Ancona , D.G., Kochan, T. A., Van Maanen, J., Westney, D.E., Scully, M.A. 2004, Managing for the future: Organizational Behavior & Processes .Mason: South-Western College Publishing
Due to the constantly changing business world companies are seeking to inspire their workers to be creative and work together, thus the emergence of group work (Bray & Brawley, 2002). The purpose of this essay is to show how Ancona’s model can be used to analyse a group’s effectiveness thus presenting an understanding of factors, which facilitate and hinder effectiveness. In this essay I argue how my team was highly effective due to “fit” of personality, utilizing diversity of skills and knowledge and show how effectiveness could have been improved by allocation of roles, specifically that of a clear leader. Furthermore, I acknowledge that I function more effectively in a well structured and compatible team. Individual and team surveying as well as scholarly articles will be utilized to provide further insight into group effectiveness. Effectiveness defined as “a measure of the degree to which objectives are achieved and targeted problems solved” (Moore, 1996: 348), can be evaluated by, but not limited to group performance, member satisfaction, team learning and outsider satisfaction (Ancona et al., 2004) (Appendix 1). In the context of my group, effectiveness involved; high interaction, learning and overall efficiency of task. Sources of group feedback, external marking criteria and a team effectiveness survey were enlisted to help quantify group effectiveness in these areas (Appendix 2-5). A mark of 14/15 was a primary indication of the group’s performance, indicating the task had been completed with great process, content and presentation (Appendix 2), Furthermore, post assessment group discussion and surveys concluded members were individually pleased and had learnt from the experience. A mutual rating of strongly agree on of team learning, satisfaction as a member of the group and superior quality of work as well as a strongly disagree with respect to inability to integrate our viewpoints, indicate that members individually believed that the collective context and processes of the group were effective. Ancona’s model states that effectiveness is a direct result of great skill of context and process of group (Ancona et al., 2004). This theory will be examined through the analysis of the factors which facilitated and hindered my groups effectiveness.
Ehrhart (2004) furthering Ancona’s model, focuses on the design of a group, specifically compatibility of members with organization to increases proficiency of task. From the outset the task was handled with values of high performance, learning and engagement, all of which are congruent with that of the the organization (The University of Queensland) (University of Queensland, 2010). In line with Ehrhart’s theory this compatibility allowed efficiency evident in a comprehensive completion of task.
Building once again on this notion of context is Monahan and Muchinsky’s person-group “fit” theory (1987). It specifies that efficiency is created when members’ goals, values and personality traits are similar. This was evident in my group’s members initial attraction to join based on similar personality traits; maturity of age and extraversion. Hence this “fit” assisted us to work as cohesive and instil trust in one another.
In contrast Monahan (Monahan and Muchinsky’s: 1987) complementary model suggests that, if managed correctly diversity of members skills, experience and personality type (introverted vs extraverted) can improve performance as members add unique attributes that are necessary for success. Monahan specified that heterogeneous teams allowed for both strong and passive personalities improving team decision-making and learning whereas...