Bài báo cáo Môn Hành vi tổ chức | Đại học Kinh Tế Quốc Dân

lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936 NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY ***
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOURS GROUP REPORT Word Count: 4998
Nguyễn Vũ Khánh Linh 11231659
Nguyễn Thị Phương Anh 11231633 Phạm Đăng Doanh 11231638
Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền 11231644 Hoàng Thu Hằng 11231642
Bùi Thị Hải Nguyệt 11231671
Nguyễn Phương Thảo 11231682 Phạm Thiện Toàn 11231687
Teacher: Dr. Trần Huy Phương lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
I. Team Introduction…………………………………………………….
II. An analysis of team development theories ……………………… 1.
Tuckman’s theory…………………………………………………… 2.
Punctuated-equilibrium theory……………………………………………
III. A reflection on the application of content and process theories of motivation for
enhancing and maintaining an effective team …………… 1.
Content theories ………………………………… 2.
Process theories ………………………………… IV.
Personality and perceptions analysis and their influence on management
approaches ……………………………………………………………………
V. An explanation of factors that make a team effective/ ineffective VI.
The relationship between the effectiveness of teamwork and goal achievement
VII. Team members’ contribution lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936 I.
An introduction to our team using group properties concepts
Our formal group is made up of eight members who came together to adapt the
assignment’s requirements. We came together based on mutual interest,
complementary strengths, and trust from previous collaborations. We have
categorized our team as a Problem-Solving team since our main purpose is to work
together to find effective solutions to the subject’s requirements.
In the first meeting, we elected Khánh Linh as team manager. To ensure effective
teamwork and smooth workflow, each member of our team naturally took on roles
that aligned with their strengths and working style, which are (1) Thinker, (2) Doer,
(3) Leader, (4) Challenger, and (5) Supporter. While these roles were not formally
assigned, they developed naturally as we interacted and supported one another
throughout the assignment. Below is an overview of the roles each member fulfilled
during our work process and a brief definition of each role. Members Roles Description
Nguyễn Thị Phương Anh Doer
Takes initiative to complete tasks efficiently, stays focused Hoàng Thu Hằng under pressure, and actively
contributes to steady progress. Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền Phạm Đăng Doanh Challenger Drives improvement by
questioning ideas, encouraging
critical thinking, and pushing the
team to explore better solutions. Nguyễn Vũ Khánh Linh Supporter
Promotes harmony by listening to others, calming tensions Phạm Thiện Toàn
during conflict, helping the team stay connected and collaborative. Nguyễn Phương Thảo Thinker Generates thoughtful ideas,
analyzes problems logically, and
helps the team solve challenges by organizing and refining information. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936 Bùi Thị Hải Nguyệt Leader
Ensures the team stays organized, focused, and
goal-oriented by setting clear objectives, managing time
effectively, and guiding the team toward high-quality outcomes.
Each team member has a unique perception of their role, shaped by personal
strengths and values. These perceptions guide how they contribute to the team, even if their roles overlap.
In our team, roles align with strengths: Doers like Phương Anh, Hằng, and Hiền
excel at turning ideas into action; Thinker Thảo adds depth with new knowledge
and open-mindedness; Challenger Doanh encourages innovation through critical
feedback; Supporters like Toàn promote harmony and task clarity; and Nguyệt, in
a role of leader provides direction and structure. Together, these diverse roles foster effective collaboration.
Although role expectations vary, they enrich the team dynamic. For example, Doers
prioritize different tasks, Thinkers focus on idea generation, and Challenger keeps
the team accountable. Supporters help guide the team, while Leader keeps everything on track.
Some members experience role conflicts due to their involvement in multiple
teams. Khánh Linh struggles with communication across teams, while Thảo juggles
leadership in several teams. However, Nguyệt faces no conflict due to consistent
leadership roles, and Toàn navigates balancing teamwork with friendship.
By the Role Play and Assimilation stage, most members had naturally aligned with
their roles. Although Khánh Linh initially struggled with her leadership role, once
the confusion cleared, she fully embraced, and aligned and complied with her roles.
