“The Three Stages of Virtual Team Development” of Managing Virtual Teams and the video on “Leading teams through stages of development”

The most important aspect of the forming stage is ensuring everyone considers themselves as part of the team and each person feels that they have valuable knowledge and experience to bring to the table. When a team first begins to assemble, it is difficult to identify each person’s specific talents/experiences. Therefore, I believe the Test Drive component of the Setup stage is an effective way to get to know each team member to learn more about them. If one member does not feel included in the team, they can become discouraged and unmotivated to participate. One way that team members and leaders can promote a healthy team environment is by displaying behavior that does not favor any team member(s) over others. I was once a non-leading member of a team in which my team leader overtly showed their favoritism towards certain team members. Because our team leader ignored selecting the right people for certain tasks based on skills, we ended up with subpar performance and not reaching our full potential as a team.

In regards to the storming stage, I believe facing conflicts are crucial for team development. During conflicts, people express different points of views which creates a valuable opportunity for growth and learning. In that sense, it is depriving to the team for team members to avoid healthy conflict. Also, hiding our thoughts and feelings to avoid conflict often generates passive aggressive behavior. This sort of behavior is what keeps teams from thriving and leaders should be able to identify when team members are behaving hostile towards one another and step in.

Bringing team members together in the norming phase also requires acknowledging team members’ differences. Growing up, I have seen this stage unfold in my personal relationships with my friends. In the beginning of our friendships, I have experienced conflict with every single close friend of mine. We typically start out with monumental differences, then go on to argue about those differences, stop talking to one another for a brief moment, and then realize that we are sisters separated at birth. By working through conflicts, team members get to know each other on a deeper level, understand each other’s values, and gain a higher level of respect for one another.

I believe the most important part of the performing stage is reflection. After a goal has been accomplished, teams should reflect on their work and processes (individually and as a group) to look for areas of improvement. This is also the perfect opportunity for refueling or reenergizing the team by acknowledging people’s accomplishments and motivating members to continue to perform well and better themselves. Some important questions team members can ask are what they thought worked well and what could be improved. Feedback should be received from every member of the team, because everyone’s experience is different and worth learning from.

In Response to Prompt 2, Referencing A Manager’s Guide to Virtual Teams Chapters 1 & 2

In a previous position I have held, I was thrust into an established virtual team comprised of members from multiple sites in Pittsburgh and in Times Square, New York City.  Entering a team during the refresh stage has its own unique challenges that I had never encountered before, especially as a fresher right out of undergrad.  First, I felt that I was not fully prepared as a new team member; the ‘onboarding’ process was brief and consisted of a list of deadlines, deliverables, and ways to electronically contact my teammates.  It almost felt awkward communicating with others in the team at first, as I had no conception of what our communication standards were, each individual’s personality, and how to converse with them comfortably.  Next, not being fully introduced to each team member’s exact role and contribution made it hard for me to produce work that was not only sufficient, but optimal input for my position that others could work with easily.  Lastly, I was never formally introduced to the history of the group and their projects and why the current processes functioned the way they did.

However, as time passed, I found my place in the group and eventually the ambiguities listed above disappeared.  Surviving through another cycle of setup and follow through, I found the next refresh stage an excellent opportunity to really settle into the team and chew on the rules of the road I had just traveled.  By this point, I had become familiar with my teammates, our usual tasks, and began to see the bigger picture.  It became easier to communicate more naturally with the team, despite the coldness of only using digital means.  I felt more empowered to ask questions that before I felt were foolish or I should already know the answer to.  During this second refresh stage, there was one particular team member I befriended and we essentially ‘paired up’.  He really helped me dig into the details of the history of project and why the processes were built the way they were.  This enabled us to brainstorm and enter the next stage of set up with new ideas to the improve the way we created our deliverable.

After working with this virtual team through several projects, I visited Manhattan on a personal trip and stopped by the Times Square office.  I finally had the opportunity to meet face to face with people I had worked with for months and the experience was great.  Walking around their office, going out to lunch with them, and even just simply shaking their hands finalized the bonds of our team.  This was the day one meeting that we should have had.

