Designing Team And Team Identity Part 1: Our Textbook Lists ✓ Solved

Designing Team and Team Identity Part 1: Our text book lists

Designing Team and Team Identity Part 1: Our text book lists about twelve elements that a manager should consider when designing a team. Choose two elements that you think are not really important for building a team. Define the two elements and explain why these two are least important. Would you choose the same two for a face to face team and a virtual team? If you were a manager and were given a team of five 30-year-old males from the United States and you could hire one more person for the team, would you hire a female from France? Why or why not?

Part 2: Do you feel more attached to your work team, your class team or your 'team of family and friends?' Do each of these 'teams' have a different identity? What is the difference?

Paper For Above Instructions

In the realm of team design, managers often encounter various elements that are deemed essential for creating efficient and harmonious teams. However, not every proposed component holds equal weight in terms of actual effectiveness in building a cohesive team. This paper will critically analyze two elements from the textbook that may be considered less critical when designing a team and will provide rationale for these claims, alongside a comparison of how these elements might differ in importance for face-to-face versus virtual teams. Additionally, this paper will assess the social dynamics of teamwork through personal reflection regarding attachment to different team structures, specifically focusing on work teams, class teams, and familial or friend groups.

Identifying Less Important Elements in Team Design

The two elements chosen from the list that may not be as critical are 'individual skills mismatch' and 'team location.' The term 'individual skills mismatch' suggests that ensuring every team member has a perfectly aligned skill set is paramount for team success. However, in many real-world scenarios, diversity in skills—often referred to as complementary skills—can drive creativity and foster innovative solutions to problems. For instance, a team that blends technical experts with creative thinkers often outperforms a team made up solely of like-skilled individuals (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Thus, while individual skills are important, a unique skill set does not necessarily correlate to effective teamwork.

Moreover, the element of 'team location' is another aspect that can be considered less significant in today’s interconnected world. With advancements in technology, virtual teams can collaborate in real time despite physical distances (Powell et al., 2004). Traditional views positioning co-located teams as superior may soon become outdated; the effectiveness of remote teams can hinge on their communication processes and tools rather than whether they occupy the same physical space (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). Therefore, both elements might carry less weight when considering modern configurations of team dynamics.

Face-to-Face vs. Virtual Teams

When reflecting on whether the same elements would apply to face-to-face teams versus virtual teams, the answer may vary. For example, the importance of individual skills mismatch would likely be less significant in a face-to-face configuration where direct interaction can bolster skill sharing and personal development. However, in virtual teams, where communication can sometimes falter, reliance on individual skills could become more pronounced as team members may need to self-sufficiently navigate their roles to a higher degree. On the contrary, while team location may play a more significant role in traditional settings, it is arguably of even less importance in existing digital infrastructures.

Hiring Decisions in Team Composition

Reflecting upon a hypothetical scenario wherein a manager is tasked with adding one member to a team composed of five 30-year-old males from the United States presents an interesting inquiry on diversity and team dynamics. Hiring a female from France could introduce valuable different perspectives, abilities, and cultural insights that enhance team cohesion and workplace adaptability (Page, 2007). However, personal biases and stereotypes associated with gender or national characteristics could lead to flawed decision-making if not acknowledged. Therefore, selecting a team member based on a desire for diversity rather than unfounded generalizations can strengthen team performance.

Attachment to Various Teams

In Part 2 of the assignment, reflecting on the emotional connection we foster with various teams reveals nuances in identity and allegiance. Attachment to a work team often stems from shared goals and collective accountability; feelings here may be tied closely to achievement metrics and professional development. Conversely, a class team might elicit camaraderie through social experiences, with interactions often revolving around learning and academic milestones.

On the other hand, familial and friend-based teams carry an inherently different identity rooted in emotional bonds and unconditional support. These relationships are typically characterized by greater personal investment and relational dynamics that can lead to a stronger attachment and sense of identity. Thus, while each team is valuable and distinct in its own right, their structures inform very different experiences of identity and commitment.

Conclusion

When deliberating on team design, not all elements are of equal importance. Individual skills mismatch and team location may not significantly enhance team performance, especially in today’s evolving landscape. Moreover, reflections on team attachments reveal a complex tapestry woven from different experiences that inform how identity is constructed within each team type. Ultimately, understanding these distinctions can empower effective management practices across various contexts.

References

• De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 368-381.
• Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451-495.
• Page, S. E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.
• Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(1), 6-36.