Team Building for Project Managers - Essay Example

Running Head: Individual Kolb Paper Individual Kolb Paper [Client’s Name] [Affiliation] Abstract Group learning is a very complicated process. It totally differs from learning that occurs in the individual level partly because of the integration of more individuals with unique preferences and perspectives into the whole process and mostly because group cohesion does not always happen. A particular group experience was evaluated using the Kolb approach in order to draw out what internal and external processes are necessary in order for group learning to occur. Learning process occurring on an individual level is significantly different from the learning process that takes place in groups. As individuals learn things on their own, either through observation or through reflection, they are more focused on the data and information they acquire in order to synthesize these in useable forms. Typically, individual learning processes are honed through experience and familiarity. The more one is familiar with his learning abilities, the more likely he is to effectively manage his learning style. Personally, I do not have any difficulties in learning things on my own. I can freely use learning methods I am comfortable with, like sitting on my favorite couch or listening to soft music while digesting what I am reading. However, this sort of familiarity with one’s learning process does not seem to apply when considering group learning. Group learning is far more complex than individual learning (Gosenpud, 1986). Group learning involves a lot of factors that, when taken altogether, may produce disruptions in the learning process (Salas, Stagl & Burke, 2004). Individuals within the group have different personalities, see things differently, have different socio-cultural backgrounds, and interpret the same things differently based on their own limited understanding of one thing. More often than not, these differences make groups vulnerable to conflict and hence ineffective learning process. Nonetheless, individuals within groups need to be able to cope with these issues within reasonable time in order for them to be able to still perform their expected function within the group. For some, the complexity involved is tantamount. For others, integration and effective teams are just impossible. In order to better understand how this complexity works, it is necessary to relate this fact on a particular experience. A popular model of experiential learning is Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle. Learning is seen as a four-step process that Kolb identifies as: 1) watching, 2) thinking, 3) feeling (emotion), and 4) doing (muscle). Kolb defined learning as “… the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” (Kolb, 1984, p41). Concrete Experience In one of the community development projects where I spearhead, my academic adviser suggested that I join a certain group whose community development plans are very similar to mine. This group already has six members, each of which operates a particular function in the community development program. He reasoned that since we all have the same thrusts, we might as well work on the same project, paying particular attention to our intended functions. I personally do not know these people I will be working with and even though I agree with my adviser’s opinion, I am not very comfortable with it. This could be termed as the initial forming stage is the process of putting the structure of the team together (Tuckman, 2001). When the group first met, everyone is quite excited working together. In the first few days of operation, everyone in the group fill each other with their roles and functions in the community development plan. So each of us tries to absorb how the rest of the group would contribute to our individual goals. A few days of operating together, we were able to figure out that most of our goals do not coincide; that our group objectives do not meet the level of individual achievement we wanted. Concrete Experience (CE) – able to involve fully, openly, and without bias in new experiences (Kolb, 1976). I do not like the methodologies of some of my group mates. I also do not like most of their personalities. I feel that I would not like rubbing shoulders with them outside the group. I personally think we would not work as a team. This realization led to another conflict – everyone wants to pursue their self interests and is ready to give up the objectives of the group. I befriended a couple of my group mates because some parts of my project objective required their contributions. IN the same manner, some members form in-groups and out-groups by choosing individual members that can help them attain their self-interests. Thus standalone team was divided into two equal parts. A rift began to take form as individuals with similar goals formed mutual relationships and alienating those whose goals do not aid their own goals. Group relationships suffered as well. Every member gang up on each other and genuine trust and loyalty do not exist. Every one of us just wanted to be able to meet our own goals so we ended up using each other. The group in storming stage begins to occur as the process of organizing tasks and processes surface interpersonal conflicts (Tuckman, 2001). Thus our team reached the storming stage. As the project deadline gets closer, everybody started to worry. The group is yet to form collective achievements which are necessary in order to satisfy each and individual needs. We realized that not working together would not only jeopardize our goals as a group but will also risk our individual goals. Thus the team reached norming stage i.e. team members started creating new ways of doing and being together (Tuckman, 2001). The group met and discussed our options. I realize that all of us are worried about our individual goals but we need to work together and finish the collective objectives first in order to achieve our individual goals. It turned out that all of us have the same line of thinking. Because we need our results, we resolved the issue by not taking individual differences personally; that we should be able to see beyond cultural and social differences in order to achieve our goals. By not letting our biases and preferences get in the way, we were able to achieve our goals both as a group and as individuals. Reflective Observation Looking back, I realized that my inability to cope very well with my group mates are because (a) I do not know them, (b) they don’t impress me much, and (c) I don’t think we can work together as a team. Thus initially the complete team including myself were trapped in unknown area i.e. things which is undisclosed to each of us and to others (Whitmore, 1996). I always thought that working together requires some level of connection – emotional, historical, social, or whatever. Without this connection, I