Project Team: 1. Turn in team project document (min.10 pages) 2. Team project presentation (min. 15 minutes) *Paper Requires headings in the submission *Must cite various articles provided in syllabus weekly *Must cite EI
Key Differences In EI Results
Suggestion: Table Comparison
Key Similarities In EI Results
Suggestion: Table Comparison
Team Belief In Key Differences
Impact of Differences and Similaritieson Team Performance - LEAD Program
Negative Impact
Positive
Action Plan Improvement In Team Performance
Smart
Measurable
Reasonable Attainable
Relevant to EI (*Work Ons - suggestions we each received on our individual appraisals)
Team Success
Reflection: Development Differences For Successful LEAD Project Team, Starting Over
Emotional Intelligence Team Paper The idea of emotional intelligence concept began in the 1990s. The basic idea was that EQ was as important, if not more important than IQ to the success of an organization, company, and/or group (Druskat and Wolff, 2001). Our challenge as a team was to evaluate, compare, and contrast our EQs in the following manner: (a) self-awareness; (b) self-management; (c) social awareness; and (d) relationship management (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). Key Differences in EI Results Our team’s most striking difference is in the area of personal competence. Personal competence is your ability to stay aware of your emotions and manage your behavior and tendencies” (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). Our individual scores are as follows: (a) Steve – 58; (b) Rita – 65.5; and (c) Terra – 77.5. Because these scores fall into different decades, TalentSmart recommends actions for each person to take for individual improvement. Steve’s average score of 58 indicates a concern he must address. For example the following are recommended actions: (a) breathe right; (b) accept that change is around the corner; and (c) take control of his self-talk. Rita’s average score of 65.5, places her in the category where there are aspects that she needs to address. This is an area that likely does not come naturally for her. TalentSmart recommends that Rita try the following: (a) visit my personal values; (b) observe the ripple effects from her emotions; and (c) watch herself like a hawk. Terra’s average score of 77.5 indicates that with a little improvement she could make personal competence strength. TalentSmart recommendations include: (a) count to ten; (b) put a mental recharge into her schedule; and (c) focus her attention on her freedoms, rather than her limitations (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). Key Similarities in EI Results Our team shared similarities in the social competence portion of the EQ results. Social competence is defined by TalentSmart as the “ability to understand other peoples moods, behavior, and motives in order to improve the quality of your relationships” (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009, p. 24). Our individual scores are as follows: (a) Rita – 84; and (b) Terra – 79.5; and (c) Steve – 70.5. Terra’s score in the very high 70s is comparable to Rita’s mid-80s score in that they both are strengths to build on. Steve’s score can be compared to Terra’s because they both fall into the 70s decade; these scores serve as a good starting point to develop as areas of major EQ improvement. . Team Belief in Key Differences Our team believes the key differences exist for a various reasons. Each of our team members come from a different environment, upbringing, educational background, family dynamic, and each of us have our own set of personal beliefs. All these factors play into why each of us are different. We recognize that “a team with emotional intelligent members, does not necessarily make for an emotionally intelligent group” (Druskat & Wolff, 2001, p.82). Steve’s focus is on IQ; he identifies more with Good Will Hunting than with EQ-specialist, Forrest Gump (use images). Steve has always prided himself on high IQ; still recalls his 135 score from a computer-based IQ test he took 10 years ago. He is from a blended family of ethnic, blue-collar wage-earners who are first-generation Americans and academians (graduate school level) who celebrate high test scores and believe that IQ and scholastic achievement are real measures of intelligence. Once one finds his strongest area of study, he should stick with it. Rita identifies with others and is extremely empathetic. She spends her time trying to encourage others with positive reinforcement. She engages easily in conversations with others, no matter the setting. She is constantly trying to improve herself and others in any manner possible. She comes from a dysfunctional family, with little educational background, and lack of encouragement to pursue academics. Neither mother, nor father has even a high school diploma. Therefore, Rita strives to better herself, others around her and be a constant positive example to her daughter not to accept the status quo of previous generations. TERRA INPUT HER BACKGROUND HERE!!!! Although we may see ourselves as neither strongly introverted or extroverted, we do recognize our strong social skills, which translates to our high Relationship Management EQ skills. Impact of Differences and Similarities on Team Performance - LEAD Program The three of us build on the three conditions that Druskat and Wolff (2001) found that are essential to a group’s effectiveness: trust among members; sense of group identity; sense of group efficacy. We understand our low areas (self-awareness) and we understand that they may prevent us from admitting individual delays or any indication of failure during the planning process (Goleman, 2004). Steve’s low Self-Management scores likely have worked against him in being too easily persuaded to agree with his two colleagues. His desire for a consensus inhibits him from forming criteria he upon which he can be insistent. As Goleman (2004) notes, “People with low impulse control just say yes.” He needs to formulate criteria to back up his reasons for approaching his task. Our team members share the ability (or audacity) of freely speaking to the instructor, especially Steve and Terra. Each will just blurt out statements to the professor due to their front-row proximity. Rita likely is the most extraverted in our group, and she prides herself on taking on challenges, either in finding and promoting touchpoint articles or challenging another team’s member in how best meets the syllabus’s requirements. Other groups, which we sometimes view as competition, are well-served when they heed Rita’s advice. When they do not, students find themselves skimping on mandatory papers and unprepared for the difficulty levels of the final exams. Rita’s noticeably high Relationship Management score stands apart from Terra’s and Steve’s. This heightened capacity to handle stress, and it enables her quickly to determine whether the task delegation (usually handled by Terra) is equitable, efficient and complements our strengths. Action Plan Improvement in Team Performance REMOVE THIS ITS ONLY FOR YOUR REFERENCE
