In have to work together to achieve their group

In this case, Jose was assigned to
lead a group of employees from several companies to discuss and come up with
new ideas for pet caskets. The group consists of representatives from Japan,
United States and South America companies. The characteristic of this group
behavior is it is a formal group. A task group is a group of people that works
together to complete a job or a task in a limited time and it is not limited by
hierarchical boundaries. The aim of the group formed is to gain ideas for a new
design for their product. Although the group are consists of people from
different companies and different expertise, they still have to work together
to achieve their group goals.

 

Besides that, the group was in the
second stage of group development which is storming. In this stage, the group
members are facing some conflicts that might lead to dissatisfaction amongst
them. The objective of their meeting cannot be reach as the group members did
not want to give their cooperation. Instead of brainstorming for new ideas for
their product, one of the group members, Mariana Preus suggested to just
continue with their old product design as he said the current design are just
fine. Noko Takeshi also agreed with Mariana Preus.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Next, analyzing the roles of the
group members, Jose acts as initiator as he starts the meeting and an
information giver when he agreed to contribute some ideas for the new design.
He is also an opinion seeker as he asked for other opinions from other group
members and an orienter as he directs the meeting back to its main objective
after Mariana Preus disagreed with renewing the product’s design. On the other
hand, Mariana Preus also plays his role as an information giver when he oppose
the restructuring of the product’s design. Last but not least, other group
members just serve as passive audience-followers as they just agreed with
Mariana Preus without giving other opinions.

 

Lastly, the task force group had no
group cohesiveness as the group members did not share the same objective and
did not want to contribute for the task force’s goals. At the end of the
meeting, they still cannot come up with new design and Jose was asked to
recommend to the council of presidents to use the old design. Thus, it can be
concluded that the task force meeting is not successful.

QUESTION 2

Yes, Jose can
communicate about the need of revolutionize because he has been directed by the
principal that making him as a decision maker for the meeting. Firstly, the
revolutionize is needed because the purpose of the meeting as the collaboration
for brainstorming a new idea about creating a new product line in order of
meeting the increasing demand around the world. The existing of only considered
as the guideline of recreating a new one. According to the Jose conversations with
Mariana Preus, the head of product design from Argentina, it is stated that
Mariana Preus insist not to recreate the new product because the current design
of the product was already using the latest and technology. Just so the Noto
Takeshi, an assistant director from Tokyo recommend and agreed on the current
design we good enough which need no new design.

In this
situations, As a decision maker, Jose supposedly slowly communicate with the
members, tell them that the purposed of the joint venture is to completely
revolutionize the product because the existing design has been rejected due to
unable to manufacture at low cost to boost the market. If it is possible, Jose
need to present all the solid evidence and industry data in order to convince
the members that the purpose of the meeting is to redesign the product. During
the discussion of the possible new design element, Jose should list down all
the benefits of using old design whether it needs the demand and slowly if it’s
not meeting the product can be redesign. In this case, Jose played an important
role of as the decision maker.

According to the
behavioral approach, when the decision maker cannot deal with information
regarding all the aspect relating to a problem. Therefore, He / She choose to
deals with something easy at the moment (“4 Types of Approach to
Decision-making within an Organisational Setting”, 2017). This approach
involve a few steps which by using the rules and procedure to reduce
uncertainty in decision making. For example, Jose should provide them all with
the details of the needs of product to be revolutionize as well as its solid
evidence and industry data. Next step is sub optimizing which is by accepting
less than the best possible outcome in order of avoiding the unintended
negative effect. According to the case, Jose is accepting the opinion of the
members about writing a memo to the president so that they can continue using
the existing product. Lastly, the effective communications might help Jose
communicate better with the persons with various job positions and ideas.

QUESTION 3

In my opinion, I think expertise from each of the group
members work as barriers towards discussing the design. Discussion is something
the people talk and order to achieve a good decision. In this situation,
discussion is important to solve the problem occur in an organization and try
find the good solution.

In
this situation, the members from each organization need to participate joint
this discussion and indeed exists the group members as barriers towards
discussing design. We can look in this situation, each of the leaders such as
from Japan, United States and South America have a different opinion and
reasons. Jose as a chair of this task force initiated a discussion with the
members of new company. The discussions actually about develop new design for
the new product to increase product demand in future. The first leaders from
Argentina which is Mariana said the current design for the product was enough.
She also mentions in meeting that is did not any reason to develop new design
for that product. All members in meeting agreed with Mariana which they don’t
want make any changes for their product. Noto Takeshi from Japan also said in
meeting, that is the current product is good enough and no need to update a new
products. Besides that, Tex which is from United State said he agreed with
Mariana opinion earlier. Tex said the current design a good enough to do job.
At the end of meeting, Jose which as chair of the task force told to other
members that their task purpose for design a new product and manufacturing the
system. Finally, Jose had agreed with all members’ decision which all members
just want to use the current product and Jose have a different opinion. Jose
want write the memo to council of president with his recommendation to use
current design of product and manufacturing system.

