The Five Stages of Project Team Development - Essay Example

Project Management SECTION A Q The first model we could use is the Tuckman’s which is made up of five developmental stages (Abudi, n.p.). The first stage is forming and this is when all the group members met and introductions were made. We shared information regarding the background, experiences and interests of why the group was being formed. The second stage was storming. At this stage, we brought all our ideas together and each member had to support the ideas and opinions they had each presented. The third stage was norming and this is when we had decided on which goals were best to work on. We began working as a group and not individuals. The fourth stage was performing, where having known one another and chosen common goals, we began working on them. The final stage in this model is usually adjourning which is the splitting of the group so that individual members go separately, after the goals have been achieved. The second model we could use is the Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model which is a three-stage model as explained by Sharma (78). In its application, which did not apply in our case works by a group coming together almost naturally bound by a common framework. In its first phase, the members come together and establish a framework in which slow progress is observed. In the second phase called midpoint, the members discuss the framework and make decisions which assume they can lead to progress. In the last phase, action is taken according to the decisions made in stage two and the group experiences effects of the decisions they made. From these two models, the first one best describes how our group was developed. We came together and collected our ideas. After that we voted for the best ones and went about achieving them. After achieving our goals, the group was dissolved. Q.2 In developing the group, we had nine factors that we observed as they could affect it and which “Organizational Development Portal” (n.p.) highlights. One of these was our goals and objectives which we had clearly set. These worked positively because we knew what to do. The second was utilizing our group resources which we controlled well, such that there were no complaints. The third factor was conflict resolution, which was a bit difficult to handle since all the members felt equal thus could not listen to each other. This was a negative factor. The fourth factor was leadership which we had constructed by voting using preferences and secret ballot. The leaders were respected because they were chosen by the members. This was positive. The fifth factor was controlling our procedures in which our constitution catered for well. We adhered to the constitution, and had no problem controlling the group. The sixth factor was communications within the group which we did by giving all the members freedom of expression. One could communicate openly to the group or confidentially through the leaders. This was a positive. The seventh factor was solving problems and making decisions in which we had difficulty when conflicts arose in the group. Some members were hard to handle and it took a lot of time to make decisions. The eighth factor was experimenting with which we experimented with our activities before actualizing them. This enabled us to predict the outcomes before doing the actual ones. The final factor was a self - evaluation, which enabled us to tell whether we were doing okay or what needed some restructuring. This was positive. Given the chance to do things differently, we would devise means of controlling members during decision making and resolving conflict because these were the most challenging aspects of the group. Q.3 In managing the meetings, we had some considerations; the first one was meeting only when we had necessary matters to meet over. This ensured we did not waste time. The second one was defining the agenda and distributing it to the members before the meeting. This ensured everyone was prepared with some relevant contribution when the agenda was moved. The third consideration was that the leaders took charge and controlled the meeting. This ensured order during the meeting. Again, during the meeting adjourning, we closed with action plans that are ensuring everyone left knowing the steps we were to do next. The final consideration was keeping records of what had been discussed in the meetings so that they could be used in keeping track of progress, and being confirmed in the preceding meetings. Overall, the meetings were orderly conducted and there was less conflict. In addition, the discussions were healthy and contributed greatly to developing the group and achieving our objectives (Streibel 12-16). However, we had issues with some members not taking meetings seriously such as arriving late or being absent without apologies and others not contributing during the sessions. If we were to form the group again, we would inflict measures that would bind members to seriousness such as establishing fines for those who failed to show up or were dormant members. SECTION B Q.4 In managing virtual project teams, the first challenge encountered is building trust within the team. The challenge arises in that unlike face-to-face teams, trust is developed between members after discussions, sharing meals, spending time together, and just socializing. Trust in this context refers to the confidentiality of crucial information and humanity has it that people who meet or interact less tend to trust each other less. The other challenge revealed by researchers is that positive synergy, which is group-process gains achieved in face-to-face groups or teams is harder to obtain in virtual projects. This results in possibilities of negative synergy (loss). The lack of team synergy results from the inability of virtual project managers in providing informal learning which is interactive as well. The third challenge in this context is that owing to it being virtual, a project’s members lack physical interaction. Physical interaction in this case includes coworkers and supervisors who make up social interaction. As such, the members of a virtual project team tend to experience feelings of detachment and isolation. These can be detrimental in that the affected members can be less productive and this hampers the achievement of goals. The final challenge is that assessing and recognizing the performance of a virtual team is difficult. Due to the fact that the members are out of reach, a manager cannot assess their performance. This has implications in that it is hard to tell when improvements are needed, how satisfactory the processes are, and what challenges that the workforce encounters. The overall consequence is a potential underproduction (Bradley, Benson, Cristina, Paul, & Simon n.p.). Q.5 According to The Wall Street Journal (n.p.), there exists a difference between a project manager and a project leader. The difference originates from the similar differentiating factors which segregate a leader from a manager. A manager is more concerned with the complexity of the project, which can be better put as “overseeing the execution”. A