Task Description

Length: 2500 wordsFormat: Report Format

Task Required:

The aim of this assignment is to allow participants to explore and develop key capabilities in one of the two key managing others capabilities addressed in the course.

*You are to choose either:

1. Conflict and Negotiation, or
2. Empathy and Trust, or
3. Teams and Groups.

1. You are then to prepare a literature review about the chosen topic that defines the key terms and outline key theories or models and application (1000 words Approx).
2.  You must utilize at least five (5) of the diagnostic tools undertaken during the workshops (such as the Johari Window, Thomas Kilmann Conflict Questionnaire, The Big 5, ESCI, Belbin Team Inventory etc.) that provide insights into current capabilities or preferences.
3. You  are to contrast the results of the diagnostics tests and compare these to the literature so as to identify key strengths and weakness in their managing others capabilities (1000 words Approx). YOUare then to identify two areas for improvement. Using your learnings from the literature review and diagnostic tools, develop a realistic plan of activities designed to improve your knowledge and skills over a 6 month period (500 words Approx).

Research Requirements: A minimum of 12 scholarly references are to be used that includes at least 4 peer reviewed journal articles included as citations within the report.

Keep in mind that the external sources (outside the textbooks) must be peer reviewed journal articles or scholarly book chapters. If you are in doubt of what constitutes a journal article or scholarly book chapter you need to ask your lecturer/professor or tutor.

Assessment Criteria

• ability to construct a detailed and cohesive literature review that defines key concepts and terms related to the selected competency/capability
• as part of the literature review to summarise and contrast key concepts/models related to the selected competency/capability
• provide the results of 5 diagnostic tools that relate to the selected competency and to analyse these against the literature to identify personal strengths and weaknesses
• ability to devise a personal (management) development plan, supported by literature, that addresses these key capability needs
• demonstrate a breadth and quality of research by using a minimum of 12 academic sources from recommended texts and Journal articles
• use of the Harvard in text referencing system to correctly cite academic sources

 

 

Belbin’s Team Roles

 

Meredith Belbin and his team at Henley Management College, England, examined the behaviour of managers assessing the different personality traits, intellectual styles and behaviours exhibited in teams and groups. Different clusters of behaviour were identified as underlying the success of the teams.

 

The research demonstrated that there are a finite number of behaviours (team roles) that comprise certain patterns of behaviour adopted naturally by the various personality types found among people in organisations. Three categories of roles were identified

 

1. Action-oriented
2. People-oriented and
3. Cerebral (or analytical)

 

Nine specific team roles were identified amongst the three categories each comprising a series of behaviours and a range of behaviours that Belbin and his colleagues refer to as “allowable weaknesses” or the sort of behaviour that managers need to “accept” from these individuals.

 

BELBINTeam-Role Type	CONTRIBUTIONS	ALLOWABLE WEAKNESSES
PLANT	Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult problems.	Ignores incidentals. Too pre-occupied to communicate effectively
COORDINATOR	Mature, confidant, a good chairperson. Clarifies goals, promotes decision-making, delegates well.	Can often be seen as manipulative. Off loads personal work.
MONITOREVALUATOR	Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options. Judges accurately.	Lacks drive and ability to inspire others.
IMPLEMENTER	Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient. Turns ideas into practical actions	Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities.
COMPLETER FINISHER	Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors and omissions. Delivers on time	Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate
RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR	Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities. Develops contacts.	Over – optimistic. Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed.
SHAPER	Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. The drive and courage to overcome obstacles.	Prone to provocation. Offends people’s feelings.
TEAMWORKER	Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts friction.	Indecisive in crunch situations
SPECIALIST	Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply.	Contributes only on a narrow front. Dwells on technicalities

 

Source: www.Belbin.com

 

Belbin does not suggest that a team must therefore comprise 9 individuals. Clearly teams and groups come in various sizes depending on their purpose. What they seem to be suggesting is that in the organisational context, these nine behaviours or roles are required for effective team performance.

