Table of Contents
Evolution of the Group/Team over the Term 3
Group/ Team Dynamics 5
Intergroup/Intra-group Structures 8
The Korn-Ferry Assessment Results 9
and your Takeaways from the Project Experience 11
In essence, the past months has proved to beessential in terms of understanding the essentiality of teamwork.Coursework requires students take part in-group discussions,assignments, and team contributions. As such, students need to have acomprehensive understanding of the overall concept of the courseconcepts and theories studied in the class (Carter& Kravits, 2012). Therefore,the individual reflection on group consulting is vital in explainingthe progress of the group’s teamwork skills and traits. Currently,teamwork plays a significant role in the school, the workplace, andin personal relationships of individuals given that it enhanceseffective communication, production, and feedback. In fact, mostorganizations place emphasis on following proper teamwork functions,which in turn reflect on the increase on output, quality ofperformance, and cooperation. Hence, an analysis of the groupconsulting experience is essential in understanding the role ofteamwork in completing the group work over the term of course(Engleberg& Wynn, 2013).
The Korn-Ferry assessment provides guidance onthe discussion of concepts and theories with respect to the teamworkexperience and leadership assessment. Like most groups in the class,the group members have different opinions and views owing to theirdiverse backgrounds and approach to different topics in and outsidethe course. However, the dynamic of the group which encourages havingdifferent viewpoints and opinions has been essential to thesuccessful completion of the coursework. With that said, the groupexperience can attest to the information in the Korn-Gerryexperiments which focuses on leadership, experience, achievement ofboth individual, and group performance (Carter& Kravits, 2012).
Evolutionof the Group/Team over the Term
Communication is a significant aspect duringteamwork. In the early stages, the group did not have a laid outcommunication method. As such, it was difficult to move from oneplan/strategy to another when one proved to be ineffective. Forexample, one of the issues that was challenging during the group workwas scheduling. Despite the fact that most of the communication wasdone virtually (online networks and email), members still had aproblem keeping time and meeting deadlines. We all communicatedthrough emails, group texts, and calls in the event that a groupmember required a quick response. However, one of the ideas proposedat the time was to introduce time allowances and delegate extra workto persons who were not present at the time. Following the formationof the group, all members agreed that virtual communication would bean effective, reliable, and convenient form of communication.
Apart from virtual communication, the groupalso gave priority to face-to-face meetings. The group meeting timewas on Tuesday at 5pm. All group members showed up on time henceremoving any possible conflicts. During the fifth week, the groupbegun to realize the essentiality of face-to-face communication giventhat it has more advantages compared to virtual communication. Forexample, team members were able to get direct feedback and we weremore accountable while making decisions during the Tuesday meetings(Phillips& Gully, 2013). Seeing, as wecould not all-meet everyday due to issues like different classes,assignments, and personal commitments, the group gave face-to-facemeetings much importance. As such, the group faced little challengeswith regard to communication and getting points and decisions across.With that said, one of the issues that arose prior to group meetingswas the lack of quick response to emails, and group charts.Understandably, when people were less responsive, they had a goodresponse for their absence (Maxwell,2008).
As mentioned earlier, the group did notexperience significant problems and challenges during thecommunication process. In the case whereby a member had an issue withthe communication, they openly discussed the need to cooperate forthe sake of the group success. One of the reasons for the success ofthis approach is that people were open minded, supportive, andtrusting of each other. Therefore, communication was not onlyeffective but also productive (Engleberg& Wynn, 2013).
During the final weeks, all members were awareof their duties and responsibilities. Hence, people did not need muchsupervision when completing the remaining work. Lastly, all memberswould meet to discuss and compile the work in order to ensure thatall the work was coherent.
All members of the group proved to beexceptional in that:
everyone performed their responsibility to the best of their ability
each member was accountable for their role in the group
each member activity contributed to the overall outcome of the group work
all members had equal responsibilities with respect to their skill and experience
Lastly, each member followed all the established rules without compromising on their beliefs and perceptions.
The group did not have any conflict because allmembers respected the views, opinions, and roles of their peers. Forexample, when Josh gave the initial instructions needed to initiatethe process, all members took their role seriously without showingany form of hesitation. However, it is safe to say that allocatingresponsibilities to four class members placed pressure on eachmember. This is because one person’s actions could affect theoutcome and overall success of their grades. Hence, occasionally thegroup experienced friction when a person’s idea was overruled. Insuch incidences, the group turned negative situations into positiveones because members would come back with better ideas and overturnunproductive occurrences and situations into productive ones(Phillips& Gully, 2013).
