Team Dynamics
Team Dynamics
Group behavior is affected by the interaction of many factors, making possible different tactics to understanding assigned tasks. The guidelines the RTJ team considered when forming their team were availability, logistics and academic strengths. At present this group is in the storming stage of the team process. Team members are becoming more assertive in discussing their point of views and this has proven to be an effective method in arriving to consensus. The most successful strategies so far have been trial and error. The RTJ team uses patterns of interaction that have proven effective. They discuss differences of opinion, perception about tasks, and they have set standards for each person’s participation.
McShane and Von Glinow (2004) defined role as “A set of behaviors that people are expected to perform because they hold certain positions in a team…” Currently the members of RTJ team are informally assigning temporary roles as the needs arise. Mostly the assumption of these roles is done through the volunteering process. Every member is a teamworker and a specialist in his or her respective professions. Their interaction is mostly cooperative and diplomatic as all members are good listeners and try their best to avoid confrontation and friction. The team has established a non-argumentative/non-confrontational norm, which they believe does help to accomplish tasks in the specified and limited timeframe. Because everyone has a vast array of professional experience, the members of the RTJ team have assumed different roles, at various times. As a result, each member put on the role of Implementer, Plant, Completer and Resource investigator in dynamic fashion. In several occasions one member rose to the challenge as the Coordinator of the team. The RTJ team has not yet encountered the need to use the role of the Shaper. Fortunately, the team members have, so far, effectively coordinated their tasks that no major challenges have emerged.
Table 1: Team Profile-based on Jung’s Psychological Types
ISFJ (Sensing-Judging)
Strengths:
serving, dependable,
methodical, analytical, reliable,
loyal, humble, patient, accurate
Challenges:
Poor in delegation, overworked,
Not technical, hate confrontation
INTJ
INTP
ENTP(Intuitive-Thinking)
Strengths:
Clever, innovative, ingenious,
Optimistic, genial, resourceful, good at many things, can argue both sides of the questions
Challenges:
Impatient, cut corners if expedient,
Neglect routine assignment, turn to one interest after another
ENTJ(Intuitive-Thinking)
Strengths:
Decisive, resolute, creative planner,
Implementer, improvising, realist, frank, leader, well-informed
Challenges:
Controlling, argumentative, over-confident, need self-restraint
After taking the Jung’s Psychological Types assessment, the team profile has emerged as shown in Table 1. The members concluded that the team is overall an ENTJ, basing on the average of each person’s personality type and by compiling the majority of the temperament styles. The ENTP member brings to the team resourcefulness, innovation and ingenuity in problem solving; and the flair to play the devil’s advocate (Butt, J. & Heiss, M.M., 2005). These qualities are important when exploring and assessing alternatives to solve a problem. The ENTJ member brings to the team the decisiveness of a leader, creative planning, and the resolute to implement a plan (Butt, J. & Heiss, M.M., 2005). The ISFJ member brings to the team the accurateness and patience with details, high quality work, and reliability (Butt, J. & Heiss, M.M., 2005). Taken together, the resourcefulness of ENTP is complemented by the decisiveness of ENTJ, and supplemented by the methodical accurateness of ISFJ. This is an effective combination that makes up a well-balanced team.
Having determined the roles of each team member, the RTJ team is aware of the challenging tendencies they possess. The ENTP member has a tendency to show impatience with someone perceived as slow and unintelligent. Another challenge