The Nature of Teams and Groups Resulting into Different Hypes and Myths - Coursework Example

Topic: Teams and Groups Student’s name Course name Lecturer’s name 10th August 2011 Table of Contents page 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………2 2.0 Thesis statement……………………………………………………………….2 3.0 Myths and hypes about Teams and Groups………………………………....3-4 4.0 Mix of skills in the Team……………………………………………………..4-5 5.0 Team co-operation……………………………………………………………5-6 6.0 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….6 7.0 References……………………………………………………………………..7 1.0 Introduction There are different types of teams or groups that can be used to accomplish the desired objectives in the workplace or in any other setting (Barbee, 2009). Some common types of teams include informal and formal teams or groups usually formed by employees in order to carry out specific goals in the organization (Barbee, 2009). The organizational management appoints a formal team or group which is organized intentionally to perform a particular function in the organization. Informal teams or groups are not formed by people whose objective is to address a short-term or a non-critical issue (Barbee, 2009). Other types of teams include the committees which are formed to address long-term issues, functions and task in the organizational setting. Problem evaluation and solving teams are established to address a major or particular problem that might have risen in the organization such as decreasing trend of sales volume which results into decreased amounts of revenues realised by the organization (Barbee, 2009). It is evident that many organizations make use of teams and groups to accomplish particular objectives. In this regard, there is great emphasis about the nature of teams and groups resulting into different hypes and myths about how teams should be formed and operate in order to realise the desired objectives. 2.0 Thesis statement The purpose of this report is to explore the different hypes and myths that have been postulated regarding the nature of teams and groups and determine whether the effectiveness or the nature of teams and groups is simply a question of ensuring the right mix skills and that all members of the team or the group co-operate with each other. 3.0 Myths and hypes about teams and groups One of the common myths about teams is that for a team to be effective it must go through a number of stages. These stages include the forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning stages. According to Cherrington (1994) the forming stage is characterized by uncertainty and confusion because the leadership of the team and the goals of the team are not yet been established. In this stage people in the team are new to one another and the main activity at this stage is to share expectations and getting to know each other. The confusion and uncertainty arises from the fact that there are no clear roles (Cherrington, 1994). The storming stage is characterised by increase levels of conflicts and disagreements among the team members because every team member struggles to become the team leader. The norming stage is characterized by shared expectations and individual differences. It is at this stage where the team members begin to feel a sense of identity and group cohesion and the team members begin to divide responsibilities (Cherrington, 1994). The performing stage is regarded as the maturity stage because the rational process is used to make group decisions and problems arising in the team are solved cohesively. The adjourning stage is the end of the team. Hence, this myth holds that any team or group must go through the above stages before the team can become effective or functional. The second myth about teams and groups is that teams should be formed or established following particular norms or standards. Such norms or standards reflect the performance, motivation and commitment of the team members which drives the team members to undertake their roles as expected. According to Greenberg and Baron (2000) performance norms determine the quality, the quantity or the results and the speed with which the team members should carry out their roles in the group. In this regard, it is not about the skills the team posses but the ability of the people in the team to execute their roles as desired because the norms of the team hinder the team members from unleashing their full potentials. The motivation or reward norms deals with the manner in which rewards are distributed among the team members. The commitment norm requires every team member to be committed in the team processes (Greenberg and Baron, 2000). From this discussion it is evident that this myth puts more emphasis on norms in order to increase the effectiveness of the team or group and not about the skills and the cooperation of the members. The third myth or hype about the team or a group is that cohesion is the most important aspect that drives the team or the group into a higher level of success (Blanchard, 2005). In this context cohesion is different from cooperation because cohesion results into a strong bond which may leads into more intimate relationships among the group members resulting into failure of the team. This is particularly true when the team members substitute the objectives of the team with individual objectives making it difficult to accomplish the desired team objectives. Hence, this myth holds that cohesiveness of the group or the team yields into greater levels of success. However, it is important to realize that great emphasis on cohesion as the most important factor in the team is a great weakness because cohesion results into groupthink since every team member sis pressurised to think like the rest making it impossible for the team to explore superior levels of thinking (Wheelan, 2010). 4.0 The right mix of skills in the team However, it is imperative to note that teams are established and formed to accelerate the level at which different roles and duties are executed in the organization or in any other setting. This simply means that the success of the team or the group depends entirely on the right mix of skills and the cooperation of the members of the team towards the duties the roles assigned to them. Luthans (2005) noted that a multidisciplinary group or team has higher chances of survival than a group or team that does not have a skill mix. According to Luthans this is because a team with the right skill mix is also characterised by greater levels of fresh thinking and insights which are required in dealing with strategic organizational problems and it also provides the team with a successful foundation for design and policy analysis leading to better and superior decisions. For example, integrating non-experts and experts, non-civil servants and civil servants in the team yields a better skill mix for a team bestowed with exploring ways of increasing the productivity of the workforce. In this perspective, job profiles should be used to draft and draw the required breadth of experience and skills required in the team (Ben, Noga and Andrew, 1994). Among the skills mix that should be taken into consideration when forming a team or a group include expertise or specific knowledge in a particular domain, general conceptual and analytical ability, specialist economics and statistical skills, experience in project management and decision-making skills, creativity skills, interpersonal skills and delivery experience (Ben, Noga and Andrew, 1994). With these types of skills the team or the group is in a better position to execute its roles and responsibilities with minimal difficulties because every potential problem that may arise in the process is taken care of by the wide array of skills available in the group. 5.0 Team cooperation As mentioned there above, cooperation is a different aspect to cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness results into groupthink where every team member is forced or pressured to think like the rest of the team members. This means that the team members are limited in thinking and the team or the group does not yield superior results because the potential among individual team members is limited. However, team cooperation refers to the aspect of availing the potentials of individual team members in order to achieve a common objective. Cooperation calls for every member of the team to provide their input in order to solve a given problem that arises in the process. This means that for a team or group to be effective cooperation is an important necessity because it does not limit the potentials of the team members. When a team is characterised by a mix of skills as well as cooperation it means that such a team is able to withstand every difficulty that comes its way because every member of the team is well equipped to provide his/her input regarding the situation at hand to the best level possible. Hence, the mix of skills and cooperation are the most important ingredients in the success and effectiveness of the team or group. 6.0 Conclusion This is not over-simplification because even if a team or a group undergoes through the different stages of establishment and lacks the required skills to perform their roles and responsibilities then such a team is doomed to fail. In addition, if a group or a team has cohesion but lacks the required cooperation from the team members such a team lacks the necessary force to move forward because cooperation helps the team members to avail and provide their input in order to solve any problem arising in the process of executing their roles and responsibilities. It is therefore important to reiterate the fact that a team with the right mix of skills mentioned above and a team whose members have a higher level of cooperation among themselves has better chances of survival and success. 7.0 References Barbee, D. (2009). Things Every Project Manager Should Know: Collective Wisdom from the Experts. (Beijing, O'Reilly) Blanchard, K. (2005). "Go Team! Take your team to the Next Level." (Berret-Koehler Publishing Inc.) Bryant, B., Noga, F., & Andrew, G. (1994). Self-Managing Teams & Changing Supervisory Roles. (Sydney, Centre for Corporate Change). Cherrington, D. (1994). Organizational Behavior. (Boston, Allyn and Bacon) Greenberg, J., and Baron, R. (2000). Behavior in Organizations. 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall) Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational Behavior. 10th ed. (Boston, McGraw-Hill) Wheelan, S. (2010). Creating Effective Teams: a Guide for Members and Leaders. (Los Angeles, SAGE. Print). . Read More