Conflicts continued into the second module with a breakdown in communication and lack of compromise as the team did not even sit with one another and didn’t interact outside their group meetings. Furthermore Caldwell was the only team member to present by this time. The team appeared stuck in its way of thinking and no one individual wanted to “give in” or compromise and approach the situation from another’s point of view. This is exemplified when the team was asked to visually demonstrate the team dynamics and only Caldwell stood at the front of the room.
In the third module Meier and Winkel rarely talk to each other and rarely mix with other participants, only Caldwell remains quite social with other participants. Again the group highlights their ongoing lack of conflict resolution when asked to visually demonstrate the team dynamics and Caldwell stands at the front at the front of the room, Winkel sits in his chair and Meier stands in the back of the room striking a pose with his “nose-in-the-air”. So far within this project, Caldwell has nearly performed all the roles in the team.
By the fourth module only Caldwell shares with the facilitators some of the work he has done since module 3; discussing several interviews the team has had talking to managers from Texas Instruments and Teves (Auburn Hills) about software issues. It seems Caldwell is trying to do the work of the entire group as everyone is not equally task and people orientated.
Concept of Task and maintenance
Before moving on, it is imperative to introduce the concept of task and maintenance activities. Maintenance activities are when the team focuses its efforts on establishing common purpose and cohesiveness, and also develop mechanisms that will allow work to get done. Task activities are when the team focuses its efforts on getting the job done; this involves the team completing what is required of them.
The stage at which the team is ‘stuck’ and why
The team is stuck at the storming stage because they have not engaged in maintenance activities before beginning the task activities. Hence the rules and procedures that they need to work together to bring about effective decision making are not in place. As a result the team is unable to collaborate as they are unable to combine their different specialties, personal objectives and personalities. Meier is a German PHD engineer, Winkel is a German attorney, specializing in alliances and partnerships and Caldwell is an American accountant from southwest Virginia. As each have three very different backgrounds, the way in which each considers the project will be quite different. Thereby this causes them to have trouble understanding each other as exemplified in the case study where they each believe the project should be directed in different directions.
Another reason that the IMP team is stuck in the storming stage is due to their personal objectives and attitudes towards the project. Meier wants to work on a challenging project with a focus on business, preferring no ‘Hanover’ issues; Winkel wants a business project that requires him to work on a problem outside of his current field of experience and Caldwell wants to expand his vision, to open his mind and explore different ways to solve problems. He also wants to take advantage of the opportunity to network with others. As demonstrated here, Caldwell seems to be the person who is most interested in the project. Unlike that of Winkel who does not share Caldwell’s attitude because of his holiday. His refusal to put any energy into the project due to his doubts of whether he could as a result of his vacation is another source of conflict for his teammates.
This exacerbates the differences between the team members as people who do not do their necessary homework before the teamwork starts annoys Meier and unproductive meeting and a lack of contribution from team members irritates Caldwell. These conflicting objectives and personal attitudes cause a focus on the differences between team members and are the reason why they are reluctant to compromise in order to work as a team.
In addition, the three of them are stuck on storming because they are too focused on the task itself. The reason why the team members have so many conflicts between each other is because they have sped through the forming stage, roughly coming together without any maintenance task preparations. They should assign roles and establish norms first, making sure everyone understands each other. Then when they come to the task, they can compromise and resolve conflicts more easily.
The stages which the team needs to accomplish
As the software project team is currently stuck in its storming phase the team must successfully complete the norming, performing and adjourning stages to achieve success according to Tuckman’s five-stage model of group development. The norming stage is where members resolve the issues that provoked the storming and develop social consensus. Through compromise, the group will function as a collective body rather than as a collection of individuals. In this stage the group will become more cohesive and information will flow freely (Tuckman, 1965). The key characteristics of this stage is developing cohesiveness between group members and creating systems or procedures that will allow the team to maintain this cohesiveness in order to work together effectively toward their goal.
