Organizational Behavior - Essay Example

Teams and Teamwork: A Critical Reflection In this critical self-reflection essay, I will explore team processes and dynamics in relation to scientific literature as well as my personal experiences at KLU; the principle reference for this reflection exercise is the 12th edition of Schermerhorn, Osborn, Uhl-Bien, and Hunt’s (2011) text, Organizational Behaviour. In the context of organizational behaviour, a team is defined as a group of individuals working together to achieve a common goal for which they must be held responsible for collectively (Schermerhorn, Osborn & Hunt 146). For that matter, I have learnt that teams only become effective if and when there is real teamwork, with each member actively contributing their knowledge and skills to the successful completion of the group tasks. From my own experiences at KLU, teams can both be very effective or very ineffective, depending on so many factors, but most significantly, I have learnt that teams often do not perform as expected, due to lack of cooperation between team members. I have first-hand experience in how inefficient team members can frustrate teamwork, especially because I was once kicked out of a team myself, for not cooperating with the rest of the members. In my case, I used to skip group meetings for no good reason, knowing that the rest of my team members would go on without me; consequently, I hardly made any contribution to the group discussions. To make it worse, I did not even do my part of the group project, for which I was personally accountable for, and when the deadline for submission arrived, I did not post my portion of the project as the team expected. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be drawn from my experience, especially in relation to the fundamental aspects of teams and teamwork, as highlighted in the scientific literature reviewed. I have learnt that teams found within organizations are usually formal, which means that they are constructed specifically to serve specific purposes, either temporarily or permanently. Perhaps this explains why organizations have often been characterized as systems of interrelated networks of teams; at the top of every team there must be a team leader, who also double sup as a team member. Nevertheless, I have learnt that individual team members must also contribute to the success of the team by carrying out specific tasks for which they must take full responsibility, to promote the collective goals of the entire team. My group was formed precisely to undertake a specific project and we had a team leader who facilitated the group meetings; each of us were assigned specific tasks to fulfil on our own, but as it turns out I was not such a great team player, because I did not take full responsibility for my part of the project. I have also learnt that besides the formal teams, there are other networks of informal groups, which emerge and exist alongside the formal ones, but these ones do not serve any mandated function within the organization. Informal groups usually form through personal relationships, and are mostly characterized by strong bonds of friendship and collaborations; the benefit of such informal groups within the organization is that they facilitate interactions and positive relations between members, and this could have a positive effect on workflows. Perhaps the fact that our group was comprised of perfect strangers who did not have any prior connections outside the team and there was no affinity between the members could partly explain the sheer lack of cooperation that frustrated our workflow. Given that these informal groups and networks often lead to effective communication and more successful workflows, they should be considered when assigning and selecting team members, to guarantee affinity between team members. I have learned that teams facilitate fast response to crisis since each team member brings their knowledge and experience to the group thereby significantly enriching and speeding up the decision-making process. The efficiency of teams is significantly enhanced through synergy between individual members; the fundamental principle underlying this idea is that several people collaborating on a specific purpose is more likely to achieve greater results than a single individual. Indeed, none of my team members would have managed our project on their own, especially because it was very technical; however, with the input of each of my group members, it became very manageable. There are basically three principle advantages to teams, which make them more effective than individuals, the first one being that teams tend to make more informed judgements, especially in the absence of explicit expert knowledge. For instance, no one in my group had ever had any practical knowledge that we could have leveraged in completing our project. Similarly, teams are more effective in addressing complex challenges that require specialization, division of labour and information sharing (Alper, Tjosvold, and Law 625). Furthermore, teams have a higher capacity for generating innovative and creative ideas as solutions to complex challenges affecting the firm, unlike individuals, who may be limited in their thinking and perspectives. Perhaps the overarching advantage of teams, as I have come to realize, is the fact that they present an environment within which members can learn and benefit from each other’s knowledge, skills, and expertise, thereby progressively sharpening their competence and performance respectively. Whereas teams can be very effective at tasks, their productivity almost inevitably degenerates when there are so many people in the group, giving rise to the so-called “social loafing” phenomenon (Schermerhorn, Richard & Hunt 154). “Social loafing” basically refers to the tendency for individuals not to work as hard as they would on their own when they are part of a group; this concept clearly describes the character that led to my expulsion from the group. Nevertheless, I have learned that to guard against “social loafing”, it is imperative that team’s sizes be kept at the bare minimum and roles be redefined and distributed fairly across the group so that everyone is accountable for their own individual contribution to the group. Clearly outlining and specifying individual performance expectations puts pressure on members to do their part, just as basing the reward system on individual contribution could also motivate them to work harder. Nevertheless, personality conflicts and differences due to conflicting interests of disagreements over various aspects of the group assignment such as work styles could also disrupt the team spirit, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the teams (De Dreu and Van Vianen 309). Undoubtedly, continuous disagreements and tensions within the team often result to fatigue and low motivation for the group members, as was the case in our group; in my case, I never felt quite motivated to contribute to my group. Finally, I have also learned that teams go through a series of stages, each with its own unique set of challenges and standard of effectiveness (Schermerhorn, Richard & Hunt 156); generally, the pathway to team effectiveness is defined by five key stages. In the first stage called forming, individual group members get to know each other, until the storming stage, wen tensions start emerging amongst the members and group tasks start becoming clearer. The third stage, labelled norming, entails creating positive relations and strengthening the group’s collaborative networks; in the fourth stage, performing, established relations mature and competence in the performance of tasks increases significantly. The fifth and final stage comes after the group has successfully completed its tasks and fulfilled its stated purpose and it involves the dissolution of the team and the celebration of the successes of the group. Ultimately, what I have established from this reflection is that teams and teamwork are undoubtedly the most innovative aspects of the modern management system and rightly so, especially because they have many positive gains in today’s highly competitive and dynamic global business environment. In view of my own experiences and the knowledge gained from my interaction with scientific literature on teams and teamwork, I am more than willing to be a more eager team player, and to contribute actively to my future groups. Works Cited Alper, Steve, Tjosvold Dean, and Law Kenneth. Conflict Management, Efficacy, and Performance in Organizational Teams. Personnel Psychology, 53 (2000): 625–642. De Dreu, Carsten and Van Vianen Annelies. Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of organizational behaviour 22 (2001): 309-328. Schermerhorn, John R., Richard N. Osborn & Hunt. Organizational Behaviour. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2011. Print. Read More