ppti.info Fitness Team Building Pdf

TEAM BUILDING PDF

Saturday, September 7, 2019


Objectives. ○ Explore the characteristics of effective teams. ○ Review the natural stages of team development. ○ Examine barriers to effective communication. The Team building tool is part of a series of tools and has been developed to support the .. ppti.info many team-building activities encourage us to learn by doing, often in a fun, As you go, you can either type your answers directly into this PDF, or print it out.


Author:PORSCHE KLEINTOP
Language:English, Spanish, Hindi
Country:Sweden
Genre:Science & Research
Pages:501
Published (Last):08.11.2015
ISBN:586-5-68115-222-1
ePub File Size:22.83 MB
PDF File Size:11.37 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads:32247
Uploaded by: GLENNA

HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE TEAM BUILDING? Team building can be defined as: 1. A philosophy of job design in which employees are viewed as members of. STAGES OF TEAM BUILDING. STAGE I. FORMING. Why are we here? • People express differences - check each other out; decide whether to be part of group. Instructions: • Each small group receives 12 straws and 18 inches of masking tape. They get ten minutes to build a container that will catch a golf ball dropped.

Presentation Vision Sheet. Building a presentation as a group can be a tough challenge. If you're not careful you can end up down rabbit holes discussing details that might, or might not, make it into the final deliverable. To avoid this you should agree the high level points first and leave discussing exactly what content you're going to include until after. When you run this activity at the start of a presentation design process you save yourself a lot of time and energy by getting straight to the point of what matters most.

Prioritization Matrix.

Prioritization Matrix is a fun collaborative prioritization tool to compare the relative merits of alternative actions visually. There are elements of action planning, brainstorming, issue analysis and team building in this activity and one that I often use with teams as the conversation is always extremely focused.

The Relationship Triangle. The Relationship Triangle is a high-impact facilitated discussion that shows how critically important personal relationships are within the team before they can consistently achieve the results they desire. Problem Solving Team Building. Problems have a habit of being discussed to death. Everyone has an opinion. This is a suite of creative problem solving tools from Erik op ten Berg - an expert in creative thinking from the Netherlands.

His creative problem solving process takes a challenge and finds ideas that are new, useful and meaningful. Culture Triangle. Culture Triangle is a motivational activity that helps teams or organizations understand each other better in order to improve collaboration between their units. This team building activity achieves its objective by talking about, and getting behind, the stereotypes that professionals from different areas hold about each other.

Having a structured approach to how you brainstorm increases the quality and efficiency of your efforts. The process below gives you that structured approach. If you use it you won't waste your participant's time and you'll get a lot of great ideas. Barriers and Beliefs. This team activity allows your group to surface project and operational barriers to success and deal with them as either Facts or Beliefs. Barriers and Beliefs should be dealt with in different ways. Are you dealing with strong emotions within your team when decisions are being made, but don't know how to help them recognize and understand each other's differences?

It is also known as the Conflict Resolution Inventory. It is based on a model of conflict modes, which enables an analysis of individual styles in particular situations.

Individuals can identify their primary style, and assess the productiveness of that style in the various situations that they encounter. They then have the choice to continue with that style, or to adopt others if they are more appropriate. Fishbowl Discussion. Do you want all your key stakeholders pushing with, or against, you and your objectives?

A Fishbowl Discussion is a technique used to help a large group of people reach a common understanding on a set of issues or proposal and increase their feeling of participation. In a relatively short amount of time. Group Decision Making Analysis.

Team Building - Free eBook in PDF Format

Group Decision Making Analysis is a team building exercise providing an opportunity for team members to discuss and agree how they can improve decision making. Unlike a lot of the tools and techniques on WorkshopBank it focuses on improving only 1 key process — how to make decisions in a better way.

This process helps them get there quickly. The Options Framework. The Options Framework is a structured brainstorming technique you can use with groups of up to 7 people to get a preferred solution to a difficult problem. Build a Bridge. Build a Bridge is a game you can use with teams of people. You set them the task of building sturdy bridges from the materials you provide and then watch how they work together. You can use this in either a team building setting or as part of a recruitment and assessment process to see what kind of team behaviors each participant has.

Prisoner's Dilemma — WorkshopBank says: To determine if there were preexisting differ- ences between the two sections, the 7-item survey was given to all students during the common lecture in the first week of classes Time 1.

This was before teams were formed or any group work had been done in this class. To assess group process, a item questionnaire was developed. The final questionnaire measured interpersonal cohesion 4 items , task cohesion 2 items , communication 4 items , conflict 7 items , and goal clarity 1 item. The item survey was first administered just after the first round of meals was completed Time 2.

