1) To what extent were the members of that team or group clear about the goals of the team or group, what they were expected to achieve and how their performance would be evaluated? How were these things communicated to members?

2) The make up of the team or group- how were people chosen or selected to be members; what different skills/knowledge/experiences did they bring with them into the team or group: and how this was coordinated or managed to get the most out of each individual but also achieve what sometimes is referred to as synergy where the sum of the whole is more than the individual contributions? For an idea of this look at the short case study on page211/12 on football teams where a key lesson is that it is not just about having the “best” individuals in a team but how these individual come together and compliment each other even to the extent that a team of arguably lesser gifted individuals can win against so called superior teams. And that does not just apply to football!

3) What made your team or group work effectively or not?

Negative youth images have increased in this century with many negative stories both nationally and globally involving teenagers. It is often forgotten but youths can make huge impacts and differences to society. Teenagers are more likely to do voluntary work than people from any other generation. In fact, they are 10 times more likely to be volunteering in our communities than regularly being antisocial in them (Mark Easton, BBC home editor) As an ex member of Bearsden Academy I have first hand experiences of my generation making a positive impact. For many years my school have actively been involved in fundraising. One of the main fundraising events of the year is the annual Bearsden Academy fashion. The fashion show involves pupils in the school from S1-6 taking part in a catwalk and dance to raise money for a chosen charity with clothes provided by many high street retail shops. As a performer going back to S1, during my final 6th year I was given the opportunity to be part of the fashion show committee. The committee involved a group of 25 6th year pupils effectively organising and running the fashion show. The goal of the team was to effectively manage the fashion production from beginning to end and raise as much money as possible for a children’s leukaemia charity.
Firstly, group development was needed to ensure each member of the team was clear about the goals of the fashion show team. This was achieved using Tukman’s (1965) four-stage group development model. Forming: This is when everyone on the committee got to know each other. The nature and purpose of the group and also the constraints within which we must work e.g. time scale we had. Slight formal structures like meeting times and deadlines where implemented at this point to maintain stability to the purpose of the group. Storming: Reflecting back, this stage was probably the hardest stage the group came across. This is where confrontation aroused as certain members where not contributing to their full potential. Power struggles, criticism and open questioning of sub-groups added strain to the group dynamics. This subtracted the concentration and cooperation that should have been used to effectively achieve the whole committees’ main objective. Norming: Progress at this point could begin. At this point the committee was divided up into various sub-groups to tackle different aspects of the show for example set design, fundraising to hair and make-up. Sub-group responsibilities where tentatively implemented. This resolved issues that where apparent in the storming stage. Each member knew at this point exactly what part they played in the committee and how it affected others both in their sub-group or the team as a whole. Performing: The group productivity had progressed significantly at this stage most shops lending clothes and accessories were confirmed, hair and beauty stylist were confirmed and the set design and stage diagram had been finalised by the me and the members in my group. Commitment also had increased as we were all motivated by the progression and being valued by others in the team.

Performance was evaluated and measured on a weekly basis when the whole committee came together for our weekly meeting. Brainstorming was used at these meetings. This was particularly useful as it gave everyone an opportunity for widespread participation and involvement. Often it is assumed that if there are more members in a team then the more complex a communication process is needed. This however wasn’t the case as more members in the team meant that a broader range of experiences where brought to the table and the group had a wider knowledge pool. Good communication was essential for our team to work efficiently and successfully. We had implemented the all-channel system communication model (Em Griffin: A First Look at Communication Theory, McGraw Hill 2009). This was advantageous as every member of the team could communicate easily and directly with any other member of the team. This allowed many alternatives and comments could be gathered which allows everyone to put forward their own opinion without feeling shunned. This increased confidence amongst those who were less vocal in the groups. It has been shown that groups that tackle problems in a systematic order e.g. first initiating, then information seeking, etc perform better than groups who work in a less structured way. (Handy, C (1987), Understanding Organisations, Penguin Business Library)

The members of the team where 6th year pupils who initially volunteered, as expected too many people wanted came forward. This meant that my year head alongside another depute head teacher had to reduce the committee by selection. The selection was based on those who have been involved in previous shows and that might hopefully provide the committee with advantageous skills.