Successful Team

According to Bolman and Deal in “Reframing Organization”, there are several team configurations: One Boss, Dual Authority, Simple Hierarchy, Circle Network, and All-Channel Network. Each team configuration has benefits and weakness. The top authority of organization would choose one configuration that would work best for them, since team configuration has a great impact on team's success and each members' authorities and responsibilities. 

It is quite sad for me to say that I do not have been part of a successful team in my college experience. It might because I haven’t worked or interned in some companies which are usually highly structured organizations. When I took ECON 460 (Financial Economics) at U of I, I had to work with four other students who are taking the course for group project. We had to analyze the payout policies for the certain firm, recommend a better payout policies, and present it to classmates and the professor. Our team configuration is All-Channel Network, which means every members of the team communicate to each other and information are shared to each other. Its strength is that each member can work in their expertise which can increase the efficiency. On the other hand, its weakness is that making a decision for team would be slower than other models whereas they have one in higher position with more authority and responsibility. For this model, communication among team members is crucial since all members in team have equal power in decision making.

In our group, there were students with various characteristics in group project. There was one student who would like to lead the group, one student who wouldn’t even show up in the class and answer our group chat, one student who would follow the lead, one student who did only “minimum” required tasks, and me who would like to have active communication among members to efficiently work on our project. There was only one in-class meeting time that we could actually meet up and talk about individual tasks. In the meeting, we introduced ourselves, discussed how to assign task to each member, and assigned the tasks to the member who was confident in that particular area. Also, we made a group chat so that we can keep in touch and communicate well. But there was one student didn’t show up in that class, so we just assigned him left-task.

The group project was done in individual basis, not working together or collaboratively even though it was a “group” project. So, we just kind of had own time to finish the task and talk about our progress in group chat. We made a google doc so that we can see other group members’ actual progress in their research, but we didn’t meet up outside of the class to talk about the group project. We also divided the section in power point and each member made their own slides for presentation. I and one student who are trying to lead the group tried to find the time to at least practice and organize how to present our project, but we couldn’t find the time. It wasn’t just because of the time conflict, but due to member’s willingness to actively participate in group project.

In the end, each member including the one who didn’t really respond in our group chat finished their own parts and presented assigned section in front of the classmates. During the presentation, we were confused on who to go first. And, when professor asked a question regarding our project, none of us weren’t immediately try to answer that question. We just tried to toss question and responsibilities to other members in the team. We got 82/100 for the group project. The comment from the professor was that our group got the point of each section in group project but didn’t come up with harmonious recommendation for the firm. The result of the project wasn’t that bad but I think it was not a successful team. There was no such teamwork involved in our group. If we had a better communication with team member and shared information well, we could have come up with harmonious payout policy recommendation.

Katzenbach and Smith introduced 6 distinguishable features of high function teams as following:

1)High-performing teams shape purpose in response to a demand or an opportunity placed in their path, usually by higher management.

2)High-performing teams translate common purpose into specific, measurable performance goals.

3)High-performing teams are of manageable size.

4)High-performing teams develop the right mix of expertise. 

5)High-performing teams develop a common commitment to working relationships. 

6)Members of high-performing teams hold themselves collectively accountable. 

Our group did have common purpose of finishing our project and getting a good grade, but each member had different performance goals. Some tried to work hard to get a good grade but some didn’t really care about the project. Our group had five people which I think is a manageable size. However, our group didn’t really have a right mix of expertise since we were all students who are taking the course. But, for group project in the course, we did divided tasks to individual who was confident in that particular concept. In terms of commitment of each members, we weren’t high performing team since we had various members with different enthusiasm in the project. Some just finished their part roughly, others put a lot of effort and time commitment in the project. In addition, members in our group didn’t hold themselves collectively accountable. For me, I couldn’t trust some members in our team, so I repeatedly checked their progress and added up to what they did in their parts.

As I experienced unsuccessful team work in college, I think that as college students we do not usually have huge responsibilities and consequences on how we put our effort in team project in the courses. But we will have more responsibilities in the team as employee upon our graduation. Still employees can toss their responsibilities to someone who are in higher positions, I believe that each individual should act and work in moral way to maintain high-performing team and efficient work environment for organization.