Stages of Group Development: “LDB Corps Quality Committee” Stages of Group Development: “LDB Corps Quality Committee” Question 1. Which stage of group development is demonstrated by the group at this time? Identify two characteristics of this stage that are evident in the case. Since it was disclosed that the group, which is composed of six people, from various occupations from production worker to corporate manager, has been meeting weekly for the last 16 months, the stage of group development demonstrated is the performing stage. At this stage, the eminent characteristics are: (1) the group can brainstorm effectively as exemplified by the evaluation being made on the cost reduction initiative where communication was identified as the problem; and (2) the group has gotten to know each other well since they have been meeting for more than one year and is in fact functioning at a very high level as indicative of the tasks and activities being evaluated and assessed.
Question 2. What evidence is there that this group has vulnerability trust? The group has vulnerability trust as evidenced from the fact that the group could acknowledge the possibility that they have made a mistake in the identification of communication as the problem and the action proposed: to table the issue so that each member could gather additional information from each department to make a more informed decision – is a manifestation that they are seeking each other’s assistance to verify and confirm a more accurate problem. Question 3.
What is the stage of group development now? Identify two characteristics of this stage evident in the case. Even at the performing stage, the group reverted to the “forming” stage due to the two new members who came in: Sam Lafontaine, the CEO of LDC Corp. , and Johnny Bishop, a production worker.
The two characteristics of this stage that was evident in the case are: (1) there were apprehensions and feelings of finding ways to work out with the new two members coming in, as manifested by the private thoughts of the members; and (2) there were indications of the need to change goals and focus, specifically since one member is the CEO of the company and thereby, would be assumed to lead the group and change previously defined roles, goals, and responsibilities of each member. Question 4.
From Exhibit 6-4 on page 229, what characteristics are now lacking in the committee? With the entry of two new members, it was apparent that the characteristics lacking in the committee to consider them as an effective team are as follows: (1) clear purpose (since the presence of the CEO was perceived by other members as signaling the need for changes in goals and focus); (2) informality (some members exhibit apprehension to participate and the climate seemed to be formal and stiff); (3) open communication (there was a comment on the apprehension to relay honest opinions with the presence of the CEO within the team); (4) clear roles and work assignments (of course with the entry of two new members, there is a need to redefine roles and assignments). Question 5.
Which stage of group development is demonstrated by the committee at this time? Identify two characteristics of this stage that are evident in the case. At this time, the stage of group development demonstrated by the committee is the storming stage; as evidenced by these characteristics: (1) the group members (especially the new member, Mr.
Lafontaine) expressed new opinions regarding his vision of where he felt their future efforts could be directed and this was contradicted by other group members who defended what the group has accomplished so far; and (2) this situation caused impending conflicts due to disparity of opinions and the fact that the four original members met to determine how the group would go back into effectively performing indicates reverting to the storming stage.
Questions 6. Is the conflict Mavis expresses functional or dysfunctional? Why? The conflict Mavis expresses could be considered dysfunctional since it was noted that Mr. Lafontaine’s comments presented a different vision which was utterly different from the group’s previous thrusts and directions. As such, the challenges posed do not support the original group goals and thereby compromised the previous effective performance of the group. Reference Abudi, G. (2012). “The Five Stages of Team Development: A Case Study. ” Project Smart. Retrieved 18 April 2012.