Evaluating Team Performance

A critical evaluation of Team performance evident at Electron with recommendations.

This report identifies and critically evaluates team performance at electron which is written to Stephanie Russell the tutor of effective team and performance management on the 14th of May 2013.

1.Executive summary 4
1.1Introduction 4
2.Team Dynamics and Team formation 5
Forming 6
Storming 6
Norming 7
Performing 7
2.1 Norms and values influencing team development 8
Prescriptive 8
Proscriptive 8
2.2 Concertive control 9
2.3 Team cohesion and Intimacy 10
Task 10
Social 10
3.Factors impacting on team performance 11
1. Plant 11
2. Co-coordinator 11
3. Completer Finisher 11
4. Team worker 12
3.2 Emotional Intelligence 12
This means that the workers come up with a set of rules and Norms rather than the manager. Concertive control has been a frequently implemented theory in small teams lately and often leads to disagreement. Therefore groupthink should be implemented where decisions are made under pressure after critically evaluated issues. (Janis, 1982). In the case, concertive control is used by a team where they came up with a prescriptive norm where workers should report to work on time, if they failed to do so after being warned twice and if the workers did not try to do anything they were to be fired guidance to individual members in the team. Ultimately this would result to teams being less efficient achieving goals and create stressful team members.

2.3 Team cohesion and Intimacy Team Cohesion according to (Festinger, schachter and Black, 1950) are the total forces that affect members of a group to be intact as well as the forces that make the members go a part of a team. Team cohesion is further divided into two major parts such as task and social cohesion Task: The ability to perform successfully as a coordinated team and as part of a team. Social: The bond between members and towards the team as a
For example some teams would never pass the storming stage when groups are being formed. Before implementing any new idea, it must be discussed with each and every member on an open meeting. Never ever discuss with anyone separately as the other person feels left out and reluctant to perform and contribute to the team. By doing this it would motivate all the workers in a team and have a feel important as a member resulting in better performance.
References
• Belbin, R.M., 1993. Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E., (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), p239–p290.
• Dion, K. L., 2000. Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4,p 7–p26.
• Dion, K. L., 2000. Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4,p 7–p26.
• Erikson, E., 1963. Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
• Festinger,L., Schachter, S., & Back, K.,1950. Social pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper.
• Forsyth, D.R., 2006. Group dynamics. 5th ed. Belmont: wadsworth, cengage learning.
• Forsyth, D.R., 2006. Group dynamics. 5th ed. Belmont: wadsworth, cengage