Teamwork and Team Performance - Case Study

3/23/2013

Contents

1. Group Development 3
2. Problem Identification 3
3. Retrospective Evaluation 4
4. Reflection 5

1. Group Development
There are five stages of group development in which a team passes through: Forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning. The group for this case study is currently, 1 week before the
due date, in both the norming stage and performing stage. They have adapted to the absence of
Mike and are motivated to finish the analysis in an effort to achieve a good grade. Each member
has completed their part except Mike, who has just handed in notes to Christine. All of the other
members have looked past any turmoil of Mike and either adapted to that or ignored him.
Managing a team through these five stages will increase the overall effectiveness of that team;
therefore understanding the different stages could have assisted Christine. If she knew what each
stage entailed ahead of time, she could have anticipated certain issues or attempted to resolve
them. In the beginning Christine should have laid out the group rules, assigned all the tasks, and
allowed the members to introduce themselves and get to know one another. I think she did a good
job leading them into scheduled meetings; however, Mike was just a complainer about the early
meeting. When tension arose in the group, because Mike was upset seeing the group members
having a good time and mingling without him, Christine could have focused her effort on talking to
him and explaining, in an effort to get him to join and understand the group. Knowing that tension
usually sets in at some point, she could have worked it out in an effort to move to the next stage
and keep the member on track. We do not know if she set deadlines for notes, final drafts, etc. The
week before the due date everyone besides Mike was done, which showed her clear expectations.
Overall, Christine could have guided the members through the stages because she knew what the
end result had to be, could have been aware of some road blocks in the process, and known how
to deal with them.
2. Problem Identification
Every team has a task at hand in which they need to collectively work together towards
accomplishing. Some of the primary problems in this group are in the forming and storming stage,
getting different people with different work ethics to understand and get to know one another. In
this case Christine dealt with all different personalities, ranging from a businessman to a clown,
trying to get them to work together to perform this analysis. The ultimate problem is to achieve
high performance goals by getting each member to read, analyze, and write a paper. She had to
ensure every member did their part for the group. Another primary issue was that Mike did not
make any of the meetings and felt left out when he saw the group together. The feeling of being left
out can cause tension, anger, and poor performance from a member.
Along with the primary problems, there are some secondary issues, and after realizing that Mike
felt distant and did not show up, Christine still needed to ensure that he gets his share of the
project done. Once she found out about Mike’s issues in school, work, and with his girlfriend she
sympathizes with him, but still had a leadership role to play. She had to ensure member
satisfaction in an effort to make the members feel that their participation was positive rather than
feeling left out, like Mike in the cafeteria and before class.
3. Retrospective Evaluation
This case study could have played out many different ways, and based on the information in the
story, we do not know the outcome. One solution, for the primary problem of Mike missing
meetings and being left out of the group, would be to explain the situation to Professor Sandra.
Christine could have approached Sandra to explain that Mike had been very distant and not
cooperating with meetings. There are limited things that Sandra could have done; however at least
she would have been informed and understood. The pros to approaching the professor could have
been to possibly get Mike on the right track and take the responsibility off the team. The professor
could have made arrangements or provided guidance for Mike if he explained his problems about
class, work, and his girlfriend early on. They may have been granted an extension or could have
had a group meeting during class. The cons of this solution would be that Mike would think
Christine was a tattle tale and he could get angry at the group and become more distant. Professor
Sandra could have also told the group to find a way to work it out and/or pick up his slack. A group
project means that each member performs their part, so approaching the professor would have
informed Sandra of the lack of effort on Mike’s behalf and that everyone else is participating and
doing their part.
On the other hand, another solution would be to actually evaluate and use Mike’s notes and
information even though he was not present. The case does not say whether Christine relayed his
information to the group. Christine could have also relayed the group meeting thoughts or even
offered help to Mike. Once Christine sensed he was distant and felt left out, she should have
explained everything to him and offered to help him organize his part. Christine could have
explained his situation, if he allowed, to the team and they could have all chipped in. An effective
team will not let another member fall behind; they will exhaust all means possible. The pros to
helping Mike out and making him feel like a part of the team is that the overall task would be
completed, it would bring everyone closer as a team, and boost confidence and moral. The team
would not feel as they ignored him and pushed someone’s problem off to the professor. The cons
to this solution are that it would require a lot more effort from Christine and some effort and
flexibility from the other members. The other members might also think that Mike is getting away
with doing less work.
4. Reflection
Overall, in this case I think Christine was an effective group leader in getting the task
accomplished. There is some information left out as to whether or not Mike finished his part or the
grade they received. As a group leader in a classroom setting, she is not responsible for anyone’s
actions and may not have to take an interest in their personal behavior. I think that she should have
approached Mike about the left out feeling since he saw the group together twice without him. As a
leader, there should be no secrets and everyone should be informed. If this were a company or real
management role I would say that Christine could have done a lot better. However, with the
information provided she lead the team to complete their tasks and still had time to encourage
Mike to do his part.