Introduction
A team is a group of people working towards achieving the same set of goals. Though teams usually work to achieve these goals, they face a myriad of challenges right from their formation. When our groups were first announced, every student was nervous, quietly waiting to see which group would be their team. Our team would consist of Allan, Bek, Chad, Lindsay and I. We would be a team of people I hadn’t known even after a semester in college. I knew this would involve several steps to bond. Kris Cole (2005, p.336) gives five stages of team formation. They include the identification of various roles and objectives of our team. Here, we resorted to do well and achieve our goals by the end of the course. The next step involved storming. Here, every member was given a chance to suggest how power would be shared. Through this, Chad suggested our group to be called Team MacGyver. We also decided to get team shirts to distinguish ourselves from others, and to get a sense of belonging. This was followed with norming where we would alter our behaviour to fit into the group. We developed a code of conduct as a guide through any problems. Through contributions from every member, we formulated principles like respect for everyone’s opinion, respect for oneself, as well as extrinsic values in conflict resolution. At the penultimate stage, we began to get involved into the team. We committed ourselves in finding ways of performing tasks well. We would also identify conflicts which, though served a slight hold-up, were solved. Finally, we would finish up our tasks and break up or group. This essay is an analysis of our team experience.
Team Building day
Bruce Tuckman (1963, p384) observes that a team develops through stages. Our team held this day to provide a chance for making acquaintances with one another. Moreover, it served to challenge us to make aims we had earlier seen unachievable. For instance, Chad and I had seen the high rope program as a challenge. However, by surprise, I managed to complete 95% of that day’s challenges. I only failed in the ‘group-on-a-pole.’ This was because I feared I would cause the fall of a team member. When I repeated the same exercise on my own, I did it albeit with a few problems. Lindsay, Bek and Allan were all champions and wanted to try every challenge. As opposed to other groups, ours stayed pooled for the whole day. Clad in our team colours, we travelled together and had a drink later to relax. This was despite the absence of one team member who had been exempted because of other arrangements.
Code of Conduct
Alasdair White acknowledges that a team can work better if the level of anxiety is put at the lowest point possible (2008, P.3). In this case we developed a code of conduct that would accommodate every member. The preamble of our code of behaviour involved the determination to do anything however difficult it may seem, performing tasks with respect towards each other and our colleagues. It also argued that the bond of our team would be cemented through the belief in our team. We agreed that through everyone’s cooperation, we would be effective: That everyone’s ideas would be needed for collaboration. We needed to build trust among ourselves to foster cooperation.
Key Result areas
The preamble led to the development of key result areas. They included:
- Attendance: all meetings were mandatory. They would be held as decided. Without absenteeism
- Communication: members would have to respond to their emails as soon as possible. All communication will not be discriminative and all members shall have equal chances as may be decided by the management.
- Team Participation: every member would strive to finish up allocated work in time.
- Presentation: all members would dress in team colours during lessons. All submitted work would be neat and typed.
- Research targets: members would assist each other in researching so as to achieve targets in time.
The PDCA Model of Performance Evaluation
Our team was action based, so the plan-Do-Check-Act model was effective. According to Porter O’Grady, PDCA is important because it is only through teamwork that we can achieve consistent outcomes (2005, p.293). Based on our team’s ability, we tied performance to outcomes. We had to plan; we identified all the factors necessary for achieving our goals such as the inputs required, the problems expected and the steps required. In this case, we were adopting a sense of direction. Through doing, our team initiated action. We began to take part in all our activities where every individual was assigned a role. Acting involved establishment of response to adjust to learnt lessons. We would create principles to enhance improvements. Thus through this model, we were able to construct monitoring tools. In our case, these tools were skill checklists for all members. Overall, this model gave us a chance to evaluate our abilities and approach conflicts with principle guidance.
Value of performance measurement Tool
As mentioned earlier, our performance measurement tool was the skill checklist. We used a scale of 1-5 where 5 represented highest ability while 1 showed weakness Some of the skills evaluated were honesty, critical thinking, will to listen, creativity and computer skills. We had a lot to learn from each other. For example Janette was not good at time management and had to learn from others to improve. Lindsay had poor communication skills and had to be helped to improve. Allan as a planner demonstrated good organization.
