Their Behaviour And Role Within The Team example essay topic

Introduction Before presenting this analysis, I would like to start with a brief overview of the Group's members. The table shows the key Myers-Briggs personality traits as observed, not repeated from the literature. As commented later, mapping these characteristics against the roles we determined should exist in the team shows that there is a natural fit for each person, albeit more by accident than design. Name (Nationality) Background Myers-Briggs Type Main Characteristics Mauro Correa (Brazil) Management consulting INTO Quietly spoken, analytical, logical, highly organised Nicholas Gee (author, UK) Investment banking ENT Forceful, analytical, logical, decisive Adam Nowak (US) Banking & IT E NTP Loquacious, "out-of-the-box" thinker, likes discussion Jorsen Maga linga Patten (Mauritius) Marketing IS TJ Quietly spoken, analytical, logical, very reliable Bent Sk aug (Norway) Entrepreneur, CEO EST Highly tolerant, very practical, less overtly analytical, consensual Part I - Analysis of Group Processes This section sets out the facts about the Group's processes and dynamics, and discusses the reasons for which they developed as they have. In presenting the arguments, I have made reference to key events over the short life of the group's existence so far, and have tried to use my observation of each person's characteristics to try to explain their behaviour and role within the team. Before entering into the discussion, I should like to say that I had a considerable amount of apprehension with respect to the INSEAD group, having heard many stories concerning those that had not worked well at all.

Thankfully, my experience has not borne this out. Team introduction's Even before formal instruction began, the team was brought together to provide solutions to several problems that the faculty had set us, including a business case (Arthur Keller) and various physical challenges (Outward Bound). At this stage I knew none of the others; I felt, as others did, somewhat apprehensive. Looking back on this, the beginning of the "forming" stage of team development, it is very clear that the classic behaviours were present - tentative behaviour and extreme levels of politeness, which I saw more as a veneer used to develop a sense of each other, reducing any chance we might have had to solve these problems effectively. From my perspective, it seems that these behaviours were exaggerated by an unfamiliar environment, and being unsure of how to treat and behave towards others of differing cultural and national backgrounds. Being given such tasks to perform at the beginning of the team development process was a challenge, and the outcomes unpredictable.

Being asked to prepare a solution to the Keller case, even though it was not graded, set a sense of competition among groups that has persisted since. In this particular instance, the fact that we were able to decide on a course of action for Keller told more of our desire to preserve harmony than to find the best answer. Fear of below par performance in front of a group of (then unknown) peers heightened the need to cooperate effectively, and has continued to drive us to function more efficiently and decisively than we otherwise might have. I would add that I believe it has also bound our team members more closely together than might otherwise have been the case. Getting beyond the "forming" phase of team development, where almost any five people can get on, was vital to understanding whether we would gel or not. Indeed, we had all got on very well to start with.

Being pushed into operating as a group accelerated the first phase, and brought us rapidly to the second phase of group development, "storming", where individual characteristics and styles would become evident, and conflicts would appear. This phase, out of which I believe we are moving currently, was where individuals became aware of others's styles, and began to learn to adapt to each other, perhaps learning to anticipate reactions. It was also the time that we began to understand each person's natural role in a group setting. During this time, it felt to me that our decision-making process began to solidify. The "storming" phase did yield a number of conflicts, mostly in connection with individual styles. Indeed, we wrote a team handbook only really considered style differences, not thinking that ideological conflicts would be an issue.

As pointed out later, one such event required some rethinking. Specifically, the style issues we discovered that caused friction were between those looking for closure and rapid decisions vs. those whose preference is to debate for longer. Adam, the most different of us (formalised through discovering his Myers-Briggs type), is keen to debate and feels little pressure if no decision is made. I am quite the opposite, liking to make decisions as soon as is feasible, and create action plans around concrete decisions. Jorsen and Bent also prefer to come to closure about decisions on the way, going back if necessary to re-discuss, but always moving on.

