Topic:The New Science Of Building Great team

Summary: This chapter of the Harvard Business Review is the first in the HBR:Ten must read

about teams. It was compiled by Alex Pentland and opened the ground work successfully

building a team. The author started by confirming that team building is an art and not a

science(Harvard Business Review,.2013.pg.1)and task the reader to think why some teams

perform while others struggle.

In their research, she said they have identified high performing teams to be the one that are

blessed with the energy, creativity and shared commitment.(Harvard Business Review,. 2013)

All this dynamics are observable , quantifiable and measurable.

Communication is to high performance teams and according to her "little of the research on team

building focuses on it".(Harvard Business Review,. 2013.pg.2).This was confirmed by the data

from the experiment carried out by her team. They attached some wireless badges developed in

the lab on some particular group of employees ranging from customer service to production

workers,to capture natural behaviours and body languages.(Harvard Business Review,. 2013).

The team discovered that the best predictors of productivity were: team energy, engagement

outside formal meetings.(Harvard Business Review,. 2013)

Before advancement in technology that can't effectively capture natural behaviour , conventional,

what was available then was only a strong sense of good leadership and followership and

palpable shared commitments as predictors of high performance teams.

(Harvard Business Review,. 2013.pg.4).

Their data also revealed that successful teams have the following characteristics:

Everyone talks and listens equally

Members face each other with energetic conversation going

Members carry on back channel discussion

Exploring outside the team with useful information to tender on return(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg.6)

The key elements of communication according to her are, energy, engagement and exploration

which I have mentioned before.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 6-7)

It is important to note here that though hava discussion between each other while meeting is

going might look like it will be diverting attention but successful team do both to their advantage

. This is because both can generate and facilitate useful ideas.(Harvard Business Review,.

2013.pg.7)

The data provided by the experiment(Badge data) does not mean much in numerical terms , so

there are three ways to apply the data which are 1. Visualization : this is using the formulas

developed to calculate energy, engagement and exploration and creating a map of how the team

is doing.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg.9).

2. Training : with the map done ,a feedback is dished out to the teams to help them improve

3.Fine tuning performance:finally, we use the badge data to map energy and engagement against

perfromance.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg.17).

Reflection

After carefully studying this chapter I realised that I have been wrong in my judgement of what

comprise a good team . I used to believe that a team are supposed to compete inwardly with each

other to see who is the best. At the end some people get the credits that the whole team deserves

and most of the time such teams break and a lot of accusing fingers pointed to those that feel like

others cannot get the work done.(social loafing)

to Debby of living strong magazine, other qualities of a good team are communication, trust and

commitment, defined jobs,periodic evaluation,social connections and most importantly

calculated risk and movement.(Mayne,.2014).

References

Harvard Business Review., (2013). HBR's 10 Must Reads on Teams. 1st ed. Harvard Business

Review Press.

Mayne, D. (2014). Qualities of a Good Team | LIVESTRONG.COM. [online]

LIVESTRONG.COM. Available at: http://www.livestrong.com/article/82124-qualities-good-

team/ [Accessed 20 Sep. 2014].

Eight ways that build a collaborative teams

Big projects often requires large members in teams to get the work done. A research done by

Gratton and Erickson looked into 15 multinationals revealed that although teams that are large ,

virtual,diverse and composed of highly educated specialist are increasingly crucial and these

characteristics make it hard for them to get things done .(Harvard Business Review,. 2013.pg55-

56). The researcher further said that those qualities required for success can also undermine

success.
They said that members of complex teams are less likely to share resources i.e share knowledge

and resources freely , probably because of ego and pride.

Picking those qualities one after the other:

Size

There has been a lot of changes in the sizes of teams over the last ten years because of

technological improvement. (Harvard Business Review,. 2013.pg56).This has allowed firms to

tap into wide body of knowledge and expertise. Before now, it was a common view that true

teams are rarely more than 20 members.However as the size of teams increases above 20, there is

tendency that collaborating naturally will decrease.But research has shown that no matter the

number in a team, if they work under the right condition large teams can be very successfully

when they combine their knowledge and expertise.

Virtual

Just like the impact of size on teams , as teams become more virtual cooperation declines except

the companies had taken measures to establish a collaborative culture.

