Working in teams video

Working in Teams Video Assignment of the of the Working in Teams Video Assignment Three Criteria for Evaluating Effective Team/Group Work It is important first to distinguish between a group and a team. A group of people may have common interests and gather together after work at Starbucks to chat over a cup of coffee. This is an informal group with diverse interests- their only commonality is that they work for the same office. Some people in the group may also develop friendships. On the other hand, a team is an officially constituted workgroup that is assigned a specific task with a deadline, in which each member has certain given responsibilities and they must work together to accomplish the common goal. According to the text, the three criteria for evaluating effective team work are (1) commitment to a common goal (2) mutual accountability and (3) trust and collaboration (Oke, 2011). In the video entitled ‘ Manager’s Hotseat’ we have a meeting scenario in an office environment where the manager Joe is trying to conduct the meeting with three other members. Simon is the VP Account Manager while Rosa and Cheng are Account Managers. I would not call them a team yet because they are just in the process of listening to tasks. This is the team formation process. As the manager Joe has acted as the facilitator for the team and has decided its constituents and agenda, he starts off by reading the items on the agenda. Prior to calling the meeting, Joe had emailed the agenda to all the meeting participants so that at least the purpose of the meeting was known in advance and the meeting could proceed without delay. But to his dismay Joe finds that except for Cheng, the two others Simon and Rosa had not even bothered to print out the agenda. So Joe is forced to read out the four points of the agenda again. But even as he proceeds to do so, he is cut off by Cheng first worrying about taking on too much responsibility in the light of his impending transfer to the Design Department, at which point he would be wondering who would be willing to take up from where he had left off. Even as Joe placates him by saying that the project would not be taking more than four weeks, Rosa pipes in with news about her mother visiting and her consequent upheaval and worry due to personal problems which she claims would overshadow her work efforts and she would not be able to give up her lunchtime or indeed work any overtime to complete the project. As Joe prompts that they all have to learn to deal with personal problems and should be able to separate their work and home lives, he then continues to read off the list and tries to get the participants to take on one of the responsibilities. Even as Cheng, Rosa and Joe himself take on responsibilities, Simon excuses himself after making jokes about the project that he has to attend another meeting down the hall and steps away even before the meeting is concluded. This attitude is disrespectful of the team leader and undermines the seriousness of the whole situation. We are left feeling sorry for Joe and the meeting’s ineffectiveness. At the end of this episode, Joe laments that he should have also taken into account the personality of the participants which would have probably helped him get better results. Commitment, collaboration and accountability- all are missing in some measure from Rosa, Cheng and Simon (Heathfield, 2012).. Review of Bruce Tuckman’s Five Stages of Group Formation It was Bruce Tuckman who in 1965 gave the world his concept about the stages of team development. He stated that teams went through the following stages: (1) Forming (2) Storming (3) Norming (4) Performing and (5) Adjourning, which he added in 1977. In the forming stage, team participants are just getting used to each other and waiting to see how each reacts and conducts themselves. The team in the video is at this stage. In the Storming stage, the team members look at the problem they are supposed to solve and decide which approach to follow. In the Norming stage, team members come to a consensus on what is to be followed. In the Performing stage, the team members act together to get the job done, each fulfilling their respective responsibilities so that the objective is achieved. In the Adjourning stage, the team re-evaluates their joint achievement and disbands until called upon to form again for some other objective (Abudi, 2010). Role Playing in Teams Each member of the team can play a variety of roles in the Task, Functional, Maintenance and Dysfunctional context. In the video, we see that Joe is in the role of a facilitator, encourager and gatekeeper. He also tries to mediate, listen and relieve tensions. However, the other participants Simon, Cheng and Rosa are all playing one or the other dysfunctional roles- Cheng is blocking and nit picking, Simon is sarcastic and cynical, Rosa is aggressive, manipulative and withdrawing, since she wants to avoid responsibility. Simon and Rosa are also clowning around making jokes about Solitaire being the most widely used program in the organization. This makes for ineffective teamwork and less responsibility and rapport among the members. I would not regard the members as displaying any of the characteristics of a team – they are at best a group with their own needs uppermost- and Simon, Rosa and Cheng all want to avoid responsibility- all except Joe who is trying to salvage something out of this meeting. References Abudi, G. (2010). The Five Stages of Project Team Development. Accessed on 30 March 2012 at http://www. pmhut. com/the-five-stages-of-project-team-development Heathfield, Susan M.(2012). Twelve Tips for Team Building: How to Build Successful Work Teams. Accessed on 30 March 2012 at http://humanresources. about. com/od/involvementteams/a/twelve_tip_team. htm Oke, R. (Ed.). (2011). Management and Organizational Behavior. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Custom Learning Solutions.