okay here they are! =D love k.
Introduction
In the competitive society today, it is crucial that an organization maintains a cohesive workforce, as this would largely affect the company’s performance. In this report we identified problems in AEC and discussed both the author’s and our approach to solve the current issues of a communication breakdown and perception differences.
Conclusion
Our aim in this report is to critically examine the problems and offer relevant and contemporary solutions, while listing out the limitations and benefits they would bring to AEC. Barriers were identified and both our approach and the author’s approach to overcoming them were reflected and their limitations weighed. Our team also evaluated on our individual and group strengths and weaknesses and worked to expand on or accommodate them.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
my part on team effectiveness
Organisational and Team Environment
Communication is vital in a team. Good communication enables us to adapt to each other’s strengths and weaknesses leading generation of ideas. This will be further discussed in Belbin’s Model.
Team Design
In order to be a more effective group, we usually plan our agenda in advance and evenly delegated tasks so each member has their own fair share of work. This will be further discussed in the Contingency Approach.
Team Processes
Through this, our team was able to know each other better and build a strong bond. These processes will be elaborated in Tuckman’s model.
Team Effectiveness
Overall, our team was able to work together to fulfill the requirements of the assignment.
this is the last part~!! =D yays~!
CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH AND EVALUATION OF LEADERSHIP
The contingency perspective to leadership is based on the idea that the most suitable leadership style relies on the circumstances (McShane and Travaglione 2007). In our team, there was an apparent rotation of leaders. With regards to the Path-goal leadership theory, the leadership style undertaken in our team is the Participative style. With every rotation, the leader facilitates the members’ involvement and consults them before coming to a consensus (McKenna 2006). Thus, unpleasant disagreements were avoided.
WHAT THE TEAM DID WELL
Self-research
Each of us tends to do our own research before every meeting without being told. This facilitates the meeting and cuts down reading time.
Meeting Agenda and Timeline
There was a timeline (Appendix) drawn up at the first meeting. Our team also has an agenda for every meeting. By being disciplined, we managed to meet our deadlines and were able to complete our portion of assignment on time.
Constructive Feedback
Our team did not encounter arguments as everyone is open to constructive feedback with clear examples (Wood et al. 2004). We accepted polite criticisms and were willing to make adjustments to a task.
Flexibility
Our team was able to adapt quickly with the departure of Amal who was exempted from the module by forming a new agenda for the next meeting and re-delegating our tasks and roles effectively.
WHAT THE TEAM DID POORLY
Punctuality
Our team had the problem of being punctual. We managed to overcome it by conducting our meetings after lectures. However, with long school hours, our concentration span became shorter. Hence, each of us made efforts to rearrange personal schedules for group meetings.
Task Deviation
Our team tends to deviate from the discussion topic easily. Sometimes, this tends to make our meetings longer than required.
WHAT THE TEAM COULD DO DIFFERENTLY
Early Start-up
The team agreed that we will start on an assignment earlier than we did this time. This will ensure that we have more time for research and meetings. In addition, we can overcome the clash of schedules as we do not need to work around a tight schedule.
(306 words)
CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH AND EVALUATION OF LEADERSHIP
The contingency perspective to leadership is based on the idea that the most suitable leadership style relies on the circumstances (McShane and Travaglione 2007). In our team, there was an apparent rotation of leaders. With regards to the Path-goal leadership theory, the leadership style undertaken in our team is the Participative style. With every rotation, the leader facilitates the members’ involvement and consults them before coming to a consensus (McKenna 2006). Thus, unpleasant disagreements were avoided.
WHAT THE TEAM DID WELL
Self-research
Each of us tends to do our own research before every meeting without being told. This facilitates the meeting and cuts down reading time.
Meeting Agenda and Timeline
There was a timeline (Appendix) drawn up at the first meeting. Our team also has an agenda for every meeting. By being disciplined, we managed to meet our deadlines and were able to complete our portion of assignment on time.
Constructive Feedback
Our team did not encounter arguments as everyone is open to constructive feedback with clear examples (Wood et al. 2004). We accepted polite criticisms and were willing to make adjustments to a task.
Flexibility
Our team was able to adapt quickly with the departure of Amal who was exempted from the module by forming a new agenda for the next meeting and re-delegating our tasks and roles effectively.
WHAT THE TEAM DID POORLY
Punctuality
Our team had the problem of being punctual. We managed to overcome it by conducting our meetings after lectures. However, with long school hours, our concentration span became shorter. Hence, each of us made efforts to rearrange personal schedules for group meetings.
Task Deviation
Our team tends to deviate from the discussion topic easily. Sometimes, this tends to make our meetings longer than required.
WHAT THE TEAM COULD DO DIFFERENTLY
Early Start-up
The team agreed that we will start on an assignment earlier than we did this time. This will ensure that we have more time for research and meetings. In addition, we can overcome the clash of schedules as we do not need to work around a tight schedule.
(306 words)
Reference list updated
1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, and Martin, D 2005, Management: A Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
2. Kinicki, A and Kreitner, R 2003, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
3. McKenna, E 2006, ‘Leadership and management style’, Business psychology and organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 375-419.
4. McShane, S and Travaglione, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
5. Mullins, L 2005, ‘Organisation development (culture and change)’, Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th edn, Pearson Education, England, p. 906.
6. Nichols, R.G, Stevens, L.A 1957, 'Listening to People', in Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, Havard Business School Press, pp.1-24.
7. Robbins, S 1998, ‘Foundations of Group Behaviour’, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 8th edn, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp. 241-3.
