The Development of the Comfort Zone and Development Phase Theories - Essay Example

?The development of the Comfort Zone and Development Phase theories Introduction This paper tries to come up with a clear methodology for understanding and managing performance. This is possible by use established behavioral models with concern to the comfort zones, development of teams and individuals as well as those dealing with change management. The major focus is to be able to provide means of getting the best from people. The basis to achieve this is appropriate use of psychological and behavioral principles with the help of real field research and observed information. For proper understanding and management of performance, an organization should focus on managing Stress. In performance management, motivation and anxiety are useful tools which are of great help since both are behaviorally subsets of stress. Both anxiety and motivation are constructive in different circumstances. In a certain scenario, introduction of anxiety might be appropriate while in another case, motivation may be most suitable. However, when excessive motivation or anxiety is used, it may decelerate performance because of too much stress. In order to be able to maximize performance in a given team or individuals an organization uses the appropriate management style in the various phases. If inappropriate management style is put to use on matters of people management, it may result to very poor performance. When utilizing performance enhancing steps, the new performance cycle should be at the point where the older cycle began to decelerate. The comfort zone The comfort zone is known to be a state of behavior whereby, an individual operates in a condition which is anxiety- neutral. In this state, an individual strives to deliver a level of performance which remains steady while using a limited set of behaviors without any sense of risk. This means that the level of performance remains constant as long as the anxiety or the applied skills does not change. In case the skills applied or the anxiety is altered, the end result will be either an upward or downwards change in the level of performance. The impact of anxiety on performance was investigated by Yerkes and Dodson. They found out that performance can be improved by anxiety to a point where, a given level of arousal has been reached (attained). However, performance begins to drop as the levels of anxiety gets higher and higher. The conclusion is that performance may be improved by increase in anxiety, but performance may also decrease when anxiety becomes excess (intolerable). In either case, an individual will be forced to move out their comfort zone and react to new stimuli. In terms of performance management, improvement of performance as a result of increased anxiety is a good thing and is normally referred to a state of arousal. This state of arousal is defined as being the optimal performance zone, which all managers should strive to achieve to improve performance in their companies. However, the level of anxiety that causes performance deterioration is defined as being a good thing or danger zone. The research conducted by McCelland, Atkinson et al, on motivation illustrated the same relationship between motivation and performance. Carnall, when dealing with management of change came up with the correlation between individual’s performance and their own self esteem. Considering stress Carnall found out that stress increases an individual’s performance until a given level is attained. Beyond this given level, performance decelerates with increase levels of stress introduced to a worker. This continues until a given level where performance can enter into a free fall as behavior becomes unstable. The following model is developed from the above conclusion. The smallest circle illustrates the comfort zone, while the larger circle illustrates the optimal performance zone. Outside the two ovals is the danger zone that stress can lead an employee to. This illustrates that in a comfort zone, a slight increase in anxiety can bring an individual to a danger zone, however, there has to be large increase in anxiety in other areas before performance deteriorates. Figure 1- The comfort zone, optimal performance zone and danger zone Amongst materials dealing with team and individual development, similar models can be found. In each case, the general principles are similar, in that the discomfort zone sorrounds the comfort zone and the two surrounded by a danger zone. The main objective for each case is to direct individuals to optimal performance zone in order to increase ones skills and competence, and ensure they become comfortable with the anxiety levels. Hence, there will be an increased level of performance which is consistent. This implies that an individual’s reaches a new and expanded comfort zone when held in the optimal performance zone for a longer period. This process involves three phases which form a transition between comfort zone 1, which is a state of steady performance and comfort zone 2 which is a state of steady performance, which is enhanced. Figure 2- The various levels comfort and optimal zones From the above diagram, as an individual tries to adjust to the enhanced anxiety levels, the initial performance is expected to drop and then it rises sharply. This is because the steady state is interrupted in the first performing state by introduction of some level of stress. When the anxiety levels attains the level of arousal which is optimum, then the performance enhancement decelerates before coming back to a new level of performance which is steady. Beyond the second level of performance, leads to reduced employee performance and every manager should avoid taking their employees beyond the second level performance. This performance is illustrated in a sigmoid curve. It shows what happens when individuals are directed to change the way of doing things. They will need to be instructed in the new process and during the learning period, the performance goes below the original performance. The development theory and carnall’s coping cycle clearly explains the reasons for this. Group theory Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 work on group development is considered as development theory’s useful starting point. He came up with a four-phase sequence which includes: forming, storming, norming, and performing. According to him the importance of the phases for various teams include: attainment of growth, handling existing challenges and dealing with certain problems, attaining proper solutions, coming up with a clear work plan and being able to provide the required results. His major focus was mainly on inception to performance Stages. Tuckman concern was on various team members behaviors as the group developed. For other subsequent models, Tuckman’s model has been known as the basis. The