Real-Life Case Study On Team Working And Coherence With Hackman And Tuckman Theories

1.Does the ‘Theory’ outlined in the Alfredson T., & Cungu A., 2008 paper match the concept of negotiation in this unit?
2.In the more serious YouTube videos do you find that they support or contradict the concept of “commercial negotiation” as outlined in the first two weeks of the unit?
Is the “art of negotiation” applicable to the Chunnel Project?
4.Is negotiation really part of policy making? In what way is it so?
Is negotiating something that is related to a tangible outcome, such as the Chunnel, the same as negotiating something that is intangible, such as the end of a war?

Team Working Principles

This essay will discuss a real-life case study based on team working and coherence of the team is linked with the existing team managing theory like Hackman and Tuckman Theories. This essay mainly focuses to assimilate both theoretical and practical understanding of the team. Leaders are the individuals who want to do the right things, whereas managers are the individuals who do things right. Leaders and managers both try to manage people within a team. Team members themselves sometimes cannot manage to work in harmony. Team members can take the charge to help people to understand and commit to performing better (Howard et al. 2016).

According to De Jong et al. (2016), a team is a group of people that have full set of complementary skills needed to complete a project, task and job. Team members within a team operate independently and they also share the responsibility, authority and self-management. Team members are always accountable for the team performance and team members work for a common goal (D’Innocenzo et al. 2016). The team has a basic difference from the group as the team goes for a mutual commitment that creates a synergy to generate the performance than the collective performance of the individual members. A successful team has the characteristic of a clear goal for which direction the team is heading. In addition, the team members have defined roles; task roles and maintenance roles. As stated by Levi (2015), the successful team must contain open and clear communication so that the issues can be traced back to communication. The successful team always values the diversity and they can manage the conflict easily. Team members need to find the ways to communicate the common goals and communicate the differences as well.

Bruce Tuckman first published this theory in the year 1965 and it had four stages then. After five years, in the year 1970, he added one more stage in this theory. As supported by Augar et al. (2016), Tuckman's theory explains that with the team's development, ability and maturity, the relationship between the team members gets stronger. The first stage of Tuckman theory is about forming; in this stage, the team members depend on leader's guidance mostly. There is little agreement among the team members as most of the guidance comes from the leader. The team members do not have an idea about individual's roles and responsibilities. In the storming stage, the decision does not come easily within a group as team members try to get a position within a team and they attempt to create a good relationship with the team leader. Team leaders in this stage face challenges as the team members do not have clarity. Team members in storming stage should focus on the team performance (Georgiadis and Tang 2017). In the norming stage, consensus and agreement forms among the team and the team members respond to the questions of the team leader. The team members in this stage get the idea of the responsibilities and they accept this. Team members take big decisions about the team's goals through agreement and unity becomes strong. In the norming stage, team members show respect to the leaders and team members also share situational leadership traits. Lastly, in the performing stage, the team as a whole becomes strategically aware of what they are doing. The team can generate a shared vision and team leaders do not interfere about the vision. The team members try to over-achieve the goal and the team members feel the high degree of autonomy.

Tuckman Theory

Therefore, as stated by Forsyth (2018), Tuckman theory provides the benefit of providing a level of guidance to the team development. If team members are trying to start from the scratch, Tuckman theory can provide better help to create a team bonding as each of the stages of team development is clearly stated with team members' roles. On the contrary, as argued by De Jong et al. (2016), group process may not always be linear as the teams can be cyclical. In addition, Tuckman theory can be applied in small group and this theory does not focus on each of the team members’ role. There is no possible guidance of timeframe that is needed to develop a particular team described by this theory.

Hackman provided a special focus on functions of the coaches within a team and he also provided specific leadership behaviour. Hackman tried to recognise the specific times in the task performance process and he tried to explicate the condition where the team can focus on coaching. There are five basic factors in Hackman's theory. The first factor is being a real team, where Hackman talked about real team members who can share the tasks. Team boundaries must be clearly defined and team bonding is stable. The second factor is compelling direction; it means the team must have goals that can be challenging as the consequential. In order to find the direction, the team members can opt for SMART objectives (Hod and Ben-Zvi et al. 2015). The factor is enabling structure; this factor is influential to make the team a success. The leaders have to control some of the aspects and variety of tasks can improve the experience of the team members. Structural aspects can be taken by the team leaders and some of the others are controlled by the team members themselves. The fourth factor is supportive context; team leader needs to provide group reward, information and development in order to improve the skill of the team members. Team members can become motivated through this. The fifth factor is the expert coaching, the team leader can manage the day-to-day performance of the team members and interpersonal relationship between the team leader and team members can be improved.    

  Advantages of applying Hackman theory is to get the satisfaction of both internal and external clients and the institution can develop the capabilities to perform better in future. The team leaders can provide satisfaction and meaning to the team members' group. Team members can set the SMART objectives for the team to fulfil these on time (Parker et al. 2017). On the other side, Hackman theory talks about the developing supportive environment structure in the presence of the team leaders, hence, team members cannot themselves solve the issue.

Critique of Tuckman Theory

The incident happened in the year 2017 when Business Ethics tutorial was happening. For the cause of coursework, the team was intended to do a presentation. The presentation was about the essay that was to perform with a team. That was the weekly team presentation. The tutor randomly assigned one of the students to a team as the team member was absent initially. That particular team member tried to communicate with other team members through emails and moodle. However, no result came as only one person from the team attended the tutorial. As the presentation day was getting closer, all the team members agreed to meet in the library for doing the assignment. The third person in the group did not turn up and another one went away after just 20 minutes. One team member was just doing the presentation and the team member felt bad about this. That person took the initiative to make a Whatsapp group to communicate; however, no one replied. One of the team members attend the class meeting, however, he slept all over the session. After that two persons took the initiative and split the works between them. This session did not go well as the two of the team members became frustrated. These two members had to make a note for other members as well. Therefore, the novice team members had to go through terrible time while making the presentation. One of the biggest issues was communication and some of the team members did not reply. Misunderstanding always happened due to lack of communication as each of the team individuals wanted different outcomes.

This situation is the perfect example of lack of coherence among the team members and it is clear that the team members need bonding to work as a team. As discussed by Kalish and Luria (2016), team members need to maintain a good communication and it helps to build a positive working relationship. However, in the case study, the team members did not communicate well as they did not like to work together. The team members in the case study did not gather themselves together as they were not real. Within a team, it was not always possible to find the team members who are likeminded. Team members need to acknowledge the good work and the team members need to provide positive feedback about the team. A successful team needs help and real team members who can stand up for the team in right time. The team does not want a superhuman; however, the team members can face the pressure. Taking extra care for the team and extra initiative can help the team members to have good bonding. In the case study, some of the team members were escapist and they were not serious about the work. This type of team member needs motivation and interest to work harder. As pointed out by Forsyth (2018), team members should be decisive as they must assert what they feel. Team members must contain a shared vision and team leaders need to be there. In the case study, there was no team leader as the team members had to do the assignment by themselves. In this case, team members themselves can delegate the tasks and segregate their parts to the right people.

Hackman Theory

The team is a permanent fixture where team members come and go. Hackman's Five Factor model establishes the concept of the real team; however, in case of study, the team members did not have shared purpose and constant membership. The team members did not have an understanding of part of the play. Team members, Nora, Flavia, Yasmin and Aron did not follow process and procedures and team members themselves did not support to achieve the task. Establishing a relationship with the team members provide an opportunity to find the strengths and weaknesses (Levi 2015). It helps to delegate the tasks to the team members themselves know their skills and expertise. Managing the conflict is very important, in this scenario, the informal meeting is needed. Communication needs are increased to improve the team bonding. One of the members needs to set a good example in order to motivate the others. It is not also right that one member is performing and other ones are spending leisure time.

In case study, the team members did not have any team leader; however, they could have started their team bonding from forming stage. Group members need to go through stages of Tuckman model before they perform well. In the first stage, like described in the case study, conflict is the part of the group formation. As one of the team members did not present during the first week, he was shifted to one of the teams where he did not have any acquaintance. Forming is the first stage where team members can create a purpose of managing the team. In the storming stage, the team members could develop their bonding and they can manage expectations and roles. Norming stage can be applied after first two stages where the team members have to manage the relationship and task efforts. Four of the team members, Nora, Flavia, Yasmin and Aron could implement the team performance. They could reestablish their roles and they could solve the problems. In the performing stage, the team members can perform well and they can manage the tasks, evaluate and striving for the improvement. While making the team, the university tutor had segregated the team members; however, they had to go through all three stages to perform well. The team can perform well when the team members have alignment, accomplishment, cohesion and commitment.

Conclusion

It has been observed that team members given in the case study did not know the real meaning of the team. They were being forced to form a group. They possibly needed time to bond. They were not experienced and matured enough to perform well without bonding. Some of the members did not want to perform well. Team members should have good listening skills and team members need to take the effective decision making. One team member should not take greater participation and responsibility as balanced participation ensures the success of the team. Leaders on the other side help the team members to ensure that the team must go towards the vision. A workplace needs teams for meeting the specific objectives and in academic life, students have to perform as a team to deliver a project or presentation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Hackman Theory

Reflection on team's feedback on strengths and areas for improvement  

My team members gave feedback on my team performance skills. Since my childhood, I was the monitor of my class. Therefore, I possess a good leadership skill and people listen to me. My team members shared the views that I am honest, straightforward and reliable and I have good communication skills. They also provided a view that I can share the load of my team and I am intrinsically motivated. The team members are on the right track as I am motivated people and I have good communication skill as I can persuade the people. I am honest to my work and I am straightforward to share my views. On the other side, Nora pointed out that I need to improve in developing a positive outlook and managing time. In addition, other team members pointed out that I lack in showing the sympathy and I do not compliment others. One of the team members reflected that I am not self-aware and I cannot commit things. I believe that I have weaknesses in showing positive outlook and I lack in sympathy. However, I want to defy the fact that I cannot commit things as I was the only one in the team who showed commitment and I am a completely self-aware person as I know my strengths and weaknesses. I have conducted some of the psychometric tests in order to judge myself.  

Feelings about working as a team that success and failure may depend

I was a part of a team and I was not ready to work in this team as I was initially absent. However, it was a challenging task to be part of the team. In each of the situations, I tried to be part of the team. I attended the lectures and I wrote the notes for the assignment. Sometimes, I felt frustrated when I saw other team members did not present there. My actions always initiated to complete the teamwork on time. I believe in the final result as I always wanted to finish the assignment on time before any further issue rises. I believe that I had done a lot to contribute to my team as I always take the positive side to resolve the group issues. Our team struggled to decide the topic and writing down the notes, however, I took the initiative to plan the assignment. By sharing the vision, we had done our assignment. The approach to conducting the teamwork is to bond with the team well and it helps the individual to cohort with the team (Hu and Judge 2017).

Case Study Analysis

Any changes in motivation towards the team and team activity

At first, I was not motivated to work in a team whom I did not know well. At first, we felt issue to create a good team as our wavelength was not matching. My motivation was missing in the earlier stage as I was not showing that spark to create a bond among the team members. It is needed to start bonding and define each of the team members' their goals (Lanaj and Hollenbeck 2015). In team activity, each of the team members initially was not motivated. I started feeling the pressure that our project may not get done on time. Then, we started communicating through emails and WhatsApp group. After a certain time, we feel oriented to work as a team. I have been feeling the changing of motivation in the team as well as the team activity. In later time, the team was performing well as each of the team members got to know their goals and expectations.

Things those challenge the most and reasons for finding the certain aspect difficult

First of all, I faced the issue of miscommunication as the first stage we did not have Whatsapp group. We did not have our contact numbers in the initial stage. After creating the Whatsapp group, some of the group members did not provide a reply on asking the questions. This communication issue led to delay in formulating the strategy of doing the group project. In addition, team members sometimes differed in opinion and they can face issue to conclude on one decision (Certo 2015). After sometimes, we stared mistrusting each other as no one was doing their duty well. We did not have any team leader as a tutor was the only one for leading teams. We could not understand what to do next and how to help each other to meet the objectives. I faced the issue of personality clashes as in some of the incidents we faced that team was dividing into two groups. In setting the team meeting schedule, we faced the issue of personal agenda. All people did not fit on the team; however, we had to work in harmony. I always tried to channelize the conflict of the team. This strategy helps to go forward with the team.

Key learning points

After working as a team with the team members, I have learnt about handling the adult people towards a mission. Our team had faced so many issues as the team was not oriented properly. We have successfully converted our disorganised team into a successful team. At first, I decided to take the concept that each of the individuals is different from each other. I learnt about communication skills as now I can explain my own ideas and I can now listen to others carefully. Team members need to own the skills for a healthy group climate which must have the attributes of openness, trust and self-disclosure and support to all (Beebe and Masterson 2014). In addition, I have learnt about show respect to the team members irrespective of their responsibility. In future, I will always support my team members as this project taught me how to support my team members. I got to learn about the group functions and how to persuade others to meet the team objectives. Resolving team conflict was another thing I learnt from this. At first, I could not take better decision for the team. Now, I could take decision for me as an individual. Most importantly, I have learnt about Tuckman and Hackman theories of team developing. I now can apply these to my future team working projects.  

Reference List 

Essay

Augar, N., Woodley, C.J., Whitefield, D. and Winchester, M., 2016. Exploring academics’ approaches to managing team assessment. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), pp.1150-1162.

D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J.E. and Kukenberger, M.R., 2016. A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), pp.1964-1991.

De Jong, B.A., Dirks, K.T. and Gillespie, N., 2016. Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), p.1134.

Forsyth, D.R., 2018. Group dynamics. Cengage Learning.

Georgiadis, G. and Tang, C.S., 2017. Project Contracting Strategies for Managing Team Dynamics. In Handbook of Information Exchange in Supply Chain Management (pp. 89-105). Springer, Cham.

Hod, Y. and Ben-Zvi, D., 2015. Students negotiating and designing their collaborative learning norms: A group developmental perspective in learning communities. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), pp.578-594.

Howard, L.W., Turban, D.B. and Hurley, S.K., 2016. Cooperating teams and competing reward strategies: Incentives for team performance and firm productivity. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 3(3), pp.34-45.

Kalish, Y. and Luria, G., 2016. Leadership emergence over time in short-lived groups: Integrating expectations states theory with temporal person-perception and self-serving bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), p.1474.

Levi, D., 2015. Group dynamics for teams. Sage Publications.

Parker, S.K., Morgeson, F.P. and Johns, G., 2017. One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of applied psychology, 102(3), p.403.

Reflection

Beebe, S.A. and Masterson, J.T., 2014. Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices. Sydney: Pearson Higher Education.

Certo, S., 2015. Supervision: Concepts and skill-building. New Jersey: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Hu, J. and Judge, T.A., 2017. Leader–team complementarity: Exploring the interactive effects of leader personality traits and team power distance values on team processes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), pp.935-1001.

Lanaj, K. and Hollenbeck, J.R., 2015. Leadership over-emergence in self-managing teams: The role of gender and countervailing biases. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), pp.1476-1494.