Bruce Tuckman's Model
Dr Bruce Tuckman introduced the forming, storming, norming and performing (FSNP) model in 1965 so that more people could understand the team development and the behaviour stages that a group goes through in order to accomplish their set goals.
FORMING
This is the stage whereby everyone that was selected to be in the group together are getting to know one another and then preparing the roles that each will carry out. The leader will generally get a lot of questions from the team members so they will have to be prepared to answer them. These will be questions on the logistics of that of the team. The team will also test the leader and their strength with power as the leader is the one giving initial guidance to the group. |
STORMING
This is the where the group is at their lowest point as there are arguments and decisions that are proving difficult to be made. The leaders of the team are more accessible. Although factions and cliques become a problem when formed and could cause a struggles against them, because when people team up to make the task that needs to be carried out more difficult. When this happens the group will have to be focused on the goals that they need to achieve without becoming distracted by any relationships or any emotional inconveniences. |
NORMING
Within the 'Norming' stage the group will be building the trust that they have with each other and the leader takes control so that the group can start working towards the initiated goal that they need or want to achieve. At this stage, if this were to be a long term process, it would be a good idea to use team building activities to only make the trust between each participant greater. The reason why the trust is high is because there is appreciation of differences between everyone as well as the roles that are given out to different participants. |
PERFORMING:
The 'performing' stage on Bruce Tuckman's model is where the participants within a group are aware of what they are doing and how they can do better in order to achieve. They do this without any participation or interruptions from the leader. There is a mutual vision of what needs to be done in order to achieve. The team is also able to adapt to different situations and people |
ADJOURNING
Adjourning is the final stage where the breaking up of the group. Bruce Tuckman has listed this final stage occurs when the task is completed properly and that it's natures are fulfilled. This is when everyone is able to move on to new tasks feeling accomplished with what they have been able to produce. From the perspective of an organizational perspective, sensitivity is recognised in conjuction to people's vulnerabilities in Tuckman's fifth stage. Particularly if members of the group have been bonded and have a sense of threat or insecurity from the change. |
John Adair's Action Centred Leadership Model
John Adair's Action Centred Leadership model was created for the understanding of leadership and a form of management within different groups, teams or organisation's. He created three stages to his model: task, team and individual. The stages are shown through three circles interlinking each other, which is a trademark of his. John Adair created this theory in 1973. To be a good leader you should have all three aspects but within certain situations or activities certain aspects of the three triangles should be discarded. This is because not all aspect should be involved at the same time. Task: The task is when their is a particular activity or a goal that needs to be completed. This is when all the goals are clear and shared between the members of the group. The task will often be what brings all the individuals together to make the team.
Team: The whole team will need to contribute to the success of the task that is given to them otherwise it is very unlikely the task will be completed with 100% effort from every team member. This means that the group work together and no individual is left out.
Individual: The individual circle in the trio means that the individual will not lose who they are whilst the group has it's 'own life'. People within the group will contribute with the section of the task that they have been assigned and the motivation to achieve the task must be sustained with the other members of the group.
For instance with the Bradford City disaster whereby the stands within the football stadium lit on fire; the task was to win the game, the team was the Bradford City playing against Lincoln City, and the individual was each player. The Stadium Management would stop the game due to this incident for health & safety reasons for both teams and the spectators within the stadium grounds. This meant that the task was stopped. Another example would be if there a fire emergency to an apartment block the lead firefighter would make the decision whether or not to enter the building based on achieving the task, safety of the team and the safety of the individual which could either be the people within the building or around the premises.
Team: The whole team will need to contribute to the success of the task that is given to them otherwise it is very unlikely the task will be completed with 100% effort from every team member. This means that the group work together and no individual is left out.
Individual: The individual circle in the trio means that the individual will not lose who they are whilst the group has it's 'own life'. People within the group will contribute with the section of the task that they have been assigned and the motivation to achieve the task must be sustained with the other members of the group.
For instance with the Bradford City disaster whereby the stands within the football stadium lit on fire; the task was to win the game, the team was the Bradford City playing against Lincoln City, and the individual was each player. The Stadium Management would stop the game due to this incident for health & safety reasons for both teams and the spectators within the stadium grounds. This meant that the task was stopped. Another example would be if there a fire emergency to an apartment block the lead firefighter would make the decision whether or not to enter the building based on achieving the task, safety of the team and the safety of the individual which could either be the people within the building or around the premises.
French & Raven's Five Fources
Bertram Raven was a faculty member of UCLA Psychology Department since 1956. He is known for his work in 1959, with which he did a collaboration with John R. P. French on the five forms of social power. John R. P. French was a faculty member of the University of Michigan for Psychology. He and Bertram Raven created the five forms of social power. They first created the five powers: coercive power, reward power, legitimate power, referent power, expert power. Then Bertram Raven added informational power. So it total by 1965 the five forms of social power turned to six.