Diversity

Here, according to the authors( Erickson and Gratton) , the challenging tasks facing business

today mostly requires the input the expertise of people with different background to facilitate

innovation and create a spark.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 56).

Their research shows that team members collaborate more easily and naturally if they perceive

themselves as been alike.

Some of the difference that inhibits collaboration not only include nationality , but also age ,

educational level and tenure. They found that the higher the proportion of strangers on the team
the greater the diversity of background and experiences and the less likely the team members are

to share knowledge and exhibit collaborative behaviour.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 57)

Educational level

Same as mentioned above , the higher the level of education of the team member, the more

challenging collaboration appears to be for them. They found that the greater the proportion of

experts a team had , the more it may disintegrate into non productive conflict.

To maximize the effectiveness of large diverse teams , they said they must demonstrate high

levels of collaborative behaviour despite their complexity.(Harvard Business Review,.

2013.pg57).

They did a research about large diversified teams that have been successful and highlighted 8

factors to success for teams:

Executive support

Here, a teams succes of failure reflects the mentality of the people at the elms of affairs I.e the

executives.Teams do well according to them when executives invest in supporting social

relationships, demonstrating collaborative behaviour and creating what they call gift culture.

(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 59).

Gift culture is one in which employees experience interactions with leaders and colleagues as

something valuable .

They noted that companies must not copy other company in doing this but they should

research and define ways by which this will blend with there organisational culture.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 60)

They found here that perceived behaviour of senior executive play a significant role in

determining how cooperative teams will be prepared .example is the standard chattered bank

case study.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 61).

Creating a gift culture

This I have mentioned , this is when the executives ensure that mentoring and coaching become

embedded in their own routine behaviour and through out the company .example is the Nokia

company in the case.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 64).

HR practises can also help the organisation as mention in the article , this includes selection,

performance management, promotion, rewards and training .(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg

65).

Ensuring the requisite skills

They explain here the container of collaboration which is the underlying culture and habits of the

company or team. (Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 66).

Some of the skills crucial towards this are: appreciating others, being able to engage in

purposeful conversation, productively resolving conflicts and program management.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 64).

Supporting a sense of community

They discovered that HR can play a critical role in developing and cultivating communal spirit.hr

can do this by sponsoring group events and activities like cooking weekends and tennis coaching
or by creating policies and practises that encourage them.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg

66).

Assigning leaders who are both task and relationship oriented

According to their study of 55 teams(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 70),the most productive

teams were typically led by people who are both task and relationship oriented. Task orientation

type of leader is needed to make goal clear,engage in debates about commitment and clarifies

the responsibilities of individual team members. Relationship orientation is needed when initial

tension around sharing knowledge start to emerge.

Building on heritage relationship

Their research shows that new teams especially those with high proportion of members who

were strangers at the time of formation, find it more difficult to collaborate with those that knew

each other before.(Harvard Business Review,. 2013.pg 71). They suggested that when forming

teams executives should make sure that some greater percentage of members that know each

other before and have positive relationships are high in the team, so that the strangers can blend

easily.

Understanding role clarity and task ambiguity

Their research shows that collaboration improves when the rols of individual members of the

team are clearly defined and well understood(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 72).

Team members without clarity are likely to waste too much energy negotiating roles or

protecting turf rather than focusing on the task.

This eight ways to build effective collaboration tool are very important, but to me been open and

laying the rules clearly are the most. I was in a team once in my business ethics class and

everything went on well until the adjourning stage where we bidded each other goodbye . We

were supposed to grade ourselves within the group and we decided to give each person a 100

percent because it counts towards our final grade . It was like a dream when my instructor

emailed me what my teammates grade was for me and the reason for it . One of them said that I

was not really participating and that am always eager to go during meetings which was totally

against my behaviour because I still stay very well after the meetings to study. This is a good

example of not setting standards and clearer rules as to what is the dos and don'ts .

According to Fields of the Open Forum magazine. The author highlighted 6 ways to foster

collaboration in the workplace : communicating company expectation, setting team goals,

fostering a reactive environment, building cohesion, knowing one another and leveraging team

member strength. (Field,2012).

We tried this in the activities we did in the class during team 2 presentation which building a

structure with marshmallow and spaghetti . This helps the team to know each other and be used

to one another .

Field, A. (2012). 6 Ways to Foster Collaboration in Your Workplace. [online] OPEN Forum.

