Otn1 task 2: meeting analysis

1

7

OTN1 TASK 2: MEETING ANALYSIS

Student

Instructor

University affiliation

Class Name

Date

Outcomes of the meeting

There was a mixture of compliance with the set agenda at the Seamus Company’s meeting. During this discussion points such as the status update and Li’s report on system information were addressed. However, the significant issue of who would be part of the pilot team did not receive any commitment towards it. These departed from the scheduled initial issues to be captured in the meeting. The mismatch, however, stalled the effectiveness of the meeting to fulfill its primary objective.

Data was the primary source of conflict in the meeting and complicated the decision-making. One of these conflicts was over the time window and data source selected by Li during her presentation. Mei raised questions on the authenticity of the collected data and challenged the use of a two-week time frame. This dispute highlighted the difficulties of harmonizing various views regarding data authenticity and survey procedures among the team. The other disagreement evolved around the perceived match between the provided information and actual events taking place. Mei argued that her team was as suitable as that of Diego, considering the available data. The second conflict pointed toward the divergent perspectives concerning translation and meaning attached to the provided information.

Third was over whether or not to rerun the data. The third problem focused on the question of resubmitting the data. Li backed Mei’s worries and urged them to double-check the report for its correctness. On the other hand, Diego stressed the urgency of making decisions without waiting longer to gather even more data. These disputes highlighted the contradiction between the need for exact data and the requirement for speedy decision-making. This final contention related to the choice of a pilot team for rolling out the upgrade heightened the number of controversies at hand.

The effectiveness of communication strategies demonstrated in the meeting

Communication strategies used during the meeting of Seamus Company contributed positively and negatively towards the outcome. The course of the meeting was determined by several communication approaches adopted, and each affected decision-making in various ways.

His method of communication successfully directed the meeting for Mei. Using empirical analysis, Mei confronted the authenticity of Li’s data. Mei was able to raise concerns regarding the period of two weeks used in data collection to make people question the truthfulness of the data. She did not adopt an aggressive stance but had in mind the truthfulness and reliability of the information, which is to be employed with the purpose that it aids decision-making. Mei’s results had implications for Li, the data consultant, prompting them to run another report but at a different time. It provided correct and complete data, supporting the main objective of making informed decisions.

However, on the other hand, Diego’s communication strategy proved difficult for decision-making. Diego stressed speed and quickness with minimal or no data collection to prevent wastage of time, even without repeating the report. He focused on speed, as this would affect his schedule, over precision of information. Although Diego was looking for a quick decision-making approach, he had slowed down the process of validating data about its integrity (Liang & Lee, 2023). Therefore, making quick decisions and having proper data was a stumbling block in arriving at unity.

Li’s communication strategy of Li was important, too, especially the one that followed Mei’s worries. In this case, Li was the data analyst who supported Mei’s side and suggested rerunning the report. This aligned with Mi’s view on data integrity, whereby she worked as a team player. A good communication strategy should be in line with its purpose. It was evident how committed Li was to recheck the data to achieve the desired outcome by providing accurate, high-quality information.

Informal leader of the meeting and their approach to leadership

Kamal Turay is the informal leader of the meeting at Seamus Company, and they were also a supervisor and chairperson of equipment upgrade projects. Kami demonstrated one of the most critical leadership skills: achieving an open, equitable, and concentrated conversation centered around significant concerns and considering different viewpoints (Liang & Lee, 2023).

Among other outstanding leadership traits that manifested during the meeting were active listening and Kamal’s inclusiveness. Despite being the boss, Kamal made sure that even Li, Mei, and Diego had a chance to voice their opinion. The inclusiveness of this strategy creates an environment that supports different perspectives as part of making an informed decision.

Kamal was recognized as an informal leader because all the team members respected and acknowledged him. The fact that Kamal was a leader by default as a supervisor and head of the project management committee means that he had to act like the pack’s leader. It is important to note that although this appreciation was not purely hierarchical, it stemmed from their seeing him as able to steer the conversation appropriately.

