Essay \"Analysis of the team development according totuckman\'s five stage model and barry\'s distributed leadership\" - grade 78 PDF

Preview

Summary

analysis of the team development according toTuckman's five stage model and Barry's distributed leadership...

Description

Organisational Behaviour (MGMT20001) - Group Assignment Subject Name: Organisational Behaviour Subject Code: MGMT20001 Student ID Number:

Student Name:

Tutorial Day/Time: Thursday/ 10am

Tutor Name: Titus Ng

Assignment Name or Number: Team Assignment Team Number: 2 Team Name: First Class Due Date: 21/09/15

Table of Contents 1.0.0 Abstract 2.0.0 Introduction 2.1.0 The Centillion Team 3.0.0 Part A - Analysis 3.1.0 Tuckman’s Five-stage Model 3.1.1 Forming 3.1.2 Storming 3.1.3 Norming 3.1.4 Performing 3.1.5 Adjourning 3.1.6 Limitations observed through Tuckman’s Five-Stage Model 3.2.0 Barry’s Distributed Leadership Model 3.2.1 Problem 1 – Disregard of junior members’ inputs for scheduling 3.2.2 Problem 2 – Competition for leadership position 3.2.3 Problem 3 – Isolation of a team member 3.2.4 Intervention of Geeta 3.2.5 Limitations observed through Barry’s Distributed Leadership Model 3.3.0 Major Complications Identified 4.0.0 Part B - Recommendations 4.1.0 Recommendation 1: Establishing clear roles and responsibilities 4.2.0 Recommendation 2: Establish common goal to work towards 4.3.0 Recommendation 3: Frequent meetings and performance evaluation 4.4.0 Recommendation 4: Dividing the team into subgroups 4.5.0 Recommendation 5: Fully employing distributed leadership 5.0.0 Conclusion 6.0.0 References

1.1.0 Abstract Through the concepts of Tuckman’s five-stage model and Barry’s distributed leadership theory, we will assess the effectiveness of the Centillion virtual team, and hence provide recommendations for the newly merged team. The primary objective of this report is to provide recommendations to assist in the avoidance of issues discussed in the analysis, as well as to strengthen the effectiveness of the team, particularly in its development and task execution. The major findings of this report are although the team at Centillion was closely aligned with the five-stage model, the lack of distribution of leadership roles in the team impeded the team’s effectiveness. However due to its limitations, these two concepts are not observed to be perfectly adequate in providing sufficient explanations of the case. Nonetheless, recommendations provided will cultivate team development, and empower the team to heighten its effectiveness through task accomplishment.

2.0.0 Introduction Whilst physical boundaries between teams in our current globalised world remain unchanged, recent development of technologies ignited an upsurge in the integration of these teams through virtual networks, giving rise to the term, virtual teams. Centillion is a technology-led medium-sized business that has swiftly emerged as a diversified provider of web-based software service for tertiary education institutions. This organisation’s extensive adoption of virtual teams allows them to employ and connect members from various geographic locations, exploiting the benefits of diversity. The case study presents a random set of six members that are put together on a product development team, whereby they are given the opportunity to compete with another team in order to determine which of the teams can commercialise the product (Parkville University’s prototype version software package) the most effectively and efficiently. During the progress of team development, these six members – Geeta, Kuldeep, Gyeong, Dominic, Fatima, and Lin – are faced with three major complications that serve to inhibit the effectiveness of the team. Through the use of Tuckman’s five-stage model of group development (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning) we will be able to critically examine the effectiveness of team development. On the other hand, from the limited use of Barry’s theory of distributed leadership in the team at Centillion, we are able to identify and investigate the dominant sources of impediments to the effectiveness of the team. From these analyses, an insight into the characteristics of the team and its development process will be understood, and hence enabling the provision of substantial recommendations that minimise obstructions; ultimately adoption of these recommendations would proliferate the effectiveness of the team at Centillion.