The fourth stage in the Tuckman’s model is performing. In this stage, the team’s primary focus will be on task activities, that is, using their newly developed skills from the maintenance period for task accomplishment. Also as said before, as teams successfully accomplish a task they will be maintaining themselves in the process. Hence both task and maintenance are present in this stage. With reference to the case study, the performing stage of the group should be when Meier, Winkel and Caldwell started working together on their software project. But according to Jex (2002), not all groups are able to reach this stage in group development. These are due to problems that arise in the earlier stage of group development. Such as in this case study where the three team members were not able to resolve issues in their team which did not allow them to move forward with their group development.
When groups have finished the task that they were formed to do, they have two options; to continue performing together, or to disband. In the case where group members disband and each individual moves on to other activities, Tuckman acknowledges this as the adjourning stage. In some cases, the adjourning stage is also used to reflect on their experiences in the group. The reflections are generally used to improve the individual or the group if they happen to work together again.
Why the team has not progressed
As mentioned previously by focusing on fixing their maintenance and task activities the team will have the structure to move onto the next stage of the model. The team needs to undergo maintenance activities before focusing on task activities in order to bring about these changes as in its present state the team is too focused on ‘task’ activities. Currently, each member acts freely without thinking of the implications of their actions on the rest of the group members. An example of this is when Winkel suddenly announces his 3 week Thailand vacation stating that he could not work on the project till February, his “two teammates were not happy”. Also, no compromise has been made by members of the team as “no individual wanted to ‘give in’”, hence no consensus could be achieved. Lastly, information and opinions do not flow freely as “Cadwell shared with the facilitators some of the work he had done” instead of first sharing it with his teammates. It is clear that the team needs to work on these issues in order to achieve the norming stage. They need to resolve its conflict and develop rules and procedures to ensure that cohesiveness and consensus is achieved and maintained.
What Needs to be Done by the Team in Terms of Task and Maintenance Activities
Maintenance Activities
Firstly, the team needs to focus its efforts resolving the conflict that is hindering the team from moving forward with their task. They could do this using various conflict resolution techniques including problem solving, superordinate goals, smoothing, compromise and altering the human variable (Robbins et al., 2007). Problem solving includes a meeting with the conflicting team members to identify and resolve the issue through open discussion. In smoothing, conflicting team members play down their differences and try to emphasize common interests. Compromise occurs when each member of the group agrees to give up something of value in order to reach a consensus. Altering the human variable involves using behavioural change techniques such as human relations training to alter attitudes and behaviors that cause conflict. Superordinate goals involve creating a shared goal that cannot be attained without the cooperation of all the team members; this is discussed in more detail below. (Robbins et al., 2007)
Although there is an obvious goal of finishing the task at hand, this goal is too difficult to achieve in the group’s current state of disorder. The team first needs to set smaller superordinate goals, these are goals that can only be achieved through the collaboration of all team members (Johns et al., 2007); this has to do with maintenance activities. The team then needs to work toward accomplishing these less complex problems as a team, which has to do with task activities, before moving to the larger problem facing them. An example of a ‘smaller’ goal that the team can first focus its efforts on is the establishment of decision procedures. With developing these small goals, the team member will have a common purpose that is more achievable.
Another possible maintenance activity is for team members to undergo training. This may include social training, where team members are trained in assertiveness, problem solving and routine dispute resolution to help the team operate smoothly. Team members may also engage in cross training where members are familiarized with the specialties of the other teammates. This will allow the teammates to picture the problem from each other’s point of view (Johns et al., 2007).
Management may choose to tie rewards to team accomplishment rather than individual accomplishment. This emphasizes the interdependence of all the teammates, and gives them incentive to work out any conflicts they have with each other so as to achieve their ultimate goal.
After the current state of conflict has been resolved, rules and procedures need to be put in place so as to prevent future conflicts from arising. The team will need to develop norms which are the collective expectations that members of the group have regarding the behavior of each other (Johns et al., 2007). The creation of these provides regularity and predictability to behaviour; it gives team members psychological security and permits them to carry out daily business without disruption. (Johns et al., 2007) This not only prevents team members from engaging in unexpected behaviour that will lead to conflict, such as Winkel’s vacation to Thailand, but will also make team mates more confident that everyone will do their part. This in turn would allow the team to work better together and achieve synergy.