Mauro needed to find answers to issues that were unresolved in his mind; we found his progress halted with open questions. To combat these issues, we wrote a team handbook that laid out a number of steps we would follow in our tackling a problem, and in resolving cases of deadlock, as discussed below. Process Manifestation and Efficiency Our team handbook was to be a blueprint for ways in which we would work together, outlining the processes we would adopt and the roles we needed in the team to make it effective. In many ways, because group work was familiar to all in the team, determining the process we ought to follow was not difficult, nor was establishing the roles.

The process, as determined, is shown below: ss Process Steps Agenda Brainstorm Analysis Discussion Decision Final product ss Key Roles Facilitator / chairman, agenda setter, scribe, timekeeper ss Operating Philosophy Consensus driven decision-making, strong values (honesty, respect, trust, commitment, participation) Although the process is effective in theory (I have no better suggestions as to the steps), practice has highlighted a number of inefficiencies. Most often, these inefficiencies have surfaced between the discussion and decision stages; on several occasions, it has been necessary for one of us (often me) to be forceful in moving things along. As one of the main proponents of momentum in the process, I believe that decisions are to be made soon after the options have been discussed, without multiple circumnavigations of the topic. Being practical, I do not like to waste time on additional discussion when I can see that a particular solution will broadly fit the issues; details can be discussed later, and reengineering a plan is a risk worth taking. Exemplifying this contrast in styles is our practice examination for Managerial Behaviour, where excessive time spent on resolving both major and minor issues caused us to lose the opportunity to develop a better thought-through solution. The time pressure meant that we had to frequently call timeouts to make a quick decision on a topic and move on.

In hindsight, using the chairman more effectively would probably have enabled us to perform better under pressure. In summing up this section, I feel I should not be entirely disingenuous about our performance, as accommodating our differing styles is not straightforward. We have made significant improvements, even during the short time we have worked together. We have harmonised better during more recent sessions, particularly in the level of ideas generated in the brainstorming phase, and have been more effective in determining the key issues in a case. We seem to be adept at finding a range of solutions, but still do not always agree on which to choose and when to move into the decision phase (too often, several options are preserved, slowing down the development of a plan). I would like to see the discussion of peripheral topics reduced significantly, but do not believe that anything but time (and practice through being together) will yield a major improvement.

As we move towards the "forming" phase, I believe we will yield the greatest improvements in efficiency through learning each other's motivations better - knowing another's likely reaction is central to being able to influence a discussion and move it along without causing disaffection and reducing participation. Effectiveness Notwithstanding questions over our efficiency, how effective are we at solving tasks? In my view, effectiveness is measured by the ability to get inside a problem, to exhaust its issues, to link cause and effect (between people and / or real or anticipated events) and find practical, workable solutions. Does the group measure up?

Thus far, against these criteria, not too badly, although I am anxious to see how we fare with more complex cases. Why have we succeeded when efficiency has not worked in our favour? For one thing, we have a broad mixture of backgrounds that contribute a wealth of experience. No one person has an excessive ego, so others do not feel inhibited. We are all different personality types, such that there is a certain amount of creative friction that allows us to generate a wide range of ideas; the forum is such that all ideas are considered without prejudice. If I were to highlight one case in which we did operate effectively (under time pressure, to boot), I would mention an exercise in Managerial Behaviour, where we were asked to devise a solution to preserve an egg on its journey out of a window.

The problem was clearly defined, yet the available options to solve it very broad in number. Our processes worked well (probably because of time pressure and its practical nature), such that we succeeded in manufacturing an egg carrier that preserved its cargo. In large part, this was due to: ss Splitting the work into several sub-units (reduced the more ponderous committee decision element) ss Delegating tasks (time pressure forced decisions and actually improved cooperation) What can we improve? As before, little that the luxury of time will not afford us. Certain approaches to problem solving are formulaic and have to be learned.

