Group Development

The group is currently operating in the storming stage of team development. From the case study there is evidence that the group has gone through the forming stage by Christine’s reflection of the team members. The storming stage consists of the team going through a period of tension amongst the group members as they determine their roles and within the team. Christine makes reference to her doubt in Mike’s commitment to the team and the project as a whole. She also notes his lack of participation and excuses for not meeting his tasks. There are two references to a social dynamic that exists with four of the five team members. This is highlighted in the study when Mike confronts the other team member in a social setting accusing them of having a team meeting without his involvement. Diane is also noted as being considered an under performer and only contributing when required. Christine may be considered under performing as the team coordinator of the group. Her lack of recognition of team issues and tension has placed the group in jeopardy of delivering a good solution. In addition, Steve has taken on leader duties by formalizing the meetings with agendas, outcomes instead of Christine.
Due to Christine’s lack of experience in a team environment and being a team coordinator, she does not have the appropriate skills to effectively manage the team. Christine appears to be detailed and task oriented, but does not understand the dynamics of teams or team development. As a result the team is not meeting their goals as easily as it could. There are issues with member satisfaction within the team. Diane is perceived as withdrawn and only participates when requested. Mike participates, but is not active with the team as it relates to meetings or social settings. Christine also appears to be driven by her individual concerns about her grades. If Christine had a better understanding that teams actually can create better ideas and outcomes she would realize her grade would be better if the team was performing well.
Problem Identification Our OB textbook states; “The fact is that there is a lot more to teamwork than simply assigning members to the same group, calling it a “team”, appointing someone as a “team leader”, and then expecting them all to do a great job.” (Schermerhor, Jr., Hunt, Osborn, & Uhl-Bien, 2010). This statement is exemplified by this case study. The problem the team is facing is lack of cohesion in the roles and outcomes. The primary problem is, Christine was elected the team coordinator, but is not acting in that role. Of the five members on the team, Christine feels she is an organized and meticulous individual. Steve appears to be outcome driven, and is reflected by Christine as businesslike and agenda driven with measured results. Diane is introverted and will provide input only upon request. Janet is outgoing and appears to go beyond what the team expects of her. Mike appears to be a social slacker and is not participative with the team. These summaries outline the group has gone through the forming stage, where they begin to know each other, and into the storming stage of development.
Although Christine is detail oriented and meticulous, she does not actively manage the team from a coordination and outcome perspective. She appears to be more concerned about grades than the success of the team. Steve has emerged as the primary person leading the team. He is requiring the team to review status and identify what is accomplished and what is still unresolved. Christine appears to only facilitate the meetings, not work to get the team focused. Her acceptance of Mike’s lack of participation is costing the team to meet their goals. She should have dealt with Mike’s issues at the onset and given him guidance on participation. If Mike continued to not participate, she should have escalated to Sandra.
The second problem facing the team is Mike’s involvement. Although he has good ideas, Mike is not contributing to the team overall goal. His appearance of social loafing has been accepted by Christine and even adopted as his contribution method. Mike obviously feels isolated from the team from his reaction to the group being together in a social setting. Finally, Christine allows Mike to continually make excuses without ramifications. This can have a negative impact on the other team members as they will probably feel that Mike will benefit from their hard work.
If Christine had a better understanding of team member needs and team development she may have been successful as the team coordinator. Understanding the stages of team development would have aided Christine in identifying the issues she faced. During the forming and storming stages, Christine should have recognized that Steve was a natural team leader. Also, she should have understood Mike’s dynamics and worked to develop a process to accommodate him. Mike is not necessarily bad for the team, he had good ideas. But, in their use of a formal team model, he was not able to contribute without being present. Diane also had well thought ideas and suggestions. However Christine did not understand how to get Diane more involved in the process. Diane is allowed to not contribute to the process without solicitation. Understanding her needs and personality would probably make her contributions more valuable.
Retrospective Evaluation

The primary issue the team is facing is Christine’s inability to effectively be the team coordinator. There are numerous alternatives to rectify this. Steve appears to be a natural leader amongst the team. His structured team approach appears to keep the group on track. Given the time constraints and scholastic environment of the team, Steve may be a good fit to lead to a successful outcome. There is evidence of a social group that has formed between Steve, Diane, Janet and Christine. Steve should use this group as an opportunity to review the team status and offer to assist or outright lead the team. Christine obviously has issues dealing with Mike. Steve should use this as a reason to take over the burden and deal with Mike. However, Steve’s rigid structure may also be a hindrance to the team and possibly alienate some members.
Janet is not mentioned to a great extent in the case study. However, she is perceived as organized and the strongest contributor. She also has a good relationship with the social aspect of the team. Her high performance may be a positive influence to the team and help to inspire Mike and Diane to contribute more. She may be able to motivate the others and bond the team without the rigid structure that Steve conveys. She may be able to deal with Mike in a more virtual way to have him develop and deliver his tasks even though he cannot consistently met with the team. The table below outlines two solutions to the problem along with the Pro’s and Con’s of each leadership choice.

Propose Solution Pro’s to Choice Con’s to Choice
Steve – Team Coordinator 1. Businesslike in approach to team meetings
2. Agenda driven in meetings
3. Outcome driven with results or outstanding deliverables 1. May be viewed by team as inflexible in approach
2. Could cause other members to become more isolated (i.e. Mike, Diane)
Janet – Team Coordinator 1. Appears motivated and overachieving
2. Has no indicated issues with team members or own problems
3. May be able to work with Mike better than Steve or Christine 1. No information in case study to indicate she would be a good team coordinator.
2. Leader role may diminish her ability to contribute at the level she currently does

Reflection

In order to create high performing teams, one needs to understand the developmental stages of teams. There are numerous dynamics within teams that need to be understood and addressed. Each team will need to go through the first four stages of development in order to mature and become productive. Team members need to identify their needs and roles within the team. Once this is done the team can become cohesive and start performing well. Understanding how to adjust cohesiveness within the team will assist in keeping the team successful. The case study outlined the short comings of not allowing a team to form correctly. They made decisions early in the team’s forming stage relating to a leader that caused issue. They did not identify and address issues with members and performance during the team’s storming stage and take corrective action. References
Schermerhor, Jr., J. R., Hunt, G. J., Osborn, R. N., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2010). Organization Behavior 11th Edition (11 ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.