Ideally, each member of the group had theirstrengths and weaknesses. For example, while some were easy going,others were perfectionists. In addition, the group faced some issues,which can be associated to micromanaging. A look at the Korn-Ferryassessment establishes the negative aspects of micromanaging when ingroups (Carter& Kravits, 2012). Occasionally,a group member would counter check the work of their peers especiallywhen they were accountable for the outcome of the project inquestion. In this case, all members would regroup and find out theunderlying issues. This was essential in providing solutions for pastand present issues, which were potential triggers for conflict. Apartfrom Josh, all members took an active role in reducing the tensionwhen determining meeting times, allocating duties, and reviewing someof the work. As such, the group did not experience any real form ofconflict and disagreement. However, in cases whereby people felt leftout, one of the collective strengths that the group had is thatpeople expressed themselves openly hence improving workingenvironment and productivity of the group as a whole (Maxwell,2008).
Lastly,though the group has a leader, authority would shift from one personto another. For example, the person in charge of compiling the workwould take the initiative to delegate more work. As such, the dynamicof leadership was decentralized to accommodate the role of eachmember.
The groupcreated its own structure to reflect on adaptation of concepts fromthe textbook. The structure of the group was vital in establishingthe flow of information, decision-making, goal settings, and thesuccess of the outcomes. The structure that emerged from the group isthat of decentralized structure. In this case, the group identifiedJosh as the leader given that the four group members had priorknowledge of his leadership skills and ability to delegate differentresponsibilities. As such, the group opted to take a decentralizedform of leadership whereby the leader is in charge of overseeing theresponsibilities and duties of the members. However, each person isaccountable for his or her actions and Josh is accountable for theentire group. In turn, people have authority to make executivedecisions concerning important matters of their own (KornFerry, 2016).
The main reason for this dynamic is that allmembers trusted each other to complete their roles withoutmicromanaging. In terms of comparing the group process to the processdescribed in the textbook, the structure in the textbook differs. Inessence, the textbook provides various structures, which are viablemethods used during group work, projects or teamwork. Most textbookshave theories such as matrix structure, decentralized, andcentralized structures. Decentralized structures ensure that eachindividual provides their input on particular issues irrespective ofthe presence of a leader. Most texts still advocate for centralizedand matrix structure whereby power is central to the leader of thegroup. Matrix structures are more complex given that power flows fromthe mangers to the functional or line manager. While our group didnot use this approach, a number of groups in class preferred suchstructures given that t worked best for their dynamic (Engleberg& Wynn, 2013).
While these structures have proved to beeffective, the group selected the decentralized structure, whichensures effective flow of information from different members of thegroup. The structure gives members freedom to perform their dutieswithout much supervision. However, for the process to be effective,the group adopted the use of SMART goals, which improved the focus ofnot only the group leader but also influenced the rest of the groupsto plan their goals and objectives. The group collectively agreedthat the goals should be (Specific, Measurable, Attainable,Realistic, and, Time bound). As such, we all completed each decisionand strategy using this model, which is often used in on increasingthe focus of a group. Given that, each member had a specificresponsibility, creating a decentralized structure complemented thegroup (KornFerry, 2016).
As mentioned earlier, the group had fourmembers namely: Josh, Daniela Mollie and Viviek. Josh was the leaderof the group owing to his ability to communicate in differentsituations, relate to different personalities, and his understandingof different social settings. The group approached the courseworkcollaboratively given that the leader recognized the strengths andthe weaknesses of each individual. As such, each member took onresponsibilities that complimented their skill, experience, talent,and area of expertise. There are different dynamics that occurredbetween the members and within the group. For example, though thegroup had a leader, each person was responsible and accountable foreach of the outcomes of their work and their actions as a whole. Ifanything, Josh relied on the input of all members of the group. Thisformed a progressive work environment, which in turn resulted in thecollaboration and contribution of all group members (Engleberg& Wynn, 2013).
The dynamic within the group differed fromthat of other groups. For instance, following the formation of thegroup, all the group members understood the essentiality ofcommunication during group tasks. For instance, all members managedto pull together as a team and correct some of the obvious issuespresented during the initial stages of the meetings (Carter& Kravits, 2012).
Notably, most of the experiences of our groupdynamic are relative to the experiences of other groups. However, thegroup meetings exposed each member to personal experiences, whichoffer a more comprehensive understanding compared to theoreticdescription (Maxwell,2008). Whiletextbooks provide elaborate elements and procedures on how to managegroups, our group experience encouraged us to be involved in allgroup projects to get a personal understanding of the importance ofvarious group dynamics and how they affect the outcome of thecoursework in question. For example, the members of our groupdetermined its dynamic. On the other hand, members of other groupsused their personalities, qualities, and skills to create their owndynamic. Hence, one group in class differed from the other owing tothe unique arrangement brought by each group member. Our groupcollaborated well with other groups by consulting where we did notunderstand. In contrast, as a group, we used our knowledge to assistfellow classmates where they faced challenges (Carter& Kravits, 2012).
