Project Management - Group Dynamics for Project Teams - Report Example

Introduction A project is an integrated effort of different disciplines and is achieved by optimizing the resources within the constraints of time, cost and quality (Bubshait, 1999). Of all the variables that contribute to the success or failure of projects, the one that is most neglected, and in need of the most attention, is the project team itself (Wysocki, 2002). A project team, according to Bubshait (1999), is a collection of individual with different needs, backgrounds and expertise. Since the success of failure of a project is largely attributed to a team the purpose of a project team is clear. It is difficult to determine the process of developing such a team. The Belbin Model is a robust and effective insight into team work. It is a powerful tool that adds value to the team members. It is also used for building and developing corporate managers and work teams. It is supposed to be a coherent and an accurate system that explains individual behavior and its influence upon the team. This paper will critically reflect on the validity of an implementer in this team role model. The Belbin Model According to Belbin, the optimal operation for a management team requires nine personality related team roles to be fulfilled. These include the completer finisher, the coordinator, implementer, monitor evaluator, resource investigator, plant, shaper, team worker and the specialist (Fisher, Hunter and Macrosson, 2002). An implementer according to the Belbin Model should be disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient. He should be capable of turning ideas into practical actions. He may have weaknesses too but certain weaknesses like inflexibility and slow response to new possibilities are permissible within certain limits. Each individual brings different skills and behaviors to a team and hence the importance of having nine different team role profiles. All these when blended together makes a team perfect whereas individual members may not be perfect. Detailed understanding of the members’ strengths and weaknesses enables formation of real teams with a balance of skills and roles. Belbin believes, "What is needed is not well balanced individuals; but individuals who balance well with each other’ (Marriott, 2007). Marriott agrees that few decisions in any organization are made by individuals. A successful operation requires collaboration of a team of people from diverse backgrounds where they pool their ideas, judgments and plans. Group Dynamics The approach and validity of a diverse team has also been corroborated by various authors. A team has been defined as “an energetic group of people who are committed to achieving common objectives, who work well together and enjoy doing so, and who produce high-quality results” (Arthur, Wall & Halligan, 2003). In a team each individual contributes their knowledge or expertise to solving a jointly owned problem which no individual can solve on his own (McGreevy, 2006). A team is like a jigsaw puzzle of complimentary parts fitting perfectly together. Teams could be of different types which include project teams, work teams, operational teams, service teams or cross-functional teams. Teams like sales, marketing or finance teams find that team working fosters collaborative rather than a competitive or adversarial approach and has an important impact on productivity. Castka et al., (2001) cite Colenso who contends that effective use of teams can bring significant improvement in productivity, creativity and employee satisfaction. The advantages of teams have been enumerated which state that teams can bring together skills and experience that far exceeds those of any individual. Team communications support real-time problem-solving and initiative. A social dimension through teams enhances the economic and administrative aspects of work. Project teams are temporary and they collate individuals who contribute to a common goal. It is a unique group of individuals who work together in a controlled environment towards a common goal (Atkins & Gilbert, 2003). Thus these all conform to the concept of nine different team roles that Belbin’s model discusses. Fisher, Macrosson and Semple (2001) cite Eisenhardt et al., stating that a balanced power structure is essential for effective management team decision making. Both autocratic leadership and weak leaders precipitate high levels of interpersonal conflicts and friction. Hostility develops when some members of the team refuse to comply with the demands of the situation. When persuasion and power control fails power becomes essential. Besides, the validity of the Belbin’s team role theory suggests that its potential is not limited to the management cadre alone ((Fisher, Hunter and Macrosson, 2002). It can be used by any level of management as good decision making requires task leadership, goal resourcing and imaginative ideas apart from critical self-appraisal, attention to detail and enthusiastic behavior. Hacker (2000) suggests that if top performers are included in the team, the team performance will meet or exceed expectations. Several studies confirm that the presence of one individual can greatly enhance performance but this does not mean that other critical factors to performance should be ignored. Management ratings should be used as a critical factor in forming teams, and then team performance could be enhanced. While the Belbin’s model suggests that diversity could make a balanced team, Ownes, Mannix and Neale (2003) further contend that the negative effect can also result because diversity makes it difficult for team members to work together. Diverse teams are more likely to overspend the budget and miss important deadlines. They may even take longer to make decision than homogenous teams. Under the concept of relational concerns, members are chosen based on their values, beliefs and attitudes. The group thus gains increased assurance that members are more likely to engage in behaviors that facilitate coordination and communication. This leads to positive