In applying my experience to the OMBA team, I believe that the residency week was a very strong way to kick off the program and a crucial team building exercise.  This time, I got to meet my virtual team in person first, and I already feel much more comfortable with them and the awkward stage that I had went through before does not exist.  On the other hand, I believe that is critical that we emphasis the refresh stage in our team.  Regardless of an outstanding or poor group performance, it is key that we take the time to review what worked and what did not, what we can do better, and what we expect from each other.  In my opinion, the ability to reflect, recognize shortcomings, and grow is a necessity for success in not only groups, but all things in life – after all, the definition of insanity is the doing the same over and over and expecting different results.

Response to Questions 1 and 3

Referencing Readings from Manager’s Guide to Virtual Teams (Chp1-3)

This team consists of five very different personalities and the key issues here are lack of communication, not establishing ground rules, the inability to get various personalities to work together, and the lack of equal opportunity for all members of the team to express their thoughts.

Team organization requires planning and a team cannot plan their journey without communicating their goals and expectations with one another. The first step in setting expectations is defining goals and establishing ground rules. As the readings state, members of a team need to know what their team’s destination is and what the rules of the road are. Setting ground rules will help this team’s members clearly understand what is expected of them going forward. I would recommend the following two rules for this specific team: 1) No one should be allowed to miss meetings unless an emergency comes up. 2) Everyone should share their work and progress with each other in a shared document.

This team also suffers from various clashing personalities. What I gathered from Part A of this exercise was that Mike would ultimately try to lead this team and be perceived by his teammates as controlling and overbearing, and Peter would try to undermine him because of his extensive “real world experience” and how that would come off as him thinking he is superior to his teammates. Essentially, this is exactly how Mike and Peter acted which sidelined two other members of this team, Priyanka and Sing How.

If Priyanka was given the opportunity to present her ideas, maybe the outcome for this group would have been different for their first virtual oral report. And if Sing How was put on the spot and required to present his work during their team meetings, the team would pick up on the misunderstanding and adjust their communication methods as needed. In order for a team to work well together, everyone needs a chance to have the floor to express their concerns and ideas for the group. Yael Zofi mentions this saying, “None of us is as smart as all of us,” and I firmly agree with that saying. If certain people in a team are silenced, that team will never reach its full potential.

I believe that in order to prevent this disaster from happening again, this team needs to ultimately communicate more and better. This will allow them to identify issues before it’s too late and conduct a “tune-up” if necessary.

1. Lara managed to convey the team size, the necessary members required, unlimited resources such as tech support and location and finally, got George(the GM) on board with framing the project to the group before he left. He described a team of two people from each area while Lara convinced him that having a functional manager from each of the areas would allow them to have the necessary members involved without the convolution of more than necessary bodies. Furthermore, She even went on to  suggest what the group might require to do this like needing his personal conference room. The biggest up she did, however, was getting the true leader (George) to help frame the project, according to Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, before handing over duties to Lara in front of the entire group to set the tone. This allowed each member to share their concerns and understand George’s intent before he went on vacation. This was something he was kind of hesitant to do since he was so adamant about “negotiating a two week vacation”.

2. Lara should have also asked what would become of the team when George comes back. Would the team implement these changes themselves with George supporting? Would George take over from Lara? Would George take into consideration their opinions on the options or deduce his own solution to the problem based on the options the team gives him. In my experience, teams last for much longer for issues such as this and I think its important to establish a timeline in the beginning so that the team is not surprised of what to expect. This limits cynicism that is so prevalent when employees are left out of the loop like described in Schwarz’s model. The starting point that Lara manages up is great but I think we forget that this team also has a problem of finding a 20 reduction in overhead in the next four months and not discussing those 4 months could lead to problems for the team down the road.

Lara was quick to take accountability for the project role during George’s absence. She made sure that there was a clear mission & shared vision between George and her. Lara asked some great questions to make sure she understood and to gain authorization. She got clear goals and recommended George tell the team himself before he left for two weeks. This provides everyone on the team the vital project details and sets expectations. It also allows Lara to be introduced as the team lead giving her authority.