TheKorn-Ferry Assessment Results
The KornFerry group results played a significant role in the group project.Following the analysis of the Korn Ferry assessment, we learnt how toidentify the leadership potential of an individual and anorganization. The assessment ensured that the group members learnedhow to identify good and effective leadership skills in both thegroup leader and the rest of the group. For example, one of the keyelements in the assessment was the review of the drivers of goodleadership. According to the assessment, successful leaders are oftenmotivated to lead others as opposed to focusing on one particularresponsibility or project. Hence, leaders concentrate on growingtheir careers by identifying the specific career aspirations,detailed goals and objectives, and properly defined preferences (KornFerry, 2016).
The assessment brought insights into theprocess, which as a group we did not understand. For example, theKorn-Ferry assessment clearly explains that leadership and teamworkgo hand in hand. For a team to be successful, the leadership has tobe effective. Furthermore, the review states that good leaders aredriven by their love for their jobs, roles, and responsibilities. Inturn, the group ensured that the selected leader had a clearunderstanding of their duties towards the group. The assessment notonly focused on leaders but also looked at the overall picture of thewhole group. As such, the group learnt that each member has toacquire the qualities and skills of a leader because each person isresponsible for an important part of the group outcome (KornFerry, 2016).
The Korn-Ferry results show that thecooperation of all group members during the selection of a leadershould get priority in order to set a platform for a group. Allgroups should focus on effective communication, good leadership,accountability, experience, awareness, capacity to perform, andability to understand (KornFerry, 2016). All members of the groups took the time to identify thestrengths and weaknesses of their peers. That way people stated theirlikes, dislikes, and possible solutions in the event a chosenstrategy does not work. An important aspect of this process wasdetermining the flow of information during communication, thepreferred form of communication, and the leader responsible foroverseeing the project. After reviewing all the opinions and views ofeach person, the group collectively decided that Josh is best suitedfor the position as group leader. Apart from this, all members werekey elements in the progress of the group and hence hadresponsibilities, which placed them in a position of leadership(Phillips& Gully, 2013).
The analysis of the Korn-Ferry theories andconcepts explains this experience better given that the resultshighlight that the group had core experience or gained perspectivesthrough experience during the course of the group meetings. Usingsome of the insights derived from the text and other groups, ourgroup had to learn how to identify risks, schedule meetingseffectively, and maximize on the limited time allocated for some ofthe assignments. Hence, the four group members worked hand in hand toensure that each task had priority during the course of the term(KornFerry, 2016).
and your Takeaways from the Project Experience
To conclude, teamwork experience was essentialwhen dealing with coursework in school. The class assists students tolearn skills, which they can use in their place of work, new classes,completing their projects, and when running their businesses. As ateam, we all learnt how to work in groups, brainstorm, use criticalthinking, and make objective decisions without any conflict.
In the modern age, most companies andorganizations place emphasis on creating structures, which supporteffective teamwork and collaboration. Currently, it is inevitable tocommunicate and complete work without using teams. Hence, the teamexperience proved to be significant in educating each member how tointroduce strategies for success and flowing through with theirchoices effectively.
In addition, the team experience wasinformative, educational, and productive owing to the contribution ofeach team member. The experience would not have been the same withoutthe insights from the Korn-Ferry assessment, which has been ideal inproviding guidance of how to evaluate ones leadership potential. Theteamwork experience had its challenges owing to the allocation oftime, schedules, and coursework, which required extensive research.In areas where the team member was not able to complete their job ontime, another member chipped in order to ensure successfultransitions. The experience was informative, educational, andforthcoming because we learnt how to identify risk factors and solveproblems.
All the team members completed their courseworkon time despite some of the mentioned challenges. The main reason forthe success of the group is effective communication, objectivereasoning, and review of class and text notes. Therefore, teamworkand accountability played a vital role in keeping the group togetherseeing as all members were collaborative and followed all the rules.This new insight will be valuable in the next classes and in ourfuture areas of employment.
Carter, C., &Kravits, S. L. (2012). Teamworkand leadership.Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall
Engleberg, I.N., & Wynn, D. (2013). Workingin groups: Communication principles and strategies.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Korn Ferry. (2016). Assessment ofIndividual Leadership Potential. Tonnete Samuels. Pdf.
Maxwell, J.C. (2008). Teamwork101: What every leader needs to know.Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson.
Phillips, J.M., & Gully, S. M. (2013). Humanresource management.Mason, Ohio: South-Western Centage Learning.