Do managers find that to avoid situations and to get work done faster they will delegate the work to certain people?
Or do they make them all work as diverse as the group is?
My initial thought is “How management manage aspects of behaviour in teamwork/groups.
The aspects of behaviour I would look to is what we have covered:
With further research there is a slight change to my topic.
I am finding a lot on managers behaviours and how they filter into staff, what I am finding is a lot of theories and models for behaviour overall.
Organisational behaviour: Hindrance or helpful in planning and implementing?
Matthew Fairholm has been the foundation in finding the pattern I wish to set out.
In addition to this I have linked how training managers to behave in particular ways enhances employee satisfaction.
The base for all this research is found in behavioural theory, along with buzzwords like leadership, charisma, empowerment, all of these lead to a “way” of organisational planning via behaviours.
However the flip side to all of this is when behaviour turns sour! To look at behaviour from this angle one needs to focus on conflict. It has it’s potentials and it’s pitfall’s in an organisational so how to deal with it is another element I shall look at.
The focus for this week is about teamwork and developing an effective way to maintain a group of people and their goals.
It seems a natural process when you start to build a team, the main interest is there whether it is to score goals or to meet targets you have a basic interest in that mission. So it seems to me the focus Vandeveer puts into the Five Stage Model, has alot of ritual and formation when you could let a natural progression develop within the group of people.
The notion of “synergy” to me sounded like new age thought, its the way that the energy of the people in the group needs to be in sync, to me puts a whole holistic slant on the process. Behaviour is the driving force of this operation if there are too many similar behaviour’s maybe it will be tough to get the work accomplished, yet when you have opposites you many also have the same problem as everyone is doing the same thing.
In contrast to Vandeveer, Katzenbach sets out that to build a team you should not match personality but match skill! This I find bizarre surely the reason the people are there in the first place denotes that they have skill, they where not hired for being pretty! Yes people have different levels of skill, but the main glue that keeps the team together is their potential and what makes it move is the different personalties, each person has a role that will ultimately match their personality and behaviour.
My faith was restored when I began reading the Moon article, as she brought in assertiveness which can for some people be a very difficult thing to overcome. Many of the items she had listed I would be able to relate to and overall I was not pleased. And it was guilt that I could relate to from getting a missed call at work or not being able to do a work shift because I was not available. At the end of the day Moon’s focus is on behaviour and how people can zone in on their bad habits and develop the good one’s in order to be better within a team.
Behaviour manipulates the way you can say things which in turn makes you deal with people in various ways, which Moon develops in Part B of the article which I found very interesting, no one wants to admit that these type of people exist within a group but they are there I definitely related to a few, which is an eye opener and a sense of honesty within your self which translates into an honesty within the group.
The above picture is the reason why I am doing the above reflection’s in management. I have completed my degree in Sociology and Politics and am on my way through a Masters in Library and Information Studies.
I love all aspects of reading from finding new information to new authors to writing reviews or having discussions about current affairs.
My motto in life is “Life is crazy, so live it crazy”.