Title

Construction Teams

Martin Thewlis MSc Project Management in Construction

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................2
2.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................3
3.0 Team model............................................................................................................4
4.0 Leadership..............................................................................................................6
5.0 Recommendations for improving performance......................................................8
6.0 Conclusion............................................................................................................10
7.0 References...........................................................................................................11
1.0 Executive Summary

Large construction organizations the like of xx construction are made up various

disciplines that operate across multiple constructions projects varying in value and
duration. Due to this dynamic nature teams are brought together from within the
organization based on the available skills. Most projects last less than 18 months so
teams must adapt quickly. The purpose of the report is to critically review the
performance of a construction team and review the factors that affected the success
and failures of the team. Recommendations will then be sought to try and develop a
means of improvement.
The critical evaluation of the project team has found that whilst the project eventually
achieved its target of completion there were aspects that could have been improved
upon. There was a limited number of character types, poor communication and a
leadership style that does not suit the working style of the rest of the team.
The Report finishes on a set of recommendations that if implemented could go some
way to improve the general performance of the team and the long term
organizational operating procedures. The report also concluded that there should be
further research as to the general ability of the team.
2.0 Introduction

Project
manager

Senior Quantity
Serveyor

Assitant Design
Site Manager Engineer
Planner manager

Assistant Site
Manager

Figure 1

3.0 Team model

Thompson (2014 p. 02) describes a work team as “an interdependent collection of

individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations”
(Thompson 2014). Construction teams are complex and subject to constant change;
projects end, and teams disband. This makes building a team that is cohesive
important to the success of a project.
The team in question was put together by the Project manager. This is common of a
basic hierarchal management model the project manger selected the members that
would make the team based on availability and the skills, knowledge and experience
that everyone possessed.
Most project teams will go through a process known as Forming, storming, norming
and performing (Tuckmen 1965). Tuckman used this phrase to describe the journey
that a team would go through during its lifecycle Figure 2.
The project team had not previously worked together so the PM’s role would be
important during the forming stage to bring the team together and define the roles
and expectancies. This was originally defined as orientation, testing and
dependence. How it relates to the team is how the leader guides the members in the
new situation they found themselves in, revealing the strengths and capabilities of
each member and create the interdependency that was discussed by Thompson. He
would act as chair during team design meetings. As identified by Belbin (2011) the
chair would be a chiasmatic and commanding figure who would generate trust who
looked for and knew how to use ability. However, commanding the PM would often
also dominate proceedings which led to lack of communication and confusion
between the other team members.

The team eventually moved into what could be described as the storming stage. The
small constituents in it meant that the roles of each member and how the team will
work should be clearly defined (Mindtool, internet 2020). Without this structure the
team members are likely to become stressed or overwhelmed by their workload. The
different disciplines started to reject the ways in which others worked. Frustration
started to develop due to constantly changing programs and the management of
design issues caused problems on site. One of the big issues that was evident was
that the issues that were arising was not being shared by the leader with the rest of
the team. Effective leadership is required at this point or the team risks becoming in
a perpetual stage of storming. Whilst the description of “leader” is one that can be of
a very broad spectrum, it is described most popularly as the ability to influence
people (walker 2011). Failing to act creates an environment where trust cannot
flourish.
Over time the dynamic of the team started to change. Which is consistent with
Tuckman’s norming stage. The lack of actual affective leadership style acted to bring
the rest of the team together. Strengths were identified and weakness also.
However, the team started to work together to plug any gaps that came to the
surface. During this stage of the process it is important that the leader starts to take
a more consultant role, checking in on the team and to ensure that the end goal is
not lost but to allow the team to continue working together to solve issues an make
the necessary decisions. The PM however did not step away and became more
autocratic. This style of leadership can be helpful in large organisations where
decisions need to be made quickly. Sometimes in complex situations on site this did
help the team when they were uncomfortable with the situation. But this needs to be
a short-term solution. Over time this became a demotivating factor on the team’s
performance and moral suffered (Maureen & Cato, 2016)

The natural route in Tuckman’s model would now to move into the latter stage of the
teams timeline of performing. During this stage, the team aims to combine their skills
and personal attributes to implement them into achieving the project specific goals.
This is described as functional role relatedness. The team should now feel added
motivation whilst supporting the other members in their roles. There should be a
distinct shift away from the team being a collection of individuals with siloed
objectives into the ‘Team’. There is a tendency for the norms to more flexible. (Miles
1953) Wrote “In groups where the interpersonal bonds are genuine and strong ...
members give one another a great deal of mutual evaluative support, which seems
to be a prime requisite for successful behaviour change”. The team relied on the
relationships that had been formed to work through the issues that the leadership
had created. Whilst the project had become tiresome due the stresses that were put
upon the members by the confused leadership approach, they also began to create
an almost emotional support network for each other. It was clear between the team
that the issue that was prevalent and affecting each member was the leadership.
The team had become managed not led.

