Bus 335 Written Response 2 Questions On Chapter 7 Leading

Bus 335 Written Response 2 Questions Onchapter 7 Leading And Working

Apply the course concepts described in Chapter 7 and Appendix III to answer the questions below. Consider the dynamics of teams, the criteria for effective communication in teams, and the characteristics and guidelines for problem-solving stages in teams. Written responses must be typed, size 12 font, double spaced and written in proper English in complete sentences. Bullet points are acceptable but should be introduced by complete sentences. The most important objective is to answer sufficiently to demonstrate understanding.

Estimated length 3-5 pages Grading criteria: total possible points 50. Chapter 7 Concept Questions (Total 25 points; points as indicated per question)

Questions

1. Discuss the differences between groups and teams. (2.5 points)
2. Describe (define and explain) and give a specific example of each of the various types of power which can be exerted within a team: position, coercive, reward, expert, information, connection. (7.5 points)
3. Consider the various ways to create effective norms (rules, standards, etc.) in teams and suggest norms that would be desirable for each of the following groups. Include norms that address:
   • a) tasks,
   • b) relationships, and
   • c) procedures for each group.

   How could you promote development of these norms as the group’s leader? (Complete the form with short notations)(10 points)

• Group Norm
• Task Norm
• Relational Norm
• Procedure Norm
• Develop norms as leader?

Groups:

• Employees at a new fast-food restaurant
• A company softball team

Follow with a description of the four stages of group problem-solving. (10 points)

Strategic Case: “Museum of Springfield” on page 196. Read and evaluate the case by answering questions 1, 2, and 3 on page 197 for Chapter 7, restated below. (15 points; 5 points per question)

1. Which type of power listed in Chapter 7 does each team member have? How can the members use their power to help the team achieve its goal?
2. Which approaches to leadership outlined in Chapter 7 can Paul use to keep the team functioning well?
3. What are each member’s personal goals? How do these goals contribute to or interfere with the team’s job?

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment requires a comprehensive analysis of team dynamics, power, norms, problem-solving stages, and leadership strategies, aligned with concepts from Chapter 7 and Appendix III. This paper will explore the fundamental differences between groups and teams, detail the various types of power within teams with specific examples, and develop norms tailored for different groups. It will also explain the problem-solving stages in groups and apply these concepts to the Springfield Museum case, evaluating team members’ power, leadership approaches, and personal goals in the context of team effectiveness.

To begin, understanding the distinction between groups and teams is crucial. A group is a collection of individuals who coordinate their efforts but may not share common goals or interdependence (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). For example, employees in a retail store working independently on their tasks constitute a group. In contrast, a team is a coordinated effort of individuals who share a common purpose and accountability, working interdependently to achieve specific objectives (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). For instance, a project team tasked with launching a new product exemplifies a team working collaboratively towards a shared goal.

Power dynamics within teams influence their functioning significantly. Position power stems from formal authority; for example, a team leader has position power to assign tasks and approve decisions (French & Raven, 1959). Coercive power involves the ability to enforce penalties or discipline; a manager using reprimands to correct team behavior exemplifies coercive power. Reward power is based on the capacity to distribute incentives—such as bonuses—motivating team members. Expert power arises from possessing specialized knowledge or skills, as in a team member with advanced technical expertise guiding project design. Information power derives from controlling critical information necessary for tasks, like a team member who has key market data. Connection power emanates from an individual's network of relationships, enabling influence through external alliances or contacts (French & Raven, 1959). For example, a team member with strong industry ties may influence decisions by leveraging their connections.

Developing effective norms is fundamental to team success. Task norms focus on performance standards—such as deadlines and quality expectations; relational norms govern interpersonal interactions—like mutual respect and trust; procedure norms establish how work is organized—such as meeting agendas and communication channels (Schutz, 1966). For example, employees at a new fast-food restaurant might agree on punctual arrival and speed of service as task norms, maintain positive interpersonal communication as relational norms, and follow a standard checklist for food preparation as procedure norms. A softball team might set norms emphasizing regular practice attendance (task), sportsmanship and supportiveness (relational), and a structured game strategy plan (procedure). As a leader, promoting norm development involves modeling desired behaviors, reinforcing norms through feedback, and inspiring collective commitment (Tuckman, 1965).

The four stages of group problem-solving are: orientation, where members meet and understand the problem; conflict, where differing opinions surface; emergence, where consensus begins to form; and reinforcement, where solutions are finalized and implemented (Tuckman, 1965). Each stage has specific tasks that facilitate cohesive decision-making, from establishing norms to resolving disagreements and confirming actions.

Applying these concepts to the Springfield Museum case, we analyze team members' power, leadership needs, and personal goals. First, each member's power—whether position, expert, or connection—determines their ability to influence team progress. For example, a senior researcher might hold expert power, providing valuable insights to guide exhibition decisions. Leadership approaches such as facilitating participation, providing guidance, and fostering open communication, are essential for maintaining effective team functioning (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). Paul, as a leader, can utilize transformational leadership to motivate team members, or adopt situational leadership by adjusting his style based on team needs (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).

Regarding personal goals, some team members may prioritize professional recognition, while others are primarily focused on project completion. These goals can either align with or hinder team objectives. For instance, a member seeking personal acclaim might dominate discussions, potentially disrupting collaborative decision-making. Conversely, a member committed to the team's success contributes positively by sharing expertise and supporting peers. Understanding and managing these individual goals is key to fostering a cohesive team environment.

In conclusion, effective team functioning hinges on understanding the distinctions between groups and teams, the strategic use of power, establishing norms that promote productivity and positive interactions, recognizing the stages of problem-solving, and applying appropriate leadership strategies. The Springfield Museum case illustrates how these concepts come together in real-world team scenarios, emphasizing the importance of adaptive leadership and aligning personal goals with team objectives for optimal success.

References

• French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 81-98.
• Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338.
• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice-Hall.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology, 12, 333-375.
• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in child interviews. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271–299.
• Schutz, W. C. (1966). A theory of interpersonal behavior. Academic Press.
• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.