Working in a Team Most

¶ … Working in a Team

Most people have been part of a team effort at some point in their lives, whether it is a sports team, a work team, a study group, or any other kind of convergence of people working for a common goal. Every team has its own unique set of dynamics. However, all teams share one common characteristic: "When team roles are composed in certain ways, they help to produce more effective teams" (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2007, p. 126).

The role played by each member of a team significantly shapes the manner in which the team functions (French, Rayner, Rees & Rumbles, 2008). If there are too many leaders or too many followers; too many mediators or too few organizers, operations are not likely to run smoothly. Whatever the construction of the team may be, it must be balanced in order to succeed. I have learned this through both reading about teams, and through actual experience.

For this assignment, I have decided to reflect upon an ongoing team that I am a member of at my current place of employment. The team is known as the Culture Working Group. This is a committee that has the objective of furnishing ongoing assessments of the organizational culture within the company as it pertains to company goals, objectives and guidelines. I would describe this team as one of "Reciprocal interdependence" because "every member is dependent on others at all levels" (Thompson, 2004, p. 75). There is no independent work assigned that is later brought back to the group. All of the work and discussions take place while the group is assembled and we are all working on the same task, with the same goals, which are to:

• Assess current organizational culture

• Determine if the existing culture meets expectations of employees and stakeholders.

• Devise recommendations to promote a company-wide culture that most adequately reflects optimum organizational expectations and practices.

• Provide recommendations that will most advantageously position the company for sustained growth and operations during the next five years.

The team is organized in a hierarchal manner, however equal participation among all team members is actively encouraged. As is stated by Thompson (2004), "A fundamental question for any leader considering whether to relegate a decision to a team is whether teams make better decisions than do individuals" (p. 128). In this case, it was decided that teams definitely do make better decisions than individuals, which is why the team encourages active and equal participation from all members.

Each person on this five person team has their own unique role, both formally and in formally. In a formal sense, there is a team leader who is in the highest position. Next in line is the secondary team leader, who is sort of like a 'vice president' -- he takes over if the team leader is unavailable. The other six of us do not have formal roles within the team, however since each of has our own unique characteristics and perspectives, we tend to take on informal roles. For example, I am the team 'organizer' in that I tend to be the one to take most notes and to keep all of the paperwork in order. My associate Jean takes on the 'mediator' role in the group. She is the one who tries to calm everyone down when conflict starts to occur and she is always throwing out possible compromises. Another team member, Alan, is essentially the 'antagonist' of the group. He tends to take rejected ideas personally and at the same time, he often makes the practice of rejecting other members' ideas personal as well.

The team meets once every two months and our last meeting was just a week ago, so the reflections are still at the front of my mind. This was our third meeting in total. The aim of this meeting was to formulate a list of questions to guide the project. It was important that everyone agreed on the questions because they would shape the project and determine its future. However it can be difficult to get a group of five very different people to reach a consensus without everyone compromising to the point of no one being satisfied. As is stated in by Thompson (2004), "a danger with teams is that there could be what is known as the Abilene Paradox, which occurs when people "self-limit" their contributions to the team and the result is that decisions are made that nobody really agrees with" (pp. 144-145). Fortunately, our team was able to employ an open-feedback based approach to avoid this, as well as ensuring that status differences were minimized, as Knights and Willmott (2007) recommend. This does not mean that everything ran perfect or that there were no differences of opinion. However I was impressed that we were able to come up with our list of questions fairly quickly despite several conflicts that occurred.

One thing I would have done differently, however, would be to ask the team leader to "provide a formal forum for controversial views" (Thompson, 2004, p. 146) as this was not done and could have been helpful when conflicts arose. Overall, however I believe that way in which the team functioned helped to reinforce the importance of the task and enabled people to concentrate on the project.

Another thing I would have done differently -- and plan to do differently - at the next team meeting is to encourage the team leader to be the one to step in and try to resolve conflicts and come up with solutions. Normally it is my colleague Jean who takes on this role, however she had no formal authority within the team. Conflict resolutions really should be up to the team leader.

What analyzing this team has shown me is that communicating the components of the team's vision effectively, leaders can help to create a sense of understanding in the team members by letting them in on the 'why's' and 'how's' instead of just the 'what's' and 'when's'. By drawing on a diverse set of resources rather than simply relying on those at the top of the hierarchy to make decisions, far more innovative and effective decisions are likely to be made. I agree completely with Thompson (2004) that "Groups are presumed to have access to a broader range of decision-making resources and, hence, to be better equipped to make high-quality decisions than any person can alone. By pooling their different backgrounds, training, and experience, group members have at least the potential for working in a more informed fashion than would be the case were the decision left to any single individual" (p. 148)

Ultimately, by including the more subordinate members in this process, a powerful coalition will be formed that will see members working to make the necessary changes succeed instead of fighting to make them fail. This is because they will feel empowered to act when they feel they are an integral part of the machine. When they are merely being dictated to, they are much more likely to be resistant (Bloisi, Cook & Hunsaker, 2007). Planning together help to boost morale as well, as team members are able to see the successes of the change in small doses, which allows them to envision the overall success of the change in the future. It is also important, as our text suggests, to reiterate the goals and components of the plan regularly, in order to consolidate change. Once these tasks have been accomplished, new approaches can be implemented smoothly and effectively (Martin, 2005).