Our team set up norms as a standard, but also guidelines of how each member
should act under different circumstances. The following norms are: 1. Behavior norms - Respect everyone’s time -
Everyone has the right to speak up -
Confirmation after receiving the announcement/information -
Give constructive criticism rather than negative or vague feedback -
Criticize the work rather than the person who did the work - Encourage open discussion - Avoid groupthink lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936 2. Work norms -
Maintain a consistent quality and effort in all tasks -
Meet deadlines and attend meetings -
A request for a deadline extension should be made in advance -
Clear consequences for missed commitments -
Share a clear agenda before each meeting -
After each meeting, there should be a clear Call to Action (CTAs)
Setting clear norms transformed our teamwork. Before, meetings were
inconsistent, deadlines were missed, and communication was scattered. Once
norms were in place, we became more organized, accountable, and open to
feedback. Everyone felt more comfortable speaking up, even during disagreements.
Team status formed naturally based on contributions and traits. Linh led
strategically, while others like Hằng earned respect through reliability. Members
like Toàn stepped up through initiative and growth.
Our team of eight balanced diversity and cohesion well. Shared goals and peer
evaluations kept everyone engaged and accountable. Linh also encouraged bonding
by pairing members and focusing on our meetings.
Personality differences, identified through MBTI, enriched our discussions -
extroverts brought energy, introverts added depth. Though clashes occurred, we
handled them constructively, mixing members across traits to avoid cliques and boost collaboration.
II. Team development theories
1. Tuckman’s theory: 1.1. Theory:
Tuckman’s theory was first proposed by psychologist Bruce Tuckman in 1965. It
stated that teams would go through 5 stages of development: forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning. These stages start when the team first
meets and last until the project ends. Each rhyming stage is aptly named and plays
a significant role in building a highly functioning business team. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936 Forming
In the forming stage, team members are introduced, and tasks are allocated. There’s
good energy, but trust is still developing. Discussions typically focus on skills,
backgrounds, goals, timelines, and roles. Storming
As the excitement fades, the reality of the project sets in. Egos may clash, and
disagreements arise, but this stage is critical for addressing challenges. Strong
leadership is essential for guidance. Norming
In the norming stage, the team begins to work more smoothly toward shared goals.
While conflicts may still arise as new tasks emerge, past challenges make them easier to resolve. Performing
At this stage, the team hits its stride. Members understand each other’s strengths
and work independently, creatively, and efficiently. It’s where the team achieves its best work. Adjourning
The final stage, adjourning, occurs when the project ends. If the team reached the
performing stage, there may be a sense of loss, but positive experiences pave the
way for future collaborations. Conclusion:
This team development model helped us understand our growth, particularly in
managing the storming phase and moving toward higher productivity. It highlights
the norming phase as key to success in the performing phase. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
Our study focused on observing team and individual development to better
understand teamwork behaviors. We experienced key stages of Tuckman’s Theory,
such as team formation, conflict resolution, norm setting, task execution, and
evaluation. This framework was essential in analyzing our team’s progress.
1.2. Group’s Application: Forming:
In the initial stage of team formation, we shared the common objective, which is
fostering new collaborative experiences while adhering to specific selection
criteria, including expertise, leadership experience, and critical thinking. These
qualities are essential for effective teamwork.
Our larger team consists of three sub-groups: Hằng and Doanh, Thảo, Toàn,
Nguyệt, and Hiền, along with Phuong Anh. These members share a history of
collaboration and mutual trust. Additionally, Linh joined the team at Hằng’s
invitation, motivated by her desire to work with Doanh, whose performance in
previous teams had impressed her.
Then, we selected our manager based on four key traits: expertise, commitment,
calmness, and openness to new experiences. After thoughtful discussion, we
unanimously chose Khánh Linh. Storming:
During our three-week project, we faced conflicts typical of Tuckman’s Storming
stage, mainly due to unclear assignment expectations and uneven commitment.