Figure 2

4.0 Leadership

The extent to which teams are successful can be described as the results of the sum
of its parts. Belbin in his study of teams revealed nine distinct roles Figure 3
Figure 3
The roles Belbin talks of are not concerned with their job description, rather a way of
operating within a team construct. It concluded that winning teams possessed a
good balance of roles. Too many of one type or pure teams can have a negative
effect.
The team in question possessed a majority of team workers. This did produce a
team that was willing to get involved with any aspect of the project that could help
reach the target goals and offer support and moral boosting along the way. However
what was apparent that was in the absence of clear direction there was a struggle to
actually make timely decisions out of fear of upsetting another member which had a
tendency to create an anxious feeling amongst the group. (Belbin 2011 p 88).
Summarized that unsuccessful teams were mainly characterized by an over-
emphasis on a particular role or ability.
Due to this situation of imbalanced roles the team would rely on the PM to provide a
solid leadership foundation and to bring the team together. The leader would need to
be adaptable and react to the situation. (Fielder, 1976) developed a contingent
theory that stated leadership effectiveness was dependent on the situation that the
leader was presented with and the application of their style. As Identified the team
was one which relied on regular feedback and building relationships with their leader
this is typical behaviour of someone that is highly possessive of the team worker
trait. Fielder identified that the leader should adapt their stye dependent on the
relationship with the members and the level of trust. The PM on this project was very
task orientated and cared little about relationships. The project was facing issues
with programs, defects, task clarity was low, and people were taking time off sick,
which was adding to the pressure and unfavourable circumstances that the team
were working in. The team would be heavily criticised if work objectives were not
carried out to a standard that the PM regarded as acceptable. In this situation
because there was a lack of trust and somewhat ambiguity of the tasks required, the
team did not favour well with a task driven leader Figure 4 and perhaps would have
achieved more with a more relationship driven leader that would have worked more
closely with the members of the team and developed a bond and mutual trust
(Walker 2011). Based on fielder’s theory that an affective leader needs to adapt it
would be seemingly impossible for the PM to achieve positive results. Essentially, he
had failed before he started because he did not fit the situation. From this
perspective the only way to improve on the situation would be to replace the PM with
someone whose leadership traits reflected the team. So, the problem it seems was
not that he was not a good leader but that he was placed into an unfavourable
situation and did not possess the skills required to bring out the best of the team
members. What is worth mentioning is that the project did reach all the targets that
were required and was perceived as successful. But the ends result was of poor
quality and relationships were broken by the end of it, which cannot be deemed a
success. Fielders contingency theory is not affective in deciding the effectiveness of
a leader though because it gives them an excuse to fail by implying that there is no
flexibility for them to learn from a situation.

Figure 4
Analysing the performance of the team it was clear that the most prevalent issues
were poor leadership style which affected the moral but also a unfavourable mix of
role types within the group that created a hard situation for the PM to manage. This
led to a communication breakdown.

