Peter Lever (4530616)

Working in A team

Human beings spend most of their lives working as a collection of individuals with regular contacts known as groups. These groups can be used to help make decisions and to succeed in goals by listening to other people’s opinions. In most circumstances quality of life is dependent on the group within which we work or socialise (West, 2004). This essay will look at different factors within group participation, and will analyse the behaviour that occurred during the management exercise.

Social scientists such as Dr Meredith Belbin and Dr Peter Honey study how individuals act in a group while working as a team. This assessment includes feedback from observers as well as the individual’s own evaluation, so can be used to compare and contrast these views. Belbin created a model with nine different team roles, which can be used to measure the personalities of each individual.

According to Belbin (Belbin 2004) these nine roles are defined as:

The Plant

These group members are very creative, open minded and free thinkers. They tend not to get to involved, or tied down, with detail.

The Resource Investigator

These tend to be enthusiastic people who are in touch with the outside world. They are very good at networking and can make ‘possibilities’ happen.

The Coordinator

Individuals that are able to contribute to the discussion in a fair manner are coordinators. Some members may want to make a quick decision, but the coordinator makes sure that all the team members are considered before the decision is final.

The Shaper

Someone who is focused on the task in hand, and losing is not an option to them is a shaper. They will try to shape the team and will argue, challenge and disagree with anyone as long as they can acquire their goals.

The Monitor Evaluator

Monitor evaluators are generally very fair and logical and will analyse what is going on in the team. They tend to come up with the right decision, but this may take time

as they tend to be very cautious and like to cover every possibility. At times they can be very critical logically, and can reduce the enthusiasm amongst team.

The Team worker

These are sensitive people who ensure the relationships within a team are maintained. They like all team members to be included in group activities and discussions. If a team member is looking or feeling slightly excluded, the team worker will usually approach them with concerns. Their role plays a large part in the communication, and the interpersonal relationships, amongst the team. They can frustrate those who are keen to get on with the task quickly.

The Implementer

These people are very practical thinkers who are able to create systems and produce what the team wants. Their strengths are working out how a problem can be practically addressed. They tend to have their feet on the ground in the real world, which may reflect on their lack of enthusiasm and radical thinking. But having the ability to turn those radical ideas into something workable is an important part of their strength.

The Completer Finisher

Members within teams that have a great eye for spotting flaws and gaps in ideas are known as completer finishers. They are very good in knowing where the team are in relation to its schedule. They have an analytical approach to work with fine detail, ensuring the work is finished to the highest standards.

The Specialist

Such people bring specialist knowledge to the team. These people enjoy imparting knowledge and have high levels of focus and concentration. However they tend to show little interest outside their specialty.

According to Belbin, winning teams have people with personal qualities associated with each team role. Furthermore a diversity of skills, personalities and characteristics making up the rest of the team, is useful, such that there will be someone suitable for every job which comes up. (Larson and Lafasto, 1989).

In addition to Belbins team role theory, there’s another model that is helpful to look at when considering team behaviour. In the 1970s David Kolb and Roger Fry developed the Experiential Learning Model (ELM).

Fig 1.0. David Kolbs Experiencial Learning Model (ELM) (www.googleimages.com).

The ELM cycle seen in figure 1.0 contains four main functions showing how individuals behave in their learning styles. Concrete experience is the initial experience which is followed by reflection on that experience personally. This can be followed by the forming of rules and theories known as abstract conceptualisation, which can in turn lead to the any modifications, that is active experimentation, which in turn leads onto further concrete experience (Kolb,1984).

Honey and Mumford built upon this cycle defining the four types of learners as activists, reflectors, theorists and pragmatists. Activists like to do things, reflectors like to think about things, theorists like to come up with rules and theories, and pragmatists like to have a go and see what results are gained (Davis, 2008).

For our group activity we were given 10 sheets of A4 paper and asked to find a way to use them to raise Dr Martin Loftus 1cm from the ground. In our team of six we started by mind mapping. Every person apart from group member F came up with some good ideas. Group members A, B ,C, D and E started to discuss positives and negatives about the ideas suggested. Group member F rarely said anything, but occasionally group member B would try to bring them into the conversation, showing that team member B had the quality of a team worker. Group member A finally came up with the main idea of what we were going to present. This was an idea which was completely different to the other teams. The idea proposed was unique and went against the normal reaction of trying to build something out of the paper that would be strong enough to support someone.

According to Belbin’s definitions, group member B acted as a team worker encouraging all members to participate. Group member A demonstrated behaviour of a plant coming up with the final idea. Team members C and D worked together to coordinate the action plan, therefore can be labelled as coordinators. And team member E was very specific with the final details of the task, and therefore behaved as a completer finisher. Finally member F displayed little group behaviour, remaining silent much of the time, and individualistic in opinion.

Looking at Kolbs experiencial learning cycle, team members A and E could be called activists, displaying practical qualities preferring to do something. Members B and F were reflectors, calculating and considering the ideas. The members who displayed active qualities also displayed pragmatic behaviour. Finally team members C and D could be assigned as theorists, as they coordinated the ideas well.

Additionally the S.M.A.R.T acronym is a useful tool when assessing goals. There are a few variations of the meaning of the letters, but the general meaning is the same.

S Specific

M Measurable

A Attainable

R Relevant

T Time bound

When undergoing group activity, it is advisable to consider if the goal is a smart goal or not. Our goal was a SMART goal.

Our goal was a SMART goal. The goal was defined and clear to each team member. This goal was obtainable, and agreed by the team. The idea was realistic using the sources available, and could be achieved in the time set by Dr Martin Loftus.

References:

Belbin. M.R (2004). Management Teams. Why they succeed or fail. pp,88-106.

Davis,L, (2008). Informal Learning pp, 15 24Gower Publishng Limited, Gower House, Croft,Road, Aldershot, Hampshire GU11 3HR, England

Kolb, D.A, (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development pp, 25-33. Publish by Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA

Larson.E.C and LaFasto. M.F, (1989). Teamwork, What must go right / what must go wrong, pp, 92. Sage Publications Inc, 2455 teller Road, Newbury Park, California 91320

West.M.A, (2004). Effective Teamwork 2nd Edition, pp, 6-7. Blackwell Publishing, 305 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA

www.google.images.com