Besides
that, based on this situation, all the participants in this discussing the new
design are from different scope of work. We can look not all participants in
this discussing are from design technology scope of work. For example, company
from Japanese which is Furuay Masahiko from Yokohama is the president of
Japanese company, Hamada Isao is marketing from technology group and Noto
Takeshi is from financial management department. On other hand, company from
United States also has the same situation with Japanese company. Thomas Boone
is the top manager from forest lands group, Richard Maret is the director of
information systems group and Tex is the former CEO. They feel it’s not their
duty to think about the new design. They feel current designs are enough for
their company. If all participants are from same scope of work of design,
possibility the new design will produced in this company but all participants
are from different scope of work.

In
this case study, it is really work barriers from all members to discussing the
design. In my opinion, this group development process was not finished second
stage storming. For example, Mariana as information giver because she just want
use with current design of the product and the other members in that meeting as
passive followers. This is because the all members just agreed with Mariana
opinion and did not give any their own opinion.

QUESTION 4

From my point of view, the meeting was not successful
brainstorming session. As far as brainstorming, people regularly tend to
overlook that with the end of goal for it to be accomplished the appropriate
response is quantity, not quality. Brainstorming represents to the fundamental
initial phase in beginning periods of another task, significant that everybody
sees it is so imperative to be open towards all thought and factors. Normally,
issues happen when colleagues want to channel themselves from possible smart
thought that they may appear to be unrealistic or just essentially considering
the fact.

In this case study we know that Jose as the
chairperson scheduled formal group meeting in the organization together with
all the new members from new company and different country. The main purpose of
meeting because to discuss about innovate the design or remain the existing
design product. As we know that, make changes and improve the better service is
one of strategy for increase the organization profit. But, in this situation
Mariana Preus the first representative from Argentina which the head of product
design said the current design in production at Argentina were just fine and
didn’t see any reason why they should innovate the new design of their product.
Additionally, other members of the meeting also agreed with the suggestion of
Mariana where not to make any changes. Even though Jose still reminded them
about their task force’s to redesign the product but still they no consensus
and finally Jose agreed with other participants to write a memo to the council
of presidents with the endorsement to stay use current designs and to start
directly to design the plan and the manufacturing system.

In conclusion, the stage of group development for this
situation wasn’t complete and storming. It’s like lots of conflict between all
the participants of the group and Jose as a leader not breaking down the
gathering part of roles, in circumstance Jose is the initiator of the meeting, information
giver, opinion searcher and oriented. Meanwhile, Mariana Preus has a part of
initiator and data supplier, since he demanded the not overhauling of the product.
Other members appear to serve similarly as an uninvolved gathering of people
adherents, since they all consented to the Mariana’s suggestion, and didn’t
give some other suggestions. Likewise, there was no gathering cohesiveness a
“we feeling” restricting gathering individuals together to finish
their objective. The differing idea of the gathering influenced the board’s
activity by not understanding and taking part of all participants in the
meeting. If I was in Jose’s position, I would attempt to keep the gathering
made a positive impact for the expressed objective better, and not to concur
with the proposal of one part, yet to check the sentimental of everyone from
the meeting.

QUESTION 5

In my opinion
culture will be one of the barrier in promoting good team work. A good team
work is a team that generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. The
individual efforts result in a performance that is greater than the sum of the
individual inputs. There are several reasons to support my opinion. Based on
the difficult task force case study, there are 3 different country joint
ventures and have the objectives to make, sell and also provide service for pet
caskets (coffins) for the burial of beloved pets. There are 3 people from
United States, 3 people from Japan and 3 people from South America and Joe act
as the chair of task force. All the representative from all the different
company hold a different position in their company as for example Mariana as the head of product design and Noto
Takeshi as assistant director of financial management department.

First and
foremost, based on the case study we can see that there is diversity workforce
in task force. According to Kreitner and Knicki (2008), diversity represents
the multitude differences and similarities that exist among people. When we
talk about diversity it includes ethnicity, physical ability, language, and
life experience. In order to enable people to perform up to their maximum
potential. Diversity is good when an organization can manage diversity whereby
they create organizational change that enable people to perform to their
highest potential. Here I will explain regarding the organizational culture and
societal culture. Organizational culture will focus on changing an
organization’s culture and infrastructure such that people provide the highest
productivity possible. An organization cannot use diversity as a strategy
advantage if employees fail to contribute their full talents and commitments.
Thus, it is a must for an organization to create an environment or culture that
allows all the employees to react the full potential. In order to have a good
team work, we need to have a clear working culture so that people will
contributing to their fullest.

There are 4
main function of organizational culture. First as an organizational identity.
For example, Google is known as a fun place to work that values employee
satisfaction and customer loyalty over corporate profits. The next function is
to facilitate collective commitment, as sense-making device and social system
stability. Moreover, based on this case study they come from different company
and they carry different organizational culture, this is one of the reason team
work cannot be achieved. As the Chairman Joe should create an organizational
culture so that all the joint venture will adapt with the changes made in the
organizational culture so they will contribute to the ideas on improvement of
the casket. There is several importance of culture in organization. A shared
organizational culture helps to bond workers of diverse demographics. Numerous
employees inside the organization come from different backgrounds, families and
traditions and have their own cultures. Having a shared culture at the
workplace gives them a sense of team work and understanding towards each other,
promoting better communication and decrease number of conflict. In addition, a
shared organizational culture promotes equality by ensuring no employee is
neglected at the workplace and that each is treated equally

Next, I would
like to explain about the social culture. Culture is a set of beliefs and
values about how the community of people should and do act. In this part,
culture influences organizational behaviour which are employees bring their
societal culture to work with them in the form of customs and language. When
managing people at work, the individual’s societal culture, the organization
culture and any interaction between two need to be taken into consideration.
For example, American worker’s cultural orientation toward quality improvement
differs significantly from the Japanese cultural pattern. Unlike Japanese
workers, American aren’t interested in making small step-by step improvements
to increase quality. They want to achieve the breakthrough, the impossible
dream. Usually ask for the big leap rather than for tiny steps. That is why we
think that culture can be the barrier of good team work if the culture is not
being manage well in an organization.

 

QUESTION 6

In
my opinion, it is very important for an organization management to understand
the concept of groups, teams and teamwork in order to achieve good performance.
From the case study, we understand that the task force is a formal group made
up of Jose as the chair person and few other members from different countries.
Positive dynamic group makes team members trust one and another, work together
towards a team decision, contribute to the team is the desire of every members
and they are very capable of coordinating their efforts to the high performance
level. However, Jose’s group obviously have a poor group dynamics. His group
member’s behavior and attitude disrupts the work and the group didn’t come to
any good decision because the other group members could not explore alternative
effectively.

            From my opinion, Jose’s group
development process wasn’t finished and it ended on the second stage which is
the storming stage. A good team need to undergo all the stages in group
development in order to become a fully functional group. The main problem which
lead the group to this worst situation is the weak leadership skill of Jose. If
I were in his position, I would stand firm in my position and use my authority
as a leader and lead the group to proper direction and avoid other dominant
group member take charge of the group process.

Besides,
another problem that arise is the blocking from the group member. This happens
when there is a member behave in a way that annoy the movement of information
in the group. In the case study, Jose act as initiator role and opinion seeker
in the meeting. Mariana Preus from South African company has the role of
initiator and information giver because she was the first one who insisted on
not redesigning the current product. While the
other members seem to act just like passive audience-followers because they all
agreed to Mariana’s suggestion without giving any other useful opinions. If I
were in Jose’s position, when I notice there is some member in my team has an
unhelpful behavior that affecting the group, I would act immediately to show
the team member the impact of their actions. Then, I will do some encouragement
to them and leading on how they can change their behavior.

Moving on, if I
were in Jose’s position, I would bring the team to focus on our direction to
avoid poor group dynamic. I will help team members to find out their role in
the group by reviewing the group’s vision, mission, and everyone’s
responsibilities when the team leader form the team. It is also important to
break down the barriers between group members if they do not know each other in
the first place. Leader has the responsibility to conduct some effective team
building activities in the beginning so that every member has the chance to
know each another more and build up the spirit as a team among members. Next, I
would also develop cohesiveness in the group. Team with higher degree of social
cohesiveness displays more liveliness. The deep bond between the team members
will develop if work includes fun and play. While Task cohesiveness is abilities
and skills of the team is mixed to produce effective results. Hence, group
member can together to accomplish their goals with the reinforcement of group
cohesiveness.

x

Hi!
I'm Kara!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out