When working in groups, there are a variety of personalities, strengths, weakness, and abilities that make up a team. In this paper, we will explore one’s tolerance for ambiguity, different personality styles and leadership styles, and how one handles conflict and dissonance. I will analyze how all of these dimensions are present in my team and how they affect the culture of my team. From this analysis, I will determine what is needed to make a team effective. I will also determine how I can develop the strengths that make a team effective and put them into action.
Tolerance for ambiguity
Someone’s tolerance for ambiguity is how well he or she handles change, and unclear situations. For example, different people like to plan their vacations …show more content…
Conflict is a normal part of groups and it does not necessarily have to be negative. People and teams have their own way of dealing with conflict. There are two different conflict resolution approaches. These two approaches are people can care about themselves when it comes to the conflict, or they can be concerned with their team members. There are five different solutions that derive from these two approaches. These five approaches are avoidance, accommodation, confrontation, compromise, and collaboration.
When we did the assignment to determine how we handle conflict, I think my group had a little variety in the way we handle it. For some reason I ended up in the confrontation approach. This approach is actually the approach I think is the least way I would deal with conflict. Confrontation is when a person is trying to “win” by acting aggressively to get their way. I actually hate confrontation and try to avoid it. This is definitely a weakness of mine. In the time I spend with our group, I do not think we have had much …show more content…
Like conflict, groups handle dissonance in a variety of behaviors. The first way one may handle dissonance is by dependence. This is when members want to depend on their leader for guidance, and when their leader is giving them the direction they want, they blame the dissonance on the leader. Dependence can actually be an asset to the team in some instances. If someone comes forward with a great idea, other group members will support this idea. The next behavior would be to fight or flight the dissonance. If someone in a group has more of a fight behavior towards dissonance, dissonance can act as a catalyst for conflict. An example would be members of the team fighting against each other with the mindset that their ideas or opinions are the best way. Fight can be advantage to the team if the members are not fighting to win and are arguing because they really think their idea is the best for the team. Flight is the same as avoidance was with conflict above. When members are using flight as a behavior to deal with dissonance, they are not dealing with it at all and are just trying to ignore it. This way is highly ineffective and usually the outcome is not the
Tolerance for ambiguity
Someone’s tolerance for ambiguity is how well he or she handles change, and unclear situations. For example, different people like to plan their vacations …show more content…
Conflict is a normal part of groups and it does not necessarily have to be negative. People and teams have their own way of dealing with conflict. There are two different conflict resolution approaches. These two approaches are people can care about themselves when it comes to the conflict, or they can be concerned with their team members. There are five different solutions that derive from these two approaches. These five approaches are avoidance, accommodation, confrontation, compromise, and collaboration.
When we did the assignment to determine how we handle conflict, I think my group had a little variety in the way we handle it. For some reason I ended up in the confrontation approach. This approach is actually the approach I think is the least way I would deal with conflict. Confrontation is when a person is trying to “win” by acting aggressively to get their way. I actually hate confrontation and try to avoid it. This is definitely a weakness of mine. In the time I spend with our group, I do not think we have had much …show more content…
Like conflict, groups handle dissonance in a variety of behaviors. The first way one may handle dissonance is by dependence. This is when members want to depend on their leader for guidance, and when their leader is giving them the direction they want, they blame the dissonance on the leader. Dependence can actually be an asset to the team in some instances. If someone comes forward with a great idea, other group members will support this idea. The next behavior would be to fight or flight the dissonance. If someone in a group has more of a fight behavior towards dissonance, dissonance can act as a catalyst for conflict. An example would be members of the team fighting against each other with the mindset that their ideas or opinions are the best way. Fight can be advantage to the team if the members are not fighting to win and are arguing because they really think their idea is the best for the team. Flight is the same as avoidance was with conflict above. When members are using flight as a behavior to deal with dissonance, they are not dealing with it at all and are just trying to ignore it. This way is highly ineffective and usually the outcome is not the