Tuckman and Belbins Theories of Team Dynamics - Case Study Example

Tuckman and Belbin’s Theories of Team Dynamics I. Overview If there are two organisational theories which can best describe and explain team behaviours and organisation dynamics, it would be the Tuckman’s Model and Belbin’s theory. Tuckman theory or stages of team was first published by Dr. Bruce Tuckman in 1965 which are the his Forming Storming Norming Performing model in 1965. Later Dr. Tuckman added the fifth stage which is the adjourning stage (Cassidy 2007). Belbin Theory also deals with a team. But unlike Tuckman which dealt primarily with the evolution or development of a team, Belbin was more concerned about the role or roles that an individual assume in a team. Dr. Meredith was able to construct her team roles model after years of study which he was divided into nine roles which are the plant, resource investigator, coordinator, shaper, monitor evaluator, teamworker, implementer and complete finisher. II. The Tuckman stages of a team Tuckmans stages of a team explained that teams evolve. It eventually matures and along with its maturity is its acquired ability and the relationship built during its maturity. Tuckman’s theory of team dynamics posit that the leadership style needed for a team also changes as the team develops. During its early stage, the team needs a directional style of leadership then progressing to coaching. It will then move to participative kind of leadership and ultimately ending it with delegation when a team or project can already stand on its own. During this time, the team may have already produced another leader who would be fit to assume leadership and the previous leadership can now move to develop another team (Yau and Han 2010). The team which the previous leader handled undergoes stages which are the forming stage, storming stage, norming and performing until it is ready for adjourning or to be left on its own. Tuckman’s team stages a. Stage 1 - Forming The team is in its nascent form and obviously needs a more directional kind of leadership. At this stage, the team is very dependent on the leader for guidance and organization’s objectives are almost taken solely from the leader. As direction and the organization itself is still unclear, the leader often receives a lot of questions with regard to the organization; its objectives, purpose among other things. The efficacy of the leader will also be tested by its subordinates at this stage (Cassidy 2007). b. Stage 2 - storming The team’s second stage can be considered as the toughest stage. At this stage, team members will attempt to establish themselves in the group and this may bring conflict with other members of the group that includes the leader. During this process of positioning themselves in the team, factions and teams may develop that could contribute to team’s uncertainty. If the power struggle among team members as they position themselves will not be handled properly at this stage, the team may be bogged down by relationship and emotional issues. At this stage, the leader needs to be a coach as the team is now beginning to have a sense of direction albeit the process can be tumultuous (Cassidy 2007).. c. Stage 3 - norming In the third stage of a team, roles and responsibilities are already clear and accepted. Early tension brought by team member’s positioning has already settled. Consensus and agreement has already been reached in the team as is now responsive to the facilitation of the leader. Decisions can now be made by the team. Commitment and unity has already developed where bonding can take place. As bonding takes place, fun and other social activities ensue and provide an excellent atmosphere for each team member to adjust to each working style. Process is already established and the leader is not challenged anymore. Some aspects of leadership are already shared by the team members where the leader merely facilitates. d. Stage 4 - performing It would be accurate to conclude that the team’s peak is at its performing stage where the team knows what it is doing and why it is doing. The goals and objectives of the organization are already internalized by the team and there is already little or almost no need for the leader to intervene. The team no longer needs heavy instructions from the leader but only requires delegated task and projects with almost no intervention from the leader. At this stage, the team is already focusing on exceeding its targets and enjoys a greater degree of autonomy. Disagreements are still present but have already evolved to a constructive level. It is now capable of attending to relationship, process and style issues along the way while still pursuing the team’s bigger objective. It can also be said that the team has already achieved cohesion at this stage for team members are now looking after each other positively (Cassidy 2007). e. Stage 5 - adjourning The fifth stage is Tuckman’s happy addition to his team stage models. This is the stage where the team has to break up after accomplishing successfully its goals (or projects). It is also a stage where the previous leader has to leave the team to focus on developing new groups. This could be an emotional stage for the team especially if team members have already bonded that parting ways would become extremely difficult.   III. Personal experience with Tuckman theory and alternative ways to complete tasks and achieve team goals  This happened to me when I got involved in a community fund raising activities. Initially, I thought it was a waste of time not to mention that I find the leader overbearing. As time goes however, we are beginning to have fun and developed this sense of camaraderie. Work became effortless to the point that we are already looking forward in engaging ourselves with the project. It went for more than a month until finally it has to end because vacation is over and we already raised a significant amount of money for the community. Parting time was difficult because we were already close to one another. Personally, I find the adjourning stage unnecessary because it brings undue stress to team members which dampen their spirits. Teams need not to be dismantled once it has already achieved its goal such as in our case. Instead, the team could have been continued and just take another project. The frequency of meetings may be lessened to accommodate the schedule of team members. Another disadvantage of dismantling a team after it has realized its objective is that team members will again start at the bottom of the learning curve once another team is formed. This would not be necessary if old teams were retained which could enrich further the team members in terms of skills development. Leaders also need not move abruptly. If they need to move on to another team, at least it would be done gradually. The sudden removal of a leader from a team can be emotionally stressful especially when members have already bonded with the leader. IV. Belbin Theory Another theorist that relates to team dynamics is Dr. Belbin. Dr. Belbin identified the various roles in a team that has to