The team name was Cause & Effect. We agreed, before the end of our 1st meeting, that the symbol would be a fishbone. Our selected leader was Susan. However, Justin, Melinda, and John have a stronger personality and seem to be guiding the group. Melinda seems to be the unspoken leader & Susan is reserved but at the ready. Craig and Steve have unique ideas but try to discount them. We have a diverse team with lots of horsepower. We started out forming relationships and getting to know each other. The forming stage of a team is characterized by gathering information about the members (PSU WC 2015). It was hard to get going on in class projects because we all just jumped into the task, without defining the purpose or goal. We skipped some important steps of information gathering. Early on, we focused on task processes more than transactional processes. We were in a groupthink mode, focused on being first. The second stage, storming, spanned a two week period whereby we finally decided on a common goal & approach. We found that the transactional process was just as important as getting the job done. This phase enabled us to hear each other’s ideas and understand values (PSU WC 2015). Norming is the 3rd phase and where Susan directed the Team activities (PSU WC 2015). Everyone contributed and there has not been any apprehension when seeking volunteers for tasks. There is mutual respect exhibited in the group. This is an example of the 4th stage, performing (PSU WC 2015).
The communication in our project team is very good; describing it as a facilitative/equal style. There is a sense of mutual respect and cooperation. Each member of our team is comfortable with speaking. We can accept each other’s ideas without being confrontational. We have learned from each other’s experience. As someone talks about personal experiences, we all listen and acknowledge that individual. We had good communication because we have achieved a group norm and a climate of mutual respect for each other. When one member speaks, another would reaffirm the idea by providing another example or asking a question. There has not been any attempt to discount a person’s thoughts or stereotype their character. The key to success is the collaborative commitment we share (Northouse 2015 ch.14 p.370). The maturity level of our group has prevented negative interaction and ethical dilemmas. By having a unified commitment to the project and each other we developed a “whatever it takes” approach. We also share a bond of friendship and cooperation. Everyone stepped up to complete the task and made the class a success (Northouse 2015 ch.14 p.370).
Below is a very accurate perception of the Team’s functionality. It demonstrates shared leadership and shows how leadership functions can be distributed to maximize efficiency (Northouse 2015 ch14 p. 365).
Individual Assessment
Susan – Susan was our designated leader. She guided the process and let the person with expertise take charge for the different tasks. She was the coordinator and kept the members apprised of the status of tasks. She coordinated our group meetings outside of class.
Melinda – Melinda was always on task. She kept the group focused and was always willing to volunteer. She was also the recorder for our team. She wanted to be a controller. Her drive was to win.
Steve – Steve communicated and was principle based. His contributions were drawn from past experiences. He aided in group cohesiveness. When the team was at a stale mate, he could ask questions and rephrase statements to push the team forward.
Craig – Craig was reserved. He had to be drawn into a conversation. He had good ideas but was reluctant to contribute. He seemed intimidated by some members of the team. I think he avoided interpersonal conflict and was uncomfortable or felt pressure to conform. He had good ideas and needed to feel a sense of worth.
Justin – Justin was a collaborator. He listened to all points and collectively incorporated the communication and related it back to the group. He kept the atmosphere light and aided in the teams cohesiveness. He took us off task quite often by having conversations with members about a different topic while we were brainstorming.
John – John was a compromiser. He tried to negotiate positions for mutual understanding. As a leader, he let the conversations develop and guided them through suggestion to stay focused. He had somewhat of a referent power.
Works cited:
Northouse, Peter G. (2015) Leadership, Theory and Practice, Chapter 14. 7th ed. Los Angeles.Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). Leadership in Work Settings. PSYCH485. Lesson 09: retrieved Oct 19, 2015 from:https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa15/psych485/001/content/09_lesson/01_page.html