Team Development Assignment

[Type the document subtitle]

Estelle Solomons Student number: 48046 Masters in Public Management 4229P-MAS Due date 15 March 2011

[Number of pages 14 and number of words 3961.]

Contents
Contents..................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction................................................................................................................ 3 Team Development Models .......................................................................................3 Background............................................................................................................. 3 Team Development Life Cycle Model......................................................................5 Two Barrier Model to Creative Performance...........................................................7 Convergence of two models....................................................................................8 Practical application of a model..................................................................................9 Background............................................................................................................. 9 Problem Statement................................................................................................10 Application of the model.......................................................................................10 Recommendations and Solutions.............................................................................11 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 13 References................................................................................................................13

Table of figures Figure 1 Tuckman & Jensen Model (1977)..................................................................4 Figure 2 Team Development Life Cycle, Edison (2008)..............................................5 Figure 3 Two Barrier Model- Rickards and Moger (2000)............................................7 Figure 4 Convergence of two models.........................................................................9

Team Development
Introduction
The purpose of this assignment is to illustrate my understanding of the concept of team development and the application thereof. The assignment will cover two models of team development in-depth as required by the assignment question; however it will use the Tuckman and Jensen model as a basis to expand on the two models. The models that will be described in greater detail in the body of the document are the Two Barrier Model by Rickards and Moger (2000) and the Team Development Life Cycle Model by Tom Edison (2008). These models will be discussed in great detail and their advantages and disadvantages and or limitations will also be highlighted. The writer will then further elucidate on how these two models converge in her opinion and form a converged model. A case study will show the application of the converged model and the writers understanding of it. (The model). Recommendations and or solutions to the challenges identified in the case study will be highlighted to illustrate the application of the converged model .

Team Development Models

Background
The writer felt it necessary to first discuss the Tuckman Model of team development first before discussing the Two Barrier Model and the Team Development Life Cycle Model. The reason for this being, that both of these models find its origin and foundation on the Tuckman Model. Bruce W Tuckman first published this model in 1965 in his article titled Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. This model describes the development of teams in small groups over various stages. These stages can be identified as the forming, storming, norming and performing stages. The model was later revised by Tuckman and Jensen (1977) to include a fifth stage, called the adjourning stage. The model has been widely used by HR practitioners and consultants to understand and predict team behaviour and to come up with solutions that improve team behaviour. According to Rickards and Moger (2000, 277), the model is a simple means of discussing and exploring team dynamics.

Figure 1 below briefly outlines the revised model as published by Tuckman and Jensen (1977)

Figure 1 Tuckman & Jensen Model (1977)

In summary the model purports that teams have to go through these various stages of development for it to become a performing team. In the fifth stage Tuckman and Jensen (1977), suggests that teams have a defined life span and therefore has to adjourn at some point. Over the years practitioners and consultants have identified some limitations to the Tuckman and Jensen Model; some of these limitations are listed below: The study on which the model was based was confined to a therapy group setting, suggesting that the sample was not representative enough of all small groups. The model was generalised beyond its original framework according to D.A. Bonebright (2009) Rickards and Moger (2000) stated that the model lacks a complete explanation of how groups change over time. The model fails to address how creativity affects team development. The model does not explain what happens if a team fail (i.e. stays in storming stage), nor does it explain how teams can become high-performing teams. The model assumes that one model can fit all groups, according to Sundstrom, De Meuse, and Futrell(1990)

Based on these limitations noted above it then became necessary to look at alternative models and their impact on team development. In particular focussing on teams moving beyond the storming stage and becoming high performing teams. As stated above the two models to be discussed are the Two Barrier Model to Creative Performance by Rickard and Moger (2000) and the Team Development Life Cycle Model by Tom Edison (2008). Both these models as stated above has their foundation in the Tuckman and Jensen Model, however they expand further on how teams become dysfunctional and how they move from being dysfunctional to 4

becoming high-performing teams.

