Discussion: Working In Teams And The Manager’s Hot Seat

Discussion Working In Teamsview The Managers Hot Seat Working In

Analyze the "Manager's Hot Seat: Working in Teams - Cross-Functional Dysfunction" video case to determine the team's current stage of group development, identify the factors in the video that support this assessment, and suggest actions Joe should have taken before, during, and after the meeting to ensure a successful project start. Examine the scene with reference to Table 13.5 to identify factors that enhanced or hindered group cohesiveness. Evaluate Joe's management skills and overall performance, providing specific recommendations for handling similar situations more effectively in the future, supported by relevant chapter concepts and ideas.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The team depicted in the "Manager's Hot Seat" video case appears to be in the storming stage of group development. According to Tuckman's model of group development, the storming phase is characterized by conflict, disagreement, and competition as team members vie for roles and authority (Tuckman, 1965). In the video, the team members exhibit signs of power struggles and resistance to leadership, as seen when they challenge Joe’s authority, dismiss his suggestions, and display frustration. The lack of clear roles and unstructured communication underscore that the group has not yet reached the norming or performing stages, where cooperation and cohesion are more evident. These behaviors suggest that the team is still navigating the challenges typical of the storming phase, which can hinder progress if not properly managed (Wheelan, 2005).

Before the meeting, Joe should have prepared thoroughly by establishing a clear agenda, defining team roles, and setting ground rules for communication. Effective preparation also involves understanding the team members' backgrounds and potential conflicts, which can help the manager anticipate and address issues proactively. During the meeting, Joe should have practiced active listening, maintained a calm demeanor, and facilitated open dialogue to build trust. Encouraging participation and acknowledging different viewpoints could have minimized conflicts and fostered a sense of shared purpose. After the meeting, follow-up actions such as clarifying roles, setting achievable goals, and establishing communication norms would reinforce team cohesion and move the group into the norming stage. Regular check-ins can also monitor progress and address emerging issues early, supporting sustained collaboration (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

In this scenario, specific factors that enhanced group cohesiveness included the team members’ shared organizational goals and their collective desire to succeed, which created common ground despite conflicts—elements aligned with Table 13.5’s discussion on facilitating trust and shared purpose. Conversely, factors such as unclear leadership, lack of defined roles, and unresolved conflicts contributed to a lack of cohesion. The absence of structured communication channels and team norms further hindered the development of trust and cooperation among team members. Without these elements, the team remained fractured, and organizational goals were at risk of not being achieved effectively.

Assessing Joe’s management skills, techniques, and overall performance provides insight into potential improvements. While Joe displayed a willingness to lead, his lack of preparation, insufficient conflict management skills, and inability to assert authority contributed to the team’s dysfunction. To improve, Joe could adopt strategies such as establishing clear objectives before meetings, employing conflict resolution techniques, and cultivating emotional intelligence to better read and respond to team dynamics (Goleman, 1995). For future situations, Joe should focus on building trust by fostering open communication, setting explicit expectations, and demonstrating confidence in his leadership. Implementing team-building exercises and actively facilitating consensus can enhance cohesion and ensure that team members feel valued and understood. By doing so, Joe can transform the storming phase into the more productive norming and performing stages, ultimately enhancing team effectiveness and project success (Hackman, 2002).

In conclusion, understanding the team’s developmental stage is crucial for effective management. Recognizing the signs of storming and applying targeted strategies can help leaders foster a collaborative environment. Preparation, active facilitation during meetings, and follow-up actions are essential for establishing norms, building trust, and promoting cohesion. Joe’s performance could have been strengthened through improved conflict management and clearer communication. Emphasizing these concepts will enable managers to lead teams more effectively in complex, cross-functional environments, ensuring project success and organizational growth (Salas et al., 2015).

References

• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
• Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business School Press.
• Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2015). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and new directions. American Psychologist, 70(6), 640–652.
• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
• Wheelan, S. A. (2005). Creating effective teams: A guide for members and leaders. Sage Publications.