Project Staff Team

As a member of the newly-formed project staff team, I would like to run my ideas past my mentor. The team will need to realize process gains within the first three months. I will discuss discussion change and how it can alter or enhance my conception of effective work groups. Identify the elements of group effectiveness that I may be able to influence. How to increase the probability of process gains within the project staff team.

Method

I bring the challenge at my managerial networking meeting. I pose the following questions for discussion. What kind of work group is the project staff tea - task force, command group, or friendship group? What characteristics of the team are likely to contribute to the goal of process gains within the next three months? What are some of the sources of potential process losses? After benefited from the group's discussion, I also read two articles about the subject. "Some Characteristics of Effective Work Groups" and "Likert's Characteristics of An Effective Work Group".

PROJECT STAFF TEAM GROUP PROJECT

After speaking at my managerial networking meeting about such topics as the kinds of work groups, characteristics of the team that are likely to contribute to the goal of process gains, and sources of potential process losses, the group was pretty much in agreement with what kind of work group we are. Informal work groups are groups more of hobbies or friendship groups. The project staff team is not this. Formal workgroup are command groups, task forces, teams and self managed work teams. (George & Jones, table 10.1 pg 312). Command groups are defined as a collection of subordinates who report to the same supervisor. A Task force is a collection of people who come together to accomplish a specific goal. After the goal is completed, the group is disbanded. (George & Jones, pg 312) Since our project is a project to only realize process gains within the first three months. I believe our group would be defined as a Task Force and members of the networking meeting agreed.

When it came to the Characteristics of the group it was Ms. Roberts that changed my own perception of this by saying "In my opinion, the type of characteristics that would most likely contribute to success of our work group is trust and identification with the group. These characteristics would "enhance intra group trust and cooperation and, hence, performance." The expectation of trustworthy behavior binds groups together. (Peterson and Tetlock, 2002) With these characteristics in place, as with any relationship, a foundation of success within the group will be created." It was not I that was able to influence the group effectiveness but Ms. Roberts who changed my own opinion.

Furthermore, I believe there was one member of the group that had no idea about what we were talking about, and I feel we could influence his opinions due to his lack of knowledge on the subject matter. According to Likert's Characteristics of an Effective work group, "The members and leaders have a high degree of confidence and trust in each other." (Likert's, 2005) I believe Ms. Roberts and I achieved this.

I believe most significant potential process loss is Social Loafing (George & Jones, pg 346). Although lacks of coordination and motivation problems play a role, when it comes to groups, you just can't help to chat about other things besides the task at hand. With Social loafing, a type of process loss is the sucker effect. (George & Jones, pg 347). This is the effect with other group members see them socializing, and then put less effort into the group. Now that we identified the potential profit losses, we can focus on the process gains. "Process gains can be achieved by encouraging group members to be more creative and willing to take risks." (George & Jones, pg 346) We can increase the probability of process gains by finding new ways to motivate group members. For instance, to encourage Mr. Radtke to contribute more to the group I emphasized that you, my mentor would be reviewing his discussion on the group discussion boards.

Conclusion

Although the group didn't agree on the approach or the inputs each member may have had, group cohesiveness was achieved to the success of this assignment.

Reference List

George, J.M. & Jones, G.R. (2005). Understanding & Managing Organization Behavior - A Custom Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Peterson, R.S. and Tetlock, P.E.(2002)
Groups at Work: Theory and Research. -
Other Reviews - book review
Administrative Science Quarterly retrieved 8/25/2005 from
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4035/is_1_47/ai_87918567

Rensis Likert (1961). New Patterns of Management, pp. 166-169. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on August 29, 2005 from http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rsleeth/Likert01.html

"Some Characteristics of Effective Work Groups" [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on August 29, 2005 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~rcunning/teams.htm