Learning Team Dynamics and Considerations - Term Paper Example

? Learning Team Dynamics and Considerations: Team D Term Paper Outline Page Contents ……………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………… 3 Background: Team Membership and Goals …………………………………………... 3 Communication Strategies, Dynamics and Outcomes ………………………………… 4 Roles of Team Members: Group Processes …………………………………………… 6 Conflicts within the Team and their Management .……………………………………. 7 Decision Making and Problem Solving ………………………………………………... 9 Ethical Inclinations and Impacts ………………………………………………………... 10 Leadership ………………………………………………………………………………. 11 Other Issues …………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………. 14 References ………………………………………………………………………………... 15 Learning Team Dynamics and Considerations: Team D Term Paper Team dynamics and team process in a small group are crucial determinants of the outcomes of the team. As Cragan, Kasch and Wright (2009) state, having the experience of being in a small group provides perhaps the best opportunity to study team communication, dynamics and outcomes. According to the Structuration theory, small groups are systems that both produce structures and are produced by structures; group members follow certain rules and norms that produce outcomes, while at the same time outcomes impact the group’s direction. This is a term paper detailing the group dynamics of Team D in the Small Groups and Team Communication Module. The paper draws on relevant theory to critically evaluate the group dynamics and processes. Background: Team Membership and Goals Team D was composed of five members with the objective of working together in the Small Groups and Team Communication Module. The group consisted of three gentlemen and two ladies. A number of goals were established for the group; to achieve the learning outcomes of the Small Groups and Team Communication Module; to make the group experience memorable and effective; to practically learn about group dynamics. The first objective was informed by necessity as all members attending the module were divided in five groups. The second objective was informed by the need to enjoy the experience in the group while at the same time achieving the first/main objectives efficiently. The third objective was established after about a week into the module after the realization that the group offered the members an opportunity to visualize what is learnt in theory. Upon analysis and literature consultation, the goals set by the group were not the most effective as they did not meet all the requirements of SMART goal making; specificity, measurability, achievability, realistic and timelines. While the first goal is SMART, the other two goals are not as specific and measurable. However, the group managed to achieve the three goals amid challenges and successes (discussed in the other areas of this paper) while noting that the deficiencies in goal making such as lack of specificity impacted all other aspects of the group. Communication Strategies, Dynamics and Outcomes Communication is a critical determinant of the team process and outcomes in a small group as argued by Rothwell (2010). The author also explains that communication within a group is a transactional and continuous process in which each party is both a sender and receiver. Importantly, communication competence- defined by proficiency/deficiency and how the group deals with these- determines whether the goals of the small group will be achieved. As a continuous process, communication is a flow from the information source, the signal, transmittal, channel and destination. Feedback is also necessary in establishing the needs of the audience during communication and thus improvement of the communication process (Bell and Smith 2009). The two authors also explain the various strategies used in team communication; formal and informal/grapevine. All communication within the group can also be categorized as either structured or unstructured. The former involves formal patterns established for communication in the organization and is characteristically documented, more accessible and less subject to change. Unstructured communication on the other hand is less fixed as to time and place, and is characterized by personalization and its being more flexible and open-ended in comparison to structured communication. Patterns of communication can be categorized basing on the number of individuals involved and the flow of communication; upward, downward or lateral. Issues of discretion, confidence and trust usually characterize lateral patterns of communication. Other considerations include feedback and communication contact throughout the organization or lack of it. Basing on these aspects, classifications of patterns include the triangle, broken triangle, pyramid, series, circle, hubs and spokes, legs and crossfire In Team D, a formal/structured system of communication was developed entailing the planning of meetings (time and venue) and conducting of meetings (the group leader acts as the chair to whom request to contribute to discussion is sought). The formal system also followed the hubs and spokes pattern where communication with the group leader and amongst the group members was encouraged. As time went by, the team realized an informal system of communication was present and valued it for its contribution in achieving the second goal; making the team experience memorable and effective. The formal and informal communication patterns followed were ultimately effective in achievement of the group’s goals. The formal communication allowed for the basic functioning of the group to take place, while the informal approach helped create teamwork within the team. However, the informal system of communication, albeit complementing the formal one, sometimes inhibited serious work and interfered with the team leader’s discretion in conducting the meeting. A number of barriers to communication within the group were noted. These included