An Effective Team For A Group With High Levels Of Interdependence, Commitment, Trust, And Accountability

An Effective Team For A Group With High Levels Of Interdependence, Commitment, Trust, And Accountability

Length: 2121 words (6.1 double-spaced pages)

Rating: Better Essays

Open Document

Essay Preview

Many factors come into effect for a “task force” to be an effective team. This is a group of individuals, that all work together towards the same goal. A team “is a group with high levels of interdependence, commitment, trust, and accountability to a shared goal.” There are many different types of groups, however a common factor stands in place: solve the problem. For a team to be effective, a mutual trust must be present in order for the members to be able to work together. Everyone’s opinion must be taken into factor as a valid source of information, along with everyone bringing different aspects, or traits, to the team. Having multiple attributes to a team is essential. A team that is just good at one thing isn’t nearly effective as a team that has multiple skillsets. A task force deals with many problems, questions, and situations, and the team must be fully equipped to deal with the array of things that may come up. Furthermore, variety is key to a task force. All these factors must be firing at all cylinders for a team to be effective and work seamlessly in solving problems. This lab’s purpose was to simulate the way in which a task force would have to deal with certain obstacles. These obstacles would be problem solving, decision making, and overall being able to maintain a productive environment. A weak link could be fatal to such a team.
This lab, The Counter-Terrorism Task Force lab, was a simulation involving a task force that would deal with homeland terrorism. Our goal was to identify the terrorist operative using the information that the task force had collected. The main components of this lab involved different test groups in order to see how different factors affected the outcome of the lab. There were four diff...

... middle of paper ... blindly. Also, the factor that seemed to prove more troublesome was the knowledge of a possible mole. This factor seemed to have more of an obvious effect than conditions J and K. The data proved that teams without the knowledge of a mole did comparatively better than teams with the knowledge of a mole. Also, the data showed that prior knowledge of team members did not have an affect on the outcome of a lab. Furthermore, it showed the opposite of expected results. One would think that a group acquainted with each other would be better equipped for this lab, however, the data showed that K-teams did substantially better not knowing their members while J-teams slacked behind. My overall conclusion of this lab is that the data for conditions K and J may be a little skewed. I think on a completely random sample of individuals, the lab would provide different results.

Need Writing Help?

Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.

Check your paper »