Roles may also be assigned to team members based on their individual strengths. Roles are positions in a group that have a specific set of norms attached to them. (Johns et al., 2007) Although there are norms that should apply to everyone in the group, the development of roles means that team members should act differently in some situations. For example, in a meeting, not everyone should be taking minutes and not everyone should be facilitating it at the same time. Assigned roles are formally prescribed by an organization as a means of dividing labour and facilitating task accomplishment (Johns et al., 2007). At the moment Winkel, Caldwell and Meier have not worked out their functions in the team, as all of them want to lead the team in their direction of thought. As a result, everyone seems to be tackling the whole project by themselves, which is evident in module four when Caldwell does not share the information with the team but rather with the facilitators. With the creation of roles, everyone will realize their function in the team, allowing them to be more focused on what they have to do, thereby increasing efficiency in task accomplishment.
Decision procedures also need to be laid down so as to prevent anarchy (Johns et al., 2007), everyone should get an opinion and no one should feel left out or overpowered. This will make sure that everyone feels that their opinions matter and that they are part of the team.
Task Activities
It follows that the team has to focus on the actual task of accomplishing the smaller goals as set out during the maintenance period, that is, move on to task activities. According to Johns et al. (2007), groups will become more cohesive when accomplishing some important goal. As the team is realizing these smaller, more achievable goals, they are becoming more united in the process. By focusing on and completing the task activities, the team is maintaining itself in the process.
By first focusing on maintenance activities, the team establishes a common purpose that is more achievable, and also develops rules and procedures with which the team can work with to achieve their goals. Following this the team will move on to the task activities where the team will focus its efforts on using these new procedures to achieve the goals set out in the team’s maintenance period. In achieving these goals, the team will establish greater cohesiveness which ‘maintains’ the group. If the group manages to achieve this, not only will they be more cohesive, they will also have a system that allows them to get work done. The team can now move on to performing.
Critique and modification of the model
The model of group development proposed by Tuckman is a useful generic proposal of how groups develop yet is not without its limitations. Even within his own article Bruce Tuckman acknowledges that his model does not fully recognize the impact of the experience of the different members in the team and whether they have worked as a group previously (Tuckman, 1965). The life span of a group also has a considerable impact upon how it will develop as this affects the focus of the group. Should the group be assembled for a short span of time then time constraints will become a large focus of the group thereby concentrating the focus upon task accomplishment. This will force group members to either speed through or bypass some stages of the model (Tuckman 1965). Furthermore the differentiation between the stages of the model is not completely clear as they overlap such as between the forming and storming stages where a team may not finish forming before they enter the storming stage (Smith, 2005). Therefore, a modification of Tuckman’s model to a cyclical one is necessary. Bales (1965) argues that during group development members build personal relationships as well as accomplishing the task. The result is that members concentrate on one and then the other creating an oscillating effect between Tuckman’s stages of norming and performing.
This cyclical version of Tuckman’s model is more suited to the software project team as they are stuck between the stages of forming and storming. In the forming stage, where the team is supposed to begin establishing personal relationships, they have been unsuccessful in achieving this goal. Therefore, this is correlated into their progress of their task activities as they have been unable to brainstorm or decide on a suitable idea for their project. Instead they oscillate between the stages of forming and storming as they flew through the forming stage to reach the stage of conflict from which they are unable to progress.
Another modification of the model would be an adaptation of the model of Cassidy (2007) who proposes that instead of going through behavioural stages that Tuckman proposes, group develop through stages that are defined by concerns that need to be addressed. The first being individual concerns, the second group concerns, the third purpose concerns and then work concerns. She contends that as each group moves through different stages of development each concern becomes the central focus (Cassidy, 2007).
The Cassidy theory of concerns better explains the development of the software team as they find themselves stuck in the stages where individual concerns and group concerns are the central focus. This is exemplified by Winkel’s focus on his vacation to Thailand and the disagreement between Meier and Winkel and Caldwell over how to answer the question proposed to them.
