Different Stages Involved in the Formation and Development of a Team - Research Paper Example

A Study of the Different Stages Involved in the Formation and Development of a Team. Abstract At the heart of any organizations operations are goals and standards that it seeks to achieve within a stipulated time period. Although all personnel work towards the achievement of these goals and standards, they are responsible for the fulfillment and performance of differentiated tasks within the organization. Some organizations rely on very basic structures while others have more complex structures and are even divided into departments with a clear authoritative structure set out in their policies. As a result, they need to devise methods of harmonizing the organization’s operations towards a common goal. The methods employed usually involve the formation of permanent and ad-hoc committees within departments and between departments to ensure efficiency. These committees are usually made up of departmental heads who must work as a team. The formation and subsequent operations of these teams pose immense challenges to the running of the organization for various reasons. In their coming together, the team is rich in knowledge and experience from all the represented fields. In most cases, the achievement of goals set by a particular department usually involves compromise for another department. Since no one is willing to compromise their success for the success of others, this often results in disagreements and conflict. This paper addresses the various types of teams while focussing on the cross-functional formation. Discussion There are several types of teams that could be formed to facilitate the operations of an organization. These teams are named and classified depending on their membership, functionality and lifespan. The most common type of team found in almost all organizations is the functional team which are formed to perform well specified functions. They are usually permanent teams made up of people of similar expertise, usually operating as a department under a departmental head or manager. As a result, the manager receives reports and updates on the status of the teams operation usually during regular briefs and meetings. The cross-functional team on the other hand involves persons of varied expertise and are usually task specific. The team usually consists of non-subordinate members and as such lack authoritarian hierarchy. As a result, the team is forced to consider the contributions of all members and concur on the most favorable scenario for the organization. Budget committees present the best possible example of cross-functional teams. They involve members from both sales and marketing as well as costing departments. The sales department always wants to increase sales knowing all too well that that will increase costs while the costing department seeks to manage the costs incurred. The task specific nature of such teams means they are temporary and are constituted for the achievement of certain specific tasks. Leadership teams are usually less common but not non-existent. The team is usually constituted to represent all sectors of the organization in its leadership. They offer all members representation in matters pertaining their governance. Other less popular and subsequently less common teams include self-directed teams, virtual teams, and task force committees. Self-directed teams operate without any authoritarian hierarchy. They are usually formulated to provide a sense of empowerment to critical departments such as research and development. Virtual teams are constituted of members not in the same geographical area but work towards similar goals such as regional heads of the same company. Task forces are formulated to work towards the formulating solutions to existing problems, facilitate the execution of certain tasks or perform an overhaul and turn downward trends. In an effort to establish the nature of operations entailed in teams, the paper shall focus on the budget committee for a regional flour milling company. The committee is made up of heads of sales and marketing, finance, production, engineering, health and safety, human resource and procurement departments as well as the chief financial officer and the chief executive officer of the company. The representation of various departments as well as the executive in the committee makes it a cross functional team. Budgetary committees are usually tasked with the development of operational budgets after consolidating the departmental budgets to concur with the overall budget. Other than developing the budget, the committee develops flexed budgets for better than expected results and also an under par performance. These flexed budgets prove useful to the company because it is not guaranteed that the company will perform as planned. Due to the unpredictable nature of business performances, the committee schedules sequential meeting to review the company’s performance in comparison with the budget. In case of variances, the committee recommends measures to counter the unfavourable ones while enhancing the favourable variables. Furthermore, the committee advices the executive on the performances of various departments, in relation to the budget. These departments are interdependent on each other as decisions approved for each department directly affect the operations of other departments. Decisions made on production directly affect the sales, engineering, procurement and finance departments. These interdependence means that the decisions of the committee must be coherent and inclusive of all departments requirements. Like all other committees, the budgeting team for the miller has undergone the four stages involved in the development of a team to achieve its potential. These stages are the forming stage, the storming stage, the norming and finally the performing stage. In its initial stages, the committee did not include any executive member. As it underwent the forming stage, things got very complicated as no departmental head wanted to cede control of the committee to another departmental head. Due to the lack of clear and defined leadership, the team underwent a prolonged period of complaining about the structure of the committee. No clear formulation existed to dictate how the leadership of the committee would be constituted. As a result, all discussions deviated from the relevant agendas leading to silences and even lack of interaction between members. The never ending conflicts resulted in the inclusion of the two executive members in the committee to provide leadership and direction. The leadership defined everyone’s role in the team and enhanced interaction and cooperation among the members. Once the forming stage was dealt with, the storming stage now presented numerous hurdles to the committee. During this stage, arguments and complaints concerning leadership became persistent while others questioned the skills and qualifications of other members. The result was an extremely defensive membership that hampered discussions and decision making. At these stage of the team’s development, the leadership plays a critical role in guiding the members (Draft, 2011). The decision making process was made clear to all while members are encouraged to take responsibility and appreciating the differences in each other. Furthermore, the leadership recognized individual achievements and strengths as efforts aimed at enhancing appreciation among members. Upon implementation of measures to deals with issues encountered during the storming stage, the team then went into the norming stage. Cooperation in the storming stage is excellent and results are now the driving force for the team. The members engage positively in formal and informal meetings and they also work well in team building activities (Prilipko et al, 2011). Meetings held are usually held as markers of milestones achieved. The developments achieved during the storming stage facilitate easy transition into the performing stage of team development. Consistent and concerted efforts by the leadership of the teams eventually lead to improved cohesion amongst members (Prilipko et al, 2011). Furthermore, the team now focuses on providing solutions to interpersonal problems and challenges. The stage is characterized by celebrations of successes and the development of alternative solutions to their challenges and responsibilities based on the experience gathered The different stages of team development usually experience varied levels of cohesion. In its earlier stages, the cohesiveness of the group is not sustainable as teething and gearing take place and relationships are established. Conflicts and disagreements usually characterise the establishment of these relationships. During these stages, arbitration by the team leader is usually the most effective method of conflict resolution (Shetach, 2012). However, as cohesion is enhanced and relationships established, arbitration is no longer favourable and negotiation or mediation is usually the most effective method of resolving disputes. Arbitration is usually less involving for the two disputing parties hence its preference when dealing with relatively distant individuals (Shetach, 2012). On the other hand, when dealing with people who relate closely and more often, a more involving method for the disputing parties is more effective hence negotiation or mediation. The two methods are favourable as they provide the disputing parties with the opportunity to initiate the resolution process and possibly even suggest workable and acceptable solution for both parties (Raelyn, 2012). References Draft, R. L. (2011). The Leadership Experience, (5th Ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson South- Western, 260-327. Prilipko, E. V., Angelo, A., & Henderson, R. L. (2011). Rainbow of Followers' Attributes in a Leadership Process. International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 15.2, 79-94. Raelyn, J. (2012). Dialogue and Deliberation as Expressions of Democratic Leadership in Participatory Organizational Change. The Journal of Organization Change Management, 25:1 7-23. Shetach, A. (2012).Conflict Leadership: Navigating towards Effective Team Outcomes. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 35. 2:25-30. Read More