Teamwork & Leadership RAFT BUILDING

Name: *

Dominic Clark

Describe the task *

In detail, what was the aim of the task? How many teams? What was the team dynamic?
Timings? Rules & restrictions?

Our task at hand was to build a raft using the below materials and go head to head with an opposing
team of the same challenge to perform a race to see who makes it out to sea at the mark just off the
beach and back to the starting position on the beach.
Materials:
8 Sticks Of Bamboo
4 Inflatable Rubber Rings
Generous Amount Of String
All of the students on the trip split into two separate groups of eight individual team members. To
make the challenge more difficult, there were complications added. There were four types of team
members in the group, these included; Being able to see and talk but not use hands, being able to
see, talk and use hands, being able to use hands and talk but being blindfolded and being able to see
and use hands but not talk. Of the eight members of each group, each team had two members who
were assigned to each of these team member roles. This meant that each team member had to adopt
a different take on leadership and teamwork.
We were not put under any time constraint initially but we were given a five minute warning once
the other team had completed assembling their vessel.

As every two members of the team had a different capability and contribution to the team, the
effectiveness varied. The individuals who were able to speak, use hands and talk, were the most
effective members, but as they were mainly able to contribute to the task, they were mostly used to
complete the hands on task and rather than being leaders. The members who were able to speak and
see but not use their hands, were seen as the leaders as they oversaw the operations of the team and
noted improvements and delegated work to the other team members. The individuals who were able
to use their hands and see but not talk played the major role in putting together the raft. They used
their initiative to complete tasks as they had very little form of communication and they did what
they thought was right. The members who could work and speak but were blindfolded were the
listeners in the group as they had to trust the advice and instructions of the leaders or other members
to be effective in the team. Overall, the entire group put their effort in and did what they could,
giving a dynamic atmosphere.

What was your role in the team? *

What did you do? How did you contribute? Leader or teamworker?
In the team, I played the role of being able to see and talk but not use my hands. This meant that my
job was to oversee what everyone that could use their hands and give them instructions on what to
do. I believe that I adopted a leadership role as I was given the opportunity to both listen to views,
see what is going on and give my ideas to the group. I had to use my communication skills to give
my contribution to the group. I began to delegate tasks and motivate the team with a positive
attitude. I am certain that I was a leader in that task as I was listened to and team members
completed tasks accordingly.

How did you perform as an individual? *

For the M & D criteria make comparisons with other individual performances in your team
and relate to theory.
As an individual, I believe that I performed reasonably well as an individual. I think that as I was
only allowed to oversee the operation of the task, I adopted a leadership role. In the task, I brought
forward a democratic approach to most of the team as I was asking each team member what they
thought and what strategies we should use. In the team, some people had adopted a laissez-faire
role, which were the people who couldn't talk but could work as they spent much of the task taking
their initiative into doing what they thought was right. At times, this did create issues with two roles
in place as some decisions were not of group consensus and not everyone agreed with those
choices, resulting in change to work which wasted some time.
I think that I managed to lead the team relatively well, making sure everyone understood the task. I
believed that I displayed my quality of compassion in this task as I took much of my time making
sure that everyone would have a task and considered making sure team members didn't feel
alienated. What I did was, I adopted a very People-Orientated leadership role as I cared much about
what everyone was thinking and that everyone was motivated to complete the task. This showed
that I exhibited a skill of motivating, I made it my job to make sure that I drove the team to reach
the goal of completing the task effectively, despite the fact that we lost the challenge. This
compared to the other member in the team who adopted the same role where they could talk and see
but not use their hands for the task. He adopted a very Task-Orientated leadership approach as his
priority was to get the task done. Also he was very autocratic whilst instructing the team which may
have made them feel less confident to want to contribute and put effort into the task. What they did
have was a strong sense of courage as they worked well under stress and made prompt decisions.
This was a quality that I need to develop as in a difficult situation, I may have it where my stress
levels take over.
As we commenced the challenge, I brought forward my point to plan what to do before we start
carrying out the task. With this I showed the leadership skill of planning, which was needed to make
sure everyone was aware of the plan. I did this to know how to tackle issues in the event that
something doesn't go as planned. The entire group contributed to this brief session, which reflected
that it was a good idea to take the time to plan. This was almost in the form of a brief where
information was given to the team quickly and effectively, but with more discussion. Team
members may have not agreed to this session at the start, but they definitely took a lot from it in the
post briefing stage.
Another useful skill that I brought to the team was my constant urge to delegate tasks to ensure that
everybody has a task where the team is effective and nobody felt left out. Again, this displays
compassion.