relational alignment but due to differences in knowledge and skills conflicts may also arise. Tasks which require high levels of trust, interdependence and communication, may be adversely affected. Thus heterogeneity based on knowledge and skills can interfere with team’s ability to foster social relationships. Coghlan (1994) emphasizes that cohesive teams react favorably to change provided there is no threat to the team while non-cohesive teams feel threatened because they do not have any framework for support. When the team has its own identity, any external change faces resistance. Sometimes the group’s norms and culture are so embedded, that if a change threatens its stability, resistance is faced. In an inter group conflict, if one group accepts change, another group will automatically resist it. If the team lacks insight and reflective ability, they will not be able to assess the outcome of change and hence resist it. Misunderstandings are likely to arise from the inner workings of the multidisciplinary groups. Barriers like different outlooks, priorities and interests, role conflicts, power struggles, and improper communication skills can undermine the team process and delay the task (Bubshait & Farooq, 1999). In providing service to clients, Atkins and Gilbert (2003) observe ill-prepared scope of works, inadequate communication, and complacency by both project teams and project managers. Such barriers and shortcomings can result in a false sense of security and confidence perceived by the client. The validity of the implementer In all this, how does an implementer fit in? An implementer is expected to be conservative and obstruct change as per the Belbin’s model. Circumstances may warrant a change in the behavior of the group as a whole. If the group as a whole decides to implement change, it is more effective in producing change and the implementer’s conservative approach to obstruct change is unjustified. If the implementer is expected to be conservative he will not be able to apply the ideas and turn it into practical actions. Instead of diverse team roles, all that it requires is a team leader or a project manager who can in reality assist in producing actual change as Coghlan suggests internal group dynamics has more positive effect than external pressure. Besides, chances of change increase when the group’s members have strong sense of belonging to the same group. If the group is attractive to its members, it has a faster and more profound effect on the members. In managing change in any organization, it is common practice to adopt the team approach. A temporary taskforce is built where members from different departments get together and create a new way of learning from which the members can learn. The team members should be brought together at the earliest possible stage of the project which can result in more flexibility and adaptability, more timely and balanced decisions, and more rapid management response to market and technology (Atkins & Gilbert). The members’ interests, strengths and contributions to the project have to be accounted. While the Belbin’s model contends that individual skills sets contribute towards making the team perfect, it is also essential for all the members to develop their skills. This serves as a contingency plan if for any reason a member disengages from the team. The team members should not only be allowed to do what they do best but they should also be given an opportunity to develop other skills. At the same time, if members do not volunteer for a particular role, they would have to be assigned regardless of personal interest and strengths (Schneider, 2001). While assigning tasks, it is also essential to discuss their expectations regarding meeting project deadlines. The objectives have to be clarified when specific tasks are assigned. Most projects can have unexpected situations. Hence planning and communication with teammates is essential (Schneider, 2001). Projects can move ahead on schedule for 80 percent of the work and then overconfidence steps and the project goes haywire. As the members try to rush through for completion, low quality output may result. Minute details should be built in the schedule right from the outset of the project so that the project runs smoothly. The group can then be realistic about what can or cannot be accomplished. In the turbulent environment things never go as per plan and hence it is essential to be flexible. The team members in a project should be geared to recognized and change direction when necessary. Unless there is someone in authority, the team members tend to neglect the recommendations of peers. Social psychologists too concentrate on just one role in the group – the leader (Davies & Kanaki, 2006). Trying to be conservative and maintain discipline may not be conducive in keeping the team cohesive. To avoid pitfalls and failures it is essential to ensure six key factors while building project teams (Bubshait & Farooq, 1999). The implementer’s role becomes redundant as a leader alone can ensure discipline in the team and every member of the team should be valued and respected. Each member should be aware of his responsibilities and communication between members at all times should be maintained efficiently. Individual and group goals have to be specified while team work and team building efforts should be rewarded. Loyalty should be encouraged too. To achieve the desired outcome of the project the team member should have responsibility towards each other (Atkins & Gilbert, 2003). Critical review of Belbin’s model In Belbin’s model of team roles, the concepts of team role and personality have become intertwined. The team role in his model is essentially seen as a cluster of personality characteristics. An individual’s behavior largely depends upon the autonomy that they have in the role and their commitment to it. An individual’s personality characteristics may influence individual behavior. The team role behavior is finally dependent upon the individual’s personality, the team role expectations and the team role orientation. Accordingly