Articles` summary and critique

Articles’summary and critique

Nameof the student

Nameof professor

Thefirst critique

Thefirstcritiqueis on thearticlewrittenby Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk and McPherson titled, Fivechallengesto virtualteam’ssuccess.Theauthorsstartby highlighting their premiseforwritingeh paper.Accordingto them, theexperiencedadvancesin communicationinformationtechnology comewith newopportunitiesforbusinessventuresto instituteandmentor virtualteams.

Summary

Theauthorsinvestigateon thevariouschallengesthat comewith managinggroupsthat are not in physicalcontactwith themanagement.Accordingto them, itis formingvirtualteamscan be easybutmaintainingthem to achievethesetgoalsandobjectivesis a complexundertaking.After conductingstructured interviewson someof Sabre internationalcompany’semployees,theycameup with a listof five challengesthat facemanagersin developingtheefficiencyof online teams.Thesechallengesincludedifficultiesin buildingtrust,maintaingroupcohesion,overcomingisolation,balancingbetween interpersonal skillsandtechnicalcapabilities,andbuildingteamidentity.Itis mucheasierto supervisepeoplewhoworkwithin therangeof supervisorsbecauseerrorsare subjectto correctionwith immediateeffect.However,relying on informationrelayedby a personwhois milesawayandtakingitas validrequiresa lotof trustandconfidence(Kirkman et al. 2002).

Throughinterviewsconductedwith themanagersandvirtualteamleaders,theauthorsproposemeansto counter thesetbacksexperiencedin thegroups.Acontinuousteambuildingforthemembersandregularconstructivefeedback are necessary.Theresultsanda predictablepatternof performanceare thebasesto assesstheabilityof membersto workin a teamanddelivertargets.

Reviewandevaluation

Thearticlepoolstogetherintellectualsfrom differentschoolswhohavedeepsetknowledgeon humanbehavior.Kirkman is a professorof leadershipat North Carolina University whileRosen holdsthepositionof a professorin organizational behaviorKenan Fugler Business School. Gibson is an associate professorat Stanford schoolof publicpolicy,andTesluk holdstherankof professorof organizational behaviorat theUniversity at Buffalo. Their credentials addon to thevalidityof their findings.

However,during thecollectionof qualitative data, theyengagedan insignificantnumberof respondents. In Sabre Inc. out of morethan 6000 employees,theyonlyinterviewed75 of them (Kirkman et al. 2002). Interviewing wasthemajortoolfordata collection.Theresponseof theparticipantscontributedto theconclusionon whatcan be doneto facethechallengesof thevirtualteams.However,theseinterviewswerenot openendedsince therespondents reactedto theconventionalwisdomthatresearchers andconsultantshaveregardingthemanagementof online teams.Abettermethodthat would not trigger a defensiveattitudewould havebeenappropriate.

Theinterpretationof theresultswaseasysince there wasfirst-hand informationfrom teamleadersandotheremployees.Theconclusionis consistentwith thereactionsof theparticipants,andtheauthorsachievetheir goalof determiningsomeof thechallengesfacingdigital teams.

Conclusion

Inconclusion,I concurwith theauthorsthatvirtuethesuccessof virtuesteamsis fullydependenton their abilityto overcomethechallenges.Therationaleforthisinclineson thesetbackspresentedby theinterviewedparticipantsare graveenoughto disintegratea wholeteam.Agoodexampleis thefeelingof isolationthat deniesa playerthechanceto enjoythewarmthin a team.Thepieceof workaddressesmostof eh issuespertinentto groupsthat lackphysicalcontact.Theresearchgivesme an insighton theroleof technology in businessandhowto maximize theoutputof peopleworkingfora companywithout havingphysicalcontactwith themanagement.Since thisstudyinclinesto leadersandmanagement,I would recommenda furtherexaminationon howgroupscan improvetheir performanceautonomously without relying on themanagement’sinput.