5.0 Recommendations for improving performance

The first objective should be to create a team that as identified earlier in the text is
interdependent on one another without this they are just a group of people. This
means that is, the skills and attributes that each team member possesses acts to
bolster the skills of other members. And act to bridge the gap where certain traits
that lead to a successful outcome is lacking. In a team like xx where the role types
are heavily biased towards people an equilibrium should be sought to include
thinkers and action types insert reference. In an organisation the size of xx
construction it is entirely possible to put more effort into the structuring of teams.
There should be a dedicated team that works on identifying the roles that make up
the organisation. This should also then be included in the recruitment process so that
future teams also do not suffer with this imbalance of roles. If Bam construction was
to implement this kind of psychological role profiling it would lead to much better
performance not only in the short term but also long term. Belbin 2011 later
discovered the morning stage and this is typical of construction projects like xx that
last for around two years, before they have settled into their roles and built the
relationships required for success they disband and get often inappropriately put
together with another group of individuals and are starved of the opportunity to work
to their highest potential. But by already being aware of the roles inside its
organisation then they would be able to plan and ensure that projects are include a
suitable mixture of role types.
Secondly to see improvements in the team’s performance there would need to be a
change in the way in which leadership was delivered to the team. Identified in the
review of the team’s performance was that the leadership style that was used was a
traditional hierarchical approach. This means that the PM would use his status to
hold rank above the subordinates and make most of the decisions with very little
consultation with the rest of the team. In organizations the size of Bam construction
each team has a varied set of specialist skills. The PM on the project should use
these skills next time and use a more diplomatic approach. (Huczynski and
Buchanan 2007) identifies that “leadership is an interpersonal process in which one
individual seeks to shape and direct the behaviour of others. There could be no
denying that on the PM held a high status but what he lacked was the support and
most importantly the respect of his team. If he were at adopt a more humanistic and
authentic style of leadership, he would likely see a range if improvements within the
team. By leading with a sincere ethical approach to building trust and creating values
which the team could believe and strive to uphold and be more diplomatic in his
approach to decision making this would create a positive outcome. This is not to say
that the PM should not use his own discretion, but he should always include the
team in his decision making. Authentic leaders are explicit in their ideals but build
trust with open trust and communication shared between the team. So, xx should
aim to develop their leaders to lead by example and to create an environment of trust
and openness, particularly when the leader is put into a situation where the majority
of the team is relationship orientated. It should be noted though when a team is
mainly made up of task orientated individuals a leader who adopts this style may
waste time trying to build relationships.
Finally the team would benefit from increased levels of communication both within
the team and also from the PM. High levels of efficient communication is the
foundations of good teamwork and is about sharing the right information with the
right people at the right time. What that means is the information needs to be correct
and without errors and ambiguity, it also needs to be delivered to the right people
that need it fulfil their roles. It must be delivered in time to allow the members of the
team sufficient time to evaluate the information and develop a full understanding.
Failing to withhold information can lead to inefficiencies in the team’s performance
and only leads to further problems. Due to the PM’s tendency to make to majority of
the decisions on the project without other team member involvement this
automatically leads to a lack off communication similarly because of the inherent
characteristics of the rest of the team they would exhibit a reluctance to share
information. Perhaps due to fear of making a mistake or at the prospect of upsetting
another team member. The project manager should look at his team members and
see what their preferred methods of communication are. Being that the PM was very
commanding and extrovert his usual method of communication would be verbal.
Source for myers briggs walker 2011 developed a scale of communication types
based on extroverts and introverts and this shows that whilst this method of
communication works well for extroverts like the PM it is not so well received by
members that are more introverted such as the team. The PM should seek to ensure
that the style of communication is suited to the team.
6.0 Conclusion

The project team did not perform well together. There was an obvious lack of
cohesion which was due in some part to the personality traits of the members which
led to poor performance and a distinct lack of central communication. The leadership
also tended to be far too task orientated and did not create a favourable environment
for the team. Better team selection by the organization, increased and more effective
channels off communication and a review of leadership style are all factors identified
that could assist in producing better outcomes. This project team however needs a
deeper analysis. The report reviews the cultural and social aspects of the team but
does not look to assess the ability of the team. If anything can be taken away from
this report is that selection of the team is crucial to the outcome and the events that
will transpire along the way. Real effort should be taken to ensure that teams are
compatible and not just available resources.
7.0 References

Belbin, M. R. (2011). Management Teams Why they succeed or fail (3 rd edition).

Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann
Huczynski, A.A. and Buchanan, D.A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour: An
Introductory Text (6th edition) Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, UK.
Maureen, R., & Brian, C. (2016). Construction Management and Organisational
Behaviour (1st ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Miles, M. B. (1953). Human relations training: how a group grows. Teachers
College Record, 55, 90–96.
Mindtools content team. (2020). Fiedler’s Contingency Model: Matching
Leadership Style to a Situation, Retrieved from
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
Mindtools content team. (2020). Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing:
understanding the Stages of Team Formation, Retrieved from
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
Thompson, L. (2014). Making the Team A Guide for Managers (4 th edition).
London: Pearson Education limited.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–
399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Walker, A. (2011). Organizational Behaviour in Construction (5 th edition). West
Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell