Reflection Report - Dyson Case Study

LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY

REFLECTIVE REPORTMODULE LEADER:- Dr. PHIL KELLY

Submitted by: ATUL KUMAR JAIN (400407)

HASMEET KAUR (409382)

SREERAG T G (393609)

MURALI KRISHNAN (393608)

LAI KIAN WEI (381666)

LEE SIOW WOEI (381717)

International Management : Module Guide : Phil Kelly

Introduction

This report is prepared by our group as a reflective work on our previous assignment for

international business management for Master in Business Administration (MBA) course.

During our assignment, our group went through the 4 stages of group development model

which are forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman, 1965). During the

formation processes, several issues occurred such as no critical analysis on the research and

un-systematic decisions making in the group. In this reflection report, we are going to critic

on the issue and find solutions to overcome the problems in future.

Critical Incident I

In our group of 6 (Atul, Hasmeet, Sreerag, Murali, Lee and Lai) diversity was evident as the

members of the group were allocated using a pair-mixed approach (Mahenthiran, 2000 cited

Kelly, P. 2008). The group had four Indians and two Malaysians, the cultural distance was

statistically visible in Hofstede cultural dimension (Appendix 1). According to Social Identity

Theory (Kelly, 2009) in the forming stage everyone were trying to fit into the team with each

member of the group in accordance to their preferences and culture. To achieve positive

synergy and create effective working environment we had set our standards of behaviour and

ethics and included them in Group Contract to reinforce them (Appendix 2).

Besides, there was an atmosphere of overweening politeness (Robbins and Finley, 2000)

during group meeting. Our group do not have a “shaper”, would have empowered task to the

group members to promote critical thinking as a team by using high commitment

management (HCM) approach which emphasises on the need to develop group commitment

among team members (Heery and Noon, 2001). We can promote critical thinking only by

improving commitment among team members, and make them feel they are an integral part

of the group.

2 | P a g e


The first issue faced by our group was lack of critical analysis during research. This problem

occurred because we divided our work into parts and assigned it to different group members

which caused team to work independently. In group meeting, we did not actively comment on

other member’s works because less research was done for every individual’s part. Besides,

less criticism was the key to avoid conflict and ruffles with each other (Robbins and Finley,

2000). There was no critical thinking involved on any of the questions which made our

presentation to look descriptive. After the presentation, we were not satisfied with our

performance as we believed that we could have performed better and achieved higher grade.

Later on we started to critically assess how adequate the justifications were given to the

claims and evaluate the evidences (Wallace and Wray 2006).

In order to overcome this we proposed to adopt Glaser’s Model (facilitative leadership

model) to solving our group problems (Linstead, Fulop and Lilley, 2004). In this model, it

stated that a group leader shall take initiative to group all the members together during team

formations and then continuously delegate power and task to group members after team

members get-to-know each other. By this, we can continuously promote critical thinking

from each member by enhancing sense of belonging of each member in group.

Moreover, we can also use Belbin’s test and personality test (Appendix 3) to understand our

group in more detail before problems occur. By understanding group members more during

group formations, we can allocate task more effectively according to their strength and try to

support their weaknesses.

Critical Incident II

The second issue faced by our group was an un-systematic decision making process although

our group consist of six members which is within an optimum size for a group (Bouchard and

Hare, 1970). During decision making process, interruption was one of the major issues

(Camacho and Paulus, 1995), as group members tend to speak out their opinion in between

and disturb the member who was talking thus creating a disrespectful atmosphere for the

members and hindering the quality of decision making.

3 | P a g e


The cause of this issue is closely related to the previous incident where group members tend

to be polite with each other to avoid conflict which results in less critical criticism during

final decision making. This is because our group lack of “shaper” and “plan” category people

which cause group meeting done in an un-systematic and un-structures process.

To overcome this issue, there are two technique which can be applied which are

brainstorming and nominal group technique (NGT). These two techniques were introduced to

promote group member’s involvement in decision making process in-order to achieve

effectiveness and efficiency of the group.

However, brainstorming technique is more suitable to our group rather than NGT even

though NGT outperforms brainstorming because it produces more and quality ideas (Osborn,

1957) compare to brainstorming. The reasons is because NGT needs involvement of third

parties such as customers and professional people in-order to achieve outperforming

decisions because third party people can provide independent and professional view to the

group (Delbecq and Gustafson, 1976) and that is not applicable in our university group

assignment.

Hence we propose brainstorming technique for effective decision making, where the group

efficiency can maintain the quality of work by having a systematic group formation as it

affects more than 80 percent on brainstorming productivity (Stroebe and Diehl, 1991).

Suitable level of conflict shall occur during group brainstorming process because it will

promote more quality work being produced. As long as we have an efficient group, with

brainstorming the group can achieve synergy, quality problem solving and innovative

decision making compared to NGT. Beside, systematic team formation the group will learn to

respect each other by not interrupting members when they voice out their opinions and

answers.

4 | P a g e


Conclusion

As a conclusion, group problems solving skill is very important in this business world which

closely related with human resource management and intellectual capital in enhancing

company long term survive by sustain company sustainable competitive advantage.

During period of working together as a team it taught each of our group members that only

by having a systematic critical thinking and moderate arguments between the group

members, the purpose of group formation can be achieved. It promotes combination of

opinion, knowledge, and ability of each member to achieve quality work by empowers the

group members as a whole.

