forming a good performing team is not an easy task. It takes a lot of time and efforts for different individuals to come together and establish a community that can actually do a good job. However, building a team is a process that which is like medication. This process of community or team formation is cultivated with a lot of efforts to achieve the expected outcomes (Cohen, 2012). Barker, James established how organizations around the world have evolved from the old hierarchical method to a concertive management of self-management teams. A concertive management organisation’s teams operate under a system of normative rules which have become rationalised. This is a situation where people in a particular company have a feeling that they are closely being watched by their respective peers. For instance, most workers in the Electron Company started to feel that they were being watched by a group of older team members. Concertive Control Decentralised, participative and more democratic systems are popular among most organisations. Employees work through cultural norms instead of bureaucratic rules. In most cases, employees develop new means to control them. This happens in Electron Company where Jack organises older members of the teams and responds to changing conditions and convert value consensus into rules that could be understood by new team members (Cohen, 2012). Workers organise themselves in groups or teams and then take up the roles of supervisors and get trained to perform specific roles. The Electron’s team members meet in forums and come up with different rules. In the case, Electron has adopted the self-managing teams. Phase One: Consolidation of Employees and Normative Rules After many years, the teams value-based relations have became a force that controls their actions. Phase Two: Emergency of Normative Rules The organisation hires more workers to form many teams. The experienced old members turn their value based agreement into normative rules to enable new employees to learn and understand. Members of the teams switch from just talking about meetings and the meeting becomes a confrontation between new and old workers (Ernst, & Martin, 2006). In Electron’s case, old member changed the value based consensus to normative rules. The longer-tenures members have a lot of expectations that the new team members could identify themselves as “buy into”. The teams experience confrontation between old and new team employees concerning meetings which have dropped significantly. Phase Three: Formalization and Stabilising Of Rules The company’s norms change to become rules accompanied by penalties. The control of the team looks like an old one, and has some rationalised control. Employees start to complain about the new system because people monitor each other’s actions. For instance, members in Electron team meets frequently to discuss behaviour of everyone. Liz asserts that if anyone is not doing anything, then they can call the meeting and ask the person what problems he is encountering (Druska & Wolff, 2001). Forming This stage involves various processes where team members know each other in the team. The team members participate in social comparisons by assessing member’s strengths and weaknesses therefore establishing if they really belong in the group that fits them. Also, most members try to establish which roles they will be playing in that particular group. At this stage of team development process, leaders develop strategies that enable team members to be familiar with each other. In Electron, Jack who is a member of team blue has the responsibility of placing older team members with new members. This stage helps new members to learn each other in term of member’s characters, strengths and weaknesses (Senge, 2006). Storming This stage is characterized by resistance of team members to their leader. There is also the aspect of resistance to control by the members of the group and interpersonal conflict. In Electron, the new team members showed some form of resistance to the rules that were placed on them by the older team members (Ernst, & Martin, 2006). These old members tried to impose some strict rules on the youngster but they find their own ways of working within values and norms of the organisation. This stage usually happens at the beginning of season when rules are put in place. When the teams seem to be performing poorly, then leaders start to talk about the essentials of striving to excel in team work. Electron leaders talked openly against breaking the team’s norms to the new team members. Silver team which is headed by Ryan confronts a new member working on many boards at a time instead of the recommended one. Norming This stage involves a situation where hostility is replaced with cooperation and solidarity. Conflicts which may have been happened or experienced in the group are normally solved. For instance, there was a consensus between longer-tenure members and new members on the practicing and understanding of the values and norms. Initially the long-tenured members’ believed in a different method of implementing values through authoritative means. Conversely new members discovered a better way of understanding the values and norms in which both groups later agreed to work together as one group (Cohen, 2012). The older generation understands the new members and appreciates the way they approach the company’s norms and values. Performing All the team members come together and channel their energies towards the team’s good performance. The team now focuses on problem solving as a major issue of concern. The group employs processes that work on tasks which have new ideas and go through various tests (Druska & Wolff, 2001). The structural issues of the group are resolved in a defined way. Roles are clearly defined and most team members are able to succeed. Feedback is immediately given to team members to ensure that they get first hand information. In the case of Electron, the team members start to appreciate and embrace each other (Ernst, & Martin, 2006). The