Some individuals are excellent at solving problems that fall into certain categories, and should be relied on to lead the others through to the point that all can participate with sufficient understanding. Concepts can be explained to the uninitiated. But little beats the value of accumulated experience in being an effective solver of problems, even those where one has no direct knowledge. Communication In my opinion, communication is more than a discussion; rather, it involves presenting one's point of view both articulately and with a sense of the audience, and reacting calculatedly to others as they respond to your ideas. This skill is one that has to be reapplied in each new context, reflecting my earlier comments regarding improvements in efficiency. We have spent sufficient time together to understand the ways in which we each interact and respond to ideas - Adam and I are robust debaters, Mauro and Jorsen more reflective, with Bent showing a mixture of these characteristics.

We have tried to compensate for the differences in styles by soliciting each person in turn, with a chairman to control the flow. We appear to have common values, so that despite any heterogeneity in styles, we communicate easily and openly. Much as in other groups I have worked in, communication during our meetings tends to follow a similar pattern - ideas are presented to the whole group, after which commentary and debate becomes more characterised by individual interaction. At this point, the chairman's role becomes vital to ensure that all participants remain active and fully engaged in the process, at least until the point at which the final product is being prepared. There is little need to draw a socio gram to reflect our interactions - our group has no factions, we are always all engaged together, and alliances last no longer than a particular point of discussion. Individuals address each other in an open fashion, so that any other member can easily join a conversation.

We may believe that we communicate well, yet this we are far from utopia - improvements here will certainly yield several benefits. There are two elements I believe should receive more emphasis, to wit, instilling in each person a stronger sense both of relevance in their commentary and of the importance of active listening. These two factors will cut down irrelevant discussion, and give us greater focus to ensure that we waste the least time, and are most productive. Not making a particular comment is more difficult than airing it; equally, we often hear what we think someone is saying, not the message that was intended. The last point was dramatically made in one of the Managerial Behaviour exercises that, although a little tedious, forced us to actively track the message being delivered. Influence and leadership in the group My experience suggests that there are two types of influence and leadership at play in any group.

The first is who sets the tone, the second who steers the ship once it has embarked on a course. I am firmly of the belief that all groups need leaders, however qualified its members to operate autonomously. Without some guiding hand, it is very easy to fall into the trap of meandering through a problem, in an uncoordinated fashion. Harnessing the skills that reside in the individual members is vital to maximising the product of the team. In the first case, I view as the leader's role as setting out the skeleton of a plan for others to buy into, using the elements of communication referred to above to influence the course of events. Any individual can choose this role, either by exhibiting particular knowledge (in my case, finance), or by being sufficiently confident to propose a particular course of action.

In either case, I enjoy this role (but do not reserve it for myself), and take it on as much because I am averse to indecision and ambiguity as because I like to lead others. My experience suggests that others will only listen to ideas if they are practical, logical and are presented clearly; I always use these rules to determine a course of action, and have been consistently rewarded with being listened to and often followed. Regardless of the leader, our philosophy of planning with consensus as an objective has kept leadership at a practical level, as we believe that others cannot be dragged into a course of action unwillingly. The adage "too many Chiefs and no Indians" springs to mind when addressing the development of a plan.

Everyone wants to contribute, certainly everyone has excellent points to make, and we do not differentiate between one good idea and other. It is very important at this stage that the chairman / facilitator be effective in his role of managing the process, as all team members have equal weight in this phase of planning - anyone who has thought through his idea and can present clearly it will be heard, and find his suggestion adopted, if relevant. There is no one person who has not influenced the working of the group; I would find it very difficult to say that some are more influential than others in looking at the way we work and cooperate together. All of these factors have been present throughout the cases we have worked on, although leadership and influence seem to play a bigger role when there is no clear expert on a topic, levelling the playing field for all concerned. Managing leadership Leadership is a question of who is willing to lead.

Those who have sufficient confidence in their ideas to present them for dissection are those who are best qualified to lead discussion and action, not those who are motivated by needing to hear their voices heard. Our management of leadership is very open - no one has claimed the title "leader"; it is available each time we meet with a new topic, and passes frequently from person to person. In the group, we view leadership not so much in a hierarchical sense, but more in a way that facilitates and steers the team towards its collective goal in a more efficient and effective way. Good leaders do not need to cajole to generate results; instead, they use individual behaviours to bring out the best collective result. It is also true that we look for leadership in terms of experience in dealing with a subject matter to guide collective thinking. From the very beginning (Outward Bound, for example), those who are more practical provided the benefit of their knowledge in a very real way.

