Tuckmans Model for Team Development - Essay Example

Type the document Supervisors Submitted Table of Contents 1 Problem and Context 3 2 Reflection 4 3 Alternative Courses of Action 8 4 Learning Outcomes 9 6 Conclusion 10 7 References 11 1 Problem and Context 1.1 Initial Concerns The idea of teamwork has always fascinated me. I have previously enjoyed working with friends and acquaintances, however, this project was my first experience working with a group whose members were unknown to me, which initially concerned me. Tuckmans model for team development, recognizes this as a common issue that is usually faced at the forming stage (Johnson 2009). Upon first meeting, certain team members appeared overzealous and excited to me; they were attempting to draw conclusion even at the initial stages, for example. I judged this behavior to be somewhat unprofessional. 1.2 Project Development Eventually, as the sessions progressed, I checked my own behavior and tried to be more understanding and tolerant for the sake of the project. I began to realize that my attitude, being different to other team members, was normal and actually proved to be helpful rather than dysfunctional. This aspect of teamwork has been described by ‘Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions’ (Varvel et al 2004). Team effectiveness does not become dysfunctional because of diverse individual personality dimensions, when these differences are overcome by improved communication, interdependence and trust. The diversified team actually enabled the team to function better; in fact there were certain pitfalls of teamwork which were avoided due to this diversification. The five major drawbacks in teamwork identified by Kayes et al (2005), were overcome due to the teams eagerness to learn and to make the most of the project. The nature of the team as constituted of diverse and opinionated team members, did not allow for common pitfalls such as groupthink and overdependence on a dominant leader. Of course some problems were encountered such as an over-commitment to goals and some confusion about diffusion of responsibility, but as the project progressed we identified these problems and attempted to overcome them. 2 Reflection 2.1 Assigning Roles After the initial turmoil, we began to make progress. We started interacting with each other and gradually established productive working relationships. Roles were assigned to each member according to Belbins’ team role theory (2010). I was chosen as project coordinator. This came as a surprise to me, as I thought that I was not firm enough to implement rules and regulations, but my team mates nominated me because of my ability to focus and due to the rapport I developed with team members. My position required me to focus on the team’s objectives. Though the other team members had also been given equally important tasks, it was my responsibility to delegate work to others appropriately. My above average relationship with others in my team, helped in maintaining a pleasant working atmosphere. The other quality which facilitated me in getting the work done effectively, was my personality trait as a good listener. I not only listen but also try to understand what others are saying. This is one of the essential skills that is required of a good coordinator (Heald et al 2002). My role was quite close to what is required of a leader, but I intended to work with mutual collaboration and coordination and enjoyed the role I was assigned. I tried to be supportive and promote team spirit and then afterwards I required the same in return. I listened and valued the advice of my colleagues. I also asked for understanding from their side. In addition to this, my organizational abilities were another factor which encouraged my team members to choose me as coordinator. In an earlier feedback session from the group, it had been evaluated that I was quite considerate and cooperative. It was also agreed that I had qualities such as dependability, supportiveness and helpfulness. 2.2 My Role as Coordinator Though I enjoyed my role, my eagerness to please and to keep the atmosphere pleasant showed that I lacked firmness and control, which I was concerned about. This weakness of mine was quite prominent during the initial forming stages, and according to Tuckman’s team development model this is quite common. Things are ought to improve once progress is made towards the norming stage of the Tuckman model (Johnson 2009), and this is what happened. I became more confident and assertive and my capabilities as a coordinator enhanced. Problem solving was another of my responsibilities; I acted as facilitator and often detached myself from the actual proceedings and tried to find the solution for the problem. My role was to probe and to facilitate the team members in finding solutions to problems. This situation arose particularly in the case of Everest Exercise. For this task, we had to make a tower from paper. In this, I was more confident and certain that my efforts are going in the right direction. This assurance came from the fact that the paper tower project was my second project in the group and I had become comfortable and relaxed with being part of the group. I learned to assert my authority without being accused as bossy or rigid. Empathy has been recognized as a great asset that can help an individual in better coordination, as asserted by Kayworth in his team leadership theory (2002). 