Team Development and Performance throughout the Global Business Game (GBG
Table of Contents
- Introduction. 3
- Team Work Development and Team Working. 4
- Impact of Teamwork in Company Performance. 5
- Strengths and Limitations Team working. 5
- Limitations of Team Working. 6
5.1. The Inability to Instil Trust in the team Members. 6
5.2. Hindrances to Communication. 7
6.1. Teamwork Decision Making Methods and Impact on Company Performance. 9
6.1.1. Overcoming Communication Barriers. 9
6.1.2. Inculcating a Culture of Trust 11
- Global Business Teams are able to be successful 11
- Self-Assessment Evaluation and Summary. 12
- Conclusion. 12
Executive Summary
With the start of globalization change, there has been in surge in matters connected to businesses. Companies are looking into ways the issues that are connected to globalization are well handled through a relook at their local ways of operation. Consequently with the rise in global business setting, a number of organizations are forming teams that are comprised of members from varied nations (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 23). People with varied cultural basis, languages and trends are engaged on a single platform to work as one. Though these groups are meant to enable acquisition of varied abilities, the teams are faced with several challenges that involve language barrier and varied cultural settings. These tend to affect their performance and advancement as a team (Tuckman, 1965, 386). This is discussed in the paper as well as the viable solutions that would enable effective team advancement and performance success in the companies that use them. The paper has gone ahead to give examples of such companies that use them.
Team Development and Performance throughout the Global Business Game (GBG)
1. Introduction
Each and every global organization’s competitive advantage relies on their capability to manage their vital resources and information that are distributed to varied geographical positions. In the present times there are many company methods that are applied to include isolated processes (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 25). However the most effective method is the global business team: a borderless team of persons of varied origins in the world, engaged in varied cultures, businesses and duties, that get together so as to harmonize certain aspects of multinational setup on an international basis.
It is virtually hard for a multinational company to exploit economies of an international size, optimize the change of knowledge or inculcate a global base with no awareness of the organization of the global business teams. Research shows that a small number of companies attribute their performance to be of high standard while the rest did not meet their objectives (Bantel & Jackson, 1989, 117; Bettenhausen, 1991, 345). Basically, about 30% of the teams rated their performance as being overly ineffective. How are organizations able to create team development and performance in the global business stage? In the first step they have to be aware of the hindrances to an effective business team performance. They later apply rigid procedures so as to alleviate these hindrances and create a working team that leads to high performance.
2. Team Work Development and Team Working
Teamwork is vital in the effectiveness of a company’s operations. Social experts and group theory researchers study teams so as to come up with theories that describe effective methods.
The first theory foundation was done in the 1950s with the help of psychologists in assessing the manner humans connect to themselves. They focussed on the manner work affects team relations and the response taken by team members to acquire the talents and expertise of other individuals in sorting out an issue at the workplace. Other areas of focus were the changes in the teams as time went by and the manner that technology was incorporated in undertaking tasks. The first study on team work was done after the Second World War and was keen on noting the reasons for failure of military groups.
The theories that were used to assess team-member tasks development is; Interaction Process Analysis, which was postulated by Freed Bales in 1950. Here he assesses the members of a group with the help of formal inventory model. David Buchanan and Andrzej Huczynski put out a theory in 1980s that looked at the aspects of power and form in team-working. Significant theories were done by Meredith Belbin, Charles Margerison and Dick McCann in the 1980s that look into the manner allocated members of a group tasks and connect these with duties advanced due to individual group member’s nature.
3. Impact of Teamwork in Company Performance
This part assesses the impact of teamwork on a company’s performance. For a company to be able to develop, it has to be able to instil constant skills in the workers in the teamwork through learning. The assumption is that the groups accords the employees with a setting for shared duties, skills and a constant professional and individual advancement.
According to research done in Bulgaria, team workers are known to always acquire new skills when compared to those that do not work in groups. Managers similarly are known to be more motivated when they are engaged in group work and they get to learn from others hence bringing about effective results.