During the initial meeting Lara could have had everyone take a couple of minutes to introduce themselves. Each member of the team would be given an opportunity to talk about their field of expertise, some of their hobbies, times they have available for meetings/updates, and the chance to bring up questions they may have about the project. This would allow the functional area heads to get better acquainted with each other and gain insight into the project parameters. Lara should set guidelines for meeting dates/times, project milestones, create a communications plan, and conduct a risk assessment. All of this information will ensure project success.

Need an original paper done on this topic?

click here to Order

1. George framed the purpose of the team very well. He was very concise in that matter in telling them what the issue was directly, finding a specific reduction in overhead in the next 4 months without loosing bodies. Furthermore, he described the various member’s expertise in which could be used by the team. This established confidence in why each member was selected. However, he started the meeting off by basically throwing his two week vacation in their faces…”I will be fishing…etc.” while basically you figure this HUGE problem out and I expect options when I get back. Honestly, to me, this is a copout and feels like laziness. One of the most important members of the team, the leader is not there. He is on vacation while I try to queue a huge problem. To me, this doesn’t set the tone of the team off correctly, as it suggests the team and even the company is unimportant.

2.George essentially empowered the team by voicing the member’s critical expertise in the areas that would be essential in getting to solutions. He framed each member as a member for the others to lean on in certain aspects creating trust within the team. However, he directly said that the team has a 50/50 shot of success. This is not something I would say at the launch of a team. To me, this shows that the leader is not confident that the team will work. Lara worked much more behind the scenes. She actually got everyone together that day so that George could come and frame the project to the team. This was a feat for a man adamant about his vacation and not having time. I think where things faltered was not asking George to postpone his trip for at least a week to really get the team off the ground in understanding his intent.

3.These additional elements include motivating task or having even the members deduce that yes the company has been leaching money for quite some time and something needs to happen to fix this before a proper launch can happen. Also, team goals, they determined that the following week, that they would contact George to determine if they were on the right track in terms of their solutions to the reductions in overhead. Group culture is another by the way George set the tone in the way he described his vacation. ‘One of the goods thing he did was by negotiating it’, this symbolizes that the team or problem is not on the forefront of the leader and I think sends the signal that the team should treat the issue the same because the precedent has been set.

4.Honestly, George should not have mentioned his vacation as he did. If anything, he should have just said it plainly that he would be out of the office and left it at that. Framing his words as he did shows lack of tact on his end as an effective leader. Furthermore, he should have established confidence within the group by not suggesting they had a 50/50 shot but rather they were on the path to success with the team they had assembled. By setting these norms, George has set a precedent that the team is not as prepared as it probably is and that the overall problem is not as  important.

1. George did a great job of clearly defining his objective and time frame of 20% reduction in 4 months. Furthermore, he acknowledged that this was no easy task, implying that he expects a certain amount of hiccups along the way. His realistic attitude about this goal grants his team members the freedom to explore and stretch boundaries when it comes to testing out various solutions. I believe that if a task is difficult and new in nature, there is automatically room for trial and error because a certain amount of error is expected. Something else George did well was he mentioned each member individually and stated their strengths for this project. By doing so, he showed them respect as indispensable members of the group. What George did poorly was that he said they have a 50/50 chance of reaching this goal. Making it explicitly clear that he thought this team had a 50% chance of failure not only depletes their motivation, but is also a blow to their egos. Prior to saying this, George stated all of the members’ strengths and values they added to the group, but then unintentionally contradicted himself by stating that his faith in them lies at about 50%.

2. George initially framed this project in a way that highlighted each members’ skills needed for this task. He touched on exactly how each department was crucial in attaining his goal and in return, allowed the members to see the bigger picture and how their department fits into this project. However, he framed his leadership position as one that is detached from the group, such as in a top-down hierarchical structure. He also made it clear that he expects the results to come from them without any of his contribution. While this behavior framed the team’s role as one that is empowered to come up with solutions on their own, it’s clearly visible that they would have appreciated more guidance from him. In terms of framing the purpose of this task, George did not give them much of a starting point. And when asked if they could contact him for more insight, he said no. Frankly, this task seemed like it was created to make George look good as a new manager because he cut costs by 20% in 4 months. That goal would not spark interest or motivation in anyone besides George.

