Consider The Different Teams Presented In Your Reading Ass ✓ Solved

A Consider the Different Teams Presented In Your Reading Assignme

A. Consider the different teams presented in your reading assignment. How do the teams manage their team boundaries? What are the trade-offs between internal cohesion and external ties within each type of team? Support your discussion with at least three (3) external sources.

B. Consider the list of common roles for team members which of these roles do you think you play in your own team or group? Why? Instructions Use research from at least 3 academically reviewed journal articles to support your responses.

Paper For Above Instructions

In organizational behavior, teams are pivotal for achieving collective goals, and understanding how they manage boundaries is crucial for their effectiveness. Teams typically define their boundaries either through formal structures or informal dynamics, influencing their cohesion and external connections. This paper examines different types of teams, focusing on how they manage boundaries, the trade-offs between internal cohesion and external ties, and a personal reflection on individual team roles.

Managing Team Boundaries

Teams develop various strategies to manage their boundaries based on their objectives and environments. Some teams use clear, formal structures which delineate membership, responsibilities, and decision-making authority. For example, project teams in corporate settings often operate under strict organizational mandates that outline who is involved and the extent of their engagement (Bakker et al., 2016). These formal boundaries can enhance clarity and focus but may also inhibit flexibility and adaptability.

Conversely, teams with informal boundary management might allow for fluid roles and cross-functional collaboration, fostering innovation by blending ideas from diverse areas (Kahn et al., 2018). Teams such as startup companies or research groups often thrive on this kind of boundary fluidity, where roles cannot be rigidly defined, enabling the team to pivot rapidly in response to changes in their environment. However, the challenge here lies in achieving alignment without strict boundaries, which can lead to confusion and diluted accountability.

Trade-offs Between Internal Cohesion and External Ties

The tension between internal cohesion and external ties is a defining characteristic of successful teams. Internal cohesion refers to the strength of relationships within the team, while external ties represent connections with stakeholders and other entities outside the team. In cohesive teams, members often report increased satisfaction and engagement, leading to better performance outcomes (Eisenbeiss et al., 2016). However, excessive focus on internal harmony can result in groupthink, where non-conformist ideas are suppressed, ultimately stifling innovation.

On the other hand, teams with strong external ties benefit from enhanced resource access and diverse perspectives, which can drive creativity and problem-solving capacity (Larson, 2017). Yet, such external focus may compromise internal cohesion as team members allocate time and energy to outside relationships instead of nurturing internal bonds. For instance, teams comprising members from different organizations may excel at external interactions while facing challenges in terms of team identity and solidarity (Barki & Pinsonneault, 2005).

Personal Reflection on Team Roles

In my own team experiences, I often serve the role of a facilitator. In this capacity, I work to ensure that every team member has a voice and that we collectively navigate any conflicts or challenges that arise. The role of the facilitator is crucial as it not only involves coordinating discussions and activities but also fostering an environment of psychological safety (Edmondson, 2019). This role aligns with my belief in the importance of collaboration and inclusivity in achieving team outcomes.

Moreover, serving as a facilitator allows me to develop strong connections with my colleagues, which is essential for team cohesion. By maintaining open communication and encouraging diverse viewpoints, I contribute to a balanced dynamic where both internal cohesion and external feedback can flourish (Hackman, 2011). Such interactions are vital for personal and team growth, informed by my commitment to leveraging team strengths to tackle challenges effectively.

Conclusion

In summary, the management of team boundaries and the balance between internal cohesion and external ties are essential for the success of teams in various contexts. Teams can define their boundaries through formal structures or informal dynamics, each with its own advantages and challenges. Additionally, reflecting on personal roles within a team highlights the importance of individual contributions to overall team dynamics. As teams continue to evolve in today’s complex environment, understanding these elements will help foster collaboration, enhance performance, and drive innovation.

References

• Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). An integrative framework for understanding and improving team collaboration. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 64-69.
• Bakker, R. M., Wang, Y., & Bhandari, M. (2016). Team boundary management: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 337-357.
• Edmondson, A. (2019). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley.
• Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2016). Team innovation: The importance of team leader behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 42(4), 758-786.
• Hackman, J. R. (2011). Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Kahn, K. B., Mentzer, J. T., & Lentz, G. (2018). The role of collaboration in innovative product development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1), 30-45.
• Larson, E. W. (2017). Teamwork and interorganizational collaboration: Promises and pitfalls. California Management Review, 59(3), 5-19.