The Finnish Quality of Work Life did studies that show connection in teamwork and staff training. The staffs that are engaged in team work have a higher probability for getting training and for advancement of their knowledge those individuals that are not in groups. Team work has similarly the ability of affecting the intensity of training; team work motivates the participants in getting to learn faster and is able to remember things much faster.
4. Strengths and Limitations Team working
There are a number of benefits in team working. With a number of minds directed towards a certain objective, the company is able to acquire more ideas. Focussing on things from the point of view of others can elevate the probability of quality innovation.
Teams bring about a setting of backing and push an individual to application. A team setting can propel the courage of a person, making them to acquire the most effective results.
Good teams acquire the most from a person. In the instance that a person may not be able to discharge their duties as needed, another person may offer the most effective resource for the company. The higher the number of people that work together, the more they get to learn and increase their chance of being better workers in their places of work. Teams are able to bring about improved communication and respectful connection in the staffs.
5. Limitations of Team Working
Local and international teams are plagued by several issues – disconnection of personal team members’ objectives, a shortage of the most vital expertise and experience, and the absence of clarity with regard to team goals amongst others. However global business teams incur a number of hindrances that arise from varied geographical, linguistic and culture. Teams are not able to succeed if they cannot instill trust in their members or if they are not able to cut the most notable communication hindrances (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 26). The outcome of a study of 58 top executives from five American and European multinational companies agree that significant hindrances face global business teams – hindrances that lead to extended issues every team are faced with.
5.1. The Inability to Instil Trust in the team Members
Trust is vital to the effectiveness of global business teams as it motivates collaboration and limits unproductive conflict. Every member of the global business team issued a special cognitive focus to the team. If it is handled in the best manner, the resultant variation can bring about major issues and lead to a joint wisdom that is above that of any person (Bliese, 2000, 349). With no common trust, the team members may not be in a position to show their genuine ideas; and if they do, they are bound not to be taken into consideration. In most of the ways, the lack of trust is bound to change the team’s diversity into a liability and not an asset.
Global business teams are precisely bound to be faced by a number issues dealing with trust. Part of the elements that define the level of trust individuals have, three significant attributes, quality of communication and extensive company setting (Berscheid & Walster, 1978, 125). Quite precisely, studies show that a good number of people have trust towards each other in cases where they share the same attributes, interact constantly and work in a similar cultural setting that issues strict sanctions for acting in a fashion that is not trustworthy. Global business teams, in their manner undergo intense limitations on the three phases (Brislin, 1986, 137). Not astonishingly, the instant the global business teams do not succeed, it is in most cases due to the team actions that did not insist on instilling trust.
5.2. Hindrances to Communication
Communication hindrances arising from geography, language and culture can destroy a global business team.
With the team individuals staying in varied nations, kept apart by the time zones and varying time periods, organization of team meetings may bring about logistical issues (Ariel, 2001, 65). Definitely, technology like e-mail and video-conferencing are able to make it possible for the associates to engage as one with no consideration for physical distance; though technology ought to be seen as an advantage that adds value to, and not stand it for the team meetings (O’Leary, & Cummings, 2002, 38). Facial meetings bring about acquaintance and trust that is not acquired using virtual methods. The instant the members are not able to see the other person’s language of the body and direct experience on the response exhibited, the emotional phase of the association vital to a team’s undertaking effective performance is in jeopardy (Ariel, 2001, 63). Free-association, as an example, needs unstructured collaboration for some time that is not appropriate to a virtual meeting.
The incompetence to be aware of what another individual is putting across is in most cases a rigid hindrance to communication in cases where cultures are vast. If this issue on language variation as a hindrance is not well handled, the probability of forming a setting that is viable to better sharing of varied ideas – and therefore useful to acquiring vital answers – is highly limited (Bedeian, & Mossholder, 2000, 290).