physical barriers such as time constraints and environmental factors such as noise; motivation barriers attributed to mental inertia due to exhaustion; perceptual barriers result in the audience filtering out information and gaining different meanings than the ones intended; emotional and competition barriers. These barriers were not pronounced in the first week, presumably due to the novelty of the group experience. They were, however, manifested as the weeks went on, proving difficult to manage until the team members arrived at an equilibrium in which most of the barriers were dealt away with. Roles of Team Members: Group Processes The team approached the establishment of roles for the group members from the perspective that different roles should be given to different team members. However, the team also appreciated the need to foster teamwork and make the group a learning experience as much as possible. Hence, members were encouraged to help and take part in the different roles given to each group member. The approach to arriving at individuals to fill the roles was largely through volunteering for the descriptions available. Where this did not work, the team reasoned together and arrived at a consensus on who should take up a given role. The volunteering was informed by individuals feeling they were good at given roles and interested in doing them. The assurance that the group members would be supportive to each other was enough to settle most of the issues arising. Some of the finer details of the roles were established during the weeks in response to emerging challenges. The first role was the team leader, which was given to (A). After volunteering, the team members deemed him capable of leading the team and thus ratified his interest. The roles of the team leader included moderating the meetings, making formal communications, making contact with the module tutor when necessary and generally ensuring the team was running as desired. Any concerns by the group members were also channeled to the team leader to be raised during meetings. (B) was selected as the deputy team leader to take up the roles in case the team leader was not available. (C) was charged with the responsibility of communication; communicating meeting times and changes to times and venues. Communicating impromptu meetings and ensuring all team members were up-to-date with the team welfare. Through feedback and confirmations with each other, the rest of the team supported (C) especially after noting that communication could not be left to one individual. (D) acted as the secretary of the team, noting down vital aspects such as group member details, attendance, resolutions and goals among others. The rest of the team supported (D) in his roles whenever he could not attend or in the spirit of teamwork. (E) was the organizing secretary of the team, responsible for organizing the meetings and consultatively setting forth the agenda (for instance, the assignment to handle or a given emerging problem). E was in constant contact with the rest of the team members since the role description required a lot of contact. Although the role distribution worked well ultimately, challenges included failure to carry out expected duties and failure by the rest of the group members to support as decided during role making. Each of the team members held very crucial roles for the running of the group such that absence from a meeting was heavily felt despite the provision for support. However, the sharing of roles practiced was an informed move as confirmed by (Lumsden, Lumsden and Wiethoff, 2010). Other roles such as academic pursuit and research were equally distributed to all members and not delegated to some. Conflicts within the Team and their Management Rothwell (2010) states that the dynamics and operations within a group create a recipe for conflict arising from competitiveness within the group, defensive communication patterns, self-centered disruptive roles, imbalance of power and conflicting interests among other factors. However, conflict is not always destructive- characterized by retaliation, escalation, domination and defensive communication. Competent communication enables the de-escalation, flexibility, cooperative and supportive resolution that makes the team even better. The author details several approaches to conflict management including the win-win collaborative efforts; compromising, where individuals each let go of hard line positions and agree to give up stances for the common good of the group; accommodating, where one group member gives up a stance to accommodate another; avoidance, where members of the group desist from potentially thorny or contentious issues; and competing. All of these approaches depend on the communication strategies established within the group. Collaborative efforts by far reap the best benefits as team members are able to understand each other. Mediation and negotiations through the formal and informal communication patterns are essential in managing conflicts. In Team D, potential sources of conflict included abdication of roles without sufficient explanation and failure to attend meetings. The supportive nature of the roles as discussed earlier arose as a solution to conflicts arising from role abdication and complaints that some team members had easier roles than others. Conflict also arose due to failure to undertake the academic research agreed upon hence leaving the burden to the rest of the team members. Here, some of the group members felt that dormant group members would unfairly benefit from the efforts of others. Personal differences also brought about conflicts within the group, solved through group discussions and highlighting the importance of having the team in place. By the end of the five weeks, the group arrived at a consensus that conflicts would have been better managed through formal means such as short mediations. The team should have instituted conflict management as a pillar and developed