Report on Team Performance, Group Dynamics, and Decision-Making

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a team's performance in a production game simulation within an MSc Management program. The team, composed of diverse members, aimed to produce high-quality cards and achieve profitability. The report details the team's strategy, performance metrics, and comparison with other teams. It explores the group dynamics, including the formation of roles, power structures, and norms, as well as the factors that shaped the team's effectiveness, such as input, processes, and outcomes. The report also examines the team's decision-making processes, highlighting the challenges of groupthink and the benefits of diverse perspectives. Furthermore, it discusses how the team managed stress during the game. Finally, the report reflects on the lessons learned about building effective and resilient teams and organizations from the production game experience, emphasizing the importance of cooperation, clear goals, shared mental models, good communication, and the impact of context and climate on team success.

How your group performed relative to the other Groups in the Game
Before the production day, we tried our best to ensure that we were fully prepared. We
participated together in developing a strategy that was satisfied for all of us and we made a
simulation production that helped to modify our strategy and increase our tasks familiarity.
When the day of the competition arrived, we were very enthusiastic and we thought we would
probably be the best company. Although we didn’t breakeven and made any profit in the game,
our team made the top 5 out of the 16 competing teams. We made a loss of -288, but we were the
best team performed in the MSc Management program. Table 1 compares our performance with
the average of the other teams.
(Table 1)
We did well in producing high quality cards and we were highly productive, but what went
wrong is that we lost one of highest orders we picked (£ 900). If we didn’t lose this order and be
wiser in selecting profitable orders, we might have won the game and achieve our target. Overall,
we are still proud of our team.
Average All Companies Our Team
Good Cards per head 9.1 9.3
Reject Rate (%) 24.6% 9.1%
Value per order £ 335.80 £ 387
Profit/Loss £ -1,241.40 £-288

Group dynamics and processes
Once we have been allocated randomly to a group of 9 members, we have been transformed
from a regular aggregate who only share a common program, into a group or a team. A clear
structure was formed and gave us a distinct identity as a group. Besides, a common goal was
shared by us and we were all accountable and committed to achieve it. We also were depending
on each other to arrive to the same objective and we complement each other by the different
skills we have. These characteristics presented to classify us as a group or team.
After several interactions between our team members, a group structure has been formed to
disclose the pattern of our relationships. We were a big group and we had one month to prepare
for the production day, this may cause stress if there were no group structure, therefore, the
structure was likely to arise from the psychological reason explained by Robert Bales (1950),
who mentioned that the need of stability, order, and predictability is what caused the formation
of a group structure. From my view point, this explanation is applicable in our case. Our need of
clarity in our relationships encouraged the existence of our group structure. Some of the
dimensions of that structure are analyzed bellow:
 Roles: Tasks divided among us based on the different functions with a coordinator that
facilitated the communication among us. Rules to maintain the group relationships also
existed, e.g. encourager and harmonizer.
 Power: There were slight power differences among our group and I think we attached
more power for the two males in our group because they demonstrated a good ability to
control.
 Norms: Attendance of our group meetings and participation of all the members were two
main norms implicitly established.
 Leadership: We assigned our coordinator this task because we believed in his leadership
ability but we didn’t explicitly announce that.
 Communication: Our communication was based on face-to-face meetings and some
social media platforms to share information.

Alongside the group structure, there were different elements that shaped our effectiveness as a
team. Those elements are analyzed in three divisions: input, process, team effectiveness:
Before the game (Input):
Group composition: We were nine members with diverse nationalities and backgrounds.
However, we didn’t face any issue with our diversity and it was a source of strength because we
were complementing each other and the members were highly reliable.
Task characteristics: we divided our rules based on the different functions for card production.
The functional division of our tasks increased our interdependency, for example: I can’t stencil
until the folders pass the card to me. It worth mentioning that the absence of any one of us could
disrupt the team performance because each of us has its valuable rule.
Context: The resources were valuable to all of us, that’s why we emphasized in efficiency in our
shared goal. Even time has been treated as a scare resource that should be conserved by
assigning a time keeper. Our team climate was internally focused, we emphasized on our
communication and cohesiveness without caring about other competitor teams. We also
preferred to approach our tasks in a flexible manner without assigning a leader to guide us.
During the game (Processes):
Each member performed his/her specialized task during the game, and was responsible about the
final decision related to his task with consulting the team. One member coordinated our efforts
and ensured communication. Because of the high emphasize in trust and respect, no conflict raise
during the game. The reason of not facing conflicts may also be because of the shared mental
model that developed by us.
Effectiveness (Performance):
Impeding factors:
 Rejection of the first order which was with high value.
 Varying standards of quality among judges.
 Unexpected overwhelming presence of white orders.
Facilitating factors:
 Positive attitude and good communication during the game.
 relaxed atmosphere
 Support among the group: No blames for mistakes and willingness to help.
 Good control for Inventory and resource.

