Free «Tiger Team» Essay

Introduction

It is highly important to create a successful team. Teams are considered to be the most effective organization design in order to involve all members in creating organizational success and effectiveness. A team is considered to be in a cohesion state if its members have links connecting team members to each other and to the team altogether (Northouse, 2010). Despite the fact that cohesion is believed to be an all-round process, it can be subdivided into four major constituents: social relationships, objective intercourse, apprehended accord, and sentiments (Northouse, 2010). Members of severely cohesive teams are more propitious to partake willingly and to abide within the team. The current paper analyzes the chosen team cohesion, communications, team strengths and weaknesses, and the ways the team has built its synergy.

Team analyzed consisted of two different generation types. Two members of the team belong to Baby Boomer generation while one member belongs to Generation X. In fact, baby-boomers, meaning people who have been born between 1946 and the mid-1960s are considered industrious, hardworking, loyal, and generative, however, they are not able to adapt as well as team members who belong to Generation X (Northouse, 2010). On the other hand, Generation X-ers are considered the best team players. Thus, Generation X-ers are entrepreneurial thinking but are classified as low on executive presence (Adler & Gundersen, 2008). These features were obviously demonstrated in the team under analysis.

In fact, team cohesiveness and ability to build synergy may be analyzed according to Hofstede’s cultural research. This research includes five positions. Firstly, it is crucial to analyze the team’s power/distance (PD) exponent. It actually relates to the level of imparity which exists and is considered to be reasonable among people within the team (Hofstede, 2001). Indeed, the team demonstrated low PD due to the fact that all team members perceived each other nearly as equals and compeers, thus they utilized teamwork and involved all members in the process of decision-making. Secondly, it is highly important to review individualism (IDV) exponent. This exponent relates to the solidity of the connections that team members have to others within the team (Hofstede, 2001). Actually, a high level of individualisms exponent demonstrates loose conjunctions. The team demonstrated medium score of IDV. On the one hand, the team has not shared any individual or personal data, it has encouraged discussions and disputes together with the expression of personal concepts and apprehensions. On the other hand, members have displayed respect for age and wisdom while suppressing feelings, perceptions, and emotions to work in harmony. Thirdly, the exponent of masculinity (MAS) also plays a significant role for team cohesiveness and effectiveness. This exponent relates to the ways how much a team follows and appreciates standard male and female parts (Hofstede, 2001). The team demonstrated low MAS score as the job design and practices have not been discriminatory to either gender. Fourthly, it is essential to view the scores of uncertainty/avoidance index (UAI) exponent. It refers to the level of trepidation and anxiety, which the team members perceive appearing in obscure or undetermined contexts (Hofstede, 2001). The team demonstrated medium UAI score since all team members have been distinct and explicit concerning their anticipations and parameters. In addition, the regulations and working structure have not been inflicted on the team members without the specific requirements. Team members have been more interested in long-term strategy rather than in the articles which have been occurring on a daily basis. The emotive response has been diminished due to the fact that team members have been communicating mostly through text messaging and emails. Finally, long-term orientation (LTO) score is also highly important for the evaluation of team cohesiveness. The team demonstrated low LTO score. In fact, team members have been interested in the countenance of equability, high level of creativity, and individualism.

Team Strengths

Team communication is critical for avouching the prosperity of the team endeavors (Adler & Gundersen, 2008). The team demonstrated strong team communication skills, which allowed them to create relationships, assure the subdivision of innovative concepts and best operations. In fact, the team cohesiveness devolves on building serious relations among team members. Despite the fact the there has been no team leader, who is supposed to work to formulate basic fundamental regulations and draw the team together, the team has been able to build working communication and fulfill its objectives. The team has been able to establish an overt, assertive and encouraging entourage among all team members. The team has been cohesive and effective due to several factors. Firstly, the team’s intentions and goals have been expressive and distinctive. Secondly, each individual’s job and function have been outlined in terms of its cooperation to the team’s overall objectives. Thirdly, serious attention has been paid to conflicts when they occurred. It is normal for conflict to emerge when people work in teams. Those conflicts that are resolved in a proper way can actually originate constructive and structural concepts (Northouse, 2010). In addition, due to the fact that the team has been build from the members who had homogeneous experience and precedence, the team has been able to solve various issues in a more informal way. Each team member involved in the analyzed team has had a possibility to account for the issue from the personal viewpoint. Team members have been able to reproach their concepts without being excluded, hastened, derided or appalled. Fourthly, trust is essential factor for the success of the analyzed team. Team members have trusted each other’s decisions and operations, which allowed them to work faster to attain the goals. In fact, team members who trust each other have nothing to anticipate from robust debate and pretensions, which decreases the possibility that people will reach an agreement concerning some concept only because they are scared of the outcomes if they discord (Adler & Gundersen, 2008).