a process to tackle conflict instead of being caught off guard and resorting to desperate efforts to settle disputes. The lack of formal conflict management strategies meant that dealing with such issues at times took up most of the time. However, there were few conflicts within the group and, overall, not a lot of time was lost in conflict management. Decision Making and Problem Solving Wang (2010) defines decision making as the process of choosing the best alternative to achieve goals in light of finite resources in a system or organization. The author argues that the concept of decision making cannot be divorced from resource allocation and the process of execution as these are dependent on sound decisions for success. Decision making is closely interrelated with problem solving, which Reza and Fahimi (2003) define as the process of identifying and filling gaps on a desired and an actual state. The authors relate decision making and structured problem solving, explaining that decision making involves five of the seven steps of problem solving; defining the problem, determining alternatives, determining criteria for alternatives evaluation, evaluation of alternatives, choosing, implementation and evaluation. Literature shows that making sound decisions, which depend on the process rather than just the outcomes, and solving problems appropriately and amicably, are two critical determinants of individual or group success. Team D’s decision making approached from a consultative angle; although the team leader moderated the discussions, he invited members’ suggestions and encouraged deliberations within the group to arrive at agreeable decisions. For instance, crucial decisions such as time and venues were made through seeking the input of all the five team members and then deliberating on the options while considering the needs of all the five. Where necessary, sacrifices had to be made by an individual or by the team in order to arrive at satisfactory decisions. When each role player needed to make decisions about their roles, the issue was brought to the leader and discussed during the meeting to ensure that all members understood the direction of all aspects of the group. However, not all decisions were that easy to make. In a number of cases such as changing the venue of meeting, the team was torn down the middle with two versus three individuals on opposite sides. Considering the interests of the majority in this case would inhibit the team spirit. Hence, some decisions would be arrived at without the consent of all team members, leading to conflicts which were later solved as discussed earlier. Although not expressly stated during the meetings, the group recognizes that the approach to problem solving was structured. The process entailed defining the problem during the group meeting (done by the team leader or one of the members). The alternatives available were then discussed and evaluated for efficacy. The team members were encouraged to offer alternatives and contribute to the evaluation. The next step involved choosing an alternative followed by implementation of the choice. In the next meetings, the alternative implemented was appraised for effectiveness in dealing with the problem. Ethical Inclinations and Impacts Different individuals have different ethical inclinations, standards and awareness owing to their different backgrounds. A group creates a situation where different ethical standards clash as individuals deliberate on issues affecting the group. In Team D, this was evident as the members interpreted different situations differently in terms of ethics and moral questions. Through the open communication systems in place in the team, different members aired their views on different issues and final positions were arrived at by majority, with one person ceding ground on the given issue. Thus, different ethical standards were aligned through arriving at positions in which the members’ opinions were agreeable. This was very challenging as it was apparent that what was right or unquestionable for some members was utterly unsettling for others. Thus, settling ethical issues was characterized by wild and subjective debates at times. This exemplified by an instance early on in the module when members deliberated on the importance of group attendance. Whereas all were in agreement that attending was necessary, some members felt that excusing a person once in a while was not wrong. For others, only absolutely critical reasons could justify not attending, and absentees on weak reasons were deemed not worthy of sharing the overall group achievements. The majority of the team members were for the second position and, thus, the importance of attendance was underpinned. The stated case is also an example of how ethics influenced decision making and problem solving; all members were given the opportunity to air their views on issues. In case an ethical issue arose in the problem or decision, the group’s decision was determined by whether majority of the members adjudged the action to be ethical or unethical. Leadership According to Rothwell (2010), leadership is a two way process when the element of influence is incorporated. Leadership entails social influence bestowed on an individual through status, authority, interpersonal or group communication abilities and personality. An intricate relationship exists between leadership and followership; the leaders influence followers through their decisions and directions. However, the followers also influence the leader through making of demands and instituting expectations on the leaders. The followers then appraise the leader’s efforts through marking them up to the expectations and demands. Thus, team leadership should be looked at from both aspects of influence; leadership and followership. Importantly, Rothwell (2010) argues that leadership and management are different; management is positional while leadership does not always have to be positional. Individuals in