The TPR Model | 1

THE TPR MODEL

Learn How to Analyze and Change Your Team’s Direction

by Evelyn Williams & Yifat Sharabi-Levine

A Case Study: “My team is stuck and I don’t know what to do,” said Ken, a highly competent and
Ken and His Team motivated MBA student in our coaching meeting. He seemed pretty upset and
frustrated. “We just don’t know how to work together and we’re spinning our wheels
wasting a lot of time and energy. Everyone seems to just be doing the minimum
possible, few seem to actually listen when some individuals speak, some folks are
getting hostile with each other, and others just want to bail on the whole project. It
would be easier if I just did the work myself. Why is this happening and how can I
turn it around?”

Sound familiar? Whether you’ve been a team task, selecting the members, and facilitating the
member or a team manager, most working team process (Thompson, 2000).
adults have been a part of a team that has been
The task process relationship (TPR) model is a
far from high performing. How do you change
framework used to analyze and assess
the course of a team? How do you take an
individual and team behaviors relative to tasks,
underperforming team and turn it into what
the processes used to achieve tasks, and the
some refer to as a “Hot Group” (Lipman-Blumen
quality of relationships among the team
& Leavitt, 1999)? Seasoned managers
members. Optimizing these three sets of
recognize that their success depends in large
behaviors (task, process, and relationship) is
part on how effectively they can build and
essential and critical to achieve and maintain
maintain a well-functioning team. Managing an
team productivity for the long run. Examining
effective team involves managing the internal
team dynamics along these three dimensions
dynamics of the team itself, that is, clarifying the
enables both team leaders and team members

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 2

to proactively develop and make ongoing findings, and present examples of behaviors
adjustments to build an effective and high- that support the development of a team and
performing team. Below we describe and define enhance its ability to achieve goals effectively.
the three dimensions, cite relevant research

The Task: Where do we want to go and what needs to be done to get there?

Every team exists to achieve a shared goal. purposes and goals build on one another and
Simply put, teams have work to do. Teams are combined with team commitment, they
produce outcomes for which members have become a powerful engine of performance.”
collective responsibility and reap some form of Therefore, in high-performing teams, it is not
collective reward (Thompson, 2000). The team enough for team members to simply perform
task can vary and can be characterized as a within their functional area of expertise. They
tactical, problem solving, or creative task. The need to coordinate the efforts of the team toward
nature of the team task influences the selection goal-directed behaviors, agree on milestones
of its members and the process to achieve the and deliverables, implement and monitor plans,
deliverables. and ultimately achieve their targeted results.
Below is a sample of task management
Katzenbach and Smith (1993) emphasized that
behaviors, which can be initiated by every team
“teams develop direction, momentum and
member, that help move the team forward in its
commitment by working to shape a meaningful
attempt to achieve its goals.
purpose. … Most successful teams shape their
purpose in response to a demand or
opportunity put in their path, usually
EFFECTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS
by higher management. … The best
INCLUDE:
teams translate their common
purpose into specific performance - planning the work (setting goals and deliverables)
goals… Indeed, if a team fails to - allocating resources (including human)
establish specific performance goals - monitoring performance and deliverables
or if those goals do not relate directly - monitoring schedules and milestones
to the team’s overall purpose, team - coordinating tasks
members become confused, pull - identifying roles and responsibilities
apart, and revert to mediocre
performance. By contrast, when

The Process: How do we manage the journey from start to finish?

The concept of “process” is central to an
understanding of team dynamics. In its
broadest sense, process refers to how things
are done rather than what is done. Team
process is the way in which the group works,
and how it solves problems, gathers
information, communicates, makes decisions,
and handles conflicts. Groups may have the
same task and same content yet engage in
drastically different processes of working on
the task. For example, in one group the team
leader calls on people to give their input versus
in another group, the team leader asks for very
little input. In one group there is angry
confrontation and arguing over strategy; and in
another group there is polite, formal
questioning. In one group decisions are
typically made by consensus, in another they
are made by voting, and in a third they are