be balanced inorder to succeed (Aritzeta 2007). Dr. Belbin defines a team as “Not [just] a bunch of people with job titles, but a congregation of individuals, each of whom has a role which is understood by other members. Members of a team seek out certain roles and they perform most effectively in the ones that are most natural to them” (Belbin 2012). By understanding these various roles in a team, Belbin was able to create a construct that could help a team succeed. The various roles in a team as identified by Belbin are; a. Plant Plants are the smart and creative people. You may call them as the bright boys and girls in the team. They provide the innovative solution to a problem. They are often bright but tend to ignore incidentals and do not like to be bothered by details. Plants are a good requirement in a team but too many plants in a team may lead to conflict as too many good ideas that are not communicated properly can lead to misunderstanding. b. Resource Investigator if plants provide the ideas, resource investigator provides energy and enthusiasm in a team at the onset of a project. The resource investigator is an excellent point person because he or she has a strong network outside the organisation that could provide opportunities for the group. Resource investigators are a good necessity in an organisation but has to be complemented by consistency because they tend to lose momentum at the end of the project. c. Coordinator As the name suggests, coordinators acts like a conductor in a team for his or her ability to orchestrate the team to work towards a common goal. Coordinators has also the talent to step back and see the bigger picture which makes them an effective leader of a team. They are generally mature and emotionally stable and is able to discern the different capabilities of people. Being such, they can effectively delegate task to the right people for an optimum result. The tendency of the coordinator to delegate may leave him or her with nothing to do and become a subject of susupicion among team members of being manipulative. d. Shaper Shapers are the reliable workers. They are task oriented individuals who tenuously pursue objectives. They have a tremendous need for achievement and can be relied upon to get a certain task to be done. They provide teams the necessary focus and energy to keep going to achieve its goal. They challenge the team to improve and is always on the look out on how to better do things. Shapers are a necessity in a team because it prevents the team from being complacent by always keeping it on its toes. They will push harder when other already feel like quitting. This could work against the shapers because they tend to become aggressive in their desire to get things done. e. Monitor Evaluator Monitor evaluator are the best judge about the team’s performance. They have the ability to detach themselves and objectively assess the team’s performance without bias. They can also see the best available option for the team to resolve a certain issue because of their ability to assess options with an impartial eye. Monitor evaluator has a tendency to become overly critical that may dampen the group’s energy and enthusiasm. They are not also the best source of inpiration for the group members to do their best. f. Teamworker Teamworkers are the teams’ diplomat or peacemaker. They keep the team going smoothly despite conflicts. They are very good in handling relationships and can help team members resolve emotional and relationship issues without being threatening or confrontational. They are often under appreciated whose can only be appreciated during their absence and especially when conflicts arise. The teamworker has a disadvantage however of not being to take a decisive action when needed because he or she do not tend to take sides. g. Implementer As the name suggests, the Implementer takes the team members ideas and translate them into concreate action. They are hardworker and can be relied to finish a task on time. They are also loyal to the organization and will often take jobs that everyone do not like. The discipline of the implmenter to stick to a well thought plan may be seen by others as narrow mindedness and inflexibility. h. Complete finisher The complete finisher has a tremendous need for accuracy and has a high bar with regard to the quality of work. Complete finishers are often regarded as perfectionists at work and will often take the extra mile just to make sure that a certain work is done right. This sense of standard and drive for perfection can either be good and bad for the team. It could be good in a sense that it could inspire others to do better or it could be bad when complete finishers becomes preoccuppied with minute details that irritates team members. Complete finishers also have hard time delegating work to others especially if they do not trust that the same level of perfection cannot be achieve. i. Specialist Specialists are the perpetual students in a team who enjoys learning a lot. They are a very good resource for their particular field because of the depth of their knowledge and their willingness to share it. They also keep on improving their expertise. The specialist however is not a generalist and has often difficulty relating to anything that does not fall within her or his area of expertise. V. Personal experience alternative ways to complete tasks and achieve team goals  I have been in several teams before and I must say I have been a consistent implementer and sort of a team worker. I am very good at making the ideas of my colleagues a reality by implementing them. Perhaps this is because of my second skill set of being a team worker as somebody who can easily get along well with people. Getting ideas from other people can become relatively easy once you get to know them and have them as friends. Belbin’s construct can be enhanced if only it incorporated ways to train other team members where they could develop other skill sets of various roles. This would ensure that there is always a balance in a team because team members are multi-roles. At present, Belbin only identifies the roles that team members assume and does not seek to develop other skill sets. This would be beneficial to the team due to the diversity of roles each of its members can assume and also advantageous to the team members as well because their skill sets necessary to perform a necessary role is enhanced. Bibliography Aritzeta, Aitor; Swailes, Stephen; Senior, Barbara (2007). Belbins Team Role Model: Development, Validity and Applications for Team Building. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1):96-118. Belbin, Meredith (2012). Belbin Team Roles. http://www.belbin.com/rte.asp?id=8 [accessed May 26, 2012] Cassidy, Kate (2007). Tuckman Revisited: Proposing a New Model of Group Development for Practitioners. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3): 413-417. Yau De Wang; Han Jen Niu (2010). Multiple Roles of Human Resource Department in Building Organizational Competitiveness -- Perspective of RoleTheory. International Management Review, 6(2):13-19. Read More