Svt

While the SVT simulation proved to be a valuable application of the material we had learned, our primary challenge was in setting up our team. This process aligned with creating and managing a task force. Setting up a team is important for making a particular group effective. Our team’s effectiveness suffered because we did not know the priorities and did not have enough facts to determine the best way to resolve the issues.

The effectiveness depends on many factors, and achieving a high level of interpersonal communication is crucial for receiving good output. The level of interpersonal communication in our team was not very high at first. Considering the verbal and non verbal means of communication, the original problem of communication in our team was that the bigger part of the team was not willing to cooperate. The main reason was the formal atmosphere; no one was ready to start on anything until we found our company. However, later the communication became better, because the atmosphere became informal. The fact that everyone was hard working, respectful and got to know each other made it work. We could have made the atmosphere better much faster if we initiated some ice-breakers.

The influence strategies employed within our team were consultation and rational persuasion. These influence tactics are high pay off, unlike others that might bring the spirit of team work down. Rational persuasion worked because it helped to make decisions and develop solutions in a rational and effective manner. This method worked because we were motivated and oriented at the completing the assignment instead of simply gaining influence. However, at times, we lacked concentration, for instance when our VP was gone so long and we started talking about other things. The problem was that we did not know what to do when we had no information from the authority. We could have taken the time wisely, remain concentrated and try to come up with some ideas instead of wasting time.

In our company, the decisions were discussed between the President and VPs first. They got together and tried to identify the problems. Later, the VPs came back to prioritize things and come up with a budget. The functional norms in the company were top down because the directors took the orders. Among the things that worked, we can mention that everyone listened to each other and tried not to talk over each other. Also, in our company, each sector had several priorities, which is good because having clear goals that are challenging and professionally defined is good for the team’s effectiveness. However, some things did not work. For instance, there were a lot more questions than answers. Another point was that different people seemed to have different information; the higher up you were, the less info you had. On the one hand, it was realistic, because everyone shifted through the info and decided what to push up. On the other hand, in terms of the time frame it made no sense of market/company context.

We were not involved in or aware of any conflicts. Instead we gained experience in solving problems in the conditions of time shortage and lack of information. It was difficult to act because We were headed in the right direction but we did not have enough time and facts. This difficulty was rather serious one, as having clear background of a case and set goals is extremely important for the team’s performance. This problem was very realistic because the situation when the situation when you are trying to find your President (or any other VP, director), they may not be there. So we received good experience in solving problems instead of solving conflicts.

The