Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    OB Lec7

    Uploaded by

    surajsuryawanshi6
    The ratio of We's to I's is the best indicator of the development of a team. -Lewis B. Ergen In 3 sentences: Lewis B. Ergen stated that the ratio of we's to I's is the best indicator of how developed a team is. Specifically, he argued that a team where members think in terms of "we" rather than "I" is more developed and cohesive. According to Ergen, the extent to which team members see themselves as part of a collaborative group effort rather than as individuals is key to a team's development.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    OB Lec7

    Uploaded by

    surajsuryawanshi6
    8 views17 pages
    The ratio of We's to I's is the best indicator of the development of a team. -Lewis B. Ergen In 3 sentences: Lewis B. Ergen stated that the ratio of we's to I's is the best indicator of how developed a team is. Specifically, he argued that a team where members think in terms of "we" rather than "I" is more developed and cohesive. According to Ergen, the extent to which team members see themselves as part of a collaborative group effort rather than as individuals is key to a team's development.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    OB_Lec7

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The ratio of We's to I's is the best indicator of the development of a team. -Lewis B. Ergen In 3 sentences: Lewis B. Ergen stated that the ratio of we's to I's is the best indicator of how developed a team is. Specifically, he argued that a team where members think in terms of "we" rather than "I" is more developed and cohesive. According to Ergen, the extent to which team members see themselves as part of a collaborative group effort rather than as individuals is key to a team's development.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    8 views17 pages

    OB Lec7

    Uploaded by

    surajsuryawanshi6
    The ratio of We's to I's is the best indicator of the development of a team. -Lewis B. Ergen In 3 sentences: Lewis B. Ergen stated that the ratio of we's to I's is the best indicator of how developed a team is. Specifically, he argued that a team where members think in terms of "we" rather than "I" is more developed and cohesive. According to Ergen, the extent to which team members see themselves as part of a collaborative group effort rather than as individuals is key to a team's development.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 17

    The ratio of We's to I's is the best

    indicator of the development of ateam.


    -Lewis B. Ergen

    Group Structure

    January
    2024
    Flow of the Session

    What is group structure?


    What kinds of roles are common in groups and how do they
    influence members?
    What are norms, how do they develop, and how do they work to
    regulate behavior?

    1
    Group Structure

    Groups are not unorganized, haphazard collections of individuals, but


    organized systems of interactions and relationships regulated by group
    structure

    Everybody thought that anybody could do it.


    Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn't do it.
    It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody
    when actually Nobody blamed Anybody.
    Group Structure

    Characterized by underlying pattern of roles, norms, and


    networksof relations among members that define and organize the
    group

    Develop standards of behaviour to protect its members from real or


    imaginary outside dangers
    There may be 2 types of groups broadly, based on structuring:
    Formal Group: legitimate subunit of organisation to carry out a
    specific work
    Informal Group: created spontaneously by operant socio
    psychological forces at work
    Group Properties - Roles

    Roles specify the types of behaviours expected of individuals who


    Occupy particular positions within the group

    As members interact with one another, their role related activities


    become patterned (role differentiation) according to:
    Task roles pertaining to work activities of the group
    Relationship roles pertainingto maintaining relationsamong
    members

    Thesame person rarely holds both the task and relationship roles
    within the group
    Group PropertiesRoles...contd.

    Role Expectations
    How others believe a person
    should act in a given situation

    Psychological Contract
    An unwritten agreement that sets out
    what management expects fromthe
    employee and vice versa

    3
    Role Socialization

    Acquaint individuals with the norms of a given socialgroup


    Moreland and Levine's Theory of Group
    Socialization
    Describes the way roles are allocated to individuals and the ways in
    which members transition through the roles of prospective member,
    new member, full member, marginal member, and former member
    Acceptance

    Commitment
    Divergence
    Entry

    Exit

    Investig ation Socislisstion Maintenance Resocial isation Remembr snce

    Recruitment Accommodstion/ Role Accommodation Tradition!


    reconnaissence sssimilation negoti ation assim ilation reminiscence

    Time
    Role differentiation and role socialization processes often create stress
    andtension for groups and group members
    Role ambiguity occurs when behaviours associated with a role are
    poorly defined

    Roleconflict oCcurs when group members occupy two or more roles


    that call for incompatible behaviours (inter-role conflict) or when
    demands of a single role are contradictory (intra-role conflict)
    When role fit is low, members do not feel that they match the
    demands of their roles
    The Apolo Syndrome

    "Working in Science or Technology is intellectually demanding.


