Article critique on team building

Introduction

Team building as a strategy for improving employees’ performance has been source of concern among many scholars and practitioners since each of them attempt to develop the best strategies for promoting team work (Dyer, Dyer & Dyer, 2007).

A recent journal article by Lindeke and Sieckert (2008) entitled Nurse-Physician Workplace collaboration: Team-development Strategies which was published in a nursing journal, emphasized that collaboration between management and employees was an effective strategy to promote positive team building practices and consequently improve organizational performance.

Correspondingly, Briggs (2011) article entitled Forget teambuilding –data analysis will get you better results published in an Industrial and Commercial Training journal underscores that involving staff in identification of organizational challenges is key in improving team work performance.

Summary

In their article, Lindeke and Sieckert (2008) begin by highlighting the nature and benefits of collaboration. In addition, the authors outline several tasks that promote team work development. The article draws attention to several strategies such as conflict management, respectful negotiation and workplace design as fundamental principles for promoting collaboration among team members.

The above strategies are expounded further and the credibility of each is supported through citation of prior authors’ findings on the same topic. However, the fact that Lindeke and Sieckert (2008) article is based on conceptual review of prior literature underrates their arguments since they are not in position to either affirm or denounce the findings presented in literature under review.

Nonetheless, the article assumes a simple structure whereby readers are able to follow the argument right from thesis statement to concluding remarks. On the other hand, Briggs (2010) employs a different methodology to present his arguments. The article is a report of an actual case study which was conducted to explore how business processes inhibit firms’ performance. Briggs (2010) explains that after successful data collection, findings formed the basis for brainstorming session among staff members.

He concludes that the latter action elicited positive results since it was found to improve staff engagement in team work. However, his findings contribute and add new ideas to the literature of team building. A study across several firms would have increased credibility of the results owing to the fact the same task might not elicit similar results when employed in different participants. However, his explanations are interconnected to make the reader flow with the presented concepts to conclusion.

Review and evaluation

A background check whether Lindeke and Sieckert are credible authors revealed that at the time of authorship, Lindeke was an associate professor in a nursing school and she has been involved in developing nursing curriculum among other administrative tasks. Sieckert was a practicing nurse and a master’s student and that she was interested in interdisciplinary collaboration among workers. To give credit where it is due, the fact that the authors have background experience in nursing is a plus for them.

However, expertise in team management calls for some background experience in management. All the same, the evidence stated by the authors is credible. In fact, (Dyer, Dyer & Dyer, 2007) in their book emphasizes some of the strategies highlighted in Lindeke and Sieckert (2008) article. In addition, the background information on the nature and role of collaboration contributes positively towards the development of a logical argument.

On the other hand, Briggs is a practitioner in management and this escalates his credibility as an author. Briggs (2011) research began with a pilot study to test the validity of the adopted methodology. However, as cited above, the results cannot be generalized across the borders as his sampling procedure was limited in scope. Nevertheless, the methodology that was adapted in this study is informative and the link between the dependent and interdependent variables is clearly elaborated.

For this reason, the reader is capable of arriving at the same conclusion presented in the paper. In addition, the strategies highlighted above are emphasized by Dyer, Dyer and Dyer (2007). Interesting to note is that the two articles eschews from highlighting literature that would attract a counter-argument. Needless to say, they both achieve success it communicating the message across.

Conclusion

Despite differences in terms of methodology, the two articles under review arrived at similar conclusions. It is obvious that collaboration enhances team performance whether at home, school or workplace environment of which the two articles seem to concur.

Based on my observation, elements such as respective negotiation and collective brainstorm enhances team members performance, hence I agree with the arguments presented in the two articles. In addition, the fact that numerous empirical researches have exposed most of the strategies highlighted in the two articles give me the impression that although methodology may vary, the findings are clearly depicted and therefore credible.

References

Briggs, H. (2011). Forget teambuilding –data analysis will get you better results. Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(3), 166-171.

Dyer, W. G., Dyer, W.G. & Dyer, J. H. (2007) Team building: Proven strategies for improving team performance (4th ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lindeke, L.L. & Sieckert, A. M (2008). Nurse-Physician Workplace collaboration: Team- development Strategies. Nursing, 10 (1), 12-21.