Self Assessment:

A group is most effective when its members promote ideas which are beneficial to the group as a whole. Members should be willing to make decisions which support the well being of the group, even if these decisions do not benefit them personally.

That being said, members should still have the right to protect their own interests. If a certain group decision is grossly unfair to part of the group, these members should not have an obligation to support such a decision. Teams have a duty to promote decisions which enhance the well being of the group, but only if these decisions support a positive end and do not discriminate against certain members of the group.

Furthermore, the majority opinion of a group does not necessarily equate to the right opinion. For instance, work groups are set up to enhance the productivity of a business. Thus, members should only support decisions which do enhance the productivity of the business. If a group’s decision does not support this end, individual members should not feel obligated to support the group’s decision.

While I work well in groups and am willing to make sacrifices for the group’s well being, I do prefer to work alone, or in very small groups as opposed to moderate or large groups. I tend to depend on myself and my own work rather than the work of others. In my experience, larger groups lead to slacking by certain group members. Working individually or in small groups creates more personal responsibility for everyone involved, and I feel this tends to motivate workers to perform better.

I am very competitive, and I tend to get annoyed when others perform better than I do. While I am confident in the capabilities of other people, I tend to feel that if I want something done right, I either have to do it myself or have at least part of the say in the matter. If I had the choice to work in a group or by myself, I would choose to work by myself.

Management Decision:

1. All Star Players:

Advantages:

• A high team level. Every member of the team has an extremely high level of ability and (usually) experience

• Every member of the team is extremely competent

• An all star is very good at what they do, so a team composed of all stars in different fields who greatly enhance the diversity of the team

Disadvantages:

• All stars are likely used to leading others and having their opinion valued more than other peoples’, so they may not be able to cooperate well when everyone has an equal say

• May lead to competition among group members rather than cooperation

• All stars may (but not always) have an inflated ego, and may not value the opinions of others

Ordinary Players:

Advantages:

• More willing to take into consideration the opinions of others

• More willing to promote the team’s goals rather than focusing on individual performance

• Less likely to feel the need to compete with other group members

Disadvantages:

• Overall competence of each individual team member is not as high

• The group’s objectives may suffer if the team members are not diversified and do not possess a wide range of skills, or are not competent enough in their specific field

2. If I were to include all stars on a team, I would stress the importance that everyone’s opinion is valued. Group members may withhold effort when they are in the presence of someone with expertise or a very high level of competence. However, this does not necessarily mean the expert is always right and should always have the final say in matters.

I would also attempt to motivate workers to boost their sense of confidence and morale. The presence of an all star will likely result in other team members doubting their own capabilities. I would give the ordinary members certain individual responsibilities so they are not constantly just bending to the opinions of the all stars.

Third, I would grant a high level of autonomy to the ordinary members. A group effort should be a collaboration among all group members—it should not be one or two all stars bossing around the ordinary members. This will lead to resentment toward certain members of the group, which will cause conflict. While this system of management can be effective, it is not always conducive to a group effort. Everyone’s opinion should be considered equally.

Finally, I would select ordinary members that are competent in areas that the all stars are not. It is rare for one person to be an expert in multiple fields—usually all stars are extremely competent in one or a few areas. If ordinary members are selected outside of the all stars’ areas of expertise, they will be forced to rely on the opinions and decisions of the ordinary members. This will ensure that the teams decisions are collaborative, and that each member will have a sense of responsibility and value to the team.