Effective Team and Performance Management

SID: 0921698/1

Effective Team and Performance Management

BB215011S

Mount Everest

Table of Contents

1.0 Problem and Context

2.0 Reflection

3.0 Alternative Courses of Action

4.0 Learning

5.0 Conclusion

6.0 References

Table of Figures

Figure 1 - Tuckman's Team Development Model

Figure 2 - Myers-Briggs Test Indicators

Figure 3 - Belbin's Team Roles

Figure 4 - Comcon Teams

Figure 5 - Team Effectiveness Model

1.0 Problem and Context

Originally, I started my experience in a different group but later moved into my present one. At the time of joining the group was already fully formed but luckily for me I knew many of the team members previously. This made the forming stage of Tuckman's Team Development Model. Knowing most team members helped us to avoid the awkward stage of not facing up to issues. (Agolf, 2001)

Tuckman's model helps me frame my experience.

Figure 1 - Tuckman's Team Development Model

At the beginning, I felt that everyone was going to play part in activities and no one was acting like a disruption. One of my team members was very quiet and I felt like he wouldn't play part but he ended up contributing like the rest.

Overall, all team members made a great contribution, all tasks were done well and everyone came every week and on time.

At the storming phase of my experience, I don't feel as there was much conflict over power. In fact, in my group the biggest power struggle was between the two leaders and not other team members. There were no cliques grouped and every team member had full say. At times of disagreement, the group decided to solve everything with group vote.

Forming was simple as the decision on how final decisions were to be made was made before. We decided on not following roles because the group worked better when everyone was free to make any suggestion.

At the last stage of my experience which was performing all team members were very clear on the purpose of each task. The team made suggestions and the leaders reached a decision from them. Tasks got delegated by the leaders to keep everyone involved and motivated.

2.0 Reflection

I joined the group that was formed already with two leaders. Therefore, I took up a team player role. The leadership was split because our team was full of extroverts and opinionated personalities and it was safer to have a split leadership so decisions made were debated by two dissimilar people.

When my team members and I took the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator test, most of us were extroverts and two out of seven members were introverts. This is the reason for why there were no restricted roles. It was a smart move to not give out roles so everyone had a similar input and was given a voice for their opinion. I am an extrovert also, my MBPI test turned out as type ESFJ which is explained as an extrovert judging personality. (Briggs-Myers and Myers, 1995).

Below is a grid of MBPI indicators:

Figure 2 - Myers-Briggs Test Indicators

It is hardly surprising that most of my team members are extroverts as it is well known that most of the Western World is indeed that.

My team members when asked thought I was a very sociable and enthusiastic person which is backed by Belbin's test where I fitted in as a Resource Investigator. A resource investigator is a creative person who brings ideas from outside the team and is highly sociable (Belbin, 2010). Belbin stressed the importance of having a role that is suited to personality and the need of having key roles fitted in a team. According to Belbin, every good team should have a chairman, strong plant and team players (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004). I believe that our two leaders fell into a chairman and a shaper which is the cause of a rare disagreement, both roles feel the need to be right. The team also had a plant, resource investigators and team workers.

This is a table that explains team roles according to Belbin (Belbin's Roles, n.d.)

Figure 3 - Belbin's Team Roles

This is also supported by another behavioural questionnaire that says I am a person who tries to avoid conflict as much as possible which is why I choose to cooperate. It also explained that I am not overly competitive but do not like to accommodate people who I don't believe to be correct. I believe that it's most important for all team members to know how to compromise and not allow one or two strong personalities take over having to accommodate their ideas (Deutsch et al, 2006).

I believe that Kilman's test can be used to understand you better and therefore become a better team player as well as learn smart ways of avoiding bad conflict.

From the beginning, I was a confident team member and other members who were not as confident at participating came out of their shell as Tuckman's model assumed during norming.

I feel that my team didn't function like Likert's Linking Pin Concept even though it's a very common structure used with a strong hierarchy. My team worked in a very democratic way with no hierarchy as such and all team members felt as important as the leaders (Hirokawa and Poole, 1996).

Thinking back to the way the team was structured, it fits into the Comcon team structure as pictured below:

Figure 4 - Comcon teams

This structure has a leader but at the same time all members interact equally and all channels work.