Individual Analysis of Team Processes & Dynamics Samuel Capobianco GB215 - Section 5 May 3 2022 Capobianco 1 Part 1: Team Process Synopsis When our group first got together at the beginning of the semester, I didn’t know what to expect. I had never met any of my teammates before but I was eager to develop positive relationships with them. After some team activities that acted as icebreakers, I could start to get a sense of the team dynamics in terms of who was shy versus outgoing. Then, when the team contract came around, we were able to approach it better having the opportunity to get to know each other more. This is where team roles began to establish themselves. In discussing what team roles we would take up in the contract, we discussed our individual strengths and weaknesses in alignment with the roles outlined in the contract. Everyone chose a role that aligned with their strengths and this helped to maximize our productivity over the course of the semester. These roles held constant throughout the semester with the exception of a team leader. As a group, we never really chose a leader, but rather one arose throughout the first few projects. Mark really stepped up as a team leader and was always taking the initiatives on team assignments. I believe a team leader is necessary as they are crucial towards team productivity. Someone needed to step up and be the person that helps move the team forward, and Mark was best fit to do so. He also played a large role in the decision making process and allocation of work. As someone who likes to plan ahead, I worked a lot with Mark to determine the allocation of work and create interim deadlines. As a team, we all met every Monday at 5:30. In these meetings, we recapped recent deliverables, looked ahead, and established what needed to be done. Work allocation was on a volunteer basis. Once we established subsections of a deliverable, everyone chose what they were most interested in. Mark and I helped out to facilitate this process and make sure everyone had a strong understanding of what they were doing. In terms of the decision-making process, it was always very collaborative. When a Capobianco 2 decision arose, whether through a team meeting or our team group chat, we were able to reach a solution as a team. There was no structured process in place. However, I believe this was a good thing because it allowed us to talk openly about the issue at hand and find a solution that appealed to everyone. There were no significant conflicts throughout the semester and this speaks to how well we were able to work together as a team to ensure everyone was happy with what they were doing individually, and what we were doing as a team. Looking at the big picture, the quality of our team’s work aligned with Wheelan’s Integrated Model of Group Development. In the beginning of the semester, we were in the dependency and inclusion stage (stage 1) (Wheelan, 1994). We were still figuring out team roles and dynamics and relied on Mark as a team leader to help guide us through the first few assignments. The quality of the first few deliverables were a little disappointing and fell short of my expectations. Then, as we got to milestone #1 and our first presentation on team dynamics, we were getting to the trust/structure stage (stage 3) (Wheelan, 1994). The communication within our group really opened up and we began to trust each other more. Everyone knew what they were doing and this led to better quality work. However, there was still some trouble when working out the logistics of how we structured the presentation. Everyone was allocated unconnected slides and it affected the cohesion of our presentation. Though, as we went through the site visit and started to work even closer together, our team entered the work/productivity phase (stage 4) (Wheelan, 1994). The last month of the semester is where we really found our stride. This was the peak of our group’s productivity and the team dynamics really came together. This allowed us to develop a very strong final presentation that I was proud of. There was a lot of cohesion and communication when designing the presentation and we were able to find a time to rehearse so we could put together an amazing presentation for the class. Capobianco 3 Part 2: Team Dynamics Analysis To further understand our team dynamics and why our group developed the way we did, the Team Effectiveness Model (TEM) can be applied. McShane & Von Glinow, 2021, p. 239 This analysis aims to understand what concepts were practiced well within our group, and which could have been improved. It is important to note that team effectiveness is the end result of the contributory factors in this model, and therefore will not be explicitly covered in this analysis. First, when examining our team’s organization and environment, TEM outlines reward systems, communication systems, organizational structure, and organizational leadership as some of the major factors (McShane & Von Glinow, 2021, p. 239). In class we talked a lot about designing strong reward systems to help promote more efficiency and satisfaction within teams. We took this into consideration and although our group didn’t have a structured rewards system in place, we appreciated each other's work. By acknowledging the quality work being contributed by each member, it helped our team develop more positive relationships and foster higher quality work as the semester went on. Communication systems was also a concept discussed earlier in the course. Finding the most effective method of communication was key to Capobianco 4 making sure everyone was on the same page. The reason we were able to find a good meeting time and resolve small issues was through our team group chat. Lastly, when looking at the organizational structure and leadership within our group, it was very collaborative. No one reported to a superior, but rather we all contributed to each part of the project and had one group leader (Mark) that helped to navigate any issues. Mark was also a very democratic leader. He valued people’s inputs and