    Such teams, to be most effective, should therefore be
    Composed of bright individuals"....
    True or false? Why or why not?

    condition where someone has an overty Teans of ighjy capable indiduas can, colacthely petorm
    important view oftheir role within ateam. bady

    Dr Meredith Belbin is one of the original 'gurus' of Team Building. In his first book on Management Teams (Belbin, 1981) he
    reported some unexpectedly poor results with teams formed of people who had sharp, analytical minds and high mental ability
    he called this the Apollo Syndrome.

    4
    The ApolloSyndrome...contd.

    Reasons why Apollo teams finished at the bottom?

    They spent excessive time in abortive or destructive debate, trying to pesuade other team members to adopt their own view, and demonstrating
    afiair for spotting weaknesses in others' arguments. This led to the discussion equivalent of the deadly embrace'.
    They had difficuties in their decision making, with litle coherence in the decisions reached (several presing and necessayjobswere often
    omitted).
    Team members tended to act along their Own favourite ines without taking account of what fellow members were doing, and the team proved
    difficult to manage.
    Insome instances, teams recognised what was happening b°t over compensated -they avoided confrontation, which equally led to problems in
    decision making.
    Belbin Team Roles

    Dr Raymond Meredith Belbin, the British


    management theorist, known for researching into
    (9) team work roles;

    > In his 1981 book Management Teams, he


    presented conclusions from his work studying how
    members of teams interacted

    Key conclusions: An effective team has members


    that cover eight (later nine) key roles in managing
    the team and howit carries out its work.

    5
    Belbin Team Roles

    Implementer
    Action Roles Shaper
    Completer/Finisher

    Coordinator
    Belbin's Teamwork Theory
    People Roles Team worker

    Resource investigator

    Planter
    Cerebral Roles
    Evaluator
    (thinking, problem-solving)
    Specialist

    Now, lets find out who are yOu on a team...

    6
    Team Role Contribution Allowable Weakness

    Thinking Creative, imaginative, free-thinking. lgnores incidentals. Too pre


    Plant PL
    Generates ideas & solves hard problems. occupied to fully communicate.

    Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees Lacks drive and ability toinspire
    Monitor Evaluator ME
    alloptions and judges accurately. others.Can be overly critical.

    Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Contributes only on a narrow


    Specialist SP Provides rare knowledge and skills. front. Dwells on technicalities.

    Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Prone to provocation.


    Action Shaper SH Has drive to overcome obstacles. Offends people's feelings.

    Practical, reliable, efficient. Turns ideas Somewhat inflexible. Slow


    Implementer IMP
    into actions and organizes tasks. to respond to new possibilities.
    Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Inclined to worry unduly.
    Completer Finisher CF Finds errors. Polishes and perfects. Reluctant to delegate.

    People Coordinator CO
    Mature, confident, identifies talent. Can be seen as manipulative.
    Clarifies goals. Delegates effectively. Offloads own share of the work.
    Co-operative, perceptive and diplomatic. Indecisive in crunch situations
    Team Worker TW Listens and averts friction. Avoids confrontation.

    Outgoing, enthusiastic, communicative. Over-optimistic. Loses interest


    Resource Investigator RI Explores opportunities, develops contacts once initialenthusiasm expires.
    Belbin Team Role Model

    Does NOT
    mean you need
    nine peopleon
    the team!

    Each Individual likely has three of the following:


    Natural or Preferred roles
    What Ilike todo
    Manageable roles
    What I can do if needed
    Least Preferred roles
    What Iwish someone else would do
    A Balanced Team Needs
    EXTERNAL
    AWARENESS
    Recognition, Relationships
    Resource Investigator
    THINKING POWER
    EXPERTISE Creative, Unorthodox
    LEADERSHIP Plant
    VFocus, Knowledge V Considered, Strategic J Analytical,
    Specialist Evaluative
    Co-Ordinator Monitor
    vUrgent, Driving Evaluator
    Shaper
    PRODUCTIVITY
    PEOPLE SKILLS
    Structured, Methodical
    Sensitivity, Cohesion Implementer
    Team Worker v Detailed, Perfectionist
    Completer
    Finisher

    How Apollo Teams Succeed


    There were successful Apollo teams, however, that were characterised by
    the absence of highly dominant individuals, and
    a particular style of leadership.
    How to Prepare Individual
    Reports

    You might also like