After Reading Chapter 10 From The Attached Textbook Answer

After reading chapter-10 from the attached textbook answer the below questions

After reading chapter-10 from the attached textbook answer the below questions in own words and based on understanding. Strictly no plagiarism and APA must. The chapter suggests that very small teams (say, three to six members) perform better, and most people prefer to work in small teams. However, many companies use teams of 100 or more people to perform complex tasks, such as creating and developing a new product. Do you think a unit of that size can truly function as a team? Discuss. If you were the leader of a team developing a new computer game, how might you apply negotiation to resolve a conflict between two strong-willed members related to which features to include in the game?

Paper For Above instruction

Teams are fundamental organizational units that facilitate collaboration, innovation, and productivity. While small teams, typically comprising three to six members, are often praised for their efficiency, agility, and strong interpersonal bonds, large teams—consisting of hundreds of members—are frequently employed to undertake complex and large-scale projects. The question arises whether such large units can genuinely function as cohesive teams. This discussion explores the feasibility of large team functioning and how negotiation can be effectively employed in leadership to resolve conflicts within a team designing a computer game.

Functionality of Large Teams

Small teams are generally considered more effective because their limited size enhances communication, allows for closer relationships among members, and simplifies coordination (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Alfred North Whitehead once posited that "a small group of people, who work together in close coordination, can be remarkably effective at solving complex problems" (Whitehead, 1929). However, large teams have a different dynamic. They can leverage diverse expertise, enable scalability, and handle tasks too extensive for smaller groups. Yet, they often face significant challenges in cohesion and communication (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).

To function effectively, large teams often operate through sub-teams or units that focus on specific aspects of a project, such as development, testing, marketing, and design. These sub-teams are coordinated through hierarchical leadership, meetings, and communication infrastructures. While such organizational structures help large teams perform, they may not foster the camaraderie and mutual understanding typically associated with small teams. Therefore, a large team can perform as a distributed, coordinated network rather than a traditional cohesive team. This model relies heavily on effective leadership, clear communication channels, and shared organizational goals (Hülsheger et al., 2009).

In the context of developing complex products like a new computer game, large teams are often necessary due to the multifaceted nature of the project, encompassing programming, graphic design, story development, sound engineering, and marketing. While these larger units function through division of labor and extensive coordination, their success depends on maintaining alignment and ensuring that all sub-teams work towards a unified vision. Thus, despite their size, these entities can function as effective teams when managed properly, emphasizing coordination over cohesion.

Applying Negotiation in Team Leadership

Negotiation is a vital leadership skill, especially in creative and collaborative environments like game development. When two strong-willed team members clash over which features to include, a leader can employ negotiation to reconcile differing viewpoints. The first step involves active listening, understanding each member's perspective, and acknowledging their concerns. For example, one developer might prioritize innovative graphics, while another emphasizes gameplay mechanics. Recognizing the validity of both viewpoints sets the stage for a collaborative solution.

The leader can then facilitate a integrative negotiation approach, where both parties explore options that can satisfy their interests. For instance, they might agree to include a core set of features that balance aesthetic appeal and gameplay functionality but leave room for future updates that incorporate additional features. Mediating this process involves setting clear objectives, emphasizing shared goals (such as making a successful game), and ensuring open communication.

In addition, the leader can introduce the concept of trade-offs, encouraging the team members to prioritize features based on factors like audience appeal, technical feasibility, and project timelines. Using objective criteria and encouraging mutual concessions promotes a win-win outcome. This approach not only resolves the immediate conflict but also enhances team cohesion, trust, and collaboration—crucial elements in creative projects (Fisher & Ury, 1981).

Conclusion

While small teams are better at fostering cohesion and swift decision-making, large teams can function effectively when structured properly with sub-teams and effective communication channels. The key to managing conflicts within such teams involves employing negotiation strategies that emphasize shared goals, mutual interest, and collaborative problem-solving. As a leader, facilitating these negotiations ensures conflicts are resolved constructively, maintaining team harmony and productivity, ultimately culminating in the successful development of complex projects like a computer game.

References

• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Teamwork and performance: Evidence from the field. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 690–705.
• Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Harvard Business School Press.
• Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 333–375). Wiley.
• Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The Philosophy of Whitehead. Cambridge University Press.