Available at: https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/articles/fostering-

collaboration/ [Accessed 28 Sep. 2014].

Conflict according to Eisenhardt et al of HBR in teams may not be necessarily bad , depending

on how it's been handled. They concluded that conflict over issues is natural and even necessary.

(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 165). They said that management teams whose member

develop a more complete understanding of choices create a richer range of options.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 165). Conflict can however quickly turn to a mess because most

executives pride themselves on being rational , they actually find it difficult to acknowledge

other beahaviours.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 165).

The challenge however for anyone who is part of the management is to keep constructive

conflict over issues from degenerating into dysfunctional conflict and to encourage managers to

argue without destroying their ability to work collaboratively.(Havard Business Review,.

2013.pg 165-166).

They conducted a study of 12 top management teams in a technology based

companies .According to them " the study design gave us a window on conflict as top

management teams experience it and highlights the role of emotions in business decision

making.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg166)

The result was that 4 out of 12 companies had no significant disagreement over major issues .

The next 4 handled conflicts in a way that avoided interpersonal hostility or discord. They

described the way they work as a team to be open, fun, and productive and though the scream at

each other , they later laugh and then resolve the issues.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 166).
The last 4 were less successful at avoiding interpersonal conflict. Their top teams were plagued

by intense animosity . When ask to described their colleagues, they used words like secretive ,

manipulative to described them.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 166-167).

The 4 successful team were asked how they did that and the following were deducted :

1. They worked with more information and debated on the basis of fact. They made sure that

everyone who has a point to raise does so with ample evidence and not attacking any persons

personality.

2. They developed multiple alternatives . This is good for the team because it increases their

chances of being successful and narrow down the probability of failing. This also help to diffuse

conflict and to focus on solving the problem

3 . They created a common goal . This helps them not to divert to much away from their aims

and objectives . Also all management teams have element that coexist of collaboration and

competition by sharing the same vision.

4. They also inject humour into decision process. The benefits of this include:

● Makes you more enjoyable to work with

● Stress buster: reduces stress

● Humanizing

● Helps to put others at ease

● Helps in creative thinking

● Helps to build trust

● Helps to build morale

● And it will generally helps to increase productivity

According to the team presentation (team 3) . A blend of the two is good because of different

personalities of individual in the team,some need to be forced while others can effectively

function without supervision.

6. Finally by linking conflict , speed and performance. Most time where there is little conflict

over issues there is likely to be poor decision making.

Reflection

Team 3 presentation was quite impressive , they explained a linear scale where like and dislike

are at opposite ends to buttress their number 2 point. They gave an example of if given a chance

to a student on what cost should be decreased at the school from writing centre or parking, most

student will prefer , most student would pick the parking. They concluded that the more choices

you have the more you are going in the direction of dislike to like which is good.

Also from the videos they showed , one in the beginning and end 3 steps can be taking to

constructively use a conflict: 1. Express the need, 2. Ask whether the need can be met, 3.

Resolution if yes and negotiation if no.

The discipline of teams

The authors Katzenbach and Smith, started with an illustration about the medical product group

at HP which owes its remarkable performance to a Dean Morton and the rest of his members
who revitalised a health care business that everyone thought will crumble.(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg 35). They further noted that a lot of time we misinterpret the meaning of

groups for just "teams". The meaning of a team is far more than just group of people .

They found there is a basic discipline that makes teams work and that teams and good

performance are inseparable but people use the word team so loosely.(Harvard Business

Review,. 2013.pg36). They also said that most executives advocates teamwork and that

"teamwork represents some values that encourage listening and responding constructively to

views expressed by others , giving others the benefit of doubt , providing support and

recognising the interest and achievement of others"(Harvard Business Review,. 2013.pg36).

They distinguish between workgroups and teams and the major contrast are that while working

groups have strong and clearly focused. Leaders , teams have shared leadership role. This helps

every member to feel belong and puts everyone at equal level.

Also , for groups , individuals are accountable for their portion of work, while in teams there is

individual and mutual accountability. This helps team members to patiently and diligently work

with one another because they know if anyone of them fails the whole team fails.

