We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Our group decided that the showcase presentation world be about development of a brand of lager known as Xplosion. Despite then simplicity of the task, I must admit that it the showcase presentation brought with it many unforeseen challenges but opened my eyes a great deal also. I can now comfortably say that I am familiar with the way teams within an organization’s operational framework are mobilized towards achieving specific objectives. Our group was structured according to Wood et al. ’s open systems models.

The only resources we however had were us the people. I am surprised that it took us quite some time to get the showcase presentation on progressing since it was an easy one and the group had the diversity which brings with it creativity and healthy disagreement and hence better decisions (Wood et al. , 2006). In the beginning, the group was kind of stuck. There seemed to be a lack of motivation perhaps from the realization that there still was a lot of time until the conclusion of the presentation.


Communication was mainly by e-mail, but the lack of progress, I later understood, was because the group was still in the formative stage and everyone was still identifying with their respective role, hence the apparent lack of direction (Tyson, 1998). We had not gotten to playing specific roles since most of us interpreted learning in the context of the traditional classroom. The group was however lucky since Anna, the appointed group leader, proved to possess defined leadership qualities that were instrumental in mobilizing the group towards the finalization of the showcase presentation.

I liked how roles were assigned in the group as it increased the output of each specific member. Anna, being so strict, was a visionary and her sense of commitment held us together and helped us to be focused. I felt that every member of the group was playing an active role, even Sacha and Romeo who were extremely talkative and often made funny jokes while the team was in storming sessions. This helped in alleviating tension and in preventing anger and other negative emotions which are, according to Woods et al. , unacceptable forms of emotion within an effective team.

To make sure that I was an integral part of the group, I made sure that I took the tasks assigned to me very seriously. When I was required to design the logo for our showcase presentation, I gave it my best even though the group ended up deciding to use Anna’s design which was more colourful. This was possible since during Week 1 to Week 4, the foundations of the group had already been established even though conflicts in deciding the product had not been sufficiently been addressed because three members of the group had to be absent for various reasons.

I, for one had travelled to London but could not get a flight back because of the Icelandic volcanic eruption which had crippled air travel over most of Europe. During Week 5 up to Week 7, the group was still stuck in the development of norms and in storming. I felt that lack of confidence had led to the development of low egos since most members in the team still had a weak understanding of the task at hand (Wood et al. ). Since communication within the group was mainly through e-mail, there was the lack of spontaneity in terms of productivity as e-mail is not an effective tool of communication in teams (Worchel et al, 1992).

We therefore resulted to using mobile phones so that we could lay more specific plans as the strategy to achieving our goal. We needed to re-focus on our objectives, and Sacha (who had been in charge of marketing and multimedia development) had to assume more leadership roles since we felt that delegation of duties would lead to more productivity. With the deadline for the showcase presentation moving closer, group culture changed. We now met regularly in person outside class to reflect upon our progress and deliberate on the levels of performance we needed to take so that we could reduce the pressure which was already mounting.

The development of norms was satisfactory according to me, and all members had build cohesion to satisfactory levels (Bartol et al. 2004). The responsibility everyone assumed was the main reason why we were able to complete the showcase presentation in time despite being faced with many challenges during the formation of norms and storming stage. We ended up being united as one since we now fully understood the strategic importance of being united if we were to achieve results (Woods et al. 2006).

I however feel that we could have accomplished more if we had been able to mobilize ourselves into action early in the showcase process, and in particular if we had been able to meet in person instead of using e-mail and our mobile phones as the main forms of communication as this was very inconveniencing and paralyzing (Tyson, 1989). ? List of References Bartol, et al. (2004) Management: A Pacific Rim focus, 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill Tyson, T. (1998). Working with Groups. 2nd Ed. Palgrave Macmillan Wood et al. (2006). Groups and Group Dynamics. Worchel et al. (1992). Group Processes and Productivity. Michigan: Sage Publications.

Share this Post!

Send a Comment

Your email address will not be published.