Lara on the other hand, framed her leadership role as an equal member of the team. By supporting and sharing the concerns of her team members, she established a sense of comradery and teamwork. If I was a member of her team, I would feel a greater sense of trust in her as my leader.

3. In addition to clearly stating the goal and mission, appropriate membership was also demonstrated because specialists from all relevant departments were selected. George also set clear boundaries by expressing his request for confidentiality of the project and not firing junior members. This establishes rules that members cannot break and creates greater clarity when approaching the project. Lastly, when George said that the whole company is depending on this team, he created a motivational task for the group to work towards, because they understood the importance of their work.

4. George should not have been dismissive when the team wanted to contact him for further guidance. As a leader, he cannot be unavailable to his team. And because his team members needed more clarification, he should not have dumped the task on them right before his vacation. This creates a stressful environment, especially with George being a new GM. The team members do not know what to expect from him just yet because they are not familiar with his working style.

George’s reaction to them wanting his help was him questioning their ability to complete the task. This type of attitude is detrimental to the mindset of curiosity along with psychological safety. Also, stating that the team has a 50/50 chance of successfully completing the task does not coincide with a reasonable work load. If the odds are so low, why not adjust the goal to something more attainable? This task may be difficult, but him saying that has no purpose other than discouragement for the team.

Need an original paper done on this topic?

click here to Order

1. At a previous place of work, we came to find issues with our process in getting parts of our manuals completed within the time frame we had on contract. To make our commitments, we tried several different process changes to limit the time, our manuals spent in these work flows. One way was to cut out a specific subset of people who touched them in the original process and rely on writers more heavily for their portion. Another was to change what the quality group did on the manuals to make the most of the amount of time it was in their hands and to limit any down stream research in the workflow. Both changes were key in making sure, we could deliver on time to the customer. To make this happen, all team members had to be willing to do it, especially members the process changes affected. Furthermore, the culture of the group allowed people the platform to safely share their ideas even if they didn’t get implemented. Also, the ideas were brought out in group meetings so it could be decided as a group which made more people buy in and the changes could be implemented almost immediately.

3. All of the organizations that I have been apart of,use feedback as the method for conducting performance reviews. I have never once heard of the idea of feedforward just because we never knew what 6 months ahead would look like. I have benefited from feedback in a few ways, one was using the examples of things I did wrong and in the context I did them in. For future reference, I will know what to do or who to ask. However, this can also be difficult if that situation was a one time occurrence. Feedback also pushes me to remember what I have done and those accomplishments within that time period. Most of the time, I had to take note through out the year of everything I did and then send that in paragraph form to my boss. It helped them see what and how much I was truly doing and help them to remember. Having understood what feedforward is according to Goldsmith: giving someone suggestions on future opportunities, this would immensely help in planning learning opportunities. For example, knowing that there will be a spot open on a specific team as a leader in the future to help with leadership skills. This would be a great feedforward example of not only encouraging the employee but giving them a chance to maybe redeem themselves if they weren’t successful on the previous team. Using feedback and feedforward together would be a great learning tool to show someone ‘this is where you need help from what we’ve seen previously and here is what is available to you to retool that habit, etc.’

In the Air Force, every work center has a Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) who is usually at or above the rank of E5. Even though my rank is E4, I am the current “NCOIC” of my work center because I have the most experience and expertise working on that mission. Recently, we branched out our mission to include six new Navy members and were joined by a Navy E5 on our team. Initially, him and I experienced conflict because we were both in a position where each of us felt we had authority. I felt that way because I had been serving as the liaison between our military and civilian supervisors, training new members, and writing performance reports. He felt entitled because he outranked me, which is understandable in the military culture.

Due to the lack of clear and defined responsibilities, I believe the source of our conflict was most related to performance conflict at the interpersonal level (Zofi, 2011). My supervisor informed me that I would still be operationally in charge of both Air Force and Navy members, but the E5 would be administratively responsible for the Navy members. The conflict occurred because the E5 was not informed that I also have to keep track of the Navy’s accountability in my work center. Because he was unaware of my responsibilities, he saw my actions as undermining his authority, which caused him to be unreceptive to my training methods. Consequently, this created an unproductive atmosphere in our office. Had our roles and responsibilities clearly been stated from the beginning, we would not have experienced this power struggle.

