Application of Various Theories to My Group Experiences - Coursework Example

Running Head: Application of various theories to my group experience Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code and Name: University: Date Submitted: Application of various theories to my group experiences The teamwork undertaking in my group project has been extremely insightful. The things that I have learned are of relevance to the existing literature on stages of team development, the evolution of ideas, and various theories such as group-level diagnostic model, team roles, Kolb's learning cycle, among others. In other words, the experiences I acquired through group-related activities are of immense professional relevance. This paper is an application of various theories to my group experience. Stages of team development Farrell, Schmitt & Heinemann (2001) notes that as teams undergo development from early to later stages, the members’ interpersonal behavior becomes less differentiated along three dimensions: sociability, prominence and task-orientation. Additionally, images of every member come into sharp focus, as evidenced by a reduction in variance with respect with how each member is perceived by other team members. According to Tuckman & Jensen (1977) all groups must go through four stages: forming, storming, 'norming' and performing. My group underwent all these stages. These stages were derived from a ten-year research on small-group development. After a review of 22 studies, a fifth stage, ‘adjourning’ was added to the original concept and recommendations for more empirical work made (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). According to Kamm & Nurick (1993), individuals have to coalesce with a common aim in order to form a group or organization. The success of team ventures is dependent on the decision-making process adopted. A proper understanding of the decision-making process in every group is critical to accounting for the level of success attained. In my group, we scored poorly in the first stages because the decision-making processes were poorly established. Some members dropped the course. In the later stages, the score improved, a reflection of an effective decision making process. A comparison can be made between ‘state’ perspectives and ‘stages’ perspectives. The ‘stages’ school of thought assumes that groups develop into organizations in an evolutionary manner (Kamm & Nurick, 1993). In the case of my group, the ‘stages’ perspective seems to be of more relevance than the ‘state’ perspective. This is because the group seemed to evolve through a sequence of transitions as opposed to a random set of occurrences. Past group experiences shaped the present and future group behavior. Connie & Gersick (1988), after studying the complete lifespan of eight different naturally-occurring teams, found out that the outcomes defied the traditional group development models. In this study, the progress of the groups was triggered by the members’ consciousness to time and deadlines and not the completion of a certain amount of work. This is also true of my group, especially during the firs stages of development. We were worried more about the impending deadline and passage of time than the amount of work before us. Group-level diagnostic model In group-level diagnosis, the elements to be considered include inputs, outputs, design components and relational fits. The main input to group design is the organizational design. The group has to be embedded on the design components of the larger organization. These design components include technology, measurement systems, structure, human resources systems and organizational culture (Gladstein, 1984). The tasks of the group can be influenced by the technology being used. Inmy group, one of the members, David, used email communication to consult with the rest of the group while he was away on an emergency. Structural systems can be used to specify the level of co-operation among different groups. In our situation, we drew inspiration from other groups whose members were facing graver problems us. We also felt challenged by groups that had all the five members. We felt disadvantaged because two of our group members quit by dropping the course. The measurement systems existed in the form of marks that were awarded on the basis of the quality of presentation as well as the final work done by the group. In the first stage, we scored 8 out of 15. The lecturer attributed the low mark to some missing bits in the presentation report. In the second presentation, our efforts were rewarded through an increase in the marks awarded (10 out of 15). The appraisal system was based on teamwork and therefore, individual performance was not considered to be detrimental to team performance. However, this created problems since some members chose to abandon the group. If the appraisal system was based on individual effort, the group attendance level would have been high all the time. The accuracy of diagnosis in our team, therefore, would be considerably enhanced if enough information about our group’s organizational design was collected. Such a diagnosis would be resourceful in equipping us with experiences that would make future team-building efforts more successful than the previous ones. In the Group-level diagnostic model, there are five main components. These components include goal, task structure, clarity, group functioning, group composition, and performance norms. Goal clarity is about how well the group members understand the team’s objectives. Goals need to be moderately challenging. They should also be understood by all group members. Feedback is necessary with regard to the changing levels of goal achievement, meaning that the every level of progress needs to be monitored. In the case of our group’s goals, I suspect that two of the members quit because they did not understand the goals well. The rest of us, I bet, understood the goals remarkably well. We kept updating each other on the progress of the ongoing tasks during meetings. We also held a meeting just before the second presentation just to ensure that we had done everything according to the course requirements. Task structure entails the design of the work being done by the group. There are two key dimensions along which task structures vary: coordination of the efforts made by members and regulation of their task behaviors. The coordination dimension entails the structuring of the group tasks, such that they promote effectiveness in interaction among members to a certain degree. In an interdependence task such as ours, coordination was a particularly critical determinant of success level. We did not coordinate in the best possible manner and this is perhaps why we failed to score the highest possible mark. The regulation dimension entails the extent to which members are allowed to control their own task behaviors. The element of relative freedom from external sources of control such as plans, supervision and programs is extremely valuable. Towards the beginning, our group set standards of self in ways: setting a deadline that was one week before the due date and assigning tasks to each member. The relationship in our group was healthy as far as the three of us who remained in the group are concerned. Each person did his part as required and we were able to beat deadlines. The only exception