Devereaux-Dering Group Melinda Nesbitt Mid-Continent University Leadership and Motivation MGT 6003
Devereaux- Dering Group Team trying to land the BMW account struggled to impress the client. Fitzgerald presented a last minute presentation on global strategy to close the deal. Other group members did not know that he was going to present it. After successfully winning the BMW account, Roderick,Walsh, and Green take a cab to the office. Fitzgerald takes a separate cab to LaGuardia Airport (Daft, 2011). After sharing some success, Walsh and Green talk about how Fitzgerald does not act as a part of the team. Yelling at teammates, not participating in group meetings and always on his blackberry and working on secret projects (Daft, 2011). Roderick is stunned to learn about this hidden conflict in the group. Before the group tells Lansing about winning the account, Fitzgerald text Lansing about their success. Lansing smiled at the fact he was a leader of a cohesive and effective team, sharing the same vision and trusting of each other. The determinants of cohesiveness are: interaction, shared mission and goals, personal attraction to the team, competition/organizational context, and team success. The members seem to have a hard time interacting, particularly with Brad Fitzgerald. There also seems to be miscommunication because Brad is always on his blackberry, making his team feel as if their input is unimportant. Interaction when team members agree on purpose and direction, they will be more cohesive shared mission and goals. The members of the team have a goal, to close the BMW deal, and they succeed. However, resentments were shared among the members against Brad. When Brad added something in their presentation that the team was unaware of, the other members felt they owe their bonus from closing the deal to Brad. Team success the favorable evaluation of the team’s work by outsiders add to cohesiveness. This factor plays a role because two external items may overcome the resentment that the members feel about Brad. They closed the BMW case which means the people of BMW think that their team is talented. Their team leader, Kurt Lansing, is happy that they closed the deal and feels that his team is talented as well. The more interaction, the more cohesive the team. After sharing some successes make sure everybody can deal with the dilemmas of the team. Giving up independence, put up with free riders deal with dysfunctional times. Team members need to work together towards the goals of the group. Make sure everybody plays their roles and contributes to the overall success of the team. Earn trust, have healthy conflict, be committed, be accountable, and set aside personal agendas. The team leader’s role recognize the importance of shared purpose and values. Help shape team norms needed to accomplish the vision and build consensus. Make sure everybody is in agreement on norms and goals (Hesser, 1999). Admit mistakes, admit your faults, so others are comfortable asking questions. Provide support and coaching, being available to members improves group effectiveness, understanding task and socioemotional needs (Spinelli, 2006). Being transparent to others if confronting Fitzgerald is successful, there should be no need to talk to Kurt Lansing. Go through the four stages of team development, forming, storming, norming and performing orientation and getting acquainted. Personality and conflict are resolved and the group is unified (Daft, 2011). Focus on accomplishing goals, handling conflict when it arises, competing, avoiding compromising, accommodating, collaborating, assertiveness to get one’s way. Delaying to gather more info or there is no way to win. Obtaining appropriate solutions for all, meeting all parties needs, giving up one’s opinion if it is wrong or others are more important. Consequences of Cohesiveness increased moral and performance. Too much cohesiveness leads to group think. When team members suppress contrary opinions to maintain harmony, performances decreases, opinions are not challenged and wrong decisions can be made. The Bible’s cohesiveness can be examined under six general categories of unity: structural, historical, prophetical, doctrinal, spiritual and kerygmatic. The particulars for each of these categories can be stated rather forthrightly. When a full document like the bible is drawn from so many individual books written over such a long period of time, and the writers did not know each other and rarely were contemporaries of each other or even from the same continents, it is hard to image that any kind of coherence and ongoing strategy could be possible. But the Bible, extending over two testaments and some sixteen hundred years, and written by about forty writers in three languages, representing three continents, exhibits some strong general schemes that suggest a common archetypal plan and purpose in the story of redemption (Zondervan, 2009).
Reference
Daft, R. L. (2011). The Leadership Experience: Mason Ohio
Spinelli, R. (2006). The Applicability of Bass’s Model of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership in the Hospital Administrative Environment. Hospital Topics, 84(2), 11-18.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (Zondervan, 2009). Recovery the Unity of the Bible.
Hesser L. (1999, May). Police Leadership in the 21st Century.