model is as follows, First, the forming phase of the model. In team building, the formation of the team comes first. In this stage, most individuals concentrate on satisfying their own desires of winning the acceptance of others. They people forming the group tends to be patient and considerate of other people’s views and opinions as they try to understand each other. Every individual tries as much as possible to avoid controversial and conflicting situations and individuals are known as being unwilling to commit to work. This is because much of their time and energy is spent on environment scrutiny. Here individuals are known to be in their best behavior but they concentrate on themselves and ignore the team. Most individuals in this stage remain ignorant on the team’s objectives and issues. Individuals are also occupied by routines which include organizing the team. In this phase, there is lack of knowledge and the proper skills required, hence serious issues and feelings are ignored. This phase is known as being comfortable. However, minimal is done due to avoidance of conflicts and even threats. Supervisors in this stage are forced to be directive and commanding. This is an important phase in an every team since individuals get to interact hence, knowing one another, sharing personal information and even creating friendship. Here every individual can be monitored on how they perform and how they react to existing pressure. The second phase of the model is the storming phase. In this phase individuals have the will to work or even contribute ideas. However, they lack the skills required and are unable to do it. Everyone in the team tries to come up with unique ideas to challenge the existing ideas and they compete for consideration. Among the team members, there is high potential of disagreement as members of the team have already developed some stereotyping towards each other. The team attempts to find out the problems that need solutions, how they can perform various tasks independently and even as a team. They can even choose the leadership model they will accept. Here individuals are known to freely open up to other members and criticizes one another’s ideas and perspectives. This stage varies as in some cases it is quickly resolved, while in others the team spends a longer period in this stage. The ability to move from this phase is determined by the maturity of the members of the team. Others ignore the major issues and concentrate on petty ones. This phase is crucial especially for the team to grow. Great emphasis should be on how the team can tolerate one another and accept their own differences. Lack of patience and tolerance among the team members will bring failure to the whole team. There is possibility of destruction and demotivations in this phase due to lack of proper control. Therefore, team leaders should ensure that they know and understand every activity going on in the team and even understand the characters of his or her followers to be able to be in control. Some of the teams find it difficult to go beyond this phase. Supervisors in this stage even though accessible remain directive while guiding the team on decision making and on how to behave professionally. Hence, every team member will be in a position to interact comfortably with one another and solve their differences. The third stage is the norming phase. Here individuals are able to work, but majority remains unwilling as they do not have self confidence to apply the newly acquired skills. In this phase, most individuals concentrate on the given rules and procedures. They also focus on the processes and the ‘how’ things are done. They have specific mutual goals for the entire team. In order to enable the functioning of the team, individuals have to let go of their personal ideas and come to an agreement with the rest of the team. At this stage, team members should be open and flexible to adapt to what is not necessarily in line with their wants and aspirations. The fourth phase is performing stage. In this phase, there is a great change as individuals have willingness and the ability to work. They even act as an effective team. Here every individual focus is directed to meeting given or predetermine objectives. In this phase, the teams are known for their high performance and talents begin to show. Every team member contributes what is best and do not necessarily require tight supervision. At this phase, team members try to avoid unnecessary conflicts. This enables the assignments to be done in a smooth, transparent and effective manner. Individuals are known as being interdependent and supportive of each other. In addition they have great knowledge and remain motivated. Supervisors in this phase remain to be participative and accept ideas of their followers. In this phase, most important decisions are made by the entire team under consultations. In certain circumstances, high performing teams revert to earlier phases of the model. Most ancient teams have to go through these phases severally as they react to varying circumstances. This can be illustrated by a situation whereby leadership is altered causing the entire team to go back to the storming phase. It happens especially when the existing norms and dynamics of the entire group are criticized by new people who are joining the team. The fifth phase is adjourning; this is the final stage of the entire group. It signal end of the activity or termination. Even though this phase is normally ignored by most teams, it is an important phase in the group development which can boost the team members positively. For most members, terminating the group is the most distressing period and they need help to cope so that they can proceed to a new team or task smoothly. Individuals in this phase respond to the final outcome differently. Some members can be in denial where they try to keep out of their minds the reality that the team and friendships (relationships) created during team endeavors cease to exist. On the other hand, some team members may regress. The individual performance is impaired and individual’s independence at work could have been painfully compromised and individuals less independently. Thirdly, some team members may remain hoping for what may not come to pass. They remain hoping that the team will be reconstituted as it was before the end of the task. Therefore, they become wishers. Fourthly others will have recapitulation. This is a scenario whereby images of the ended team remain vivid and detailed. At this stage, some team members hold a detailed conversation on the group experiences and hold them valuable. Flight is another consequence experiences when the tam terminates. There could be denials of existing positive benefits that accrued to a team and some team members may blame the others for the losses incurred. Therefore, some may be blamed to have participated in terminating