ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 3310.501.

S14

Organizational Behavioral Analysis of Team Cinco

Group 1: Project Paper
By: Angelica Gamez, Devyn Gonzales, Brent Francomano, Tyler Abbott, and Scott Cockrill
4/27/2014

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

Table of Contents
I.
II.

Introduction

Pg. 2

Group Development Questions

1. Group Progression
2. Group Development Issues

III.

V.

Pg. 5-7

Team Attributes
1. The Big 5

IV.

Pg. 3

Pg. 8-10

2. Team Bonding

Pg.10-11

3. Organizational Commitment

Pg. 11-12

4. Team Leadership

Pg. 13-14

Elucidation of KLLP results

1. Discussion and Influence of KLLP

Pg. 15-16

2. Facilitating & Hindering Factors

Pg. 16-19

Interpretation of Sociometric Charts

1. SYMLOG Analysis

Pg. 19-23

2. Sociometric Rating Instrument

a. Task Leader

Pg. 24-26

b. Lunch Partner

Pg. 27-29

3. Rating of Satisfaction and Team Effectiveness

VI.

Conclusion (Prognosis for the Future & recap)

Pg. 30-32
Pg. 32-33

OBHR 3310.501.S14

I.

Team Cinco

Introduction

In the beginning of the semester, our group was very distant. During the forming stage
we all sat in different corners of the classroom, very spread out, not knowing the bond that we
would eventually form as the semester pressed on. One of the first things we did as a group was
seeing what we all had in common, interests, hobbies, lives, and wrote down some team building
exercises together. We came up with the list of common interests and decided what we would do
to get to know each other on a deeper level, while having fun. Our events of team building
included Disc Golf, a Bowling night at Main Event, and Top Golf in the Colony. Through team
building exercise we began forming organizational bonds through which the will and the means
to complete the project would materialize.
However, before our work could successfully coalesce we entered the storming phase of
group development because of communication issues. In February, the group tried to coordinate
assignments and share files by utilizing the share feature Google Documents. This software gave
us many problems; some members were able to discuss the project and work on objectives
though others were not because of technical issues and preferences. Because of these issues, a
rift began forming in the team between those who felt they were doing all the work, and others
who felt like they were being ignored.
Fortunately a solution was found before things got too heated by a lengthy discussion
during a classroom group meeting. The problem wasnt work ethic, or interest in the project, it
was that we were speaking different software languages. Therefore, the solution lay in using a
more adaptable user-friendly program, www.Dropbox.com, to communicate. This addressed the

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

technical issues to reach our common goal the team was able to pass through the norming stage.
Since Team Cinco began utilizing this more flexible software in March, we have been able to
settle the inner group tension, and capitalize upon the bonds we established during our forming
phase.
Finally the team had the means to excel into a strong performing phase. Through a
combination of virtual meetings, phone calls, and face-to-face meetings the team was able to
analyze its own behavior. Correlations between our actual behavior, individual KLLP scores,
Symlog ratings, and chapter assessments became evident. Throughout this phase, conflict was
minimal, while a cohesive enthusiasm was rampant. This is due to each members unique
attributes working in sequence to create something to contribute to our team.
II.
1.

Group Development Questions

Group Progression

What factors have facilitated or hindered the participation of group members in helping
the group to coalesce and/or gel?
When the project began, the group was very uncertain about what the ultimate project
goals were. As soon as we clarified our goals, achieving them became more feasible. The work
schedules of each member interfered a bit with completing the project sooner; however, we
always found time to overcome this obstacle and finish the tasks. Most of the team members
spent at least 4 days out of the week at school, which gave us time to talk to one-another and
catch up on the progress of the group project.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

How do you explain the group's perception of its overall performance as well as
performance in specific areas based on the mean scores assigned by each member?