In order to overcome this conflict, I tried to understand his feelings and point of view (Zofi, 2011). I realized that the issue was not one-sided. We were both experiencing differences in culture between the Navy and Air Force. Both branches view leadership differently and I had to acknowledge that this was new and different for both of us. After changing my outlook, I was able to interact with him without feeling competitive. Furthermore, I focused all of my energy towards making sure the team was properly trained and taken care of, so that they could successfully contribute to the mission. This attitude proved to be effective and the power struggle went away.

Need an original paper done on this topic?

click here to Order

1. a. Members of Tom’s team are feeling frustrated as noted in the video over his lack of involvement. In the beginning they shy away from their frustration over his lack of involvement and again he walks away without tasks after the meeting and little to not contributions during the meeting. This could lead to conflict if the members shy away from these emotions do not confront Tom about the issue they have. Tom, however, is not really seeing a problem with this as he believes he comes to all the meetings so that should suffice since he has so much on his plate already. The other members to not agree. Ultimately, this team is at opposite ends of one another since they believe Tom is social loafing rather then being an active participant. Tom is on role overload which the other members are unaware of.

1. b. To get Tom involved in the meeting, asking him probing questions like “how do you feel about X” or “what is your take on Y” will help bring him in. Members have to pause and allow Tom to think and then speak. This is active listening and in any case should be practiced at anytime a member speaks (not everyone speaks or thinks as fast as you do!). The other members can suggest to Tom to work with his supervisor to dictate task importance or hand his assignments to another co-worker so that he has the time to commit to working on duties for the team. They can also offer to bring the task to the finish line so to speak if Tom can just get the information they need if that isn’t plausible. While, I haven’t had this experience because the teams were just too large to hear from everyone, these recommendations seem like the most realized and possible. Also, they seem the most natural rather then going full in on someone for their lack of participation. Most of the time, people are very busy and balancing their normal duties with team duties can come at a sacrifice so team members should see, ask and investigate and express their desire before they assume someone doesn’t want to be involved on the team as suggested by Rosenberg (1983) with nonviolent communication.

The cultural differences were mainly psychological, based on values.  In fact, the coach fit within the demographic of the town as a middle-aged white male.  Religion is a good value to use as a filter comparing the town and coach’s culture.  The coach’s view on religion was different from the town, as evidenced by the coach continuing to straighten his clothes and get ready for the game, while the players and pastor prayed in the locker room.  The coach saw religion as part of an individual’s private life, whereas the town viewed religion as a defining part of the collective community.  The pastor was the one who drove the team to games!  The basketball team members, having grown up in the town, were also used to the large and encompassing role of religion in their lives.  They accepted that another player took more time praying and that prayer took priority over rushing out on the floor.  Yet the coach saw timeliness as more important, at least in the beginning.  He was impatient with the player who said specific prayers before going out onto the court.   A good thing was that the coach asked questions.  He asked what the player was doing when he took a knee instead of rushing out onto the floor.  Over time, they reached a cultural middle ground.  The coach bowed his head during prayer in the locker room and the preacher’s son prayed more quickly prior to running out onto the floor.  There were no judgements and differences were respected.

2. Differences in language speaking capabilities have proved to be the most challenging as Yael Zofi (2011) has mentioned. Managing team members as some can be overbearing and some can be reluctant as we have learned can be a challenge but members can communicate their frustrations to these members. People in the group have a say and can voice opinions within the group and everyone can understand. When there is a language barrier, a team now must work twice as hard to not only understand and translate but then understand in the context of the person’s cultural lens and then deal with the team dynamics of a group where all members understand each other. Not only are members having to take time to talk about due dates, ideas, and schedule conflicts but also teach each other what the fundamentals in conversing in a new language most likely. This is the most challenging because in the real world, most teams have deadlines and strict ones so the amount of effort put forth needs to be exponentially more because members don’t fundamentally understand one another. To manage this, it would first be worthwhile to determine a specialist on a team or a lead during the forming stages of the team who can communicate with every individual on the team. This may be hard but if for example there are individuals in France, USA, and Mexico, having a leader who can speak French, Spanish, and English would take part this language barrier away if the individual who is coordinating and facilitating knows what each individual in the team is voicing and concerning and can relay this back to the group. It actually would be easier to do this in email form rather then meetings where translating would take up a lot of time. At a company that I interned at, the headquarters was in Germany and most only spoke German there. The headquarters here spoke English so to converse with counterparts in Germany, we implemented language translator in our email system where as you typed in English, it would translate the words to German in real time. This could also be an option to counteract differences in language.