Also because groups has a clear leader they run efficient meetings , but teams encourage

brainstorming and active problem solving meetings.(Harvard Business Review,. 2013.pg36)

They gave the following ways to build team performance:

1.Establishing urgency,demanding performance standards , and direction. This involves all team

members needing to believe the team has urgent and worthwhile purposes.(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg 40)

2. Selecting members for skill and not personality: A highly diversified team will be efficient for

this purpose.
3. Paying particular attention to first meetings and actions: Initial impressions last longer and if

care is not taking , when bad impressions are created it will affect the team and its performances.

4. Setting some clear rules of behaviour.

5. Set and seize upon a few immediate performance-oriented task and goals

6. Challenge the group regularly with fresh facts and information

7. Spending lots of time together

8.Exploit the power of positive feedback, recognition,and reward.(Havard Business Review,.

2013.pg 40-41).

Reflection

Team four gave a splendid presentation , they started with an activity where we were first

divided into two in class. They now eavesdrop a sentence inside the ear of the first person on

each row. The last person on the group will now repeat the sentence.The outcome was that not a

single statement written by the last person on each row matched with the initial statement that

was passed on. They then divided us into our teams in columns, this time because the chain is

shorter we were able to at least pass on a word of the sentence. The reflection was that the larger

the team the more the communication tends to fade.

They also define discipline as the ability to stay within the rules. They asked the class the

problems faced by large teams and we all contributed including Amy:

1.Communication

2.Ego/ Personality

3.Trust

4.Groupthink
5.Lack of leadership.

They showed a video in class that elaborated on the elements of a team:

1.Working Independently

2.Having a common goal that makes everyone mutually accountable

3.Collective effort.

Willpower 7 ways to self discipline that can also help team function well are:

1.Remove temptation:whenever possible try to remove temptations

2.stabilize blood sugar: low blood sugar is associated with low self discipline

3.Sleep:making sure you get enough rest

4. Enjoy life: Positive emotional experiences replenish discipline life

5. Avoid and reduce stress : Stress have been shown to reduce discipline

6.Plan:This is essential for individual to work well in teams

7.Self affirmation.(sidsavara.com, 2014).

References

Sidsavara.com, (2014). Will Power: 7 Keys To Better Self Discipline. [online] Available at:

http://sidsavara.com/personal-development/will-power-how-to-improve-your-personal-self-

discipline [Accessed 12 Oct. 2014].

Vanessa and Steven both did a research and understood that individual emotions has a group

analog and it is just as critical to groups effectiveness. (Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 96)

This according to them could make people take steps to enhance their emotional intelligence and

make themselves more effective in their work and personal lives.They acknowledge that most

research done had focused on identifying the task process that distinguish the most successful

teams which is: specifying the need for cooperation , participation and commitment.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 96).

Their research showed that there are three conditions that are essential to a group's effectiveness

which are:

1. Trust among members

2. A sense of group identity

3. a sense of group efficacy.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 96)

They said that to be most effective, teams need to create emotional intelligence norms which is

the attitudes that support behaviour for building trust , group identity and efficacy.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 96) .They emphasise that teams with emotional intelligence

memebers might not make a good emotional intelligent group.This is because teams interact

atbmore levels.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 97) .They noted that teams require an

atmosphere in which the norms build emotional capacity- which is the ability to respond

constructively in emotionally uncomfortable situations.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 97).

They generated a three level of emotional interaction which are :

emotions(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 99). Here when a member is not at the same

emotional wave length as the rest, the team needs to be emotionally intelligent along that

individual.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 101). The group can regulate individual emotions

by interpersonal understanding and perspectives.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 102)

The group level emotions:They noted that a lot of teams suffer because are not aware of

emotions at the group level(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 104).In their findings they noted

found thatgroup self awareness is a critical part of group emotional intelligence and task

process.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 104-105). To regulate it many teams becomes

conscious by team building outings , whether social or outward bound.(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg 105).

At the cross boundary level teams group emotional intelligence is about the small act that makes

a big difference. According to them its about harmony , acknowledging and respect .(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 109)

Reflection.

Team five did a group activity that was interesting , where some words were dramatised and the

team members try to pronounce it . Team 5 also gave the example of vancouver riot where

people allowed their emotions to run them over.This shows the level of the team cohesiveness.

Teams that got theirs on time were given candy . Emotional intelligence to me says it all ,

because even if there is conflicts it would be easily resolved if all members and the entire group

has a high level of emotional intelligence.