I enjoy leading a group of individuals, but I normally like to show people how to do things as the
best way to communicate and explain how to do something. As I was not allowed to use my hands,
this meant I had to put my verbal communication to the test. This payed off as now I feel that I have
developed this skill. I believe that the individual with the same role as me also felt this as he is a
very hands on individual, so we both found this role rather difficult to work with. This relates to the
Coordinator role in Belbin's theory as I stated the group objectives and identified the priorities.The
individual who adopted the same role as me, took the role of being a Plant as they brought many of
the task decisions forward, which many went into play.

How did you perform as a team? *

For the M & D criteria make comparisons with other team performances and relate to theory.
As a team, what I think is that we had good performance throughout the challenge. We formed as a
formal team as we all had individual roles and we had an objective for the task at hand. We had
rules and guidelines, that I believe everyone managed to comply to. In terms of productivity, we did
not use our resources as well as the opposing team in the task. We had eight individual team
members, but at any one time we only managed to put six of the people to work. The other team on
the other hand managed to delegate tasks to those who were not able to see much better giving them
tasks like sorting out the materials rather than just holding objects, which was what we did. As a
result, our effectiveness as a team was not as good, and probably is why we managed to lose that
challenge.
Each of our team members had a good understanding of team knowledge as they had the ability to;
listen to other members of the team, allow and motivate others to share idea, help each member of
the team and understood that everyone played a part in the making of the decisions.
I believe that our team followed Tuckman's theory of team development, we managed to go through
each of the stages and even though we didn't win the challenge, I think we were still successful.
First, came the forming stage where we were picked out and assigned to our specific teams. Then,
shortly after we were given our specific roles/ abilities for the challenge. We had no complete idea
of what we wanted to do, but we had a clear objective of what was asked of us. Next came the
storming stage, where we all had different ideas and had a discussion to evaluate which was the best
idea. This started the norming stage where the leaders became identifiable and decisions began to
come together. This didn't last too long as we prioritised getting the task started. After all this
discussion, we quickly got onto a performing stage where most of us knew exactly what to do. It
was clear who the leaders were and everyone was giving contribution in some shape or form. After
we finished the entire task, we reached the adjourning stage, where although the task was finished in
this short-term team, we all benefited and learnt from it in the ways that we tested numerous
leadership skills and qualities in a complicated situation.
When the opposing formed, they appeared to have a better idea of what to do as some members of
their team were sharing their expertise from previous experiences, which was a disadvantage on our
part. Their storming stage was very brief and really seemed to have no major disagreements. They
came up with their idea in under three minutes, also making a very short norming stage as they
almost immediately had a structure in place. Their performing stage as mentioned above, was very
effective with each member with a useful delegated task, using their team to the full potential,
despite the complications. Their adjourning stage must consist of different experiences as their
overall approach to the task was very different although the same skills were tested and identified.
Although it appeared as not much thought went into their process, they managed to innovate a
better design and team structure than we did. This shows that it is not always about a democratic

discussion and sometimes there are people who are best suited to share their expertise, which we
did not have as much of.
In terms of team cohesion, we defined our team goals well and knew exactly what our tasks were.
Although we had members that felt that they were unable to perform tasks to their full potential, I
don't believe that there was an isolate in the group and there wasn't any alienation of members. The
same applied to the other team although they took this to a higher level where they managed to
make everyone feel like they are performing there best, which we didn't do as well.

What were your strengths? *

Communication, problem solving, time management, supporting others, physical abilities,
confidence, motivation, resolving conflict, praise, questioning, body language, listening,
awareness, creativity etc
I Believe That The Strengths That I Possessed Were:
The ability to communicate with others; this was the main strength that I used as it was the only
thing I was allowed to do as I could not use my hands to help with the task. I used this to make sure
each member knew what they were doing and that we were working towards our objectives.
The ability of quick problem solving; I was able to make quick decisions as we began to run out of
time.
The ability to support others; I wanted to make it my task to make sure that no one felt left out in
the activity.
Creativity and Innovationative; I brought multiple ideas to the team which managed to increase the
effectiveness of the group.