Key causes included time management struggles, vague project requirements, and
a leadership style that some felt needed more assertiveness. Delays and missed
deadlines affected morale and progress.
Our manager responded by marking late work, adjusting contributions, and
reinforcing the importance of deadlines. Though effective, the team suggested earlier intervention.
We resolved the issues through open dialogue and interactive bargaining,
reinforcing the need for clear communication, timely leadership, and strong accountability. Norming: lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
After the storming phase, we held a key meeting to review roles and set team norms.
The manager assigned tasks using DISC insights: D-types led discussions, I-types
facilitated reflections, S-types took notes, and C-types handled theoretical synthesis.
We also integrated Honey’s Five Roles - Leader, Doer, Thinker, Supporter, and
Challenger - to better define individual contributions. Each member shared
personal goals, and together we aligned on a common objective.
This clarity around roles and goals boosted productivity and ensured everyone was focused and aligned. Performing:
After our first meeting, we established clear roles, responsibilities, and team norms.
In the second meeting, we focused on the methodologies for answering questions
and the structure of our report. We identified applicable theories for each question
and determined the necessary format. For areas requiring collective input, such as
team goals, type, leadership approach, and conflict resolution, we engaged in
thorough discussions. The team manager then assigned questions to each member,
providing one day for completion based on our earlier discussions. We also set aside
a day for cross-commenting on each other’s work, organized by the leader. This
structured approach ensured effective use of our resources, given the tight deadline. Adjourning:
After our second meeting, we clarified the assignment’s direction and gained a
stronger understanding of each other’s working styles.
We recognized our team’s diversity - dominant members driving results, steady and
compliant members ensuring precision, and influential members sparking
creativity. This mix created a well-balanced, effective team dynamic.
Thanks to this positive collaboration, we’re eager to work together again on future projects.
2. Punctuated-Equilibrium theory 2.1. Theory
The Punctuated Equilibrium Model (PEM), introduced by Stephen R. Barley and
Gideon Kunda in 1992, is a theoretical framework that provides an understanding
of how groups, organizations, or projects change and develop over time.
Punctuated-equilibrium model set of phases that temporary groups go through,
which involves transitions between inertia and activity lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
Punctuated-Equilibrium theory model
Initial Meeting and Stage 1
In the first meeting, the team defines its purpose and sets norms. During this
phase, the direction is rarely questioned, and progress is slow, marked by inertia
with minimal change, even if challenges arise. Midpoint Transition
At the midpoint, teams become more aware of the time left and often experience
a surge in activity. This transition triggers a re-evaluation of strategies,
discarding outdated methods and adopting fresh ideas. Stage 2
A second period of inertia follows, where the team works on the plans developed
during the transition, facing the results, both positive and negative, of their past decisions. Summary
The model shows that temporary groups work in bursts, balancing long periods
of stability with short, intense bursts of change, mainly triggered by awareness
of time and deadlines. This model is especially useful for task-focused groups with deadlines.
2.2. Group’s Application to support the development of team cooperation.
The punctuated-equilibrium theory emphasizes a remarkable event that leads to a
significant change in team performance. In this case, team performance does not go
through a gradual cycle like Tuckman’s theory; Instead, it moves while there is a
stimulating factor, such as a deadline, a punishment, or a reward. Therefore, it is
important to set a clear deadline and put a suitable amount of pressure on the team
to make cooperation more effective. Stage 1 lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
After our group was formed with all 8 members, we agreed to hold an offline
meeting at the university to address the tasks outlined in the report and to assign
work among the members. However, due to members’ scheduling conflicts, the first
meeting was postponed until one week before the submission deadline.
Nevertheless, we still shared a common goal and approach: to complete this team
assignment for the course to the best of our ability. During this first phase,
teammates showed little progress and did not put effort into this assignment because
of role conflicts, the nature of the assignment, and leadership style. Midpoint Transition
Our team hit a turning point near the submission deadline. Early on, we lacked
structure and tried to tackle everything in one session - an approach that didn’t
work. At the midpoint, we shifted strategy: held two structured meetings and
prepared documents in advance.
