Organisational Behaviour and Management Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

Article Critique 3


Critique of an Article

Wageman, R., Gardner, H. and Mortensen, M., 2012. The changing ecology of teams: New directions for team’s research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), pp.301-315.

The title is understable and clear. The author has summarized the article very well only that he did not include the results of the study. The reader would have understood the article well if the results were included. The study is exploring the benefits of the research community on the new transformation of the research teams. The author has stated well the problem of the statement by saying that there is need to understand the dynamics of contemporary collaboration and teamwork. In the article the author has shown the gap he is trying to fill with the current study. The author has discussed at length the trends the research team has undergone.

He has analyzed the traditional and the modern teams. The author is critical in his discussion. The author is giving good and clear examples to show how teams can help achieve the group goals. He has shown three outcomes of an organized team and unorganized team. The author has shown how ecology of teams has evolved with the support from several citations. In order to understand the changing trend of a team he has examined the meaning of a team, how the team is currently and how it will be in the future. He is critical on the effectiveness of a team. The article has not addressed a particular group but it is general. He has analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of modern collaborations.

The author is biased in his study because the conclusions made on a team by any scholar should be based on his theories and method. The author has given several recommendations when dealing with teams. The article lacks research methodologies, theoretical framework and literature review. He also omitted the research hypothesis in the study. The author did not give a suggestion for further study. The article was well thought of and it has clear objectives. (Wageman, Gardner &Mortensen 2012)

Comparing Two Articles

The title of the articles is understanding the group dynamics and success of teams. The other article’s title is the changing ecology of teams

The two articles are examining the dynamics of groups. They tend to agree that a well coordinated group with set goals can achieve great success. The larger the group the greater the success. The group diversity and experiences raises the team’s results. Each article has clear statement of the problem. The purpose of the study is enhanced. Although they seem different in approach, they agree that the collaborative teams are evolving. Every team has its own policies and goals to achieve. They are assessing the level of success of different teams in different field of study or an organization.

They are critically analyzing the results of various teams with much consideration to their member’s efforts. The interesting area of concern is the effectiveness of the teams. For a team to be effective its members should be united with a common aim. Both are focusing on the group leadership and decision making as a factor to achieve higher in a group. Success in a team is paramount and a continuous monitoring is emphasized to ensure every group gives its best to the organization. Group members should be specialist and lead contributor in support of the other members to maximize their success.

The articles did not put a strong conclusion on the further study that should be done. In addition they have not shown literature review and good elaboration of methodology. Their aim is to find out the dynamics of current and the future of teams.

List of References

Klug, M. and Bagrow, J.P., 2014. Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams. ArXiv preprint arXiv: 1407.2893.

Wageman, R., Gardner, H. and Mortensen, M., 2012. The changing ecology of teams: New directions for team’s research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), pp.301-315.