3. I am currently working on a team that has individuals where English is not their first language (Zofi, 2011). Accents are very pronounced and it can make it difficult to understand what they are saying at times. I have only noticed know that everyone on the team has been using active listening technique strategies to understand these individuals over conference calls. We always ensure that the individual finishes talking and we write notes on what portions we didn’t understand. We have found that when we interrupted, they would loose their train of thought as they tried to explain to us what word we didn’t understand. I think it would also cut down on time if we were to paraphrase their talking points back to these individuals to ensure we fully understood. In the future, meeting with these individuals in person with either them traveling to us or we travel to them would be beneficial in cementing these processes and for us to further learn how to converse and understand. The more time you talk with an individual, the more you pick up on how they talk and catching words is a lot easier as time progresses.

Zofi, Y. (2011). Manager’s guide to virtual teams. AMACOM.

1. I work for an American company who has a French customer.  During one of our meetings, we had a proposal and the customer said strongly criticized it.  The presenter thought that was the end of the conversation.  Recapping with my company’s team afterwards, we had to explain that when the French criticize an idea or point out flaws, they are not asking us to back down from the idea.  However, they do want a lively debate and discussion on how our idea will succeed and overcome the challenges that they envision.  This is part of the French culture, which Erin Meyer alludes to.  The American team had knowledge about this aspect of the French culture because several of them had moved to France and the company purposefully sent them to cultural trainings.  Ideally, we would have informed the presenter about these cultural differences before the meeting.  The negative outcome was that because the presenter thought his idea was rejected, the meeting ended early and then had to be rescheduled at a later date to continue the subject.  The positive outcome was that this event highlighted the importance of understanding another’s culture and showed how training on different cultures can reap rewards.

2. Levi mentions age as part of demographic diversity and knowledge as psychological diversity.  I have had the most challenge with older team members who are not adept at using technology. For example, I worked with a virtual team member who had difficulty with powerpoint.  The team would explain an assignment and give it to this individual.  It took several weeks to understand that it was not the person’s intelligence nor understanding of the assignments that prevented timely completion of the tasks.  It was the lack of Microsoft Office and other computer skills.  We tried to teach him the tools on the one day a month that he visited in-person.  However in the end, we replaced him with a team member who had better computer skills and could meet our deliverable targets.  In the future, it would be best to evaluate the Microsoft Office skills of the team members at the beginning, communicate what the expected skill set is and then provide in-person training, if necessary.  The reason that not being adept at technology is the greatest challenge to manage, is that a virtual teams rely on technology to communicate, much more than in person teams.

2. The most challenging aspect of communication for me has been determining how important non-verbal or background cues are to the other person. Before reading Zofi’s work about cultures in the workplace, I did not realize the impact of my high-context cultural background on my communication methods (Zofi, 2011). Because I have a heightened sense of emotional awareness, I try to interpret conversations by leveraging the environment around them. In doing so, I turn to body language, tone of voice, surroundings, and level of comfort in that moment to develop a better understanding of the conversation. However, after working with various people, I understand that actions do not speak louder than words for everyone. Having the emotional intelligence to pick up on background cues is still a skill that I feel everyone should try to improve, but using those cues to redefine what someone says can cause misunderstandings and be seen as lack of respect for certain people. Accepting that my communication methods are not suited for every individual has been especially useful when I found someone’s words to come off as rude or belittling. Before attempting to analyze background cues, I first take my prejudgment out of the situation, and then assume this person was not personally attacking anyone. I have found this tactic to de-escalate many unnecessarily heated conversations. In most cases, what the other person said was not meant to sound rude or belittling. The way they spoke was simply a result of their own cultural environment.

