Introduction: There are true differences between mere groups of people and real teams aside from the

obvious fact that they are assembled for a common purpose. Katzenenbach and Smith add that the group should have, complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (1994). In this particular case, Team C is a virtual team, a group of four people who have never met but communicate thru email, etc. but never meet face-to-face. As for the complementary skills are concerned, there are several areas where Team C members may be complementary, but given the nature of the group and our assignment, our skill-sets are very much the same. This is most easily seen in the graphs displaying SAL test scores in the areas of leadership-style, use of power, conflict management, and team-building ability. Conflict-handling Style: In analyzing our conflict-handling style, nearly all members of the team scored higher in compromising and collaborating and low in the seemingly anti-team styles, competing and avoiding. Richards scores were the highest in two categories, compromising and competing, and seem to indicate how Richard sees the world. If he cannot competitively win the point, compromise is attempted. Yet clearly, these are not the only tools available. Preferred Type of Power: A look at the group members individual preferred type of power reveals the common belief that use of coercive power is not the best way to get things done. Richards scores reveal two interesting things. The first and most obvious is his significantly lower score on use of legitimate power, that is, titles or position. It is also easier to understand why Richard has trouble accepting a claim of legitimate power from others. Secondly, Richard scored highest on use of reward power, a fact that coincides with his historical use of carrots and sticks to motivate employees or co-workers. Leadership and Leadership Style: Team Cs Charter calls for the use of rotational leadership. Clawson indicates that strong leadership doesnt necessarily come from one strong leader but from a concept he calls distributed leadership (2009). Although those two terms are not exactly synonymous, the concept that all members of the team have a contribution that should be both recognized and utilized is present in the teams charter. In charting SAL leadership style scores, Richard scored above the minimum effectiveness scores in both concern for task and concern for people. The fact that Richard has been self-employed most of his life accounts for the higher task-oriented score since this is

commonly associated with performance and profit (Judge, et al. 2004). On the other side of the coin is the reality that in some businesses and industries, concern for people may, ultimately, mean higher profits. When concern for task is graphed on one axis and concern for people is graphed on the other axis, it is easily seen that the two are not mutually exclusive. An effective leader will be concerned for both. Team-building Ability: Of all the SAL scores, How Good Am I At Building Teams score is the most nebulous. The evaluation is only 18 questions and the final score only one, two-digit number. However, if asked, Richard would concede that building teams is one skill that he has had the least experience with if the definition of team is more strictly defined as a cohesive group of co-workers working toward a common purpose. As the founder and president of his business, Richard has been a one-man show in that sense. However, it is nave to think that there is much at all that can be accomplished truly by oneself in this interconnected world. In a broader sense, Richard has had to enlist the help of employees, bankers, investors, lawyers and accountants, to accomplish his goals. A review of the questions asked indicates that the term team should be interpreted more broadly, resulting in a higher score in this area.

References: Clawson, J.G. (2009). Level 3 Leadership: Getting Below the Surface. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith, D.K. (1994). The Wisdom of Teams. New York: Harper Business. SAL Assessment Scores: Assessment: II-C-5. What's My Preferred Conflict-Handling Style? II-C-5-Score1: Competing: 13 II-C-5-Score2: Collaborating: 16 II-C-5-Score3: Avoiding: 8 II-C-5-Score4: Accommodating: 10 II-C-5-Score5: Compromising: 19 Assessment: II-B-1. Whats My Leadership Style? Concern for People: 11 Concern for Task: 14 Assessment: II-B-6. How Good Am I at Building and Leading Teams?

II-B-6 Score - 82 Assessment: II-C-2. What's My Preferred Type of Power? II-C-2-Score1: Reward 4.2 II-C-2-Score2: Coercive 1 II-C-2-Score3: Legitimate 1.7 II-C-2-Score4: Expert 4 II-C-2-Score5: Referent 4.5