Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Guideline:
. Self-Reflection: what did you learn from the process of working with your group on this project [apply OB concepts to your reflections, e.g., team effectiveness model, leadership, communication, conflict, etc]. Length should be about 1.5 - 2 pages from each group member.
List of OB Theories
➢ Open Systems Model
➢ MARS model
➢ Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation
➢ McClelland’s Theory of Learned Needs
➢ Expectancy Theory
➢ Equity Theory
➢ Goal Setting Theory
➢ Communication Process model
➢ Team Effectiveness model
➢ Five-Stage Model of Team Development
➢ Model of the Perception Process [Exhibit 3.3]
➢ Rules of Attribution [Exhibit 3.4]
➢ Rational Choice Decision Making Process [Exhibit 7.1]
➢ Sources of Power & Contingencies of Power
➢ Conflict Process Model (Exhibit 11.2)
➢ A Leadership Theory. Choose only 1 of the following:
1. Behavioural Perspective
2. Situational Leadership Theory [SLT]
3. Path-Goal Theory
Examples o one of group member’s reflection paper:
Self-Reflection
This group project was an interesting component of the course. It was interesting because it allowed me to see the different organizational behaviour theories and models in practice, similar to the modules that allow us to relate our personal life experiences to the relevant course material. I am thankful to have been grouped with such strong leaders that showed excellent initiative and attitudes towards working together to reach the common goal. It is essential when working as a team within an organization to have a common goal as well as an open mind to try different approaches to find methods that work for all team members. In my opinion, the project in a way ended up being more work than if the project were to be done individually due to communication, as well as delegation and accountability; however the project was exceptionally educational due to seeing the OB theories/models in practice.
Our team naturally flowed through the five-stage model of team development. Our team had a rocky start in the forming stage due to difficulty communicating, but after these issues were resolved we were able to move into the storming and then norming phase and tasks were delegated accordingly. Our team found a natural flow of leadership in which it was mutual leadership with all members showing high initiative and providing genuine feedback. Once we were able to resolve the communication issue by trying many different platforms, we found that our Ryerson emails were the most effective form of communication. We then moved on to the performing phase as we set specific deadlines for completion of specific tasks and modified roles according to strengths and necessities, and the project finally began to come together.
The project also made me self-aware that I was displaying the fundamental attribution error. At the beginning of the project when people were apologizing for delayed work with the explanation of external factors such as additional courses and jobs getting in the way, I found myself feeling frustrated because I could make time for the project, because in my opinion, it was as simple as viewing the project as a high priority and practicing good time management, and attributed their issues internally. However, when my midterm season rolled around, I found myself more absent in regards to responding to emails and contributing because I figured I had no time due to exams and my job, which was external attribution. This is when I recognized the unfairness of my attitude towards the group and recognized my fundamental attribution error. In addition, there were some miscommunication errors which were displayed through the conflict process model. These issues were mostly due to communication being online and tones/attitudes being misinterpreted, however upon requesting clarification the issues were easily resolved without issue.