Models of performance appraisal and problems encountered
According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, individuals’ need for achievement, affiliation and esteem is required after the basic needs have been gained. In this case, our group was based on affiliation. This means that individuals search for comfort and elevation is enhanced by a team (1954, p. 65). A person’s own contribution can not be effective if the response of others is not positively acknowledged. Every member wanted to learn from another and those who had difficulties in some categories were helped. In this case, we would always expect conflicts (Cole 2005, p.283). We used discussions, help, peer review, extra work and team conference to solve the problem. Through peer review, we sent each other stories of our lives. As a result we learnt how some of us had little commitment to the course, they saw it less important. As reflection of what we expected along the way, we tried to address the problem through intrinsic value approach though it failed after some time. Members resented this as a dictatorial attempt. We tried to help members who would not meet deadlines through installation of a website but this did not work out. As a team, we decided to review our key result areas as a way of accommodating slower members. Here, discussion was time wasting; every member wanted to be accommodated albeit with dragging needs. It was however a considerate method. Helping was accommodative but it ate into other members’ time to work on their own work. Peer review worked to expose our aims and feelings but it did not show how to end the problem. Extra work would have served as a deterrent to late submission but to those slow members, it was an added burden.
Learning and development of the team
Action learning can be viewed as a development tool because every member would try out their efforts. As Alasdair White notes, action oriented participation helps to give a baseline on which we can make a checklist of individual ability. We could measure and monitor the flow of activities because each person was assigned their role. According to the motivation theory, physical capabilities of workers affect their productivity and this is in turn affected by the environment in which they work. For example, man can work harder to look for food when hungry. Hunger is the motivation but his physical health will determine the search for food. Thus material benefits and efforts of the worker influences performance. This theory also suggests that cooperation achieves more and rules have to be accommodative, comprehensive and sensitive (Jangla 2007, p.12). For work based principles, we should have considered motivation as a way of encouraging members to work within the deadline than use force or extra work. Helping would have been more beneficial had we motivated the members with rewards. Members who saw the course as less important would have been encouraged through flexible rules and benefits like gifts to early finishers.
Learning styles and multiple intelligences
Some members preferred different learning styles. Chad acted as mentor, Alan planer was inspector and Janette was the caretaker. Others like Lindsay took up the role of advocate, an activist. This was a blend of personalities and we anticipated it enable members to learn from each other. However, as we would note later, Alan was a practical thinker although it gave him the title of anger. Bek maintained her presence through out team activities and was willing to go an extra mile. Chad seemed quiet about himself but would be enthusiastic whenever need arose. Lindsay would always be undecided; changed her class once. Moreover she had little organisational skills in out-of-class activities.
Learning opportunities for different learning needs
As realized, members had different styles of learning. We would suggest that each group should have a variety of imparting knowledge to her members. As the motivational scientific theory has shown, each has their own capability which should be considered. These involve identifying new trends in group management through trend surveys, use of diagrams to illustrate and make members to understand more as well as the use of controls to determine how each member responds to certain changes. In stead of just relying on laid rules which may be fixed, members can learn new knowledge by adopting new approaches. Porter O’Grady adds that new approaches must be interfaced with the present methods to achieve consistency (2005, p.8). Thus our group has learnt that a team can only advance through adoption of newer methods of learning and administration.
Reference
Cole, Kris, 2005, Management: Theory and Practice, 3rd edn, Pearson Education, Melbourne.
Jangla, Bhushan Indravadan, 2007, “Review of Modern Organisations”, Web.
O’Grady, Tim Porter, 2005, “Evaluating the Team,” Web.
Maslow, Abraham H, 1970, Motivation and Personality, 3rd edn, Longman, New York.
Tuckman, Bruce, 1963, “Development Sequence in Small Groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63, no.6, pp.384-389.
White, Alasdair, 2008, “From Comfort Zone to Performance Management: Understanding Development and Performance”, Performance Management, Web.