Group Performance
80
70

Assessment Score

60
50
40
30
20

Avg Person
Avg Teammate
Outlier

10
0

When interpreting the groups perception and overall performance in specific areas based on
the mean scores assigned by each member, we were close in our perceptions. In terms of the
graph below, our teammates had an average assessment score of five over the average in terms of
type A personality. In terms of value of money, our average teammate and the average person
were within three assessment points from one-another. With the assessment of trust, our group
performance rating was equal to that of the average person, with no variance. Trust is very
important in a team, and it is key that we trust one-another. For the aspect of learning in the
assessment, our team average was roughly three assessment points over the average person.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

Performance seeking and performance avoidance were also very close between our average
teammate and the average person.
Overall, our team assessment score fit very close with the average person from our
individual group members in all categories of the assessment. In terms of the outlier in the team,
they exceeded the assessment score in large part in the Type a personality, high trust, low
learning and higher performance seeking aspects of the assessment. The group perception in
terms of the overall performance varied slightly yet the line was still close to how each member
felt. The outlier, statistically speaking, was only off on a few key points. Through this
interpretation, our group performance flowed very well through the semester.
2. Group Development Issues
How many ways are we similar to each other? How many ways are we different from one
another?
Our similarities are that we are all students, and we all work full time. While our
differences are vast, we have two girls and three boys, two people over twenty-five and three
people under twenty-five. A difference is relationship status with one person who is married, one
who is engaged, and three who are single. All five of us have different majors. Additionally, we
have a couple of analytical people, Brent and Angelica; and a couple of artistic people, Tyler and
Devyn, Scott being the floater between the two groups.
How might we use our similarities and differences to advantage in collectively learning and
completing our group project and other class activities?

We can take our similarities and differences and use them to our advantage. Since we are
all different, some of us understand concepts better than others, creating a diverse group in terms

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

of knowledge and wisdom. In addition, since some are older than others are, they are able to see
things a different way and could better explain directions and class activities.
What expectations do we have of one another with respect to how we will work together?
Overall, we expect each team member to do his or her assigned work and contribute to
the group project. We would like for all of us to be respectful of each others schedules and be
able to understand that assignments may be turned in at different times, but all in time for the
group presentations. It is also important for us to be aware that we have different views or ideas
and we must try not to take anything said the wrong way or personally offensive.
Going into this project, all of the members started with the expectation that everyone
would contribute to the project and complete their part in order to obtain a good grade.
However, as time progressed, the members of group Cinco found much more. What started out
as just another team project has turned into five members developing some great friendships!
How can our respective backgrounds, cultures, and professions inform our process of
development as a team and be assets rather than liabilities?
The agenda for this project is not just simple task work; if it were then a clone of one
hard; working student would suffice to complete the project. All of the members of Cinco Group
come from diverse backgrounds and professions. Often within groups, this causes many
problems because each member has an opinion on the best way to complete a task. Our group
overcame this hurdle in our first meeting by giving each member the chance to voice their
opinion. After each member had shared, the group would make a decision as a team. We
continued this method of working through the few issues we had and our roles within the group
started to develop. To complete this assignment the team would need to foster creative thinking
by utilizing different viewpoints, considerations, and talents. After all, diverse backgrounds will

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

give us access to a multitude of perspectives and methods of logic. The trick to utilizing these
attributes is a strong cohesive team environment, team energizers and encouragers, and a team
leadership that keeps the team on track.
What concerns or major issues do we have about the class?
Many members of our group came into this organizational behavior class with the
mindset that we all already work for organizations, and we already know how to behave in the
work environment. We felt that there would not be much for us to learn by taking this class, but
it has turned out to be very informative. The volume of information that we have received has
helped with the development of our group and how it has applied to our group activities in many
ways. In addition, we had concerns on the way the project is going to be graded and what
instructions would be given. We wanted to make sure we are doing what was asked of us in
order to earn our A+ in this class.
Who is in our group, i.e., what resources do we each bring to the table that collectively will
assist the group in working smoothly? What other resources are available to us?
Brent and Scott are analytical, which means that they will bring important aspects of the
project to the attention of the group. Tyler and Devyn are empathetic which has helped keep the
group proceeding by keeping the team inspired, and Angelica is a communicator, which has
helped the group stay informed on the status of the project. Additionally, Devyn and Brent have
had several jobs that involve management while both Scott and Tyler have experience with
tutoring and teaching.
How can we ensure that we have some fun as we go along the path of development,
learning, and project completion?