A major instance is a team that has members that from varied cultural settings and speaks varied languages as well as below par tools in a similar language. This team would most definitely need interpreters that, with no regard to their skills, are bound not to acquire complete success in interaction. Similarly in instance of global teams that persons are of the same language, variation in semantics, pitch and dialects may be a hindrance (Bedeian, & Mossholder, 2000, 289). For instance, while the name ‘table a motion’ means to defer meetings in the US while in the UK it says to look into the matter that moment.
The global business team arises from several cultures and at the end may result to contrast in values, accepted code of behaviors and trends of attributes to the team (Adler, 1997, 23; Pedhazur, & Schmelkin, 1991, 67). A good example is the contrast in personal and group cultural tendencies in coming up with a decision. In the case where certain team members are from greatly personal beliefs like the US and parts of UK and others quite group affiliated like Japan and Venezuela, there has to be ways to handle these contrast so as bring about commonality, otherwise the team will suffer and not acquire high performance as needed (Brodbeck, et al. 2000, 3; Wiener, 1988, 536).
6. Role and Contribution to real team development, team working, and strategic business decision making
The work done in teams has developed from time to time and has grown to be an effective method that is used all over the globe. These teams are allocated objectives that they are supposed to meet in a set of time; they are a base for the effectiveness of the whole team. It is hence that the role each person plays in the group is vital.
In the group game, the first section the team did not have any knowledge of working in group and so personal role playing was used. This resulted to each member having varied outcome in terms of performance, further proving that a section of the team well understood their needs while others lacked the necessary capability. Later the objective of the team was changed and we connected all as a team so that we are able to learn from each other and strengthen what we did. This led to the continued improvement in the operations as the team worked cohesively to meet the set goals. This led to the knowledge of team connection.
In the first part I was the supporting manager in the company where I was to make sure that all of the company operations are met. There however challenges in the skills of the team members leading to a drop in quality of work. In the second part I was the supporting staff where every team member connected their skills towards meeting the quality of the operations allocated to company. I was able to learn that connection on efforts and skills leads to quality performance.
Personal Contribution was discussed by Belbin in his theory, where he acknowledged that the role played every member relied on the success of another member hence the need to connect in the meeting of company goals. This had the impact of leading to success for the company. No one in the group was considered to be better than the other one, this called for the seeking of everybody’s opinion regardless of the role played as it has a function in meeting the overall company goal.
The manager, the role I played involved managing the operations of the group since I was keen in the company goals. For the goals to be achieved it called for coherence of the group and awareness of the duty’s played. Errors made had to be noted and corrected fast. My contribution to the team was effective and made it possible to meet a huge part of the goals, though a section of the goals were yet to be met.
6.1. Teamwork Decision Making Methods and Impact on Company Performance
Having a well-defined and an all-inclusive team is vital for a successful global business team. Not being able to manage the operation of the team is next to failure in meeting the goals of the team (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 334). The objectives for a successful team operation are to enable a successful interaction in the team and to instil trust. This section assesses the methods that are applied while making decisions and the impact that they have on company performance.
6.1.1. Overcoming Communication Barriers
A number of operations can be applied to manage communication hindrances which affect the global business teams.
So as to handle effectively language barriers, the company has to invest in education language as well as diverse culture training. The training limits the desire for third parties and hence allows direct contact and autonomy in interaction (Brodbeck, et al. 2000, 28). A good example is ABB Group which shows advancement in language expertise that helps to limit communication hindrances. The leadership accepted that it had below par language making the company feel accommodated.
Training in cultural expertise is vital in the global business team. An effective awareness of the contrast that exists can elevate the success of communication: individuals acquire verbal and non-verbal communication in a better way (Brislin, 1980, 140; Turner, 1982, 56). Training in cross-cultural expertise can develop awareness and admiration for diversity and change it competitive benefit.
Setting policies that show the needed sets of behaviour is vital in handling communication challenges, develop team interaction and make the team to act as a team (Adler, 1997, 34).
A global client-based team formed in packaging company in Europe can lead to better operation. The team was built on two issues; a team member had to interact with the others on varied issues when handling a client, the other would be client’s contact with all the other staff an choices are arrived at as one team (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 346; Baird, & Meshoulam, 1988, 117). These policies made sure that the varied associates to the team to be responsible on matters dealing with prices and scheduling of products.
The lack of data can lead to the use of notions that may results to individual attacks. On the other hand, personal ideas that are acquired through use of facts are quite objective (Yates &Orlikowski, 1992, 302). This makes it possible for the team to be able to share ideas with no regard to their odds.
Advancing choices to develop the debate: coming up with choices is vital in making sure that the expression of varied point of focus in the global business team (Ohmae, 1985, 46). Two known methods are; dialectical inquiry and devil’s advocate are keen on getting other choices. In the first one, the team is bent on advancing a complete response with regard to the varied assumptions; a debate arises on the advantages of the method used, the team assesses the solution (Williams, & O’Reilly, 1998, 78). The methods are useful for the global business team.
This method enables the team to form a strong base and make a valid expression of the varied notions. A good example is found in VeriFone, which is on fore front in mechanizing and issuance of safe payment-based operations, it applies this method in the top leadership so that they are well versed of the global setting that is present (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 340). The team is composed of the CEO and the data acquired are discussed for a month in varied places in the world.
6.1.2. Inculcating a Culture of Trust
Scheduling facial meetings: these meetings are a good form of communication. They assist to advance a rigid base and build trust. It is vital for the first meetings are done facially.
Rotating and connecting the team top management: here it is done in varied nations; the top leadership appreciates cross-border interaction and is able to do away with encounters that block the acquisition of success (Brislin, 1980, 390). Additionally, integration of the team brings about connection as he or she will lead as well as act as a part of the team that adds value to it.
Linking rewards to team performance: this motivates group performance to handle issues and resolve them.
Building social capital: the teams will go on to grow, it is hence necessary to undertake company efforts in forming familiarity and trust in the managers. Unilever uses development programs to make this happen.
7. Global Business Teams are able to be successful
When the teams are well handled they are able to meet their desired objectives. Challenges to communication and instilling trust destroy the best teams. It is only through the use of correct methods that these issues can be handled in the best manner.
A rigid model for making a high-performing global business team is vital. The moment a team is comprised of members with expertise acquired from several nations, the competition acquired is rigid (Ancona & Caldwell, 664). Though intellectual variation is good, it will most definitely lead to a certain level of individual friction and communication challenge. The methods that note and expect these challenges, and use the most appropriate aspects, are required so as to assist the team to connect varied notions and acquire at an improved set.
8. Self-Assessment Evaluation and Summary
My role in the team work as a supporting manager was to ensure that all of the duties connected to company were undertaken in the manner that they are supposed to. The self-assessment evaluation as a method for assessing the impact of the teamwork in the company was a vital tool in the analysis process. The time taken was one hour in answering all of the questions which was quite much lesser than my other team members. As the game progressed I took up the role of the manager which involved much more duties of connection the whole group. This took a lot more time as a lot of duties and was called upon. The contribution to the team was satisfactory as it called on the each and every person to play a role in coming up with an input this reflected by other team members similarly. The teams’ strength was in the connection and communication with other members that made the work much easier and faster as well as called on the skills of each member. Weakness however rose in the communication and differing of ideas that best suited the case in point.
In the assessment for the groups, the team depended more so on accepted code of behaviour and communication in coming up with decisions while working with the members. When it came to working to information, the assessment relied on the trust and data-base decision making. The working with results of the teamwork and the company, the company relied on the locations the company did its activities.
The teamwork process effectively made it possible for the group to meet its objectives in the most effective way possible. Though there were some challenges; TM1 was unable to meet consensus on the best way to handle an issue facing the group, the team worked them out using the decision making methods discussed earlier. Personal working instils a lot of lack of confidence and inefficiency which is opposite of what teamwork is able to achieve. This was later managed with settling on an all-inclusive method in sorting out an issue for the company.