According to Seagal and Smith emotional intelligence has four attributes which are:
1.Self awareness: getting to know yourself

2.Self management; being able to control yourself

3.Social Awareness: being able to understand others and

4.Relationship management: being able to inspire and influence others(Seagal and Smith,2014).

References

Seagal, J. and Smith, M. (2014). Emotional Intelligence (EQ): Key Skills for Raising Emotional

Intelligence. [online] Helpguide.org. Available at:

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/emotional-health/emotional-intelligence-eq.htm

[Accessed 18 Oct. 2014].

When teams can't decide

The writer Bob started by saying that the Dictator-by-default syndrome has been diagnosed as a

problem of leadership or teamwork or both(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 135). This

phenomenon. This actually means that by default when a team is at a cross road and decisions

could not be made unanimously, however it is important that decisions be made , all the eyes of

the group members may turn to the leader of the team.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 135).

To combat these companies use team building and communications exercise that teaches

executives how to have assertive conversations. Bob went on to list the following steps to do

that:
 1. Asking possible questions : By not reaching collective decisions based on individual

preferences.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 136).

2. Acknowledging the problem: Understanding the conditions that give rise to it by the

leaders(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 138).

3. Managing the impossible: Adopting straight forward tactics to minimize potential

dysfunction.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 140).

4. Articulating clearly the outcome the team is seeking: Its important to keep discussion of

the desired outcome distinct from the discussion about how to achieve it.

5. Provide a range of options:

6. Test fences and walls: The team should face and tackle what they think is their constraint

7. Surface preference early:By taking not binding votes early.

8. Stating each options pros and cons

9. Devising new options that preserve the best features of the existing ones(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg 145).

Above are the several tactics leadership teams can use to circumvent the syndrome according to

Bob, he further went on to give two ground rules the team must adhere to to be able to do that

1 . Deliberate confidentially: discussions must be done in a secure environment

2. Deliberate over an appropriate time frame.

Reflection
Its the turn of my team to present (Achievers) this particular topic to the entire class . We were

excited about it because decision making is the most important activity that is done within teams

and it is quite important for teams to avoid some decision making problems like groupthink.

We tried to let the class understand the four model of decision making which are, orientation,

decision rule , discussion and implementation. I handled the explanation of the decision making

problems which are :

1. Groupthink: is a phenomenon when a group of people get together and start to think

collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining unity than with

objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and options. Example of notable group

thinks are: bay of pigs invasion, the bombing of pearl harbour.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-groupthink.html

2. Overconfidence: this is when a group makes a decision without fully considering the

depth or complexity of the problem.

Three ways according to Forbes whereby overconfidence can make a fool of people are:

❏ Overestimating accuracy and depth of knowledge about a

situation.

❏ Ignoring or not seeking disconfirming information

❏ Over assurance from past success.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/01/08/thr

ee-ways-overconfidence-can-make-a-fool-of-you/
3. Premature decision: most times when faced with a decision groups consider only a few

options before making decisions.

4. Confirmation Bias: This occurs when members look for information to confirm a

decision that for the most part has already been made. Example is when members are

reluctant to voice unique information!

5. Shared information bias: This is the tendency of group members to spend most of their

time discussing information that is already known by most members.

6. Group Polarisation: Is the tendency of for groups to make more extreme decisions than

any individual member of the group would make. Example of this are common in today’s

political landscape.

7. Escalation of commitment: Tendency to invest additional resources in an apparently

losing proposition, influenced by effort, money, and time already invested.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/escalation-of-commitment.html

What i personally understand about decision making is that it is important to use the

utilitarian rule when making decisions. This rule take into account the pros and cons of each

options that are available. My coming to Canada was calculated decision, while most

international student basically came here for so called PR , i believed Canada can offer me

the very best of education and i can compete anywhere i find myself. I made a table and

found out that its benefit outweighs the cost in the long run and that is why i am here . In

teams, decisions might be based on the type of ruling that is embraced : it its democracy then

such teams might want to decide unanimously and might lead to groupthink. On the other

hand if the pattern of leadership is autocratic, it may lead to only the leader dishing out orders
 and decision and even those members that might have a better solution might just keep them

to themselves.