3. Organizational diversity is highly prevalent in the military (Levi, 2016). We have a strict hierarchy in which communication must travel a specific route upwards. However, this poses a problem when higher ranking leadership makes important decisions that affect the whole unit. In many cases, the ones primarily affected are lower ranking personnel. As a result, the way in which people interact with leadership is impacted. One of the ways leadership tries to overcome this obstacle is through social events outside of work to bring people of all ranks closer in order to open up lines of communication. The relaxed atmosphere at these events allows members to let their guards down and feel comfortable enough to approach leadership with ideas, concerns, or just to have casual conversation. By attending one of these events, I was able to directly approach my commander with an issue that remained unsolved, and have it addressed by the appropriate party much more efficiently. For this strategy to be more productive, I believe leadership should take measures to ensure they speak with everyone, especially the more quiet members. Certain people tend to dominate social conversations at these events, which leaves the more introverted people viewing the event as pointless. Leaders of these events should take note of who is not participating as much as others and seek them out to have one-on-one conversations. Doing so will create a much more inclusive atmosphere and produce more efficient outcomes for leveraging overall diversity in the workplace.

1.)  Both the ground and the spaces teams face some collaborative challenges, but ultimately are able to produce great ideas and outcomes.  On the space team, Jim and Fred are initially uncomfortable with Jack joining the team.  However, as they overcome some obstacles and see Jack’s contributions, they warm up to him.  Levi describes that when new members are added to a team, it is best if they first work towards an important task, and then slow down to build bonds.  This is the exact formula the team followed with Jack, and by the end of the flight he was close to Jack and Fred.  At the outset of the mission, the team mostly worked in a mindset of unilateral control, as Jim assumed the role of leader and generally provided direction to the team members.  However, as Jim witnesses the knowledge and ideas from Houston and the dedication from Fred and Jack, he relaxes into a mutual learning mindset.  This culminates in Jim allowing Jack to pilot the space craft’s landing.

The space team was much larger, and because of that, had a much different dynamic.  Overall there was a strong collaborative atmosphere, but each of the team personality types were apparent.  Ken appeared to be the biggest cooperator; he had nothing to gain and easily could have been spiteful and unmotivated because he had been removed from the team.  Instead, he demonstrated his cooperative mentality by working tirelessly until he could contribute a power efficient landing plan to save the other astronauts’ lives.  On the other hand, the rocket engineer was the prime example of a competitor.  He frequently acted to protect his interest by reiterating that his engines were not designed to work in the scenarios they were currently in.  Despite this, when the engines held up, he was quick to take credit for their performance.  The most interesting personality is flight director Gene, who is an individualist.  His personal goals are to see the men get home safe, bring pride to NASA, and never let failure be an option.  He is a competitor because he strives for success, but a collaborator in that his goal is for the greater good of others.  His vision and insistence for the mission to not be a failure cuts through the squabble in the control room and gives the ground team a clear goal.

2.)  It seemed that over the course of the film, the working relationship of the space and ground teams starts as collaborative, shifts to competitive as things get worse, and ultimately become collaborative again.  Both teams eventually show that their trust in each other is waning – the control room workers start assessing the odds of survival as poor and in space Jack openly identifies potential shortcomings or miscalculations.  The tension comes to a head when Jim gets fed up with hearing from the control room doctor and rips off his health monitoring device, which his copilots then do as well.  This is an example of an unhealthy agreement that was brought up several times throughout the film, and was finally broken when Jim was pushed too far.  Conversely, the collaborative mindset was restored after two key events: ground control providing instructions for a new air filter and the flight team manually aiming the rocket engines.  After these victories, which required huge mutual trust and cooperation on each side, the teams began to believe in each other again and the final goal was in sight.

