Organisation management exam paper
The showcase presentation brought with it a major challenge to our group despite its being a simple task. According to Wood et al (2006), the achieving effectiveness in any task depends on the complexity of the task¬¬. More difficult tasks bring more challenges on the effectiveness of the team. However, task complexity was not our major drawback to the showcase challenge but rather our initial poor modes of communication and idea sharing styles. All through to the seventh week, we mainly conducted online meetings.
Prior to the fourth week, our group seemed stuck between the forming and storming stages of group development mode...
Need essay sample on "Organisation management exam paper"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $13.90/page
...l. We witnessed a major conflict amongst our members in identify our product. This was further complicated by absenteeism. In addition, despite our consensus to adopt a one leader to push our team development, no member had came out with leadership qualities during these four week, a factor that made it hard to connect and enhance our sense of direction. I think we suffered from self-managed learning skills since most of has were just fresh from the teacher led learning approach of secondary school.
During the first few weeks, I was uncertain of the nature of the task before us, but I was uncomfortable with the slow progress we were making. Nevertheless, I lacked the courage to raise my concern in fear of how other members would perceive me. This character is described by Wood et al (2006) when he asserts that negative emotions such as feelings of anger, anxiety and fear are often viewed as unacceptable forms of emotion within teams. On the contrary, I knew that my failure to give my contribution to the task could only be interpreted as lack of care to the showcase presentation.
With my attitude of doing what other members have ordered me, my role in the team seem to be dysfunctional, a factor that is defined as those who inhibit progress or siphon off the energy of the group (Tyson, 1998). We were all marked with low motivation towards the task due to our weak understanding of the expectations of the group members in the task and thus ineffective contributions towards the showcase (Wood et al, 2006). However, with time running out first, we had to enter the norm stage and strong group member cohesion was required.
Between the 5th and 7th week, the group engaged in delegating duties to individual members to enhancing the process of creating our product. This was however affected by absenteeism. During this period, Boom got sick and forced to fly back to Thailand were his family for medical treatment. On the other hand, I was forced to over stay in London following the Iceland volcanic eruption. Sacha also sustained an ankle injury making his ability to attend group meeting hard. Furthermore, the progress during this period was also compromised by lack of communication (Worchel, et al.
1992). The group was mainly engaged in emails and timely communication for availability remained a major challenge. We therefore agreed to start using mobile phones to enhance communication efficiency. This was also aimed at improving cooperation and trust within group members, a factor that is instrumental in ensuring high levels of satisfaction (Bartol, et al, 2004). As Wood et al (2006) puts it, complex tasks dictate for high levels of cooperation among group members if desired results are to be realized.
Mobilizing ourselves into action remained hard due to the virtual of being members of a new group. During the 8th to 10th week of our showcase presentation, the group engaged in a more involved norming stage. Anna, who was our leader forced has to increase our attendance on team meetings. Under her devoted influence, she allocated every member a particular subject to deliver towards the realization of our goal. Unlike in the previous time, we moved away from online meetings to physical ones outside our classroom.
Since the presentation time was quite close, Anna used to appoint physical group meeting about 3-4 times a week. Her leadership qualities were instrumental. She was strict, serious and high confident with her ideas (Wood et al, 2006). In addition to her leadership qualities, she was assisted by Sacha who possessed a strong influence due to her talkative character. Despite the fact that I and Boom, as entrepreneurs in the group were to develop the product logo, Anna’s logo was selected since it was very colourful.
Given the mounting pressures in our group to have the showcase done, we were constantly oscillating between storming and performing stages (Worchel, et al, 992). However, despite the influence of Anna in the showcase progress during the last three weeks, the group was still faced with the problem of communication and interpersonal relations. Some of our group members were quiet, only giving minimal suggestions and not ready to engage others in defending their points.
However, with a good number of talkative and joking members, personal needs and thus social maintenance as an output in the showcase presentation was satisfactory in our group. Still, with Anna and her strong leadership characteristics, coordination, encouragement and communication (Tyson, 1998) aspects of members were better. List of references Bartol, et al. (2004). Management: A Pacific Rim focus. 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill. Tyson, T. (1998). Working with groups. 2nd Ed. Australia: Palgrave Macmillan. Wood et al. (2006). Groups and group dynamics. Worchel, et al. (1992). Group process and productivity. Michigan: Sage Publications.