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

The best approach is rooted in keeping communication open, constructive, candid, and
dynamic. We have done an excellent job of this by some group out-of-the-classroom team
building exercises and by establishing reliable means of communication.
III.

Team Attributes

Throughout this course, we were tasked with assessing the way our group has grown and
developed during the semester. We decided that a good way to evaluate each members roles
within the group would be to analyze the results of the OB Assessments throughout the book, for
each member. These assessments are designed to evaluate a persons morals and behavior, and
show how they relate to organizational behavior.
1. Big 5
The foundations of a teams temperament depend greatly upon the innate tendencies of teammembers. A systemic way method used to make this comparison was The Big 5, which is the
name put upon five dimensions of adjectives to describe ones personality. The five groups are
conscientious, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. Our group
took this chapter assessment and came out with varied results.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

The Big 5
Assessment Score

25
20
15
10
5

Avg Person
Avg Teammate
Outlier

While two of our members had high conscientious scores, we also had two members with
high agreeableness scores, and one with a high openness score. Our results are actually pretty on
point to say the least. The one member with the high openness score is described to be
sophisticated, creative, and imaginative so it would make sense to have this individual as our
group leader.
The members with high conscientious scores have an advantage because this quality is said
to be more valuable than the others. Being conscientious is a plus in the job industry, due to the
fact that the members tend to be more goal-oriented and doers in their field. Agreeable
members in the group have characteristics such as being helpful and sympathetic which has its
advantages and disadvantages with certain jobs. These members are likely to achieve higher
success with face-to-face interaction and resolve conflict better.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

10

2. Team Bonding

Team Bonding
60

Assessment Score

50
40

30
20

Avg Person

10

Avg Teammate

Outlier

Two members in Group Cinco, have their highest scores with emotion regulation, which
means they can bounce back from negative feelings. This is true in regards to a couple
individuals within the group; because it usually takes a lot to get upset with people, and when
they do get upset, it is all forgotten in about half an hour. If your main facet is the use of
emotions, then you are able to apply your emotional strengths towards doing something
productive. You tend to put more effort into your work because you know it is something
needed.
The assessment that we took over interdependence showed that every member in our
group had high outcome interdependence. This is a great result because having a high level of
outcome interdependence states that every person in the group depends on each others work for
the outcome. Much like with this project, we each took over a certain part of it and came together
to achieve the finished product. This particular quality is important because it shows that the

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

11

members of this group are not selfish and we are willing to work together in order to achieve
success.
Cohesion is an emotional attachment that members of a group start to have when feeling
strong ties to the group itself. Out of the five members of our group, three of us had high scores
meaning that we feel a strong bond with our group. The book states that it may not be a good
thing for a group to be cohesive because it may make us vulnerable but the other two members
scored low so that evens us out. We should always have someone who does not go along with
everything we do in order to challenge and open ourselves to new ideas. In our group, we
complement each other well. We have two groups with the same personality, and then we have
the loner who gets along well with everybody, but has different ways of thinking or acting.
Overall, this team has done a great job in getting things done and staying organized.

3. Organizational Commitment
Commitment is very important when evaluating the potential consonance within a team.
If a member has a low level of organizational commitment, which is the lack of desire to remain
a part of the group, the member is likely to have a high withdrawal behavior. When there is a
high level of withdrawal behavior, the group member will try to find ways to avoid participating.
Thankfully, our group displays a high level of organizational commitment when it comes to the
project at hand.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

12

Organizational Commitment
160
140

Assessment Score

120
100
Avg Person

80

Avg Teammate

60

Outlier

40
20

0
Introspection

Citizenship
Behavior

Affective
Core Job
Commitment Charactiristics

Our group is primarily comprised of members that have a continuance commitment. This
means that each member of the group has remained a member because of the cost that will be
incurred if they were to leave. If a member were to cease membership with the group, they
would not be able to complete the project at hand. The commitment to the group has been
shown by the effort that each member has put into the development of the group through team
meetings. A few members even have plans to continue membership after the completion of this
project in order to pursue other ventures.
After comparing the commitment to the group, we compared the commitment of each
member to their current employer. The results were drastically different. A couple members are
very uncommitted to their current employer and they viewed them as just a job to get them
through school. On the other hand a few members were very committed to their current
employer which may be explained by the next assessment.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