2.3 Other Roles The importance of communication is also asserted in this theory. My queries and inquiries helped in succeeding in the paper tower project. Initially the team members were unable to decipher the task, and their lack of understanding proved to be a roadblock. In the initial stages, we were stuck and didn’t know what to do. I initiated a storming session, as per Tuckman’s team development model (Rickards & Clark 2006), and the team members started giving their input. The storming session brought out peoples strengths; it developed familiarity with their own qualities which they were reluctant to acknowledge initially. The question and answer session made a lot of things clear; it also established my position as a coordinator. There were a few members who were trying to be loud and domineering; asserting that they knew better and that the rest of the team should listen to them and do as they direct. At this point ,my effort to participate rather than dominate came in handy; it is easy to achieve team effectiveness if the coordinator participates instead of controlling (Maddux & Wingfield 2003). The dominating team members were handled properly; without causing embarrassment to any of them. I started by asking them to tell their point of view clearly; later on their points were raised in front of the other members; in true democratic fashion. Then without being biased, we brainstormed and the best option, supported by a majority, was chosen. I was required to be objective and impersonal, as recommended by Heald et al (2002). 2.4 Communication Strategies Ethical theories concerned with conduct, particularly in the area of altruism, suggest that the actions that are concerned with the best interest of others, are moral actions. They also serve the purpose of reaching a certain end (Northhouse 2009). On a broader note, ethical leaders serve others. I employed my organizational skills to coordinate the proceedings of the team work. At times, it seemed difficult to gather the team members on one platform. I regularly emailed or texting them before a meeting to remind them of the coming event. It also reminded them of the task that was made their duty. In this way, none of them could escape with an excuse that he or she forgot or was not reminded on time. This focused effort proved to be fruitful as the team members were also led to be focused. Senge (1990) insists that a leader in a learning-based organization needs to serve the vision as well (Northhouse 2009). The Everest exercise was meant to prompt critical thinking and ethical decisions, which were to be adopted practices in order to reach the end goal. This required the team members to collaborate and coordinate according to the set ethics established and the team dynamics. My efforts also helped the team members in maintaining their focus. Whenever someone lost focus, they were motivated to uphold and meet their deadline. Constant polite reminders kept them on the track; moving towards a right direction. My chronic focus transmitted on to the other members and pushed them into compliance. This series of activities helped all of us in staying focused and meeting our deadlines and ultimately, meeting our objectives. 2.5 Problems During the paper tower exercise, we faced relatively little confusion, which helped with our team cohesiveness. Initially there was some confusion regarding the task as to how to accomplish it. The negativity in the atmosphere affected the proceedings. According to Schermerhorn & Schermerhorn (2009), a team’s cohesiveness is encouraged by the positivity of good performance. Here, the case was quite the opposite. There were members who were not serious about the task, and this feeling affected the team cohesiveness very badly. After the first few sessions we realized that we were lagging behind the deadline. This sent a wave of warning across the team; I realized quite late that we should have dealt with the negativity right in the beginning. Also, there was another problem; the existence of social loafers in the team, identified by researchers as a common problematic element (Kayes et al 2005). Coming late in the session, paying little attention during the proceedings and casually passing on tasks to others, were the visible signs of loafers in our team. Even though these shortcomings were compensated by the overzealous efforts of others, this was unfair to other team members. Kayes suggests that the best way to avoid such behavior is by the observance of mutual evaluation. 