What were your weaknesses? *

Communication, problem solving, time management, supporting others, physical abilities,
confidence, motivation, resolving conflict, praise, questioning, body language, listening,
awareness, creativity etc
The Weaknesses in This Task That I Think I Possessed Were:
Physical Ability; as I was unable to use my hands, as an individual I was not helpful in terms of
physical ability.
Time Management; as a team, we were working too slowly and I did not manage to identify this
early enough that we ended up rushing towards the end.

Questioning; I believe that I could have asked team members more of how they feel in the task.

How could you improve for next time? *

Make future recommendations for yourself, your team and other individuals / teams.
For next time, I need to be more aware of the time and see the progression of the other team. It is
important that time is looked at carefully to make sure that I am where I want to be at any given
time. In addition, I should ask more questions to my team members to make sure none of them feel
left out. At times, I found it difficult to work with the other leader as he adopted a different
approach of leadership style. This shows that my adaptability in the task was not very strong but
after a while I ignored the fact and just lead how I felt fitted best. For next time, in the event that
there are two leaders I would discuss with them what the best style is and apply what best fits the
scenario. This will improve my normal strong point, being able to adapt to situations due to my
consistent leadership style (as proven in a questionnaire that I carried out). This would bring out a
higher level of decisiveness.
Although numerous members of the team were unable to speak, I believe that our communication
skills could have been improved. For those who were able to speak, I think that not everyone got
their say. To keep the team motivated, I think that it is important that all team members have some
input in the decision making. A recommendation for next would be to go around and give and take
ideas. This will enable each person to bring a point or suggestion forward, if they choose to.
The other leader of the group took a very autocratic leadership style, as a result some team members
were discouraged to complete the task effectively with the belief of losing the challenge. If we were
to do the challenge again, as leaders, we should decide on a leadership style whilst considering
compassion of team members, as well as the effectiveness of the team.
Our organisation was great, up until the point that we realised that we were running out of material.
In our organisation stage, we had forgotten to mention the quantities of materials. For the future, I
would recommend the leaders allocate exactly how much material is used for a specific reason.
Also, we should have paid more attentiveness to the other teams progress as when they finished
time began to fall short meaning that we had to rush, limiting the potential of our raft.
At times, some members of the team were alienated from the group as they were not allocated a
task. This was due to the fact that those members were unable to see. Unfortunately, if you sit the
members that you cant do much to the side, when they are given a task, they may not be to
motivated to do so. For next time, the team should make it so that everyone is doing something
productive for the team increasing team moral as well as productivity.
For the other team, they had many members (more than us) who were alienated from the task as
they used only the experienced individuals. Although they did win the task, I think that their team
work could have been improved upon to increase the moral of their team members. They should
allow each person a chance of a say, to be evaluated, as well as an opportunity to participate in the
task.

Was there any conflict in the group? *

If yes, describe why and how was it resolved? If no, what did the leader do to ensure this was
the case?
There was no conflict in the group because I, as one of the leaders, took time to ask what everyone
wanted to do making sure everyone had a say and equal contribution. This means that everyone can
have an open discussion at an early stage instead of conflict coming up during the performance.

This resulted in everyone being happy with the task itself.

How else could you use relevant theory to analyse the overall performance
today? *
Leadership styles, Belbin, Tuckman, Adair, Honey, Margerison & Mccann, Woodcock,
In the team there were two leaders, but each leader had a different leadership style approach. My
approach was to use a democratic styled leadership whilst the other leader was more autocratic.
In terms of belbin theory we mostly had the following team roles:
Shapers; A leader that sets priorities in our task to achieve our goal of building a successful raft.
Plants; creative, innovative individuals.
Teamworkers; people who cared about the team.
Company Workers; practical based focus.
The leaders also followed much of John Adair's theory:
Achieving The Task
One of the team leaders used much of the criteria in this section to manage the entire team to
achieve the task. They carried out the following; defining the task at hand, creating a plan, identify
resources and people's tasks, set standards, delegate roles, monitor the task, give task progression
comments and make changes to the original plan.
Managing The Team
The following criteria was also used to manage the overall team; come to terms with performance
standards, find a team approach and provide feedback to the team.

Managing Individuals
The following criteria was used to manage individual team members; trust in the team - how they
tie nots etc., provide assistance, setting/ identifying objectives for everyone and using team member
strengths.