Forming

In this stage, most team members are positive and polite. Some are anxious, as they
haven't fully understood what work the team will do. Others are simply excited about the
task ahead.
As leader, you play a dominant role at this stage, because team members' roles and
responsibilities aren't clear.
This stage can last for some time, as people start to work together, and as they make an
effort to get to know their new colleagues.
Storming
Next, the team moves into the storming phase, where people start to push against the
boundaries established in the forming stage. This is the stage where many teams fail.
Storming often starts where there is a conflict between team members' natural working
styles. People may work in different ways for all sorts of reasons but, if differing working
styles cause unforeseen problems, they may become frustrated.
Storming can also happen in other situations. For example, team members may challenge
your authority, or jockey for position as their roles are clarified. Or, if you haven't defined
clearly how the team will work, people may feel overwhelmed by their workload, or they
could be uncomfortable with the approach you're using.
Some may question the worth of the team's goal, and they may resist taking on tasks.
Team members who stick with the task at hand may experience stress, particularly as they
don't have the support of established processes, or strong relationships with their
colleagues.

Norming
Gradually, the team moves into the norming stage. This is when people start to resolve
their differences, appreciate colleagues' strengths, and respect your authority as a leader.
Now that your team members know one another better, they may socialize together, and
they are able to ask one another for help and provide constructive feedback. People
develop a stronger commitment to the team goal, and you start to see good progress
towards it.
There is often a prolonged overlap between storming and norming, because, as new tasks
come up, the team may lapse back into behavior from the storming stage.
Performing
The team reaches the performing stage, when hard work leads, without friction, to the
achievement of the team's goal. The structures and processes that you have set up support
this well.
As leader, you can delegate much of your work, and you can concentrate on developing
team members.
It feels easy to be part of the team at this stage, and people who join or leave won't
disrupt performance.
Adjourning
Many teams will reach this stage eventually. For example, project teams exist for only a
fixed period, and even permanent teams may be disbanded through organizational
restructuring.
Team members who like routine, or who have developed close working relationships with
colleagues, may find this stage difficult, particularly if their future now looks uncertain.

Question 2

Attribution is considered to be a three-stage process. First, the behavior of an individual

must be observed. Second, the perceiver must determine that the behavior they have
observed is deliberate. That is, the person being observed is believed to have behaved
intentionally. Finally, the observer attributes the observed behavior to either internal or
external causes. Internal causes are attributed to the person being observed, while
external causes are attributed to outside factors. The two internal attributions one can
make are that a person's ability or a person's effort determined the outcome. Task
difficulty and luck are the external causes of behavior. When perceiving behavior, an
observer will make a judgment as to which of these factors is the cause of behavior.
However, when making a determination between internal and external causes of behavior,
the perceiver must examine the elements of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.
Consistency describes whether the person being observed behaves the same way when
faced with the same set of circumstances. If the person being observed acts the same way
in the same type of situation, consistency is high; if they act differently each time, then
consistency is low. Distinctiveness is whether the observed person acts the same way in
different types of situations. If the person being observed exhibits the same behavior in a
variety of contexts, then distinctiveness is low; if they have different behavior depending
on the context, then distinctiveness is high. Finally, consensus is the degree to which
other people, if in the same situation, would behave similarly to the person being
observed. If the observer sees others acting the same way that the person being perceived
acts, then consensus is high. However, if others behave differently in the type of situation,
then consensus is low. Consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are evaluated when
observing behavior, and then a judgment about an internal versus external cause of
behavior is made. When consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are all high, the
perceiver concludes that there is an external cause of behavior. When consistency is high,
distinctiveness is low, and consensus is low, the perceiver will attribute the cause of
behavior to internal factor.
Question 3

Critically asses the existing organizational structure at Levi Strauss and suggest how the
structure can be improved and /or changed.
Looking into the passage, it can be seen that the organizational structure is more of
Pyramidal structure, there is clear separation of duties within hierarchical rank and this is
not designed to facilitate interaction with person at the top of the organization.
Therefore it falls under mechanistic organization structure Because of their hierarchy,
mechanistic structures are vertically oriented. The most mechanistic is the functional
organizational structure, with its tall, triangular shape. Many workers form the structures
foundation, grouped into departments by similar activities such as production. Above
them sits their managers. When each employee narrowly specializes in some limited part
of a larger whole, one manager can easily supervise many employees and has a wide
span of control. The span of control gets smaller moving up the organization, where
managers manage other managers. The central power of the company crowns it all.
Mechanization that allows for productivity, economy and efficiency also causes
problems. The structures inherent bureaucracy hampers efforts to quickly respond to
outside market forces. Innovation has to wait on red tape. Rigid control and job
specialization means employees arent free to be creative problem-solvers. As mere cogs,
employees morale may be low. Finally, grouping employees by function contributes to
departmental isolation. Interdepartmental cooperation and communication suffer in
mechanistic structures.
Levi Strauss should move away from a traditional, hierarchical structure to one
that is flatter and more circular, in nature. This is designed to help them keep
leadership at the centre of decisions, but, at the same time, helps create enough
freedom amongst their employees so that it drives sustained innovation, fantastic
results as well as engaged employees and customers.
I will suggest a change to matrix organizational structure, one of the advantages of
implementing the matrix organizational structure in a business is that it can lead to an
efficient exchange of information. Departments work closely together and communicate

with each other frequently to solve issues. Efficient lines of communication enhance
productivity and allow for quick decision-making. For example, in a matrix structure,
individuals from the marketing, finance and product departments may confer with one
another to formulate strategies. The specialized information exchange allows managers to
respond quickly to the needs of customers and the organization.
The matrix structure encourages a democratic leadership style. This style incorporates the
input of team members before managers make decisions. The ability to contribute
valuable information before decisions are made leads to employee satisfaction and
increased motivation. In a matrix structure, each employee brings his expertise to the
table. Managers are involved in the day-to-day operations, which allow them to make
decisions through the viewpoint of employees.

Question 4
Based on the above case study, explain with well reasoned argument whether
transactional or transformational leadership would be appropriate.

Transactional leadership promotes compliance with existing organizational goals and

performance expectations through supervision and the use of rewards and punishments.
Transactional leaders are task and outcome-oriented. Especially effective under strict
time and resource constraints and in highly-specified projects, this approach adheres to
the status quo and employs a form of management that pays close attention to how
employees perform their tasks.
Transformational leadership focuses on increasing employee motivation and engagement
and attempts to link employees' sense of self with organizational values. This leadership
style emphasizes leading by example, so followers can identify with the leader's vision
and values. A transformational approach focuses on individual strengths and weaknesses

of employees and on enhancing their capabilities and their commitment to organizational

goals, often by seeking their buy in for decisions.
Transactional and transformational leadership exhibit four key differences:
1.

Transactional leadership reacts to problems as they arise, whereas transformational

leadership is more likely to address issues before they become problematic.

2.

Transactional leaders

work

within existing

organizational culture,

while

transformational leaders emphasize new ideas and thereby "transform" organizational

culture.
3.

Transactional leaders reward and punish in traditional ways according to

organizational standards; transformational leaders attempt to achieve positive results from
employees by keeping them invested in projects, leading to an internal, high-order reward
system.

4.

Transactional leaders appeal to the self-interest of employees who seek out

rewards for themselves, in contrast to transformational leaders, who appeal to group
interests and notions of organizational success.

5.

Transactional leadership is more akin to the common notions of management,

whereas transformational leadership adheres more closely to what is colloquially referred
to as leadership.
Transformational leadership is more appropriate at Levi Strauss.