1. The initial team of astronauts including Ken blindly trusted one another, which is why they treated Ken’s replacement, Jack as an unwelcomed outlier. By doing so, this team established a competitive atmosphere that pitted Jim and Fred against Jack, which encouraged individual efforts instead of a cooperative team effort (Levi, 2016). When the oxygen tank started leaking, Jim blamed Jack and asked him what he did to cause the leak. This further discouraged Jack from opening up lines of communication with his teammates. As Levy indicates, a competitive team spirit creates a lack of trust and reduces communication overtime among team members (Levi, 2016). Jim’s blaming reaction to the leak caused Jack to shut down even more so than before. Regardless of Jim and Fred’s actions towards Jack, he attempted to warn them about another potential disaster due to incorrect mathematical calculations by the Houston team. They dismissed his concern and later found out that Jack was right. In that moment, this team shifted from competitive to cooperative practices and began treating Jack as an equal member of the team.

The Houston team easily became flustered when things did not go well. In the face of disaster, they all began talking over each other and complaining about other departments instead of working together towards the solution. Their flight leader showed strong leadership ability by calming his team down and reminding them of their collaborative goals. When parts of the shuttle begin to malfunction and it seemed as if the flight would fail, each department’s initial reaction is to point out what the other departments did not do well. This is a perfect example of how competition within a team causes individual goals to be placed above team goals. However, when a task such as providing communication and support to the astronauts on the shuttle is interdependent, a cooperative mindset must be adopted by all members (Levi, 2016).

3. Finding the right balance between competition and cooperation is an ongoing struggle in most work centers. When certain tasks require interdepartmental efforts, that struggle becomes more difficult to overcome. Such as the interdepartmental competition and blaming seen in this movie, when projects begin to take a downturn in today’s workplace, individual departments immediately become defensive and protective of their own tasks. Organizational rewards based on individual or intradepartmental teamwork add to this sense of the self/us versus them (Levi, 2016). In addition to offering awards based on interdepartmental accomplishments and teamwork, having strong leaders can also help maintain focus on the common goal and limit unhealthy competition. The flight leader of the Houston team served as a leader that kept his team focused on accomplishing their one team goal: to bring the astronauts home safely. He also maintained faith in his entire team when others begin to doubt his team’s efforts. Having a leader as such can inspire a team to cooperate and work together even when their odds at accomplishing the task are slim to none. Managers of present-day workplaces can also sustain a cooperative team spirit by replacing rewards based on individual merits with those based on team efforts, recognizing when their team’s focus shifts towards individual competition, and guiding their team back towards working on the team goals.

1. I was once supporting the release of a specific version of a product made for a very important client on the west coast. When working with their team to format the software to the client’s environment as closely as possible, as was a standard our company usually held itself to, it was very hard to get the exact details, requirements, and involvement to do the job properly.  Their team was very aloof and unspecific in the exact way we would proceed with implementation; it seemed that they had given us the high-level requirements and expected us to deliver them in whichever way we saw fit.  Some may appreciate this hands-off approach from a client, but the ambiguity of the request was somewhat troubling; we cared that our software installed easily and ran quickly out of the box on their systems.  We continued to push for details, but they seemed to just feel pestered by us, and maybe view us as indecisive.  My manager took the time to explain to them our care and concern about doing our implementation precisely and correctly, which helped bridge the cultures.  They began providing more information, but created the expectation that we need to be absolute experts of our domain, and some of theirs.  In the end we gathered enough information to plan an upgrade path that was nearly transparent from our client’s point of view, which was what we believe they really wanted.
2. In my experience, two of the largest challenges to work through in a virtual team are having members in vastly different time zones and language barriers. Often when working with vendor support in the IT world, they will be on the other side of the globe with working hours completely different than my own.  This results in emails from either side taking half a day to respond to, or a game of phone tag being played.  Even when do you find an overlap in your schedules, it is for a brief amount of time and is often rushed through and stressful.  To overcome these challenges, it is best to establish the difference in time zones early in the relationship and quickly develop expectations for when and how communication will happen.  Since there is a lot of time between interactions, both parties need to be sure to do their homework and contribute something of substance to the daily phone call or email progression.  Additionally, communication itself can be taxing because of accidents, dialects, and the quality of the phone line.  I have found it best to speak slowly, put things in the simplest explanation I can, and to be patient.  On the receiving side, I will ask the speaker to repeat as many times as necessary until I understand the situation, and then take time to process their response.  Instead of getting caught up on a potential misspoken word, sometimes if you digest what they said fully the meaning can become clear.

Need an original paper done on this topic?

click here to Order