Secondcritique

Thesecondcritiqueis on articledoneby Shipherd, Basevitch, andRena andSiwatu titled Development andevaluation of teambuildingwith a US collegiate rugby team.Theyworkedwith a premisethata sportspsychologyactivitiesbased on buildingthecohesionof membersin a teamhas long-term benefitson their performance.

Summary

Aperformanceenhancementcoachcampedforsixteen weeksin collegiate rugby traininggroundto assessthecohesionin thegroupandmakerecommendationsfora desirablefuture.To facilitatethis,theyusedtwo stagesof performanceenhancement.To assessthestatusquo of themembers,thecoachescollecteddata from all theparticipantsin theteam.After theassessment,theyidentifiedseveralweaknessesin theteamthat includedpoorleadership,ineffectivecommunication,lackof identity,weakroleincongruityandlackof objectivity.

Tocounter this,theyinitiatedtheteamto thesecondstageof performancedevelopment.Itinvolveda seriesof activitiesperformedrepeatedlyto bringout theexpectedoutcomesin theplayers.Varioustoolshelpedin inculcatingthelackingattributes.Theyincludedthetrustobstaclecourseto identifypotentialleaders,rolebuildingto facilitatecommunication,thehumanpedestalto shapeleadershipandroledivisionandgoalsettingandidentitycreation.At theendof thesecondphase,theteamenjoyedplayingalongside eachotherhavingdevelopedthelackingcharacteristics.

Reviewandevaluation

Thequalificationsof theauthorsare exemplaryenoughto grantcredibilityto theresearch.Shipherd is an assistant professorin thedepartmentof kinesiology at Eastern Illinois University, andBasevitch holdsa doctorate in educationalpsychologywith biasin perceptual andcognitive thinking.Renner is a professorof educationalpsychologyat Ohio University, andSiwatu holdsthepositionof associate professorof thedepartmenteducationalpsychologyat Texas University (Shipherd et al., 2014).

Theresearchusesdata collectedfrom thefieldusingvarioustoo.Themostimpressiveapproachis thatbothinterviewing andobservationwerepartof thedata collectiontools.Theinformationnot capturedby interviewingwould substantiatein observation.Thesemethodsallowedthem to triangulate andcomeup with themostvalidinformationregardingthestudy.Thetwo methodsof appraisingtheteam’sperformancewerethemostappropriatefirst to evaluatethestatusquo andbuildup to counter theweaknesses(Shipherd et al., 2014).

Theresearchers usedSPSS andregression usedbothqualitative andquantitative data respectively.Thetwo methodshelpedthem to arriveat credibleconclusivereports.Themethodof selectingparticipantswasvalidandfairlyrepresentative.Engagingthewholeteamin thestudywasa commendablething.Theperformanceenhancementcoachesinterviewedmembersseven timesand,forthisreason,theygainedinsightinto theproblemsaffectingtheteam(Shipherd et al., 2014). Theywere,therefore,verysuccessfulin enhancingtheteam’sperformanceat theendof thestudy.

Conclusion

Inconclusion,I am totallyfortheideologyof usinga preliminaryassessmentto identifytheteam’sweaknessandtheconsequentapplicationof toolsto inculcatethemissingvalues.Itwould not be practicalto imposechangesto a teamwithout havingan acquaintancewith theteam’sstate.Iregardthe study as one of themostthoroughinsportspsychologysince theresearchjourneyswith theteamandfinallyevaluatetheachievementof anypositivechanges.Theordealgivesa lotof insighton theneedforthedevelopmentof multiplequalitiesin a teamto enhancecohesion.I would recommenda scaling up of thestudyto othergroupsin otherareasof operationto testwhetherthestudywould givesimilarresults.

References

Kirkman,B.,Rosen, B., Gibson, C., Tesluk, P. &amp McPherson, C. (2002). Fivechallenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre Inc. Academyof Management Executive,15 (3), 67-79.

Shipherd,M., Basevitch, I., Renner, K. &amp Siwatu, K. (2014). Developmentand evaluation of team building with a US collegiate rugby team: Amixed method approach. Journalof Multidisciplinary Research,6(2), 31-48.