The five stages of group development by Tuckman dictate how interaction between group members occurs. The case study by Thomasine is based on these five stages, the interactions of teams A and B reflect the stages of Tuckmann’s norming perfoming team development model.
According to the case study carried out by Thomanisane Borkman poor leadership was observed in team A in that there was were too many leaders. Poor communication among the members led to poor functioning of group A. Team A experienced conflicts from the beginning, which were not solved and eventually affected the completion of their projects. The members of team A suffered from too nice syndrome, which prevented them from correcting members who did not uphold the norms of the group. Another factor caused poor functioning in team A was a lack of commitment by the team members. In team, B there were many conflicts such as hostility, anger, and fighting. The too nice syndrome made the members to be polite and comfortable with non performing members of the group. Another factor that caused poor group functioning especially in group B was a failure in solving the issues that arose from group dynamics.
In team A, there were too many leaders; this showed that there were power struggles hence no definite consensus was reached among the group members. Conflict appeared to have developed right from the start. This is different in group B where conflict developed late in the semester. Decisions were made but not all group members were able to abide by the decisions. This resulted in a lot of chaos, as the supposed group leader did not provide guidance up to the end of the semester thus group members were left to attend to themselves. Conflict arose in group A when the group leader failed to provide guidance and direction to the group members. However, this is different in group B where the conflict stage was skipped but conflict arose as a result of the too nice syndrome. In both teams, the too nice syndrome was observed. In team A members were at first unwilling to express their feelings and perceptions towards each other for the reason of not wanting to be hostile, but eventually feelings were expressed during the last days of the project and were very negative, which led to the deepening of the conflict. In team B, members were not willing to express their feelings at all. They avoided active expressed conflict. From the case study, it is clear that relationship and emotional issues distracted the members of team A. On the other hand, the group leader and members were willing to compromise their differences for the goodness of the team.
According to the conflict experienced within the groups, there are several resolutions that can be applied to solve the conflicts. Team A had a lack of leadership, which took toll on the group members. The all talk should have provided steadfast leadership to the members instead of misleading them. According to Bruce Tuckman, the leader needs to coach the members. The group members should have discussed their issues and solve them right from the start in order to avoid being distracted by relationship and emotional issues. The resolution to group Bs conflict is through expression of negative feelings and perceptions so that tension among the members seizes.
The effective functioning of a group depends on the commitment of the members. Commitment forms the foundation in which aspects of good functioning of the group lean on. From the case study by Tuckman it is clear that conflict has to arise in any group (Tuckman et al 1996). However, these conflicts have to be resolved in a mature manner and the group members should be allowed to express their true feelings and perceptions. The group members should be aware of group dynamics so as to be able to solve problems that arise at an early stage.
References
Bruce, T (1965). “Performing storming Norming” team development model. Paradigm. New York.
Chapman, A (2013).Team building games; ideas, theory and training. Saulaner. Washington Dc
Johnson, W. (2002). Team building practices. Stockview. London
Kerber, k (2004). Leadership challenges in global virtual teams; lessons from the field. SAM advanced management journal (69); 4-11.
