Team Working - Assignment Example The theories of Belbins, Tuckman, and time management only solidified our project. A team binds itself in a chain only to be stronger. The success of a team is directly proportional to the overall work of the team. There is no "I" in "TEAMWORK". Teamwork is working together - even when apart. The Teamwork can be simply stated that it is less me and more we. In short, the Team can be best explained with this formula. When you complete the Belbin Self-Perception Inventory you will receive - among other reports - a 'fingerprint' of your Team Role preferences. Very few people display characteristics of just one Team Role. Most people have 3 or 4 preferred roles, which can be adopted or eschewed as the situation requires. Every division was made in accordance with the demands of the client. We collectively decided that all of us wanted to be a part of planning the project. While managing utility cost, studio equipment, and premise decision were assigned to one team member. None of us wanted to be left out of marketing campaign and presentation. Experts, Recruitment and Launch event were allotted to 2 members each. Thus subscribing to this theory we managed to fit in a number of roles. The fact that nobody in the team was indispensable made the project a lot easier. Each of us were a substitute for some body. In the absence of one of the team members during the marketing campaign we were prepared look after his work too. There... None of us wanted to be left out of marketing campaign and presentation. Experts, Recruitment and Launch event were allotted to 2 members each. Thus subscribing to this theory we managed to fit in a number of roles. The fact that nobody in the team was indispensable made the project a lot easier. Each of us were a substitute for some body. In the absence of one of the team members during the marketing campaign we were prepared look after his work too. In fact when we were assigning roles to reach we followed the Belbins theory of team roles. Team Roles Description (http://www.belbin.com/rte.aspid=3) Team Role Contribution Allowable weakness Plant Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult problems. Ignores incidentals. Too Preoccupied to communicate effectively. Resource investigator Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative,. Explores. Develops contacts. Over optimistic. Loses interest once enthusiasm has passes. Co coordinator Mature, confident, a good chair person. Can be seen as manipulative. Offloads personal work. shaper Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Prone to provocation. Offends people feelings. Monitor evaluator Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options and judges accurately. Lacks drive and ability to inspire others. Team worker Cooperative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Indecisive in crunch situation. implementer Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient. Turns ideas into practical actions. Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities. Completer finisher Painstaking, conscientious, anxious, searches out errors and omissions. Delivers on time. Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate. specialist Single minded, self starting and
ARTICLE SYNOPSISThe â€œHigh Court Ruling Only Tweaks Sarbanes-Oxley Actâ€ article is about the Supreme Court ruling in Free Enterprise Fund vs. PCAOB indicating that Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) will remain â€œfully operative as a lawâ€ with the exception to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Prior to the SOX Act, the removal of member was said to violate the appointments clause of the Constitution. In addition to discussing the ruling, the following will explain how the Sarbanes-Oxley act affects ethical decisions in todayâ€™s business and the criminal penalties that it provides.ETHICAL DECISIONThe process of making decisions consists of ethical attribute that include integrity, transparency, and accountability. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has the effect of ensuring investor confidence through the existence of regulatory provisions effective in enhancing ethical standards. In the case of Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB shows the extent to which the issue of separation of powers is upheld. The main argument in the case was the excess power granted to the board as it was appointed by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) other than the president.This means that the board had regulatory non-restricted power by the executive. According to the ruling, PCAOB has the power to continue overseeing public company audits with the intention of protecting investors interest (Jaeger, 2010). This is a major development as it relates to ensuring that proper measures supports the scope of executives ensuring that proper decisions are effective in protecting the interests of investors. The courtâ€™s ruling indicated that PCAOB board members will be removed from office by SEC at will other than for good cause (Jaeger, 2010).However, other programs of PCAOB remain unaffected by the decision of the court. It is important to note that the enactment of the SOX Act is a major development that has ensured integrity in decision-making process essential in protecting the integrity of investors. As a result of maintaining proper books of accounts and ensuring proper internal controls are in place, the SOX Act ensures ethical decisions are made enhancing the integrity and transparency. Ultimately, the impact of the SOX Act is to protect the interest of investors through prevention of accounting frauds.CRIMINAL PENALTIES The SOXAct provides for various criminal penalties under certain sections. Section 802 of the SOX Act provides criminal penalties for influencing the United States agency investigation, which is also known as proper administration. The criminal penalty punishes any person who knowingly falsifies information or document with the intention of obstructing a particular investigation. An individual can be put in jail if found guilty of this criminal offense for a period not exceeding 20 years.Another criminal penalty under the SOX Act is retaliation against whistleblowers (Jaeger, 2010). This relates to any person who takes harmful action against another person with the intention to retaliate. A fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years can be placed if a person is found guilty for this criminal offense. Section 906 of the SOX Act provides for criminal penalties for CEO or CFO financial statement certification. According to this section, any corporate officer who fails to certify financial reports is liable for a jail term not exceeding 20 years.