LaDissertation.com - Dissertations, fiches de lectures, exemples du BAC
Recherche

Perspective Strategie

Commentaire d'oeuvre : Perspective Strategie. Recherche parmi 300 000+ dissertations

Par   •  13 Avril 2015  •  Commentaire d'oeuvre  •  2 156 Mots (9 Pages)  •  482 Vues

Page 1 sur 9

Executive Summary

Group work has always been a challenge that I liked, and that much more than the individual work not because it allows us to relying on others but simply to gain power and also to learn with the possible interactions between learners. Group work is often recommended (Brandt 1990, Kagan 1990)

But it is true that teamwork is always a source of problem from an internal point of view. That's why it's important to use the advanced and validated theories by leading sociologists and economists to solve and deal with various critical incidents that the group may encounter.

So on the project MEGA-LEARNING I could experiment for the first time working with a multi- cultural team of 4 different nationalities with which I worked for 3 months.

The first critical incident is due to the cross-cultural aspect of this work. Indeed, the language barrier has been a problem within the group to assert leadership.

Nevertheless, thanks to the natural construction of our team development model, as well as learning the language this incident was handled.

Furthermore, the strategy was also a problem that has allowed us to realize the importance of it in the long term and its introduction of the project began.

Finally I realized that the motivation of the group, and thus its ability to achieve the goals necessary to achieve was linked to the personal motivations of each member of the group. And target each of motivators optimizes the work provides.

This reflective essay helps to understand the functioning and critical impact factor in a working group and thus allows us to learn from our mistakes.

Table of content

Introduction

I. Cross-cultural & Leadership Incident II. Strategy Incident

III. Motivation & Leadership Incident

Conclusion References Appendice

Being my first reflective report, I opted for a conventional method witch is most often used by novices. Reflection-on-action (Schön,1987) is often both retrospective and prospective, it connects the past and the future, especially when one is engaged in an activity that takes several days or weeks such as a project approach.

Reflection is dominant in retrospect, when it occurs at the end of an activity. Its main function is to help to take stock, to understand what has worked or not worked, to prepare for the next time. In fact, there is always a possible next time. Reflection after action capitalizes on the experience and even turn it into knowledge that can be reinvested in other circumstances. We can speak about transferable skills. I chose this way of analysis and reflection for my report, I found perfect sense for the kind of work we had to make.

I was also interested in the Gibbs reflection’s cycles cause the feelings of the situation is taken into account, which allows for an evaluation and analysis of the situation.

However, I have not used the Kolb reflection’s cycles because it induced re experimentation phase of what had been deducted from when thinking which does not suit the purpose of this reflective.

I think the most important critical incident of this teamwork has been the language barrier. Indeed, all the members of my group spoke English perfectly unlike me who had great difficulty in expressing myself correctly.

This incident had two immediate consequences when we started our work.

I had a lot of ideas in mind, and I understood the work that was required, however, the fact of not being able to speak English properly and so can not assert myself as I would do in France was very frustrating. The leading position that I used to take during the other group works was complicated to obtain. Indeed that can not express myself properly I lose credibility, charisma, confidence in myself.

There are no real theories or sources to become a leader while having a hard time to speak so I had to take upon myself the first sessions providing technical supports, making my mark and especially improving my English.

It was during our big fall in the ranking that things started to change it I felt my teammates come to me. This kind of behavior can be compared to the theory advanced by Lord and Maher in 1991 evoking a cognitive approach to leadership, which would designate thanks to the perception of the group.

It is thus seen that the process of training and group’s evolution was done in several phases. The forming phase where we all met, overdrafts, and the legitimacy of each and positioning within the team.

In the storming step, there were power struggles to determine how the team will work together. In this step, differences of opinion are common and the team tries to determine how to work together effectively, what the rules are and how to resolve the differences. The team members competing for their ideas are heard and implemented.

Then a norming phase occurred after the failure we experienced. Or we could see the team structure and accept a common framework. The storm passed, we can now establish a true teamwork structure. This is a phase which produces good numbers of common tools.

Finally came the performing phase, a positive routine is installed, we knew where we were going each session had become simple, our team had a business development strategy, a leader and everyone had a place.

In this process of training I was able to recognize the team development model described by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. Every team goes through four stages of team development; no exceptions. Regardless of whether a team is working on a small and simple initiative or a global initiative, large and complex, the team will progress according to these four steps.

However, I have noticed that with the norming phase, some group members who were less motivated and interested in the work than the others rested on the fact that others were leading. Known as the Anglo-Saxon theoretical term "free rider" this behavior was modeled in 1965 by Mancur Olson American socio-economist. The willingness to cooperate is in fact, even in the rational individual, more fundamental and consistent that the tendency to defection. It makes more better account of what really happens in human organizations, even the anonymous thing that proponents of individualism also recognized as a paradox. All too involved in the project we have not so far tried to solve this problem.

So be aware that a team is naturally built around a model of development and phase voltage and members can impede the progress of the

...

Télécharger au format  txt (13 Kb)   pdf (145.8 Kb)   docx (13.7 Kb)  
Voir 8 pages de plus »
Uniquement disponible sur LaDissertation.com