Team Development Life Cycle Model

According to Tom Edison (2008), it is necessary to understand and review the dysfunctional phases that a team encounter so that appropriate actions can be taken, for a team to become a high-performing team. To understand theses dysfunctional phases Edison has added four more stages to the original Tuckman Model, namely; informing, conforming, transforming and deforming. Edison further breaks down the above stages plus the traditional Tuckman stages into two main broad categories, that of Functional and Dysfunctional. Figure 2 below illustrates how the stages are divided into the two main categories and where the stages occur in the categories, thus giving rise to the Team Development Life Cycle.

Figure 2 Team Development Life Cycle, Edison (2008)

From the figure above the traditional Tuckman stages of forming, norming and performing fall into the functional category of team development stage and the new stages of informing, conforming, deforming and adjourning (Tuckman) falls into the dysfunctional category of team development. The transforming phase occur when a team realizes that it is becoming dysfunctional and that it needs to transform in order to become functional again and the traditional stages kicks in again. It further suggests that if a team does not recognize that it is becoming dysfunctional, that is, it is in the conforming and deforming stage, it will move onto the adjourning stage and therefore the team will reach the end of its life and disband. Edison further state that it is difficult to predict, when the dysfunctional stages will occur, but that its important for a team to recognize it so that corrective action can be taken to get the team back on track. (Transformation stage). The model further expands on the informing stage (the tipping point); stating that when a team is in high-performance mode that it should inform others about positive team results and 5

conclusions, according to Edison (2008). This stage is critical to take note of as most teams do not go beyond performing or even high performing, because they fail in the storming and norming stages (Dr Owen Gadeken, 2000). Lessons learnt at this stage should continuously be shared amongst team members and other teams to ensure continued success of the team. The conforming and transforming stages in this model warrants further discussion as it deals with how teams become dysfunctional (conforming stage) to becoming functional again (transforming stage). According to Edison (2008), conforming is a phase in which team thinking is lacking original, creative or innovative ideas, the team members have become uninspired to think independently or to act on new ideas. The team members have become guilty of groupthink, a phrase coined by psychologist Irving Janis (1973). Furthermore the team has become stale and has stalled, it the team continues along this vain it will move onto the deforming and adjourning stages. In these stages the team members are likely to quit the team and the team eventually disbands. In this instance the team needs to transform to become functional again or even highperforming, according to Edison (2008). Edison (2008) defines transforming as a transitional stage between a functional and dysfunctional team. He further state that it is critical for a team to recognize when it is in a dysfunctional stage so that corrective measures can be taken to get the team back on the functional road and following the traditional Tuckman stages of norming and performing. For a team to be transformed it needs to be re-energized, by bringing in new ideas, new members and or creative thinking. This brings us to our next model the Two Barrier Model To Creative Performance, that purports that through creative thinking and innovation teams will break through the forming and storming (barrier one) and norming and performing (barrier two) to become high performing teams. 1.1.1 Advantages of the model

The advantages of the model, as identified by the writer are listed below: Deals with dysfunctional teams Provides a way for dysfunctional teams to become functional through transformation. Uses the informing stage where teams are performing as sharing of best practices to allow teams to continue performing well. Warns teams of groupthink and the dangers thereof in the conforming stage. 1.1.2 Limitations

As with most models limitations exist, the limitations listed below were identified by the writer: No empirical data exist to support the model. Model is conceptual.