13

4. Team Leadership

Team Leadership Analysis

45
40

Assessment Score

35
30
25

Avg Person

20

Avg Teammate

15

Outlier

10
5
0
Networking
Ability

Social
Team Definer Team Builder
Astuteness

Team Cinco has a quite the diversity of potential leaders with some holding high political
skill and others lesser evident skill. Since the crux of most politics hinges on who you know,
the networking ability score in this assessment measured how savvy group members were at
building new social connections. While these results suggest that the entire group is poor at
networking, there is an outlier within the group who is exceptionally poor at networking. These
results indicate that the group may have a harder than average time building inner team channels
of communication. However, the team has been proficient in speaking in class and via email,
which suggests another possibility for the low score; since the teammates ranked themselves on a
social network score it may merely suggest that they do not have much confidence in the
networks they have built.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

14

Frequent communication with others is paramount to building and maintains social

networks. Every member of the Cinco displayed greater social astuteness than networking
ability. These results indicate while the average person and each team member are interested in
behaviors of others, few are likely to put excessive emphasis on building bridges from
understanding those behaviors. Therefore it is very unlikely that any in Cinco possess the thirst
for Machiavellian type power.
Among the many roles leaders have, none surpasses the necessity of leaders to provide
group structure and strengthen relationships within that structure. The data presented here shows
that the average group member is just slightly more interested in building social rapport than
organizing them. Those who are above the average on initiating structure have a higher
propensity in establishing group activities and the timeline for which they occur. Angelica and
Scott both show high scores here and have demonstrated this practice within the group. Angelica
initiated Team Cincos review of the group project questions and Scott set project goal deadlines.
The second chief component of leadership, building bonds within the group, is necessary
for leaders who intend to build trust and respect with their employees. Overall the team was
above average at building bonds. There was an outlier who was far below the average with this
ability, however the other teammates where so adept at forming relationships that this outsiders
influence was negated. Even though his scores are slightly less than average, the balance of
them is still valuable in bridging the gap between leadership types within Cinco.

IV.

Elucidation of KLLP results

1. Discussion and Influence of KLLP

OBHR 3310.501.S14
KLLP

Team Cinco

Tyler

Devyn

15

Brent

Angelica

Scott

1st language

Responder

Responder

Contemplator

Influencer

Contemplator

2nd language

Contemplator

Influencer

Shaper

Responder

Shaper

3rd language

Producer

Doer

Doer

Contemplator

Influencer

4th language

Shaper

Mover

Mover

Shaper

Doer

5th language

Doer

Producer

Producer

Responder

6th language

Mover

Contemplator

Influencer

Mover

Mover

7th language

Influencer

Shaper

Responder

Producer

Producer

KLLP is an excellent tool for comparing how different personality types think, feel, and
are motivated into action. The KLLP (Kendall Life Languages Profile) is a communication
analysis tool that truly opened Group Cincos eyes as a group. The KLLP revealed our
characteristics as individuals, thus giving Group Cinco a look at where we stand as a whole.
Team Cincos development was a slow starter that kicked into gear after the punctuated
equilibrium was reached. This can be explained by reviewing the groups KLLP portfolio. To
begin with, this group has only moderate scores of the very action oriented doer personality
trait. Meanwhile the high responder scores of Devyn, Tyler, and Angelica suggest that these
three are great at building interpersonal relationships. This was demonstrated on the group
outings with their friendly easygoing banter. However, this personality type is not as ambitious
or bossy as a Doer or Shaper types. As a result, the group infrastructure grew before our product
development system was articulated. This worked out for the best, as we needed a combination

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

16

of rational persuasion and personal appeals to get many of the projects incremental tasks done on
time.
The group had a couple of shapers whose focus is to lead that was materialized through
their stronger drive toward lengthy contemplation. This means that while Brent and Scott, the
Contemplators/Shapers, have great potential for long term leadership they are slower to action
then a doer/shaper leader dynamic would have been. The group tasks were organized by these
two, who were able to eventually deduce the mechanism by which the project agenda would be
established.
2.