Decision-making
In my team, we were always looking for perfections, even when we made decisions. We believed
that decision should be rational enough to be perfect, just like what described by the rational
model that emphasized on taking decisions in a systematic and logical way. We tried to be
rational as much as we can when we made decisions, but in the uncertainty and limitations
involved, rationality decisions can’t be easily made. However, we were close to the decision type
(bounded rationality). We made our team decisions in a rational way within our limits to process
information. For example, one of our main decisions involved defining our desired outcome to
generate profits by being efficient and quality oriented. When considering the different
alternatives available for this outcome, we didn’t analyze and weight all the alternatives
considered because of the limitations of time and resources. Therefore, our solutions for
problems were mostly satisfied and good enough for our cases rather than maximized.
I found many advantages when I made decisions with my group. Many divert experiences and
perspectives brought to the decision process in the team which provided more complete
information than when I decide individually. This also helped to generate more alternatives. For
instance: I was supposed to measure the margins in the game and when we were developing our
strategy one of the team members suggested to design some templates for the margins instead of
tacking measurements by a pencil and ruler. This creative idea may not be generated by a single
head. Therefore, team decisions can outperform individual decisions sometimes.
On the other side, group decisions may have some drawbacks. One of the issues I faced with the
group decision making was Groupthink problem. Other members of my group may face the same
issue; I think they probably did! But personally, I sometimes hesitated to share my contrary ideas
with my group, especially when there was a consensus by the group. For example: In our first
meeting, my team discussed not to have a leader, while I thought that having a leader is more
effective for the team. However, I didn’t give myself a chance to say that because I had a fear
that my opinion will be unsupportive and I may damage the consensus of my group. So,

groupthink may hinder group decision making sometimes. Overall, it was an exciting experience
to make decisions in a group of nine members.
Stress
One of the most impressive things about our team is the way we managed stress. Stress can be a
major source for serious problems among groups and can adversely impact their performance.
However, this is not necessary the case, because of what I have learned from the course and what
I have experienced with my team in the production game.
Some of the stressors arise during the game to keep us down, and they challenged us to adapt
with their existence. However, our response was likely to be a defend action towards those
stressors. Thus, there were likely to be positive stressors (eustress) for us rather than distresses.
The reject of our first order by the controllers induced us to produce better quality cards and
motivated us rather that causing any depression and anxiety. Besides, the highly competitive
environment during the game encouraged us to work harder and stay closer rather than having
troubles with this pressure. The structure of our group was supportive enough to help managing
stressful situations during the game.
In the production game, most of the negative sides of stress were likely to arise from the work
that need to be performed by the team and the related aspects and interactions of that work.
Writing a strategy plan, our relationship, the effort needed and deadlines could be some
examples of that. But I think the reason why our team didn’t face the negative side of that work
is because of the level of resources and control that were available to us and were created by us
well. We have been provided with a starter pack that we thought will not be sufficient to pursue
our goal. Thus, we decided to buy more equipment so that we feel secure enough during the
game. Also, we practiced several times our tasks to be more capable to perform them. In
addition, we used many means of communication to ensure all of us are engaged in the work.
Thankful to our awareness about the necessity of having those and other resources, we
confronted stress successfully. One of the categories of models that best describes our situation is
job demand models, which implies that if individuals are provided with resources such as

physical equipment, support, training, they will be more able to mitigate the negative impacts of
their work-related aspects -which called by the theorists: demand-.
What you have learned about building effective, resilient teams and organizations from the Game
It was a very meaningful opportunity to apply the different concepts learned in the organizational
behavior course by engaging in the production game. In the first place, when we have been
allocated randomly to groups, I didn’t expect that the experience will pass peacefully. It was very
hard to accept the idea of building an organization from the scratch with eight different members
with various nationalities and personalities. Soon after, my view has been totally changed,
especially when I have met my team. This taught me that we don’t have to judge anything before
giving a try. Even when it comes to people, we don’t have to judge them without fully
understanding their behaviors and their causes.
I also have learned that an effective team start with its members and their intention to cooperate
and reach the best outcome. This is because team members need to trust each other and be
confident about their ability to reach their purpose collectively, but with a bad member, trust may
not be built and team efforts may demolish. Moreover, teams and organizations need to have a
clear goal that need to be well communicated to each member so that all of them be committed to
achieve it. In our case, we were all committed towards our goal because we collectively set the
goal.
The context and climate of the team also plays an important role in achieving effectiveness and
resilience. Teams must have a shared mental model to ensure that everyone in the same track.
Moreover, teams need to ensure that every individual contribute in the decisions and inputs even
if the group have a leader, still he/she need to ensure the engagements of all the team. Another
important factor that differentiate the effective team than others is having a good communication
among its members. It was very effective to have different communication platforms that are
accessible by all the members in my team.

In addition to that, I learned that teams and organizations should look out for opportunities, adapt
to any situation and reduce the frequency and size of the crisis. They should accept changes
when arise and make wise decisions to confront any challenge. Therefore, we should expect any
case and we should be ready as a team to take the best action. If we expecting the overwhelming
white orders during the game, we could have reached our target. Moreover, to have an effective
organization, every employee should be accountable for his or her role and responsibilities in the
organization. Those roles should be assigned based on the strength and preference to have a good
blend between the ability and willingness to work. This will result in more motivation to work
and can increase the productivity.
The final lesson learned is that to have an effective and flexable team or organisation, all
resources should be valuable and allocated in such a manner that they do not remain idle even for
a minute. This is because efficiency go hand to hand with effectiveness. Thus, organizations
should focus on doing the wright things and doing things wright to achieve good outcomes.