Specific
Measurable
reasonably Attainable
Relevant to EI (*Work Ons - suggestions we each received on our individual appraisals)
Timely
It would help us better in quickly revealing our weaknesses, an important part of determining who becomes a real leader among us (Goffee & Jones, 2000). We now recognize that EQ proves twice as important as IQ and technical skills at all levels. Also, our Self-Management scores average the lowest (Steve and Terra have them as lowest). This means that if we were in competitive situations (perhaps for grades) with other students we likely would need to improve our self-regulating skills so we can remain competitive. As Goleman (2004) notes, “Many of the bad things that happen in companies are a function of impulsive behavior.” SMART actions to consider: Specific—We need to meet on a regular basis and set tasks to accomplish in the allotted time. We used to meet weekly but have become reliant on e-mails and our wiki pages, which, although useful, often lead to confusion and overlap as to who is handling what portion of our research or final report. For us, the big issue is Measureable—We should compare all our measured test results as initially provided within Nahavandi’s text. These measurements include the Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator, the narcissism test, Type A personality, and the Machiavellian test. We also can use the exercises in the Nahavandi text to envision our individual, optimal organization. These exercises will help us in addressing our personality traits in how we project them onto an ideal workplace. Reasonably Attainable—These actions are fairly easily performed, and we have our journal articles, our textbooks, and the opportunity to renew our EQ codes to regularly monitor and compare our new scores. This retesting continually factors EI into our ongoing group understanding, and we would eventually expect any new members that join us to test their EI; or we may first want to see their EI scores to see whether we could help mentor them into improving weak areas. Timely – Reflection: Development Differences For Successful LEAD Project Team, Starting Over We would know that we should strive to become the premier/power group and we would form a consensus as to whom could join our group for a study session or to bolster our entire team performance during a particular class project or presentation. We would have read and discovered that “the best working groups come together to share information…, to make decisions that help each person…, and to reinforce individual performance standards” (Katzenbach & Smith, 2005).
1. Turn in team project document (min.10 pages)
2. Team project presentation (min. 15 minutes)
*Paper Requires headings in the submission
*Must cite various articles provided in syllabus weekly
*Must cite EI
Key Similarities In EI Results
Team Belief In Key Differences
Impact of Differences and Similaritieson Team Performance - LEAD Program
Action Plan Improvement In Team Performance
Reflection: Development Differences For Successful LEAD Project Team, Starting Over
Emotional Intelligence Team Paper
The idea of emotional intelligence concept began in the 1990s. The basic idea was that EQ was as important, if not more important than IQ to the success of an organization, company, and/or group (Druskat and Wolff, 2001). Our challenge as a team was to evaluate, compare, and contrast our EQs in the following manner: (a) self-awareness; (b) self-management; (c) social awareness; and (d) relationship management (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009).
Key Differences in EI Results
Our team’s most striking difference is in the area of personal competence. Personal competence is your ability to stay aware of your emotions and manage your behavior and tendencies” (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). Our individual scores are as follows: (a) Steve – 58; (b) Rita – 65.5; and (c) Terra – 77.5. Because these scores fall into different decades, TalentSmart recommends actions for each person to take for individual improvement. Steve’s average score of 58 indicates a concern he must address. For example the following are recommended actions: (a) breathe right; (b) accept that change is around the corner; and (c) take control of his self-talk. Rita’s average score of 65.5, places her in the category where there are aspects that she needs to address. This is an area that likely does not come naturally for her. TalentSmart recommends that Rita try the following: (a) visit my personal values; (b) observe the ripple effects from her emotions; and (c) watch herself like a hawk. Terra’s average score of 77.5 indicates that with a little improvement she could make personal competence strength. TalentSmart recommendations include: (a) count to ten; (b) put a mental recharge into her schedule; and (c) focus her attention on her freedoms, rather than her limitations (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009).
Key Similarities in EI Results
Our team shared similarities in the social competence portion of the EQ results. Social competence is defined by TalentSmart as the “ability to understand other peoples moods, behavior, and motives in order to improve the quality of your relationships” (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009, p. 24). Our individual scores are as follows: (a) Rita – 84; and (b) Terra – 79.5; and (c) Steve – 70.5. Terra’s score in the very high 70s is comparable to Rita’s mid-80s score in that they both are strengths to build on. Steve’s score can be compared to Terra’s because they both fall into the 70s decade; these scores serve as a good starting point to develop as areas of major EQ improvement. .
