In his approach, Bruce Tuckman identified four fundamental stages of team growth. These phases include testing and dependency, intragroup conflict, group cohesiveness development, and functional role relatedness (Tuckman & Jensen 2010, p. 43). In addition, he identified the following stages of task activity: orientation to operational functions (forming), emotional response to task demands (storming), interchange of appropriate interpretations among team members (norming), and development of solutions (performing) (Tuckman & Jensen 2010, p. 43). Four criteria are provided to illustrate the relationship between group organization, team performance, and task orientation.
Phil recognized accurately that his employees are currently at the storming stage. After becoming acquainted with the project tasks and each other, as well as discussing goals and performance boundaries during the formation phase, Phil's team is attempting to determine the processes and standards that could be implemented inside the group. During the given developmental phase, there is likely to be “an increase in the level of interpersonal friction between the group members,” and employees may begin to question the control and guiding strategies now in place (Dennis & Garfield 2006, pp. 3-4). In some instances, specific management requests and task activities may elicit unfavorable and even hostile attitudes and emotional responses. As the case study demonstrates, there is a high degree of role confusion among the group members. Some employees with decision-making authority are concerned about Phil's inconsistency since he advises them to be proactive and then overrides them afterwards. In addition, there are “undercurrents of tension” among team members due to dispute over assigned roles and tasks. The given challenges restrict effective decision-making and the achievement of individual and overall project objectives, and may hinder the overall success of the project.
Currently, Phil’s primary objective is to bring his team to the performing stage, where members demonstrate commitment and engagement in the work process and assigned tasks, remain focused on their performance and achieving project objectives, and have less destructive attitudes toward one another. To do this, the group must go through the norming stage, which is characterized by the establishment of mutually recognized work processes and project standards, the resolution of interpersonal conflicts and tensions, and the formation of consensus in all areas of team performance (Dennis & Garfield 2006). During this phase, Phil should work to enhance staff communication and connections, as well as establish and strengthen group cohesion. According to Hackman and Katz (2010), a cohesive and highly effective team can achieve amazing synergistic outcomes in a manner that both improves the group as a performing unit and adds to the learning and development of individual members (p. 1214). Phil must know how to effectively utilize the talents, knowledge, and skills of the employees in order to foster team cohesion.
Phil desires to alter the hierarchy within his team. At this time, the decision-making process is heavily reliant on an external actor, i.e., senior management, and individuals with decision-making authority exhibit a high degree of hesitancy. To boost performance, Phil should increase the group's ability for self-management. Researchers identify the following factors that aid in avoiding risks associated with democratic group behavior models: a sense of continuity and collective self-awareness; specialization of functions among employees; enhanced cross-sectional and intergroup interactions; and shared habits, values, and customs (Hackman & Katz 2010). Alongside the group's reorganization, management must give adequate support and foster a collaborative working environment and culture.
According to Hackman and Katz (2010), all groups are characterized by a high level of dependence on their leaders, and the overriding feeling within each group is fear of destruction. When these assumptions are not acknowledged, they can severely hinder the performance of the group and spark conflicts. It is evident from the mentioned difficulties and objectives that Phil should establish a leadership plan. A leadership strategy is intended to address change, flexibility, and future issues, whereas strategic management mostly focuses on existing goals and their execution (Carnall & Roebuck 2015). Leadership entails the motivation and encouragement of personnel towards accomplishments, whereas management focuses solely on the completion of fundamental work operations. Leadership effectiveness depends on the group's communication style. Consequently, in order to motivate his subordinates, Phil, as team leader, must create a vision of the effective team performance that would contribute to the attainment of favorable project outcomes. The vision must be both attainable and inspirational. It should convey the values applicable to all team members and underline the relevance of a creative and amicable workplace. Phil must offer soothing words to the team members during the period of change and adaption to new norms of behavior to help them establish a sense of security throughout the transition to the performing stage. Therefore, for the successful incorporation of the values and vision into the working environment, Phil must maintain effective communication with the employees.
Bibliography
Strategic leadership development: Building world-class performance, Palgrave, New York, Carnall, C., and Roebuck, C., 2015.
A. Dennis and M. Garfield (2006) published "A script for group development: punctuated equilibrium and the stages model." Web.
Hackman, R., and Katz, N. (2010). Group behavior and performance. Handbook of social psychology, volume 2, edited by S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp. 1208-1251.
Tuckman, B., and M. Jensen, "Stages of small-group development," Group Facilitation, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 43-48.
[supanova question]