Personal Analysis of Group Work (Management Essay Sample)
The rudimentary ethics that is applicable to individual work can also relate to group work, evaluating of which is particularly crucial because of two reasons. First, based on the purposes of the assignment, both procedures and product-related abilities ought to be evaluated. Secondly, group achievements require to be turned to personal grades to enhance the fairness of the laboring conditions (Saudi Electronic University, 2016). This paper evaluates the dynamics of a group, determines how information is processed and shared, analyzes how the group under discussion generated ideas, and, finally, contrasts the negative and positive behaviors. The essay also shows the proficiency at tying in the fundamental concepts gained in the “Decision Theory in the Global Marketplace” course in the light of the experiences discussed.
The Dynamics of the Group
The business organization in Saudi Arabia had critical issues concerning the group dynamics. Specifically, in the company, this aspect proved to be poor as people’s behavior caused disruptions to the work. As a result, the team would not reach any common logical decision; it mostly made the wrong choices since the members were not able to adequately explore the options. What is more important, the group lacked strong leadership (Hopper, 2013). Because of this condition, more influential members could often take charge, and it led to the lack of direction, infighting and focusing on the wrong priorities. Besides, excessive deference to the authorities also affected the group: whenever people strived to unreservedly agree with the leaders, they often refrained from expressing their personal views or opinions (Saudi Electronic University, 2016).
How Information was Assessed, Shared and Processed
There were various ways in which the obtained information was assessed, shared and processed by the group. To begin with, when efficient group management procedures were established, clear guidelines for the assessment were developed. Consequently, the chances of positive learning feedbacks and students’ satisfaction with group activities got significantly increased (Hopper, 2013).
On the other hand, the process of evaluating and sharing information included several concerns. Specifically, there was the lack of clear objectives and perceived relevance. While some group members considered the assessment an effective way for work output improvement, others did not take it seriously (Moreover & Sessa, 2007). Nevertheless, there was an alternative viewpoint that the employers focused on hiring individuals, not teams, and that the manner in which group worked was assessed, was rarely corresponding to the conditions in reality. The staff members stated that they were not sure whether the working environment was replicated (Editorial Search, 2013).
One of the greatest difficulties that the members had about group work was the possibility that the assessments of the group would not make contributions on the individual level (Hopper, 2013). The staff was enthusiastic about the establishment of the grading practices because they would correctly reflect the performance standards of each of the group members (Macgowan, 2013).
Moreover, the careful planning and coordination of the assessment scheduling could help prevent the important members’ workload issues that were likely to develop from various group assessment procedures across different subjects (Hopper, 2013). Therefore, regulation and monitoring of the group work extent and timing was desirable. Besides, the team needed to consider the problems from different perspectives. (Macgowan, 2013). Thus, the group leaders should have provided the people in the inferior positions with the new tasks as well as asked them to look at the issues in the way other groups, such as HR, accounting, or sales departments, would do it. These people should have been requested to reflect on the techniques they would use to solve the same problem during their earlier years of work or employment.
Furthermore, brainstorming method as well as creating the lists with the ideas combined into new strategies need to be implemented (Supplemental Material for Group, 2015). Once the given groups got finished with their initial lists, they should have been provided with additional skill improvement tools. The instruments or objects could come from a randomly generated source. This basic method in other words is called forcing relationship (Macgowan, 2013).
Another assessment test would be about thinking in opposites. Rather than making the members answer direct questions concerning the problem, they should have been asked the opposite, for example how they would guarantee that nobody bought the new products. Capturing the ideas fully from the opposite side, in fact would reveal them for solving the actual problems (Saudi Electronic University, 2016).
Thinking metaphorically would also be an essential assessment tool. This approach would be similar to forcing relationships. It implies that the random ideas would be picked and then examined by the group. This method would be very helpful and influential in the creation of new suggestions where none existed before (Saudi Electronic University, 2016).
Additionally, preparation would also be a primary assessment process. Frequently, the group members would be asked to brainstorm on the problems with no time for previous thinking. However, if the members had this time for contemplating about the given, they would be able to generate more and greater ideas (Leadership to Reconcile Team Diversity or Conflict,2013).The members should have been allowed to be well-prepared mentally by sharing the thoughts concerning the challenges amongst themselves before the meeting whenever possible.
The setting of goals was another key method through which the group generated ideas. The simple acts of giving members a quantity goal before the beginning of a brainstorming session would lead to a longer list of suggested ideas (Hopper, 2013). There was a need for a determining the objectives on a bit higher levels than the group members would think they could typically achieve. When the goal was set, the team monitored was striving to reach it (Saudi Electronic University, 2016).
Positive and Negative Behaviors
In the process of the teamwork, the positive and negative behaviors got contrasted. Some of the positive included the following: the groups which brought other members into the discussions as well as the groups who encouraged other members to make their contributions in the forms of ideas which were later adopted. Other positive behaviors were observed among the groups who appropriately challenged people’s views, volunteered to keep track of time, and took records of those ideas. The positive examples were also those who helped to shape the discussion, took charge of its development as well as ensured that everyone understood the objectives(Editorial Search,2013).
Some of the negative aspects of the behaviors would concern members of the teams who talked too much and were insensitive to the feelings of others (Moreover & Sessa, 2007). The negative behaviors were presented by those whose arguments got ignored, who were very dominant as well as those who interrupted others and wandered from the subject (Saudi Electronic University, 2016).
In conclusion, various fundamental concepts concerning the experience discussed were gained in the “Decision Theory in the Global Marketplace” course. While working in the team, certain skills were necessary for the development, improvement of productivity, and employment growth (Saudi Electronic University, 2016). The individual productivity was affected by the rates of employment, stability, wage rate, or job satisfaction. The enterprises’ productivity, in addition to the output per worker, would be measured based on the members’ skills, the improved productivity, export performance, employment growth, and the development of the market share. The benefits from higher enterprise and individual productivity would be evident in the increased number of jobs and higher rate of competitiveness (Hopper, 2013).