Group 4: A Critical Analysis Of Teamwork Based On Organizational Behavior
The objective of this paper is to provide an extensive analysis of Group 4 in retrospect to the group’s combined effort, performance measurements, contributions and outputs. On an additional note, the paper also explains and judges the various norms of a team regarding work ethics such as: time management, meeting styles, accountability, decision making, communication etc. In other words, the paper adjudicates group 4 on the basis of teamwork dynamics and assess several aspects of the teamwork based on Organizational Behavior itself.
In a general sense, teamwork is a term used to express a number of people working together with a similar goal orientation or purpose. Business directories tend to insist on the similar goal achievement target …show more content…
5) defined the term teamwork “as a cooperative process that allows ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results”. And in all honest means, Group 4 was no exception to the idea Scamati put forward. The first few exchange of ideas, meetings and all sort of interactions were indeed a misfit but on the long run things changed with some effects and consequences.
Group 4 was a team of six individuals with members hailing from several corners of the world such as Indonesia, South Korea, Myanmar, China and Bangladesh (including the author). The Group had a common goal of solving a given case problem titled as ‘Should this team be saved?’ The irony of working on a teamwork case with a group with unfamiliar members was instantly visible but the worst was soon behind as the team became goal oriented over …show more content…
It takes a fair few hurdles of conflicts of overcoming and collaboration in it’s purest sense to make a group into a team. Our work, as a team, was to solve the given case of ‘Should this team be saved?’ and also make a audio visual in relevance to the subject matter of the case. The group had to overcome the existing diversity, norms and cohesiveness among the group. The initial stage was a methodological approach to solving the case which involved i. brainstorming the case ii. forming an idea iii. another brainstorming session followed by essential rectifications and iv. role-play. To add a few more cents to the complexity, I am still not certainly aware of what caused the difference in opinions among us (probably the cultural and background orientations) but we all had a different idea of how the work should be divided. This was the first and arguably the biggest conflict (since we just got into the same forum with no known faces) that happened within the periphery of the group. The follow ups of conflicts however can be both positive and negatively impactful depending on the approach undertaken by a team at the point of conflict. Tjosvold (2008) explained that conflicts are essential in a way no other negative impact is. With the right kind of approach to an internal conflict within a team, conflicts can eventually be very constructive enhancing organizational effectiveness which is very pivotal for teamwork in any
In a general sense, teamwork is a term used to express a number of people working together with a similar goal orientation or purpose. Business directories tend to insist on the similar goal achievement target …show more content…
5) defined the term teamwork “as a cooperative process that allows ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results”. And in all honest means, Group 4 was no exception to the idea Scamati put forward. The first few exchange of ideas, meetings and all sort of interactions were indeed a misfit but on the long run things changed with some effects and consequences.
Group 4 was a team of six individuals with members hailing from several corners of the world such as Indonesia, South Korea, Myanmar, China and Bangladesh (including the author). The Group had a common goal of solving a given case problem titled as ‘Should this team be saved?’ The irony of working on a teamwork case with a group with unfamiliar members was instantly visible but the worst was soon behind as the team became goal oriented over …show more content…
It takes a fair few hurdles of conflicts of overcoming and collaboration in it’s purest sense to make a group into a team. Our work, as a team, was to solve the given case of ‘Should this team be saved?’ and also make a audio visual in relevance to the subject matter of the case. The group had to overcome the existing diversity, norms and cohesiveness among the group. The initial stage was a methodological approach to solving the case which involved i. brainstorming the case ii. forming an idea iii. another brainstorming session followed by essential rectifications and iv. role-play. To add a few more cents to the complexity, I am still not certainly aware of what caused the difference in opinions among us (probably the cultural and background orientations) but we all had a different idea of how the work should be divided. This was the first and arguably the biggest conflict (since we just got into the same forum with no known faces) that happened within the periphery of the group. The follow ups of conflicts however can be both positive and negatively impactful depending on the approach undertaken by a team at the point of conflict. Tjosvold (2008) explained that conflicts are essential in a way no other negative impact is. With the right kind of approach to an internal conflict within a team, conflicts can eventually be very constructive enhancing organizational effectiveness which is very pivotal for teamwork in any