Tuckmans Model in Leadership - Essay Example

? Groups and Teams al Affiliation The research study is on the communication and group dynamics and was carried outin the GMU course management fall semester in 1996. The study was driven by the motive of improving the structure and direction given to teams. For the purpose of research, four teams were created and after the completion of the assignment, analysis of the work done was carried out, and two teams that were regarded as the worst performing were selected. Each member of the two selected teams was interviewed, so as to get the details of what could have let their team down. Several reasons were collected and comparison made. The major reasons that had affected the performance of the groups were: leadership, communication, perspective towards one another, and commitment. According to Tuckman, the issue of leadership can be resolved according to his model, which describes leadership in four stages namely; formation, forming, storming, norming, and adjourning. The latter being the end of the task. Leadership is the determinant of group success, and with Tuckman’s model, the team issues can be resolved. Keywords: Teams, Members, Communication, Leadership, Tuckman’s Model QUESTION ONE Factors that Caused Poor Functioning of Team A Lack of consistency in terms of attendance by 3 group members during the initial stages of project development, there was a lot of absenteeism. Lack of defined leadership; there was no right procedure for the appointment of leaders, in fact, there is the case where the caretaker and the organizer were appointed in the absence of some members. Poor communication approach: Due to various commitments of the members, it was difficult for them to meet; this was further affected by the methods of communication preferred by members. Some preferred face to face, while others preferred the use of discussion tools. Furthermore, these two methods had other challenges. For the case of face to face, there were conflicts on the meeting points, and at times failure by members to attend. For the case of discussion tools, some members did not have time to read what had been posted. These communication problems greatly affected the progress of the project. According to the statistics collected in the socio-gram, results showed that members could not work well with one another, since there were differences amongst them. Coping up with such an issue in a group is very difficult and usually leads to failure. Lenience of the members in dealing with defaulting members became a routine, and this resulted to overworking on the part of the other members, hence creation of imbalance of workloads. Lack of commitment: some members had taken lightly the task that was before them and therefore could not give it priority; ideas could not be well tapped and often, there was over reliance on a few individuals. Factors that led to Poor Functioning of Group B Late commencement of the project: the members dragged themselves too much, and this reduced their time to work, while they still had to beat the deadline. Poor communication: members rarely met and used discussion tools inadequately. Lack of commitment: this is seen through the two dropouts who earlier on showed some signs of commitment and later retreated. Internal conflicts: although some members denied this, it was still evident that misunderstandings prevailed; some were angry and stressed while doing the work, but could not communicate it out. Norms were not set to enable each member to have a guideline to follow. QUESTION TWO Comparison of Conflicts in Group A and Group B Tickman’s stage two of group formation is regarded as the storming stage and is seen as the conflict stage. In terms of decision making, there are similarities between the two groups (group A and B). At one point, members agree on certain approaches, but fail to honor the decision. For the two groups, in most occasions, each member decides what to do, regardless of the impact on the project. The position of leadership differed in the two groups; for group A, members were not sure of who the leader was, to some extent that there seemed to be many leaders in the group. There was no defined procedure that had been set in the selection of the leader. In group B, there was one leader who was self appointed, it was against the members wishes, but they later accepted him. The similarity between these two groups is that in both, there was no defined method of choosing leaders. For the two groups, there were several uncertainties as a result of members’ attitudes and commitments. One could not easily predict the success of the project; in case A, only four members were left to do the project, lack of commitment and laxity doomed the whole project. For the case of group B, given the slow start of the project, one could easily predict its failure. Members too were not committed. Group work for the two groups was marred with stress and disappointments. From the socio-gram drawn for each group, there is evidence of lack of proper cooperation between members, as disclosed by some members; non performing members ought to have been condemned. This shows that cooperation was so low; some members were not of the idea of working with other members of the group. Group A members had sidelined the non-active individuals and developed negative attitudes towards them. They even dropped them from the group. The non active members too disagreed with the group, arguing that their ideas were better and should have been adopted. This was not possible given the deadline that was to be met and the type of participation of these individuals. In contrast, group B members were more united and did not expose the difference that existed amongst them. Furthermore, they were satisfied with the end of the project. None created criticism as in the case of group A. QUESTION THREE Ways to Resolve Conflicts Group A The main cause of ineffectiveness in group A resulted from poor leadership; there was no appropriate leadership structure. For a group to function properly there has to be a leader to make intelligent decisions and involve the whole group to resolve any conflict. With the right leadership, there will be an ideal development and growth in team work. As argued by Tuckman in his group formation model, the success of a group highly depends on a leader to provide guidance and show way to the group. Communication was one of the problems in group A; communication can be effected by providing group members with communication skills. Each member will learn how to approach the other. According to Lambert and Selma (1999), good communication skills help in conflict resolution and prevent them from arising. Another major issue in group A was the sharing of roles and responsibilities. Some members neglected their duties, and ended up overloading others. To resolve this issue, the leader should form a committee within the group to breakdown the tasks and delegate to members, group agreement is more acceptable than individual decision. Group B The main issue was the setting up of norms; there was no clear guideline to govern the members. Norm setting is very important in any group. A well set norm increases the chances of commitment, hard work, and appreciation of team work. With the existence of conflicts within group B, members should be taught to recognize the means of conflict resolution taken by others. This will enable them to be aware of existence of ideological differences and be able to appreciate one another at any given moment. In this regard, there will be better understanding and the group will be steered forward. By creating awareness in the group regarding the expectations placed upon members by the leaders, each person is made aware of his or her obligation and the importance of working as a group. Work has to be delegated to each one of them to ensure equitable sharing of roles and responsibilities. With this perspective, greater achievement will be achieved. Reference List Borkman, T. (1996). Case Studies of Two Poorly Functioning Teams. Retrieved July 6, 2013, from http://virtualschool.edu/98c/Soci305/Soci305Thomasina.html Lambert, J. & Selma, M. (1999). 50 Activities for Conflict Resolution. Canada: HRD Press. Tuckman, B. (1965). Forming Storming Norming Performing Model. Retrieved July 6, 2013, from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm Read More