Virtuoso teams

Bill and andy noted that in all human achievement one can find teams that produce

outstanding and innovative results.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 149). The gave an

example in the real world including whiz kid team , ibm and sony playstation 2 team. They

describe such team as virtuoso team. they define virtuoso team as one that contain the elite

experts in their particular fields and are specially convened for ambitious projects.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 149).They have study for the past four years the inner workings

of teams charged with important projects in 20 of the best known companies of the world

and found that some teams with big ambitions and talent systematically fail because they

play by a differnet set of rules.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 150).

They explained how virtuoso teams differ to traditional teams in the following sub headings:

Assembly the stars :They differ with traditional teams in the sense that traditional teams are

concerned with doing than with thinking.In virtuoso teams they are concerned with execution

than breakthrough ideas.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 151).

Build the group Ego: Traditional teams work under the concept of “we” while virtuoso team

work under the concept of the individual.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 155).

Make work a contact sport. Traditional teams are managed remotely and get together only

occasionally while virtuoso teams are always in action.

Customer Challenging : They believe that customers always want more.

compromise.For virtuoso team the leader is forceful and more deft.(Havard Business Review,.

2013.pg 160).

Reflection

Team seven ( team eight as they call themselves) did a quite interesting presentation, we burst

balloons tied to the heels of each other in their class activity and it was quite entertaining.

Everyone in the class sweat a bit making it sporty. They later introduce us to the virtuoso team

and how efficient they can be as against ordinary teams. To me what makes a team virtuoso

depends mainly on the initial selection. Here the very best is been brought together. In mission

impossible (the film) where Tom starred , in all its series all the combat men or women were

been selected from various parts of the world to team up with Tom for the always crucial mission

to save the world. This teams might possibly never have met before , but they carry out the

mission in a perfect way and were successful. This teams were been briefed sparsely and voom

they jet out for the mission.According to Smith and Katzenbach who noted that virtuoso teams

must exist with the following group fundamentals which are :

● Understandable charter

● Good communications

● Clear member roles

● Time efficient processes

● Reasonable accountability(life back west,2010).

● Life Back West, (2010). [True Stories] Facts - and Fiction - of the Effective Use of

Virtual Teams. [online] Available at: http://backwest.com/true-stories-fact-and-fiction-of-

effective-use-of-virtual-teams/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2014].

Managing Multicultural team

Jeanne et al started with an example of the what most software companies does when they

are in need of launching a new product quickly. The example they gave for a particular

company that assembled a team of employees from India and United States..(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 118).They noted that people tend to think that challenges that

come from multicultural teams majorly comes from differing styles of communication

whuich is just one of the categories, others include trouble with accents and

fluency;differing attitudes ttowards hierachy and authority and conflicting norms for decision

making. .(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 118).They pointed out 4 strategies to most

multicultural and diverse teams use for dealing with challenges which are :

1.By using adaptation:Identifying cultural gaps and working with them

Structural intervention:Changing the shape of the team

Managerial intervention:Setting norms early

Exiting: Removing a team member when other options have failed. (Havard Business Review,.

2013.pg 150).

Reflection

I want to explain main problems faced by multicultural teams with reference to the group
 Direct versus indirect communication: They noted that communications pattern differ

across cultures .For example communication in the western part of the world is direct and

explicit . This means that when talking to people they say their point in black and white. But

in Asia , China for example , its implicit and indirect which means that words are spoken

with the intention that the receiver will decode the codes(Deresky, 2014).(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg 119).

Trouble with accents and fluency:This has to do with intonations according to the authors..

(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 122).

Differing attitude towards hierarchy and authority: This has to do with the way different

cultures relates with their bosses and the organisational structure. I can relate this to the

hofstede analysis of high power distance and low power distance. An example of a high

power distance society are the Arabs and Chinese, they hold their leaders in high esteem and

most of the time don't challenge their authority, while American society has a low power

distance where subordinates can challenge their leaders suggestion.If teams of multicultural

members happen to be on a project and the team leader power distance varies which is

expected to, a lot of misunderstandings will occur(Deresky, 2014).(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg 124).

Conflicting norms of decision making: Also they noted that cultures differ greatly in terms of

decision making. This is based on how quickly decisions are made . In America decisions are

made on the spot but while in most Arabs society they take time to decide . This is because

most Arabs build relationships before business.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 125).