believed that groups would not stick together and achieve a common goal, or if they do, they can achieve their goals with much difficulty. This was the duration when personally moving from unknown to the hidden area i.e. contains the parts of us that we willingly conceal to others (Stuckenbruck et al., 1996). Being placed in a group composed of individuals that I do not know places me in a position where integrating with them becomes difficult. For one thing, I do not like sharing personal information about me. Another is I do not really ask personal questions. With this perspective, it would really be difficult for me to successfully integrate with my new group mates. I always liked working in a group whose other members are expert on their fields. Working with these types of people ensures that I will have a challenging and fulfilling experience in the end because they know what they are doing and they can share to me various ideas that would make me a better person. Working with group members that do not impress me much puts me in a difficult position. I feel like my group mates and I should just part ways in order for me to work efficiently. I realized that I held this perspective because I want people to give me more knowledge and ideas and I am not the type that is very comfortable of sharing ideas. Thus it could be seen that personal observation about other team mates hiding personal viewpoints enhanced the conflict management. But post movement from hidden and blind area towards open area i.e. which we and others are aware of (Mehrabian, 1968) the conflict was reduced to greater extend. Because of this belief, I tend to slack off when paired with individuals that don’t impress me while I work harder when paired with individuals that impress me to no end. Because of these personal biases I have, successfully integrating with random group members is difficult for me. Abstract Conceptualization When a team is pooled, the team does not readily proceed to achieve its goals. The team undergoes a process of development composed of five general levels (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997). During the first few days of working together, the team undergo through the first two stages of group development which are forming and storming. In the forming stage, each one of us introduced our areas of expertise and tried to find common grounds between and among each member. The second stage is the part where we tried to pool together knowledge and expertise to define the strategic steps needed to achieve our common goals. Because of conflicting motivation and abilities, defined in MARS model of individual behavior, brought about by personal, cultural, and perceptional factors, our group had difficulties when it comes to the third stage of group development (McShane &Von Glinnow, 2006). We had difficulties normalizing our differences and focusing on one set of goals. If not for the situational factor that threaten to interfere with our individual objectives, our group would not have got done with the normalization stage. After we were able to patch the differences, our group was able to perform as initially expected and then left. According to Simmel (1983, in Holloway, 1991; 54), successful group interactions are only possible when groups are in their simplest forms – a dyad. When a group has only two members, equilibrium is easily established; otherwise a dyadic relationship would not exist. When a group is composed of more than two individuals, rifts or factions can easily occur. In order for the group to function efficiently, it needs to be able to understand the stages that groups need to go through as well as the individual behavior of each member to successfully come up with normalizing strategies for groups to cohere and work together. Active Experimentation I have learned that individual differences play important roles in group cohesion and group efficiencies. Groups that are able to look beyond the differences of individual members and focus on the objective goals of the group are more likely to succeed in their endeavors. In order for me to effectively manage any type of group, I would need to disregard personal biases towards people. Holding biases and negative perceptions towards individuals may affect group performance. By reducing or eliminating biases whenever I interact with people, I can create good working relationships with them. Conclusion The complexity associated with the learning process in group setting is a given granting that individual goals and objectives do not necessarily coincide. The more one establish uniqueness, the difficult it is for successful group cohesion to occur. However, if the individuals within the group play active roles in group formation, giving up their identities for the sake of collective identity, organizations have a higher chance of achieving its goals and objectives, as was shown in the above evaluation. References Ancona, D. (2007) Into a downward spiral. X-Teams: How to build teams that lead, innovate and succeed. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. ISBN: 10-1-59139-692-1 p 21 Gosenpud, J. (1986). Personality Variables in Group Cohesion, Team Participation, and Total Learning. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises. Volume 13.   Hollway, W. (1991). Work Psychology and Organizational Behavior: Managing Individual at Work. Sage Publications Ltd. Jarvis, M. (2000). Sports Psychology (Routledge Modular Psychology). Routledge. Lissack, M. R., & Gunz, H. (1999). Managing complexity in organizations : A view in many directions. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books. McGrath, J. E. (1997). Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics, 1(1), 7-27. Mcshane, S.L. and Von Glinow, M.A. (2006) Organizational Behavior, Third Edition Chinese (Traditional-Taiwan) Translation, Tapei, Taiwan, McGraw-Hill Education Taiwan. Mowday, R.T. & Sutton, R.I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195-229  Nersessian, N. (2008) Creativity in Conceptual Change: A Cognitive Historical Approach. Creating Scientific Concepts. 1-13 Salas, E., Stagl, K.C., and Burke, C.S. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: research themes and emerging needs. In C.L. Cooper and Ivan T. Robertson (Eds.),International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 47-91. Sawyer, K. (2007). Group Flow. Group Genius. ISBN: 13:978-0-465-07192-0 p 39 Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427. Kolb, D. A. (1978) Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 1976, 18, 21-31. Kolb, D. A (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as a source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Stuckenbruck, Linn C. and Marshall, David (1996). Team building for project managers. In Adams, John R. Principles of project Management. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute. Read More