 

Johari window:

The Johari Window is a communication model that is used to improve understanding between individuals. The word “Johari” is taken from the names of Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham, who developed the model in 1955.

There are two key ideas behind the tool:

1. That you can build trust with others by disclosing information about yourself.
2. That, with the help of feedback from others, you can learn about yourself and come to terms with personal issues.

By explaining the idea of the Johari Window, you can help team members to understand the value of self-disclosure, and you can encourage them to give, and accept, constructive feedback.

Done sensitively, this can help people build better, more trusting relationships with one another, solve issues, and work more effectively as a team.

Explaining the Johari Window

The Johari Window is shown as a four-quadrant grid, which you can see in the diagram below.

 

From “Of Human Interaction,” by Joseph Luft. © 1969. Reproduced with permission from McGraw-Hill Education.

The four quadrants are:

1. Open Area (Quadrant 1)

This quadrant represents the things that you know about yourself, and the things that others know about you. This includes your behavior, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and “public” history.

2. Blind Area (Quadrant 2)

This quadrant represents things about you that you aren’t aware of, but that are known by others.

This can include simple information that you do not know, or it can involve deep issues (for example, feelings of inadequacy, incompetence, unworthiness, or rejection), which are often difficult for individuals to face directly, and yet can be seen by others.

3. Hidden Area (Quadrant 3)

This quadrant represents things that you know about yourself, but that others don’t know.

4. Unknown Area (Quadrant 4)

This last quadrant represents things that are unknown by you, and are unknown by others.

 

 

The Big 5:

The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five factor model (FFM), is a widely examined theory of five broad dimensions used by some psychologists to describe the human personality and psyche. The five factors have been defined as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Acronyms to aid in remembering the five traits include OCEAN and CANOE. Beneath each proposed global factor, a number of correlated and more specific primary factors are claimed. For example, extraversion is said to include such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.

Five factors

• Openness to experience: (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience. Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent, and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. High openness can be perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus. Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualization specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences, such as skydiving, living abroad, gambling, et cetera. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance, and are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven—sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualize the openness factor.
• Conscientiousness: (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). A tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior. High conscientiousness often perceived as stubborn and obsessive. Low conscientiousness are flexible and spontaneous, but can be perceived as sloppy and unreliable.
• Extraversion: (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved). Energy, positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. High extraversion is often perceived as attention-seeking, and domineering. Low extraversion causes a reserved, reflective personality, which can be perceived as aloof or self-absorbed.
• Agreeableness: (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached). A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one’s trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well-tempered or not. High agreeableness is often seen as naive or submissive. Low agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy.
• Neuroticism: (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, “emotional stability“. A high need for stability manifests as a stable and calm personality, but can be seen as uninspiring and unconcerned. A low need for stability causes a reactive and excitable personality, often very dynamic individuals, but they can be perceived as unstable or insecure.

No Strong Preferences (all five dimensions): are adaptable, moderate and reasonable personalities, but can be perceived as unprincipled, inscrutable and calculating.

The Big Five Model was defined by several independent sets of researchers. These researchers began by studying known personality traits and then factor-analyzing hundreds of measures of these traits (in self-report and questionnaire data, peer ratings, and objective measures from experimental settings) in order to find the underlying factors of personality. The Big five personality traits was the model to comprehend the relationship between personality and academic behaviors.

The initial model was advanced by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal in 1961^[13] but failed to reach an academic audience until the 1980s. In 1990, J.M. Digman advanced his five-factor model of personality, which Lewis Goldberg extended to the highest level of organization. These five overarching domains have been found to contain and subsume most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the basic structure behind all personality traits.^] These five factors provide a rich conceptual framework for integrating all the research findings and theory in personality psychology.

At least four sets of researchers have worked independently for decades on this problem and have identified generally the same five factors: Tupes and Cristal were first, followed by Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute, Cattell at the University of Illinois, and Costa and McCrae at the National Institutes of Health. These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, and thus each set of five factors has somewhat different names and definitions. However, all have been found to be highly inter-correlated and factor-analytically aligned. Studies indicate that the Big Five traits are not nearly as powerful in predicting and explaining actual behavior as are the more numerous facet or primary traits.

