Four Phases of Teamwork Proposed by Bruce Tuckman - Coursework Example

Reflective Summary Name Institutional Affiliation Reflective Summary Our team comprised of five members, and we had four group meetings in which we discussed the topic area and prepared the presentation. Working on the assignment as a group gave us an invaluable opportunity to not only gain better knowledge, but also understand the dynamics of teamwork. Despite the limited time and few meetings, the team still experienced a series of phases propounded in leading literature on teamwork. This reflective essay offers an in-depth analysis of how the team morphed through different phases and handled conflict along the way. The discussion also underscores the importance of teamwork, the role of conflict in group dynamics as well as how the team worked together to prepare the presentation. Firstly, it was remarkable to watch the team morph through the four phases of teamwork proposed by Bruce Tuckman. At the group formation phase, we came together and had a somewhat formal session where we got to know one another. The next step was the confusion (storm) phase, and this manifested as the team began to tackle the question, lay down ground rules, and work out how to distribute the work. At this point, each person expressed their individual competencies, priorities, interests, motives, and goals in an irreconcilable manner (Grazulis, 2012). Gone was the anxiety and hesitancy that were characteristic of the initial phase as members voiced parallel ideas on how to accomplish the task. Fortunately, our familiarity with leading teamwork theories coupled with prior group work experience helped us to understand that this was a natural occurrence in teams, especially newly formed ones. The team quickly recovered from the irreconcilable aspects and stopped focusing on individual differences or entrenched positions. Instead, we directed our focus on a common goal and engaged in constructive discussions as to how we could adopt collective plans and standards to accomplish the project. At this point, the group was in the normalization phase where members adapted to each other’s differences. The final stage is maturity, where we worked jointly to get the work done (Somech et al., 2009). The four phases are merely a model that the group dynamics followed. A closer examination reveals that there was more at play than just getting through the four phases of teamwork. Tarricone and Luca (2002) note that there is a suite of attributes, which contribute to success in teamwork, including the commitment to achieve success, interdependence, sound interpersonal skills, effective leadership as well as positive feedback and open communication. In the first place, our team prioritized respectful communication and interactions from the word go. Poor communication tendencies such as talking over one another were discouraged. Instead, we deliberately opted to communicate clearly, listen to one another, and disagree respectfully on material matters. It is my belief that the commitment to deliver a stellar presentation enabled each member to remain focused on completing the task. The lack of interest and uncommitted members often go a long way in undermining a group’s effectiveness. Sharing a mutual goal and following a common plan to get things done is important during teamwork (Sycara & Sukthankar, 2006; Morgeson et al., 2009). Another key quality that drives success in group work is proper team composition, where the members must understand their role in a team and what is expected of each person with regards to their contribution to the project (Tarricone & Luca, 2002). I was glad to see that there was no free riding during this project as I have witnessed in previous teams. There were clear expectations placed upon each person with specific timelines to perform different tasks. What’s more, we issued progress reports even without meetings, which provided an opportunity to re-evaluate our positions and discuss any unexpected difficulties. There was also perfect attendance during scheduled meetings, which helped us to work smoothly as a team. The assignment helped to affirm my deep conviction that group work is highly fulfilling and efficient, especially when compared to individual tasks. There is increased efficiency since everyone shares responsibility and the workload is distributed as equally as possible to each member. What’s more, our group brought together people with differentiated skills and knowledge. For instance, one member had unparalleled public speaking skills and delivered the presentation in class without any qualms, while the other had great leadership skills to steer the team. Another person could oversee the design of the PowerPoint presentation and pay attention to little details such as the right picture, phrases, and font. In the end, this mix of diverse strengths helped us to deliver the report and presentation in a way that neither of us would have done individually. It was a perfect opportunity to leverage the unique strengths and skill sets that each member brought to the table, sharpen our knowledge, and cover up individual weaknesses, if any. Working together also meant that one could obtain early and continual feedback, which improved the quality of our work (Lau, 2013). With constructive feedback given along the way, it was possible to correct any mistakes or simply make improvements. I also found that accomplishing the task in a team helped increase learning. What I