8. Robbins, S, Millet, B, Cacioppe, R, Waters-marsh, T 1998, 'Organisational Behaviour' Leading and Managing in Australia and New Zealand, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Sydney
9. Wood, J, Chapman, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison, V, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Kennedy, R, Schermerhorn, J, Hunt, J and Osborn, R 2004, Organisational behaviour: a global perspective, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane
2. Kinicki, A and Kreitner, R 2003, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
3. McKenna, E 2006, ‘Leadership and management style’, Business psychology and organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 375-419.
4. McShane, S and Travaglione, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
5. Mullins, L 2005, ‘Organisation development (culture and change)’, Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th edn, Pearson Education, England, p. 906.
6. Nichols, R.G, Stevens, L.A 1957, 'Listening to People', in Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, Havard Business School Press, pp.1-24.
7. Robbins, S 1998, ‘Foundations of Group Behaviour’, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 8th edn, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp. 241-3.
8. Robbins, S, Millet, B, Cacioppe, R, Waters-marsh, T 1998, 'Organisational Behaviour' Leading and Managing in Australia and New Zealand, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Sydney
9. Wood, J, Chapman, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison, V, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Kennedy, R, Schermerhorn, J, Hunt, J and Osborn, R 2004, Organisational behaviour: a global perspective, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane
mike's reply
Hi Liyana and other team members
I suggest you incorporate this 'departure' in your essay, write about your feelings, your reactions, how you manage this sudden change, what happens after this vacuum, etc etc...this is a great opportunity to write something different from other essays....remember - turn 'problems' into opportunities - so here is your opportunity - size it and excel....in the corporate world....changes and surprises occur daily.....people leave the team for many reasons....some people get transferred, others get promoted, others go overseas, resign....some die....
Warm regards
Mike
Hi sir...
One of our group members received a letter from SIM today which said
that she is exempted from ob. But she has been to a majority of our
group discussions and has done her part for the group assignment. But
she didn't realise she is exempted until today.
So what should we do?
Should we include her in the group member list?
Also as of now we only have 4 members left but the requirement is 5
members.
Liyana (& group members)
I suggest you incorporate this 'departure' in your essay, write about your feelings, your reactions, how you manage this sudden change, what happens after this vacuum, etc etc...this is a great opportunity to write something different from other essays....remember - turn 'problems' into opportunities - so here is your opportunity - size it and excel....in the corporate world....changes and surprises occur daily.....people leave the team for many reasons....some people get transferred, others get promoted, others go overseas, resign....some die....
Warm regards
Mike
Hi sir...
One of our group members received a letter from SIM today which said
that she is exempted from ob. But she has been to a majority of our
group discussions and has done her part for the group assignment. But
she didn't realise she is exempted until today.
So what should we do?
Should we include her in the group member list?
Also as of now we only have 4 members left but the requirement is 5
members.
Liyana (& group members)
okay this is the new part a, i've added the 60 words to complete broken sentences or weirdly phrased sentences and improved fluency. plus enhanced a few points. someone please DEFINE MBWA?
love, kaela.
Q1. COMMUNICATION BARRIERS THAT EXISTED IN AEC
STRUCTURAL BARRIERS AND PERCEPTION DIFFERENCES
In AEC, the management is regarded with authority by employees. The employees are not given opportunities to express their opinions as management does not involve them in meetings. Additionally, separate facilities for the management exist as structural barriers resulting in social interaction being affected. This resulted in the employees viewing themselves unimportant and not of value as compared to the management staff.
INFORMATION OVERLOAD
AEC’s vice-president, George, faces friction with his employee John and usually sends written memos instead of having direct confrontations. These memos result in information overload as they convey important and complex instructions for production. Employees are likely to misinterpret these memos and this would lead to incorrect procedures taken in the production.
FILTERING AND LANGUAGE BARRIERS
John refused to voice out his frustrations and practiced filtering to delete negative information presented about his work so that events sound more favorable. Many employees behave similarly to earn the management’s approval. Additionally George’s compliments to John were misinterpreted as complaints, showing that language is yet another barrier among AEC’s staff.
HOW DID THE AUTHOR DEAL WITH IT?
AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
Thus the author has employed the management by walking around (MBWA) method to find out more about the barriers in AEC (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Through this, he made use of verbal communication, “written or oral use of words” and non-verbal communication which involves “elements and behaviours not coded into words” to win the trust of the floor employees (Bartol et. al., 2005 p.433). He made an effort to be around the shop floor staff frequently. By playing the role of an active listener to many of the shop floor members, he empathised with them and made sure not to demand anything from them. The author was also able to communicate with them verbally and as such he became the messenger between the management and floor staff.
LIMITATIONS TO THE AUTHOR'S APPROACH
The advantage of MBWA is that there is direct communication between the employees and the management (Wood et al 2004). The management can also understand the internal organizational problems better (McShane and Travaglione 2007). The active listening and MBWA that John practiced improved communication and relationship with the employees. However, overcoming the communication barrier in the communication barrier in the organisation alone will not improve the situation much.
WHAT WOULD WE DO DIFFERENTLY
PERCEPTIONS
The perception among employees remains that the management view themselves as more superior than the floor employees. Culture change or changes in perception of employees play a big role. The only way to have culture change is to have good communication since they cannot be separated. Usually, the norm culture for employees would be that they identify themselves with their organization and accept its values and would be motivated by them (Mullins 2005).