was in the beginning whereby two members quit the group without leaving any communication. We had to keep trying to keep in touch with them in order to ascertain whether they belong to our group. In some groups, members only focus on sharing pleasurable feelings while forgetting to push ahead with the pending problem-solving activities. However, this is not to say that feelings and perceptual behaviors should not be shared among group members. In fact, health interpersonal relationships in teams are based on shared perceptual and behavioral experiences of this kind. For this reason, we were able to understand David’s emergency situation, owing to the interpersonal relationship that we had built with him at the beginning of the group discussion. In terms of decision-making, we did not decide to be voting since our group was unusually small (three members). Additionally, one of the group members, David, was away attending an emergency situation. Two dimensions are worth mentioning with regard to outputs: quality of work life and performance. The quality of our work life was poor because of poor team cohesion and work satisfaction at the beginning and complete lack of commitment by two of the members. Measuring effectiveness through performance is difficult since there are many variables to be considered. It entails the ability to reduce and control costs, improve quality and increase productivity. According to Denison & Hart (1996), the group-level diagnostic model is becoming exceedingly popular in the organizational setting whereby focus is on three main domains. These domains are the organizational context, the internal process and outcome measures. For Denison & Hart (1996), though, focus is on cross-functional teams whose assessment is best done through the use of qualitative data. The qualitative data are often in the form of group interviews, team observations and written descriptions. It would be fascinating to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a team such as ours. Within this model, aspects of absenteeism and lack of coordination would be explained in an effective manner. Team building is an extremely popular intervention in different learning situations (Bottom & Baloff, 2005). However, there is inconsistency in the results of researches that have been done on the area of team building. According to Bottom & Baloff (2005), there is a lack of an explicit team-building theory, one in which variables are identified and relationships between them established. For this reason, they adopt a group-level diagnostic model whereby a group process perspective is adopted. This perspective is chosen for purposes of diagnosis, identification, and design of the best team-building interventions. Proper application of a process-perspective in creating team building solutions can lead to improvement of group performance. If all of us in the group paid attention to the team’s decision-making processes our performance in the first presentation would have been high. This is because we would have spent more time addressing the most critical elements of the test. Additionally, the confidence of the group would have been boosted. The findings provided by Bottom & Baloff (2005) on group-level diagnostic model are significant practical application in solving group-work problems. They are also essential for forming the basis of future research on the team building process. Diagnosis is one of the crucial phases that have to be undertaken in the ‘planned change’ model. Apart from group-level systems, diagnosis is an indispensable element of analyzing the effectiveness of organization-level and job-level systems. Diagnosis of large groups may be done through processes similar to those that are applied to organizational-level diagnosis. Typically, group-level diagnosis targets a small number of people who work face-to-face while sitting on a shared table (Bottom & Baloff, 2005). Kolb's learning cycle Kolb’s learning cycle was developed by David Kolb, a psychologist. It describes four stages that influence the way in which people learn: concrete experience, observation and reflection, abstract conceptualization and lastly, active experimentation. Through concrete experience one becomes involved in the world. Observation and reflection entails thinking about these experiences. Abstract conceptualization involves drawing conclusions from the experiences in order to make generalizations and to construct theories. Active implementation involves testing of the theories, especially by applying them in problem-solving situations. According to this theory, one can start at any stage in the cycle, but in order for successful learning to be achieved, the full cycle has to be completed. Some people are uncomfortable at some stages and comfortable in others. In my case, I was nervous during the presentation but I was really relaxed during group discussions. Vince (1998) argues that the Kolb’s model should create a comprehensive image of experiential learning, especially with regard to management education. According to Vince, the model should also encompass aspects of both emotional and political enlightenment. Vince’s (1998) suggestions are relevant to our group learning situation since emotions and politics played a prominent role in the way we resolved conflicts relating to group leadership whenever they arose. Recommendations The group work was a source of many fascinating experiences. I now understand the importance of group work more than I did before. I learnt that it is extremely beneficial for one to form a group with like-minded people. When all members of the group share the same goals, they are sure to achieve success by getting better grades. Additionally, I learnt that in order for members to work together in a team, they have to make sacrifices. They have to be ready to build interpersonal relationships that are formal enough to facilitate the success of task performance. Balancing between formality and informality in a team undertaking such as ours is a skill that is challenging to acquire. When group members adopt a decidedly casual approach during group meetings, the tasks may not be accorded the necessary level of attention. Lastly, I learnt how to maintain a balance between individual performance and team performance depending on the measurement systems in place. References Bottom, W. & Baloff, N. (2005). A diagnostic model for team building with an illustrative application. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(4), 317 – 336. Connie, J. & Gersick, G. (1988). Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41. Denison, D. & Hart, S. (1996). From Chimneys to Cross-Functional Teams: Developing and Validating a Diagnostic Model. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1005-1023. Farrell, M., Schmitt, M. & Heinemann, G. (2001). Informal roles and the stages of interdisciplinary team development. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15(3), 281 – 295 Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499-517. Kamm, J. & Nurick, A. (1993). The Stages of Team Venture Formation: A Decision-Making Model. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 20-34. Tuckman, B. & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427. Vince, R. (1998). Behind and Beyond Kolb's Learning Cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304-319. Read More