Overview of the Team I was Part Of

Introduction 

Teamwork comes with an elaborate pro et contra since a functional team can be very effective, yet forming a functional team and maintaining its functionality is a major management challenge. A functional and successful team has three primary prerequisites all of which are critical for its success. The first is that it is properly established, meaning that it has the right people who are able to cope with one another, even under pressure. The second is that it is competent which relates to the ability to perform the obligations for which it was formed (Levi, 2015). Finally, a team needs to be able to meet the objectives the individual members had for joining the team, without which the team cannot be sustainable. Team management involves the entire process of forming, maintaining, and eventually dissolving the team, based on the three critical prerequisites above alongside general management and leadership concepts and theories (Levi, 2015). A successful team is not just a team that has the functional competency to attain an obligation as it also needs social competence to enable the members to work together, to accomplish the given obligation. 

Overview of the Team 

The team I was a part of was an eleven-member enterprise that ran a small computer repair shop. I was a member of the team for several months during its first year, hence the team can be considered to have been in its norming stage. The computer repair shop was primarily involved in the repair of palmtop, laptop, and desktop computers with a focus on software-based repare although elementary hardware repairs were also carried out. Six members of the team made up the sales and marketing department which did all the advertising, customer care, collecting items that needed repair from the customers, and delivering the repaired items to the customers. Four members formed the technical team that was involved in all the repairs and other technical aspects of the repair shop. Finally, there was the owner of the shop who was also the head technician, chief marketer, team leader, group accountant, and the only member of management on the team with all other members being equals. The operating theory for the team was that every member of the team was an equal partner, apart from the manager. Each of the departments played a crucial role to the success of the team, as there would be no computers to repair without the sale and marketing team while there would also be no need to collect any computers if there was no technical team. The operational theory was not always adhered to as group struggled with the vagaries of the norming stage. 

Identification and Analysis 

Team Characteristics 

Team Goals 

The team had two primary goals. The first goal was to become a single cohesive, functional, and mutually beneficial team. The second goal was to give the best possible service to our customers to ensure the success of the small enterprise and also its continued growth which by extension would benefit all team members. 

Team Objectives 

The first objective was to ensure that every member of the team was civil to one another, respected one another and any and all issues arising in the course of running the team would be formally ironed out in a team meeting under the superintendence of the manager. The second objective was to ensure that each member of the team shared in both the successes and failures of the team so as to create oneness in the team. These objectives were geared towards the attainment of the first goal of the company. 

The third objective was to give the customer the best possible service while contemporaneously ensuring that they got the best value for their money. The fourth objective was to ensure that each customer was considered independently and served as such with full commitment from both the marketing and the technical team. The final objective was to ensure that the marketing team under-promises while the technical team over-delivers to always have happy and grateful customers at the end of the day. These three objectives were geared towards attaining the second goal of the company. 

Team Member Roles 

Each team member had general roles and specialized roles. The general roles applied to all eleven team members and included ensuring that the team works in harmony, disputes and issues are minimized and a positive working environment is maintained. Secondly, general roles also included physical chores around the workplace such as hygiene and preparing snacks. These duties would be shared on a rotational basis. With regard to specialized roles, the six members of the marketing department would share departmental roles on a consensus basis with members playing any of the available roles for the day. For example, the person at the customer care desk today may be on the delivery team tomorrow and the public relations team doing door to door marketing the following day. The four-member technical team had particularized roles with two handling software repairs, one handling hardware repairs while the other was to ensure quality by testing finished products. The manager would normally join the software repair team when not handling the considerable administrative roles he also played on a constant basis. 

Team Norms 

The team leader and owner of the business prided himself as a student of Kelly Johnson, the legendary founder of Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs informally known as the Skunk Works. He thus developed team rules based on the Skunk Works. Everyone was in the team because they qualified to be there and belonged in the team hence the contribution of every member was crucial to the success of the team. There was only one leader, the manager, with everyone else being equal subordinates. The team norms also engendered general casualness in dressing, talking, and interacting with one another. Members were encouraged to take everything with a light note except their duties. Regular high-five days would be held where every member would give other members a high five whenever they encountered one another. A banner on the wall read “ it’s never that serious ” while another read “ work hard, but don’t forget to live ”. Conflicts were, however, taken seriously and handled efficiently. 

Team Member Evaluation 

The concept of team member evaluation did not exist in the group. The contribution of every member was the contribution of the whole group and the failure of every member was similarly the failure of every group. The group leader would actively decline to engage in an evaluation of who was wrong but focused on how to repair the damage and ensure it never happens again. Similarly, individual efforts were never complimented with all good news being credited to the whole group. The evaluation was based on targets set by the group on itself, most of which were not attainable in the first place. 

Team Processes 

Work-Related Processes 

Work was divided into customers and their needs as opposed to chores. The job would always begin either when a customer drops off an item that needs repair or when the object was collected from the customer. At the point of collection, the only details to be collected were the contact details and complaints about the gadget. The technical team would then evaluate the gadget and establish what needed to be done and what it would cost. These details would be passed on to the marketing department who would contact the customer and get a green light for repairs to be done at the estimated cost. The technical team would then undertake repairs, assess the efficacy and forward the gadget to the marketing team. The marketing team would contact the customer who, after clearing with the accounts department (the manager), would collect the item. Based on these, all duty-based activities involved close cooperation by several members, making it a team effort. 

Social Processes 

The team was more of a family than a workgroup with all social issues being handled informally as much as practicable. Small disputes and disagreements would be handled by members privately or with the involvement of the team leader. The group would always endeavor to keep everything simple but whenever it would fail, the team leader would call a team meeting. All team meetings would involve all members under the leadership of the manager who would also manage the talking stick. Only the person holding the talking stick would be allowed to talk, making dispute resolution much easier. The main focus in social issues group was to foster reconciliation and use the dispute as a learning experience. 

Team Issues 

As the team was in the norming stage, it faced several issues more so on the social aspect of the team and only a few issues on the work-based aspects. The first issue was gender-based differences mainly based on a misunderstanding but to some extent on gender bias. The team leader was a lady and all four members of the technical team, as well as two of the marketers, were men. Some of the men would seemingly look down on the team leader or be assumed to do so by the ladies in the team. There was also a few incidences of misunderstandings that could be construed as sexual discrimination. For example, some of the men felt that they should not be involved in chores such as cleaning. Another social issue was based on the technical team seemingly looking down on the marketing team. In some meetings, the technical team would argue that they do the actual work while the sales team does subordinate facilitation duties. Work-related issues would involve miscommunication between the two departments leading to the inconveniencing of a client. 

Team Organizational Context 

The team was not registered in any way as it happened to be made up of employees of a sole proprietorship. There was, however, an agreement by all ten members to the effect that after the small enterprise comes off age and flourishes, it shall be registered as a Limited Liability Company with all eleven members as shareholders. In the interim, however, the team would work as a group of employees under the team leader who was also the sole proprietor of the business registration under which the enterprise was managed. 

Dysfunction Assessment Analysis 

Dysfunction I: Absence of Trust 

Quick and genuine apologies happen usually within subgroups but rarely between members of the two different subgroups of marketers and technicians. Team members sometimes admit their weaknesses and mistakes mostly when a meeting has been called to discuss a problem but not at other times. Finally, team members rarely know about one another’s personal lives and are rarely comfortable discussing them (Lencioni, 2010). 

Dysfunction II: Fear of Conflict 

Members are usually passionate and unguarded in their discussion of issues, both in meeting and on a day to day basis. Further, all team members are usually compelling and never boring. Finally, during team meetings, the most important and difficult issues are usually put on the table and discussed (Lencioni, 2010). 

Dysfunction III: Lack of Commitment 

Team members only know about what the members of their subgroups are supposed to be doing but not necessarily what they are doing, so knowledge of what other members are doing only happens sometimes. However, team members usually leave team meetings confident that their peers are completely committed to the decisions that were agreed on, even if there was an initial disagreement. Finally, team members usually end discussions with clear and specific resolutions and calls for action (Lencioni, 2010). 

Dysfunction IV: Avoidance of Accountability 

Team members call out one another’s deficiencies and unproductive behaviors but since members do not closely monitor one another, this only happens rarely. Team members are rarely concerned about the prospect of letting their peers down due to a group-outcome mentality. However, team members will sometimes challenge one another about their plans and approaches, more so when evaluating whether or not the group has met its targets. 

Dysfunction V: Inattention to Results 

Team members will make sacrifices for the good of the team, more so within their respective subgroups, but rarely will a team member sacrifice for the good of the other subgroup. Morale is rarely affected by the failure to achieve team goals since most team goals are beyond attainability and are based on a best-case scenario. Team members are rarely slow to seek credit for their own contributions but are quick to point out those of others because personal contribution rarely counts (Lencioni, 2010). 

Recommendations to Improve Performance 

Sharing of Administrative Duties 

The avoidance of accountability reflected above is mainly predicated on the fact that team members do not find the organization itself to be accountable to them. Unlike machines, humans want to see the fruits of their hard work and ingenuity over and above a pecuniary reward such as wages. In the team, members shared most of the work while the team leader handled all finances and administrative work. The leader may have meant well but the team may have felt as if there is a lack of transparency. Most importantly, the team members did not get to experience the direct positive or negative effects of their labor. The administrative work should thus be shared with the team leader being more of a coach than a manager (Levi, 2010). 

Personal Evaluation and Assessment 

The inattention to results as evidenced above is mainly based on the absolute absence of evaluation and assessment on a personal level. Whereas teamwork is the most effective means of maximizing returns from human talent, the contribution of each member of team matter to team success. It is thus important to share duties in a way each member has a specified obligation under which the member can be assessed and evaluated. Lack of evaluation may lead to lethargy with the entire team failing because one member is not doing enough (Levi, 2010). Conversely, lack of evaluation can also create carelessness and indifference making a member’s contribution toxic to the rest of the group member’s efforts. Evaluation and assessment at a personal level are indispensable even when a team is operating as one entity. 

Conclusion 

For a team to be successful, it must go beyond being a collection of individuals who have the collective competence to carry out the obligations for which the team has been brought together. Social competence is also necessary to keep the team together and also enable team members to work in cohesion so that their contributions can complement one another. The team should also be able to continually minimize the arising of issues between them then be able to solve any issues that develop into conflicts. Further, even when a team operates as a singular entity, the positive or negative contributions of each member are critical to the success of the team and must, therefore, be carefully evaluated and assessed. Modern commercial and operational dynamics make it hard to succeed alone thus making teamwork indispensable. Leading and managing an effective skill is thus a fundamental skill for every manager. 

References 

Lencioni, P. (2010).  The five dysfunctions of a team . Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons 

Levi, D. (2010).  Group dynamics for teams . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.