2.1.0 The Centillion Team NAME Geeta –

COUNTRY Bangalore, India

Team Leader Kuldeep

Oakland, USA

SKILLS Extrovert. Skilled in

CRITICISM Too macro focus, lacks

conflict management and

an eye for detail

negotiation. 7 years experience in

Introvert

coding. Skilled at commercialisation, budget Gyeong

Seoul, Korea

control and organisation 5 years experience as

Quiet

software code writer. Skilled at database manage. Connections with Dominic

Parkville, Australia

other companies 8 years experience on

Blunt, boorish and

software projects as client

intolerant of diversity

liaison and market Fatima Lin

London, UK

analytics. 2 years experience as a

Shy, may seem passive

Shanghai, China

software developer. 6 years experience in

aggressive Lacks focus, easily

product marketing. Also

distracted

has background in software and database development Table 1: Characteristics of the virtual team members at Centillion

3.0.0 Part A - Analysis The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effectiveness of the team at Centillion. The effectiveness of team development will first be investigated by basing the case on the foundation of the Tuckman’s five-stage model. Following this, the effectiveness of the team in its task execution will be analysed through its utility of Barry’s distributed leadership model.

3.1.0 Tuckman’s Five-stage Model 3.1.1 Forming The first stage of Tuckman’s five stage model of group development is the forming stage. This is where, as described by Bonebright (2010), the group is introduced to the task and the other members. She also asserts that a hierarchical structure is formed within the group as a leader is established and roles are set. Prior to the first meeting in the case, team members had only a basic understanding of the project and of each other; they were only formally introduced to these aspects during the very first meeting. However, as roles and responsibilities were being assigned, slight friction due to competition for key positions was evident. Sutherland and Stroot (2010) supports that agreement on roles and tasks was a predictable outcome as the forming stage is also characterised by considerate behaviour and the anxiety of being welcomed in the group. Lees (2011) argues that this is integral for the group to establish cohesion and affinity for one another. At the end of meeting, the members begin to discuss their personal lives; which will help tighten their social relationship and their trust of one another, thus helping group cohesion (Lees, 2011). However, Patnode (2003) challenges that during this stage, there generally is a lack of progress towards goal achievement and task accomplishment as administrative issues and formalities are addressed; and the Centillion is no exception. Nonetheless, this stage is still vital in establishing group norms and setting the imperative foundation upon which the group is enabled to develop its progress toward its goals and task performances.

3.1.2 Storming The second stage of Tuckman’s five stage model, storming, is the stage where conflict ignites; a stage where, as Bonebright (2010) interprets, unity is scarce, and diverse attitudes to interpersonal issues are abundant. Conflict arises when an individual perceives that another person has, or will have, adversely affected something that matters to him or her (Thomas, 1992). In the case study, Fatima and Gyeong felt that their concerns and opinions toward scheduling were completely disregarded by Kuldeep. Additionally, Dominic failed to maintain constant communication with the team, particularly with regards to his progress on the project. These are forms of process conflict whereby differing perspectives to the procedures of task accomplishment surfaces, resulting in disputes. Often these disputes largely stem from the resistance of influences and task requirements of the group, a key aspect that characterises the storming stage (Patnode, 2003). Tuckman (1965) further asserts that these disputes are primarily due to the increased extent of expressions of emotionality and

individuality that emerge during this stage, whereby members adopt a personalised stance in the direction of group development. These expressions of individuality are also evident when Gyeong and Lin competed for the leadership position for database design and development effort for the project. Traditionally, conflict is viewed as dysfunctional and avoidable, however, Prause and Mujtaba (2015) stresses that recent managerial views of conflict provide an understanding that organisations and teams can benefit from well resolved conflicts. By exploiting this, teams will be able to advance through the storming stage. By determining and confronting previously held assumptions, challenges and outcomes, the storming stage ultimately fosters improvement and development of innovative ideas (Patnode, 2003). From conflict emergence to conflict resolution, group members develop an improved understanding of the task demanded, and a stronger cohesion filled with mutual respect and restored confidence between group members result. As such, by resolving conflicts in a constructive manner the effectiveness of team development through the storming stage can be increased significantly.

