Coasting into a Decent Grade

Introduction

  As part of Management Enquiry, undergraduates were split into groups to deliver a presentation, based on a management topic of their choosing. This had to be referenced with a film of similar subject matter, from which examples and parallels could be drawn.

  The aim of this paper is to reflect upon said presentation, using academic theory to address key issues arising from such a project, and noting the points at which personal experience differs from the literature.

Ø  Team Role Theory

Belbin (1981) suggested eight group roles [See Table I], focal to any team;

    While the sentiment behind this theory may have been to combine a mix of strengths, allowing the team to bring together their work, in practice, it is far more difficult to successfully define the exact roles that individuals are suited to. A variety of such roles also requires a consequent variety in personalities, which isn’t always advantageous, as this particular group realised during the introductory seminar. One member hadn’t turned up and the rest couldn’t agree on a topic for the project, mainly due to the group deciding to base their research topic upon a film, as opposed to choosing a relevant film to use as an extended example of their research topic. Their taste in movies being dissimilar, it was almost impossible to choose a film, and therefore the research topic was also not chosen until a much later stage.

- Prevention of similar occurrences in the future

    Firstly, it would have been easier to select a research topic before deciding which film to include in the presentation. This shows an absence of methodical thinking and a lack of understanding of the task. The best way to prevent this would have been to thoroughly read the study guide, and further question the seminar leader to ensure a sound understanding. Hesitance to do so inevitably led to insubstantial knowledge in terms of how to begin approaching the project, as was clear from the backwards approach the team members took.

    Further, rather than fitting together, the different personalities clashed – each individual wanted to base the project on a different film and did not want to concede to other members. An example of a democratic approach to this situation would have been for each member to write down their choice and pick one out of a hat. This way, a film would have been chosen immediately and no team member could plead injustice. 

Ø  Leadership

    The first role that Belbin has listed is that of ‘Chairman’. Probably the most high-profile role, this position should be filled by a confident, charismatic individual with the ability to command the rest of the team. With this group, there was no leadership structure, and therefore no delegation. In an ideal world, we might have said that the members were simply too nice to put themselves above the rest. In reality however, it was most likely that they were too lazy to take on the extra responsibility. As a result, action points were agreed to, although hardly any were implemented. There had been no arrangements to monitor progress and so, no progress was made. Week upon week, everybody was assured by everybody else that the work would be done ‘soon’ – but nobody asked the burning question ‘how soon?’

    Handy notes in  his book, Understanding Organizations [1976, pg.159], that ‘teams whose players saw themselves as all about equally influential were less satisfied and made less profits than teams whose players agreed that some particular individuals were a good deal more influential than others.’ This supports Belbin’s theory that a team requires a focal personality, a leader, to be effectual.

- Prevention of similar occurrences in the future

    In such a situation, one person should have nominated themselves as leader. Although this involves further responsibility, effective leadership would have ensured that the individuals would complete their responsibilities, if only for fear of being ostracised by the rest of the group, who would accuse the person of holding them back.

Ø  Communication

While Belbin has included a Resource Investigator role for external communication, it seems he took good internal communication as a given. The strength of any team can be assessed through their communication. Constant, comprehensive communication indicates strong teams, while sporadic and inadequate communication indicates weak teams.

    While the group had many electronic resources, they barely made use of them. In this day and age, ‘virtual teams’ exist, whereby all group work is done via electronic communication. Even with such benefits, the group did the bare minimum – texting each other only two days before the deadline set, and using email to pass the presentation back and forth between team members for each individual to add their share of the work.

- Prevention of similar occurrences in the future

    With projects of this nature, it seems face to face meetings may be more effective than virtual communication. Perhaps because during a meeting, it is easier to ask questions, ask for further explanation, and become comfortable with team members. Relying solely on virtual communication detracts from establishing a connection with others, which could potentially aid in realising like-minded goals and working towards them, rather than a few members doing all the work, while others ‘coast’ on their efforts.

Conclusion and Self Reflection

Although we pulled together the presentation on the morning it was due, there were steps I personally could have taken into ensuring that the team worked well together and got the work done ahead of time. This includes stepping up as delegator, being firm with other members in terms of deadlines and making attempts at better communication. Perhaps if I had done this in the first instance, our group and presentation may have been much more successful. In the future however, I fully intend to be more organised and authorative, especially with ‘coasting’ group members.

References

1. Belbin, R.M., 1981, Management Teams – Why They Succeed or Fail, Heinemann.

2. Handy, C, 1976, Understanding Organizations, Penguin, 4^th Edition.