strongly encouraged participation within the team to help make decisions (Worthington, 2023). Though, he designed our deliverables. I feel as if the other members of the team and I should have done a better job stepping up to design the deliverables. This would have made the project a better representation of all our aspirations. The next concept in the TEM is team design which includes task characteristics, team size, and team composition. When thinking about how the teams were structured, every group in the class was about 5-6 people. I feel like this was the right size. In fact, the textbook actually described that 5-7 members is considered the optimal group size. This is because smaller teams tend to be more engaged and operate more effectively as there is less process loss (McShane & Von Glinow, 2021, p. 242). In our group, we definitely noticed that we had an appropriate amount of inputs and we were able to tell who was pulling their weight, and if there was any social loafing. We did notice that there was one member in our group who wasn’t as engaged as the rest of us. To be honest, we could have handled this better and improved our approach towards social loafing. Towards the end of the semester, we just picked up the slack of the member who was not doing their part. However, we should have addressed the issue more head on and figured out why this member had disengaged with the team project. This would have allowed us to create a solution that would work for everyone and promote better team dynamics. When looking at the aspects of team dynamics under TEM, we also could have improved upon Capobianco 5 task characteristics. This is something that got better as the semester got on but we never really perfected it. One idea that the textbook really emphasizes is reciprocal interdependence. This is where, “work output is exchanged back and forth among individuals” (McShane & Von Glinow, 2021, p. 241). It is considered the highest degree of interdependence. In our work, we mostly just divided and conquered and hoped that the end product would have cohesion. This was not the right approach and we should have utilized the meetings more to work together. We saw with the rehearsal of our final presentation where the problem areas were in our presentation and we were able to collaborate to fix them. This should have been a practice that was carried on throughout the semester to produce more cohesive deliverables. The last concept within the TEM is team processes which includes team development, team norms, team cohesion, and trust. In the synopsis, I spoke a lot to how our team developed while applying Wheelan’s integrated model of group development. Therefore, I want to investigate our team cohesion more. While examining team cohesion, there are a multitude of influences including member similarity, team size, member interaction, team success, and external challenges. I believe one reason our team worked well together was member similarity. We all had similar values and aspirations for the team project and this led to effective team dynamics. This is the result of the similarity-attraction effect which involves teams having more cohesion as a result of more member similarity (McShane & Von Glinow, 2021, p. 250). Our member interaction was also something that correlated with the growth of our team cohesion. In the beginning of the semester, we didn’t have the opportunity to interact much but throughout the semester we got to work together more inside and outside the classroom. This really helped improve our team cohesion. Lastly, the team’s success and our external competition acted as variables to help align our interests and boost our team cohesion. We all wanted a good grade on Capobianco 6 our deliverables and were motivated to work well together to obtain that grade and be successful. We also saw the other teams as competition with regards to the final presentation. Therefore, our goal was to create the most engaging and entertaining presentation. This motivated us to work together to create a final product we were proud of. Overall, we were pretty happy with where our team was at by the end of the semester and how far we came. Part 3: Recommendation/Conclusion If I were to advise a similar team, I would have a handful of recommendations to help facilitate better team dynamics from the start of a project. First, I think it may be smart to establish a group leader in accordance with members strengths and weaknesses. I believe it is important to quickly determine how team roles will interact. This will help the team develop quicker and move into the work/productivity stage sooner. Next, I think it is important for teams to address social loafing as soon as it occurs. This is something I wish our group had done. Addressing social loafing can be difficult, but the best way to go about it is to have an open and honest conversation with team members to understand the cause of the problem, and then find a solution. Lastly, I recommend that a similar team should develop strong task interdependence. When there is more horizontal communication and alignment, projects tend to be more cohesive than those that divide up the work and put it together at the end. Going forward in my Bentley career, I aim to carry over a lot of the concepts I have learned in this class to future group projects. I may not get as lucky in the future and have a team that worked so well together. That being said, I will have to put into practice the conflict resolution and team dynamic practices I learned to work. Whenever I get a new group, I want to establish healthy team norms and roles to facilitate the best team dynamics possible. This will help whatever team I am a part of be successful and reach its maximum potential. Capobianco 7 References McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. (2021). Organizational Structure. In Organizational Behavior (5th ed., pp. 234-260). McGraw-Hill. Wheelan, S. A. (1994a). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Worthington, C. (2023). Leadership in Org. Settings Part 1.
