Working In Teams

By Author: Sherry Roberts
Total Articles: 576
Comment this article

The three Criteria for evaluating teamwork effectiveness are as follows. The first criterion is through Output (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008). Output is the amount of goods and services produced by a person or a machine within a certain measure of time. The final outputs produced by the team should meet or exceed a standard pre-set by key constituents of the organization. If these standards got met, then it shows team work spirit got fostered. Otherwise, there was a problem of cooperation. The group seems to be output-oriented, and everyone is given a task to accomplish in four weeks time deadline (GKU, 2015).
Second strategy to evaluate a teamwork is through their social interaction - The internal social processes operating should allow for interaction thereby enhancing, or at least maintaining, the ability to work together. This interaction provides support to team members who may be struggling with their part of the assignment (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008). The group also offers to help Rose should she face any challenge in carrying out her assigned obligations. This quality can get observed from the video. Joe for example fosters a sociable character by emailing the agenda of the meeting prior to its day of set up. He also constantly asks if ever member agrees to a mentioned point before he moves to the next.. Cheng Jing is also seen to have good teamwork skills of a social player. He agrees to take any task he would get assigned even before he would get delegated any duty (GKU, 2015).
Thirdly is how the group leverages strengths. The distributions of activities are on account of strengths of individual team members. Each member gets therefore assigned what they do best, and each is responsible for the success of his portion of the work (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008). The video shows some features of this quality. For example, in the beginning, Joe Tanney is assigned the charge of chairing the meeting, may be because he is the best to take the task. Mr. Cheng is given a heavier workload due to the extent to which the group appreciates his capability and dedication. However, Rose is not up for tasks and tries to shift her work to the partners. Though she explains the reason, teamwork sometimes requires total commitment, since every member will be busy and may not get the chance to cover for a friend.
Tuckman’s five stages of group formation are as follows.
The first stage is called formation. During this stage, personal relations are formed, which are characterized by dependence. They appoint a group leader and adopt to his/her guidance and direction. The group appoint Joe as the chair and hence the group leader (GKU, 2015). Group members have a desire for acceptance of whatever directions get given by the leader for the better of all. Rules of behavior get enacted so as to keep things smooth and to avoid controversy. Serious topics and emotion get avoided. The members endeavor to become task-oriented. Discussion revolves only around defining the scope of the task and how to approach it (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008). Joe tries best to make everyone focus on the meeting agenda and not personal ones.
The second stage is named storming. This stage characterizes of competition and conflict in the personal and organizational task-functions dimensions. As the group members attempt to organize for the task, conflict becomes inevitable. The individuals are forced to harmonize and mold their diverse feelings, attitudes, ideas, and beliefs to suit the group organization. Questions arise about who will be responsible for what (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008). When Joe asks who would volunteer for any of the mentioned tasks, no one raises their hands. Competition and hostilities amid them arises. In order to progress to the next stage, group members must shift from a "testing and proving" mentality to a problem-solving mentality. This stage was hostile in the video essentially because Simon and Rose did not have a copy of the agenda (GKU, 2015).
Stage 3 is Norming. At this stage, interpersonal relations are characterized by cohesion. Members get engaged in acknowledging of all members’ contributions. Members develop a willingness to change their preconceived thoughts and opinions and open their minds to listen to ideas presented by fellow members. They also actively sometimes interrupt and question these facts. Mr. Simon interrupts Joe and puts across a point that the project should get approached from a different direction (GKU, 2015). At this stage trust, personal relations leads to group cohesion. Everyone becomes calm and listens and only one talk. Members thus begin to feel a sense of belonging and relief (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008).
The fourth stage is performing. At this stage, team members are strategically aware of what they are supposed to do and why they should do it. Members get driven by a shared vision and can stand on own feet with no need of interference from the leader. There is unity: group identity is complete, and the focus is in the over-achieving of goals. The members have a high degree of autonomy, and each develops better criteria to accomplish a task, even if it means going against those of the leader. The group in the video however did not excel at this stage (GKU, 2015). That was because some members did not fully understand their tasks. The failure was first because the two were not aware of the agenda; neither did they make notes on the meetings proceedings. Secondly, Rose took more time complaining and showing inability to take a task. These two factors shows that the two got not dedicated (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008)
The final stage is the adjournment. That is the final stage that involves the exit from task and disengagement from group relations. A good conclusion usually involves recognition of participators and their achievement. It provides a chance for members to say personal goodbyes (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008). The adjournment of the meeting was not formal. Simon and Rose disengaged from the meeting in a rush even before the chair finishes talking. That could be a major reason they did not understand their task at hand.
Effectiveness of communication in the video
To some degree, the communication the communication in the video was effective. The first reason for that is because of voice clarity. Every participant talks eloquently and the message get heard by all. Joe also shows a degree of emphasis to prompt understanding of important points. Secondly, there is a tendency of concreteness (GKU, 2015). Everyone supports their idea with facts. Concreteness gets likewise viewed in the timely and consistently answering questions. The participants develop their arguments based on what they hear. This quality fosters their communication, and the listeners get a more comprehensive overview of the message and its implications. Courtesy get also observed. Every one of the partakers respects colleague’s opinion; they remain quiet while Joe is talking and interrupts whenever necessary. That prompts a more positive and constructive approach to their conversation (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008).
However, there was some degree of communication failures too. There are some cases of obstruction. Noise was paper noise, some bits of laughter/giggling, and unnecessary interruption caused by Rose. Completeness of communication was no possible. Simon cut it short by quitting while Joe had not yet exhausted what he wanted to say. The meeting was therefore not formally adjoined (GKU, 2015).
Two major types of conflicts in a workplace get often classified as task conflict and personal conflict. The video shows task, or substantive conflict. The conflict get seen when Rose avoids tasks. She asks to get helped through her duties even before she gets given a task to do. That means she did know whether the task would be easy on complex to accomplish (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008).
If one were Joe, one direct conflict management strategy to use would be collaboration. This strategy involves examining a problem on their tasks together and creatively coming to a resolve. The group is required to analyze their behavior objectively, thereby making effective changes. Exchange of tasks could get made to the comfort of everyone. An indirect strategy would be accommodation. Joe would choose to ignore unfair comments and move on undisturbed and with no one noticing. That could be in instances he is rudely interrupted (GKU, 2015)
From the video, one could say that team work was not effective (GKU, 2015). Thus, one could term this four as a group rather than a team. The reason is that, teamwork is about commitment, which is not well fostered. Secondly, the members are not ready to volunteer for any task. Thirdly, some members are so obsessed with their personal matters rather than team achievement (Jephis & Dickinson, 2008).
Motivation problem for Cheng was time shortage. That of Rose was numerous tasks to accomplish while Simon’s was on commitment. Finally, the motivation problem for Joe was group potential to win. Motivating each member requires the reinforcement theory. This theory takes four approaches that are: positive reinforcement, punishment, negative reinforcement, and extinction. Cheng could get motivated to positive reinforcement-for every achievement, he gains a reward or commission. Punishment-this involves negative consequences for poor behavior. An example could be working late. Negative punishment-this involves removing a stressor. Low status could get removed when he accomplishes all tasks in the short time. Rose could get motivated as follows. Positive reinforcement-promising her a bonus. Punishment- would involve punishing her for lateness and lack of focus on teamwork. Negative reinforcement-promotion should she shows a good level of adherence to the tasks. Extinction-she gets nothing if she accomplishes nothing.
Thirdly Simon could be reinforced in the following ways. Positive reinforcement-he shows commitment; he gets a bonus. Punishment-he shows no commitment; he gets suspended. Negative reinforcement- his status gets boosted to general manager if he gets more devoted to his duties. Extinction- if no commitment, he gains no goody. Finally for Joe-he makes the group succeeds, he gets promoted. He fails to do so; he gets demoted. Negative reinforcement would be to remove his stressors for example incorporating personnel. Extinction is through removing all the bonuses, should he fail.

References
Jelphs, K. & Dickinson, H. (2008). Working in teams. Bristol [England: Policy Press in association with Community Care
Grand Kanyon University (2015). Working in teams

Carolyn Morgan is the author of this paper. A senior editor at Melda Research in nursing research paper writing service. if you need a similar paper you can place your order for a custom research paper from custom nursing writing service.

Author is associated with MeldaResearch.Com which is a global Custom Essay Writing and Term Paper Writing Company. If you would like help in Research Papers and Term Paper Help you can visit Custom Writing Service