Subarctic Survival Test Team Analysis, Essay Example

Based on the results obtained from the activity, the team was not more effective at solving the ranking tasks than individual members. Out of 5 members of the team, 3 members of the team depicted better scores in ranking the survival items. While the 3 members used a generally similar approach to developing a criteria for what is most important, the group could not effectively decide on what is the best criteria to apply. The group’s initial strategy was to make the village the first objective. This is considerably different from the experts’ opinion and ranking that places this objective as the second to last objective.

The team’s failure to effectively solves the ranking task stems from the fact that a clear strategy could not be developed by the group as certain members’ opinions were not taken into consideration. While most of the members, 3 out of 5, had a better score than the team, their contributions to the discussion were not factored into the final decision.

Communication

In the group, Tera has the most amount of airtime to express her opinions. Vivian and Nick appears to be the least talkative of the five group members. However, their input is strategic and precise. The silent members are given an open opportunity to express themselves. Participation appears to be generally balanced in some sections of the discussion. This is because a given individual takes lead for the discussion for a short period of time. However, Tera dominates in considerable portions of the discussion.

Influence

Tera has the most influence when it comes to deciding the ranking of the items. However, Carolyne has the most influence on the manner in which the discussion is held.

Vivian’s ideas are ignored. The result is an inaccurate selection of the strategy and goals for survival.

Conflict

There was little disagreement within the group as issues as opinions were freely exchanged and considered.

Most of the disagreement led to discussion as opposed to hampering progress.

Members do not take arguments personally and remain objective throughout the exercise.

Task Functions

Team members, especially, Carolyne, suggests on the ideal manner in which they can tackle the task at hand once she realized the discussion lacked a definitive direction.

Little attention is given to time

The group has an open platform where individuals can pitch in any idea that comes to mind. This procedure allows them to compare the alternative at hand, discuss the pros and cons associated with each alternative and make a collective definitive decision. This procedure is effective.

Maintenance Functions

Throughout a considerable portion of the exercise, one member gets the opportunity to speak while the rest listen. This is depicted in the discussion that ensues a given strategy input.

Since all members have the opportunity to pitch in their idea, it helps members create a collective and definitive decision. However, some ideas are not taken into consideration.

Decision-Making process

The group identifies the basic objectives from the items that are provided in the list. However, the group fails to consider all the pros and cons of each possible strategy. The team’s prime strategy is to locate the town, find water, heat and shelter.

My role in the group task was to provide an alternative strategy towards the survival exercise. The team worked together in a decent manner. However, I would change the general approach to the exercise. As opposed to using the items to formulate a strategy, I would propose formulating a strategy then ranking the items. I would improve my performance by providing rationale for all arguments I formulate.