Project manager Flashcards
(3 cards)
LaFasto and Larson (2001), argue that one crucial area of a successful team comprises the Team Leader. According to these authors, six dimensions emerge as critical for an effective team leader. Discuss.
The text by LaFasto and Larson is about what makes teams work effectively. At the same time, they argue that no team can succeed without a good leader. According to LaFasto and Larson, the team leader plays a crucial role in whether the team reaches its goals. They highlight six key areas that define an effective leader:
- Focus on goals – A good leader makes sure the team stays focused and doesn’t lose direction.
- Creating a safe and collaborative environment – The leader builds trust, so everyone feels comfortable speaking up.
- Building trust and motivation – By giving people responsibility and recognizing their efforts, the leader strengthens commitment.
- Showing technical knowledge – The leader should understand the goal the team is working towards.
- Prioritizing clearly – Teams fall apart when the leader tries to prioritize everything. Focusing on what really matters is key.
- Managing the team – A good leader steps in when someone isn’t contributing or is blocking team progress.
These six points are all components of what makes a leader truly effective. A good leader understands their team, sees individual strengths, motivates others, and sets clear goals. That’s what helps a team move forward and achieve results.
On the other hand, there are also leaders who hold the team back. A poor leader can create insecurity and frustration. Vague goals and lack of priorities can lead to confusion and wasted time. If the leader ignores conflicts or underperformance, it can damage team spirit and productivity. A leader who either micromanages or completely checks out can hurt motivation and stop the team from taking initiative. So in short, bad leadership can have serious consequences – for both team wellbeing and results.
Interpret the significance of Transactive Memory Systems in PM?
(Thompson, 2014) What did/would you do to foster such a system in your project team?
TMS is a shared memory system in a team. Instead of everyone knowing everything, knowledge is divided between members – and just as important, each person knows who in the group knows what. So it works like a kind of shared “storage system” that team members can access when they need specific information.
There are two main parts to a TMS:
1. The individual knowledge that each member brings to the team – their “expertise area”
2. The team’s awareness of who knows what – this is called metaknowledge
TMS is useful in many teamwork settings. It helps teams perform better, especially when facing unexpected challenges, because people know exactly who to go to for help. It works well both in smaller groups that focus on high quality and in larger groups with tight deadlines, where having individual members specialize in certain areas can save time.
A key aspect of TMS is how knowledge is organized in the team. We talk about centralized and decentralized TMS:
* In a centralized system, one person usually knows who knows what and coordinates that knowledge – kind of like a knowledge manager.
* In a decentralized system, everyone has a general understanding of each other’s strengths, and no one person holds all the overview.
Hogg, M., Vaughan, A. and Graham, M. (2003) explain social facilitation, social loafing (the Ringelmann effect) and the Free Rider effect. Compare these concepts, provide examples from your project and tell us their relevance to PM.
Social facilitation is about how a person’s performance can change when others are present. People usually perform better on tasks that are simple or well-learned, and worse on tasks that are new or difficult. According to Hogg, this happens because the presence of others increases our alertness, which strengthens our dominant response. A common example is that a skilled athlete may perform better in front of an audience, while a beginner may feel nervous and make more mistakes.
Social loafing refers to the tendency to put in less effort when working in a group, especially when your individual contribution isn’t visible. This often happens when people feel that their effort doesn’t make much of a difference, or they assume that others will pick up the slack. A good example is group work in school, where some members might be less active if there are no clear roles or expectations.
The free rider effect is similar to social loafing but more intentional. It describes a situation where someone chooses not to contribute, but still benefits from the group’s work. It’s about avoiding responsibility while still enjoying the outcome – like when a student doesn’t take part in a group project but still gets the same grade as everyone else.
Comparison
There are some clear similarities between these concepts:
* They all describe how being in a group or around others can affect how we behave and perform.
* They show that social settings can either help or harm motivation and effort.
* They all deal with how the presence of others influences responsibility, participation, and performance.
But there are also some important differences:
* Social facilitation happens when someone is working alone, but others are watching. It’s about performance under observation.
* Social loafing and the free rider effect happen when people are working in groups, where responsibility is shared.
Another key difference is the intention behind the behaviour:
* Social loafing is usually unintentional – people might not even notice they’re doing less.
* The free rider effect is deliberate – someone chooses not to contribute but still benefits. That’s why it can be more damaging in group settings, as it can reduce trust and create frustration.
When it comes to which differences and similarities matter most, I think it’s all about responsibility and group dynamics. Both social loafing and free riding show how a lack of clear individual accountability can lead to lower engagement. But the difference between doing less without meaning to (loafing) and choosing not to contribute (free riding) really matters – especially in group work, where it’s important to know whether it’s a structural issue or someone taking advantage of the group.
You could say that social facilitation is more about individual performance in social contexts, while social loafing and free riding are more relevant when it comes to teamwork, shared responsibility, and collaboration.