Part B: Recommendations:
Distributed Leadership
One of the recommendations in order for the IMP group to progress is to apply the theory of distributed leadership to the team which also has to do with role assignment. Distributed leadership is about creating leadership density and building and sustaining leadership capacity throughout the organization. People in many different roles can lead and affect the performance of their team in different ways (West Chester University of Pennsylvania, 2010).
Distributing leadership, in a practical sense, means a shift away from the traditional, hierarchical, ‘top-down’ model of leadership to a form of leadership that is collaborative and shared. It means a departure from the view that leadership resides in one person to a more complex notion of leadership where developing broad based leadership capacity is central to organizational change and development (West Chester University of Pennsylvania, 2010).
Alibaba.com Limited is the world's e-commerce company. When the business started, the staff had lots of misunderstandings and contradictions between each other. The founder of Alibaba, Jack Ma, used the theory of distributed leadership to solve these problems. He assigns members to the various projects based on their skills. Each of his team members are the ‘expert’ on the team with a chance to fulfil a leadership role which mainly encompasses either envisioning leadership, organizing leadership, spanning leadership or social leadership (Croxon, 2006). Jack Ma makes sure every task is completed on time and to a high standard. Now Alibaba.com Corporation is China's largest and the world’s second largest internet company (Alibaba Group, 1999 – 2008).
The case study’s problem is very similar to that of Alibaba. In the case study, Meier, Winkel and Caldwell have numerous misunderstandings and confrontations. Frau Dammermann can use the distributed leadership theory to assign to them a different leadership role based on their skills and characteristics.
Meier can be assigned as a spanning leader because he has worked with a consulting group that specialized in training materials recently. This indicates that he has lots of experience in communicating with customers and therefore is capable of coordinating the team’s activities with the rest of the organization. It helps the team become more involved in the class and prevents them from becoming isolated.
Winkel can be assigned as a social leader because he has full negotiating responsibility for several key, multimillion projects of the company as a lawyer. He also has worked for several German companies as a negotiator, indicating he is good at negotiating and persuading people. Therefore he is capable of dealing with interpersonal issues in teams such as personal conflicts within organizations. It aids the team in overcoming the problem and helps the organization become more united.
Caldwell can be assigned as an envisioning and organizing leader. He is an American accountant and worked for Continental’s U.S. operations as a financial analyst project manager. Based on the case study discussed in Part A, Caldwell is good at both maintenance and task activities, so he can perform in different roles within the company. Therefore he is capable of facilitating the generation of ideas and innovation, as well as defining the goal of the team, providing structure through a focus on detail, deadlines and time management. It helps the team to create a strong vision of the purpose of the team which can easily be translated into a set of values and efficient task accomplishment.
The advantage of distributed leadership is that the leaders can give the team more directions about the project as each person takes charge of different areas. However drawbacks include team members not necessarily agreeing with their team roles, which may lead to more conflicts within the team.
In the short term team members may not agree with the roles that they are assigned, which may cause more conflicts between the group members. However in the long term team members may be able to get used to their roles which will augment their focus on their project. Therefore, the team will become more productive than before.
Training
The three team members all have different functional specialties. Wickel was an attorney, Meier an engineer and Cadwell an accountant. This may be part of the reason why their views regarding the direction of the project are so different. As mentioned in question one, a recommendation would be the training of team members. In this case, cross-training may be useful; this is where team members are trained in each other’s functional specialties. (txtbk page 103) This will allow the team members to better understand each others views and opinions and understand the usefulness of each other with respect to the project. In realizing each others importance, team members might be able to work better as a team, thereby increasing their cohesiveness.
It is also evident that the team is having trouble socializing, not only within the group, but with the exception of Cadwell, with the other IMP groups as well. This could suggest that the team members might be lacking in their interpersonal skills; this could lead to poor communication and hence a dysfunctional team. Therefore, they could engage in is social training. This will improve communication within the team and allow them to resolve any new conflicts that may arise before they get out of hand. Social training will allow the team to operate more smoothly.
Although the team is characterized by a lot of conflict, these conflicts may only be the symptoms, that is, problems that lie on the surface. These conflicts are caused by other underlying factors, which may include lack of conflict resolution skills or the inability to understand each other’s viewpoints. With training, the team is treating the root cause of the problem and not only the symptoms. This means that future such conflict will be more easily avoided.