Team Belief in Key Differences
Our team believes the key differences exist for a various reasons. Each of our team members come from a different environment, upbringing, educational background, family dynamic, and each of us have our own set of personal beliefs. All these factors play into why each of us are different. We recognize that “a team with emotional intelligent members, does not necessarily make for an emotionally intelligent group” (Druskat & Wolff, 2001, p.82). Steve’s focus is on IQ; he identifies more with Good Will Hunting than with EQ-specialist, Forrest Gump (use images). Steve has always prided himself on high IQ; still recalls his 135 score from a computer-based IQ test he took 10 years ago. He is from a blended family of ethnic, blue-collar wage-earners who are first-generation Americans and academians (graduate school level) who celebrate high test scores and believe that IQ and scholastic achievement are real measures of intelligence. Once one finds his strongest area of study, he should stick with it.
Rita identifies with others and is extremely empathetic. She spends her time trying to encourage others with positive reinforcement. She engages easily in conversations with others, no matter the setting. She is constantly trying to improve herself and others in any manner possible. She comes from a dysfunctional family, with little educational background, and lack of encouragement to pursue academics. Neither mother, nor father has even a high school diploma. Therefore, Rita strives to better herself, others around her and be a constant positive example to her daughter not to accept the status quo of previous generations. TERRA INPUT HER BACKGROUND HERE!!!!
Although we may see ourselves as neither strongly introverted or extroverted, we do recognize our strong social skills, which translates to our high Relationship Management EQ skills.
Impact of Differences and Similarities on Team Performance - LEAD Program
The three of us build on the three conditions that Druskat and Wolff (2001) found that are essential to a group’s effectiveness: trust among members; sense of group identity; sense of group efficacy.
We understand our low areas (self-awareness) and we understand that they may prevent us from admitting individual delays or any indication of failure during the planning process (Goleman, 2004).
Steve’s low Self-Management scores likely have worked against him in being too easily persuaded to agree with his two colleagues. His desire for a consensus inhibits him from forming criteria he upon which he can be insistent. As Goleman (2004) notes, “People with low impulse control just say yes.” He needs to formulate criteria to back up his reasons for approaching his task.
Our team members share the ability (or audacity) of freely speaking to the instructor, especially Steve and Terra. Each will just blurt out statements to the professor due to their front-row proximity. Rita likely is the most extraverted in our group, and she prides herself on taking on challenges, either in finding and promoting touchpoint articles or challenging another team’s member in how best meets the syllabus’s requirements. Other groups, which we sometimes view as competition, are well-served when they heed Rita’s advice. When they do not, students find themselves skimping on mandatory papers and unprepared for the difficulty levels of the final exams.
Rita’s noticeably high Relationship Management score stands apart from Terra’s and Steve’s. This heightened capacity to handle stress, and it enables her quickly to determine whether the task delegation (usually handled by Terra) is equitable, efficient and complements our strengths.
Action Plan Improvement in Team Performance
REMOVE THIS ITS ONLY FOR YOUR REFERENCE
- Specific
- Measurable
- reasonably Attainable
- Relevant to EI (*Work Ons - suggestions we each received on our individual appraisals)
- Timely
It would help us better in quickly revealing our weaknesses, an important part of determining who becomes a real leader among us (Goffee & Jones, 2000).We now recognize that EQ proves twice as important as IQ and technical skills at all levels.
Also, our Self-Management scores average the lowest (Steve and Terra have them as lowest). This means that if we were in competitive situations (perhaps for grades) with other students we likely would need to improve our self-regulating skills so we can remain competitive. As Goleman (2004) notes, “Many of the bad things that happen in companies are a function of impulsive behavior.”
SMART actions to consider:
Specific—We need to meet on a regular basis and set tasks to accomplish in the allotted time. We used to meet weekly but have become reliant on e-mails and our wiki pages, which, although useful, often lead to confusion and overlap as to who is handling what portion of our research or final report. For us, the big issue is
Measureable—We should compare all our measured test results as initially provided within Nahavandi’s text. These measurements include the Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator, the narcissism test, Type A personality, and the Machiavellian test. We also can use the exercises in the Nahavandi text to envision our individual, optimal organization. These exercises will help us in addressing our personality traits in how we project them onto an ideal workplace.
Reasonably Attainable—These actions are fairly easily performed, and we have our journal articles, our textbooks, and the opportunity to renew our EQ codes to regularly monitor and compare our new scores. This retesting continually factors EI into our ongoing group understanding, and we would eventually expect any new members that join us to test their EI; or we may first want to see their EI scores to see whether we could help mentor them into improving weak areas.
Timely –
Reflection: Development Differences For Successful LEAD Project Team, Starting Over
We would know that we should strive to become the premier/power group and we would form a consensus as to whom could join our group for a study session or to bolster our entire team performance during a particular class project or presentation. We would have read and discovered that “the best working groups come together to share information…, to make decisions that help each person…, and to reinforce individual performance standards” (Katzenbach & Smith, 2005).