Theoretical Reflections on Team Work

The team had a mandate to analyse the strengths and limitations of the functionalist approach in the Toyota Production System and to draw on the interpretivism theory to consider why stakeholders had different concerns on a number of issues. In completing the requirements of the exercise, the group considered a number of different perspectives. Different ideas on issues were a welcome idea because they added no to the depth of the overall discussion. The group was accepting of different viewpoints because they enabled each member to see an issue or subject from the perspective of another. For example, the explanation of the reasoning of stakeholders led to a discussion on why their concerns were so different given that the issues faced were similar. Here, multiple perspectives were engaged in order to see why stakeholders’ reasoning on the issue discussed were diverse to that extent. Accepting and engaging different viewpoints improved the overall cohesion of the team, including an understanding that every idea or opinion was valid. The effect is that the group was more focused on the task, including improving on the quality of work because every individual member’s idea was considered and discussed before formulating a final response.

While the group enjoyed the advantages and benefits of having multiple point of view, a number of challenges emerged as the team reconciled different perspectives. First, multiple perspectives meant that every issue had to be discussed and a consensus achieved before the group could move on to the next item. That meant that a lot of time was spent on looking at individual ideas and points of view. Group members also had different pace and speed in presenting ideas. Overall, a lot of time was spent on some parts of the requirements while other sections did not receive as much attention. To overcome this challenge, the group set up time limits for every issue that needed discussion. This way, a thorough investigation of major issues was ensured while factoring in time constraints.

As part of the overall group cohesion, functioning, and handling challenges, it can be noted that no single perspective took dominance in the project. The group tackled every issue with relative consideration of every individual’s view on a matter. For example, on the discussion of the functionalist perspective in the Toyota Production System, the group formulated more than five scenarios and their explanations from the interpretations of different group members. The effect this had on the group was that it created cooperation and a situation of respecting the views of every member. The quality of work improved significantly.

Overall, the group was very disciplined in meeting the demands of the assignment. The team formulated a leadership structure that ensured members remained true to the task at hand. The input of different members was considered at all times. Notably, the functionalism theory influenced the way the group operated as a complex system aware of the differences yet working together to promote stability and solidarity. The functionalist perspective featured heavily in the group work to produce results and to influence the direction of the group. Ultimately, the team fulfilled the requirements in a manner that ensured quality and consideration of various standpoints.