Although there are obvious benefits associated with the various types of training for team members, there are also some drawbacks. Training typically takes a long time to implement, and it can be expensive. This option may not be suitable, as the team may not have sufficient time available for a training period. Also, the facilitating team may not have the resources to fund the training. Although there are possibilities of shorter more intensive courses, there would probably be a limit to how much information can be absorbed in a short time period. Hence training would only be practical in the long run.
If the team does go through some kind of training, it may also be the case that they do not put any effort into understanding or remembering any of the concepts taught. Hence making the training redundant.
Team Charter
The final recommendation is the creation of a team charter. The creation of the team charter can be one of the superordinate goals that the team can focus on, it incorporates some of the recommendations that were previously mentioned.
The team charter defines a team’s purpose, objectives, approach, scope of operation and support infrastructure. It provides guidelines on behaviour, day-to-day operations and also assigns roles to members so that every member is aware of their function within the team dynamics.
Team charters may include the following items discussed:
Team Objective – Includes teams’ purpose and mission, so that the team knows what it has to achieve. They use this to define goals and objectives that are measurable and achievable. For example, meeting with a set number of experts in the area of car brakes by a set date.
The purpose for this is so that the team has a clear direction of where it is heading and that they all share the same goals, which may result in increased cohesiveness. It is clear now that the IMP group all have different directions of how to approach the problem as “Meier wanted to take the idea into the future; Winkel wanted to literally answer the questions” and Caldwell was somewhere in the middle of the two. Setting a common purpose will allow the team to gain direction focus and cohesiveness. However setting this common purpose may be very difficult as team members are stubborn and it may take some compromise for them to agree on a common direction.
Team Norms – This includes a list of behaviours regarding performance attendance and conduct that are expected of each teammate. An example of an attendance norm is where the team may decide that every member should attend every meeting set out on the work schedule unless there is a good reason, and if so ample notice should be given. Also teammates should give ample notification of any personal plans that would affect the progress of the project. This prevents teammates from engaging in unexpected behaviour such as Winkel’s “3-week vacation schedules in Thailand”. As discussed earlier this is important as it gives teammates psychological security, hence teammates will be more willing to work harder on the task. Also future conflict will be more easily avoided.
Roles and Composition – Here team members evaluate the composition of the team, that is, different cultures or specialties and assign people to roles that may best suit their abilities. This can be tied into the theory of distributed leadership as discussed above. Currently, the team has been classified as “highly unstructured” by their mentors. Assigning roles will make the team more structured and allow team members to realize what their function is in the team
Operations – In this section, how the team goes about day-to-day operations is outlined such as decision procedures, work schedules and team meetings. For example the team may decide to first agree on a work schedule; when and where the team is to meet every week and how much work should be done per week. Next decision procedures need to be laid down so as to prevent anarchy (Johns et al., 2007), everyone should get an opinion and no one should feel left out or overpowered. They can do this by making sure every member has a set amount of time to express their opinions. Following this the whole team has a set amount of time (x minutes) to discuss the validity of the individuals views. The IMP team has not made much progress within the first four modules, as in the fourth module where other teams were chatting about how “the team was not far along”. With the team agreeing on operational procedures, the team will be more structured with regular team meetings and decision-making is possible with minimal destructive conflict and hence team progress is more achievable.
Punishments – Punishments may also be introduced for a breach of contract, this may be in various forms. For example, each team member may have to pay a hundred dollars for any breach of contract, or it may be the case that at the next meeting their role in the decision-making may be minimized. Punishments are put in place in an attempt to prevent any breach of contract that might occur.
Resources and Support – A list where all resources that are needed come from and support people so as to make sure that team members know whom they could turn to if team goes off track. This also gives the team a kind of psychological security.
The team charter is a superordinate goal that can only be achieved with the participation of every member of the group. After the team charter is drawn up, it should be presented to the team manager or mentor for authorization and as a witness to all teammates’ signatures.