3 Alternative Courses of Action In retrospect, the first and foremost thing that I would do differently, is that I would have been more receptive right from the beginning. My personal inhibitions affected my productivity at least in the forming stage. In future, I will adopt a different attitude in this regard. I have also realized that the focus of leading members eventually reflects in the dynamics of the team (Kark & Dijk 2007). I would be more focused and assert myself right from the beginning. The presence of social loafers also created conflict and negativity within the team. These kinds of people minimize their contribution but also try to gain profit from others (Jassawalla et al 2008). In future, I will ensure that I deal with them in a strict manner. Though mutual evaluation was conducted, I tended to refrain myself from nominating anyone, as I tried to be friendly and cooperative. However, now I know that anything or anyone having a negative effect on team dynamics, should be dealt with firmly and immediately. If I am chosen as coordinator for the next project, I will try my best to improve team dynamics. Team cohesiveness is very important, and better communication can enhance it. I will strive to comprehend the given task and communicate it to my fellow team mates so as to avoid any confusion or hindrance. I will also try to manage and follow deadlines more religiously, so as to avoid any delay at the last stages of the task. 4 Learning Outcomes The complete experience of working in a group was quite a revealing endeavor. To start with, I learned that my initial inhibition about working in an unfamiliar group, was wrong. I was reluctant to work in an unfamiliar team, assuming that we would not be able to develop a rapport, but I discovered that I was completely wrong in this regard. I also learned that there were other team members who shared these reservations, but with the passage of time we developed a good working relationship. Another thing which brings people closer is shared value objective (Sternberg & Grigorenko 2001). Once you want to achieve a certain objective and work towards, it then familiarity is inevitable. A very important lesson that I have learned in the course of action, is that we need to be open minded and respectful towards others. This attribute is very important in the formation of an effective team. One does not need to be judgmental or take people on the face value. Had I been more open minded and receptive from the beginning, I would have adjusted more quickly and easily. We need to refrain from instant judgments as the Tuckman’s model for team development recognizes; as progress is made from one stage to another, things start falling into place (Johnson 2009). Effective team members need to respect others within their team and respect the contributions made by them. Diversity in personality or in thoughts is not to be feared, rather it is through this diversity that provocative ideas are introduced into the process (Kohn & O’Connell 2007). I have learned to respect other’s points of view and I have also developed the courage to voice my opinions as well; regardless of the fact that whether people agree with my point of view or not. I have become more confident and also more assertive. My position as coordinator has given me a means to practise confidence and assertiveness. I have made a few mistakes but I have realized that you cannot be in the good books of everyone, and the completion of the task should be given the first priority, though I have understood the difference between being firm and being rigid. Time management is another area where I need to improve. 6 Conclusion I believe that our performance throughout the task was quite good, and we accomplished our objectives within the given time. However, there were some areas which caused problems and would need improvement for similar projects in the future. These improvements can enhance overall performance lead to better team dynamic. Several common pitfalls of teamwork were successfully avoided, but issues such as social loafers were problematic. Overall, This experience was extremely valuable as I learned many lessons and strategies which I will take with me in the future. 7 References Belbin, R. (2010). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Heald, C., Holden, L. and Hutchinson, L. (2002). Dairy advisory teams: a handbook for producers. New York: Hoard’s Dairyman Books. Jassawalla, A., Malshe, A. and Sashittal, H. (2008). ‘Student perceptions of social loafing in undergraduate business classroom teams’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. Vol. 6, 2, 403-426. Johnson, A. (2009). Health organizations: theory, behavior and development. New Jersey: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Kark, R. and Dijk, D. (2007). ‘Motivation to lead, Motivation to follow: The role of self regulatory focus in leadership processes’. The Academy of Management Review Archive.Vol 32, 2, 500-528. Kayes, A., Kayes, D. and Kolb, D. (2005). ‘Experiential learning in teams’. Simulation & Gaming. Vol.36, 3, 330-354. Kayworth, T. and Leidner, D. (2002). ‘Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams’. Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 18, 3, 45-53. Kohn, S. and O’Connell, V. (2007). 6 Habits of Highly Effective Teams. London: Career Press. Maddux, R. and Wingfield, B (2003). Team building: an exercise in leadership. London: Cengage Learning. Northouse, P. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Practice. New Jersey: SAGE. Rickards, T. and Clark, M. (2006). Dilemmas of leadership. New York: Taylor & Francis. Schermerhorn, J. and Jr. (2009). Management. London: John Wiley and Sons. Sternberg, R. and Grigorenko, E. (2001). Environmental effects on cognitive abilities. New York: Routledge. Varvel, T., Adams, S., Pridie, S. and Ulloa, B. (2004). ‘Team Effectiveness and Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions’. Journal of Management in Engineering. Vol. 20, 4, 141-147. Read More