Group Team Effectiveness

Pre-Exercise Lecture Description………………………………………………………… 3

Survival Exercise Outcomes………………………………………………………………………… 5

Description of Process During Survival Exercise………………… 5

Post Survival Exercise Evaluation……………………………………………………… 7

Connections Between Theory & Practice…………………………………………… 8

Consultant Recommendations to Management…………………………………… 11

References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14

This group effectiveness intervention includes the background of the 13 participants from a major insurance firm who were given a pre-exercise lecture before participating in the Sub-arctic survival exercise. This analysis lists the outcomes of those exercises, including a description of the process and a post-survival evaluation and discussion. The results of this participation are reviewed using a bridge between theory and actual practice. A final section is an explanation of consultant recommendations based on the performance outcomes of the different teams and the behavior of their members.

The intervention participants consisted of 13 members from one company, a large insurance company called Hamilton, Ltd. While sharing their organization in common, all 13 members are from different geographic regions of the United States. On January 31, 2000, all 13 Hamilton employees

. . .
DR and DF were obsessed with having plans and priorities drawn up on paper. Whirlpool Trap: CD and DR argued on items because of different priority valuations. GROUP TWO How were decisions made? Majority Rule / Consensus What communication patterns emerged? DI and BN were confrontational for most of the communication. DP and PM preferred to remain passive and hardly ever interjected into the dialogue between DI and BN. At times, a level of hostility was exhibited between DI and BN. What was the group climate? Unfriendly, isolationist, and hostile. What roles played by group members? DI: leader & facilitator DP: follower BN: Opinion and information giver PM: submissive opinion giver; follower Was there member dominance/submission? DI & BN were overly dominant while DP and PM rarely communicated in anything more than a passive and submissive manner. DP is victim ala the expert vacuum. What was the rational process? 1) There was little debate on the issue. At first DI and BN dema
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
DI BN, Katzenbach Smith, Lock Win, Lecture Description, United January, Closure Trap, Exercise Evaluation, DR DF, Executive Summary, Decision-Making Traps, di bn, survival exercise, interpersonal skills, katzenbach smith, sales department, pre-exercise lecture, opinion giver, rational process 1, academy management, leader facilitator, consensus communication patterns, description process, communication patterns emerged, academy management executive, decisions consensus communication,
Approximate Word count = 2586
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Group Team Effectiveness