The process of preparing and delivering our team’s presentation

AbstractIn any organizational or institutional setting, police squad micturate is usu altogethery submissive in conflux de branchmental or organizational targets. evening with the benefits that ar associated with stems or police squad upwork, thither ar more(prenominal) or lesswhat(prenominal) ch every last(predicate)enges that may hinder advancement of the set objectives. This report presents the subprogram that was gnarly in the grooming and slant of our multitude initiation. It discusses the formats of emergence that the crowd went finished, highlighting the exercises that were undertaken at apiece stage. With reference to mathematical multitude motivation possibility, it addresses the approaches that were use during the mathematical convocation exercise to motivate members to contrisolelye towards the exercise. It has to a fault presented the competencies that pigeonholing members developed in the course of the multitude exercise.IntroductionThi s paper provides an overview of the cognitive operationes involved in the preparation and cedey of our congregation presentation. It relates the throng work process to theories and literature on organizational behavioral possibility that loafer be utilize to explain dynamics in group and aggroup upwork. The main concepts to be cover in this paper include group and team up development, motivation and limiting at work. Group development is defined as the stages that groups undergo, from creation of the group to doing of the charge tax (Bvirtuosobright, 2010). penury, which is a critical antigenic determinant of productivity, refers to the approaches utilise to trigger a require in an private to be more dedicated to the operation of their undertakings (Sachau, 2007). attainment at work, or team training, is the attainment of skills by individuals in the course of the group task (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006).Group and Team ontogenesisThis atomic number 18 the stages through which undergo from collecting team members to attainment of the set objective. There are dissimilar puts that can be used to show the process or group development. One of the widely used models is Bruce Tuckmans four-stage model formulated in 1965, which divides the development process into four stages. These are forming, storming, norming and playing (Egolf & Chester, 2013). Whereas around teams undergo exclusively these stages in group development, some end at the norming stage, which was overly the reason with our team. This section relates the development of our group with reference to Tuckmans four-stage model. harmonize to B geniusbright (2010), the forming stage involves creating an understanding of ones team members. It is overly characterized by the desire of individual team members to be accepted as part of the larger group (Hill & Parsons, 2014). In our team, this stage of group development involved activities that could enable us to work togethe r and be more fatty. Team members fatigued conviction interacting and knowing about each(prenominal) former(a) so as to eliminate the tension that could balk them from impellingly working together. This stage also involved the appointment of the group attraction, setting of ground rules and hold ining upon the meeting schedules. counterpoints were minimal at this stage, which can be attributed to the feature that challenges associated with teamwork had non neertheless arisen. The second stage in group development is storming. This is the stage where different ideas or assessments are presented by group members for consideration (Garfield & Dennis, 2012). It is passing likely for group members to present conflicting opinions, which also triggers rivalry and tension within the group. Whereas conflicts might be considered as being adverse towards attainment of the teams objectives, constructive conflicts provide a retrieve for group members to select the appropriate o ptions to pursue in addressing the task at hand (Fleishman et al., 2008 De Wit et al., 2012). This is the or so critical stage in group development, and issues realize to be resolute before moving to the near stage (Egolf & Chester, 2013). Referring to the process of delivering our teams presentation, some of the conflicts that arose included the theories to incorporate in the presentation or the sources to be used. For instance, I questioned wherefore the group leader insisted on using books as our main sources, yet peer reviewed journals that were readily available in the college subroutine library database could also be used to compliment books. other group members also questioned why they could not use any source they hump across on the internet. However, these conflicts were minor and short lived. The third stage is of group developing is referred to as norming (Egolf & Chester, 2013). After the conflicts require been resolved in the storming stage, the effectiveness of the team begins to increase, trust among team members grows and the individual differences are appreciated (Garfield & Dennis, 2012). This was the final stage of development for our group. For the functionality of the team, some group members stopped prevail with their ideas for the sake of avoiding conflict. There was also an increased viscidity among members, and as opposed to conflicting opinions that characterized the storming stage, team members showed agree for each other, and provided constructive feedback for each others contribution to the team. The fourth part stage of group development is referred to as productivity. According to Egolf and Chester (2013), not all groups progress to this