This change led to a sharp boost in efficiency and focus. Clear roles, team norms,
and personal accountability made members more disciplined and proactive. Tasks
were completed without reminders, and late submissions faced consequences,
raising both productivity and responsibility.
This experience showed that structure and shared understanding are key to strong
team discipline, cohesion, and results. Stage 2
We had our second meeting one day after the first day to discuss and finish all the
tasks. We gained a better understanding of the assignment, and the workflow was
established in a clearer way after the midpoint transition. Communication also
improved as we shifted from online discussions to board discussions offline and
hybrid, and focused on progress tracking and problem-solving. This phase was
marked by steady progress and a strong commitment to delivering a high-quality
final product for our members.
III. A reflection on the application of content and process theories of motivation for
enhancing and maintaining an effective team.
1. Content theories
Content theories of motivation focus on the internal needs and desires driving
individual behavior, with examples like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, and McClelland’s Theory of Needs. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
For our team, we chose McClelland’s Theory of Needs, as it directly relates to
team motivation in a temporary setting like ours. Unlike Maslow’s focus on
survival needs or Herzberg’s dissatisfaction factors, McClelland’s theory better
aligns with our task-driven motivation.
McClelland’s Theory includes three components:
- Need for Achievement (nAch): the drive to excel and meet standards
- Need for Power (nPow): the desire to influence others’ behavior
- Need for Affiliation (nAff): the desire for close interpersonal relationships
Before the first meeting, each member identified their personal needs based on
the theory. During the meeting, we found that everyone shared a strong need for
achievement, with a common goal of earning an A+. Members also wanted to
learn practical skills, such as team management and problem-solving. The need
for power was less emphasized, with only three members wanting to influence
others. Regarding affiliation, members sought to understand team dynamics and receive feedback.
2. Process theories
In Chapter 7, process theories like Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Locke’s
Goal Setting Theory emphasize how expectations, goal clarity, and perceived
fairness influence motivation. Recognizing the need for more than just optimism,
our team applied these theories to shape a clear, shared direction. As a manager,
Linh facilitated a session where members expressed individual and collective
goals, ranging from thorough task completion to peer recognition and high
scores. She emphasized rule adherence and workflow alignment, leveraging
each member’s unique strengths. We agreed on a common goal: achieving a full
score (7/7) by ensuring clear task division, consistent feedback, and mutual
accountability. This goal met all five criteria of Locke’s theory - clarity,
challenge, commitment, feedback, and task complexity. Team members also
shared performance expectations, highlighting the value of diligence,
collaboration, and personal responsibility. The integration of these theories
helped us align motivation, clarify expectations, and foster a productive team
environment, leading to both stronger engagement and better outcomes.
IV. Reflection on our own personality and perceptions to understand how individual
differences inform and influence management approaches in our team situation.
To understand the differences among members, we used DISC and MBTI.
The purpose of DISC is to help a member understand how others interact,
communicate, and approach tasks, so we can know how to cooperate with them
appropriately, especially for the manager to understand how to behave with each lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
member individually. Meanwhile, the MBTI provides us with more information
to understand our preferences, from which we can develop strengths and minimize weaknesses. Here is our result: 1. DISC: DISC Nguyễn Vũ Khánh Linh D - 26% I - 15% S - 27% C - 32% Nguyễn Thị Phương Anh D - 16% I - 17% S - 29% C - 38% Phạm Đăng Doanh D - 54% I - 28% S - 8% C - 10% Hoàng Thu Hằng D - 14% I - 7% S - 37% C - 42% Nguyễn Thu Hiền D - 31% I - 34% S - 16% C - 19% Phạm Thiện Toàn D - 26% I - 15% S - 27% C - 32% lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936 Nguyễn Phương Thảo D - 31% I - 25% S - 21% C - 23% Bùi Thị Hải Nguyệt D - 37% I - 28% S - 23% C - 12%
Our team thrived by leveraging individual strengths across DISC profiles. Three
Compliance-oriented members - detail-focused, diligent, and organized were
assigned theory analysis and summarization, where they extracted key insights
from complex materials with precision.