3.1.3 Norming The Norming stage is characterized by group coherence as members grow accustomed to group norms, work ethics, and behaviours (Sutherland & Stroot, 2010). Tuckman (1965) emphasises that this is where the group develops a shared mindset and conflicts are avoided to maintain harmony within the group. In this stage, most major conflicts had been overcome, Gyeong and Lin were no longer in dispute over the leadership position of database design; Kuldeep’s schedule had been discussed and compromises were made; and Dominic was no longer working in isolation. Even though there were still disagreements among the team, they were few and far between. This is primarily due to the mutual support of members on the project; integrated team decision-making and reassurance that established ground rules were adhered to. As supported by Bonebright (2010), norms begin to emerge as conflicts are collectively overcome and interpersonal relationships are strengthened. Tuckman (1965) further argues that these social relationships between team members is crucial for a successful team as it enhances the reduction of conflict occurrences as members attempt to maintain the sense of harmony that has now been established.

3.1.4 Performing The performing stage is where the group is working at peak efficiency, as norms have been set and conflicts significantly reduced, resulting in a coherent, flexible and functional group, as depicted in Tuckman (1965) model. They make full use of their strengths to alleviate each other’s weaknesses; brainstorm effectively to solve problems; and are highly motivated to reach the end goal as a team (Scott, 2005). The Centillion team continue to support one another, such as how the more experienced members guide the junior members - Fatima and Gyeong - in order to help develop their skills. The team is able to work the conflicts out on their own without relying on the team leader, Geeta, to intervene and arbitrate for them. By resolving conflicts quickly and efficiently with an optimistic mindset, Patnode (2003)

asserts that the team is ready and able to make progressive improvements to the project process and organisational structure.

3.1.5 Adjourning The adjourning stage is the final stage in the model, although not initially in Tuckman’s model developed in 1965, upon review by Tuckman and Jensen it was eventually added in 1977 (Cassidy, 2007). Sutherland and Stroot (2010) describe this stage as one where the group disbands with heightened emotionality and grievance. In the case, the completion of the project was determined to be a success, in particular regards to the team experience. As the team progressed through the five-stages of team development, strong relationships were collectively cultivated and as such, were promised to be kept in the future on a personal level. Maples (1988) explains that the termination and completion of the project are the dominant processes of the adjourning stage. Accompanying these processes are characteristics that signify the feelings of discomfort due to separation felt by team members. These characteristics provide a clear explanation for the vows made to maintain personal relationships in the future. Furthermore, although this stage appears to be of the lowest task demand, Scott (2005) proposes that it does leave a considerable amount of emotional strain on the group members, thus providing further justifications for the team members’ desire to preserve the intimate relationships they previously had.

3.1.6 Limitations observed through Tuckman’s Five-Stage Model Despite how accurately the five-stage model depicts the process of team development, as a simplification of reality, it is therefore not impeccable. However, it can be perceived as an oversimplification of reality; failing to take into account the different approaches utilised by diverse range of people in relation to resolving conflict. This is emphasised by Rickards and Moger (2000) as they challenge that the model does not perform adequately in addressing the impact of team development on creativity in problem solving. Furthermore, Gersick (1988) displays concern about the model’s inability to present when and how a group progresses from between stages. As a result, Rickards and Moger (2000) suggest that it is possible that a group remains perpetually in the storming stage, never being able to resolve their conflicts and/or develop norms to progress to the next stage. Another major limitation of the five-stage model is that it assumes all group members openly share their needs, desires and opinions. As emphasised by Patnode (2003), some team members may decide to refrain themselves from contributing during decision-making or brainstorming sessions in order to avoid conflict. This is due to the perception that asserting and discussing their ideas would be more problematic than simply accepting the potentially poorer suboptimal decision. He resultantly argues that the team would have failed to exploit the advantages of conflict, overlooking unique perspectives and fosters awareness to a problem that may not have been discovered. As such, by undergoing the conflict process and resolving it in a constructive manner, there will be an upsurge in both performance and efficiency, and ultimately resulting in advancement in team effectiveness.