Facilitating & Hindering Factors

The KLLP helped create observations for traits such as stress levels, learning and

communication styles as well as any possible conflict. Group conflict can be both bad and good
for a group project. The obvious bad are that high conflict can act as a barrier to making
decisions and getting things done. It can also create a negative atmosphere, which can lead to
low motivation.
However, group conflict is important for a groups cohesion. It helps groups point out
any common beliefs; creates stronger group stability through similar values; helps to balance out
the differences between very passionate standpoints; and helps to clarify structure and roles.
Often, if utilized correctly, conflict can be a high indicator of a groups effectiveness. Now for
our group, the average conflict is 8.5. The scores ranged from five to 15, which is quite a big
stretch. The outlier was 15, which is a big number and thankfully has not been proven. Tyler and
Devyn have a conflict score of nine. This was a bit surprising in lieu of the fact that Tyler and
Devyn shared almost every trait in the KLLP assessment.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

17

After putting more thought into the results, there was a realization that having too much
in common socially could in fact cause conflict in itself. According to their results, they both are
considered very emotional. Therefore, the high emotion levels between the two is why the score
was higher than expected. Tyler and Brent have a conflict score of seven. This is a normal
conflict rate. They sit right next to each other and seem to get along really well with no
problems. Tyler and Angelica have a conflict score of seven, which is also average. They both
are a little bit more reserved which works well for their interactions. Tyler and Scott have a
conflict score of 10. That was a bit surprising since they talk together the most out of any of the
group.
According to the above figure, Tyler and Devyn both have the same conflict handling style
of avoiding. Through the avoiding conflict handling style, the strengths they possess and add to
Conflict Handling Style Matrix
Team
Member

Conflict

Name

Handling Style

Tyler

Avoiding

Strengths

Weaknesses

Buys time to Clarify/Address

Only a temporary fix that side steps

the problem

the underlying problem

Buys time to Clarify/Address

Only a temporary fix that side steps

Devyn

Avoiding

the problem

the underlying problem

Scott

Integrating

Longer lasting impact

Time consuming

Democratic process with no

Angelica

Compromising

losers

Temporary fix that can reduce incentive

Brent

Integrating

Longer lasting impact

Time consuming

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

18

the team when there is conflict, is buying time to address and clarify the problem and how to go
about solving it. With their weakness being that, this only temporary fixes the underlying
problem without fully solving it. Scott and Brent both share the integrating conflict handling
style that creates a stronger, longer lasting impact, creating a positive way of going about any
group conflict that may arise. The only drawback to their conflict handling style is that since it
has longer lasting impacts, it takes a lot more time in order to implement their solution to the
problem. This conflict handling style takes a lot of time to sit down and come up with solutions
and a plan of action that will work effectively to solve the conflict of the group.
In our group, these conflict-handling styles have created much dispute in the corrective
actions when faced with a problem, which is where angelica saves the group. Her conflict
handling style is compromising which focuses her strengths of democratic process with no
losers. She is the glue that holds the group together so to speak. She hears out each side of the
split group, comes up with possible solutions with beneficial pieces from both sides, and creates
an action plan that satisfies everyone, while creating more cohesion in the group.
Top 3 Conflict Handling Styles of the OBHR Class
Conflict Handling Style

1st

2nd

3rd

Competition

Collaboration/Integrating

Compromise

Accommodation

Avoidance

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

19

The results of the classes conflict handling styles were quite different from our group.
The main type of conflict handling style for the class was Collaborating. We have Brent and
Scott that both correlate with what the class is. The strengths of the class will be longer lasting
impact by dealing with the underlying problem and not just the symptoms. With this being the
primary result of the class, other groups will be able to handle conflict better than us, and not be
in avoidance. The other groups also got along better with accommodation because they hear each
other out and compromise. The only differences between the class and us are that our primary
conflict handling style is avoidance and the classes are collaboration. Our group will be more
susceptible to stress and a harder time handling conflict.

V.