9. Conclusion
Global business game is an aspect that has manifested itself in globalization and it has gone on to grow. The method brings together skills and resources that help a company to meet its goals. There is however challenges that arise like language and culture barrier that the paper has discussed as well as the solutions that will enable a company to meet its goals. The teams are a great of resource for a company in its effort to meet its goals. Varied examples have been provided that have successfully applied this method. The future looks promising if the method is applied in the best manner leading to effective global networks.
Self-assessment
| Use the following scales to indicate how often and effectively you have used each of the behaviours listed in the framework | |||
| Rating A Frequency of use | Rating B Effectiveness | ||
| 5 | All occasions when it was needed | 4 | Always effective |
| 4 | Most occasions when it was needed | 3 | Usually effective |
| 3 | Very few occasions when it was needed | 2 | Occasionally effective |
| 2 | Never, even though situations needed it | 1 | Never used effectively |
| 1 | No opportunity to observe | n/a | Cannot say |
- WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing Relationships
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | builds relationships internally within the team | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | builds relationships externally | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | maintains networks | 1 | 1 |
Team working
| Rating | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Is a team member | 5 | 4 |
| L2 | Supports team members | 5 | 4 |
| L3 | Provides direction for the team | 2 | 3 |
Influencing
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Projects a positive image | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Influences thinking of others | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Changes opinions of others | 3 | 2 |
- WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering and analysing information
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Gathers and maintains information | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Checks and analyses information | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Uses information to analyse the business | 4 | 3 |
Decision-making
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Day to day decisions | 4 | 4 |
| L2 | Ensures decisions are made | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | High-level decision-making | 3 | 3 |
- DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing self and others
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Develops self | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops others | 2 | 2 |
| L3 | Develops a culture for learning | 2 | 2 |
Generating and building on ideas
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Participates in the generation of ideas | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops ideas into solutions | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Encourages an environment for developing ideas | 3 | 2 |
- ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Prioritises day to day workload | 4 | 3 |
| L1 | Plans to meet departmental objectives | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Converts organisational plans into departmental plans | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | Contributes to the development of organisational plans | 3 | 3 |
Deadline management
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Takes responsibility for tasks | 5 | 3 |
| L2 | Manages resources effectively | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Sets and monitors deadlines and targets | 4 | 3 |
Objective setting
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Contributes to setting individual objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Sets responsibilities and objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals | 3 | 3 |
Peer Assessment 1
- WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing Relationships
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | builds relationships internally within the team | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | builds relationships externally | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | maintains networks | 1 | n/a |
Team working
| Rating | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Is a team member | 5 | 3 |
| L2 | Supports team members | 4 | 2 |
| L3 | Provides direction for the team | 3 | 2 |
Influencing
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Projects a positive image | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Influences thinking of others | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Changes opinions of others | 3 | 3 |
- WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering and analysing information
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Gathers and maintains information | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Checks and analyses information | 4 | 2 |
| L3 | Uses information to analyse the business | 3 | 2 |
Decision-making
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Day to day decisions | 5 | 4 |
| L2 | Ensures decisions are made | 4 | 4 |
| L3 | High-level decision-making | 3 | 3 |
- DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing self and others
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Develops self | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops others | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | Develops a culture for learning | 2 | 1 |
Generating and building on ideas
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Participates in the generation of ideas | 5 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops ideas into solutions | 4 | 4 |
| L3 | Encourages an environment for developing ideas | 3 | 2 |
- ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Prioritises day to day workload | 4 | 3 |
| L1 | Plans to meet departmental objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Converts organisational plans into departmental plans | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | Contributes to the development of organisational plans | 3 | 2 |
Deadline management
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Takes responsibility for tasks | 5 | 4 |
| L2 | Manages resources effectively | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Sets and monitors deadlines and targets | 4 | 3 |
Objective setting
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Contributes to setting individual objectives | 5 | 4 |
| L2 | Sets responsibilities and objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals | 3 | 2 |
Peer Assessment 2
- WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing Relationships
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | builds relationships internally within the team | 4 | 4 |
| L2 | builds relationships externally | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | maintains networks | 3 | 2 |
Team working
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Is a team member | 5 | 4 |
| L2 | Supports team members | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Provides direction for the team | 3 | 3 |
Influencing
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Projects a positive image | 4 | 4 |
| L2 | Influences thinking of others | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Changes opinions of others | 4 | 3 |
- WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering and analysing information