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 3

usually made by the manager after listening to
the discussion (Schein, 1987).
Improving one’s own process skills in observing
what goes on in the group can provide
important data for understanding groups
and increasing their effectiveness. Often,
the most effective group member will be
the one who can function as
“participant/observer”; one who
contributes to accomplishing group tasks
while remaining conscious of how the
group works together. This approach
allows the observer to share pertinent
observations with the group when
necessary to help deal with maintenance issues
and blockages that arise out of self-oriented
needs (Schein, 1999).
EFFECTIVE PROCESS MANAGEMENT
BEHAVIORS INCLUDE:
- observing the group dynamic
- surfacing process blocks that stymie the group’s
productivity
- tracking behavior patterns
- setting productive group norms
- revisiting unproductive group norms

The following processes are at the heart of understanding team dynamics and have a strong
impact on how the group achieves its task, the relationships among the team members,
decision-making procedures, communication, and conflict management.

DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES
It is important to
observe how decisions EFFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING BEHAVIORS INCLUDE:
are made to assess - initiating and testing group assumptions regarding relevant decisions
the appropriateness of - demonstrating openness to new ideas
the methods used and - focusing on consequences and scenario planning
to determine whether - inquiring (versus advocating fiercely) about potential solutions
the consequences - playing devil’s advocate
mirror what the group - generating a broad range of perspectives and alternatives
members intended.
Some of the decision-
discussion, majority control, minority control,
making procedures are: decision by authority
and consensus.
without discussion, self-authorized (decision by
one member), decision by authority after

COMMUNICATION
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS INCLUDE:
Communication is one of the
- asking powerful open-ended questions
easiest group process patterns
- acknowledging other’s points
to observe. Who talks and for
- synthesizing and summarizing main points
how long and how often? Whom
- noting nonverbal clues and addressing them
do people look at when they
- listening effectively (without interruptions)
talk? Who supports them: the
- building on others’ comments
group as a whole, the leader, no
- making points succinctly
one? Who talks after whom?
- contributing to the flow of discussion
Who interrupts whom? What
- keeping absent members informed
style of communication is used:
assertions, questions, tone of

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 4

voice, gestures, support, negation? These group, such as who leads whom or who
observations can give us clues to other influences whom.
important processes that are going on in the

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Critical thinking and rigorous debate, which are real weaknesses and introduce new ideas.
part of high-performing teams, invariably lead to Interpersonal conflict is emotional and often
conflict. The good news is that conflict brings involves personal friction, rivalries, and clashing
issues into focus, allowing leaders to make personalities, any of which can lead to personal
better-informed choices. The bad news is that attacks. Role performance conflict stems from
the wrong kind of conflict can derail the differences in work styles (such as punctuality
teamwork (Garvin & Roberto, 2003). Conflict vs. procrastination, individualistic vs.
comes in three forms: task conflict (cognitive), collaborative, sharing information vs.
interpersonal conflict (affective in its nature and withholding information). Over time, differences
can involve personal
attack), and role EFFECTIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS INCLUDE:
performance conflict - asking powerful open-ended questions
(differences in work - acknowledging other’s points
styles). Task conflict - synthesizing and summarizing main points
relates to the work at - noting nonverbal clues and addressing them
hand. It involves - listening effectively (without interruptions)
disagreement over - building on others’ comments
ideas and - making points succinctly
assumptions and - contributing to the flow of discussion
differing views on the - keeping absent members informed
best way to proceed.
This conflict is healthy in styles can cause conflict and, if not discussed
and crucial for effective team decision making; and resolved, can lead to interpersonal conflict
when people express differences openly and and breakdown of relationships.
challenge underlying assumptions they can flag

The Relational: How do we build, maintain, and repair relationships?

How do we engage the minds, hearts, and spirits of our members?

In the course of working together, individuals members feel as they accomplish the task and
have countless conversations and opportunities processes of the team.
to engage with their teammates. Each
Numerous studies have shown that teams are
conversation or engagement affords individuals
more creative and productive when they can
an opportunity to both accomplish some task
achieve high levels of participation,
(e.g., clarify deliverables, solve problems) AND
cooperation, and collaboration among
an opportunity to build, maintain, or diminish a
members. In the article “Building the Emotional
relationship (e.g., express empathy, make the
Intelligence of Groups,” Druskat and Wolf
speaker feel understood, heard). Relationship
(2000) showed that there are some basic
behaviors are those behaviors that foster
conditions that must be present before such
feelings of mutual trust, belonging, fulfillment,
behaviors can occur. Among them: the
and inclusion in a team. They fuel the
development of mutual trust among members
undercurrent of enthusiasm or angst that team