Interpretation of Sociometric Charts

1. SYMLOG Analysis
After reviewing the SYMLOG analysis for the Cinco Group, the results first appear that
all of the members are very similar. As a group, the average scores of each category (CTM,
FTM, EFF and SLF) are very close to the MEP (Most Effective Profile) and all within the top
right quadrant. The teams average scores, which are plotted on the field diagram, seem to
cluster together which means that as a group we are highly unified. However, when comparing
the individual scores, a slightly different picture is painted.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

20

The CTM score was figured by evaluating what kind of values each team member
currently exhibits. Therefore the FTM score is looking at the values that need to be shown by
each team member for the future. When looking at the field diagrams for CTM and FTM of the
individual members, the points are not as clustered together and tend to be much more polarized.
According to the SYMLOG report, members that are higher in CTM and FTM have
characteristic values that are closely related to equality, democratic participation in decision
making, social idealism and collaboration. The report also says that member that score high in
these categories are typically people that are easy to talk to. The CTM report shows where the
members of Cinco Group currently are. Two members are currently ranked higher in accepting
task orientation and friendly behavior and lay on the upper conservative teamwork region of the
field diagram. The other three ranked lower on the task orientation levels and friendly behavior.
One member was in the swing area which means they could go either way. One member was in
the Libertarian Fringe region. One member scored in the Anti-authority opposition region. This

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

21

means that member is not as concerned with equality, social idealism and collaboration. The
FTC shows the future scores of the team members. When looking at the FTM field diagram you
are able to see some movement in the results. Now, the member that was once in the Antiauthority Opposition region has moved to the Libertarian Fringe region. In order to assist the
team members raise their levels to the MEP for CTM and FTM we would need to work to help
them develop their values.

CTM

FTM

Next, we looked at the field diagram for SLF. The most important characteristic values
are responsible idealism, collaborative work, equality and democratic participation. According
to the SYMLOG report, members that are high in SLF tend to be good, practical, stable and
dependable. They typically see the good in people and therefore respond to them positively,
especially to people in authority. They are normally happy to follow leaders that represent the
same values they have. When reviewing the individual field diagram for SLF, the group was not
as polarized as the first two field diagrams, however the one outlier that we had was much
further out. On this diagram, we had two members that were rated on the lower Liberal

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

22

Teamwork Side of the field. These members have some of the characteristic values of SLF. One
member was in the higher region of the Liberal Teamwork Side of the diagram. One member
was in the MEP for the SLF. The outlier was polarized when compared to the other members of
the group. They were located in the Anti-group Opposition region, which means that their
values are at the other end of the spectrum.

SLF
Last, we analyzed the field diagram for EFF. According to the SYMLOG the most
characteristic values of EFF are responsible idealism and collaborative work. People that have
strong EFF values tend to be describes as sincerely good people and normally look for the best
welfare of not only the group but also of other individuals and groups. Of all of the individual
member field diagrams that were reviewed, the EFF had the most unified results. There were
two members that were in the Swing Area. These members are less concerned with the
wellbeing of other individuals but are not completely opposite of the others members. Next we
had one member that was mainly in the Liberal Teamwork Side of the diagram. Lastly we had

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

23

two members that were very high in the Conservative Teamwork side of the diagram. These
members exhibit the common characteristic values.

EFF

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

24

2. Sociometric Rating Instrument

a. SOCIOMETRIC (RELATIONSHIP) RATING INSTRUMENT Task Leader
If your group had to perform a class, assignment that required having a leader to help
direct the efforts of the group, whom would you choose for our group's leader?

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

25

The objective for this exercise was to choose the three people that we would like to
assign the role of task leader. In this case, the majority of the votes went to Scott for first place,
Tyler for second, and Brent for third. Scott received the highest score, which proves that he was
able to initiate the group project and his own tasks as well as helping fellow Cinco members with

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

26

other assignments. He really was a leader and he showed his amazing skills when organizing
meeting times and assigning project tasks. He kept everyone on point with the advancement of
the project and contributed greatly to the finished product.
Tyler also was a big help with the tasks and he and Scott got along greatly when working
on the project. As for Brent, who was third choice, he stayed calm and never became frustrated
when he was stuck with an assignment. He would always ask questions and receive feedback that
he put to good use, which is a great leader quality. He could take positive criticism and included
the fellow members when adding something new to the project.
The chart above reveals the scores for the assignment. It is easy to see who chose what
member for their choice of team leader. It also shows the members who complemented each
other by picking each other as their first, second, or third place choice. With this task, we also
figured out that our group cohesion index result was 80. This number resulted from the number
of mutual relationships divided by the number of possible mutual relationships. For the most
part, this group proved that we are cohesive.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