As an international student and in my final year , i have worked with different types of teams

all through my studies here and i can say its been a whole lot wholesome experience . Most
 of the time i worked with Canadians and they are quite brilliant. i believe where the world is

going to now based on globalization tasks every scholar to learn how to work with a highly

diverse team in other to meet the global demand of teams project and output .

References

Deresky, H. (2014). International management. Boston: Pearson.

Why teams don't work

This was an interview with Richard Hackman, done by Diane Coutu. he asked a

questions that i will like to highlightwhy teams don't work.The author of the article asked

Richard what he meant by for teams to be successful , it has to be real and his response was

that the leader has to face the fact and that putting together a team involves some ruthless

decisions about membership(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 122).

He also answered the question about teams needing a compelling direction by saying that

such responsibilities of a team direction can fall to anyone in the team and that however its

done setting a direction is emotionally demanding because it involves the exercise of

authority and the inevitable arouses for both exercising and the person receiving it.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 24).

He mentioned that some of the fallacies about teams is that people generally think that

teams that work together harmoniously are better and more productive than teams that don't.

He further explained that its not true and that cause and effect is the reverse of what most

people believe .(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 24).

He answered another question based on complacency of teams by recommending that

every team needs a deviant, someone that can help the team by challenging its
homogeneity(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 27).He also gave a response on what

makwes a team effective that a good team will satisfy its internal and external client.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 28). He answered some other question about some companies

which i don't want to go into .

Reflection.

My reflection of why teams don't work to me is based on complex at large. ai am not

saying that some other factors are not present but i believe a team that has too much complex

will not be successful.Anyone reading this text may think that i meant a superiority complex

shown by some dominant personality individual but in real sense i mean also the inferiority

side of complex as well. When a particular team member believe no one has a better idea

than him then what ever other people say will have no meaning to to him and he will always

want to dominate and allow his idea to be considered above anyone else’s idea.Also a team

member who has an inferiority complex will engage in social loafing and put workload on

others for the fear of rejection that he may not be up to the task. So its very important for

team leaders or coordinator to discourage the use of hierarchy in decisions involving teams,

once everyone consider each other's input valuable than teams can work together to achieve

the best they can.

Leapfrog magazines highlighted ways by which team members can help each other:

1. Get real with workload or teamwork-talk becomes platitudinous drivel.

2. Reward and recognize helpers. Ask, “Who helped you?” at the end of projects.

3. Honor serving. Ask, “Who are you helping?”

4. Ask, “How are you helping others?” What get’s asked about gets done.

(Leadership Freak, 2012)

Leadership Freak, (2012). The Real Reason Teams Don't Work. [online] Available at:

http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-real-reason-teams-dont-work/

[Accessed 22 Nov. 2014].

The power of small wins

Teresa and Kramer started off by asking what the best way is to drive innovative work inside

organisation.. They mentioned the 1968 memoir by James Watson (double helix) about

discovering the structure of DNA that describes the roller coaster of emotions.(Havard

Business Review,. 2013.pg 75). The story about the DNA as noted by them confirms the

power of progress is fundamental to human nature but that few managers understand it or

how to leverage progress to boost motivation.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 76)

They noted that they will share in their article what they have learnt about this power of

progress and how it can be leverage.In their research they provided a checklist at the end to

make such behaviours habitual.. They also describe what they found about inner work life

and performance which they have shown that there are predictable triggers that inflate or
 deflate inner work life and that they variations among individual are pretty much the

same(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 79)

They mentioned that their work on inner work life led to the progress principle and found

that the most common event triggering a best day was any progress in the work by the

individual or team while for a worst day was a setback.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg

79).

They explained the many moves that can catalyse progress under the Graham model where

he was able to sustain team members inner work life by repeatedly removing obstacle; He

was able to achieve this according to the authors by:1. he establish a positive climate , one

event at a time.(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 88)

2. Graham stayed attuned to his teams everyday activities and progress.(Havard Business

Review,. 2013.pg 89)

3. Graham targeted his support according to recent events in the team and the

project(Havard Business Review,. 2013.pg 89)

4. Graham also established himself as a resource for the team members rather than a

micromanager.

