دانلود رایگان مقاله "من" ها در تیم : اهمیت افراد برای موفقیت تیم

Nowhere is the importance of an ‘I’ in a group or team setting more apparentthan in the highly acclaimed movie,‘‘12 Angry Men’’ starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb and a host of distinguished supporting actors. Set in a New York City courthouse,the drama involvesthe case of a teenage boy accused of stabbing hisfatherto death.If convicted, he will be sentenced to death. As the movie unfolds, the viewer becomes acutely aware that the jurors have already decided without discussion that the accused is guilty as charged. . .all, that is, except for juror 8 (Henry Fonda), the only ‘‘not guilty’’ vote in the initial tally. The rest of the movie highlights how one ‘‘I’’ in this particular group, through reason and persuasive argument, is able to eventually convince the remaining jurors ofthe lack of evidence to judge the accused guilty. An explanation for why the group’s gradual change of decision course over time and ultimate team ‘‘success’’ occurred can be found in a number of exciting new directions in group research and practice. Groups comprise a necessary structural element of modern organizationssince they allow forthe combination ofresources toward accomplishing complex tasks that no single person can achieve alone. In his 1950 industrial sociological masterpiece, The Human Group, George Homans mentions that the only historical continuity for humans over time in society is that of small groups. More recently, in a 2013 study involving 831 companies from across the globe, Ernst and Young confirmed that the use of groups in organizations is alive and well, reporting that employees across industries spent an average of 54% of their day in a team setting with the highest percentage coming from China (64.8%) and the lowest from South Africa (47%). Workers in the United States spent 51.4% of their day in team settings. Thistrend has been partially driven by the increase in communication technology allowing firms to virtually connect employees across continents. In 2012, a poll by SHRM showed that 46% of organizations use virtual teams, including 66% of organizations based outside the United States. Scholars and practitioners alike expect this already significant percentage to continue to grow in the future.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

We began our article by noting that a team in which 92% ofthe members agree on a decision (in this case the guilt of the accused in the acclaimed movie 12 Angry Men) may be reasonably expected to make that decision. However, the complexities of group decisions that often seem logical, such as signing Alex Rodriguez as a free agent, or foregone, such as the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, can be much better understood by viewing teams as subjective systems, where each member holds perceptions of themselves, their teammates, and the team as a whole. In fact, interactions between teammates, and the manner in which they change the perceptions of the team members involved, often tell a greater story than viewing a team as a holistic entity. Currently, we suggest two exciting and distinct ways in which viewing teams as subjective systems can help us understand how they will function: by viewing the team as a network of parts which influence each other and by understanding that the thoughts, emotions, and possibly strength of character of one (or more) teammate(s) can spillover to others. Further, both have serious implications for anyone in charge of managing groups and teams. Most salient is the idea that team members affect each other. Therefore, before adding anyone to a team, managers should consider how new additions will influence the team processes that have already been developed. Additionally, adding team members with strong convictions may have those convictions, or associated emotions, spillover to teammates. Perhaps our potential contribution is best considered in the context of Gestalt psychology. A central theme of Gestalt psychology is that the whole (‘‘team’’) is not only greater than the sum of its parts (the ‘I’s), but that the nature of the whole fundamentally alters these parts. As we have established here, while true, this classic Gestalt approach is incomplete. Yes, the nature of the whole fundamentally alters the parts, but the individual parts (the ‘I’s in a team) can also fundamentally alter the whole in a number of different ways.