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Gathers and maintains information | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Checks and analyses information | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Uses information to analyse the business | 3 | 2 |
Decision-making
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Day to day decisions | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Ensures decisions are made | 4 | 2 |
| L3 | High-level decision-making | 4 | 3 |
- DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing self and others
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Develops self | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops others | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Develops a culture for learning | 2 | 2 |
Generating and building on ideas
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Participates in the generation of ideas | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops ideas into solutions | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Encourages an environment for developing ideas | 4 | 3 |
- ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Prioritises day to day workload | 4 | 3 |
| L1 | Plans to meet departmental objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Converts organisational plans into departmental plans | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Contributes to the development of organisational plans | 4 | 3 |
Deadline management
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Takes responsibility for tasks | 5 | 3 |
| L2 | Manages resources effectively | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Sets and monitors deadlines and targets | 4 | 2 |
Objective setting
| Rating A | Rating B | ||
| L1 | Contributes to setting individual objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Sets responsibilities and objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals | 3 | 2 |
Peer Assessment 3
- WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing Relationships
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | builds relationships internally within the team | 4 | 2 |
| L2 | builds relationships externally | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | maintains networks | 3 | 2 |
Team working
| Rating | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Is a team member | 4 | 2 |
| L2 | Supports team members | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | Provides direction for the team | 2 | 2 |
Influencing
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Projects a positive image | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Influences thinking of others | 4 | 2 |
| L3 | Changes opinions of others | 3 | 3 |
- WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering and analysing information
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Gathers and maintains information | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Checks and analyses information | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Uses information to analyse the business | 3 | 3 |
Decision-making
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Day to day decisions | 5 | 3 |
| L2 | Ensures decisions are made | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | High-level decision-making | 3 | 3 |
- DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing self and others
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Develops self | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops others | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | Develops a culture for learning | 3 | 2 |
Generating and building on ideas
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Participates in the generation of ideas | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Develops ideas into solutions | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Encourages an environment for developing ideas | 2 | 1 |
- ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Prioritises day to day workload | 4 | 3 |
| L1 | Plans to meet departmental objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Converts organisational plans into departmental plans | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Contributes to the development of organisational plans | 3 | 2 |
Deadline management
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Takes responsibility for tasks | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Manages resources effectively | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Sets and monitors deadlines and targets | 3 | 3 |
Objective setting
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Contributes to setting individual objectives | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Sets responsibilities and objectives | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals | 2 | 2 |
Peer Assessment 4
- WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing Relationships
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | builds relationships internally within the team | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | builds relationships externally | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | maintains networks | 3 | 3 |
Team working
| Rating | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Is a team member | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Supports team members | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Provides direction for the team | 4 | 3 |
Influencing
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Projects a positive image | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Influences thinking of others | 3 | 2 |
| L3 | Changes opinions of others | 3 | 2 |
- WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering and analysing information
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Gathers and maintains information | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Checks and analyses information | 3 | 3 |
| L3 | Uses information to analyse the business | 3 | 3 |
Decision-making
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Day to day decisions | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Ensures decisions are made | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | High-level decision-making | 3 | 2 |
- DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing self and others
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Develops self | 3 | 2 |
| L2 | Develops others | 2 | 2 |
| L3 | Develops a culture for learning | 2 | 1 |
Generating and building on ideas
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Participates in the generation of ideas | 4 | 2 |
| L2 | Develops ideas into solutions | 2 | 2 |
| L3 | Encourages an environment for developing ideas | 3 | 2 |
- ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Prioritises day to day workload | 4 | 3 |
| L1 | Plans to meet departmental objectives | 3 | 3 |
| L2 | Converts organisational plans into departmental plans | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Contributes to the development of organisational plans | 3 | 3 |
Deadline management
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Takes responsibility for tasks | 5 | 3 |
| L2 | Manages resources effectively | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Sets and monitors deadlines and targets | 4 | 3 |
Objective setting
| Rating a | Rating b | ||
| L1 | Contributes to setting individual objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L2 | Sets responsibilities and objectives | 4 | 3 |
| L3 | Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals | 3 | 3 |
Bibliography
Adler, N. J. (1997) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.
Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. (1992) Bridging the boundary: External activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, pp. 634-665.
Argote, L. & McGrath, J. E. (1993) Group Processes in Organizations: Continuity and change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, pp. 333-389.
Ariel, S. (2001) The Effect of Geographical Dispersion on Team Process and Effectiveness. Working Paper. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
Baird, L. & Meshoulam, I. (1988) Managing two Fits of Strategic Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 116-128.
Bantel, K. A. & Jackson, S. E. (1989) Top Management and Innovation In banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10 (Special Issue), pp. 107-124.
Bedeian, A. G. & Mossholder, K. W. (2000) On the Use of the Coefficient Of Variation as a Measure of Diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 3, pp. 285-297, p. 209.
Berry, J. W. (1989) Imposed Ethics, Emics, Derived etics: The Operationalization of a Compelling Idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24, pp. 721-35.
Berscheid, E. & Walster, H. (1978) Interpersonal Attraction. Reading, MA :Addison-Wesley.
Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991) Five Years of Group’s Research: What we have learned and what Needs to be Addressed. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 345-381.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E. & Stroh, L. K. (1999) Globalizing People Through International Assignments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bliese, P. D. (2000) Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implication for Data Aggregation and Analysis. In: Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. eds. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, pp. 349-381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (1986) The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments. In: Lonner, W. J. & Berry, J. W. eds. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research methods, pp.137-164. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications.
Brislin, R. W. (1980) Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Material. In: Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. eds. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, pp. 389-444. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerbloom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., Bodega, D., Bosur, M., Boothe, S., Brenk, K., Castel, P., Hartog, D., Donnelly-Cox, G., Gratchev, M., Holmberg, I., Jarmuz, S., Jesusino, J., Jorbenadse, R., Kabasakal, H., Keating, M., Kipiani, G., Konrad, E., Koopman, P., Kurc, A., Leeds, C., Lindell, M., Maczynski, J., Martin, G., O’Connell, J., Papalexandris, A., Papalexandris, N., Prieto, J., Rakitski, B., Reber, G., Sabadin, A., Schramm-Nielsen, J., Schultz, M., Sigfrids, C., Szabo, E., Thierry, H., Vondrysova, M., Weibler, J., Wilderom, C., Witkowski, S., Wunderer, R. (2000) Cultural Variation of Leadership Prototypes across 22 European Countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, pp. 1-29.
Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. G. (1992) Network and Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
O’Leary, M. B. & Cummings, J. N. (2002) The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational Characteristics of Geographic Dispersion in Work Teams. Available from: http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/148_OlearyCummings_GeographicDispersion.pdf
Ohmae, K. (1985) Triad power: The Coming Shape of Global Competition. New York, NY: Free Press.
Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, pp. 384-399, p. 226.
Turner, J. (1982) Toward a Cognitive Definition of the Group. In: Tajfel, H. ed. Social Identity and Inter-Group Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Van de Ven, A. H. & Ferry, D. L. (1980) Measuring and assessing Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Wiener, Y. (1988) Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organizational Effectiveness and Cultural Change and Maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 536-551.
Williams, K. Y. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998) Demography and Diversity in Organization: A Review of 40 years of Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 77-140.
Yates J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structural Approach to Studying Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review, 17, pp. 299-326.