Finally, the 7- and item surveys were combined and administered again during the last week of classes, when all meals were over and reports submitted Time 3.

The process questionnaire measured the long- term or lasting effect of the team-building after two meals and 15 weeks of work- ing together.

Having to work in a group usually just slows me down. I like to work in a group. My group experiences have generally been negative. Interpersonal cohesion 4 items. There was a feeling of unity and cohesiveness in my team. The people in my team were a friendly and close-knit bunch. The members of my team really liked working with one another.

Task cohesion 2 items. My teammates are afraid to express their real views. Conflict 7 items. Some people on the team had no respect for others.

There were feelings among members of my team that tended to pull it apart. There was constant bickering in my team. My team was a rather apathetic bunch.

There are members of my team who do not do their share of the work. Goal clarity 1 item Each member of my team had a clear idea of our goals. Overall satisfaction 1 item I am generally satisfied with the way our team performed.

Items were scrambled on the actual questionnaire. Item wording was changed from present tense at the mid-term admini- stration to past tense at the end-of-semester administration. Items are reverse-scored.

All 51 students were seniors in the hospitality major, and gender mix in the two sections was approximately equal. The intervention was adapted from Kolb et al. Groups set pro- duction goals and tried to meet them in the allotted folding time. Each group des- ignated two members to act as managers. They were responsible for supervision and quality control but did no folding.

After the first round of folding, teams were asked to provide examples from their paper folding of effective and ineffective team behaviors, and to evaluate how well they had worked together and how they might improve. The groups could retain the managers from the first exercise or select new individuals for round two.

In the second exercise, the groups set new goals and were encouraged to use their experience with the moon tents and discus- sion about team behaviors to improve their performance. A complete protocol for the team-building intervention is available from the authors. The experimental groups received no other treatment and had no other contact with the researchers during the semester. Hypotheses We hypothesized that as a result of the team-building intervention, teams in the experimental section would have lower levels of conflict and higher levels of interpersonal cohesion, task cohesion, communication, and goal clarity.

We fur- ther hypothesized that all three outcome measures overall satisfaction, peer evaluations, and course grades would be superior in the experimental groups. The first analysis was of data from the 7-item questionnaire collected during the first week of classes. The mean scores of stu- dents from Sections 1 and 2 were compared using a t test for independent samples see Table 2, column 1.

The results showed no significant difference between the students in Sections 1 and 2 in their attitudes about groups or working in groups. Not significant.

Thus, the comparability of the two sections, and the use of one section as a control, was supported. Because the sample was limited in size, and because the scales were preestablished as part of the MOAQ, they were used as proposed. The scales were tested for reliability as recommended by Borchgrevink, in both the first and second administrations.

After the reliability of the scales was determined, scale scores were computed by taking the mean of responses to each item in the scale. Results for the Time 2 data collection, after the first meal, are shown in Table 2, column 2. Scores of the control and experimental sections were compared using a t test for independent samples. All differences were in the expected direction.

Differences were signifi- cant for interpersonal cohesion, communication, and goal clarity. Task cohesion and overall satisfaction were also higher in the experimental group, but these dif- ferences were not significant. Conflict was lower in the experimental group, but again the difference was not significant. Results for the Time 3 data collection, at the end of the semester, are shown in Table 2, column 3.

Differences in attitudes about groups in general were still not Downloaded from jht. Among the group process variables, however, not only were all of the differences in the expected direction, but all of the differences except conflict were significant. Overall satisfaction with group process was also significantly higher in the experimental group.

This might be interpreted that, to the extent that a grueling group experience in this course served to sour control group students to groups in general, the intervention was successful in preventing attitudes from further deteriorating.

Conflict is an inevitable part of team life. In this study, the level of conflict was lower but not significantly so in the experimental group, and in both sections the level of conflict increased from Time 2 to Time 3. Team-building is not necessar- ily intended to reduce or eliminate conflict, but to teach the group to manage the conflict and use it constructively Jehn, Although the two sections were not significantly different in the levels of conflict that they experienced, the experi- mental group did have higher scores on the positive group process functions, sug- gesting that this conflict was managed more effectively or that it was less detri- mental to team functioning in the experimental groups.

All of the differences among the process variables were in the predicted direc- tion at Time 2 and Time 3. By Time 3, all of the differences except conflict including overall satisfaction were significant. These findings support our first hypothesis.

An interpretation for increasing differences between the groups from Time 2 to Time 3 is suggested by Hackman , who states that groups evalu- ate their performance as they work and evaluations affect group processes, which influence subsequent performance. These findings could be interpreted as sug- gesting that the intervention and subsequent group processes had more time to work or take effect, and that over time the improved processes had more time to embed and reinforce themselves. Group cohesion is typically viewed as a process variable leading to enhanced group performance Cammann et al.