TYPE OF COMMUNICATION TOOLS/STYLE
However, in organizations, communication breakdown is the main problem. The type of communication existing in AEC is a chain network that does not have much interaction with the employees. A more suitable form of communication would be an all-channel network whereby all the employees are fully involved in participation and discussion. To implement all these however, surveys can be done. Doing so can help to determine the attitudes of the employees to the functioning of the organization. George should also be open to the criticisms made by the floor employees. It would be difficult to implement changes in the organisation if the management do not cooperate and see the floor employees as equals (Mullins 2005). Thus mindset and the culture of the company should be changed. The management should be the ones to implement these changes.
TEAMWORK
Another way to improve communication would be to promote effective teamwork between the management and staff. The employees should view themselves as a body working together to bring the company to greater heights. George as the vice-president should be more aware of and pay attention to the floor employees. Only by understanding that each and every employee plays an important part in the success of the organization can they move forward in this area(Mullins 2005). Therefore, awareness of roles in the organization is fundamental in effective teamwork.
MOTIVATION
Additionally, motivation also plays a vital role. One way to tackle the issue of employees misunderstanding that they were being sent for training courses due to their ineffectiveness is to simply promote it in a different manner. Companies could suggest training courses as a form of performance-based reward, as it not only acknowledges the employee’s ability at work, it also act as an incentive for employees who want opportunities for promotions. Such training courses would equip them with the appropriate skills and certificate level to receive promotions.
love, kaela.
Q1. COMMUNICATION BARRIERS THAT EXISTED IN AEC
STRUCTURAL BARRIERS AND PERCEPTION DIFFERENCES
In AEC, the management is regarded with authority by employees. The employees are not given opportunities to express their opinions as management does not involve them in meetings. Additionally, separate facilities for the management exist as structural barriers resulting in social interaction being affected. This resulted in the employees viewing themselves unimportant and not of value as compared to the management staff.
INFORMATION OVERLOAD
AEC’s vice-president, George, faces friction with his employee John and usually sends written memos instead of having direct confrontations. These memos result in information overload as they convey important and complex instructions for production. Employees are likely to misinterpret these memos and this would lead to incorrect procedures taken in the production.
FILTERING AND LANGUAGE BARRIERS
John refused to voice out his frustrations and practiced filtering to delete negative information presented about his work so that events sound more favorable. Many employees behave similarly to earn the management’s approval. Additionally George’s compliments to John were misinterpreted as complaints, showing that language is yet another barrier among AEC’s staff.
HOW DID THE AUTHOR DEAL WITH IT?
AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
Thus the author has employed the management by walking around (MBWA) method to find out more about the barriers in AEC (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Through this, he made use of verbal communication, “written or oral use of words” and non-verbal communication which involves “elements and behaviours not coded into words” to win the trust of the floor employees (Bartol et. al., 2005 p.433). He made an effort to be around the shop floor staff frequently. By playing the role of an active listener to many of the shop floor members, he empathised with them and made sure not to demand anything from them. The author was also able to communicate with them verbally and as such he became the messenger between the management and floor staff.
LIMITATIONS TO THE AUTHOR'S APPROACH
The advantage of MBWA is that there is direct communication between the employees and the management (Wood et al 2004). The management can also understand the internal organizational problems better (McShane and Travaglione 2007). The active listening and MBWA that John practiced improved communication and relationship with the employees. However, overcoming the communication barrier in the communication barrier in the organisation alone will not improve the situation much.
WHAT WOULD WE DO DIFFERENTLY
PERCEPTIONS
The perception among employees remains that the management view themselves as more superior than the floor employees. Culture change or changes in perception of employees play a big role. The only way to have culture change is to have good communication since they cannot be separated. Usually, the norm culture for employees would be that they identify themselves with their organization and accept its values and would be motivated by them (Mullins 2005).
TYPE OF COMMUNICATION TOOLS/STYLE
However, in organizations, communication breakdown is the main problem. The type of communication existing in AEC is a chain network that does not have much interaction with the employees. A more suitable form of communication would be an all-channel network whereby all the employees are fully involved in participation and discussion. To implement all these however, surveys can be done. Doing so can help to determine the attitudes of the employees to the functioning of the organization. George should also be open to the criticisms made by the floor employees. It would be difficult to implement changes in the organisation if the management do not cooperate and see the floor employees as equals (Mullins 2005). Thus mindset and the culture of the company should be changed. The management should be the ones to implement these changes.
TEAMWORK
Another way to improve communication would be to promote effective teamwork between the management and staff. The employees should view themselves as a body working together to bring the company to greater heights. George as the vice-president should be more aware of and pay attention to the floor employees. Only by understanding that each and every employee plays an important part in the success of the organization can they move forward in this area(Mullins 2005). Therefore, awareness of roles in the organization is fundamental in effective teamwork.
MOTIVATION
Additionally, motivation also plays a vital role. One way to tackle the issue of employees misunderstanding that they were being sent for training courses due to their ineffectiveness is to simply promote it in a different manner. Companies could suggest training courses as a form of performance-based reward, as it not only acknowledges the employee’s ability at work, it also act as an incentive for employees who want opportunities for promotions. Such training courses would equip them with the appropriate skills and certificate level to receive promotions.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Tuckman's Model
TUCKMAN’S MODEL
Forming Stage
During our first meeting, all of us were careful with our words and restricted ourselves to a few ideas so as to ‘determine which types of behaviour are acceptable’ (Robbins, 1998 p. 242). Therefore, without much discussion, the meeting ended with delegation of tasks and the following agenda.
Storming Stage
The storming stage is one of intragroup conflict. On top of the nearing deadline, we had busy schedules which deemed impossible for us to meet up as often as we liked. It was frustrating as we had to keep changing and updating each other of our schedules before arriving at a compromised decision.
Norming Stage
Our group entered the norming stage whereby each of us become clear about our roles in the group and the duties assigned to us. Furthermore, group cohesiveness, “defined as the “we feeling” that binds the members of a group together”, formed as we learnt to think in different perspectives and being sensitive towards every member (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003 p.205).
Team Cohesiveness
Three of the members were friends of many years hence there was member similarity, promoting better understanding. Also, relative to other groups of six, our group of five was small and hence it is easier to reach a state of agreement. Our members sit together during lectures and engage in active group discussions that the lecturer presents, hence there is constant member interaction.
Performing Stage
With the team cohesiveness, we found it easy to perform well in the tasks assigned to us. Unfortunately, Amal had to leave the team after receiving the letter of exemption from the management. We were demoralised and the team was thrown off balance inevitably. As a result, we backtracked to the norming stage. Due to short-handedness, we had to cope with more responsibilities and tasks had to be re-delegated.
Adjourning Stage
Finally, our team is able to come up with the report with the agreement of our ideas.
297 words
Forming Stage
During our first meeting, all of us were careful with our words and restricted ourselves to a few ideas so as to ‘determine which types of behaviour are acceptable’ (Robbins, 1998 p. 242). Therefore, without much discussion, the meeting ended with delegation of tasks and the following agenda.
Storming Stage
The storming stage is one of intragroup conflict. On top of the nearing deadline, we had busy schedules which deemed impossible for us to meet up as often as we liked. It was frustrating as we had to keep changing and updating each other of our schedules before arriving at a compromised decision.
Norming Stage
Our group entered the norming stage whereby each of us become clear about our roles in the group and the duties assigned to us. Furthermore, group cohesiveness, “defined as the “we feeling” that binds the members of a group together”, formed as we learnt to think in different perspectives and being sensitive towards every member (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003 p.205).
Team Cohesiveness
Three of the members were friends of many years hence there was member similarity, promoting better understanding. Also, relative to other groups of six, our group of five was small and hence it is easier to reach a state of agreement. Our members sit together during lectures and engage in active group discussions that the lecturer presents, hence there is constant member interaction.
Performing Stage
With the team cohesiveness, we found it easy to perform well in the tasks assigned to us. Unfortunately, Amal had to leave the team after receiving the letter of exemption from the management. We were demoralised and the team was thrown off balance inevitably. As a result, we backtracked to the norming stage. Due to short-handedness, we had to cope with more responsibilities and tasks had to be re-delegated.
Adjourning Stage
Finally, our team is able to come up with the report with the agreement of our ideas.
297 words
okay here's my new edited belbin's and the executive summary we did the previous meeting~
love, kaela=)
Belbin’s team roles
Over the term our group has been working together efficiently, having regular meetings, delegating tasks and completing them according to the time logbook.
Belbin’s team roles model points out nine team roles that should be engaged to heighten team performance. (McShane and Travaglione, 2007)Within our group, we identified how each member played a certain role from the model, such as the conductor, team worker, implementer and monitor evaluator. Despite that, we did not limit ourselves to specifically fulfilling that role, but instead engaged in an overlapping of roles to further encourage and advise one another.
Positive and Negative Norms
Initially there were a few negative norms such as conflicting ideas. However, we have learnt to turn our setbacks into opportunities. We decided to not only reach a state of compromise, but a state of problem-solving, where we carefully evaluate and think of ways to integrate and expand on every suggestion made.
Additionally, in order to increase the efficiency of communication, our group created an online blog where we regularly update our completed tasks, the logbook and ask for advice or suggestions. Being able to view the other members’ work while working on an individual task gives us the ability to work in sync effectively.
Executive summary
Our report explores the issues apparent in Aluminiun Elements Corporation (AEC) and our team evaluation. Problems we identified communication-related such as structural barriers and perception differences, information overload, and filtering and language barriers. These problems lead to conflicts and misunderstandings within AEC. Some solutions we put forth include active listening, direct communication, and motivation of staff.
Through our working together, our team has not only identified our strengths and weaknesses, problem solving was put in place as we transformed challenges into valuable opportunities. Some problems faced were issues of punctuality, conflicting ideas and difficulty in arranging meetings due to personal commitments. In order to achieve team effectiveness, we came up with solutions such as giving priority to our meetings and arranging them at more convenient timeslots. Strengths of individual members were recognised and optimised with rotating leadership with regards to various subject areas. Team effectiveness and objectives were attained.
love, kaela=)
Belbin’s team roles
Over the term our group has been working together efficiently, having regular meetings, delegating tasks and completing them according to the time logbook.
Belbin’s team roles model points out nine team roles that should be engaged to heighten team performance. (McShane and Travaglione, 2007)Within our group, we identified how each member played a certain role from the model, such as the conductor, team worker, implementer and monitor evaluator. Despite that, we did not limit ourselves to specifically fulfilling that role, but instead engaged in an overlapping of roles to further encourage and advise one another.
Positive and Negative Norms
Initially there were a few negative norms such as conflicting ideas. However, we have learnt to turn our setbacks into opportunities. We decided to not only reach a state of compromise, but a state of problem-solving, where we carefully evaluate and think of ways to integrate and expand on every suggestion made.
Additionally, in order to increase the efficiency of communication, our group created an online blog where we regularly update our completed tasks, the logbook and ask for advice or suggestions. Being able to view the other members’ work while working on an individual task gives us the ability to work in sync effectively.