27

b. SOCIOMETRIC (RELATIONSHIP) RATING INSTRUMENT Lunch Partner

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

28

According to the relationship ratings, totals, reciprocal relationships, and group cohesion
index displays the lunch partner responses above. We were to select the top three members that
we would like to have lunch. From the five members it appears that the group selected the top
three people to have lunch with were Brent, Devyn, and Tyler and Scott tied for third. The results
indicated the level of comfort we had with one another and how we view friendships outside of

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

29

school with one another in deciding who wants to eat lunch with who. Furthermore, these results
boosted the cohesion index to a high 80% value.
Among the individual members, Brent seems to get along with everyone and is very easy
going, and laid back, thus giving good vibes and a comfortable environment to be. Devyn is also
very friendly and outgoing, leading to her being the second top pick. It appears that Brent and
Scott were the only group members to pick one another as the top pick.
All of these ranges were close and there are not any outsiders or definite negativity
towards any individuals in particular. This aspect was the most interesting, because in normal
groups there is an extreme outlier and a person who is not able to bond as well with other team
members. From the data collected, it appears the men chose to eat lunch with the men and the
womens first pick was primarily with one another. This shows the types of bonds that had been
formed earlier on in the semester.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

30

3. Rating of Satisfaction and Task Effectiveness

Team Cinco worked very well together in a driven united fashion. Firstly, the work goals
were assiduously identified and assigned with deadlines to each team mate in February. This
diligence earned the team a very high work goals score of 6. Secondly, the team maintained a
fairly strong focus on finishing the assignments on time with only a few exceptions, thereby
earning an involvement and commitment score of 5.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

31

The different duties were delegated by the group leader, Scott, to each of the members
who in turn combined their efforts on joint tasks. Discussion, deliberation, and collaboration on
each assignment was evident on virtually every task. Trust, rated at 4, has been a slowly
growing asset to the team, in which it did not exist much at all in the beginning of the assignment
and has now grown substantially. This is because of all the reliable and consistent effort each
member has contributed to the project.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

32

The core problem the group encountered was virtual communication, which was aptly
resolved through group discussion thus earning the group a six on problem solving. There was a
slight delay in getting the group to discuss problems, rated at five, because of a natural tendency
to de-prioritize communication when other more pressing obligations are afoot.
Overall, the entire groups effectiveness should be rated at a 90. This high score is due to
their continual efforts to assess the goal and find means by which they could meet them. The
main reason the score is not higher is due to a few lengthy delays correspondence. While the
team worked excellently, some of the tasks might have been completed sooner. My personal
level of satisfaction with the group is 80; we rank with a high level of satisfaction. This high
score is largely due to how responsive and respectful each group member was of each other.
Additionally many members came up with creative solutions to difficult interpersonal
development problems such as building a cohesive group. The only reason the group score is not
higher is simply due to miscommunication during the storming stage that was resolved during
the norming stage.
VI.

Conclusion
Group Cinco built some durable team bonds and some fragile ones. The most durable of

the bonds occurred because of good humor, like mindedness, and ambition. Brent, Scott, and
Tyler have a clear motivation to peruse contacts through the business venture they started this
semester. Devyn and Angelica both plan on graduating school soon and achieving future
personal and professional goals. As a whole, the group functioned well together and if business
goals align, in the future they have every reason to team up again.

OBHR 3310.501.S14

Team Cinco

33

This project was an excellent unifying and educational experience in which each
member found a balance between friendship and work ethic. There were many insightful
analysiss made by the group to understand how each individual may adapt in future groups.
Some of the most instrumental analysiss came from comparing conflict levels, KLLP
personality types, and team SYMLOG structure. Each individual came in boasting a myriad of
unique abilities and affinities towards organizational structure. However throughout this
expedition bonds began to form between people that would have otherwise not even glanced at
each other in the hallway. Eventually a cohesive group with its own unique flair of warm humor
melded with analytical perspective grew to create a team environment in which the team was
than the mere sum of its parts.