Reference no: EM132647373

In my traditional (i.e., face to face) classes I choose not to have students work in teams on high stakes assignments (e.g., semester long projects and papers, etc.). Instead we work in small, informal groups with low stakes outcomes (e.g., report findings to the rest of the class). This is because most students, by the time they get to my class, have had many bad experiences with teamwork in the classroom. Teams are not inherently bad. However, if handled poorly teams can be an immense source of stress of all members involved. Using the write team type for the intended outcome is crucial for success. Using a classroom example, students are only guaranteed to be in the same place at the same time during class. But for some reason students are expected to coordinate schedules in order to work on a project outside of class. Given the variance in everyone's schedules inevitably students take a task that should be done together and break it into pieces. Without knowing it, they are doing this to avoid engaging in all the aspects of teamwork that makes teams so beneficial. They essentially redefine what type of interdependence the team will have to the detriment of the final outcome.

For this discussion, give an example of when you have worked in an environment with each of the types of interdependence (task, goal, and outcome). Additionally, for each of these examples, identify what type of team (work, management, parallel, project, or action) this work most closely resembled. What were the benefits and problems with working in that type of environment using that type of interdependence? What could have been done to make that environment work better?