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 5

and a sense of group identity (a feeling among often correlated with the level of team
members that they belong to a unique and cohesiveness. Members of cohesive teams sit
worthwhile group). Druskat and Wolf (2000) closer together, focus more attention on one
emphasized that teams with high emotional another, show signs of mutual affection, and
intelligence develop a team atmosphere and display coordinated patterns of behavior. Most
norms that build emotional capacity (the ability importantly, members of cohesive teams are
to respond constructively in emotionally more productive than members of non-cohesive
uncomfortable situations) and influence groups (Dion & Evans, 1992; Michel, Hambrick,
emotions in constructive ways. & Thompson, 2000).
The quality of relationships
between team members is EFFECTIVE INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORS INCLUDE:
- making others feel understood
RELATIONAL SKILLS - motivating and inspiring others
- giving constructive feedback effectively
Team members are, first - cooperating
and foremost, human - giving recognition
beings with their own - expressing empathy
issues, problems, agendas, - encouraging and supporting others
and aspirations. In high- - harmonizing
performing teams,
- respecting others
members are aware of the
- being open to being influenced by others
emotional state of other
- repairing any damaged relationships after conflict situations
team members and take
- being receptive and non-defensive when given feedback (vs.
initiative to address that in a
“flooding” and stonewalling)
constructive way.
- creating an affirmative team environment (a can-do attitude)
Interpersonally competent
- including others (e.g., solicit input from quiet members)
team members have the
- offering condolences for setbacks in and outside the workplace
ability to relate to the
feelings and needs of
member enjoys the benefit of gaining more
others and to convey interest and respect
influence in the group; others tend to listen to
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989). This attention to the
her/him more attentively and be more open to
emotional and personal needs of other team
her/his ideas; simply put, members are willing to
members can help the team develop mutual
be more influenced by her/him.
trust. Often, the relationally competent team

RELATING ACROSS DIFFERENCES

In today’s global environment many
organizations have a presence in several
countries. It is common to find diverse teams that
are composed of members who differ from each
other on many dimensions: nationality, culture,
values, gender, race, age, and more. Learning to
relate to those who are different than us is
becoming a must-have skill to operate in a global
environment. A diverse and heterogeneous
workforce can give teams a competitive
advantage by having an expanded talent pool of
potential team members. In addition,
heterogeneous groups are more likely to come
up with creative solutions to complex problems
(Shaw, 1981, in Thompson, 2000). Building
relationships is not an easy task; it is even harder
in culturally diverse groups. If improperly
managed, these groups may not perform up to

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 6

their potential. A study of culturally

diverse work groups showed that
homogeneous groups reported
better process effectiveness than
heterogeneous groups during the
first few weeks. However, at nine
weeks, the performance of the
diverse and homogeneous groups
was similar. Diverse teams will often
(but not always) experience more
conflict than homogeneous groups,
as individuals attempt to reconcile
one another’s views or simply decide
upon a single course of action. In
their book, The Inclusion
Breakthrough, Miller and Katz (2002)
promoted the idea that creating an
inclusive work environment can
increase mutual trust and respect
among diverse team members and
enable the team to capitalize on the
strengths of their diverse workforce.
EFFECTIVE INCLUSION BEHAVIORS INCLUDE:
- greeting others authentically
- creating a sense of “safety” for yourself and team
members
- addressing misunderstandings and resolving
disagreements
- listening carefully to the person speaking until she or
he feels understood
- communicating clearly, directly, and honestly
- leaning into discomfort; showing willingness to
challenge self and others
- hearing all voices and allowing for all options
- asking others to share their thoughts and experiences
and accepting their frame of reference as true to them
- speaking up when people are being excluded
- making careful choices about group actions and
schedules
- building trust: doing what you say you will do and
honoring confidentiality
(MILLER AND KATZ, 2002)

