Question: What type(s) of team building would you categorize the Eco-Seagate event? In your opinion, is this type of event effective for teambuilding? Why or Why not?
INTRODUCTION
In this fast-moving business world, the aim of most business is to set up unique or exclusive capabilities that will help augment their competitive advantage in the market. And this is possible through enhancement of core competencies. As stressed in the paper of Lowson, (2002), competencies conforms to the basic knowledge owned by an organisation and to be distinct they are not locked up to functional domains but cut across the organisation and its organisational borders. From this, it is evident that having a competitive advantage is like having a difference, the preference of definite activities to bring an exclusive value-mix to a selected market, thus the capacity to execute certain activities and administer the linkages between actions is the key source of competitive advantage. Thus, for the management administrators the strategic task to craft a unique way ahead, using whatsoever core competencies and resources at its disposal, against the environment and influence of the current setting.
In this paper, issues concerning the motivation, leadership and team building skills of management of organisations will be discuss. This attempts to elaborate how motivation, leadership and team building skills are the keys to successful management. Moreover, this essay also identifies the type(s) and the effectiveness of the team building practices employed in the Eco-Seagate event.
DISCUSSIONS
In the efforts made by Seagate's Morale-Athon, the events consider the four types of team building. As seen, with the event, the Seagate's Morale-Athon considers the communication exercise, problem solving/decision making exercise, planning/adaptability exercise and trust exercise. In my opinion, this effort was a good way for Seagate to strengthen the bond among members of the organisation. Because of the said event, the communication, trust, team work and value of effective decision making are enhanced among members. In the Seagate's Morale-Athon even, there is evident communal sharing of roles and responsibilities on teams and development of new skills to improve the team’s performance. As seen, rather than looking to a leader to define the goal and approach, teams identify and reach consensus on their common goal and approach. Most importantly, teams hold their members accountable.
Actually, the rise of teamwork and related changes in an organisation creates reasonably idiosyncratic skills that may not translate well to other settings. Getting a group of people to cooperate and function as a team is not easy. It requires learning about each other, establishing trust, and developing good methods of communication (Mackins, 2010). This also makes unique demands by requiring members to learn how to perform many of the different tasks in their area. If a member moves out of a team, this investment in learning about the team and its tasks does not translate elsewhere and is lost. When a replacement member or manager is brought into a team work system that new members or manager must make a big investment in learning these specific skills before he or she can begin to contribute. And until the individual worker can contribute, the entire team -- indeed, the entire system -- suffers.
These arguments seem to suggest that in order to make the new work arrangements payoff, employment has to be reasonably stable. The investment in learning required to make members competent in current business environment is costly for employers, who recoup that investment only when the business process settle down and start performing well. If members are continually moving in and out of these business processes, the cost of the investments in learning goes through the roof and cannot be recouped. Having a constant stream of new workers coming in, being trained, and then leaving means that the investment in learning is simply wasted.
As argued by Rowden (2002), as organisations restructure their production and service systems around teamwork concepts, they require special attention to training in group dynamics. Collective decision making, team leadership, interpersonal communication, and related cooperation skills are vital to success in work units. Programs like Seagate's Morale-Athon that teach members how to interact more effectively with one another, are in vogue among cutting-edge organisations.
CONCLUSION
As conversed, the facts of the primary sources of competitive force emphasizes the critical areas where skill concerning motivation, leadership and team building may yield the greatest payoff, and highlights the areas where an organisation trends promise to hold the utmost significance as either opportunities or threats. Accepting these sources will also confirm to be useful in considering areas for management, though the primary focus is on strategy in the industry. Management is an indispensable thing for any organisation. This is a significant process for the reason that it allows the organisation to make verdicts that will be advantageous and beneficial for them. Additionally, organisations that are aware of the effects of motivation, leadership and team building skills are more successful compare to organisations that are solely relying on their products and services.
REFERENCES:
Lowson, R. (2002), Strategic Operations Management: The New Competitive Advantage. New York: Routledge.
Mackins, D. (2010), The Difference between a Team and a Group, The Sideroad. Retrieved October 01, 2010 from http://www.sideroad.com/Team_Building/difference-between-team-and-group.html
Rowden, R.W. (2002), “The Learning Organization and Strategic Change,” SAM Advanced Management Journal, vol. 66, no. 3, p. 11.
No comments:
Post a Comment