GROUP PROJECT: PERFROMANCE EVALUATION 5
GroupProject: Performance Evaluation
GroupProject: Performance Evaluation
Theproject was a phenomenal experience to research and find facts aboutdifferent aspects of negotiations for prospective employees. Allmembers of the project team looked forward to reaching the desiredend of the project. The intention of the team was to compile aproject that would serve as a realistic guide to any professionalseeking employment. The following questions provide the basis of theanalysis of the team’s process and outcome of the project:
Thechief accomplishment of the project
Theultimate objective of the project was to provide a detailedstep-by-step recommendation of how the prospective employee cannegotiate. This way, they are in a position to face their prospectiveemployee with confidence show their worth. The prospective employeehas the tools to know when to continue or stop negotiating for faircompensation.
Theproblems the team encountered and managed to overcome
Itwas quite difficult to coordinate schedules for all members to meetat specific points, make correspondence in good time, integrate thedecisions made by group members, and make collective decisions. Theteam leader strained to obtain resources that would make the processefficient. The major cause of conflict among group members was timemanagement. However, team members overcame this problem by employingthe conflict resolution they acquired from class before they beganthe project.
Likein many other cases, some members liked the idea of working in agroup because they knew they would definitely share roles. Therefore,the following motivational challenges arose during the projectprocess (Thomas, 2011):
Freeriding- Without disclosing their specific identities, some teammembers left most of the work to the team leader. It took a lot offollow up activities to trace them up. Some occasionally switched offtheir phones. When the team was almost running of time, many of thesections were ultimately researched and compiled by the teamcoordinator. This problem was overcome by using strict deadlines.
Socialloafing from some members- At the beginning of the project sessions,the coordinator disclosed that he had liked working on projects. Thismust have been the reason for less effort from some group members (noneed to disclose their identities), knowing that they would benefitfrom the coordinator’s passion for projects. The problem wasovercome by allocating each member with a specific task they had tocomplete within a specific deadline.
Theproblems the team did not overcome
Intellectualchallenges were real during the research and discussion sessions.Some members, due to unclear reasons, tended to conform quickly tothe contributions of others. Secondly, the team had to deal withcommon information effect. There was the tendency to pay lessattention to information that eventually made a difference for theentire project.
Whatcould be done differently to overcome the barriers the team faced?
Thenext time the team will have such a project there are certain aspectsthat will be addressed. They include (McNicoll, 2009):
Allocate some class time for the group to meet so that is become easier to coordinate members.
Next time the team will utilize team resumes and skill inventories to make it possible to delegate some subtasks that consumed a lot of time.
Ask the institution to help access some digital tools that would make possible to conduct asynchronous meetings.
Allocate time by adjusting the project schedule to enable teams members to integrate sections they would be assigned.
McNicoll,P. (2009). Issues in teaching participatory action research. Journalof Social Work Education,35(1),51-62.
Thomas,J. W. (2011). A review of research on project-based learning.