Case Study

By

Virgilio John Costin

For
GM591 – Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Professor Bhupinder S. Sran

Keller Graduate School of Management

March 24, 2013

Contents

1. Group Development 3 2. Problem Identification 3 3. Retrospective Evaluation 4 4. Reflection 4 Bibliography 5

1. Group Development

According to the text, there are five stages of group or “team” development which are as follows: a. Forming – where the team members get to know one another b. Storming – at this stage, the group is defining tasks to be performed and are also dealing with any group tensions. c. Norming – where the group begins to work together and building relationships d. Performing – the stage where the group’s relationship matures and complex tasks are handled creatively. This is when the group is most stable. e. Adjourning – the stage where the work is completed and the group disbands.
I believe that Christine’s group is still at the storming stage because the group has not reached cohesion to be classified as being within the norming stage. The fact is, Mike seems to be in limbo somewhere and sees himself as still somewhat of an outsider especially when he encountered the group in the cafeteria having an impromptu meeting. Although Christine seems to be an organized person, her demeanor in dealing with Mike’s issues shows a lack of leadership skills. Having knowledge of group development would have given her concise guidance into which stage her group is at and how to properly address their issues. Although the group exclusive of Mike has probably worked on their areas and already produced results, Mike’s absences and lack of input is a detriment since they are to be graded as a group. 2. Problem Identification

We will need to assume a lot in this area but the obvious problem is Mike’s inability to attend meetings on a regular basis and his limited input. His schedule dictates most of the times that he is able to provide information to the group along with a personal issue that he’s currently dealing with. But, the fact is, Christine is the team coordinator and she has to manage the issues effectively in order to gain a positive outcome. Herein lies another problem which is Christine’s inability to gauge her team members. She probably assumed that they would all automatically fall in line and work on the tasks given to them or that they would all be working together as a cohesive team from the start. 3. Retrospective Evaluation
The first thing that any manager has to accomplish is to plan for any logistical issues such as resource scheduling, meetings, conflicts, etc. Everyone might not have any issues with meetings or when milestones are due but it only takes a single team member to throw off the whole team. Perhaps something could have been arranged for Mike if he was unable to attend. Obviously, from the first team meeting, they thought of him highly as someone that could be an asset to their team. If his part of the project was not dependent on another person’s work then maybe Christine could have met with him separately instead of getting piece-meal information from him from time to time. If his portion of the project depended on another team member then they could have met separately as well. The trick is to not let any of your teammates feel alienated and undervalued. Make them feel like they are a valued part of the team even though you do not see them often. 4. Reflection
I’m going to be different here but I will defend my argument. Since we’re using many assumptions to draw conclusions, I say yes, Christine, I believe, was an effective group leader. There is a point where a group can and may lose a team member and it happens in the real world. Someone just has to take up the slack. We’re not saying that that’s what happened here but from an optimist’s perspective, Christine, being the organized person that she is, would probably have figured out how to make it work with Mike and his conflicts. The norming stage does not entail that the whole group be always together. It just says that the group has now formed a relationship, in this case, a semi-volatile relationship with one team member who is still a valued contributor.
Bibliography

Chapter 7 Teams in Organizations: synergy is the goal
Schermerhorn, John R.. Organizational Behavior, 12th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 11/2011.