I believe that it would have been very difficult to succeed at some of the exercises that we undertook without relying on prior knowledge. This explicit demonstration of knowledge sets a higher level of confidence in the team, such that others are inspired to higher levels. Whether the leadership comes from a person's natural confidence or as a result of experience is almost irrelevant to the process - people respond to being guided, and achieve more because of it. How good are we as a group? What does this all say for the way in which we operate as a group in tackling problems? My previous commentary might suggest that I think that the process is flawed, or that I believe others should always adopt a more rapid approach to problem solving.

It is true that identifying a problem, its causes and possible actions to take will always require brainstorming to solve most effectively; technical issues always arise; and there will be debate over which solution to adopt, so the process is not at fault. The process we have adopted is one whereby we have elected to reach decisions by consensus only. Although this is honourable in principle, it does not always allow for rapid action, and provides a means for group members to create an impasse. One very real example of this was in a microeconomics class, where we took the role of OPEC members to determine oil production quotas.

Our group was unable to decide whether to collude with the other teams because of an objection in principle that Adam had over cartels; he effectively hijacked the team because of his views. The consequences were such (inability to decide, poor relations with other groups) that we have rethought our approach to resolving deep issues, and will use the chairman / facilitator to break deadlocks as he sees fit, including allowing votes on a subject, or using his prerogative to decide an issue without further debate. Notwithstanding this issue, looking at the areas in which we can improve, I have proposed a way of working that keeps the creativity that a heterogeneous group of personalities engenders, yet tightens its interactions so that the goal is always in sight and in reach. Part II - Analysis of my own Behaviour in the Group and its Impact Working with a number of people of differing backgrounds has highlighted the ways in which I like to work, and the particular characteristics that are effective in influencing others and those that are not. Many of my behavioural characteristics I have been fully aware of for some time, particularly those that have been viewed consistently negatively. Working with a new group has allowed me to see where I have improved, and where I should continue to focus.

Which roles have I assumed? There are several roles in the team that rotate around, and some that seem to gravitate to specific people. In our team handbook, all of the defined roles are fairly neutral. As has been highlighted above, most meetings have required a greater level of management than these roles provide for; this will always be true in real life.

As such, outside of our predefined roles, I have tried to take up the role of "orchestrator" (a combination of chairman, facilitator and timekeeper), mostly to keep up the level of momentum in the group. I view this as a key requirement on a group where opinions always differ; my experience has been that resolving them in a rapid manner is not always the individual's objective. For some, this manifests itself as an inability to progress until a matter is resolved, for others, debate is an intimate part of their character. I enjoy the role of leading from the front, setting the tempo of a meeting or discussion, so that I am on top of the subject matter, and contributing. My view of this role is to participate in but not to dominate a discussion, and to observe the dynamics of all of the team members, moving things along when a non-controversial impasse is reached. There are several instances to mention in this regard, where taking up this role seemed to boost the group's performance.

In the first finance case we discussed (oddly named "Voodoo Love"), several technical issues came up that meant we were unable to progress, with Mauro in particular not allowing the discussion to continue until he felt the issues were clear to him. In this case, I was nominally leading the group, and had to insist that I was correct in my approach, as no argument seemed to convince him. On that occasion, the group was evenly divided in this issue, so the best option at that time seemed to be to insist on using the approach I knew to be correct. The same types of issues arose during the second finance case (MRC), where I was also leading because of my experience, although here one major and one minor issue occupied the team for an equal time each, with Mauro again the active debater.

