David Wright's The Myths And Realities Of Team

In The Myths and Realities of Teamwork, David Wright (2013) introduces six myths involving teamwork. The first myth is that teams consist of people working in unison, while sacrificing their own demands for the good of the team. The reality of this myth is that good teams are composed of a variety of people who all possess certain needs. The diversity can be advantageous for the team and when individual needs are sacrificed, it may present a threat to the team. Personally, I think that the reality turns into the myth. As people work together towards the common goal, their personal needs are met, and ultimately good teams consist of a harmonious group whose needs are the groups needs. Extending from the first myth, the second myth declares that

Reality is that it is vital for managers to be very aware of their behaviors and the effects they have on the team. It takes courage for a manager to not only limit their role, but to develop leaders within the team and give up some responsibility. I tend to agree with both the myth and reality here. If a manager is good, they can step back and develop leaders within the team. A manager creating a positive rapport with the leaders and other member of the team, will in turn make the team easy to manage and influence, all while limiting the manager’s role in the team. Finally, myth six. Building off of myth five, myth six infers that managers encourage teamwork. Quite the opposite is true in this case, as managers are apprehensive about giving up control. I think that the reality is true dependant on the field of work and the manager’s personality. While not all managers are willing to give up control, I know quite a few that do, especially in the field of

The work done by Eisenhardt et al (as cited in Mishra et al, 1999) identified that teams that engaged in healthy conflict over issues were more productive, efficient, and made better decisions. Contrary, teams that lacked conflict over issues displayed declining productivity and average performance. Apathy and disengagement are often the results of the absence of conflict. In conclusion, conflict can be perceived in one of two ways, functionally or dysfunctionally (Mishra et al, 1999, p 162). If perceived as functional conflict, the group conflict is directed towards issues and the group uses the energy created to enhance performance. If perceived as dysfunctional conflict, the group conflict is directed at people and the conflict thwarts group