THE TPR MODEL

The TPR model is a behavioral tool that can be used to diagnose team dynamics. It provides the observer
with a well-rounded perspective with which to assess what is going on in the team. In the movie National
Treasure (Walt Disney Pictures, 2004), Nicolas Cage’s character uses special three-lens glasses to decode
an ancient treasure map. Only when he lays the three lenses (red, blue, and green) on top of each other is
he able to solve the code. In a way, the TPR model provides three lenses (task, process, and relationship)
that help the observer understand more fully the group dynamics and intervene accordingly. Each of the
dimensions of the model interacts with the others—for example, a task-directed behavior also can affect the
processes you use and ultimately the relationships you have with one another. Using the TPR model helps
in the analysis of a behavioral intervention in a team and predicting how it will affect a team on multiple
levels. For example, understanding how role-assignments are determined helps clarify roles (task),
establishes how you are going to work together in making decisions, and sets the stage for the relationships
members will have with one another in these various roles and ultimately how much they feel like
contributing to the team’s purpose. Moreover, while teams come in many shapes and sizes, the TPR model
provides an analysis tool for both team members and leaders to use. Our emphasis on behavioral analysis
creates a level playing field for all members of a team to monitor team progress, solicit feedback, and make
behavioral changes that will impact the performance of the team.

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 7

Case Study: Coach: Let’s take a moment to analyze the performance and dynamics of the team
using the TPR model. If you were to just focus on the task of your team, where you
Getting back to want to go and what needs to be done to get there, what is working and not
Ken and His Team working?

Ken: Well, we did meet some of our initial deliverables, but that was just low-
hanging fruit. I do think that because my team is part of a new program that was
just launched, there may be a lot of ambiguity about the roles, responsibilities, and
deliverables. That creates a lot of ambivalence and frustration among the team
members.

Coach: So what processes do you have in place now that are working and how do
you want to manage the journey from start to finish?

Ken: We do have some basic team norms of starting and ending on time, having
someone keep notes, and I always try to have a timed agenda—those kinds of
basic things. However, I think part of our problem stems from the very first meeting.
The team allocated a brief time to talk about initial norms and ground rules but one
of the team members was absent and was never brought up to speed about the
ground rules, nor asked to share his expectations. He missed several other
meetings and seemed very resistant, almost “blocking” others’ ideas and the entire
progress of the group in the meetings he did manage to attend. This member was
never confronted by the team. There are a few members who are conflict averse
and whenever unresolved tension among the team members increases, they don’t
show up to the next meeting. Members have different opinions about how we are
going to complete the work and how to achieve it and mainly just advocate their
opinions. Often the quieter members of the team don’t take an active part in
finalizing team decisions.

Coach: So it sounds like there were a couple of processes you might want to think
about: setting group norms around decision making, conflict management, and
really getting consensus on how you are going to complete the task itself. It also
seems like there is a relational undercurrent to all of this as well. How are you
building, maintaining, and repairing relationships on the team?

Ken: The team is composed of members who are diverse on many dimensions:
gender, nationality, work style, and race. There are clearly subgroups and divisions
that interfere with developing a sense of cohesion and bonding. I also think that
my work style doesn’t necessarily help people feel included—I have a huge task
orientation, and in the face of the challenging task I allocated almost no time for
the group to review its norms and behaviors on an ongoing basis. Moreover,
because I tend to move at a pretty fast pace, over time I did more and more and
missed an opportunity to partner more fully with my co-leader. I realize now that
the negative impact on the team is that members relied on me to do the job,
disengaged over time, and weren’t committed to the team. In addition, we just
never fully included our “lone wolf” member, and although I think there is an
accountability issue for him, some of his initial resistance might have been
mitigated if we had been more inclusive.

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 8

INTERVENTION
With this new-found clarity regarding team
dynamics, Ken decided to allocate 45 minutes
at the beginning of the following meeting for the
team to review its norms and behaviors. The
head of the program was invited for the first 15
minutes and was asked to clarify the goals and
her expectations of the team. Ken opened up
the meeting by sharing his frustration and how
he thought that he had contributed to the
situation. Members responded by sharing their
perspectives. The co-captain did say that she
felt excluded from leading the team and that it
led her to withdraw. Some members confronted
the “Blocker” member; they shared the impact
of his absences and questioned how committed
he is to the team. The meeting resulted in
reviewing the team ground rules. They came up
with ground rules about attendance,
communication, and work allocation. They also
clarified when decisions will be made by
consensus and when it will be sufficient to have
a “can live with the decision” vote. The most
important change was that the team decided to
allocate 10 minutes at the end of each meeting
to review how they are doing in regard to the
task, process, and relationship. Over time, Ken
and his team were able to make adjustments
and continuously improve throughout the life
cycle of the project because of their ability to
discuss and implement changes in all three
areas.

