The Team Development Matrix

What is the overview of the article?

This article, "Facilitating Team Development," is an attempt to clear the apparent confusion in regards to teams and the importance of having them at the workplace. The article starts with a definition of the team "team" in the workplace context and distinguishing the term from the term "group." The article points out that the terms group and team are generally used, and wrongly so, interchangeably. The title posits that the overarching aim of team building is to fashion a group into a team. The article defines a group as a gathering or aggregation of people, locations, or things that share at least a thing in common. The article defines a team, in contrast to a group, as a unit of persons who meat several criteria of "teamness." These criteria include an official mandate, interdependence, commitment to cooperation and harmonization and being held responsible as well as rewarded as a single entity. The article profiles a team as having a spirit or a sense of royalty. It points out that work groups are integrated in order to hold up each other or preclude teamwork. The definition section ends by pointing out that a group may or may not be a team.

The article then presents a matrix model of group development. This model presents a process, which a group must go through in order to become a team. This model views the development of a group to as having two dimensions, namely task behavior and relationship behavior. Task behavior has four stages or developmental tasks. The first is listed as orientation where the members acquaint themselves with the task. The second is organization; in this stage, the group arrives at a common understanding of what the task requires. The third stage is open data flow where the group makes sure that the available data is pertinent to the task and is accessible to all members. The last stage is problem solving which encompasses the accomplishing of the group objectives. The second dimension, relationship behavior, is also divided into four parts or stages. The first stage is dependency and here the members are dependent on the team leader or the convener for guidance. The second is conflict marked by struggles for leadership or control of the group. Passing this stage successfully leads to the next stage, which is cohesion. The last stage is interdependence where the group develops trust and is able to manage and reorganize itself as it wishes. The article then finishes off by showing how the author entity carries out their facilitation of group development.

What is your reaction to this article regarding the importance of how groups and/or teams work together?

The article suggests that an effective team should ideally have a maximum of fifteen and a minimum of two people. The article argues that it is not only desirable; however, it is also necessary to organize tasks in a way that facilitates collaboration between or among the persons carrying out the task. This is an effective way of enhancing a team's efficiency and productivity. Teams produce synergy. The modern-day business is under pressure to produce high performance; however, they do not understand the means for achieving such performance. The emphasis laid by the article on teamwork is critical for achieving these results. Furthermore, teamwork is not only desirable but also critical to accomplish tasks that require collaboration between different workers. The article not only offers insightful information on the importance of teamwork but also offers critical procedures for team establishment. Thus, the article is critical in understanding the importance of a team and understanding the importance of a team in achieving high performance.

Discuss why you agree or disagree with the Team Development Matrix and the dimensions of task and relationships highlighted in the article.

I do agree with the illustrated Team Development Matrix. The matrix it compares and brings out the relative similarity of the aspects of two apparently different models. These two models effectively describe the challenges that normal groups go thorough.  When each of these challenges is overcome, it reinforces the group's capacity to work in concert.  Even though each of the model is one dimensional, and that the development of typical groups is not necessarily linear, the models present a way for groups to analyze their status and get back or remain on track to growing an environment that typify effective teams. On the dimensions of task and relationships, I agree that both the two have four phases. Through going through the listed phases, a group is able to turn out as a proper synergetic team. The two dimensions rightly take into consideration the fact that even though groups are assembled primarily to get work done, inter group relationships are significant in getting the task done. This is because groups seeking to achieve teamness, or otherwise, are made up of persons who may have different individual agendas.