good performing members are rewarded some token as a way of encouraging other members also to work hard. Most team members at Electron talk about following rules for them to achieve good performances. Jack later comments that in Electron, most people have complied with the norms and values of the team. He goes further to assert that most team members have invested a lot in the team while giving all their best for the sake better performance (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2010). Factors Affecting Team Performance It is common phenomena to under perform, most people have always done it, and the most common reason is due to energy shortage or lack of proper sleep. Normally, a person’s well being impacts on the performance whether a manager, employee, a businessman or a leader. However, working as a team where fellow employees fail to report to the teams or there is a constant underperformance, there is a possibility of an impending problem. At first, the problems may seem to be too small and therefore when left unresolved and grow into a bigger one which affects the good performance of the entire team. If such scenario occurs in the teams, then there is a need to come up with various resolutions (Belbin, 2010). New workers at Electron have not developed clear picture of the team’s value consensus but they are expected to produce results similar to those of other older employees. Divisive culture is among the factors that affects the team’s performance. This happens in a team where there is no common or agreed values to direct the culture (Levi, 2007). This also happens in teams which come up in a team where dominant people create cultures which can divide the teams. For instance, in Electron Company, dominant leaders who expect new employees to identify themselves with the values of the team and immediately they are employed and act according to the standards. By this actions, Electron longer-tenured member prove to be having conservative control over the new employees. This makes the new employees to result into controlling themselves. Another factor that affects the team’s performance is lack of communication among team members. This has been occurring in many organizations from the management to workers or among team members (Cohen, 2012). Lack of communication has hindered the good performance of the teams found in many organizations. When employees in an organisation are not well informed, then they are likely to make poor decisions, poor customer service and mistakes (Mueller & Procter, 2002). Any organisation that wants to increase team performance should open up more channels of communication that pass through both parts. In Electron, there was poor communication among the older and new members concerning the norm of the organisation. Additionally, lack of direction in the teams can be of great impact to the team’s performance. If the team leaders don’t give clear direction to their juniors, then their teams will follow them without knowledge. Direction must be given by the organisation’s leaders to enable smooth operation of the teams (Mueller & Procter, 2002). For instance, in Electron company, Jack realized that most team member especially team leaders were not giving clear directions on team meetings. This changed the whole scenario because the number of meetings reduced drastically (Letsky, 2008). Finally, fear is another problem in team work amongst many organisations. Most new member of the teams develops fear of underperformance and also the external fear. Some members of the teams can be afraid of underperformance due to the set hard and complicated rules. Like for the case of Electron, new employees were scared when the old members of the teams cautioned them against underperformance. This can make individuals to underperform fearing for consequences (Hart, 2000) . Recommendation for Change Conflicts happen every where around the world, without conflicts, most people can not think especially in team or groups. Teams have individuals who have different people with different perspectives, education, lifestyles, interest and experiences. As a manager or a leader, it’s good to understand the type of conflict before dealing with it effectively. Studies tell us that conflicts happen in stages, as an observable procedure and have various common characteristics. Identifying and understanding conflicts in a team is very fundamental to begin solving a conflict. Most conflicts in the teams can be avoided completely, or kept from growing. Effective team leadership is not an easy task (Druska & Wolff, 2001). It is the action of bringing different individuals and various approaches together to work for a common vision and objectives. There is no specific ways which guides people how to lead team members. Any team, there should be passion, flexibility, and love. There are various tools that are recommended to help team leaders to deal with challenges that affect the team’s performance (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2010). First tool is delegation of authority. Leaders of various groups are required to complete various tasks within stipulated time. Even though a leader is part of the task achievement and development of a certain amount of delegation is required since most of the tasks can be achieved through the teams. Delegation of authority requires a lot of trust among subordinates and peers and efficient communication. Many communication channels should be made available among the members of the team. This can help the team to achieve better performance. Stress Management A stress situation is very common in various fields and daily life particularly in work place. There should be a framework of dealing with stress at work place. This can be done by finding the best ways to dealing with assorted difficult problems and adjust positively to the cause. For instance, a member of the team might be going through marital problems which might affect his/her performance at work place. Some team members may be also suffering from financial constraints which render them unproductive (Rosh &Van Diest, 2012). Decision making It is necessary for Electron to team leaders to explore the needs and preferences of individual team members. Some members might be specialized in different areas and should be allowed to present their ideas. For instance, there was an information overload where older team members dictated a lot of rules and regulations to new members. The problem occurred particular on how to rank the most critical issues. Therefore, all employees should be allowed to make decisions that according to their rational choices. (Cohen, 2012). Change in Leadership Style Not every great teammate only allows different leaders to continue being at the top depending on their strengths but also discovers that leadership is situational. Basing on the team’s needs, it is important for the leaders to rely on matters that at times, teammates need a hug as an encouragement and appreciation. The team requires new styles and a visionary coaching which is brought by great leaders who have the interest of improving the organisations performances. A person to who leads all the way has various chances of impacting positively on the general profitability of the business. Various researches have indicated that leadership style account for about 30% of the businesses’ profitability. The percentage can not be ignored by any means (Druska & Wolff, 2001). Comfortable with ambiguity Some leaders are able to lead employees even when there is change. Such leaders are known to be comfortable with ambiguity. This character should be implemented in Electron to avoid future problems. In case of the team work at the work place, most team leaders work expecting the organisation to present any kind of change. Such leaders are flexible and embrace new ideas in unfamiliar territory (Forsyth, 2010). Any team leader should be able to embrace change and move fast to keep pace with the current global dimensions. Open Communicators It is important for all leaders to in Electron to remain strong communicators, especially in team work. During the time of changes most employees are likely to fit in the situation when they receive sufficient information. Good communication can enable employees not to face uncertainty due to absence of information. Electron’s Leaders should allow workers to ask question pertaining matters which affects them (Druska & Wolff, 2001). Creativity This is the capability for all team leaders in Electron to pull crucial information from a wide range of resources. This fundamental information is of great value to individuals in their respective teams. Such leaders are always open to most internal and external forces and they are able to apply those inputs to identify anew way for themselves, their organization and their employees (Thompson, 2011). Conclusions In summation, in every environment, most employees are likely to belong to one or two teams. These teams can be formal or informal depending on the nature of the business operation. The paper has discussed various ways in which efficient teams can transform any organization into a better performing business entity using Electron Company as an example. Good team improves productivity of any given organisation, For instance, Electron placed older members of the organisation to be in charge of new employees. Experienced members stand better chances of coaching new employees to perform better. The paper also looked at how team work can help employees to have the sense of purpose and identity in Electron. According to Jack, Members of Electron team dedicate themselves to improve the performance of the company. Team dynamics formed the basis of this paper. Then dynamics and organisational team development are the invisible forces that work between different groups of persons (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2010). One can identify dynamics by looking at the forces which influence behaviours of teams like poor communication and attitude that is displayed amongst Electron’s employees. On the other hand, the report looked at various factors that affect the team’s performance and efficiency of team members particularly in Electron Company such as communication and attitudes among team members. Additionally, the paper discussed about various recommendations and corrective measure that Electron’s team leaders need to implement so as to achieve better performance in terms of profitability. Bibliography Belbin, M., 2010. Management Teams: Why they Succeed or Fail. London, Butterworth- Heinemann. Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A.,2010. Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. Financial Times, Prentice Hall. Cohen, D., 2012. Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 5: 2-24. Druskat, V.U., and Wolff, S.B., 2001. Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review. Ernst, C .& Martin, A., 2006.Critical Reflections: How Groups Learn from Success and Failure. Greensboro, N. C. Centre for Creative Leadership. Forsyth, R., 2010. Group dynamics. Belmont, Calif, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Hart, Paul’t., 2000. Irving, L. Janis’ Victims of Groupthink. Political Psychology.12(2): 247-278 Kemp, J. M., 2008.Moving out of the Box: Tools for Team Decision Making. Westport, Conn, Praeger Letsky, M. P., 2008. Macrorecognition in Teams: Theories and Methodologies. Aldershot, Ashgate Levi, D., 2007.Group Dynamics for Teams. 2nd ed. London, Sage. Mueller, F. and Procter, S.,2002.Issues in Teamworking. Bradford, Emerald Group Publishing. Robbins, S. and Judge, T. A., 2012.Organizational Behaviour. Global ed. 15th ed. London, Pearson Education. Rosh, L., Offerman, L.R., and Van Diest, R., 2012. Too close for comfort? Distinguishing between team intimacy and team cohesion. Human Resource Management Review. 22: 116-127. Senge, P. ,2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London, Random House Business. Thompson, L. L., 2011. Making the Team: A Guide for Managers. 4th International Edition. London: Pearson. Read More