Evelyn Williams, MA, is a Director in the Center for Leadership Development and Research at Stanford University, Graduate School of Business,
and teaches the Leadership Laboratory curriculum in the MBA program. Previously, she was the Faculty Chair of the LEAD program at the
University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.

Yifat Sharabi-Levine, PhD, is a Master Certified Coach and Lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business. She teaches several leadership
courses. She is a member of the National Training Institute and focuses on creating experiential education for business professionals

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 9

The TPR Model: Behavioral Analysis

FOCUS ON BEHAVIORS
Task

Planning the work, coordination, - Set goals and deliverables

- Allocate resources
and carrying out the plans
- Monitor performance and deliverables
- Monitor schedules and milestones
- Coordinate tasks
- Identify roles and responsibilities
Process

Process management - Observe the group dynamic

- Track behavior patterns
- Surface process blocks that stymie the group’s productivity
- Set productive group norms
- Revisit unproductive group norms

Decision-making procedures - Initiate and test group assumption regarding the relevant topic
- Decision by authority without discussion - Demonstrate openness to new ideas
- Focus on consequences and scenario planning
- Self-authorized (decision by one member)
- Inquire (versus advocating fiercely) about potential solutions
- Decision by authority after discussion
- Play the devil’s advocate
- Majority control
- Generate broad range of perspectives and alternatives
- Minority control
- Consensus

Communication - Ask powerful, open-ended questions

Verbal and nonverbal - Acknowledge others’ points
- Synthesize and summarize main points
- Note nonverbal clues and address them
- Listen effectively (without interruptions)
- Build on others’ comments
- Make points succinctly
- Contribute to the flow of discussion
- Keep absent members informed

Conflict management - Disagree without being disagreeable

- Confront unconstructive behavior constructively (without reverting to
personal attacks and attributions)
- Show flexibility and willingness to compromise when needed (self vs.
group interest)
- Name and mediate disagreements
Relational

Building, maintaining, - Make others feel understood

- Motivate and inspire others
and repairing relationships
- Give constructive feedback effectively
- Cooperate
- Give recognition and encouragement
- Express empathy
- Encourage and support others
- Harmonize
- Respect others
- Be open to being influenced by others
- Repair any damaged relationships after conflict situations
- Be receptive and non-defensive when given feedback (vs. “flooding” and
stonewalling)
- Create an affirmative team environment (a “can-do” attitude)
- Include others (e.g., solicit input from quiet members)
- Offer condolences for setbacks in and outside the workplace

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18
 The TPR Model | 10

Bibliography

Druskat, Vanessa U., & Wolf, Steven B. (2000). Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

Garvin, David A., & Roberto, Michael A. (2003). “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions.” Harvard
Business Review, OnPoint Enhanced Edition.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9f0/92bfc41f6294ec7f1397b326f971d92b377b.pdf

Johnson, David W., & Johnson, Frank P. (1994). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.

Katzenbach, Jon R., & Smith, Douglas K. (1993). The Discipline of Teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Review.

Larson, Carl E., & LaFasto, Frank M. J. (1989). Team Work: What Must Go Right / What Can Go Wrong.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Miller, Frederick A., & Katz, Judith H. (2002). The Inclusion Breakthrough. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Rousseau, D. M (1993). “Teamwork: Inside and Out.” Business Week Advance: Executive Brief, 1–23.

Schein, Edgar H. (1987). Process Consultation: Lessons for Managers and Consultants. Boston, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Schein, Edgar H. (1999). “What to Observe in a Group.” N.T.L. Reading Book for Human Relations Training, 8th
ed., N.T.L. Institute for Applied Behavioral Science. 267–269.

Thompson, Leigh L. (2000). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

© Copyright 2007 Evelyn Williams, Yifat Sharabi-Levine. All rights reserved.

Last updated 3/21/18