Each of the Big Five personality traits contains two separate, but correlated, aspects reflecting a level of personality below the broad domains but above the many facet scales that are also part of the Big Five. The aspects are labeled as follows: Volatility and Withdrawal for Neuroticism; Enthusiasm and Assertiveness for Extraversion; Intellect and Openness for Openness/Intellect; Industriousness and Orderliness for Conscientiousness; and Compassion and Politeness for Agreeableness.

Thomas Kilman Conflict Questionnaire:

The TKI is designed to measure a person’s behavior in conflict situations. “Conflict situations” are those in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. In such situations, we can describe an individual’s behavior along two dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy his own concerns, and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns.

These two basic dimensions of behavior define five different modes for responding to conflict situations:

1. Competing is assertive and uncooperative—an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person’s expense. This is a power-oriented mode in which you use whatever power seems appropriate to win your own position—your ability to argue, your rank, or economic sanctions. Competing means “standing up for your rights,” defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.
2. Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of competing. When accommodating, the individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.
3. Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative—the person neither pursues his own concerns nor those of the other individual. Thus he does not deal with the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.
4. Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with others to find some solution that fully satisfies their concerns. It means digging into an issue to pinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two individuals. Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights or trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem.
5. Compromising is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. It falls intermediate between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but does not explore it in as much depth as collaborating. In some situations, compromising might mean splitting the difference between the two positions, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground solution.

Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes. None of us can be characterized as having a single style of dealing with conflict. But certain people use some modes better than others and, therefore, tend to rely on those modes more heavily than others—whether because of temperament or practice.

Your conflict behavior in the workplace is therefore a result of both your personal predispositions and the requirements of the situation in which you find yourself. The TKI is designed to measure this mix of conflict-handling modes.

 

ESCI (Emotional and social competency inventory):

Emotional and social intelligence makes the difference between a highly effective leader and an average one. The real benefit comes from the 360° view into the behaviors that differentiate outstanding from average performers. It helps managers and professionals create competitive advantage for their organizations by increasing performance, innovation and teamwork, ensuring time and resources are used effectively, and building motivation and trust.

Use the emotional and social competency inventory (ESCI) to:

• measure emotional intelligence in your leaders and professionals
• raise awareness through powerful feedback
• focus your coaching and development on crucial capabilities
• Bring out the best in individuals and teams.

Why choose the Boyatzis, Goleman and Hay Group ESCI?
Emotional and social intelligence is now recognized as a key factor in leadership performance. Our long partnership with Dr. Richard Boyatzis and Dr. Daniel Goleman has resulted in one of the most validated behavioral measures of emotional and social intelligence, based on hundreds of competency studies conducted in organizations throughout the world. Because it is behavioral, it enables you to assess, develop and coach your leaders and embed this crucial capability within your organization.

Drawing on the work of Boyatzis and Goleman, and research at Hay Group, the ESCI is a 360º tool, avoiding the distortion of self-assessment questionnaires. It describes 12 competencies that differentiate outstanding from average performers.

“My Executive MBA program students participated in the HayGroup ESCI, and the results were fantastic! The evaluation feedback I received from the students on the combined workshop and ESCI results was among the highest I have ever received in over 16 years of teaching at the college level. One student wrote that the ESCI “will be more important in my career progression than several finance courses combined.” Thanks to the HayGroup for designing a really valuable 360 tool on Emotional and Social Intelligence. I can’t recommend it enough.” — John Krajicek, Executive Professor, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University

The ESCI process works as follows.
Your participants nominate who they would like to get feedback from. Participants and their nominees complete the surveys online and, once we have received all the feedback, Hay Group analyzes the results and produces a feedback report. We can also create a team composite report which shows a group’s profile against the competencies.

The verbatim comments section of the report, where respondents comment on a participant’s key strengths and areas for development, is particularly appreciated by our clients. For many people this is the first real, confidential feedback they have received