The paper "Teamwork Experience Based on Organizational Behavior Theories" is a good example of business coursework. The group video project was not the first time I have taken part in a group. In my previous experiences, I learned a lot of things that helped me cope well with other members during the activity. However, it was a learning experience in several ways because some of the strategies I thought would work in the beginning failed. We all had high expectations about how the team would function from start to conclusion.
It was relatively easy in the initial stages, but a few days into the process we realized we had to adjust our thinking. This paper talks about the stages we went through as we struggled to form a cohesive partnership that would give us the perfect platform to do good quality work for our assignment. It is not a new concept that members of every group have to go through misunderstandings before they can accept each other’ s shortcomings and maximize their strengths. Youssef and Luthans (2007) quote the guide of positive psychology that states, “ Whatever is good concerning life are as valid as the evil, deserving same attention. ” The authors, therefore, assert that there is evidence of positive learning human behavior in every organization.
George (2009) proposes that a lot of human behavior is non-conscious or automatic and that these mechanical feelings and thoughts are the primary drivers of reactions. In this paper’ s group and individual behavior analysis, the focus will be on both the active and adverse results experienced during the collective activity. Just as Hamilton (2014) outlines in her book, there are instances in a firm where teams are more efficient than individuals. Forsyth (2009) defines group dynamics as the influential processes, changes, and actions that occur within groups over time.
Groups connect people together and have social meaningfulness to them, but human behavior complexities give them flaws (Pinder, 2014, p. 4). For instance, the team members I had trouble selecting a leader amongst ourselves. We kept going back and forth since the first people we picked refused to take on the role. I associated this behavior with the fear of failure so that no one person wanted to handle the group just in case we did not do well (Moorehead & Griffith, 2010, p. 204).
We pondered this problem for a while until we decided that since the group was not permanent, we could rotate the leadership role on a weekly basis. In that order, every person had a chance to guide the group through the meetings we held on a rotational basis. Therefore, no one felt like they had too much responsibility or more work than other group members. Another problem we encountered was making joint decisions, and we opted to fragment the work and assign it to group members according to their ability and competence (Pinder, 2014, p. 19).
We worked well for a short time before we realized that some people had difficulty trusting each other to fulfill their role well. We were working on an academic assignment, so it was understandable that we wanted the video presentation to be perfect and reflect positively on us (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008, p. 148). As a solution to the first and the second setbacks that we had, we decided to keep the fragmented roles but carry the responsibility of each activity as a group.
That meant that we would go over the work that an individual did on their own so we could restructure it to fit what we all wanted (Moorehead & Griffith, 2010, p. 66). It was time-consuming, but since we had gone through a few solutions, and they did not seem to work, we were willing to put in the extra hours required.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current Theories, Research and Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology. 60: p.421-449. Annual Reviews.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged Employees in Flourishing Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147-154. Wiley Online Library.
Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics (5th Edition). Belmont, CA, USA. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
George, J. M. (2009). The Illusion of Will in Organization Behavior Research: Non-Conscious Processes and Job Design. Journal of Management - Southern Management Association. 35(6): p. 1318-1339. Sage Journals.
Hamilton, C. (2014). Communicating for Results A Guide for Business and the Professionals (10th Edition). Boston. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Hannan, M. T., Baron, J. N., Hsu, G. & Koçak, O. (2006). Organizational Identities and the Hazard of Change. Industrial and Corporate Change. 15(5): p. 755-784. Oxford Journals.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2009). Inquiry Unplugged: Building on Hackman’s Potential Perils of POB. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 30(2): p. 323-328. JSTOR.
Moorehead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations (10th Edition). Mason, OH. South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Pinder, C. C. (2014). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior (2nd Edition). Hove, East Sussex. Psychology Press.
Trivedi, H. C., Patel, R., & Guru, S. (2010). Managerial Trust and Organizational Behavior. Management and Labor Studies. 35(2). p. 149-167. Sage Journals.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive Organizational Behavior in the Workplace - The Impact of Hope, Optimism and Resilience. Journal of Management. 33(5). p. 774-800. Sage Journals.