Introduction
Teamwork refers to the process in which a group of individuals work together in order to achieve a common goal (Fraser & Hvolby 2010, pp. 74-94). In my group, we worked as a team in order to analyze Qantas’ management problems and to complete the digital story.
This paper analyzes the performance of my team. Concisely, it will identify the team’s achievements and the challenges that were encountered. The analysis will be based on existing academic evidence and teamwork theories.
One of the major challenges that we encountered in our team was poor communication. The team members used emails to communicate with each other on a regular basis. The rationale of using emails is that it can facilitate efficient dissemination of information.
On the contrary, using emails led to delayed sharing of information and misunderstanding in our team. In a nutshell, some members took too long to respond to their emails. Moreover, some members wrote emails that were not easy to understand. According to Michelman (2004, pp. 9-11), the vision and mission of a team can only be articulated through effective communication.
Despite having an ineffective communication system, we managed to set the right goals for the team. A successful team must have a set of well-defined goals. Additionally, the members must agree on the methods that should be used to achieve the goals (Tjosvold & Wong 2000, pp. 350-354). In order to choose the best strategy for achieving the goals, the members had to evaluate each alternative before selecting the best.
Participation in the evaluation process led to conflicts in the team since some members insisted that their ideas had to be adopted. However, the conflicts were also beneficial because they enabled us to understand each member’s concerns regarding the team’s performance.
Eventually, we adopted a set of strategies by building mutual trust and consensus. This experience was consistent with the empirical studies that have found strong evidence to support the use of trust and consensus building initiatives to overcome conflicts within a team.
Andrei, Otoia and Isaila (2010, pp. 121-140), define trust as a mechanism that is socially generated and is responsible for the coordination of every action that is executed by a team. Trust is developed in an environment in which a risk factor is involved. For instance, our group faced the risk of setting irrelevant goals or selecting inappropriate methods to achieve the goals.
According to Ross (2006, pp. 13-14), trust can be developed in the team by improving interpersonal understanding. Additionally, she points out that trust enables team members to share ideas and information. Each team member must be aware of the skills and responsibilities of his colleagues in order to trust them.
Andrei, Otoia and Isaila (2010, pp. 121-140), supports this view by asserting that competence helps in building trust. In regard to our team, the members agreed to adopt particular goals and strategies because they trusted the individuals who suggested them. Concisely, the goals were adopted because the members who suggested them were competent in setting goals and formulating strategies.
Michelman (2004, pp. 9-11) asserts that team leaders often have a goal that they intend to achieve. However, they tend to lack a clear vision of how the goal should be achieved. A vision that can facilitate goal achievement must be clear and specific.
Moreover, it has to be negotiated so that the team members can pursue the same strategy. In this context, the importance of an effective communication system in a team becomes apparent. Even though our team was able to achieve its mandate, it could have done much better with the aid of an effective communication system.
This is because an effective communication system enables team members to ask questions rather than implementing decisions which are based on assumptions (Parker 2009, p. 23).
In this regard, misunderstandings could have been avoided in our team if the members had a better communication channel. According to Fraser & Hvolby (2010, pp. 74-94), effective communication enables team members to understand each other’s point of view. Consequently, it is the responsibility of every team member to initiate dialogue in order to articulate the team’s problems.
The results of my team indicated that our performance was better than what we could have achieved without the team. Thus, teamwork was an effective tool for enhancing high productivity in my group. This observation contradicts the findings by Allen and Hecht (2004, pp. 439-461) which suggest that teamwork is not always effective in promoting high productivity.
This difference can be explained by the fact that members’ contribution is not the only factor that determines the productivity of the team. For instance, a team can underperform if it lacks enough capital to execute its mandate. Allen and Hecht (2004, pp. 439-461) assert that team members might not generate adequate ideas as expected. On the contrary, a lot of ideas were generated in our team.
This difference can be attributed to the competence of the team members. It is apparent that team members can not generate sufficient ideas if they have inadequate knowledge about the problems that they are trying to solve.
The effects of poor communication in our team are consistent with the observations made by Tjosvold & Wong (2000, pp. 350-354) in their study of the relationship between the team leader and the members. These researchers found that poor communication is one of the major causes of misunderstanding and conflicts in a team.
Based on this finding, a different communication system should have been adopted in our team. We should have used a communication system that is efficient and promotes understanding. According to the normative model of work-group effectiveness, teamwork has both positive and negative effects.
It can facilitate high productivity by encouraging a positive attitude and reducing uncertainty among team members (Cordery 2004, pp. 481-484). However, it can also lower productivity by facilitating wastage of resources and by slowing the process of making decisions. In this context, the experience or performance of a team should be interpreted in terms of the team’s organizational structure.
Conclusion
Even though our team faced several challenges, it managed to achieve its objective. Poor communication was the main challenge that interfered with the operations of the team. Setting the right goals and formulating the best strategies for attaining them was the main achievement of our team.
Generally, teamwork enabled us to improve our productivity as a team. This observation contradicts the premise that teamwork is not always effective in improving productivity (Cordery 2004, pp. 481-484). In order to improve our performance, the team should invest in an effective communication system.
References
Allen, N & Hecht, T 2004, ‘The Romance of Teams: Toward an Understanding of its Psychological Underpinnings and Implications’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 77 no. 1, pp. 439-461.
Andrei, D, Otoia, C & Isaila, A 2010, ‘What does it Mean to Trust Your Team Colleague’, Cognition, Brain and Behavior, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 121-140.
Cordery, J 2004, ‘Another Case of the Emperor’s New Clothes’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 77 no. 1, pp. 841-484.
Fraser, K & Hvolby, H 2010, ‘Effective Team-working’, Team Performance Management, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 74-94.
Michelman, P 2004, How Will You Make Your Team a Team? Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston.
Parker, G 2009, Teamwork, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ross, J 2006, Make Your Good Team Great, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston.
Tjosvold, D & Wong, A 2000, ‘The Leader Relationship: Building Teamwork with and among Employees’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 21 no. 7, pp. 350-354.