Groups, teams and conflict · Groupes, équipes et conflits
| English | Français |
|---|---|
| forming/ˈfɔːmɪŋ/ | formation |
| storming/ˈstɔːmɪŋ/ | tempête |
| norming/ˈnɔːmɪŋ/ | normalisation |
| performing/pəˈfɔːmɪŋ/ | performance |
| team roles/tiːm rəʊlz/ | rôles au sein d'une équipe |
| autocratic/ˌɔːtəʊˈkrætɪk/ | autoritaire |
| democratic/ˌdeməˈkrætɪk/ | démocratique |
| laissez-faire/ˈleɪsez feə/ | laissez-faire |
Shared work needs a handover
Four students are preparing a fictional survey report. Mei writes questions, Arun collects responses, Chen checks totals and Wei writes the findings. Wei cannot use the findings until the checked totals arrive. This dependence makes ownership and handover times matter.
A team works towards a shared result with coordinated contributions. Four names on a file do not show that the work was coordinated. Check who supplies what, who checks it and what happens if an input is late. Actual assessment and collaboration rules come from the course brief.
A model helps describe a situation
Forming 组建期 describes getting oriented. Storming 磨合期 describes conflict over work or relationships. Norming 规范期 describes establishing shared practices. Performing 执行期 describes coordinated work towards the task.
These are stages in Tuckman's proposed model, not a timetable that every team must follow. Use the model to discuss an observed need. Do not invent conflict to reach a stage or conclude that a quiet meeting means nobody examined the plan. Original model.
Put these four labels in the order proposed by Tuckman's model. · Classez ces quatre étiquettes dans l'ordre proposé par le modèle de Tuckman.
This is the proposed model sequence. It does not establish that every team follows it or that visible conflict is necessary for a well-examined plan. · Ceci est la séquence proposée du modèle. Elle n'établit pas que chaque équipe la suit ou qu'un conflit visible est nécessaire pour un plan bien examiné.
Give a task an owner and a check
Team roles 团队角色 describe contributions such as generating ideas, recording decisions, checking evidence and coordinating handovers. People can share or change roles; these are not permanent personality types.
If nobody owns the final check, the report may be submitted with unchecked totals. Agree that Chen checks totals by Tuesday 16:00 and Wei confirms receipt before drafting. A named owner helps, but the group must still review the result and arrange a backup if needed.
The team has assigned idea generation, but nobody owns the final check. Which action directly addresses that gap? · L'équipe a assigné la génération d'idées, mais personne ne détient la vérification finale. Quelle action aborde directement ce vide ?
Assigning the missing check addresses the task gap. A role label does not establish completion or predict inevitable failure. · Assigner la vérification manquante comble le vide de la tâche. Une étiquette de rôle n'établit pas l'achèvement ni ne prédit un échec inévitable.
A contract must be usable
A fictional team agreement. Meet Tuesday 16:00 in room 204; confirm availability first. Record decisions and the reason. Aim for agreement; if unresolved, ask the teacher about the decision rule. Each task has an owner, a check and an internal handover time before submission. Report a likely delay as soon as it is known. Follow the course process for unresolved missing work.
The agreement gives the team something to compare with events. It can be revised when circumstances change. An early agreement helps; a later disagreement does not make agreement impossible.
What belongs in a team contract written in week one? Choose all that apply. · Qu'est-ce qui appartient à un contrat d'équipe rédigé en semaine une ? Choisissez toutes les options applicables.
These support coordination. Confirm availability, name owners and checks, and revise arrangements when needed. · Cela soutient la coordination. Confirmez la disponibilité, nommez les propriétaires et vérifications, et révissez les arrangements si nécessaire.
Describe leadership without declaring a winner
Autocratic 专断型 leadership concentrates decisions in the leader. Democratic 民主型 leadership involves members in decisions. Laissez-faire 放任型 leadership gives members substantial freedom.
The labels describe arrangements, not automatic recommendations. A short deadline does not by itself justify one person overriding task rules. Consider who has the information, safety and permissions, member availability and how the result will be checked. Delegated work still needs a clear result and review point.
Match each leadership label to its defining decision arrangement. · Associez chaque étiquette de leadership à son arrangement décisionnel définissant.
These definitions do not prescribe the best arrangement. Consider information, permissions, safety and how the result will be checked. · Ces définitions ne prescrivent pas l'arrangement optimal. Considérez l'information, les autorisations, la sécurité et la manière dont le résultat sera vérifié.
Raise the work problem precisely
Chen's checked totals were due Tuesday 16:00. At 16:30 they have not arrived, so Wei cannot start the findings. The reason is unknown.
A useful message is: “The checked totals were due at 16:00 and the findings depend on them. What is ready, and when can we receive the checked file?” It names an event, a consequence and a request. Calling Chen lazy supplies no evidence and does not repair the handover. Record any agreed change and follow the course escalation process if the deadline remains at risk.
A teammate has missed two deadlines. Write one sentence raising it that stays on the task. · Un coéquipier a manqué deux échéances. Écrivez une phrase pour en parler qui reste centrée sur la tâche.
Fact, effect, request. "The survey was due Monday and the analysis cannot start — what can we move so it lands by Thursday?" · Faits, effet, demande. "L'enquête était due lundi et l'analyse ne peut pas commencer — que pouvons-nous déplacer pour que cela soit fini jeudi ?"
Coordinate tasks, then check actual results. Record owners, dependencies, handovers and quality checks. Use a stage or leadership label to describe the situation, then explain the evidence. A contract or label alone does not prove that the team completed accurate work.