Theories on Team Models - Essay Example

Theories on Team Models Name Faculty University Subject Date of submission Theories on Team Models Introduction A team is a group of people who work together with the aim of achieving certain objectives. The success of a team is determined by its structure, composition, accountability, cohesiveness, trust as well as its goals. The goals must be achievable and measurable otherwise the group may fail to attain them (Waddell, Cummings & Worley, 2007). The group in which I was consisted of five people namely Khaled, Mohamed, Ahmed, Abudi and Tusharrana. It was formed on a day of the first week when I was absent from the class. Fortunately I had not missed anything much since the class was solely meant for group formation. However I did not know two members of my group, that is, Abudi and Tusharrana but this too did not worry me because I focused on working together as a team to attain the objectives (Tubbs, 1995). A group is a team of people who come together freely and voluntarily with the aim of achieving particular objectives. In order to achieve the intended objectives members of a group need to exercise cooperation, honesty and justice for the mutual benefit of all members. As people work as a team challenges are bound to come. But members of the group should not engage in blame games. Instead they should diagnose the problem and treat it with a lot of caution (Bales, 1950). The group should pursue development to enable its members bond together between themselves and as a group. The performance of a group depends upon several factors. It depends on the composition of the group, clarity of its goals, structure of how it intends to carry out its role, group functioning and the norms of the group (Hare, 2003). A number of theories have been put forward to explain various stages of a group such as its formation, development and effectiveness. The models include Tuckman’s model, Kolt’s learning cycle, Group level diagnostic model and Belbin's Team Role. This paper seeks to discuss three of these models as well as the relevance of the models to the group that I was in. The Tuckman’s model This model was developed by Bruce Tuckman, a psychologist, in 1985. According to him, group formation is a process and evolves through a five stages to achieve their objectives. He classified the stages as the formation, storming, norming, performing and finally adjournment stages of the group (Tuckman, 1965). The formation takes place in the first meeting of the group that was held in my absence. This stage involves setting the objectives of the group. At this stage, the members share roles and responsibilities and the leader of the group is elected. The members of the group get to know each other. Rules and regulations of the group are set to govern the actions and relations within the group. This is a stage of anxiety since group members are not yet sure of what is exactly required. In my group I was initially anxious of the group members I had not known as well as my absence from the first meeting (Waddell et. al., 2007). It is in this stage that the group may appoint its leader. So far no leader was appointed despite the fact that the group agreed to meet the following week. The second stage of Tuckman’s model involves brainstorming. This took place in the meeting held in the second week. At this stage the roles of the members are clarified and the way forward defined (Tuckman, 1965). Duties are delegated so as to facilitate the process of achieving the objectives and aims of the group. In our group Ahmed had proposed to me to read case study four. I did exactly that and we discussed so as to derive the different drivers of change in the IBM’s case study. After the discussion, we took our case to the lecturer for approval. In fact the lecturer approved our case without any corrections. In addition we met in the third week in order to proceed with the assignment. We divided responsibilities such that each one of us had a driver to discuss except Ahmed and me who shared same driver (Tuckman, 1965). Thus task was distributed among the group members so that they could work on them until the next meeting. All these activities we carried out revolve around the brainstorming stage as proposed by Tuckman’s model of group development. The third stage group development is the “norming” stage which involves the establishment of hierarchies. In this case the group members show respect to their leader. At the same time each member is also required to take leadership responsibilities in different areas. By this time team members are well acquainted with each other and have developed close relationships between them. In this stage the group may overlap to the storming stage as they engage in discussions. The group integrates their work to conclude its study (Tuckman, 1965). For example in my group during the third and fourth weeks every one took charge and leadership of the area they were to handle. Again the group met to put their work together which ended up exceeding the number of words required. As a result the work was further divided into two to ensure matching with the number of words. The group worked together and in the end it was able to achieve its desired output. What remained was basically presentation which formed the fifth stage of the Tuckman’s model of group development. Performing stage is the final stage of group development. All or a few members of the group may be required to present parts of their findings. The preparation for presentation begins as early as third stage. But in our group, we began the preparations in the fifth week. The presentation was to last for fifteen minutes and all members of my group were to present, each taking 3 minutes. It began with rehearsal in which we performed quite well. The actual presentation was well done and this marked the end of the first part. Having completed this stage the group rested during the seventh and eighth weeks. However the group began preparation for the second part which eventually actualized in the eleventh week. According to Tuckman, when presentation is completed the group is finally adjourned (Tuckman, 1965). Group level Diagnostic Model Diagnosis involves the process where the group members try to understand the group and how it tends to operate. In this case the group may collaborate with the lecturer so as to collect information, carry out analysis and finally draw a conclusion based on their findings (Fisher, 1970). This justified why our group sought approval of the case study with the lecturer. The first step would involve the formation of the group in which the members of the group act as an input in the group. This means that each member carries out independent research from which the group is able to analyze (Tubbs, 1995). According to this model, groups reach and achieve different stages at different times. The amount of time spent in different stages may also differ. Groups never progress in a linear manner until the objectives are achieved. This model identified different stages of group development. The model is both group and task centered in order to meet its goals (Smith, 2001). The diagnostic model is composed of the task structure, strategy to be used, the members of the group, group functioning, clear goals and norms of performance. The strategy of the group explains the methods the group