Methods of Group Design and Management - Essay Example

My group worked on several projects this semester, If I were to go rate our performance objectively, I would say we were a higher than average performing group. This is because many of our projects were well done; however, there, due to some few factors; we did not meet what I would deem sufficient success to categorize ourselves as high performing per second. Nonetheless, I hold that we were above average and thus I considered the overall performance satisfactory, all our projects were initiated with enthusiasm and on a high note. Before embarking on any project, the group would meet and consult about the best ways in which to handle it. We would hold an open forum and everyone would be required to contribute, we would examine the project from all possible angles, brainstorming until we were sure, we were going to go about it in the most efficient methods. Thus, to ensure harmony, everyone’s opinion was respected and the members were all treated as equals. After determining the way forward, we would then take to account as many possible scenarios where the plan might not apply, in accordance to this. Then, we come up with contingencies and alternatives to apply in case they are needed. With careful planning, it was not surprising that our projects and group activities achieved a high degree success, which we approximate to be around 85 percent. However, there were some challenges and they encumbered and even derailed the activities at times; nonetheless, we were able to deal with most of them and in the cases we failed, it was considered a learning experience. Joint resources of the group were useful and facilitated the working of the group, several resources such as notes and laptops were jointly used especially the main data point where all member were supposed to download their work at the end of the day. External conditions imposed on the group, however often a hindrance, we had to stick to a limited budget and despite requiring resources outside these parameters, we were forced to do with the allocated. However, some of us volunteered our own resources and for instance, we bought lunch from our own pockets when we had to travel out of town to interview some people because that particular journey was not covered in our budget. The third factor of group model, behavior performance and satisfaction, the different views of the members on what was satisfactory posed a minor problem, however, since we had already determined what was expected we were able to make several compromises. Our group also interacted with other groups with related objectives and compared notes in the methods and challenges. Teamwork is a crucial to any task involving groups and this does not only include inter group teamwork but also uniting with other groups, or teams groups ultimately, groups can unite in rivalry or co-operation (Atkinson and Geddes 48). From the other groups, we learnt a lot and the interaction fostered a friendly competition, which was mutually beneficial since it helped increase the standards of the work done. Several aspects of the group behavior model applied and contributed variously to the success and failure of our group activities depending on different situations. In the formation and running of the group, aspects of Tuscans models were evident; in the during formation, groups often have minimal conflict and the each person initially take the path of least resistance with the intention of avoiding abrasive situations with the other members especially if they are not familiar with them (Thenmozhi 8). In our groups, we had some covert conflict in the initial stages; this made some of the members feel shadowed or even in some cases offended by remarks or actions by colleagues. Consequently, quite some time was spent trying to work out personal differences for instance, one of the members though he was being sidelined and his opinions ignored by the rest. Some of the members supported him, and trying to mitigate this cost us a lot of time and we were behind schedule, fortunately, the issues were resolved to the satisfaction of all the concerned parties. However, as we entered the storming stage nearly all the members got over their shyness and they became more outspoken, showing their enthusiasm more openly, opposition to ideas was common although to our credit; most of it was in a good-natured way and quite objective. Nonetheless, some of the members especially the soft-spoken ones had problems keeping up with their more aggressive counterparts. However, this was balanced since the leader elected democratically during the first meeting was firm and ensured everyone’s opinions were heard. With time, the group learnt to cope and deal with each other’s ideas quite comfortably and as a result, members were able to share and synthesize each other’s ideas with ease and mutual respect prevailed. This was indicative of the norming, which occurs after members have begun to identify with their particular roles and specialize, as result, division of labor became comparatively easy and once a member was assigned, a task he/she liked or had an aptitude for. Despite these setbacks, the performance of the group was relatively good and the members, apart from being quite competent as individuals were very enthusiastic and eager to work as a team. This was improved by the fact that, we assigned each team member an area of specialization so we all had different roles and some were paired. This fostered positive competition and in the end, improves the overall performance of the group. The group slowly disengaged after we completed our last task, however everyone had a chance to share their experience as well as what they had gained from them. Our group like any other had its share of problems some of the dysfunctions of teams performance, nevertheless, it is worth noting that these cases of these were quite few. Paying attention to results is a crucial part of ensuring that mistakes are avoided and not repeated and the projects will move forward at all times. Consequently, when a member of a group ignores or does not pay enough attention to the results, it can derail the whole project. Sometimes, when the results of a meeting or a project were crucial to the initiation of running of the next, it would be frustrating to find members not paying close attention and as a result duplicate efforts of others. Lack of trust was also an issue especially after the fact that some of the members had claimed to be sidelined and many groups suffer fail as result of this (Lencioni). Whenever people who are new to each other work together, the lack of background knowledge can be a reason of mistrust among them, this is only natural. However, in a group members must develop mutual trust since group work involves working together and sharing responsibilities. In our group, it was an issue especially because of the conflicts addressed above, they were later solved and we had a reasonable degree of trust for the duration we worked together. In my opinion while the current methods of group design and management are workable efficiently, more can be done to improve them. My group would have benefited if the model used allowed us to spend more time dealing with feedback, as opposed to focusing on the task and breaking up almost immediately. This way, members will be able to share feedback and criticism without being reserved in fear of offending those they will be working with hence compromising the unity. Therefore, groups can benefit from the views and experience of others; this helps the members correct their mistakes and act on the feedback of their colleagues improving any further research they may engage in posterity. Works Cited Thenmozhi M. “Group Behavior” Department of Management Studies Indian Institute of Technology Madras. (n.d). Web. 28 November 2012. Lencioni, Patrick. “The Five Dysfunctions of a team.” TableGruop.com. (n.d). Web. 28 November 2012. Geddes, Nomarn D. and Atkinson L Michael. “An Approach to modeling group behavior and beliefs in conflict situation” Applied Systems Intelligence inc. 2002. Web. 27 November 2012 Read More