Members strong in Dominance brought critical thinking and assertiveness to the
table. Linh empowered them to lead discussions and provide feedback on key
report sections, sharpening their leadership and aligning the team with our objectives.
Two Influence-driven teammates, skilled in persuasion and relationship-
building, led our reflection sessions. They created a collaborative space to assess
performance and encourage growth.
While we lacked dedicated Steadiness types, two members showed it as a
secondary trait. Linh tapped into their reliability by assigning them as meeting
note-takers, ensuring key points were captured and team sessions stayed productive. 2. MBTI: MTI Name Type Summary Type INFP-T Khánh Linh, Thiện Toàn,
Idealistic, empathetic, values- Phương Thảo driven, avoids conflict ISFJ-T Thu Hằng Practical, nurturing, detail- oriented, harmony-seeking lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936 ESFJ-T Phương Anh
Social, structured, sensitive to others’ needs ENFP-T Hải Nguyệt
Energetic, creative, emotionally expressive ENTP-A Thu Hiền Innovative, debate-oriented, confident, quick thinker ENTJ-T Đăng Doanh
Goal-oriented, assertive, strategic leader
To respond to personality differences, Khánh Linh follows these principles:
a) Tailoring communication and motivation
INFTs, ISFJ, and ESFJ members thrive on encouragement and emotional safety.
To create this supportive environment, Linh used a comforting and respectful
tone in communications, helping them feel secure and empowered to speak up.
For the more assertive ENTJ, ENTP, and ENFP members, important information
and deadlines were communicated clearly and formally. Recognizing their
leadership potential, these members were also given opportunities to share
feedback and lead discussions, fostering greater engagement and contribution to the team.
b) Conflict management
Our team faced conflict regarding commitment and assignment requirements.
Khánh Linh, an INFP-T, resolved issues with a gentle approach, which resonated
with ISFJs and ESFJs. In contrast, ENTPs and ENTJs preferred confrontation.
When an ENTJ questioned others’ commitment, the manager responded firmly,
addressing the issue directly and diffusing tension, ultimately refocusing the team on collaboration.
c) Task Allocation
As INFPs, ISFJs, and ESFJs thrive in creative, detail-oriented, and supportive
roles, especially when tasks resonate with personal significance, they were
carefully entrusted with responsibilities that required thoughtful analysis and reflective leadership. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
On the other hand, ENTJs, ENTPs, and ENFPs are natural leaders and strategic
thinkers, making them ideal candidates for pivotal roles. They were assigned key
tasks, including providing critical feedback, leading engaging sessions, and
making strategic decisions that drive progress.
d) Decision-Making Dynamics
Recognizing our team’s diverse decision-making styles significantly enhanced
our collaboration. Reflective types like INFPs, ISFJs, and ESFJs, who value
harmony and careful thought, thrived when given time to process and contribute
through structured tasks. Meanwhile, fast-paced, analytical thinkers like ENTJs,
ENTPs, and ENFPs drove energetic discussions and quick decisions. To balance
these strengths, Linh fostered an inclusive environment, encouraging quieter
members to speak up and ensuring all voices were heard. This thoughtful
strategy not only maximized individual contributions but also cultivated a
culture of trust, respect, and collective growth.
e) Team Cohesion and Morale
Though MBTI did not dictate our leadership choice, it enriched our
understanding of team dynamics. Khanh Linh’s INFP-T traits (empathy,
thoughtfulness, and adaptability) made her an ideal manager for our team. Her
approach fosters trust and open communication, steering clear of rigidity.
Similarly, members with ISFJ and ESFJ types are receptive to feedback and
responsive to team needs, making them effective collaborators. By aligning
personalities with roles, we created a supportive, feedback-driven environment
that strengthened our cohesion and performance.
