Communication and Team Building
Teams in the workplace -- Analysis, Communication in small groups, Teams in the workplace -- Case studies, Social groups -- Management, Teams in the workplace -- Effect of personality traits on
Our teams development is outlined using Tuckman's group development model as a framework to show how our team progressed through the semester, Tuckaman (1965). None of the team members knew each other previous to the start of this class. The selection process was influenced by several factors. These factors included proximity in class when the teams were formed, appearance and chance. Once we had committed to forming a team it became apparent that scheduling team meetings would be a significant problem. Jason and Noah's work schedules were polar opposites and both team members had limited free time. A quick discussion of how we would work around this issue set the tone for the rest of the semester. There was no drama, just a recognition that face to face meetings would be the exception and that we would have to work as a virtual team with each member taking responsibility for a section of the assignments.
These same busy schedules that limited face time also forced the team to make efficient use of its resources. Team decisions were made quickly with the discussions focused on what issues needed to be addressed and how we could efficiently provide a solution. With limited interaction outside of class most of the teams initial bonding took place while walking from class. Despite busy schedules, two face to face team meetings were held during the semester. The first meetings effectiveness was limited when one team member missed a text message on the meetings location and another had to deal with personnel emergency. Fortunately this meeting was not typical of the team's character and did not set the tone for future performance. The second team meeting was much more successful with all members sharing information regarding their backgrounds and anecdotal stories as well as developing a plan for our class work. While the interpersonal aspect of this meeting generally would fit the forming stage the focus of the meeting was working developing a plan to complete the teams research paper. This fit well with Tuckman's storming stage of team development.
Similarly, the transition to the Norming Stage was not clear cut. There were signs of Norming behavior from the teams initial meetings. Significantly the team members took responsibility to make major team decisions independently. Duygu, who during many of the meetings was more reserved, brought up that she felt we had chosen the wrong research project. This was a significant team performance milestone for several reasons. Most importantly is showed that although we were in a Norming phase and working efficiently , team members could voice dissenting opinions. This indicted to me that there was significant trust within the team. As the end of the semester approached the team easily entered the performing stage. When the final report was due, tasks were quickly divided up and team members did what was needed to meet the deadline.
Carbone, Kevin; McBain, Jason; Third, Noah; and Ucar, Duygu, "Team 3: Team Process Report" (2010). Engineering and Technology Management Student Projects. 973.