The Forgotten Group Member
Essay Preview: The Forgotten Group Member
Report this essay
Title: Case Study:The Forgotten Group Member
GM 591 Leadership and Organizational Behavior
The case study, The Forgotten Group Member, is composed of a group of five people and their task is to analyze a seven-page case, come up with a written analysis and do a class presentation. The group may be classified as a formal team given the election of a leader as team coordinator to oversee the group. The team seems to be operating under the Expectancy Theory of motivation. The Expectancy Theory, located on page 118 in our text, states that work motivation is determined by individual beliefs regarding effort/performance relationships and work outcomes. In other words, the group is expecting to receive as a class grade an “A” based on result of their combine team work, combine tasks performed and combine value (commitment). To achieve this class grade, their performance is determined on team effectiveness. Team effectiveness equals the quality of inputs plus the process gains minus the process losses.
In the forming stage of team development, it seemed that the group was getting off to a good start by getting to know each other, assessing each others personality and ability, connecting based on the “apparent camaraderie” in the case study 7 and had no difficulties in dividing their assignments with an understanding that they are accountable for their performance. The team is in the storming stage and has not been able to advance to the norming, performing and adjourning stages with success. The textbook, on page 166, states that “the storming stage of team development is a period of high emotionality and tension among the group members.” The group was unable to agree to meet, one team member was constantly absent, a subgroup emerged, one team member was withdrawn and distant, and the inability to discuss the quality of work presented. The team coordinator failed to take action in restoring the team by not addressing the individual differences, such as self-awareness and the awareness of others, and team norms which can be a stumbling block in the development of team growth which has an adverse effect on team effectiveness.
The primary problem that affected the team is recognizing individual difference and its impact on group performance. In the formative stage, she attempted to structure the team by setting up a meeting place through team consensus and it backed fired with “indignation” and comments by a team member which was followed by laughter. This incident is an indicator that there is a difference in their behaviors and that it may be a problem in the future. Also, it shows where the value of each team member is placed. By him reacting with “indignation” states that his personal interest comes first and does not see the importance or the priority of attending the meetings and requires too much effort. The rest of the group were willing to meet because they maintained a harmonious relationship thereafter, where you saw them “laughing and enjoying themselves” prior to class and having informal meeting in the cafeteria during lunch time and completing their designated assignments. Tension was slowly rising due to role conflict exhibited by one of the team member. That team member initially understood his role in the team but was not able to comply or meet the expectation due to being overwhelmed by school work, the job and personal problems. The team coordinator was not proactive in addressing these issues because she allowed her own self-awareness to interfere.
The secondary problem that the team experienced is team norms. The textbook on page 186, defines team norms as rules or standards for the behavior of group members. As the team moved from formative stage to storming stage of team development, the team as a collective did not establish or stress the importance of high performance as being the goal and the basis of performance norms. For example,