manager is more task-oriented and rational, focusing more on the constitutional processes involved, such as allocation of resources, calculation of efforts, reporting progress amongst other things. In addition, managing a project uses a more authoritative tone which the team has to adhere to. Some contexts of management refer to managing as “pushing” for the project to be done. On the other hand, a project leader is more focused on the persons context of the project. In managing the project, a leader does not tell people what they need to do, but rather, they appeal to them by motivating them to do particular tasks so that the project attains its goals and objectives. Leading in not strict but is open to negotiations between the top project administrators and the workers. A leader will be concerned with the team’s weaknesses and strengthen them while upholding their strengths thus boosting their performance on the project. Leading a project can be otherwise put as “pulling” the force behind the actualization of a project. The pulling here refers to the administrator being part of the workforce and assisting in their moving forward rather than pushing them without considering any factors beyond the project’s actualization. Concisely, leasing is more concerned with change. Managing is more concerned with complexity. Q.6 In project management, cohesion between team members is critical in attaining of goals and objectives. One of the sensitive factors that may influence these is sharing of critical information, or information deemed to be confidential between teammates. In the event that one member of a team has such information, sharing or not sharing it may have different consequences for the cohesion of the team. The first potential occurrence if the information is shared would be complacency with work, filling the available time at that point. This would result in that the team would perceive of such a revelation as the normal work they are accustomed to, affecting its quality in the end. The second scenario is presented by one not sharing the information with the teammates. If this happens and the team later finds out that one of them had prior knowledge of the information and did not share it with them, it would affect their trust. This is possible because a team is supposed to share every aspect about a project or work and the resulting query would why that person kept it from them. The final potential solution which is midway between the two is choosing from a few key individuals and sharing the information with them. These might be supervisors or other leaders assigned to specific departments. However, all these potential solutions are risky in that no matter which side one takes two, there is always a party who is left out. For instance, if one chooses to inform the team of the oncoming project, they risk falling out with the superior management. Q.7 When planning or working on a project beyond an accustomed location or region such as internationally, it is possible that the cultural and social norms will differ. These may in turn affect the accommodation of the project in the said region, thus render it difficult or impossible to succeed. In short, a project is likelier to fail if the implementing body does not consider the socio-cultural and custom dimensions of the region to which it is alien. In observing and adhering to the customs and traditions, members of that region or culture will feel respected and will contribute to the success of the project (Neyer, & Harzing 14). For instance, if local workers are required, finding them would not be strenuous. This would not be the case if the project violates them. For instance, if a project from a non-Muslim background has to conduct some projects in Muslim regions, they must adhere to Muslim cultures and ideologies if they aim at working with the Muslim community without encountering isolation or resistance from them. Again, being enlightened on the customs and traditions of a foreign region will enable the project members to adapt to the working environment. Collectively, these factors boost the ability of individuals to increase their skills of adapting and dealing with cross-cultural aspects of work. In a nutshell, familiarizing oneself with the traditions and customs of a different region is important in that it reduces the potential negative situations that may arise due to illiteracy or poor interaction with the natives. Above all, it fosters international interactions which are important considerations when conducting business. Q.8 When someone is forced to move from one place to another, they may end up excited, exhilarated, or frustrated. These three depend on how one perceives of their new environment; some will accept that they are in different environs and move on while others will try to resist the new changes. These two can result in culture shock. Culture shock is a psychological term referring to one’s mental disorientation emerging from them shifting locations and finding themselves in new cultures which they have no familiarity with. It can be otherwise defined as a breakdown of the interpretation and perceptive systems after being immersed in a new environment (Culture Shock n.p.). The best mean of coping with culture shock is adapting to the behavior, customs, and expectations that the host regions demand of one rather than having a demeaning attitude that looks at them as inferior. Some coping strategies include learning the rules of the host country which includes behaviors and customs, whether they favor or disfavor one. The other measure would be developing relationships with the local people as this will hasten the rate at which one gets accustomed to the new cultures. Thirdly, customizing one’s new environment such as the house to appear like what one was previously accustomed to would help in cutting down the culture shock. The other measure is finding some activities to occupy one rather than being idle helps in focusing away from the occurrence. These include exercises or meditation. Finally, maintaining contact with one’s former region or country will help one survive in the new environment while still retaining the connection with their old self. Works Cited Abudi, Gina. “The Five Stages of Project Team Development”. The Project Management Hut, 2012. Web. 15 April, 2014. Bradley, Kirkman, Benson, Rosen, Cristina, Gibson, Paul, Tesluk & Simon, McPherson. “Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success”. Turbo.kean, 2002. Web. 15 April, 2014. “Culture Shock”. Study Abroad Center, 2011. Web. 15 April, 2014. Neyer, Anne-Katrin & Harzing, Anne-Wil. “The Impact of Culture on Interactions: Five Lessons Learned from the European Commission”. European Management Journal, 2008. 1-29. Orgaizational Development Portal.”Effective Teams”. 2001. Web. 15 April, 2014. Sharma, Radha R. Change Management: Concepts and Applications. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print. Streibel, Barbara. The Manager’s Guide to Effective Meetings. McGraw Hill, 2003. Print. The Wall Street Journal. “What is the Difference Between Management and Leadership?” WSJ.com, 2014. Web. 15 April, 2014. Read More