Organisational Behaviour (1)

Question 1.

Team Turbo and Team Chargo

A group of employees were tasked with a project that they must complete within two months. They need to develop a new product to be marketed. The employees were grouped into two teams, Team Turbo and Team Chargo. Each team has four to five members.

Team Turbo was highly successful in developing a quality product, as well as being highly collaborative. Their journal entries continually reflected positive comments about each team members. Team meetings were always friendly, and at no stage were team issues discussed as being problematic. The team always focused on the project and how the process of development could be improved by exploring expectations of the tutor, client and end users.

An analysis of the team showed that the whole team was strongly motivated to out-perform other teams and shared a strong common goal of wanting to develop a product that would support their chances of gaining bonus and continued to be employed by the company. The team members felt that they had a responsibility towards the other members of the team and that the success of the project was based upon each team member's contribution. Team members were always happy to help peers when they were experiencing difficulties. The team would proactively brainstorm problems individuals team members were having and offer assistance if needed. the team recognised that team members had different personalities and experienced problems at different stages. They showed consideration for each other, respected and supported others in difficult times. had a cooperative-working relationships based upon the focus of developing a quality final product that would impress their client. The team was proactive in selecting their team members well in advance. They had carefully considered the skills needed for each team member, and also the type of personality for each team member. These were carefully discussed and considered by two team members four months before the unit commenced. The team recognised that it was a "healthy thing" to discuss problems or difficult issues and try to offer constructive help/criticism in trying to resolve these. They strongly valued open dialogue that enabled team members to express their concerns in a non-defensive manner. They were open and truthful about all aspects of the project. The team recognised that team members had different personalities and experienced problems at different stages. They showed consideration for each other, respected and supported others in difficult times. the team recognised that it was a "healthy thing" to discuss problems or difficult issues and try to offer constructive help/criticism in trying to resolve these. They strongly valued open dialogue that enabled team members to express their concerns in a non-defensive manner. They were open and truthful about all aspects of the project. The team was proactive in selecting their team members well in advance. They had carefully considered the skills needed for each team member, and also the type of personality for each team member. These were carefully discussed and considered by two team members four months before the unit commenced. - team members were all aware of the importance of everyone's role within the team and the process used by the team to plan and track the timing and quality of required tasks. The project manager was well respected by the team, and always consulted the team before making any major decisions. Also, the team had a number of quality assurance procedures which helped monitor activities as well as individual team members' accountabilities.

Another team, Team Chargo, experienced severe team problems, which caused it to become dysfunctional and had to be split. It was perceived that some team members weren't contributing. This was clearly evident from the comments being made through the confidential on-line journal entries each week. At one of the team meetings a serious disagreement occurred, in which one of the team members verbally berated another, from which point there was no reconciliation. After this altercation, team members felt they could no longer work together, so even though they would experience a heavier workload, they unanimously agreed to split and form two separate teams. One team member was highly motivated to achieve a high quality product, though two others were content with merely just producing a product i.e. they were happy to put in minimal effort. This mismatch of expectations caused many problems and frustration for team members. Another two team members were highly competitive in this team that negated the development of a synergistic team environment. They were highly focused on their own tasks, and were not interested in helping others who may have been having problems. If others weren't performing, then the attitude was that peer assessment should be applied, rather than trying to support and help the individual. This caused a lack of team cohesion and cooperation. The team showed little consideration for each other and gave almost no support for others in difficult times. Team members seemed unaware and very surprised that they had upset other team members by their comments. They seemed to have not detected they were hurting others feelings by their comments and the approaches taken to solve team problems. This team was formed haphazardly. Three of the original team members had a quick discussion in the class and decided to make a team, and another team member arrived a week later, so the team agreed to accept them in their team, as they needed to make a team of four. Expectations and skill were not carefully considered. The project manager happened to be the youngest in the team, and did not command the respect needed. Team members often complained about team meetings being a waste of time, and also of team members being late or contributing effectively. One team member felt that he was not included in decision-making and did not receive all communication regarding the progress and development of the project from the project manager. The overall management of this team was perceived to be ineffective by the most team members.

Question Using the SIX (6) criteria as you have identified above, analyse what makes Team Turbo highly successful in developing a quality product?