From this perspective, the significantly higher levels of interpersonal and task cohesion reported by the experimental groups in the current study indicate that the team-building intervention was successful. Though the direction of cau- Downloaded from jht.

These findings indicate that group process—how well the teams worked together—was clearly superior in groups that received the intervention. Not only did students in the experimental section report improved process, but evaluations of peer performance in categories including recipe development, employee train- ing, required paperwork, and meal execution were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control section see Table 3.

The final course aver- age, which incorporates peer and instructor evaluations, was also higher for the experimental section Taken together, the process and performance differences in this study indicate a clear pattern of the experimental groups functioning more effectively than the control groups.

Because the two sections were not significantly different in their attitudes about groups before the class, and their experience except for the team- building intervention was virtually identical, it seems fair to conclude that the team-building intervention was responsible for at least some of the process and performance differences between the two sections.

First, a sample size of 50 is statisti- cally problematic; small samples often mean low statistical power the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis—i. Under such conditions, though, an effect that does show statistical signifi- cance is less likely to be a mirage.

Second, this was a student and convenience sample whose experience may or may not generalize to real work situations. As a management simulation, however, the course is designed to mirror industry con- Downloaded from jht. The student teams work together to manage their workforce; to serve meals to real, paying members of the public; and to make a profit. Even given its limitations, this study demonstrates that team-building can make a difference in both group process and performance.

To the extent that the results can be generalized, they have clear application to hospitality education and to the industry as well. First, preparing hospitality students with teaming skills will potentially enhance both their educational experience and their management preparation for an industry making ever-increasing use of teams.

Furthermore, as industry operators continue to increase their use of teams, team-building can help these teams to work more effectively and to be more satisfying to group members. That a single 2-hour intervention achieved significant gains in satisfaction and performance suggests that team-building is cost-effective, which should increase its appeal to the industry. Finally, it may make sense for employers not just to train but to select employees and managers for team skills and attitudes.

This research was conducted with student management teams. Future research might be directed toward industry teams of both managers and employees. The relative efficacy of different kinds of team-building interventions, the timing of the interventions, and the effectiveness of team-building in new versus existing teams and in homogeneous versus diverse teams all offer interesting research pos- sibilities and potentially profitable applications.

If I am going to lead my team successfully then I need to be educated on the best methods to do this.

When Would You Use It?

I stopped where I was as in the book and started over so that I could read every word. This was the best step I could have taken. There was so much information listed in this book that I have not even thought about, let alone implemented into my strategies as a manager.

I read back to the section of the book that focused on the four principles. The first principle, define success criteria, seems like it is an easy step to accomplish but is sometimes the hardest.

Obviously you need to state what the end goal is. The hard part is making sure you have set a goal that the team can actually accomplish. If it is too extreme and the team doesn't buy into it, they are not going to be motivated to see the project through to the end.

Leading by example is a principal that I felt the author of the book could have said less about. I fully understand what it means to lead by example. The section about valuing all contributions was full of information on how to avoid cliques within a group. This is a part of the book that everyone in the workplace should read. In most group settings, people often group up with other people instead of working on a group project as a whole. I have always wanted to find a way to stop this.

I had never thought about the reason that people form sub groups to begin with, and this is probably the reason why I couldn't stop it.

Cliques can form when people feel the same about a situation, especially when they feel negative about the situation.

Team Building - Free eBook in PDF Format

As the book states, a way to stop sub groups from forming is to be sure that everyone feels like they are part of the group. Getting everyone together on a project and letting them have some input in the process is a great way to keep everyone feeling satisfied. The last principle is to reward group success. This was another part of the book that I felt could have been shorter.

If you are looking for creative ways to reward your group, then the length of this section will be perfect to you. Not all rewards have to involve money. Sometimes the most satisfying reward is simply recognition. Giving your team a pat on the back can really mean a lot to the members.

The book then went on to describe in depth three real scenarios to demonstrate how to effectively use the principles of team building. This last section took up a majority of the book and to me seemed to be repetitive. I felt that the first half of the book did a perfect job of thoroughly explaining the principles of team building. If you are new in a leadership role then this last section could be very important to you.

The scenarios described really gives you a real life look at what you could experience as a leader. When I first came across this book I was a total skeptic.

I didn't feel that it could help someone as experienced as I am.I thought I needed to take a look at the book to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Communication—the frequency and quality of information exchange—is also related to team effectiveness. This is because what was satisfying yesterday is now seen as part of the 'package' so no longer has a positive influence. Prioritization Matrix. Kolb, D.

MICHELL from Michigan
I love sharing PDF docs wetly. Also read my other posts. One of my hobbies is ladies' gaelic football.