the group can exhibit leadership through exerting an interpersonal influence. This theory correctly captures the leadership experience in team D. A team leader was arrived at through volunteering and agreed upon by consensus; however, the system of support and different roles granted influence to all members of the team. Essentially, a number of roles enabled the influence of leadership (from the team leader) to manifest. One of these was through the team leader’s moderation of meetings where permission to address the team was through him. This way, the team leader maintained order and enabled issues to be handled appropriately, a manifestation of influence. The leader also represented the team to the tutor and thus leadership emerged. In a number of instances, however, certain roles failed to bring out the influence of leadership. For example, the distribution of roles to other team members curtailed the influence of leadership; communication and organizing were entrusted to members of the team, with support from the other members and thus the leader could not heavily influence such roles. Instead, the leader’s effect on such roles was widely ceremonial; making formal communications that were generated by other members during the meetings and ratifying the plans of the organizing secretary. Team D’s leader heavily portrayed consultative leadership rather than an authoritative approach. This style of leadership was agreed upon at the time of conception of the team and during the early weeks to iron out emerging power problems. For instance, the decision making and problem solving processes involved all the members of the group deliberating on the given issues and arriving at a given direction/position under the moderation of the leader. This contrasts with an authoritative leader who would appear at the meetings with a draft of his/her resolutions and pass these to the team members. The leader’s approach was highly effective as it enabled the team to handle potentially difficult situations appropriately. For instance, decisions and solutions were generated through consensus and thus agreeable to all team members; thus, contentions were limited. The participative style alongside the division of roles helped avoid power conflicts in the team and thus made the experience smooth. Besides, the participative leadership helped foster teamwork and learning within the group. However, a number of challenges were experienced due to the need for consultation and agreement; the decision making process was sometimes slow and unresponsive to drastic needs. Further, a lack of direction emerged in cases where an impasse occurred (no agreeable positions), where a decisive/authoritative leader would break the impasse. Overall, the participative style of the leader was vital in helping the team achieve the set goals. Other Issues A number of issues acting together or independently were of great influence to the group dynamics, processes and outcomes. The first of this was the team size and the impact of absence from meetings. The team size allowed each team member to take up a crucial role within the team and contribute/participate in the team. The small size (five individuals) and the distribution of roles influenced leadership as it allowed for participative and transactional leadership. Here, each member could exert a level of influence in the team. However, the small size was a disadvantage in cases of absence; just one person absent reduced the team by 20%. Although the quorum was three members for a meeting to take place, the responsibilities and supportive roles given to each member translated to a situation in which absences were regressive to the group. A set of two other issues also influenced the group dynamics; gender composition and venue and time of meetings. With (X) ladies and (Y) gentlemen, the team had to be responsive to the needs of the members on the basis of gender. Thus, the times and place of meeting had to be considerate to the ladies’ convenience. Due to this and issues such as each member’s interests and convenience, the time and place of meetings had to be changed two times before arriving at an amicable program of meetings. Lastly, the element of teamwork played a very significant role in the group dynamics. A number of challenges faced during the first two weeks resolved themselves due to establishment of a team spirit. For instance, the earlier tensions, conflicts and differences were overcome by a sense of belonging in the team. Participation, consultations and concern for each other became part of the norm and culture of team D. Conclusion Team D set out to achieve the learning outcomes of the Small Groups and Team Communication Module; to make the group experience memorable and effective; to practically learn about group dynamics. In the five weeks of belonging to the team, a number of highs and lows regarding aspects such as decision making, problem solving, leadership, role distribution, conflict management, ethics and communication influenced how the team carried out its activities. However, the objectives of the group were achieved and many lessons on team processes and dynamics learnt on the way. Amid the challenges, all the group members ultimately played their roles, supported each other, learned from each other and contributed positively to the group experience. References Bell, A. H., & Smith, D. M (2009). Management communication. USA: John Wiley and Sons. Cragan, J. F., Kasch, C. R., & Wright, D. W. (2009). Communication in small groups: Theory, process, skills. USA: Cencage. Lumsden, G., Lumsden, D., & Wiethorf, C. (2010). Communicating in groups and teams: Sharing leadership. USA: Cencage. Reza, S. S., & Fahimi, A. H. (2003). Introduction of TRIZ to the process and levels of decision making. UT. Rothwell, J. D. (2010). In mixed company: Communicating in small groups and teams. USA: Cencage Learning. Wang, C. (2010). Managerial decision making and leadership. USA: John Wiley & Sons. Read More