Manning, parker and Pogson (2006) revealed through research that while Belbin’s team role models provides insights into team composition and team effectiveness, two areas of weaknesses are found its conception of team role and personality. Team effectiveness can be improved through training and development and focus should be on problem solving, work planning and interpersonal skills. While specialist knowledge and skills is essential for effective team performance, assessment, selection, placement and guidance are not really necessary according to Manning et al. This eliminates the role of the implementer. Belbin maintains that weaknesses by each of his team roles are allowable. Research suggests otherwise. Shortcomings in colleagues’ conduct can jeopardize the team performance. Hence Belbin argues that an individual member adopts a particular way of interacting with the group. Behaviors may either be favored or resisted by individuals. When individuals are able to pay a role that fits their characteristics, it results in team effectiveness. Investigation of Belbin’s team roles in the context of the Big Five model of personality structure revealed inconsistency and mixed results. The roles of coordinator, implementer, completer finisher and monitor evaluator had similar patterns of correlations with the Big-five dimensions (Davies & Kanaki, 2006). Research suggests that there is duplication of important personality characteristics across the different team roles. Implementers and coordinators share common characteristics which are most useful and found in team leaders. This demonstrates that such segregated roles are not essential in a team or for a project to be successful. Some team roles are enough to build an effective team but not all as suggested by Belbin. According to an effective team should be homogenous and consist of upward, forward and positive members but it has also been seen that conflicts give rise to better solutions. Conclusion Team work is essential in any organization as diversity leads to innovation and creativity. Teams may lead to conflicts but conflicts are not always detrimental to the interest of the organization. Conflicts may even enhance performance as diverse perception to the problems can lead to innovative solutions. For teams to function skills have to be added and knowledge has to be shared. Lack of proper induction and training can have disastrous results and the outcome can be affected. Each individual has to be accepted, respected and held responsible. Communication channels have to be effective, goals have to be identified, objectives have to be clear, and team efforts have to be rewarded to keep the motivation high and most importantly, the Project Team Leader should be effective in holding the team together till the end of the project. If as per Belbin’s model different members have different responsibilities, it may become difficult to keep the group cohesive. Besides, different roles as suggested by Belbin have been found to be duplicating in the groups. The role of implementer shares the same characteristics as a coordinator and both these in fact are the responsibilities of a team leader or a project manager. If the group is too diverse in characteristics, problems arise in pursuing a common goal and attaining team effectiveness. At the same time, homogenous groups too have certain disadvantages. Diversity contributes innovative solutions and conflicts give rise to better solutions. Hence the most effective group would be with a few of the team roles suggested by Belbin. The role of an implementer is not really required as it resists change and change is an essential part of any project. Changes in teams work can occur and has to be efficiently handled. Conservative attitude is also detrimental to the effectiveness of the team. An ideal team should consist of a few member s with diverse qualities but have a leader at the helm. There is no validity of the implementer in the Belbin’s model. References: Arthur, H., Wall, D., & Halligan, A., (2003), Team Resource Management: a programme for troubled teams, Clinical Governance, Vol. 8 No. 1 pp. 86-91 Atkins, S., & Gilbert, G., (2003), The role of induction and training in team effectiveness, Project Management Journal. Sylva: Jun 2003.Vol.34, Iss. 2; pg. 48 Bubshait, A. A., & Farooq, G., (1999), Team building and project success, Cost Engineering. Morgantown: Jul 1999.Vol.41, Iss. 7; pg. 34, 5 pgs Castka, P., Bamber, C. J., Sharp, J. & Belohoubek, P., (2001), Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams, Team Performance Management, Vol. 7 No. 7/8 pp. 123-134 Coghlan, D., (1994), Managing Organizational Change through Teams and Groups, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1994, pp. 18- 23 Davies, M. F., & Kanaki, E., (2006), Interpersonal characteristics associated with different team roles in work groups, Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 21 No. 7, 2006 pp. 638-650 Fisher, S. G., Macrosson, W. D. K., & Semple, J. H., (2001), Control and Belbins team role, Personnel Review, Vol. 30 No. 5 pp. 578-588 Fisher, S. G. Hunter, T. A., & Macrosson, W. D. K., (2002), Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1 pp. 14-20 Hacker, M., (2000), The impact of top performers on project teams, Team Performance Management: An International Journal Volume 6. Number 5/6. 2000. pp. 85-89 Manning, T., Parker, R., & Pogson, G., (2006), A revised model of team roles and some research findings, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 No. 6 pp. 287- 296 Marriott, D., (2007), Team Types, 11 May 2007 McGreevy, M., (2006), Team working: part 2 – how are teams chosen and developed? Industrial and Commercial Training, VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006, pp. 365-370 Owens, D. A., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. G., (2003), Strategic Formation of Groups: Issues in Task Performance and Team Member Selection, 11 May 2007 Schneider, D., (2001), Interpersonal Skills in Organizations, Project Management, Ch 17, The McGraw Hill Companies, 2001 Read More