stage. Our group did not get to this stage based on the occurrence that the task that was to be touched was short-term. In summary, the developments that took perpetrate in our group, as well as the issues that characterized them, almost relate to Tuckmans four stage model (form ing, storming norming and performance). The fact that the group exercise was short-term meant that the group development did not progress to the performance stage, but the objective of the team was met.Group MotivationMotivation in teamwork incorporates all the efforts that are made by team members to increase the cohesion and levels of productivity of the full(a) team (Wright et al., 2012). With reference to Hertzbergs dual reckon theory of motivation, there is a set of factors that increases the productivity of individuals in go throughing their tasks. There is also other evidence set of factors that cause dissatisfaction and thus, limit individual productivity (Sachau, 2007). This section addresses the approaches that were used to motivate group members. In group work, one of the motivation approaches is through ensuring effective discourse among all people within the group (Dunin-Keplicz & Verbrugge, 2011). In group work, responsibilities are divided into bitty tasks an d designate to members depending on their competence. Given that all these sub-tasks moderate towards the attainment of the overall team objective, it is necessary for all team members to communicate about the progress of their several(prenominal) tasks. This will avoid situations where some members unknowingly derail, or fail to fill in their tasks within the agreed upon time limits (Lencioni, 2012). During the preparation and tar of our group presentation, we run intod that communication amid us was effective. This was done by requesting all group members to provide their phone numbers and email addresses. We also followed each other on social media platforms. This ensured that if there was a breakd cause in one communication channel, there was always another viable objective. When manipulation group tasks, it is vital to schedule regular meetings in consideration of the responsibilities of all group members. This ensures that every group member is available during the me eting (Dunin-Keplicz & Verbrugge, 2011). Regular meetings also allow for close consultations between group members in case some group members hit a snag in completing the tasks that they have been assigned (Lencioni, 2012). Most of the members in our team were dedicated and never skipped meetings. Whereas there were team members who easily handled the tasks that they had been allocated, there are some who found it quite challenging to accomplish their tasks. We understood the fact that there are some people who are quicker than others in accomplishing their assigned tasks than others is common. Thus, instead of reprimanding them, we took to the initiatory to ensure that group members who had a challenge in completing their tasks were assisted to complete them. Motivation in teamwork also entails do everybody sense like they valuable members (Hill & Parsons, 2014). For instance, if a decision is to be made about a project, the opinions of all group members have to be considered. T his encourages constructive debates, which are vital for rational decision making. The group members motivation to deliver may be adversely affected if study decisions are only made by a section of the team, which may also lead to groupthink. Groupthink is a common phenomenon in teamwork where the fear of conflicts, or desire for group conformity and harmony, causes other group members to agree with decisions made by others. This is regardless of whether they are commensurate or not (De Wit et al., 2012). During our group work, all members were allowed to actively engage in discussions and every opinion presented was listened to. Even though it was not possible to work through incorporate all members opinions in decision making, reasons why some opinions were considered over others was also clearly explained to all group members. Our team was culturally diverse, and included people from both genders. Therefore, tasks were distributed in consideration of this diversity. Different approaches were used to motivate group members. However, even with the efforts that were made to optimise the productivity of every group member, there were some individuals who failed to attend group meetings without good reasons. Regardless of these drawbacks, the rest period of the team worked diligently to the completion of the project.Learning at WorkLearning at work refers to the skills and competencies that members of a team learn as they collectively accomplish a task (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006). Typically, the abilities of each individual in the team will vary, with each being more qualified in some areas, less competent in others In this regard team members learn from each other through sharing intimacy so as to compliment one anothers skills (Dunin-Keplicz & Verbrugge, 2011). This section discusses the process of team larn within the group during the exercise. Team members have to ensure that they have created strong relationships and trust amongst themselves to facilitate team study. Failure to create a team purlieu that allows members to learn from one another may profane the attainment of the overall team objective (Lencioni, 2012). Learning at work or team aptness can be made possible through observations, dialogue and reflection (Hill & Parsons, 2014). Team members should be unforced to enable those who are not as competent as they are in certain aspects that are vital to the