Executive summary
Our report explores the issues apparent in Aluminiun Elements Corporation (AEC) and our team evaluation. Problems we identified communication-related such as structural barriers and perception differences, information overload, and filtering and language barriers. These problems lead to conflicts and misunderstandings within AEC. Some solutions we put forth include active listening, direct communication, and motivation of staff.
Through our working together, our team has not only identified our strengths and weaknesses, problem solving was put in place as we transformed challenges into valuable opportunities. Some problems faced were issues of punctuality, conflicting ideas and difficulty in arranging meetings due to personal commitments. In order to achieve team effectiveness, we came up with solutions such as giving priority to our meetings and arranging them at more convenient timeslots. Strengths of individual members were recognised and optimised with rotating leadership with regards to various subject areas. Team effectiveness and objectives were attained.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Updated Logbook
Logbook
Agenda for 1st meeting on 17 Aug 2007
- Discuss question 1
- Delegation of tasks
Jiali: tackle the barriers faced in the company
Qiuying: How the author dealt with the problems
Amal: What are the limitations to the author’s actions
Liyana & Shu Hui (or Kaela): To answer the question of what would we have done differently
Agenda for 2nd meeting on 20 Aug 2007
- Complete discussion for Question 1
- Discuss Question 2 of case study
- Discuss part 2 of group assignment
- Deadlines for task:
- Complete and post question 1 and 2 of case study on blog and edit accordingly.
- 100 word reflection for part 2 of group assignment
Agenda for 3rd meeting on 27 Aug 2007
- Discuss reflections
- Discuss teamwork theories to answer part 2 of group assignment
- Editing of question 2 of case study
Delegated tasks:
Liyana: Model of team effectiveness
Tuckman’s Model: Qiuying and Jiali
Belbin’s Model: Shu Hui
Leadership: Amal
Agenda for 4th meeting on 31 Aug 2007
- Discuss Introduction and Conclusion for Part B and Executive summary
- Appendices
- References
- Compilation of Part A Qn 1 and 2
Agenda for 5th meeting on 5 Sept 2007
- To add 60 words in Part A
- Discuss changes to be made in Part B
- Editing
- Add in Intro and Conclusion
- Redelegate tasks
Monday, September 3, 2007
Reference List
1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, and Martin, D 2005, Management: A Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
2. Kinicki, A and Kreitner, R 2003, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
3. McKenna, E 2006, ‘Leadership and management style’, Business psychology and organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 375-419.
4. McShane, S and Travaglione, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
5. Mullins, L 2005, ‘Organisation development (culture and change)’, Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th edn, Pearson Education, England, p. 906.
6. Nichols, R.G, Stevens, L.A 1957, ’Listening to People’, in Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, Havard Business School Press, pp.1-24.
7. Robbins, S 1998, ‘Foundations of Group Behaviour’, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 8th edn, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp. 241-3.
8. Wood, J, Chapman, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison, V, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Kennedy, R, Schermerhorn, J, Hunt, J and Osborn, R 2004, Organisational behaviour: a global perspective, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane
1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, and Martin, D 2005, Management: A Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
2. Kinicki, A and Kreitner, R 2003, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
3. McKenna, E 2006, ‘Leadership and management style’, Business psychology and organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 375-419.
4. McShane, S and Travaglione, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
5. Mullins, L 2005, ‘Organisation development (culture and change)’, Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th edn, Pearson Education, England, p. 906.
6. Nichols, R.G, Stevens, L.A 1957, ’Listening to People’, in Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, Havard Business School Press, pp.1-24.
7. Robbins, S 1998, ‘Foundations of Group Behaviour’, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 8th edn, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp. 241-3.
8. Wood, J, Chapman, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison, V, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Kennedy, R, Schermerhorn, J, Hunt, J and Osborn, R 2004, Organisational behaviour: a global perspective, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane
hihi~ this is the edited part A. we got a shortage of words~! 1443 only.. but exclusive of citations and headings. so wad do u guys suggest?
P.S amal, i'm going to email u this copy.. cos the picture will not show on the post so u can do the sub-headings? =)
PART A
Q1. COMMUNICATION BARRIERS THAT EXISTED IN AEC
STRUCTURAL BARRIERS AND PERCEPTION DIFFERENCES
In AEC, the management is regarded with authority by employees. Employees are not given opportunities to express their opinions as management does not involve them in meetings. Separate facilities for the management exist as structural barriers resulting in social interaction being affected. Hence, employees view themselves unimportant as compared to the management staff as they do not feel as valued.
INFORMATION OVERLOAD
AEC’s vice-president, George, faces friction with his employee John and usually sends written memos instead of having direct confrontations. These memos result in information overload as they convey important and complex instructions for production. Employees are likely to misinterpret these memos.
FILTERING AND LANGUAGE BARRIERS
John refused to voice out his frustrations and practised filtering to delete negative information so that events sound more favorable. Many employees behave similarly to earn the management’s approval. Additionally George’s compliments to John were misinterpreted, showing that language is yet another barrier.
HOW DID THE AUTHOR DEAL WITH IT?
AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
Thus the author has employed the management by walking around (MBWA) method to find out more about the barriers in AEC (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Through this, he made use of verbal communication, “written or oral use of words” and non-verbal communication which involves “elements and behaviours not coded into words” to win the trust of the floor employees (Bartol et. al., 2005 p.433). He made an effort to be around the shop floor staff frequently. By playing the role of an active listener to many of the shop floor members, he empathised with them and made sure not to demand anything from them. The author was also able to communicate with them verbally as he became the messenger for the management and floor staff.