intends to use in order to achieve its goal. In my group our strategy was weekly meetings to ensure that the group was going the right direction. The group structure describes how the group organizes its activities in order to accomplish the task. In my group we sub-divided the case study into four drivers in which case each of us was assigned one to go and handle. Later on when the work could not match the required number, we again sub-divided our group into two. This means that we operated as sub units but with a common objective (Smith, 2001). The model advocates for quality output. Accordingly our group sought for approval of the lecturer to ensure we were on the right track (Arrow, 1997). The group should be cohesive enough. Despite the fact that I was absent during formation and that I had not known two of my group members before, we cooperated and worked together. Each of us contributed at every level of the case study. We were committed to achieving the best and we rehearsed and consulted at various levels. At the end of the group work everyone felt satisfied with the way in which we presented our work within the set time limit. This was very commendable and it follows a principle of the model which advocates for both organizational and personal commitment as well as members satisfaction. Belbin's Team Role This model is also known as Belvin self perception inventory. It is a personality test rather than a group test. This theory was developed as a measure of preference in the team roles. It assesses the behavior of an individual within the team environment. The behavior an individual portrays in the group is associated with his/her personality. It includes how observers of a group evaluate the behavior of a particular member relative to other members. According to Belvin there are nine types of team roles that the behavior of a member can be analyzed. One person may exhibit characteristics of variety of team roles (McGrath & Tschan, 2004). The nine team roles include the plant, resource investigator, coordinator, shaper, monitor evaluator, team worker, implementer, completer/ finisher and a specialist. The group members are likened to a plant that manufactures its own food by way of photosynthesis. As a plant a member of a group exhibits the qualities of creativity and innovativeness. Creativity in the group creates arguments for and against various points. This may lead generation of a number of ideas. However it may also cause misunderstanding in the group. Thus members of a group should exercise their creativity with a lot of care to avoid possible differences and thinking outside the box. A member of a group should act as a resource investigator by providing direction to facilitate the achievement of the goals. He remains focused beyond the level of the group and has skills of investigation and enquiries. After the creative member has come up with a new idea, it is the responsibility of the resource investigator to go extra miles to research whether that idea is practical (McGrath et al, 2004). Thus he acts as the facilitator of success by providing a link between the group members. In our group all the members were actively involved in the project and thus acted as an investigator till the end. While doing this the members also acted as coordinators of the group. All the members acted as leaders of the group despite the fact that there was no elected leader. Nobody lagged behind and provided the solution to the assigned part without any form of coercion. The success of a group depends greatly on the level of coordination adopted by members as well as its leaders. An individual may act as a shaper of the group. As a shaper he/she pursues objectives of the group with all the strength possible (Arrow, 1997). Such strength originates from intrinsic motivation of the member with the sole goal of success. The shaper ensures that the group progresses in its activities. A shaper ensures that the team is kept moving towards the goal of that team. For example, we were all shapers in our group since when we realized we had exceeded the number of words, divided the work into two groups to ensure compliance with the number of words. In addition the team members must be monitor evaluators who make observations and makes judgment concerning the course of the group. This explains why we engaged in rehearsal before the actual presentation. Teamwork in a group enhances the achievement of objectives. A team worker is one who has the ability to create coherent working environment for other group members. Thus he never takes sides. In addition the team worker must be diplomats and good listeners. For example I had not known two members in my group until after the group had been formed but we worked closely as a team without any form of discrimination. Implementation deals with putting into practice what the group members have agreed upon. The team members should therefore ensure that all the decisions arrived at is enforced. In addition a team member should not tire even when the going become very tough. The driving force should be the ultimate goal that the group intended to achieve. The reason is to ensure successful completion and achievement of the group’s objectives. Conclusion In conclusion there are different theories on the team model that can be used by a group to facilitate achievement of objectives. These include group level diagnostic model, Belbin’s team model as we’ll as the Tuckman’s model that have been discussed in this paper. According to the models, all groups or team undergo through different stages which from one model to another. Different groups will implement different models and at different speeds. In some cases, some groups combine elements of two or more models. It is important to note that the model adopted is very vital for the success of the group (Waddell et. al., 2007). In addition, lack of trust, commitment and accountability and fear of conflict and disagreements in the group contributes to the non-achievement of goals. References: Arrow, H. (1997). Stability and instability in small group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 75-85. Bales, R. F., (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-Wesley. Fisher, B. A., (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53-66. Hare, P., (2003). Roles, relationships, and groups in organizations: Some conclusions and recommendations. Small Group Research, 34 (2), 123-154. McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F., (2004). Temporal matters in social psychology: Examining the role of time in the lives of groups and individuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Smith, G., (2001) Group development: A review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions. Group Facilitation; 3, pp. 14–45 Tubbs, S., (1995). A systems approach to small group interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. Tuckman, B. W., (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, Waddell, D.M., Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2007). Organisational Change, Development & Transformation (Asia Pacific 3th Ed.). South Melbourne Vic: Cengage Learning Australia Waddell, D.M., Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2007). Organisational Change, Development & Transformation (Asia Pacific 3th ed.). South Melbourne Vic: Cengage Learning Australia Read More