5 | P a g e


References

Bouchard, T.J., and Hare, M. (1970), “Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 54, pp 51-55.

Camacho, L.M. and Paulus, P.B. (1995), “The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming”, Journal of Management, pp 691-710.

Cummings, T.G. (1978), “Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical Synthesis”, Academy of Management Review.

Delbecq, A.L., Van de Van, A.H. and Gustafson, D.H. (1976), “Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Process”, 55(3), pp 154 .

Gersick, C. (1988), “Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development”, Academy of Management Journal, 31(1): pp 9-41.

Heery, E. and Noon, M. (2001), “Human resource management”, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.

Hofstede, G. (2001), “Culture’s consequences” (second edition), Sage, USA.

Kelly, P. (2008), “Achieving Desirable Group-work Outcomes Through the Group Allocation Process”, Team Performance Management, 14(½), pp.22-38

Kelly, P. (2009), “International Business and Management”, Cengage Learning, United Kingdom

Linstead, S., Fulop, L., and Lilley, S. (2004), “Management and organization: a critical text”, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, Unites State

Mahenthiran, S. and Rouse, P. (2000), The Impact of Group Selection on Student Performance and Satisfaction, International Journal of Education Management, 14(6), pp.256-65

Osborn, A.F. (1957). “Applied imagination”, New York: Scribner’s Sons. pp 152-154

Robbins, H. and Finley, M. (2000), ‘Why teams don’t work’, Texere, United Kingdom

Stroebe, W., and Diehl, M. (1991), You can’t beat good experiments with co relational evidence: Mullen, Johnson and Salas’s meta-analytic misinterpretations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, pp 25-32.

6 | P a g e


Tuckman, B.W. (1965), ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), pp 384-399

Wallace, M. and Wray, A. (2006), ‘Critical reading and writing for postgraduates’, Sage, UK.

White, R.E. (1995), ‘Building your team’, Koganpage, UK.

7 | P a g e


APPENDIX

Appendix 1

Hofstede Cultural Dimensions

‘Hofstede Cultural Dimensions’ [www.geert-hoftede.com]

8 | P a g e


Appendix 2

Gamma-Group 2 Members Contract

1.0 Objective

The main objective behind our group work is to understand how a group works, and to be a

part of that group in order to critically analyse the case study given to us by understanding

each group member and use the valuable ideas they generate for the overall success of the

group.

2.0 Class Attendance

I agree to attend all classes delivered by Dr. Phil Kelly in-order keep up-to-date information

about the assignments and course work.

3.0 Group Meeting

I promise to participate in all the meetings organised by our group. If at any

emergency, I will inform any of group members prior to the meeting.

I promise to be punctual and serious at every meeting.

I promise to assist other group members whenever they face difficulties.

Each member will agree on the answer before it’s turned in. In circumstances where

agreement is not automatic, each member shall explain how they arrived at their particular

solution until a correct solution is achieved. If no agreement can be reached, decision will be

taken according to the majority.

I promise to help my team member when they face any difficulties if it is within my

capability. If not, I will bring out during group meeting and solve the problem within group.

I will be an active member in the group in any aspect and participate fully in performing the

task that has been allocated to me.

9 | P a g e


4.0 Purpose of Group

Read as much as article, newspaper, text book and journal in order to gain a wider

knowledge when doing assignment.

Practice Harvard referencing on each theory that we site in our works.

Try to understand the concept and theory on the text book and come out with an own

and modified theory.

Performing high quality job.

5.0 Group Progress Time Table

All our assignment must process in a systematic ways. Our group time table for group

assignment-assessment presentation is as follows:-

Date Assignment Progress

9 Feb 2009 Must finish reading the article in books and find some history about

Dyson

11 Feb 2009 Go through the questions and understand the requirements. Find

some article to read, as support and understand it.

16 Feb

2009

Come out with structure on how to answer.

Make a Soft copy of works with explanations about the theory to be

used in the answer as supporting details.

24 Feb 2009 Power point slides should be finalised by combining all 3 questions

27 Feb 2009 Final check on grammar and sequence of the slides

Presentation practice.

We, the members of group 2, promise to work as a team. Help each other with open minds

and contribute to the group to achieve the quality outcome.

10 | P a g e


I certify that I have thoroughly read this contract and that I will abide by it. I am signing this

contract at my own free will, and have initialled each of the above statements because I agree

with it, and am willing to adhere to each clause.

Agreed By

____________ _______________

(LAI KIAN WEI) (LEE SIOW WOEI)

______________ _______________

(HASMEET KAUR) (ATUL JAIN)

______________ ________________

(MURALI KRISHNAN) (SREERAG T G)

11 | P a g e


Appendix 3

Belbin Test/ A&B Personality Test

Atul Hasmeet Lai Lee Murali Sreerag

Belbin Score

TW/IMP TW/ CO RI/IMP RI/ME TW/CF TW/IMP

A & B Personality

Scores (A)86 (B)79 (A)106 (A)86

(B)81 (A)96

SH = Shaper

Pl = Plan

CO = Coordinator 1 point

ME = Monitor Evaluator 1 point

RI = Resource Investigator 4 point

IMP = Implementer 3 point

TW = Team Worker 8 point

CF = Completer Finisher 1 point

We allocate 2 point for first category and 1 point to second category

12 | P a g e

Reflection Report - Dyson Case Study

Technology

Transcript of Reflection Report - Dyson Case Study