Upon reflection, we recognized that perceptions significantly influenced our
management strategies, particularly in leader selection, task attribution, and conflict resolution.
Firstly, in manager selection, Linh’s strong leadership history triggered the Halo
effect - her reputation alone earned trust, even from those unfamiliar with her.
This fueled enthusiasm for her leadership. While allocating tasks, she used
selective perception when assigning tasks, favoring key roles for proven
performers while remaining fair overall. When early conflicts arose, we applied
attribution theory to dig deeper than surface-level blame. Through open
dialogue, we uncovered issues like role confusion and leadership style mismatch.
This reflection led to strategic changes: clearer deadlines, adjusted management,
and improved alignment which ultimately rebuilt trust and boosted team performance.
V. Factors that made the team effective or ineffective. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
To determine the factors contributing to our team’s effectiveness and areas of
ineffectiveness, it is essential to first establish a clear understanding of the
concept of team effectiveness. In general, team effectiveness is assessed using
three key criteria: objective measures of the team’s productivity, managerial
evaluations of the team’s performance, and aggregated levels of member satisfaction.
Using these established criteria, our team’s performance is evaluated through the
lens of the Team Effectiveness Model as outlined in the course textbook.
1. Factors supporting effectiveness
Our team’s effectiveness stemmed from three pillars: context, composition, and
process. Contextually, we maximized tools like Messenger, Google Meet,
Docs, and Sheets to streamline communication and task tracking, keeping our workflow smooth and clear.
As team manager, Linh led with a collaborative style - planning, coordinating,
and contributing directly. This hands-on approach kept momentum high and
accountability strong. We structured the team using Honey’s Five Roles,
aligning tasks with each member’s strengths to boost confidence, synergy, and balanced contributions.
A month working together built a foundation of trust. Shared values (openness,
curiosity, and teamwork) created psychological safety, encouraging honest feedback and active support.
In terms of composition, we balanced academic strength, responsibility, and a
growth mindset. We prioritized matching skills to roles, keeping motivation
high. With eight members, we had diversity without sacrificing coordination. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
Linh, our team manager, further enhanced efficiency by dividing us into
smaller subgroups of 3 - 4, enabling deeper focus and smoother collaboration.
Our process revolved around a shared goal: earning the top grade. This
translated into clear tasks, fair division, timely delivery, and active feedback.
Trust, respect, and a unified commitment turned these goals into a cohesive, high-performing team.
2. Factors hindering effectiveness
Evaluating our team through the lens of context revealed key challenges and turning
points. Without a formal performance and reward system, early collaboration relied
on personal responsibility rather than structured accountability. As a manager, Linh
tracked progress and coordinated efforts, but without clear recognition of
contributions, some members grew complacent. Assuming equal grades created a
false sense of security, leading to delays and dips in quality.
This shifted in the Storming stage. Recognizing the need for performance norms,
Linh intervened to reset expectations and reinforce accountability. The results were
stronger commitment, productivity, and team cohesion.
Our team’s shared cultural background made communication easy, but limited
diversity narrowed our perspective. The lack of varied viewpoints constrained
creativity and highlighted the value of including diverse voices in future teams.
Once roles were clarified and norms reset, we aligned quickly. With clear goals,
open communication, and renewed effort, we built a coordinated, high-performing
team that delivered a strong final result. 3. Overall performance
In general, the team performed well. When it comes to elements fostering
effectiveness, team size is one of the most beneficial since it allows the team to
complete work faster and communicate more effectively. Furthermore, team
diversity gives unique perspectives and experiences. The team's manager sets clear
goals and boosts the team morale from an intrinsic standpoint. Furthermore, the
strong mutual trust shared among team members, as well as the trust placed in
Khánh Linh to resolve conflicts and guide the team toward a common purpose,
greatly enhanced team effectiveness. This trust also helped strengthen interpersonal
relationships and laid the foundation for potential long-term collaboration beyond the scope of this project.
Several obstacles have been discovered and addressed, thus, they will not be
described in terms of problems. The remaining challenges are a lack of performance
evaluation and reward systems, and cultural diversity. The positive characteristics
eclipse these challenges and have been tackled properly. Hence, those factors have
no substantial influence on the team's overall efficiency. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
VI. A discussion of the relationship between the effectiveness of teamwork and goal achievement
1. Evaluating the impact of team effectiveness on goal achievement
Several dimensions of the Team Effectiveness Model influenced each of our goals and shaped our success.
1.2 Clear task division
Our team’s success stemmed from strong leadership and effective task division.
Linh’s role as a collaborative manager ensured smooth coordination. She used tools
like Honey’s Team Roles, MBTI, and DISC to assign tasks based on each member’s
strengths, improving clarity and efficiency. With well-defined roles, everyone contributed confidently.
However, the absence of performance evaluations or rewards caused delays and
unclear accountability early on. This shifted in the Storming phase when we
introduced stricter norms and self-imposed deadlines, restoring ownership and
responsibility across the team. 1.2 Timely completion
The team thrived due to strong resources and a trust-based environment. Tools like
Google Docs and Sheets facilitated collaboration and progress tracking, while
mutual trust encouraged self-discipline and proactive updates, supporting strong
time management and consistent productivity.
However, early signs of social loafing appeared due to a lack of performance
differentiation, causing delays and disrupting momentum. Over time, increasing
expectations and a growing commitment norm helped counteract this issue,
restoring discipline and ensuring timely delivery in later phases.
1.3 Active feedback exchange
Feedback exchange thrived due to strong team cohesion and identity. Long-
standing bonds and shared values fostered open communication, creating a
psychologically safe space where feedback was welcomed and acted upon, boosting performance and learning.
However, cultural similarity, while promoting dynamic interactions, limited the
diversity of perspectives. A varied mix of skills, viewpoints, or backgrounds could
have enhanced problem-solving and feedback depth. lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
1.4. Workload adjustment based on abilities
Effectively, the team demonstrated a high level of adaptability in adjusting
workloads. An accurate understanding of members’ abilities and personalities
allowed for the efficient redistribution of tasks when needed. This was further
supported by team efficacy, as confidence enabled members to cooperate flexibly
without resistance. As a result, workload adjustments were executed smoothly,
maximizing team capacity and preventing burnout.
Importantly, no significant ineffective factor was observed in this area, indicating
that this aspect of team dynamics operated with notable strength and consistency throughout the project.
2. Reverse impact: How specific goals enhanced team effectiveness
Effective teamwork drove us to our goals, and our goals transformed how we
worked. A shared target of a perfect 7/7 score sparked commitment, trust, and motivation from the start.
Strategic goals shaped our collaboration: roles based on strengths reduced
confusion and boosted efficiency, deadlines kept us disciplined, open feedback
improved quality, and flexibility ensured we supported each other through shifting workloads.
In the end, our goals did not just guide us but they united us, creating a team
grounded in clarity, accountability, and trust. Well-crafted goals became the driving force behind our success.
VII. A description of each team member’s contribution to the work of the team.
We kept track of our performance in a MasterSheet. From this sheet, we could
analyse the degree of task completion of each member. Name Task Feedbacks Completion lOMoAR cPSD| 61229936
Nguyễn Vũ Khánh Linh 100% Although as a manager, Linh
fulfilled her role as a supporter, providing a safe environment for teammates to work in, and always found ways to resolve
conflicts and support others. She is good at assigning tasks,
having a broad vision of what to
do and how to do it effectively. She is careful and sincere in
listening to others’ ideas and
pays close attention to details.
Nguyễn Thị Phương Anh 88.89%
Phương Anh effectively acted as
a Doer by summarizing theories, identifying key points
applicable to the report, taking detailed meeting notes, and
providing thoughtful feedback.
During discussions, Phuong Anh actively shared her opinions,
though there was an expectation for her to contribute more assertively. She also
demonstrated engagement in the group chat by confirming information and clarifying assigned tasks.