I used the same approach on the minor issue as for Voodoo Love, with the consent of the others; while for the major issue, we had to vote because not everyone was sure of the correct answer. The original charter of the team was to rotate the neutral roles mentioned in Part I. I have shied away from taking them, for the simple reason that others perform better in these roles, and I enjoy the role I have assumed. Even though the die is essentially cast now for individual roles, and the group's norms are beginning to be set around those people fulfilling them, for the sake of others' learning, we will change the role each plays as often as is practical. Although it seems misguided to me that we should deliberately reduce our efficiency now that we are beginning to operate more as a team than a collection of people, I am willing to accept that it is better to learn in the academic environment and sacrifice a small amount of time for the greater good. What is my impact on others? My willingness to contribute to the group's discussions throughout Period 1 has gained me the mutual respect and liking of my fellow team members.

Although I like to be active in the group, I enjoy it more if my contribution is heard and appreciated. My major objectives in participating are to provide an unbiased view, to allow the others to benefit from any experience I may offer, and to lead as often as I am able to without dominating the environment. More tangibly, I would say that others have been especially open to my knowledge of finance, in particular that I have been willing to share my experience freely. The feedback sessions we have held would suggest that I have had some success in doing this, particularly from the less outward going of our team. Mauro made the comment that he felt I was a strong leader, able to provide guidance on a wide range of topics.

In looking to provide an unbiased view, I feel that I have not alienated any of the group, such that my fellow team members will welcome my ongoing participation. During these feedback sessions, each person received relatively candid comments on his contribution. While the feedback was by its nature somewhat neutrally worded, the underlying tone of the comments was evident. Bearing in mind my comments above, I would say that on balance, others are positive about my contribution. A common theme throughout feedback to me was that the team is pleased that I am prepared to speak out, and that they agree with much of what I say.

They also seem to have recognised the characteristics I value most in myself, that I am very analytical and logical; equally, they say that I can be intransigent, which I fully recognise. Other areas of feedback are addressed in the next section. Part - How to Become a More Effective Participant Becoming a more effective contributor in a team setting is a task not achieved in the short-term. Working styles have been developed over a long period of time, and despite the best efforts of performance reviews, behaviours are unlikely to have been changed very little. Moreover, being in the same environment rarely encourages the change of perspective necessary to induce a positive change. Although there are a number of areas in which I have received feedback and would like to improve for everyone's benefit, learning and compensating for these characteristics is not trivial.

There are three areas where I feel action is necessary: my use of delegation, natural stubbornness and the art of persuasion. Two of these three areas are not new revelations to me (needing to delegate and my innate stubbornness on certain issues), but Bent's suggestion that I should learn to persuade others better made me think seriously about my approach to making key points. I often think that because I find these points highly obvious that they must be to others, too. Most often, these points are key to an argument or strategy, and without them, my direction is lost.

In thinking about this feedback, I have resolved to try to argue from the other side's perspective, i.e. presuming that they are ignorant of my reasoning and knowledge, and need to hear some logic before they are willing to accept it. I have not yet had the opportunity to put this into practice. The other two issues are ones where I have tried to eek out incremental improvements over time. Frequently during performance reviews, I have been told that delegating more is key to boosting personal effectiveness; as a result, I have tried to curb my natural tendency to do be involved in all stages of a process. This is especially difficult when one is responsible overall for a project, more so when one's personality type (A 1) works against these ideals.

It has been difficult to do this in a group setting where the amount of delegation has been limited, but one way I can do this is to allow others to check the final product before submission. Obsessing over details (a manifestation of the delegation issue) is a characteristic that is hard for me to avoid, especially when I enjoy being into the minutiae at certain points. The feeling of needing to be in control is also a part of this; from many past experiences, suppressing this below a certain level will be difficult. In the same vein, being stubborn is something that will be hard to change. I view my stubbornness as a modest asset; others feel it rather painful. Recognising the effects on others, I feel that I can ameliorate this characteristic through more persuasive arguments, allowing me to keep my position, yet providing an explanation.