mean is that during the process of idea generation, I learned different ways to approach the question and had my assumptions about the subject area challenged by my peers. The rigour of our discussions and brainstorming helped me to gain a new perspective and expanded my knowledge of the subject. One key lesson that I took away from this task is that working seamlessly in a team is tough. As mentioned, the team experienced all the four phases of teamwork proposed by Tuckman. Members had parallel ideas on just about everything at first, but this is an inevitable phase. We had fundamental differences over strategies, the content of our presentation, timelines, the frequency and even the necessity of progress reports as well as the allocation of tasks. Simply put, there seemed to be as many ideas and perspectives as there were members on just about anything. I realized that conflict is a material impediment to group productivity, especially if not handled well. I admit that despite our commitment to relate well with one another, there were instances where we talked over one another, hardly listened, and tried to dominate the discussion. As Runde and Flanagan (2012) so succinctly assert, emotional engagements only serve to create more frequent and escalated conflicts, which leads to poor productivity. Fortunately, we soon realized that heated discussions would stagnate our meetings or force the passive members to become detached as the stronger ones had their way. Allowing a few members to dominate the interactions within the group certainly does not help, as others may opt to simply sit back and fail to commit to the decisions and the activities of the group. We simply did not have the time to sustain prolonged unconstructive disagreements and agreed to get past our differences and work towards achieving our bottom line, which was to learn and offer a great presentation. In moving forward, we had to go back to the basics of successful teamwork, which place great emphasis on respectful and constructive interpersonal interactions. Therefore, we quickly stopped talking over one another and acknowledged that differences in opinions are inevitable in teams. The leader took charge of the meeting after we agreed that proper communication would be more beneficial than talking over each other. The group overseer asked each member to give his or her input. We did this in turns and took as much time as necessary to get our points across without debate and interruptions. All ideas were noted down and later weighed objectively against one another to determine the best approach for the group. All the while, we remained guided by the ultimate goal of learning from one another and performing the task well. In the end, we made decisions that took into account different perspectives, albeit achieved through mutual concessions. The team was able to reach mutually agreeable decisions regarding the allocation of tasks, timeframes as well as how to accomplish the work. It was interesting to see that conflict can actually foster the unity and improved understanding that it purports to diminish. In the same vein, Kayser (1990 as cited in Rolih, 2013) asserts that conflict stimulates critical thinking and innovation while energizing the team to discover optimal alternatives. Whether conflict becomes a threat to productivity or an opportunity for greater efficiency and collaboration depends on the approach and attitude taken by a group. It is important to avoid getting side-tracked on emotional or personal issues and instead focus on limiting the conversation on floating ideas and exploring the merit of each suggestion. To sum up, this experience offered an incredible learning opportunity that expanded our knowledge of the topic area and enabled us to witness first-hand how team dynamics manifest. The group went through the four phases proposed by Tuckman including the group formation, confusion or storm, normalization, and maturity stages. In the confusion phase, things almost came to a standstill as our apparent differences materialized. Fortunately, the team ably reconsidered the direction of the conversation and opted to engage in respectful and meaningful discussions of multiple alternatives. We managed to steer the conflict towards gaining a greater understanding of each other as well as the task and accomplished stellar results. References Grazulus, V. (2012). Teamwork – The assumptions of the theoretical construct adaptation in organization activity (Lithuanian case). Human Resource Management & Ergonomics, 6(2), 78-94. Lau, E. (2013). Why and where is teamwork important? Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/23/why-and-where-is-teamwork-important/. Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2009). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5-39. Rolih, S. B. (2013). Constructive conflict in teamwork. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 9, 105-113. Runde, C. E., & Flanagan, T. A. (2012). Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader: How you And your Organization can Manage Conflict Effectively. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378. Sycara, K., & Sukthankar, G. (2006). Literature review of teamwork models. Pittsburgh, PA: Tech. Report CMU-RI-TR-06-50, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, November, 2006. Tarricone, P., & Luca, J. (2002). Successful teamwork: A case study. In Quality Conversations Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 640. Read More