Table of Contents
Reflect on your group work using teamwork and motivational theories.
Describe me using the CVF’s Action Imperatives.
This paper reflects on our group work using teamwork and motivational theories. As teamwork theories, two key theories are focused on: Tuckman’s team building theory, and Belbin’s Team Role theory. As a motivational theory, two particular theories are focused on: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory and Goal Setting theory. Then, in this paper, I have described myself using the CVF’s Action Imperatives.
Reflects on your group work using teamwork and motivational theories
Boxall and Purcell (2013) distinguish groups from teams and discuss the concept of how groups are transformed into teams and the necessity for a thorough understanding of this process for effective team leadership and management. Mullins (2016) defines a team as a group of individuals working together to produce a product or service for which they are all mutually accountable. They have a shared goal and are interdependent in its accomplishment, their interactions producing the collective result. It is argued that groups differ in that they perform their tasks independently of each other and sometimes also competitively (Boxall and Purcell, 2013).
It has been proffered that working in small teams is conducive to effective learning and involves collaboration and cooperation (Schuler, 2019). Conversely, Mullins (2016) adopts a cynical stance by implying that the application of peer learning strategies by educational establishments is simply gathering together a group of individuals and hoping for the best. Co-operative learning is said to reinforce learning amongst group members through discussion and peer review, while collaborative learning is socially constructed knowledge assuming the negotiation of the individual’s different perspectives (Schuler, 2019).
In order to achieve a goal, it is essential that teams work cooperatively (Boxall and Purcell, 2013). Further, Dowling (2016) cites collaboration as the foundation of a healthy team and together with effective communication is key to producing high-quality results. Mullins (2016) suggests that working collaboratively requires a clear objective and a consensus of opinion when decision making;
Our group worked both collaboratively and co-operatively, facilitated and evidenced by: a readiness to assume roles within the team, maintaining communication links, regular meetings and the sharing of information resources and ideas. The perspective offered by Briton and Gold, 2014) is that of social cohesion; peers help each other because they want each other to succeed. This idea is applicable to us as our presentation was assessed as a joint effort. Boxall and Purcell (2013) maintained that strong group cohesiveness fosters greater personal support and cooperation amongst the group, which again was evident in our group.
However, Briton and Gold (2014) acknowledge the constraints of learning in this manner as each team member has limited time/exposure to the other members learning topic. Because our group had different timetables we experienced difficulties meeting up, however, we overcame this by maintaining contact via email. Boxall and Purcell (2013) acknowledge the complications that can arise in teamwork and Boxall and Purcell (2013) stress the need for stability when aspiring to produce optimum performance.
Tuckman, (1965) offered a model comprising four stages, advocating this as the ideal group- decision-making process.
Forming: this stage did not present any problems as we all knew each other. We could easily learn about the task. All team members learned what their roles will be.
Storming: This stage enabled the team to grow. We identified an area for change, which was limited by our mixed professional group, and planned our immediate work schedule. We completed a SWOT analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses we envisaged in implementing the change. No one was immediately willing to take on the mantle of the leader so we unanimously elected the person who had initially proposed the change initiative. We exchanged contact details, agreed on a time plan and arranged our next meeting.
Norming: is said to occur when the team has developed trust and is working toward a common goal (Adair, 2004). At this time it is likely that some members will forgo their own ideas in order to progress the team function. In this stage, all members assume responsibility for the success of the team goal. I was fortunate to belong to a group that worked well together and was well motivated. Due to this degree of cooperation, we passed through to the final phase quickly:
Performing: At this stage, we worked cooperatively on delegated tasks maintaining contact frequently between meetings. We offered each other support and encouragement throughout the process and our team leader encouraged to contact and mutual support.
Most organizations are concerned with effective team working and it is accepted that factors affecting team performance are multi-faceted (Mullins, 2016). Empirical studies suggest the validity of Belbin’s Self -Perception Inventory (SPI) (Gunnigle and Morley, 2016). Belbin (1981) developed the SPI to identify the behavioral characteristics of individuals within a team, thus enabling the creation of effectively functioning teams through a creative and appropriate mix (Gunnigle and Morley, 2016). An Observers’ Assessment (OA) which was later introduced has further increased validity. Although the tool has received criticism, Belbin’s defense was that the tool was not intended as a psychometric instrument (Mullins, 2016)…………………………………….