Motivation
This lab demonstrated the intricacies of group structure. In Counter Terrorism Task Force, the main objective was to use sets of clues to narrow down several suspects until there is one clear suspect. As a member of group 9, the outcome of the lab was a failed identification of the guilty suspect and a four way tie for second to longest time to respond out of teams that failed the lab. The results of the lab were not ideal because there wasn’t an ideal group structure, nor was there a person that assumed a role of central leadership.
Setup and Results The setup in Counter Terrorism Task Force was much more involved than the previous lab and included variations that had a greater objective effect on the final performance of …show more content…
The first was that any information that was assigned to a specific role must be read by them and no one else. They would have to tell others about the information about their data verbally only. Electronics of any sort were also banned from this lab. There was one pen and one notepad given to the group. This, and the field operations were the only thing teams could write on and/or with, and pages could not be pulled out of the notepad. The answers for the field ops also had to be written with the same pen in order to be valid. The final rule is that the team leader is the only one who can communicate with CTTF-HQ and incoming information from CTTF-HQ will be send to the respective members that were assigned the …show more content…
The group’s leader was selected haphazardly in the few minutes at the start of the lab. There was very limited time to select leader so the time constraint restricted our ability to find a suitable leader. The errors just trickle down from there. The roles were also selected with little thought. The group openly conversed with disregard to the roles on our name tags, a move that would hinder our ability to efficiently record and compile data. One group member wrote down all the data as the others recited their facts for each suspect. A logical organization structure is crucial to efficiency within the group as a whole. According to J.B. Carson, P.E. Tesluk, and J.A. Marrone, “Teams that establish shared leadership by effectively delegating it are more effective than teams with a traditional single-leader structure” (Robbins and Judge, 165). Despite distributing the name tags at the start of the lab, our group essentially treated each other on the same level of the group hierarchy. Decision making was problematic because no one was in a position to make an executive decision since we ignored roles. Decision making speed was poor, partly because of our inorganization but also because we didn’t have central leadership. When it came time to turn in the sheet with the final verdict, we were slow in comparison to other groups because there wasn’t an opinion with more power than others that would
This lab demonstrated the intricacies of group structure. In Counter Terrorism Task Force, the main objective was to use sets of clues to narrow down several suspects until there is one clear suspect. As a member of group 9, the outcome of the lab was a failed identification of the guilty suspect and a four way tie for second to longest time to respond out of teams that failed the lab. The results of the lab were not ideal because there wasn’t an ideal group structure, nor was there a person that assumed a role of central leadership.
Setup and Results The setup in Counter Terrorism Task Force was much more involved than the previous lab and included variations that had a greater objective effect on the final performance of …show more content…
The first was that any information that was assigned to a specific role must be read by them and no one else. They would have to tell others about the information about their data verbally only. Electronics of any sort were also banned from this lab. There was one pen and one notepad given to the group. This, and the field operations were the only thing teams could write on and/or with, and pages could not be pulled out of the notepad. The answers for the field ops also had to be written with the same pen in order to be valid. The final rule is that the team leader is the only one who can communicate with CTTF-HQ and incoming information from CTTF-HQ will be send to the respective members that were assigned the …show more content…
The group’s leader was selected haphazardly in the few minutes at the start of the lab. There was very limited time to select leader so the time constraint restricted our ability to find a suitable leader. The errors just trickle down from there. The roles were also selected with little thought. The group openly conversed with disregard to the roles on our name tags, a move that would hinder our ability to efficiently record and compile data. One group member wrote down all the data as the others recited their facts for each suspect. A logical organization structure is crucial to efficiency within the group as a whole. According to J.B. Carson, P.E. Tesluk, and J.A. Marrone, “Teams that establish shared leadership by effectively delegating it are more effective than teams with a traditional single-leader structure” (Robbins and Judge, 165). Despite distributing the name tags at the start of the lab, our group essentially treated each other on the same level of the group hierarchy. Decision making was problematic because no one was in a position to make an executive decision since we ignored roles. Decision making speed was poor, partly because of our inorganization but also because we didn’t have central leadership. When it came time to turn in the sheet with the final verdict, we were slow in comparison to other groups because there wasn’t an opinion with more power than others that would