In group projects, roles should exist, but they should remain flexible rather than fixed. On the other hand, defined roles reduce confusion, missed activities and duplicate work, but on the other, by being too rigidly defined, members only do what they are supposed to do, creativity is reduced and there is less overall understanding of the project.

Likewise, in a basketball team, everyone may have their position, but during a play, any of the players may bring the ball up the court, play defense, or take the shot. If only one player made the calls and touched the ball, we would be very predictable and would not be able to play all the styles we want.

It can be easier to track deadlines, goals, and conflicts with one leader, but leadership should be seen as a facilitator rather than a decision maker, and it can change depending on the goal of the task. For example, one member with a technical background may handle the design, while an organizationally-minded member may have a focus on scheduling and documentation.

Setting boundaries means communicating with the team from the start about how and when people will be reachable, how conflict will be effectively managed, and how feedback may be given. For example, disagreeing can be constructive as long as the debate is about the idea and not the person promoting the idea.

Could designing a leadership structure that is similar to how different players step up at different moments in a game result in the right blend of power and collaboration in a team?

I thought it was great that you included both advantages and disadvantages of working in groups. I feel like establishing roles at the beginning can really make a difference by avoiding confusion over who will be completing specific assignments. In my past experiences when there were no established roles some tasks would end up being completed twice, while other tasks would never get completed because no one had taken ownership of them, therefore that causes slowing down the completion of the overall project.

I thought your thoughts on leadership were very good as well. I believe that having someone act as a leader of the group can be beneficial in helping to keep everyone on track and meeting deadlines. I do not think this person should have total control over all decisions made by the group. A leader that encourages open communication among members and allows all members to provide input can really help a group work together more efficiently. I agree with you as well that ideas can be problematic however, I also believe that disagreements can lead to more effective solutions for problems, provided that all parties involved remain respectful and focused on the original goal of the problem and not their own personal opinions.

Do you believe that a team should establish guidelines for addressing issues such as group members making most of the decisions for the group? Do you believe that leadership should remain with the same individual for the duration of the project or should leadership be passed from one member to another based on the stage of the project?

Group dysfunctionality and a lack of team communication are the primary reason for projects to go under and not reach the heights that it set to achieve whether it being professional or academic. With this in mind, I believe that it is best that group members should set up initial roles for all the members at the beginning of the project so everyone is starting out on the same page. This should also allow some leeway for changes in plan so the group can morph with the project rather than against it. Though this would still not save the group project from becoming lack luster if the communication between the members is not addressed. It is important, especially in professional settings, to make sure boundaries do not get crossed between friendship and groupwork. There needs to be a baseline level of trust between the parties that the jobs assigned will get done or at the very least worked on thoroughly without worrying about pestering them to do so. Mutual respect is paramount to group success and having someone constantly over your shoulder checking your work is not a good way to showcase that respect. This also leads into the fact on how important it is for a group to have main group leader to have a more focused project vison. Having one member with a large amount of say could be risky, but it relates to the fact that mutual respect and trust has to be established first so it does fall on entirely one's shoulders. When group members don't trust the ideas of the leader and attempt to create something different, the vison is blurred and the project can not succeed. The members need to trust and understand their role in the group because no matter what shape, they are all integral pieces to the project's puzzle.  

Various people agree with the concept that roles should not only be clearly defined, but defined early in a project, or even before the project commences. This is essential to promote a sense of ownership and responsibility amongst team members. I'd like to argue that it may be even more imperative, however, to clearly define what members are and aren't responsible for and holding them accountable. Often, I've been in projects where the roles are defined, but not the specific scope of what that entails.

This has led to conflict due to team members overreaching and doing more than what's strictly expected, and others slacking. When these aren't enforced by the managers, it led to a lot of negativity and inefficiencies in the team. Roles are important, but what they entail exactly may be even more so.

Echoing other posts that cover certain roles within projects, I believe that it is crucial that members contributing to a project understanding the scope of their responsibilities and what they need to accomplish to the greater objective. However, there are also dependencies on the scope of the project and its innovative complexity that can affect certain roles within a project. For example, a personal experience of mine involved my role changing from a consulting/advisory role in a project to a direct involvement in the project's development and communication to stakeholders. I have found that this project experience of mine has shaped my understanding of how important certain roles are to projects and that certain circumstances can occur at any time that change the course of a project's development.

When is comes to work with a group in both setting of academic or professional field they should follow some of the same principles as they are very similar. When it come to estabishing the role in and academic setting is not so much a thing as it ends up being everyone ends up helping out one another as no one wants to fail. Same goes for the professional environment as everyone should make sure that they are getting their work done but also everyone else as well. This help to ensure that everyone is getting their jobs done and doing them with accuracy. For building a good relationship for those groups is to have them do some sort of team building as it help to create a level of comfortablility with one another but also helping to maintain a respectful manner. This ensures that there is a level of trust with the department and allows for the worker to work well with one another while also producing meaningful work. When it come to who should shoulder the group and lead is one person is a little bit better as they can help to regulate the work flow and if something terrible does happen, there is one person for blame rather than having to figure out who messed up and then placing it on everyone. By have one person kind of lead the project, that help for there to be one point of contact rather than a group which could in turn take more time than just being one person. Overall by having one person kind of be the leader/or manager, creating for a trustful and positive work environment, and having set role while also having everyone check each others work help to create for a great team and environment to work in. 

I believe that projects are most effective when roles are clearly defined and a single team lead is established. Without clear ownership of tasks, groups often struggle with duplicated work, missed responsibilities, and confusion over who is accountable when decisions need to be made. Having a designated leader does not mean giving one person unchecked power but rather it provides structure and direction. A team lead serves as the point of coordination, keeps the project aligned with deadlines and objectives, and steps in to make final decisions when consensus can not be reached. In my experience, teams without a clear leader often stall because everyone has equal say but no one has final responsibility. This can be extremely frustrating and inefficient. Clear role definitions also help maintain respect within the group. When boundaries are established, team members are less likely to step on each others work or feel undervalued. Boundaries are just as important as roles. Teams work best when there is respect for each person’s responsibilities and time. This structure I believe makes it easier to incorporate differing opinions, because discussions are organized and decisions follow a known process rather than turning into prolonged debates.

To me, it is crucial understanding ones own role because if a team is to work cohesively, everyone needs to play their part from the top down. It can be frustrating having to pick up the slack for someone who is not upholding their end of the deal or even if someone goes out of their scope of practice. An angle that could be emphasized is how much is the value of explicit decision making and their frameworks. Assigning roles and appointing a leader indeed helps with accountability, but team can still stall or experience conflict (whether internal or external) if it is unclear just HOW the decisions are being made when there is a difference of opinions. Being able to establish boundaries, such as when a consensus is needed versus when a leader can make the final call. This is crucial for when contradicting ideas arise during or late in a project and timelines are becoming tighter. Roles could also be revisited at different checkpoints rather than remaining static the whole time, granted that the knowledge base is similar across the board. In this regard, leadership could be less about the authority and more about being able to facilitate a structure for the team and their members.