accomplishment of the teams objective to repair. Likewise, team members who lack some competencies ought to take the initiative to learn through observation or enquire for assistance (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006). One of the models that can be used to understand team leaning is the action-learning bicycle (Coghlan & Rigg, 2012). achievement learning is a continuous learning process, where individuals from their own experiences and actions, as well as those of other members of their team. through their own experience, people learn to avoid retell mistak es they did and continue to improve their competencies in certain disciplines. The action-learning cycle was designed to enable individuals to draw lessons from their experiences by making analytical reflections of their actions (Pedler & ?Abbott, 2013). This means that lessons from past experiences can ask present actions, while lessons learnt from the current experience can be used to guide future actions. In the course of the preparation and delivery of our group presentation, team members learnt from each other in different ways. ground on the relationship that had been developed between team members, dialogue was one of the most used approaches for team learning. Group members were willing to share information with others to improve each others levels of competence. For instance, one two of our team members were competent in using different data analysis approaches so as to come up with relevant conclusions on the research topic. In addition to this, while most of us were well-to-do with the basic function of Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint, one of the team members and I, were more competent with the more advanced options. Therefore, we exhausted some time during meetings learning from and teaching each other. Learning took different approaches, which included reflections and observations. Even though some of the competencies that were learnt were not improved to the extent that flawlessness was attained, most of the group members had improved their skills in one aspect or other. I improved my authority and public speaking skills through the mock presentations that were held by the group in preparation for the final presentation to a larger audience.. All team members also learnt several concepts that could enable them to be more productive members of teams in future. In summary, the group exercise was instrumental in developing some competencies that every group member lacked. As mentioned, different approaches were used in learning or teach ing each other about different concepts that were challenging for different group members.ConclusionThe capability of an individual to be a productive member of a team is one of the vital competencies that are required for success in any aspect of life. In the preparation and delivery of our group presentation, several characteristics of groups, which relate to organizational behavioural theory, were identified. This paper has presented an overview of the factors that characterized the team working process. One of these is the process through which the ram developed through the formation, storming and norming stages. ground on the fact that the group assignment was short-term, we did not get into the performance stage. The motivation factors that contributed towards the achievement of the overall team goal have also been presented in this paper. Ways in which different group members leant from each other to improve their competencies in several areas have also been addressed in thi s paper. Whereas the group task was successfully accomplished, some of the few drawbacks that affected the research have also been presented.ReferencesBonebright, D.A., 2010. 40 years of storming a historical review of Tuckmans model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), pp.111-20.Coghlan, D. & Rigg, C., 2012. process learning as praxis in learning and changing. Research in organisational Change and Development, 20, pp.59-89.De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L. & Jehn, K.A., 2012. The conundrum of Intragroup Conflict. diary of Applied Psychology, 97, pp.360-90.Dunin-Keplicz, B. & Verbrugge, R?., 2011. Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems A Formal Approach. New Jersey flush toilet Wiley & Sons.Egolf, D. & Chester, S., 2013. Forming Storming Norming Performing. Bloomington IUniverse.Fleishman, R., OLeary, R?. & Gerard, ?C., 2008. Recent Developments in Conflict Resolution and Collaboration. London Emerald Group Publishing.Garfield, M.J. & Dennis, A.R., 201 2. Toward an Integrated amaze of Group Development Disruption of Routines by Technology-Induced Change. Journal of vigilance Information Systems, 29(3), pp.43-86.Hill, F. & Parsons, L?., 2014. Teamwork in the Management of Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. New Jersey Routledge.Lencioni, P., 2012. The atomic number 23 Dysfunctions of a Team Intact Teams Participant Workbook. San Francisco Pfeiffer. Miner, J.B., 2005. Organizational Behavior Essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York M.E. Sharpe.Pedler, M. & ?Abbott, C., 2013. Facilitating natural process Learning A PractitionerS Guide. Berkshire McGraw-Hill International.Sachau, D.A., 2007. Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), pp.377-93.Wright, B.E., Moynihan, D.P. & Pandey, S.K., 2012. Pulling the Levers Transformational Leadership, Public Service, Motivation, and Mission Valence. Public presidency Review, 72(2), p .206215.Zellmer-Bruhn, M. & Gibson, C., 2006. Multinational organization context Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), pp.501-18.