Alliance connectivity link According con flicts

Example A– Reflection on group work.

…Our group came together for the purpose of completing the project
planning assignment. As Harrison and Lock (2004: 55) explain our team’s
‘life equated with the project duration’. I believe we progressed through the
stages of group development described by Tuckman (1965). Initially we were
uncertain of the actual task requirements and spent some time getting to
know each team member, experiences typical of the ‘forming’ period. We
then spent a lot of time determining who would take responsibility for tasks
and setting group standards during the ‘storming’ period. This stage was
very unproductive and upon reflection of various rKeller (1998) explain, the
leader would set clear objectives for individuals, balancing the needs of the
task and team, whilst mo
tivating individuals. Motivation techniques such as Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of
Needs’ (1943) and Hertzberg’s ‘Hygiene Factors Theory’ (1959) could have
been used to motivate individuals. Following this our group showed traits
typical of the ‘norming’ period, adjusting to each others way of working. We
eventually came together and worked well as a team, reaching the
‘performing’ stage, also termed by Ansoff (1968) as ‘synergy’. At this time
our team reached its peak of effectiveness as there was motivation to
complete the task. In future, I will prepare to go through difficulties when
undertaking group work, realising that it is a natural stage in the life cycle of
an efficient group…
  evolved
… There is a distinct, yet subtle difference between groups and teams, and
often people sub-consciously come together as a group. In some respects we
formed as a group because we knew each other ‘in terms of a common
social category membership,’ (Hogg and Abrams, 1993 cited in Drake, et
al.). But we can also view ourselves as ‘interdependent individuals…sharing
responsibilities,’ (Sundstrom et al, 1990) for the outcome of the project. We
undoubtedly worked together as a team, as we all had a common objective
and responsibility to finish the project. We ensured that we specified clear
project aims and objectives (Field and Keller 1998) from the outset to
provide direction and a point of reference. A leader emerged early on, which
meant work became more structured and was delegated to various
members of the team. Delegation was at the lowest possible level. The
members appeared to appreciate this as they could work on various aspects
in their own time and their own environment. However, motivation became
an issue with individual work as opposed to ‘rallying’ together as a team.
Adair’s (1990) team leadership theory of balancing team needs, task needs
and individual needs is closely linked to motivation and may, if it had been
applied, have gone some way in helping to increase morale and motivation
within the team… 
 
Although there were only four people in our team, some of the roles that
Belbin (1996) identified were evident in the way we worked. For example,
there was a leader who took on the ‘co-ordinator’ role by delegating, a
‘shaper’ who was very much task-orientated, and an ‘innovator’ who fuelled
the project with ideas and the ‘completer’ who was concerned with all the
details in putting it together. Although initially, we were organised, the group
found it difficult to further the project planning process because of other
commitments; coursework deadlines, dissertation work etc, and so
managing our time became an issue. A difficult aspect of team working is
getting everyone together for extended periods of time. According to Cohen
and Bailey (1997) project teams are time limited and require considerable
application of knowledge and expertise. For the majority of the group, myself
included, MS Project was new software and therefore demanded more time.
However, the tutorial sessions were a good support to this and laid the
foundations for the group.