While building a cross functional team, I am interested in analyzing a candidate’s skill level, background, expertise, and previous success dealing with product development. In order to handle a self-managed work team, I would provide relative details for the product’s deadline, dates of launch, and other important facts so the team can work together to develop the proper course of action. As the manager, I would practice the art of self-managing the team from a distance unless there is a conflict of interest.
The interest of R&D and marketing may be different from that of the manufacturing and R&D departments. The recent build in SMWT breaks the barriers of the diversity pool, but their findings are still valid to a degree. The increase in intragroup task conflict arises once a diverse group capitalizes their initial tasks of granting credentials or age, tenure, and expertise into the work environment (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999, p. 53). For example, Team A and B allows open forums for discussion of the project’s progress whereas Teams X and Y have intragroup conflicts (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999, 55).
A cross functional group can develop the overall tasks to be done because a plan must be assembled before action is taken. The dynamics of a cross functional group depends on their capabilities to complete tasks through a detailed outline associated with the desired outcomes. It is very important to utilize research data to formulate the appropriate answers for potential problems they may experience throughout the project (Metlay & Kaplan, 1995, p. 54).
These milestones can help the planning committee in making preventive methods to counter each issue one by one. Many cross functional groups use practical procedures and policies to utilize all of the resources for a good reason. One must recognize the significance of a complete, factual plan because the basis of each project must have data or statistics to back up the departments’ desired outcomes (Metlay & Kaplan, 1995, p. 56). If a manager restricts employee discussion, there is a possibility that the workers are unsatisfied with the functions of the group.
Further reviews analyze the different communications styles available: assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, exchange, upward appeals, and coalition. The five communication distinctions employ various employee empowerment styles that enable the manager’s workers to voice opinions in subtle ways. The firm’s ability to allow the team to help in the decision-making process evolved the motives of each worker. Some employees prefer the upward appeal method because it deals with flattery of skills and unique talents.
Others are interested in the assertiveness of their employees because it shows their ability to adapt or acquire more information regarding their work. Continued efforts should be implemented in the cross functional group’s structure to produce high-quality responses from the team (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999, 60). The self-managed work teams allow managers more time to focus on the manager’s vision than on how to instruct team of their role (Metlay & Kaplan, 1995, p. 55).
Employees gain a different perspective on the role in which they must play in the cross functional group. On each account, both parties capitalize on their new communication models to push the cross functional group in a more, profound direction. References Cited Jassawalla, A. R. & Sashittal, H. C. (1999, Aug. ). Building collaborative cross-functional new product teams. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), p. 50. Metlay, E. F, & Kaplan, etc. , (Metlay & Kaplan, 1995). Self-managing work teams: Do they really work? HR. Human Resource Planning, 18(2), p. 53.