W11_LUCKY_REVISITING TEAM BISTRO 12 TUCKMANS ASSESSMENT

W11_LUCKY_REVISITING TEAM BISTRO 12 TUCKMANS ASSESSMENT

1.       Problem Recognition, Definition, root cause analysis and evaluation

a.       Problem Recognition

Team Bistro 12 has suffered series of setbacks since its birth on Monday, October 22, 2012 but especially following the withdrawal of the program manager and other key leaders just after the formation of the team. Only recently was the resignation officially accepted by the client. As a result, there is an urgent need for new leadership to be put in place if the team is to survive through the program and deliver results of international standard.

 

b.      Problem Definition

 

·         Determine which of Tuckman’s Stages or Phases our team Bistro 12 is in and

·         Use that to determine which leadership style is appropriate for use, if appointed to a leadership role

 

c.       Root Cause analysis and evaluation

The team has a lot of material to cover before the certification exams. To achieve these tasks, the group must work as a coherent team in the real sense of it.

However, the root cause of the series of setbacks can be traced to the leadership style adopted by the leaders that facilitated the skipping of key steps leading to the performing stage in the Tuckman’s team development model thus undermining the learning from Tuckman Analysis – the very first assignment- applied to the team when it was created, as well as to the late arrival of required textbooks.

2.      Development of Feasible Alternatives ( Required Actions/leadership styles)

One famous methodology[i] that can be used to resolve this concern is Tuckman’s Forming Storming Norming Performing model. Tuckman’s model shows stages of group development from formation stage to performance stage. (See figure 1)

Using the questionnaire method, we can predict the stage the team is in. I relied on my own scoring of the questionnaire and analyzed the results using the interpretation criteria.

Using the survey methodology[ii], the highest of the four scores is 29 as shown in Table 1. We can say that our team is in forming stage, the stage with the highest value. I perceive that our team is operating in the Forming stage at this time, in my view, slowly but gradually developing into the storming, norming and performing stages as can be seen in the close values - storming (19), norming (18) and performing (16).

 

QUESTIONAIRE RESULT
Item Score		Item Score		Item Score		Item Score
1	4	2	2	4	2	3	2
5	5	7	1	6	2	8	2
10	2	9	4	11	2	12	2
15	5	16	4	13	2	14	2
18	5	20	4	19	4	17	2
21	2	23	2	24	2	22	2
27	4	28	1	25	2	26	2
29	2	31	1	30	2	32	2
Total:	29		19		18		16
	Forming Stage		Storming Stage		Norming Stage		Performing Stage

Table 1: Working on Teams: What Stage is our Team in?  Results (By Author)

In my view, and in the absence of an actual survey of all team members, the depth of understanding and connection amongst team members as expressed in some terms and conditions in the questionnaire can now be assessed under the 45 days of being together with the first 5 days preliminary face to face session and the rest days virtually to date.

Having known the stage Team Bistro 12 is in, the feasible management/leadership styles that could be most appropriate for managing the team Bistro 12 include[iii]:

a.       Fiedler’s Contingency Model (Situational management)

                                                              i.      Task motivation

                                                            ii.      Relationship motivation

b.      Rensis Likert’s 4 Model System

                                                              i.      Exploitative- authoritative system

                                                            ii.      Benevolent – authoritative system

                                                          iii.      Consultative system

                                                          iv.      Participative –group system

 

3.      Development of outcomes for each alternative

The outcomes of applying Fiedler’s Contingency model could be positive or negative depending on the situation which is determined by the following three factors:

·         Leader-member relations

o   Acceptance of leader by the team

o   Support for the leader by the team

·         Task structure

o   Extent to which defined structure is aligned with clear goals and procedures

·         Position power

o   Ability of leader to control subordinates through reward and punishment

The outcomes of applying Rensis Likert’s 4 model system could be positive or negative depending on the extent to which the four main features of the model must be applied.

4.      Selection Criteria

I would like to use the Lencioni’s Philosophy[iv]  as criteria for selection of the dominant management style for team Bistro 12, in my view.

In order of hierarchy, with Focus on the result at the tip of the triangle and Building trust at the base, the Lencioni’s philosophy is provided below:

·         Focus on Results

·         Foster Accountability

·         Build commitment

·         Resolve Conflicts

·         Build Trust

The characteristics of the team at the moment, using the Tuckman’s assessment model include:

·         Individuals (majority) are not clear on what they are supposed to do

·         Wondering where the team is going

·         No trust yet

·         High learning

·         No group history; unfamiliar with group members

·         People not committed to the team

Figure 1: Tuckman’s Development Stages Tasks and Behaviors

5.      Analysis and comparison of the alternatives

The characteristics of the Fiedler’s Contingency model include:

·         Situational awareness

o   Leader-member relations

o   Task Structure and

o   Position power

·         High levels of the above three factors give the most favorable situation

·         Low levels of the above factors give the least favorable situation

·         Relationship –motivated leaders are most effective in moderately favorable situations

·         Task-motivated leaders are most effective at both high levels and low levels of the three factors

The characteristics of the Rensis Likert’s 4 model system include:

·         Exploitative- authoritative system – Not applicable

·         Benevolent – authoritative system – Not applicable

·         Consultative system –

o   Leadership feel high sense of responsibility for achieving the team’s goal

o   There exist some form of communication(vertical/horizontal)

o   Moderate teamwork

o   Absence of complete trust in team members

·         Participative –group system – Team not ripe enough for this style

 

6.      Selection of preferred alternative

I would select the combination of following leadership styles to meet the very first basic requirement – [ i.e Build Trust] of the Lencioni’s Philosophy, my selection criteria:

From the Fiedler’s Contingency model -

·         Task-motivated leaders are most effective at both high levels and low levels of the three factors

From the Rensis Likert’s 4 model system –

·         Consultative system –

o   Leadership feel high sense of responsibility for achieving the team’s goal

Specific actions should include the following[v]:

1.      Figure ways to build trust – Build trust by honoring commitments

2.      Leader must be directive – Ask for and expect results

3.      Recognize the need to move out of the forming stage – have the vision: ‘we can succeed’

4.      Establish roles – Agree on individual’s roles and responsibilities

5.      Decide once and for all to be on the team

6.      Assert power – Actively support and reinforce team behavior

 

7.      Performance monitoring and post evaluation of results

I would love to see how things play out after the implementation of the suggested leadership styles. The level of performance of the individual team members regarding set goals (e.g SPI > 0.80) and the group will be the yard stick for post evaluation and subsequently any further adjustment to the leadership style.  

References:i

---

[i] Tuckman’s Team Developments Stage. Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm

[ii] Survey: What Stage is Your Team in? Retrieved from http://www.cscaweb.org/EMS/sector_team/support_files/tools_for_the_team/tool_stage.pdf

[iii] Giammalvo, P. (2012, October 22). Integrated portfolio (asset), program (operations) and project management methodology course (cost engineering) slides (An AACE methodology course) (pp. 85-91). Lagos, Nigeria: Lonadek

[iv] Giammalvo, P. (2012, October 22). Integrated portfolio (asset), program (operations) and project management methodology course (cost engineering) slides (An AACE methodology course) (p. 102). Lagos, Nigeria: Lonadek

[v] Tuckman’s Team Developments Stage. Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm