Group Experiences Creating a Campaign for MyBreakTrip.com - Report Example

Reflective report on group experiences creating a campaign for MyBreakTrip.com BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Introduction Creating the marketing campaign for MyBreakTrip.com was a challenging experience. There was much diversity in the group which made communication difficult. Assigning tasks was also difficult because group members had different skills and talents. Disagreement about campaign direction was also made hard because of these different talents. There were also some challenges regarding collective work with members wanted to do all tasks together. This was something very different my other work group experiences. This reflective report discusses details about the many challenges of the group, drawing on theories to show how situations were overcome. The challenge of communications In the group, there were six people all from different cultural backgrounds. The group had Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and French members. Many were not native speakers which made discussions difficult. Troyna (1993) states that when there is cultural diversity in a group, it is difficult to communicate using slang or jargon related to popular culture. In groups, popular culture helps build social connection and frame messages in a way that has meaning. There were some group members that did not see the value of the MyBreakTrip.com concept because it was different than the culture they are used to. This made it difficult to frame how the campaign should use certain parts of social media and explain why it would be a valuable activity for the British consumer. Fradenburg (2011) says that learners tend to build learning based on held knowledge about which they are familiar and have experience. When there is uncertainty about a concept, learners find it difficult to understand their experiences and can grow frustrated. This was happening in the group. Trying to communicate why social media as a travel option was important to some consumers was not easy because not all group members used this type of system personally. I drew on my own experiences to try to help explain to this diverse group. Literature says that many consumers trust in opinion and comment left by other consumers on the Internet (Nielsen 2009). This knowledge gave me a frame by which to explain that it MyBreakTrip.com could be a profitable idea. So, I think that by being a kind of educator to the group who could not understand this pop culture idea made them feel more comfortable about the campaign direction. By having more knowledge about this idea of consumer behaviour, group members were more comfortable moving forward with this idea. The challenge of working collectively Many group members were from collectivist cultures. These are cultures where group loyalty is very important and saving face important (reputation). Therefore the group wanted to work together collectively instead of dividing tasks individually. I personally felt that this was not making good use of the time allowed for the campaign project, but others thought working together would get the project done faster and better. One of the things that I noticed was that when there was disagreement about task direction, some group members were frustrated that their opinion had been challenged. This is in line with literature about collectivist culture values on group reputation (Cheung, et al. 2008). However, many group members were overly approving of my ideas and I was uncertain whether this was just courtesy or whether it was a product of a collectivist mindset. For example, one of my tasks was to complete the SWOT Analysis because I studied computer graphics at the university. The group was very ecstatic about the direction and visuals I had taken. What I really wanted was criticism if there was any, but the group decided to go with my direction. Was this just being courteous and I wondered if the project might not have the perfect quality without criticism. In the group, there was only one male (myself) and the rest female. This made it difficult for me to be more straight-forward also. I thought perhaps that this might have had something to do with why there was minimal criticism that is so important when working in groups. When this type of situation happened more than once, I remembered my previous learning about saving face as a cultural belief. This gave me different communications strategies to try to better manage group working at the cultural level. Instead of providing minor critique of various campaign tasks I waited and tended to go with the group’s opinion. This gave me an opportunity to consider whether being straight-forward whilst also balancing respect would have been more benefitting for the project. Even though the team worked together well and effective and reduced conflict by showing respect for others’ opinions, I believe the team could have benefitted from more candid discussion about work quality. I personally do not care much about being challenged in a public group. Stover (2004) also says that to be innovative and creative it is necessary to work interactively with others. Even though I felt that working collectively might potentially cause time management problems, I tried to remember that collaboration is important to come up with creative ideas. Many businesses recognise this also. By not being resistant to working on all tasks as a group whole, I found that we actually were able to be more creative in coming up with campaign content and graphics. In my experience working in other academic groups, I was so used to being independent in tasks. By being more flexible I actually had a larger basket of ideas to choose from and came up with some very unique campaign concepts and graphics. I feel that there are some advantages to working collectively and some disadvantages. However if I had been resistant, the campaign might have actually suffered. This reminds me that much of the business and marketing literature is right that collaboration and interaction builds more innovation and creativity. I think this showed in the quality of output in our final campaign project. Problems with different talents and skills All of the group members had their own skills and talents. Some were stronger in marketing theory than others and some better at graphics and creative arts (like myself). Many times some group members tried to apply their creative talent, but seemed just a bit frustrated that they were not being recognised for talent. It was not so much about being challenged, but was more about wondering why their unique ideas were being appreciated at the same level as the entire group. It is very difficult to take tacit knowledge and make it explicit. By this, it means that a group member cannot always teach others their skills so that they better understand (Stover). Even in my case, I was very confident about my graphic arts abilities and I took on this task because it made rational sense that the most skilled handle this activity. Therefore, I also felt that group members wanted to remain loyal to the group and not necessarily highlight opportunities to make superior comments to one and not to another. Literature says that people will tend to resist change when they feel their power or authority is threatened (Skarlicki and Folger 1997). It would have represented change in the group dynamic to give praise to one and not to another. Again, this might have a loyalty factor to it. In future groups, I thought being a mentor or coach when you are convinced of your strong knowledge might set the tone for providing more individualised praise and recognition. There is so much about respecting others and their knowledge in a group. It seemed that when I used this strategy of being a teacher, others listened and were more open to my ideas; and vice versa. The challenge of resources To make a quality campaign, our group needed regular access to a computer. However, in the meeting room, there was only one computer available. This frustrated the group and made it difficult to get tasks done on time according to our group agenda. Because the group was always pressured to find time to do their campaign work on just this one computer, people started to lose minor focus and caused some negative emotions which did impact motivation in a few situations. In reflection, I think that we could have come up with different tasks that did not have us fighting for computer resources. For example, team members with artistic talent could have made sketches or drawings that could have at a later time been transformed into computer graphics. Feeling like there were not enough resources was creating problems with quality relationships and made some group members unmotivated to complete tasks. In a future situation where resources are low or not enough to complete a project, I will serve as a leader to come up with brainstorm ideas about how to do the task using less. I think we could have, together as a group, found new strategies to make sure we were on task and not growing frustrated with sharing lean resources. We could have drafted ideas differently, but still made progress, and I think that group members would not have been impacted by emotional problems as a result. When emotions are negative and an environment gives little motivation, it can seriously break down group effectiveness and direction. The challenge of leadership None of the group members felt the team needed a leader, but that all tasks should be done together. I disagreed right away, feeling that there should be one person responsible for setting deadlines and assigning tasks. I felt that the group needed someone that had a vision strategy and could keep people motivated by always discussing this vision. Leadership literature states that a visionary manager is one that gains more followership (Fairholm 2009). Not having a single leader made it difficult to get all campaign tasks done on time and keep everyone motivated. Some group members wanted to do things a certain way, but others a different way which made a few of our meetings unproductive. Though we finally put forth a good quality campaign in the end, having a single leader focused on the task of getting others on task would have greatly made the group more effective. For example, many group members enjoyed the social part of group work and wanted to spend some of their time on social leisure. There should be no doubt that this was positive in building trust and cooperation within the group dynamic. Some wanted to discuss their social lives or family lives instead of staying 100 percent on task to complete the campaign. A team needs a leader to make sure that there is a balance between socialisation and professionalism (Hartwig 2012). A person responsible for leading the group could have measured performance, held question and answer periods in meetings to address concerns and issues and make sure that most tasks were productive. The main problem was that most group members wanted to share all authority and though there is nothing wrong with this, a single leader could have been more positive for achieving all work outcomes on time. This was a difficult challenge when working in the collective group to complete the campaign. I do not really know of a strategy to deal with groups that do not necessarily want to have a single authority. I have decided, in reflection, to start looking at journals that have studies about group members that do not wish to follow a leader, but want to share power in a group. Studies conducted in real-world organisations might give strategies about how to get others to agree to follow a leader. Such studies would be best practice because in future groups this, once in a while, causes problems with keeping people on track and making sure that group time is spent on productive tasks. The challenge of accountability Even though the campaign tasks had very few errors and there were not major mistakes or misjudgement, the group did not have accountability systems in place. In a few situations there were one or two people who were directly responsible for a very minor error. However, when confronted, it was the whole group that accepted accountability. Though in our group it did not cause problems with quality of output, in a real-world professional group situation, top performers might not receive the type of performance reward they deserve. This is another reason why the group needed a leader, to make sure that individuals accepted accountability. Even though the whole group was very good at their tasks, it would have been fair and just to take responsibility and work a bit harder to make the campaign top quality. A leader could have set up consequences in accountability to make sure that everyone in the team was focused on top performance and quality output. I realise that this was an academic team, however in professional marketing, it will be very important for there to be accountability. If a single team member does not perform well, the entire company can suffer with lost customers or angry clients. Again, I think that leadership in the team and setting consequences would motivate better performance. In a real-world marketing situation that requires a team to work on a marketing campaign, quality is critical. The lessons that I learned in a group where individual accountability was not present was the importance of setting a leader and having all team members agree to the sanctions for bad performance and also provide rewards for good performance. Good performance rewards could be having less tasks to complete individually or negative consequences being taking on extra tasks. I think that if our group had a leader and these accountability systems, people might have been even more motivated than they already were. Conclusion In conclusion, I learned much more than just marketing and campaign management in this group experience. I learned that working in teams is complicated and different attitudes make it difficult to always keep the project on task and set to deadline. If this group had set up a leader right at the start of the group develop, it would have been extremely productive and we could have brainstormed solutions more effectively. I am proud of the campaign outcomes that we came up with as a collaborate group. I did learn about how to resolve some cross-cultural conflict when it happens which kept the trust between all group members. Fortunately my team had known one another for a long period of time. However, I wondered if we did not have this kind of familiar with one another, maybe the conflicts and communications problems would have been worse. Again, I feel that this group put out a good campaign and was generally productive and creative. I think my largest learning lesson, in reflection, was that working in cross-cultural groups with many different cultural attitudes and talents is more difficult than working in groups where most people have similar values and cultures. We were an example of a team that was able, in the end, to solve any minor differences and get the task completed according to our instructions and agenda. A team, I learned, needs a leader, accountability systems, quality communications, willingness to be a teacher or mentor, and also some type of task delegation rather than always working together on every single task. This, I believe, makes a quality and productive group. The team’s campaign met its objectives and all group members were proud of what we had created. This was another part of the team that was very positive: the team understood that the task needed completing and all members worked toward this end. References Cheung, F.M., Cheung, S.F., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F. and Yeh, K.H. (2008). Relevance for openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), pp. 81–108. Fairholm, M. (2009). Leadership and Organizational Strategy, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp.26-27. Fradenburg, A. (2011). Frontline – The liberal arts of psychoanalysis, Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 39(4). Hartwig, R.T. (2012). Burst: bursting the bubbles of 5 teamwork myths. Chichester: Ryan T. Hartwig Publishing. Nielsen. (2009). Online global survey – April 2009. [online] Available at: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2009/global-advertising-consumers-trust-real-friends-and-virtual-strangers-the-most.html (accessed 13 March 2015). Skarlicki, D.P. & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distributive, Procedural and Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, pp. 434-443. Stover, M. (2004). Making tacit knowledge explicit, Reference Services Review, 32(2), pp.164-173. Troyna, B. (1993). Providing Support or Denying Access – The Experiences of Students Designated as ESL and SN in a Multi-Ethnic Secondary School, Educational Review, 45(1), pp.3-11. Read More