Reflection

There is no best way to motivate people in my reasoning . This is because people are motivated

differently , while most people think money is a good motivator , it has been proven that money

has its limit in motivating people. Taking my life as an example , my first semester in TRU was

filled with mixed feelings , i came to Canada to prove to my families that i can stand alone and

make it. My source of motivation was not money or job that i can get here in Canada , and not

even the so called permanent resident like most international student die to get. My motivation
was based on past failures, when you know you have a particular ability and yet you are

struggling in life. I told myself that whatever it takes i must be a success not only in monetary

terms but, i want to be able to lay my hands on things and success will follow.In economics we

have two types of effect that happens to workers when wage rate increases , the income and the

substitution effects . The income effects occurs when wage increase shift the level of income for

a worker up and he feels like he does not want to work extra hours and that after all what is the

essence of the money he is making without enjoying his life. This type of worker will go on

holidays and hence reduce hours supplied to work. The second effect is the substitution, where

the same wage increase will allow another worker to work even more and be dedicated because

he thinks the opportunity cost of leisure he would have gone for is high. The above example in

essence shows that motivation affects the personality, we differ from each other the way we are

been motivated. This brings the issue of leadership , a good leader must follow goals in terms of

SMART as explained to us by a guest speaker on the last day of class Gillianb Faith

Specific: goals must be quantify eg i want to lose 10 kg by Feb 2015

Measurable: The goal of losing 10kg must be measured by a weight

Attainable: ‘Is it possible to lose 10kg in 3 months?’ this type of question must be asked

Realistic:- To be realistic, a goal must represent an objective toward which you are both willing

and able to work.

Time bound : duration of time.

References
Symbiosisonlinepublishing.com, (2014). Prescription for Progress- Enhancing

Communication between Pharmacists and Patients. [online] Available at:

http://symbiosisonlinepublishing.com/pharmacy-pharmaceuticalsciences/pharmacy-

pharmaceuticalsciences04.php [Accessed 30 Nov. 2014].

Topachievement.com, (2014). Creating S.M.A.R.T. Goals — Top Achievement. [online]

Available at: http://topachievement.com/smart.html [Accessed 30 Nov. 2014].

your participation on Moodle and in-class participation. It is worth 10% of your final

mark. (One to two pages, 1-inch margins, double space, 12-font, times new roman). Please

submit your essay, self-assessed grading rubric, and proposed grade, to Moodle by the due

date.

2. You are required to self-review your participation and on Moodle using the grading rubric

and criteria below. Whenever possible, provide specific evidence and examples to support

your summary in your essay.

3. You will propose a grade for your class participation and Moodle participation based upon

the following grading rubric out of 25.

4. Please include your full name, student number, course, and section number at the top of the

essay.

Self evaluation

Oni Babatunde

T00030362

ORGB 3770-03
This is a course I would have not rather taken ,but at the end of the class I am glad that I took

it.All through the course I have been moderately active . In my group (the achievers : group 6 of

Friday class) I was choosing to be their technological expertise . I was in charge of the very first

assignment which was uploaded to the moodle , which was our team activities. The video was

shot and edited by me and we got an 100 percent grade in there. My moodle participation has

been good , i try to reply to the most pressing issues discussed on the moodle. My class

participation in my group is also good, many times i suggested a brilliant idea that was brought

up by the activities presented by our group.

Also I attended all the classes from starts to finish , an i have been fairly responsive to class

questions asked by Amy

I will further explain my participation based on the rubric criteria :

Preparation: I try to read each chapter before class and supply materials needed by my group in

terms of answering our class activities in group. I will score myself a score of 5

Critical thinking and self-reflection : Here , it is evidence in my HBR review and my moodle

participation of topics posted especially a topic on what makes a good leader , where i read

through the pieces of the review, summarised it and gave a personal reflection of what i think

about the articles and try to support my decision with other references that can back it up. i will

give myself a score 4

Participation:i supply materials needed by my group in terms of answering our class activities

in group and also i was the one who edited and posted our first team assignment. I will score

myself 5
Attendance and punctuality:I never missed any group meeting and was always in class , this is

evident in the group review we did for each group up till week 7 , where we wrote our names

down accordingly in groups. I will score myself a 5

Moodle Participation: Here i posted more than 20 times on discussion moodle but i am not

sure if i did that for every topic posted every week.I will give my self a 4

Finally when i calculated all the scores , it ended up to be 23/25