3.2.0 Barry’s Distributed Leadership Model Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) defines Distributed Leadership as the spanning of leadership roles and responsibilities across multiple group members whereby interaction between them lead to accomplishment of tasks. In Barry (1991) model of Distributed Leadership, he proposes that multiple leadership styles can be adopted by group members of a diverse range of leadership abilities, and the combination of these styles enable the cultivation of synergy. These leadership styles are particularly useful in self-managed teams, such as the virtual team in Centillion, and these styles are categorized into four key roles: envisioning, organising, spanning and social leadership. The envisioning role involves establishing, championing, communicating and fostering visions and innovative ideas to others. The organising role is one that revolves around order and structure of the group; where focus on details and scheduling form the core of this role. The primary aspect of the spanning role is to establish and maintain a connection between the group and its external environment. Finally, the role of social leadership is to satisfy the socio-psychological and emotional needs of group members. These four styles of leadership characterize Barry (1991) model of distributed leadership, however, as will be discussed below, the effectiveness of the team at Centillion proved to be impeded due to the failure to exploit the multiple advantages of this model. At the beginning of the project, Centillion has already assigned Geeta as the project team leader. However, as other roles for the project had yet to be appointed, other members began to vie for key positions. By the end of the first meeting, various tasks and roles were assigned to each team member rather than distributing the four leadership styles for the various stages of the project; signifying the project team’s failure to utilise a distributed leadership approach to team management. Barry’s (1991) theory of distributed leadership strongly suggests that teams which produce strong results are those that are responsible not only for accomplishing the task, but for their own management. Continuing on Barry’s (1991) theory, the leadership of a project team should be divided and rotated depending on the current stage of the project. As the team development progressed, conflicts within the team emerged. These conflicts can be attributed to 3 major sources: 1. Geeta’s overconfidence of the team development Geeta, was initially not concerned with team development and thus did not utilise Yang and Shao (1996) proposal of changing the emphasis of roles during different stages.

2. One formally appointed leader, rather than shared leadership The team effectively only had a single leader, and thus lost the opportunity to have other team members become leaders at different stages of the project to capitalise on their strengths and experience (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Stewart & Manz, 1995). 1. Failure to formally appoint distributed leadership roles

As the distributed leadership style was not formally or clearly adopted from the beginning, Yang and Shao (1996) suggest that the issue arose when there was no formally appointed social leader in the team. As a result, none of the members felt obliged to involve themselves in the conflict, as that is the role of the social leader, to resolve disputes and improve team morale. These sources facilitated three major problems during the course of the project. 3.2.1 Problem 1 – Disregard of junior members’ inputs for scheduling The first setback of the team development involves the scheduling completed by Kuldeep. By dividing the project into key components that are focused on by different members, the team is faced with the issue of individual decision making, rather than the benefits of integrative decision making, which Harris, Leithwood, Day, Sammons, and Hopkins (2007) describe is an integral aspect of distributed leadership. Decisions made without the consent of the whole team would likely lead to disputes, as can be observed from the friction derived from Kuldeep’s scheduling. Although it was effective for Kuldeep to be in charge of scheduling as it is one of his strengths, failure to involve all members in the decision making process resulted in the feeling of negligence by the junior members, Fatima and Gyeong. This division of labour is considered to be counterproductive as emphasised by Yang and Shao (1996), each member has unique qualities essential to the group, thus by involving all members in decision making or problem solving, these qualities can not only be utilized, but also result in synergy. In response to this dispute, Geeta intervenes to address the concerns of Fatima and Gyeong in regards to the scheduling. This example is evidence of her adoption of an organising and social leadership style. By adopting these styles in a period of conflict, the storming stage, she fulfils her requirements to satisfy the emotional and scheduling needs...