Two Barrier Model to Creative Performance

Rickards and Moger (2000), defines the two barrier model to creative performance in teams as follows: The performance characteristics of a comparable set of teams operating with common tasks can be accounted for in a development process that encounters two successive constraints or barriers to excellence. The first is a weak barrier through which most teams pass to achieve a shared standard of performance. The second is a strong barrier through which few teams pass. Figure 3 below illustrates the model and a graphical format:

Figure 3 Two Barrier Model- Rickards and Moger (2000)

The two barriers warrant further discussion. The first barrier, the weak behavioral barrier presents itself between the forming and storming processes and the norming and performing processes. The model postulates that this barrier can be easily overcome by normal team processes. It further suggests that a way to overcome this weak barrier is to clearly define roles and responsibilities within the team structure. However the definition of these roles should not be in the traditional sense where such roles and responsibilities can be restrictive thus not allowing the team to break through the first barrier. A more liberating way of introducing such structures (defined roles), is through creative or innovative leadership. An example of an innovative technique that can be used to define roles in a team is the Six Thinking Hats (de Bono 1987). Training the team in this technique will assist it in moving beyond the forming and storming stage into the norming and performing stage. The second barrier, the strong performance barrier appears to be more difficult to break through according Rickards and Moger (2000). It appears as if creative problem solving interventions does assist teams in breaking through this barrier and moving the team from norming and performing to high-performance. They further suggest that training will help a large number of teams to pass through the weak barrier and further along the strong barrier to help teams to become high-performing creative teams. The above being said and done, not enough empirical

evidence exist to support this model. Rickards and Moger admit that further research is necessary to support this model. 1.1.3 Advantages of the model

The advantages of the model, as identified by the writer are listed below: The model suggests that creative leadership leads to performing teams and sometimes high-performing teams. It allows a team a way out of the forming and storming stages Addresses issues of high-performance

1.1.4

Limitations

As with most models limitations exist, the limitations listed below were identified by the writer: Not enough empirical evidence to support the model. General reluctance by others to include such models, most prefer the traditional Tuckman model The emerging framework lacks the richness of multi-level models developed by Ambile (1983a, 1983b, 1996).

Convergence of two models

According to the writer the two models discussed above can be super imposed as illustrated in figure 4 below and form a hybrid model.

Figure 4 Convergence of two models

As illustrated above, the team will move beyond the first barrier as suggested in section 2.3 above using training, innovation and creative leadership. Taking it into the norming and performing stage of the team development lifecycle. Further training and innovation will move the team beyond the second barrier (strong performance barrier), into the high-performance stage. Where informing and sharing of best practise becomes critical for the team to continue on its path of performance. If not the team will find itself in conformance mode and into to the dysfunctional category of the team development life cycle. This is where it is critical for a team to recognise its dysfunction and then transform itself, moving into the functional zone again. It is in the transformation stage that the first barrier is encountered again and where innovation, creative techniques and training in particular should be introduced to break through the barrier and taking the team back to becoming functional.

Practical application of a model

Background
The writer currently works for Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) as a Turnaround Specialist in the Workout and Recovery Unit for the bank. As a Turnaround Specialist the writer is tasked with assisting municipalities to come up with sustainable turnaround interventions that will ensure repayment of DBSA loans. One such municipality where a turnaround intervention was required was the Gamagara Municipality1 situated in the Northern Cape town of Kathu.
1

It should be note that the DBSA information is confidential and should not be shared beyond this assignment.

Kathu is a very affluent town where a number of iron ore mines are situated as result of this efficient service delivery to all stakeholders is very important.

Problem Statement
The municipality requested DBSA to assist them with an intervention between its finance department and technical depart as communication had broken down and the workings of the teams had broken down. The breakdown has resulted in all sorts of complications for the municipality, one of which was an over payment to a supplier. On further investigation by the DBSA, it was found that not only was the communication poor, a number of other challenges also existed that prevented the team from moving forward. These challenges are noted below: In terms of the leadership in the municipality both in the political leadership, i.e. the Council and the Administration there were recent changes, resulting in the team dynamics changing. There were no clear role clarifications for some of the team members. Some team members were inexperienced and not up for the task. The team lacked vision and not everyone worked towards a common goal. Poor governance structures were in place. Team morale was low. The team was clearly in disarray and needed urgent intervention.

Application of the model

To analyse the team development stages for Gamagara Municipality, the hybrid model outlined in 2.4 and figure4 above will be utilised. In the writers assessment of the Gamagara team, it is an established team, which has moved beyond the first barrier (Two Barrier Model) of forming and storming a number of years ago. The team then moved through the second barrier (Two Barrier Model) of strong performance in 2006, that is the team moved beyond the norming and performing stages and was a high performing team. This was evidenced by the municipal VUNA awards for high-performance won by the municipality in that year. That year Gamagara Municipality came first in the Provincial VUNA awards and second in the National awards. It is clear that the team was at its peak of high-performance and had reached the positive stage of informing as purported in the Team Development Life Cycle Model. It is not clear at this point what the team did right to break through the second barrier to become an out-performing team. It is also not clear whether the team shared its best practices with other team members to maintain its performance level when it was in the informing stage. It can then be assumed that within the four year period from 2006 to 2010, that the team became guilty of groupthink and had become stagnant, thus suggesting that they reached the conforming stage. The team lacked original thinking and new ideas as stated above in Edisons model. The team had also become unstable due to changes to the leadership in that the Municipal Manager was 10

suspended and a new Mayor was appointed in 2010. These were two key members of the team that was removed resulting in the unstable environment. Furthermore the CFO was suspended for a short period of time and was reinstated after a month. All of these incidents took place in a period of six months and it was clear that the team had become dysfunctional and was moving very quickly to the deforming stage as discussed in the model above. The challenges outlined in 3.2 above further corroborate the fact that the team found itself in the deforming stage as defined in the Team Development Life Cycle Model above. As stated above in 2.2 The Team Development Life Cycle model, that it is critical for a team to recognise that it is in the deforming stage and that it needs a series of interventions to move it into the transformation stage. In the writers opinion the Gamagara team did recognise that they were in the deforming stage and therefore requested the DBSAs intervention. Further the writer is of the opinion that the team now finds itself at the beginning of the transformation stage of the Team Development Life Cycle Model and needs either new and creative ways of thinking and doing things, to get it through the weak behavioural barrier again, as purported in Rickards and Mogers, Two Barrier Model in 2.3 above and becoming a functional team again. Section 4 below will deal with how team can move through the transformation stage and break through the weak behaviour barrier to become a functional team again.

Recommendations and Solutions

Recommendations and solutions in this section will focus on the transformation stage of the Team Development Life Cycle and the creative interventions and techniques required to move the Gamagara team through the weak behaviour barrier in the Two Barrier Model for it (the team), to become functional again. To understand the team dynamics and issues the writer had a preliminary meeting with the municipality. This provided the writer with a high-level view of the issues and the intervention required to move the team through the transformation stage. The creative intervention that was agreed to with the municipality was a workshop that was to be facilitated by the DBSA. The workshop was to take place at the municipality in Kathu. It was agreed that the entire senior management team of the municipality be invited to the workshop. The workshop format was to be an informal session that would allow for brainstorming, openness and honesty. The facilitator was fully briefed by the writer prior to the workshop on the purpose of the intervention and the challenges faced by the municipality. The facilitator started the session with outlining participants expectations on the outcome of the workshop, which was followed with an an ice breaker, where all participants had to say something about themselves that the team did not know about. This allowed the team to settle and created some cohesiveness and built a foundation of trust. This exercise also gave the facilitator some insight into the team and the roles they played within the team. He then proceeded to ask the senior management team about the vision and the mission of the municipality to ensure that the team shared a common goal in terms of taking the municipality 11

forward. None of the participants could repeat the municipalitys vision and mission statement and this was the first indication into the reason why the team became dysfunctional. This further suggested that the municipality was experiencing leadership challenges and it was recommended by the facilitator that the municipality have a strategic session with both the Council and the Administration to formulate an appropriate vision and mission. In the absence of a vision and mission, the team would find it extremely difficult to rally around a common goal and move from a small group to a team. The workshop then moved into a brainstorming, free flowing session where team members were asked to at will identify all the challenges the team faced and what they thought went wrong for the team not to perform. All members views were accepted and no criticisms of views were allowed. This allowed team members to feel respected and recognised within the process. As trust was built earlier on in the session, members were honest and a number of challenges were identified. Some of challenges highlighted were as follows: Too many vacancies and acting positions Lack of appropriate job descriptions. No one walks the talk. Limited technical capacity Relationship problems with management and Council Camps within the municipality hampers service delivery. Limited management capacity. Lack of project implementation IDP vs. Capacity Succession planning.

These challenges were grouped into three main categories for ease of reference. These categories were identified as follows; human resources, planning and implementation and leadership. The group was then requested to do some homework. Their homework entailed that they as team members should come up with a status-quo analysis of challenges, the reason why it has become challenges and the solutions to all the challenges identified and to send it anonymously to the facilitator for evaluation. The purpose of this exercise was to cultivate ownership and accountability within the team for the issues highlighted. Furthermore the team could take responsibility for solutions they came up with. These solutions were to be discussed in a follow up session with the municipality where the solutions were going to be packaged and a program of action developed for implementation. This follow up session has yet to take place. The workshop had the impact of an intervention as described in the transformation stage of the team development life cycle in 2.2 above. The team members were re-energised through this process and were starting to show signs of moving out of its dysfunctional state. The workshop also had the benefit of; a. Building team cohesion through the ice breaker and brainstorming sessions. 12

b. c. d. e. f.

Building trust amongst team members, through the ice breaker. Allowing for brainstorming and free flowing of ideas. Respect among team members through acceptance of everyones view. Ownership as all members was requested to come up with solutions to their challenges. Moving the team from dysfunctional to functional.

The intervention also further supports Rickards and Mogers Two Barrier model in that it appears that an intervention such as the workshop highlighted above did indeed move the team through the weak behavioural barrier into the second traditional forming and storming stages as highlighted by the second red line in Figure 4 above. With the follow up intervention the solutions identified by the team members will assist team to reform and eventually move onto the norming and performing stages again. What will be important for the team to keep an eye on would be what will be required to break through the second barrier, for the team to become a high- performer again. Furthermore if it does break through the second barrier they need to constantly inform and share best practices amongst each other and other teams to maintain a high level of performance. (Team development lifecycle, Edison, 2008). It should be noted that the above technique of the workshop to move teams from a dysfunctional phase to a functional phase is not a researched technique, no empirical data currently exist.

Conclusion
In conclusion the example cited by the writer in section 3 and 4 above appears to support the hybrid model of the Two Barrier Model by Rickards and Moger (2000) and the Team Development Life Cycle Model by Edison (2008) in that for teams to move from one stage to the other a certain amount of creativity, training or innovation is required to move the team to that particular state.

References
Rickards, T and Moger,S 2000.: Creative leadership Processes in Project Team Development: An Alternative to Tuckmans Stage Model, British Journal of Management, Vol11. 273-283 Amabile, T.M. (1983a). The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer- Verlag, New York

13

Amabile, T.M. (1983b). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualisation, Journal of Personality and Social Pscychology, 45, pp. 357-376 De Bono, E (1985), Six Thinking Hats, Penguin, London. Ekvalll, G(1991), The Oganizational Culture of Idea Management: A Creative Climate for the Management of Ideas, In: J. Henry and D. Walker(eds), Managing Innovation, pp73-79, Sage Publications, London. Tuckman, B. W. (1965), Development Sequence in Small Groups, Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), pp. 384-399 Tuckman, B.W. and M.C. Jensen(1977), Stages of Small Group Developmetn Revisited, Group and Organisational Studies, 2, pp. 419-427 Edison, T The Team Development Life Cycle, Defense AT&L May-June, pp1417 Bonebright, D.A., (2009) Perspectives, 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckmans model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, Vol.13, No.1, February 2010, 111-120 Sundstrom, E., K. De Meuse and D. Futrell. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist 45, no. 2: 120-133. Gadeken, O.(Dr.), Leading Project Teams, Program Manager, July- August 2002

14