LIMITATIONS TO THE AUTHOR'S APPROACH
The advantage of MBWA is that there is direct communication between the employees and the management (Wood et al 2004). The management can also understand the internal organizational problems better (McShane and Travaglione 2007). The active listening and MBWA that John practiced improved communication and relationship with the employees. However, overcoming the communication barrier in the communication barrier in the organisation alone will not improve the situation much.
WHAT WOULD WE DO DIFFERENTLY
PERCEPTIONS
The fact remains that the management view themselves as more superior than the floor employees. Culture change or changes in perception of employees play a big role. The only way to have culture change is to have good communication since they cannot be separated. Usually, the norm culture for employees would be that they identify themselves with their organization and accept its values and would be motivated by them (Mullins 2005).
TYPE OF COMMUNICATION TOOLS/STYLE
However, in organizations, communication breakdown is the main problem. The type of communication existing in AEC is a chain network that does not have much interaction with the employees. A more suitable form of communication would be an all-channel network whereby all the employees are fully involved in participation and discussion. To implement all these however, surveys can be done. Doing so can help to determine the attitudes of the employees to the functioning of the organization. George should also be open to the criticisms made by the floor employees. It would be difficult to implement changes in the organisation if the management do not cooperate and see the floor employees as equals (Mullins 2005). Thus mindset and the culture of the company should be changed. The management should be the ones to implement the changes.
TEAMWORK
Another way would be to promote effective teamwork. George as the vice-president should be more aware of and pay attention to the floor employees. Only by understanding that each and every employee plays an important part in the success of the organization can they move forward (Mullins 2005). Therefore, awareness of roles in the organization is fundamental in effective teamwork.
MOTIVATION
Additionally, motivation also plays a vital role. One way to tackle the issue of employees misunderstanding that they were being sent for training courses due to their ineffectiveness is to simply promote it in a different manner. Companies could suggest training courses as a form of performance-based reward, as it not only acknowledges the employee’s ability at work, but also act as an incentive for employees who want opportunities for promotions, as the training courses can pave the way to such.
Q2. IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM
PERCEPTIONS
The problem lies in the misperceptions of John and George in the organisation. George is held with high regard by the employees. Hence, John finds that his opinions are not valued. As a result, he does not bring constructive ideas to the management. Thereby making John feel upset towards AEC.
SELECTIVE ATTENTION
The perceptual process, which is illustrated in Figure 1, begins when environmental stimuli are received through our senses (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Because the employees were used to the indifferent treatment from the management, John, was probably apprehensive when George approached him personally to explore the idea of a possible promotion. ‘Difference in perceptions result in different people attaching different meanings to the same stimuli’ (Mullins 2005).
‘Although largely unconscious, selective attention is also consciously influenced by our anticipation of future events’ (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Due to their unpleasant encounters in the past, John has perceived George to be indulging a personal grudge while evaluating his performance.
MISINTERPRETATION
A reason as to why John was upset could be due to misinterpretation of George’s intention. This features the communication barrier, perception, which was highlighted earlier. ‘Corporate leaders are matched closely by employees, and the most inane words or gestures are interpreted with great meaning even though they often occur without intention’ (Mc Shane & Travaglione 2005, p.334). Thus, John misinterpreted George’s gesture of sending him to a management skills seminar as a means of conveying to him that his performance was not up to mark. In fact, George was acknowledging his good performance and was considering him for a promotion instead.
NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
The impact of non-verbal communication could be another reason why John was upset. George’s facial expressions, body position and other physical gestures probably did not convince John that the message which was being conveyed was a positive one. An individual’s body language and tone of voice plays a large part in conveying meaning (Wood et al. 2004). George’s failure to exhibit positive body language and tone of voice could be the result of John’s negative reaction.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AUTHOR
STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING CONFLICT
There are many reasons why conflict occurs. A common definition of conflict is that it is usually associated with negative features and situations which give rise to inefficiency, ineffectiveness or dysfunctional consequence. In the case of AEC, there are a few sources of conflict. However, there are a number of ways which George can take to avoid the harmful effects of conflict. One would be to review the leadership and management. A more participative and supportive style of leadership and managerial behaviour is likely to assist in conflict management (Mullins 2005). George should create a work environment whereby everybody can work cooperatively together. By bringing down the barriers between the floor employees and the management, AEC can achieve the organizational goals more effectively. Another way would be to have group activities. This will further help to improve ties between the employees because it allows them to communicate with each other.
DIRECT COMMUNICATION
One of the things the author could do is to persuade John and George to have face-to-face talks to build up trust and eradicate the misunderstandings. The author has set himself as a role model for many management staff by trying to reach out to the floor staff. Such behaviour should be encouraged by George to improve the communication within AEC.
LIMITATIONS
However, it is important to note that such direct communication may aggravate situations when the employees are not good listeners or are not sensitive to choice of words used.
ACTIVE LISTENING
To prevent the above from happening or aggravating, the author could suggest developing a listening improvement programme in AEC. From a Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, the basis to improve listening should “build awareness to factors that affect listening ability” and “the kind of aural experience that can produce good listening habits”. The author could encourage or propose such listening programmes for both the floor and management level. With appropriate skills of listening and efforts of direct communication, they would become more sensitive with words used and aware of the different styles of communication. Furthermore, George and John’s rift can be significantly improved if both of them listen to each others’ difficulties in various situations.
MOTIVATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Both George and the author, being higher management staff, could adopt a more personal level of approach to motivate the staff, eradicating the use of memos. Personal praise and acknowledgement could also be applied to help the staff feel more important and appreciated in their jobs.
Figure 1: Mars Model of Individual Behaviour and Results
Source: McShane and Travaglione 2007
By applying the MARS model as seen in the figure, these recommendations would appeal to the employees’ individual characteristics such as values, perceptions and personality (McShane and Travaglione 2007). With the appropriate role perceptions and situational factors that promote improvement in communication such as active listening as mentioned above, AEC would be able to achieve favorable behaviour and results that will be greatly beneficial to the organisation.
( 1443 words) exclusive of citations and headings
P.S amal, i'm going to email u this copy.. cos the picture will not show on the post so u can do the sub-headings? =)
PART A
Q1. COMMUNICATION BARRIERS THAT EXISTED IN AEC
STRUCTURAL BARRIERS AND PERCEPTION DIFFERENCES
In AEC, the management is regarded with authority by employees. Employees are not given opportunities to express their opinions as management does not involve them in meetings. Separate facilities for the management exist as structural barriers resulting in social interaction being affected. Hence, employees view themselves unimportant as compared to the management staff as they do not feel as valued.
INFORMATION OVERLOAD
AEC’s vice-president, George, faces friction with his employee John and usually sends written memos instead of having direct confrontations. These memos result in information overload as they convey important and complex instructions for production. Employees are likely to misinterpret these memos.
FILTERING AND LANGUAGE BARRIERS
John refused to voice out his frustrations and practised filtering to delete negative information so that events sound more favorable. Many employees behave similarly to earn the management’s approval. Additionally George’s compliments to John were misinterpreted, showing that language is yet another barrier.
HOW DID THE AUTHOR DEAL WITH IT?
AUTHOR’S APPROACH TO COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
Thus the author has employed the management by walking around (MBWA) method to find out more about the barriers in AEC (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Through this, he made use of verbal communication, “written or oral use of words” and non-verbal communication which involves “elements and behaviours not coded into words” to win the trust of the floor employees (Bartol et. al., 2005 p.433). He made an effort to be around the shop floor staff frequently. By playing the role of an active listener to many of the shop floor members, he empathised with them and made sure not to demand anything from them. The author was also able to communicate with them verbally as he became the messenger for the management and floor staff.
LIMITATIONS TO THE AUTHOR'S APPROACH
The advantage of MBWA is that there is direct communication between the employees and the management (Wood et al 2004). The management can also understand the internal organizational problems better (McShane and Travaglione 2007). The active listening and MBWA that John practiced improved communication and relationship with the employees. However, overcoming the communication barrier in the communication barrier in the organisation alone will not improve the situation much.
WHAT WOULD WE DO DIFFERENTLY
PERCEPTIONS
The fact remains that the management view themselves as more superior than the floor employees. Culture change or changes in perception of employees play a big role. The only way to have culture change is to have good communication since they cannot be separated. Usually, the norm culture for employees would be that they identify themselves with their organization and accept its values and would be motivated by them (Mullins 2005).
TYPE OF COMMUNICATION TOOLS/STYLE
However, in organizations, communication breakdown is the main problem. The type of communication existing in AEC is a chain network that does not have much interaction with the employees. A more suitable form of communication would be an all-channel network whereby all the employees are fully involved in participation and discussion. To implement all these however, surveys can be done. Doing so can help to determine the attitudes of the employees to the functioning of the organization. George should also be open to the criticisms made by the floor employees. It would be difficult to implement changes in the organisation if the management do not cooperate and see the floor employees as equals (Mullins 2005). Thus mindset and the culture of the company should be changed. The management should be the ones to implement the changes.
TEAMWORK
Another way would be to promote effective teamwork. George as the vice-president should be more aware of and pay attention to the floor employees. Only by understanding that each and every employee plays an important part in the success of the organization can they move forward (Mullins 2005). Therefore, awareness of roles in the organization is fundamental in effective teamwork.
MOTIVATION
Additionally, motivation also plays a vital role. One way to tackle the issue of employees misunderstanding that they were being sent for training courses due to their ineffectiveness is to simply promote it in a different manner. Companies could suggest training courses as a form of performance-based reward, as it not only acknowledges the employee’s ability at work, but also act as an incentive for employees who want opportunities for promotions, as the training courses can pave the way to such.
Q2. IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM
PERCEPTIONS
The problem lies in the misperceptions of John and George in the organisation. George is held with high regard by the employees. Hence, John finds that his opinions are not valued. As a result, he does not bring constructive ideas to the management. Thereby making John feel upset towards AEC.
SELECTIVE ATTENTION
The perceptual process, which is illustrated in Figure 1, begins when environmental stimuli are received through our senses (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Because the employees were used to the indifferent treatment from the management, John, was probably apprehensive when George approached him personally to explore the idea of a possible promotion. ‘Difference in perceptions result in different people attaching different meanings to the same stimuli’ (Mullins 2005).
‘Although largely unconscious, selective attention is also consciously influenced by our anticipation of future events’ (McShane and Travaglione 2007). Due to their unpleasant encounters in the past, John has perceived George to be indulging a personal grudge while evaluating his performance.
MISINTERPRETATION
A reason as to why John was upset could be due to misinterpretation of George’s intention. This features the communication barrier, perception, which was highlighted earlier. ‘Corporate leaders are matched closely by employees, and the most inane words or gestures are interpreted with great meaning even though they often occur without intention’ (Mc Shane & Travaglione 2005, p.334). Thus, John misinterpreted George’s gesture of sending him to a management skills seminar as a means of conveying to him that his performance was not up to mark. In fact, George was acknowledging his good performance and was considering him for a promotion instead.
NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
The impact of non-verbal communication could be another reason why John was upset. George’s facial expressions, body position and other physical gestures probably did not convince John that the message which was being conveyed was a positive one. An individual’s body language and tone of voice plays a large part in conveying meaning (Wood et al. 2004). George’s failure to exhibit positive body language and tone of voice could be the result of John’s negative reaction.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AUTHOR
STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING CONFLICT
There are many reasons why conflict occurs. A common definition of conflict is that it is usually associated with negative features and situations which give rise to inefficiency, ineffectiveness or dysfunctional consequence. In the case of AEC, there are a few sources of conflict. However, there are a number of ways which George can take to avoid the harmful effects of conflict. One would be to review the leadership and management. A more participative and supportive style of leadership and managerial behaviour is likely to assist in conflict management (Mullins 2005). George should create a work environment whereby everybody can work cooperatively together. By bringing down the barriers between the floor employees and the management, AEC can achieve the organizational goals more effectively. Another way would be to have group activities. This will further help to improve ties between the employees because it allows them to communicate with each other.
DIRECT COMMUNICATION
One of the things the author could do is to persuade John and George to have face-to-face talks to build up trust and eradicate the misunderstandings. The author has set himself as a role model for many management staff by trying to reach out to the floor staff. Such behaviour should be encouraged by George to improve the communication within AEC.
LIMITATIONS
However, it is important to note that such direct communication may aggravate situations when the employees are not good listeners or are not sensitive to choice of words used.
ACTIVE LISTENING
To prevent the above from happening or aggravating, the author could suggest developing a listening improvement programme in AEC. From a Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, the basis to improve listening should “build awareness to factors that affect listening ability” and “the kind of aural experience that can produce good listening habits”. The author could encourage or propose such listening programmes for both the floor and management level. With appropriate skills of listening and efforts of direct communication, they would become more sensitive with words used and aware of the different styles of communication. Furthermore, George and John’s rift can be significantly improved if both of them listen to each others’ difficulties in various situations.
MOTIVATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Both George and the author, being higher management staff, could adopt a more personal level of approach to motivate the staff, eradicating the use of memos. Personal praise and acknowledgement could also be applied to help the staff feel more important and appreciated in their jobs.
Figure 1: Mars Model of Individual Behaviour and Results
Source: McShane and Travaglione 2007
By applying the MARS model as seen in the figure, these recommendations would appeal to the employees’ individual characteristics such as values, perceptions and personality (McShane and Travaglione 2007). With the appropriate role perceptions and situational factors that promote improvement in communication such as active listening as mentioned above, AEC would be able to achieve favorable behaviour and results that will be greatly beneficial to the organisation.
( 1443 words) exclusive of citations and headings
hey, for the reference on havard business review, i couldnt find the edition, and place of publication... how???? jus skip it?
Reference List
1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, and Martin, D 2005, Management: A Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
2. Kinicki, A and Kreitner, R 2003, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
3. McKenna, E 2006, ‘Leadership and management style’, Business psychology and organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 375-419
4. McShane, S and Travaglione, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
5. Nichols, R.G, Stevens, L.A 1957, ’Listening to People’, in Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, Havard Business School Press, pp.1-24
6. Wood, J, Chapman, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison, V, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Kennedy, R, Schermerhorn, J, Hunt, J and Osborn, R 2004, Organisational behaviour: a global perspective, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane
Reference List
1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, and Martin, D 2005, Management: A Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
2. Kinicki, A and Kreitner, R 2003, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
3. McKenna, E 2006, ‘Leadership and management style’, Business psychology and organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 375-419
4. McShane, S and Travaglione, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
5. Nichols, R.G, Stevens, L.A 1957, ’Listening to People’, in Havard Business Review on Effective Communication, Havard Business School Press, pp.1-24
6. Wood, J, Chapman, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison, V, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Kennedy, R, Schermerhorn, J, Hunt, J and Osborn, R 2004, Organisational behaviour: a global perspective, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane
sorry, i just realised that i never post the tuckmans model!!! =P here's it~
Tuckman’s model
Our group entered the norming stage whereby each of us become clear about our roles in the group and the duties assigned to us. Furthermore, group cohesiveness, “defined as the “we feeling” that binds the members of a group together”, formed as we learnt to think in different perspectives and being sensitive towards every member (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003 p.205). We are able to come up with solutions together as a team. With the team cohesiveness, we found it easy to perform well in the tasks assigned to us. Finally, our team is able to come up with the report with the agreement of our ideas.
Tuckman’s model
Our group entered the norming stage whereby each of us become clear about our roles in the group and the duties assigned to us. Furthermore, group cohesiveness, “defined as the “we feeling” that binds the members of a group together”, formed as we learnt to think in different perspectives and being sensitive towards every member (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003 p.205). We are able to come up with solutions together as a team. With the team cohesiveness, we found it easy to perform well in the tasks assigned to us. Finally, our team is able to come up with the report with the agreement of our ideas.
Reference List
Reference List
1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, and Martin, D 2005, Management: A Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, and Martin, D 2005, Management: A Pacific Rim Focus, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
2. Havard Business Review on Effective Communication
3. Kinicki, A and Kreitner, R 2003, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
4. McKenna, E 2006, ‘Leadership and management style’, Business psychology and organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 375-419
5. McShane, S and Travaglione, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw-Hill, Sydney
6. Wood, J, Chapman, J, Fromholtz, M, Morrison, V, Wallace, J, Zeffane, R, Kennedy, R, Schermerhorn, J, Hunt, J and Osborn, R 2004, Organisational behaviour: a global perspective, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