I am always willing to back down if someone is willing to challenge my logic and am not protectionist about my ideas. Carrying on the theme of the finance cases from above, I received feedback that, despite the positive elements of providing my expertise, I was viewed as being unwilling to be flexible on various points, and explain them fully. This was not perceived well, and largely goes back to the points above over persuasion and stubbornness. I am not used to being in a position where I need to explain things frequently, so had not taken into account others' needs, which I shall try to do in future. Finally, I feel it is necessary to continue to contribute in my areas of strength, and build these beyond their current level. My outward-facing character is formed largely by these dominant themes, and I believe it would be folly not to try to boost them further.

Part IV - What will make the Group More Effective Overall Recognising that others think and react in different ways has been a challenge for all concerned to adapt to outside our regular, homogeneous working environments. The group's working norms are still to be fully moulded, such that each person's strengths are not yet used to their greatest advantage. We have seen how the group does not function efficiently when there are strongly conflicting styles at work - withdrawal from discussion has taken place when egos have clashed. Being fully cognizant of others' working styles and "hot-buttons" is one way to avoid unnecessary conflict and boost the group's performance. Equally, using these characteristics is also a way to boost the creative power of the team - creative dissonance is very valuable in developing innovative solutions. As mentioned above, group roles have tended to gravitate towards certain individuals, thwarting our attempts to use them as a means for individuals to learn secondary group skills.

This has not been deliberate; indeed, we have discussed regularly the need to rotate; yet a change in roles has rarely happened. Analysing this is straightforward; people know their strengths and play to them. It so happens that I prefer the role of the orchestrator, Jorsen performs the role of running brainstorming phase superbly, Mauro keeps us well organised, Adam provides the creative friction, and Bent looks carefully at the practical implications involved. These are not the exact roles as described in part I, but seem the closest to the role each has assumed. With reference to the table at the beginning of this paper, but not spelling out in detail, it is hopefully clear that the role each individual has assumed is that which fits his strengths best. Notwithstanding this attempt to increase our efficiency, we are going to revert to the spirit of the team handbook to try to boost each person's effectiveness, initially putting everyone outside his comfort zone.

There are a number of other initiatives that I believe will boost our effectiveness, in particular with respect to the chairman / facilitator role. We need to take greater advantage of the powers granted to this role; individuals should be given more free rein over making non-democratic decisions (in the interests of momentum, efficiency and conflict resolution); he also needs to be more dogmatic in his enforcing a rate of progress through problems. Moreover, given the importance of this role, I think we should also appoint as the chairman / facilitator an individual not intimate with the mechanics of a particular problem, so that he is not in a position to frogmarch the team through that problem, equally, if issues do arise, that person will be deciding on an intellectual basis how to break deadlock, leaving the onus on others to use persuasive argument. One other method that will most likely prove effective in breaking down our continued indecision at the planning stage is to use a multi-tiered voting system. This will add some rigour to our debate and introduce a formal way to avoid prevarication. We will have to develop a means of harnessing our different approaches; as we have seen, conflict has arisen when differences of opinion have been approached head-on.

It has always been the case that one side views the other with a certain amount of scepticism, believing in their brand of problem solving. I feel sure that by the end of our four months together that heterogeneous thinking will prove to have been more valuable to all concerned than initially envisaged. Part V - Conclusion Without digressing beyond the scope of this paper, I have tried to analyse the elements that have made up the team, and have made the observations and recommendations I feel are most relevant to the discussion. In concluding, I hope it is apparent that as a strong proponent of leadership, my strongest focus has been on ways to increase the importance of the chairman / facilitator role in the group.

In contrast to a comment I made in the text, this is a deliberately biased view, brought about by my practical experience of being in and managing both homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of people. I strongly believe that leadership is a skill that comes naturally to some and less so to others; regardless, it cannot be under emphasised, and must be continually used and developed. Leading people effectively involves an extraordinarily broad array of skills, but to me, boils down to two simple elements: being focused and being decisive. It involves a fair amount of gut reaction, as well as informed analysis; and requires a peculiar combination of supreme self-confidence and humility.

Each of the elements discussed has been focussed to some degree on one or more of these factors, and will hopefully contribute to the better functioning of teams in which we all participate.