The successful creation of a team contract will improve team cohesiveness. Not only have they completed a task as a group, but they have also defined common team goals and aligned roles. Furthermore there is increased psychological security stemming from the creation of rules and procedures. The team will spend less time on destructive conflict and focus more on the task at hand. The overall result is increased efficiency. This solution is advantageous in the long run as it not only resolves the conflict that is currently plaguing the team, but it also puts into place rules and procedures that will prevent future such conflict from arising. It also makes progress as a team more achievable.
Although creating a team contract may have many advantages, the actual task of creating the contract may be very difficult and time consuming, especially in the short run. As the team does not have much time left to complete the project, this option may not be the best recommendation as it may be too time consuming. Common goals or rules may not be able to be agreed upon, and roles may not be able to be assigned. Another shortfall is that teammates may choose to disobey the rules and procedures, making the creation of the charter redundant. The result may be even more conflict and valuable time wasted.
Conclusion
The IMP team has been unsuccessful at completing their project and progressing through the stages of the Tuckman five stage model. They are currently stuck in the second stage of storming without having fully completed the first stage of forming. As a result of differing work and personal objectives and attitudes as well as personalities the team has been unable to resolve any of their conflicts or gain a direction for the team project. Without completing maintenance activities the team is unable to achieve their task activities and goals. They could accomplish maintenance activities through the resolution of their conflict by the use of different techniques such as compromise, training and assigning roles. This would finally enable them to move on to the last stages of norming, performing and adjourning. The linear nature of the Tuckman model has its limitations in that it does not allow for the impact of team life spans. A circular model suggested by Bales amalgamated with a concerns stages approach proposed by Cassidy would be a better alternative to depicting the development of the IMP group. In order for the team to become effective the report recommends that the team implements the theory of Distributed Leadership, as it will give the team direction as each takes responsibility for their leadership role within the group. Another recommendation is the creation of a team charter and team training. These will give the team a defined set of norms giving each team member psychological reassurance of a set of standard behaviours. Furthermore it will also give the team structure within which it can effectively and efficiently accomplish its maintenance and task goals and progress through the Tuckman model to achieve its project goals.
Bibliography:
Administration and Finance Division: Distributed Leadership. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from West Chester University of Pennsylvania Web site:
Alibaba Group. (1999 – 2008). Jack Ma Chairman and CEO, Alibaba Group. Chairman and Non-Executive Director, Alibaba.com. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from the Alibaba Group Web site
Bales, R. F. (1965). The Equilibrium Problem in Small Groups in A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta and R. F. Bales (eds.) Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction, New York: Knopf.
Berlin, Eaton. (2004). Tuckman’s Model: 5 Stages of Group Development. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from Berlin, Eaton & Associates Management Consultants Web site: .
Cassidy, K. (2007). Tuckman Revisited: Proposing a New Model of Group Development for Practitioners. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 413 – 417.
Chapman, A. (2001 – 2009). Tuckman Forming Storming Norming Performing Model. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from Business Balls Leadership/Management Web site: .
Chimera Consulting. (2001). Famous Models: Stages of Group Development. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from .
Croxon, B. (2006). Interview with Alibaba.com’s Chairman, Jack Ma. Retrieved May 1, 2010 from Alibaba.com Web site:
Eikenberry, K. (2007). Why You Should Create a Team Charter. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from The Sideroad Team Building Web site
Jex, S, M. (2002) Organizational Psychology: A Scientist – Practitioner Approach, (pp. 308 – 320) J. Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Johns, G. Saks, A.M. (2007). Organizational Behaviour 7th Edition, (pp. 224 – 258, pp. 199 – 184) Pearson Education Canada Ontario.
Mind Tools. (1995 – 2010). Team Charters: Getting Your Teams Off to a Great Start. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from
Robbins, S. Millet, B. Waters-Marsh, T. (2007). Organizational Behaviour 5th edn, (pp.73-149) Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia.
Smith, M. K. (2005). Bruce W. Tuckman – Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing in Groups. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from the Encyclopaedia of Informal Education Web site:
Spillane , J. P. (2005). Distributed Leadership. The Educational Forum. 69, 143 – 150.
Stefanova N. (2007, April). Team Charter. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384 – 399.
World Health Organization. (2007). Team Building Tool. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from