Whenever conflict or different viewpoints sprung up, Kamal kept the discussion on track to concentrate on the main problem. Notwithstanding the contrasting positions espoused by Mei and Diego, Kamal ensured that the conversation did not derail personal conflicts or inconsequential digressions. By repeatedly forcing the group back onto the chosen issue of choosing a pilot team that would have their equipment updated, Kamal maintained the focus and avoided turning it into an argument that included personal issues among points.

Overall interpersonal dynamics of the team

Everybody, the Seamus Company team’s interpersonal dynamics throughout the meeting were defined by a nuanced interplay of viewpoints and methods, with each team member contributing in their own special way to the meeting’s conclusions.

Mei was an integral part of the conversation because of the data-driven and strategic viewpoint she provided. Mei intentionally questioned the time window and argued for rerunning the study after Li raised accuracy issues about the data. Mei’s strategy reflected a dedication to careful research and a desire for fair decision-making, which were both crucial factors in persuading the team to reconsider the data.

As the leader of Team A, Diego was able to take quick action. Diego argued against rerunning the report because he valued efficiency above collecting more data. His emphasis on time constraints reflected his dedication to efficiency and his goal for speedy decision-making, which was grounded on his belief that his team should be prioritized in light of the available evidence (Jung et al., 2020).

When data analyst Li sided with Mei’s worries, it changed the dynamic of the discussion for the better. Li’s dedication to ensuring the reliability and thoroughness of the data was on display when he backed the plan to rerun the report. Working together, Li and Mei demonstrated the value of a unified front while fighting for a thorough and precise assessment of data.

As chair, Kamal showed leadership by soliciting and considering the input of all team members before guiding them to a consensus. Kamal’s participation was vital in resolving tensions, ensuring that the conversation stayed focused on the fundamental topic of picking a team for the trial rollout. Kamal took the initiative to move the team ahead by establishing a deadline for a solution the following week.

Omar, the clerical assistant, helped out by taking notes during the discussion. While not directly participating in the decision-making process, Omar played a significant role in establishing an accurate and thorough record of the talks, adding to openness and accountability in the decision-making process.

Follow-up Meeting Plan: Prioritizing Equipment Upgrade Teams

List of Team Members:

Kamal Turay (Supervisor and Committee Chair)

Li Johnson (Data Analyst)

Mei Miller (Manager, Team B)

Diego Turay (Manager, Team A)

Omar Patel (Administrative Assistant, Meeting Recorder)

In order to finalize your plans, what data do you need from the teams?

The purpose of this inquiry is to collect vital information for making a well-informed choice, which is in line with the objective of choosing the group to implement the pilot.

When can you begin rolling out the changes?

In order to establish practical schedules and guarantee a trouble-free transition, it is essential to have a thorough understanding of each team’s preparedness for the implementation process.

How long until Team 1 is fully upgraded?

The purpose of this inquiry is to better assess the readiness of each team by gaining insight into the unique requirements and deadlines for upgrading Team 1.

How long till Team 2 is fully upgraded?

To evaluate the practical considerations and probable difficulties of upgrading Team 2, this issue is just as important as the preceding one.

Please explain why your group is the best option for the trial rollout.

The purpose of the meeting is to give each team a chance to make their case and enable the implementation lead to make an educated choice based on the information presented.

References

Jung, M. F., DiFranzo, D., Shen, S., Stoll, B., Claure, H., & Lawrence, A. (2020). Robot-assisted tower construction—a method to study the impact of a robot’s allocation behavior on interpersonal dynamics and collaboration in groups. 
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 
10(1), 1-23.

Liang, H., & Lee, F. L. (2023). Opinion leadership in a leaderless movement: discussion of the anti-extradition bill movement in the ‘LIHKG’web forum. 
Social movement studies, 
22(5-6), 670-688.

Tagliavini, E. 
Understanding the interpersonal dynamics of parent-coach relationships in youth tennis (Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University).