the group. In order to minimize this, individuals should focus on the objectives of the group. In additions group achievements celebrations should be organized and counseling should be provided to the team members to help solve the problems that may occur to individual members once the team breaks out. Different researches have keenly looked into the original model of Tuchman and made different modifications. In mid 1970s, Tuckman adjusted his original model and came up with the fifth phase above which is adjourning. However, the group of researchers withdraws it. Tuckman’s model has been considered as being appropriate behavioral model, which clarifies clearly the group development. It is used widely by most individuals who conduct leadership and team building trainings. Tuckman’s model was modified and a new model known as the coping cycle was developed. Carnall’s coping cycle resulted from observations made while managing change in different organizations. He realized that individual’s self esteem is affected when subjected to change. He further clarified that performance is affected when self esteem is impacted. However, performance can be brought back to track through rebuilding of an individual’s self esteem. This finding is considered as being significant because of the interruption of the steady state in first stage hence, occurrence of change. While considering what had been done by de Vries and Miller and Adams et al. Carnall came up with a coping cycle with five phases. This is illustrated in the diagram below. Figure 3 – Coping cycle The first phase is denial. Individuals mostly deny the need for change when different significant changes are introduced in an organization. Change causes fear and anxiety to employees as they want to remain in their comfort zone where they are happy. Abrupt increase in anxiety may cause individuals to move towards the danger zone. This may have a negative effect instead of boosting the performance. According carnall, performance is not affected immediately by the initial response instead, resistance is generated. However, compared to the earlier levels, performance declines eventually. The second phase is defence. In this stage individuals becomes more defensive and in order to perform in their current comfort zone, they opt to force the new model into the old one. In this phase performance decline severely, this is as a result of individuals concentrating their effort and energy to resist change. Carnall adds that people begin to have ritualistic behavior while guarding their old ways. This will give room for individuals to enable them accept change. In these kinds of behavior, individuals have the willingness to try the new model in order to prove that it is wrong or will not work. The third phase is discarding. Unlike phase 1 and 2 where individuals concentrate on the past, in the third phase individuals discard and leave the different ways in which things are done previously. Instead, they either follow the new methods given or come up with their own ways of acting. Discarding is normally accompanied by a fatalistic attitude whereby individuals opt to go along with change. In this stage, certain behaviors are observed suggesting the existence of unwillingness and the need for group support even though individuals have the ability to attempt new actions. This clearly portrays lack of confidence among the individuals. However, in discarding the old ways and focusing in the latest, self esteem is regained hence, a definite upward curve as a result of improved performance. The fourth phase is adaptation. In these stage individuals focuses their efforts on how to make things work, while adapting to the outcome of their situation. They strive to align and adjust themselves with what has to be done. Self esteem is enhanced and according to Carnall recovery of performance begins at a substantial rate. In this phase performance is accelerated and individuals have the will and ability to do what is assigned to them. The final Stage is internalization. According to Carnall, this is the phase where individuals have adopted and adapted the introduced procedures and have taken them as their own. However, the same process which caused increased levels of anxiety runs out of steam. A new comfort zone is established as individuals settle in a level of performance which is new and sustainable. This causes the growth in performance to slow. To understand how individuals deal with change, Carnall’s coping cycle is known to be an important approach. However, change is known to be a continuous event. When there is need for alteration of behavior or performance, it results in the change process and a different coping cycle. In comparing Carnall’s coping cycle stages and the Tuckman’s group development phases the behavioral patterns remains to be parallel. This shows that similarities exist in the underlying processes of behavior. In considering behavior, development and coping with change is one thing in that both lead by each having a steady state to the other. In addition, both clearly highlight the comfort zone model, creating similarity of the two. Sources Adams, J, Hayes, J and Hopson, B. Transitions- understanding and managing personal change. Martin Robinson, 1976. Bardwick, J. Danger in the comfort zone: from boardroom to mailroom- how to break the entitlement habit that’s killing American business. American management association, 1991. Bendell, T, Boulter l and Kelly, J. Benchmarking for competitive advantage. Pitman Publishing, 1993. Bruce, Tuckman . ‘Development sequence in small groups’. Psychological bulletin , volume 63, number 6, pp. 384-99, American psychological association, 1965. Burns, W. Performance measurement , evaluation and incentives. Havard business school press, 1992. Carnall, C. Managing change in organizations. Prentice Hall, 1995. Cllutterbuck, D, The power of empowerment. Kogan Page Ltd, 1994. Cooper, G. Psychology and managers. Macmillan, 1981. De Vries, K, and Miller, D, The neurotic organization. Jossy- Bass, 1984. Drucker, Peter the practice of management , 1954, Harper & Row Goold, M, and Quinn,J . Strategic control. Hutchinston business books, 1990. Hersey, P. The situational leader. Center for leadership studies, 1984. Kirkpatrick, D. How to manage change effectively. Jossey- bass, 1985. McClelland, Atikson, Clark and Lowell, E.L. The achievement motive. Van Nostrand:Priceton, 1953. Runkel, P. J, Lawrence M, Oldfield s, Rider, M and Clark C. ‘Stages of group development- an empirical test of Tuckman hypothesis. Journal of applied behavioral science, number 7, pp. 180-93, 1971. White , A . Managing for performance. Piatkus books, 1995. White, A. Continuous quality improvement. Piatkus books, 1996. Yerkes , R, and Dodson, J. ‘The dancing mouse, a study in animal behavior’. Journal of comparative neurology & psychology, number 18, pp. 459-482, 1907. Read More