Reflecting upon my experience with the group assessment this session, I would broadly discern that my group worked cohesively and collaboratively to deliver our presentation on defining and measuring performance at Amazon. Using Applebaum et al. (2000) definition of a high performance team as a guide, my team had balanced and shared roles, utilised our individual talents and set high performance standards. Through adopting these traits, we were able to achieve our overarching mission to “deliver a high quality presentation with relevance and meaning while working cohesively as a team” and goal of achieving a Distinction or above. Despite achieving our desired result, my group did encounter minor conflict relating to our differing perspectives and ideas for our chosen case study and thesis. The following reflection outlines how our team roles, approach to defining performance and motivational theory contributed to our past performance, and offers proactive solutions such as conflict management and goal-setting to implicate future performance.
The Fulk et al. (2011) statement on the influence of diverse approaches to teamwork on positive group performance and instances of conflict, really resonated with my experience. Belbin’s team roles can be used to showcase how each group member varyingly contributed to our productivity and conflict resolution. Firstly, Vin held the thinking role of ‘Monitor Evaluator’ by judging the different perspectives and ideas of the team in a sober, strategic and discerning way. This played a critical role in managing our conflict, as he helped rationalise the benefits and drawbacks of each option. Jonathan occupied the action-oriented role of the ‘Implementer’ through his opinionated and conservative perspective on the case study yet, efficient and disciplined approach to task completion. Finally, myself, Laura and Nathalie held people-oriented roles. As a ‘Coordinator’, I was able to promote decision making during moments of conflicting ideas and delegate roles to promote the completion of the assignment. Laura and Nathalie were both ‘Team Workers’. Laura averted friction and conflict through listening to and building upon everyone’s ideas to come to a mutually agreeable decision. As the only international and non-business student in the group, Nathalie was mild, perceptive and cooperative through these barriers, asking the group for support and contributing in a proactive way.
Our team development and group performance followed a linear progression, similar to Tuckman and Jensen (1977) Model of Small Group Development. During the forming phase, our group agreed upon a shared mission to “deliver a high quality presentation while working cohesively as a team” and the goal of achieving a Distinction or above. We also outlined clear task and behavioural values and expectations to define and measure a high performing team member. These included task related outcomes such as equally contributing, completing work in the agreed timeframe, responding to group communication in one working day and attending all meetings, as well as the behavioural based outcomes of teamwork, collaboration, mutual respect and using early intervention to deal with underperformance. Formulating these expectations during our first tutorial helped to reduce the uncertainty, low trust and reluctance to share ideas typically experienced during the norming phase. This also formed the basis of our groups motivation process, which was aligned with the Expectancy Model. The Expectancy Model formula of Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence asserts that motivation stems from effort, which leads to high performance and in turn, results in desirable outcomes. Outlining clear task and behavioural outcomes set a benchmark for what our group defined as high performance and expected effort, allowing us to fulfil our mutual goal of achieving a Distinction. The Expectancy Model of motivation created a clear and direct link between performance and reward which guided our group and individual performance throughout the semester. However, we experienced a gap in our expectations and strategies relating to conflict management. As stated by Porter and Lawler (1968), prior experience is incorporated into the Expectancy Model of motivation. Based on our previous experience with group work, we developed conflict management strategies that concerned underperformance. Unexpectedly, we did not experience conflict in the form of underperformance but rather, relating to the heterogeneity in our ideas and approaches to teamwork.
This formed the storming stage of our team development in which we experienced conflict relating to our chosen case study and identifying the strengths/weaknesses of the case that would make up our thesis. As supported by Lecture 2, the heterogeneity in our ideas and the lack of clear expectations relating to this kind of conflict, resulted in a decrease in group cohesion. In effect, our transition to the performing phase, or Phase 2 of the Punctuated Equilibrium Model, was prolonged. In order to overcome this conflict and increase our group performance, we utilised our team roles and initial behavioural expectations of teamwork, collaboration and mutual respect to exercise interactional justice. The people-oriented roles facilitated negotiation and decision making by listening to individual perspectives, the action-oriented roles ensured timely decision making and thinking roles made sure that our final decision was aligned with the assignment criteria. In the end, we were able to collaborate by using our different perspectives and opinions to help the conflict be constructive. For instance, we assigned the strengths section to Jonathan, who agreed with the issues of case, and the weaknesses to Vin, who saw the limitations of Amazons approach to defining and measuring performance.
Throughout the norming to performing phase, we set a timeline for completion, outlined equal roles, responsibilities and objectives for each group member and used our newfound conflict management approach to proactively resolve problems – such as our choice of activity and the style of the presentation. The Expectancy Model was completed as our commitment to equal member participation, ongoing communication, teamwork and timely completion of tasks resulted in a mark that reflected the efforts of the team. As a result, feelings of distributive justice was experienced during the adjourning phase.
Reflecting on my generally positive group experience, the content delivered in this course has highlighted a gap in the teams’ adoption of goal and needs-based motivation and conflict management strategies. If faced with a similar experience in the future, I would broadly align the team development process more towards Fulk et al. (2011) notion of Team Management by Objectives (TMBO). TMBO leverages Drucker (1954) Management by Objectives to develop and use clear goals or objectives to foster group cohesion and maximise team performance throughout the entirety of the team development process. To do so, I would use Locke (1968) Goal-Setting Theory to set more specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely (SMART) goals and objectives and provide ongoing, individual feedback. While my group set an overarching goal for our final mark and completion date, we could have maximised our motivation, communication and individual skills through increasing our goal-setting during the norming stage. For instance, we could have set the incremental SMART goal of completing biweekly feedback reviews on each other’s work. In this feedback we could have highlighted a strength and area of improvement. While this goal ensures the timely completion of the assignment, a continuous and ongoing approach to feedback could also help identify performance deficiencies and the need for peer support that would in turn, improve the groups productivity during the performing stage. Furthermore, understanding Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs could help eliminate any potential cases of demotivation in response to negative feedback. Ensuring task autonomy and recognising individual strengths throughout the feedback process would satisfy individuals esteem needs, promoting a challenge or sense of achievement that would fulfil self-actualisation needs. Meeting these needs could help encourage group members to remain motivated and productive throughout the storming and performing stages. In essence, through incorporating goal-setting and needs-based motivational theories into our performance management strategies, the group could work more collaboratively to improve productivity, cohesion and communication, potentially leading to an improvement in the overall result (Locke 1968).
Further expanding upon the notion of TMBO, is the strategy of mitigating conflict during the storming phase by anticipating unforeseen events that lead to conflict. If the group were to anticipate conflict, outside of what we had previously experienced with underperformance, we could have pre-established the constructive strategy of using our differences as a team strength (Fulk et al. 2011). Also, by better understanding the complexities of Belbin’s team roles and our differences during the forming stage, we could have more accurately anticipated instances of conflict. As a result, we could have reached the performing stage earlier, potentially leading to increased productivity and performance. During this conflict, I would also utilise Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to mitigate any adverse effects on group cohesion and individual motivation. For conflicting perspectives, Maslow’s social, esteem and self-actualisation needs highlight that in order to influence motivation, an individual’s idea or perspective should be accepted by others, respected as valid and then utilised or challenged. Through explicitly using this approach, our group could have seen improved cohesion and individual motivation during the storming phase.
In summation, this group experience allowed me to observe the practice of performance management theories and provide recommendations for my future group work. This experience and subject, has highlighted the importance of conflict management strategies, cognitive motivational processes and goal-setting to sustain the performance and productivity of a heterogeneous group. I am confident that I will apply this experience beyond university to my professional development in the workplace.