Which of the following is not a type of interpersonal influence of power?

To crosscheck the above seven criteria, the self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of team effectiveness also adapted from “mind tools”, also applied. There are 15 questions with five scale which are: 1 = Not at all, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, and 5 = Very often. The maximum sum score is 75 and the minimum sum score is 15. The sum of the scores classified into three levels: First, 15–30 is considered as worrying, which needs work to improve the effectiveness as a team member, and the effectiveness of the team; Second, 31–45 is considered as the effectiveness as a team player and team’s effectiveness are patchy which is good at some things, but there’s room for improvement elsewhere; third, 46–75 is considered as a solid team member working well as part of an effective team. Lower scores in this range show that there is room for improvement, though.

The result of the evaluative assessment is shown as the following:

As shown in Table 4, the total participants had a score of 19 to 30 which lay in the first classification level, so they were considered worrying according to the “mind tools”.

Scoring and InterpretationNumber of participants and their scoreParticipant: 4Participant: 3Participant: 2Participant: 5Participant: 1Competing56544Collaborating98787Avoiding66566Accommodating56668Compromising89876Preferred conflict-handling styleCollaborateCompromiseCompromiseCollaborateCompromiseBackup conflict-handling styleCompromiseCollaborateCollaborateCompromiseAccommodate

Table 5.

Self-assessment questions related to conflict resolution styles used in the ICID.

Therefore, based on the above two types of assessment results the participants of the infrastructure and cluster institutions directorate members were considered as a group than a team.

All of the participants in the interview explained they consider their directorate as a group. The following was expressed by participants regarding the group formation process, purpose, members’ roles, and whether the group has norms like standards of behaviors shared by members:

Participant 1.

“I think I am member of a group as we members of the infrastructure and cluster institutions directorate working together and shared a single office, and the group or the directorate is established by the structure of the office employees of the directorate hired based on the fulfilling formalities and criteria’s of the structure of the office, such as education preparation and experience”.

Regarding whether the group has norms like standards of behaviors shared by members their roles and the purpose of the group, Participant 12 said:

“All of the group members know their roles and responsibilities, because all of the employees hired according to their application, there is no different norms in our directorate or group, we all adhere to the office rule like doing work as planned at office level, and the purpose of the directorate or group is to accomplish the plan as a directorate”.

Participant 9 explained the criteria for selection of the group head, about working with a group, group composition, cohesiveness in the group, the desire to remain or continue as a member in the group, and commitment to the group.

“Our group leader who is head of the directorate is selected according to the criteria of the office related to educational preparation and experience, our group members has different cultures, slightly different in income and age, two females and two males, all of us have the same educational status and different in work experience, I have desire to remain in the group and committed to the group, but if I got better opportunity like better salary or allowance I will leave this group”.

Related to the group members' ability and skill and the group’s resources to accomplish the group’s objectives, the decision-making process in the group, and understanding individual roles and other members roles: Participant 14 said:

“I think I have ability and skill but there is lack of resources to accomplish the planned objectives, in the group we decide through meeting as a directorate, and as we are experienced workers, I understand what is expected from me, I think other members also know what expected from them”.

Regarding group members openly discuss on their weak and strong sides and the feedback system, acceptance of creative thinking and new ideas by the office, and training, education, entertainment, and field trips that can stimulate new thinking, taking responsibility for the group's failure or success and about rewards for successful, participant 11 and participant 3 explained as follows:

Participant 11 said:

“There is weekly and monthly programmed meeting in our group, at that time openly discuss our strong and weak side related accomplishing planned objectives, for the weekly one, the feedback is given by the head of our directorate and for the monthly one, the feedback is given by the manager of the office, new creative or new ideas are accepted as long as it is related to the office plan and budget”.

Participant 3 said:

“Training and experience sharing with other city administration is sometimes delivered by previously Zonal departments now by regional bureaus, but there is no educational opportunity, if the achievement is lag as a group, the head of the directorate take the responsibility and displace it to our group members individually according to expectation of the individual, if the group succeed the first head of the directorate got recognition as a reward from the manager of the office, secondly, the recognition comes to the group members according to their contribution”.

Which one of the following is not required for individual brainstorming?

Which of the following is not one of the ways of determining if the topic is narrow enough quizlet?

Which concept of group leadership assumes that interpersonal?

Which of the following is not a purpose of an informative speech quizlet?