Reward Power:
This form of social power is used to prove that the main reasons in life is that work work for money that we need to be able to carry on human lives. This power doesn't just come under the factor of money because a reward can be as little as a handshake to a private jet. Reward power is the ability to offer other people what they want and desire and then asking them to carry out a task in exchange. In conclusion what they power is essentially used in the sense, 'do this, and you will get that'. |
Coercive Power:
This form of social power is used to force someone to do something against their will. It is often that this form of power is used physically. It is the power of dictators. Coercive power can result is a physical harm and it's principle goal is compliance. Although this power is often thought out to negative, it could be used as a peacemaker. An example of coercive power being used positively. A brother holds back his little brother who is going to walk in front of a car. |
Legitimate Power:
This form of social power is used to label kings, policeman or a manager who has legitimate power. A trap that is often led people is that such roles can forget that people are obeying the role, and not the person. There are different social rules where it can have different forms not just based on a position: Legitimate position power: The social norm of obeying people in a superior position. Legitimate power of reciprocity: The norm that we should repay those who help us. Legitimate power of equity: The norm of fair play and due compensation. Legitimate power of responsibility: The norm of social responsibility in helping others (the 'power of the powerless'). |
Referent Power:
This form of social power is when another person takes a liking to you or would like to endure on the same paths as you. Charisma and fame is what beholds on referent power. When a person wants to gain this form of social power they will stand close to those and hope that the charisma will rub onto them. The people who have referent social power fear any social exclusion and all it takes to gain this social form of power is that it only takes a single word for the social leader to make the decision to reject all the others within the social group. |
Expert Power:
This form of social power is when a person would require some else's skill who the people who have expert social power. An example of this is the trade union who further encourage a set of members to strike for what it right. This could be a strike for better working conditions or for a pay raise or bonus's. |
In 1965 Bertram Raven added a sixth force of French and Raven's five forces of social power. This was informational power. This form of social power is when when a person receives information whereby makes someone result in thinking or acting in another form compared to the original person.
Meredith Belbin's Team Roles
Meredith Belbin created a theory whereby it interprets the team roles that explains who they are within a group. Belbin to this day travels across to different countries such as China or Russia. When travelling his talks about the Team Roles within different cultures. Meredith Belbin has created and used his team roles to identify different people's behavioural weakness' as well as strengths in a working environment. The information from the team roles can be used to build productive working relationships, build a mutual trust and understanding with everyone, develop and select high-performing teams, aid recruitment processes, and also raise self-awareness and personal effectiveness. The nine team roles are described below.
Plant:
The team role of ‘plant’ is that of a unique individual that is very creative and good at solving problems in unusual ways. They also tend to be dominant within the group and contribute a lot of different ideas. This will uplift the team spirit and strategically complete tasks that are given to them. A weakness of a ‘plant’ is that they tend to be forgetful and unorthodox. |
Monitor Evaluator:
The team role of a monitor evaluator is that they are strategic, seeing all options and judge accurately. Good at diagnosing problems. Lacks drive and ability to inspire others. A weakness of a being the monitor evaluator is that they can sometimes be overly critical and be the slow mover of the group. |
Co-ordinator:
Coordinators are needed to focus on the team’s objectives, draw out team members and delegate work appropriately. They are a strong decision maker and will use available resources to achieve task. |
Resource Investigator:
The resource investigator is the executive who is never in his room, and if he is, he is on the telephone. The resource investigator is someone who explores opportunities and develops contacts. |
Implementors:
Implementors are organised and predictable. Takes basic ideas and makes them work in practice. Can be slow. |
Completer Finisher:
Completer Finishers do not have an effective role in the group until the end of a task, to fix and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control. |
Team worker:
The team workers are the people who provide support and ensure that everyone in the team are working together effectively. They prioritize team cohesions and help everyone get along, however they may be indecisive and uncommitted in decision making. |
Shaper:
Shapers usually those who are challenging. They provide the necessary drive to ensure that the team keeps on moving and not lose focus or momentum. |
Specialist:
The specialist is active after the initial research had been completed. This is because the specialist has a very in-depth knowledge of a key area in which will be able to be a key contributor to the team. |
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
What did I think I would get (prediction) versus What I actually got...
When reading and learning about Meredith Belbin's Team Role Questionnaire I thought that I would be a plant because I'm generally very creative and good at problem solving. I also thought I was more of a team leader and would be more dominant with sharing different ideas to the group. I thought that would be my major. After completing the Self Perception Questionnaire that was created my Meredith Belbin it came with the outcome that I was a major in the role of a Resource Investigator and that I was a minor in the role of a Team Worker. I was initially shocked because when I re-read what a Resource Investigator and a Team Worker was I then noticed that I was like that and that I do show more traits in those areas than I do a with the team role 'Plant'.
Was the questionnaire accurate?
I felt in my situation that Meredith Belbin's Team Role Questionnaire was fairly accurate because after I read about the team role of 'Plant' I led and convinced myself to believe that I was a Plant, but the questionnaire allowed me to see otherwise. After I read through all the team roles the Belbin had created I had realised that I was more of a Resource Investigator and a Team Worker because as I was checking over the questionnaire I analysed over what questions and answer were linked to a Resource Investigator and noticed they were quite close and I did in fact show traits. I felt I was too biased with wanting to be a plant that I naturally was not.
When reading and learning about Meredith Belbin's Team Role Questionnaire I thought that I would be a plant because I'm generally very creative and good at problem solving. I also thought I was more of a team leader and would be more dominant with sharing different ideas to the group. I thought that would be my major. After completing the Self Perception Questionnaire that was created my Meredith Belbin it came with the outcome that I was a major in the role of a Resource Investigator and that I was a minor in the role of a Team Worker. I was initially shocked because when I re-read what a Resource Investigator and a Team Worker was I then noticed that I was like that and that I do show more traits in those areas than I do a with the team role 'Plant'.
Was the questionnaire accurate?
I felt in my situation that Meredith Belbin's Team Role Questionnaire was fairly accurate because after I read about the team role of 'Plant' I led and convinced myself to believe that I was a Plant, but the questionnaire allowed me to see otherwise. After I read through all the team roles the Belbin had created I had realised that I was more of a Resource Investigator and a Team Worker because as I was checking over the questionnaire I analysed over what questions and answer were linked to a Resource Investigator and noticed they were quite close and I did in fact show traits. I felt I was too biased with wanting to be a plant that I naturally was not.
Throughout the teams first exercise of raft building there was a lot of team collaboration, which was good as everyone within the team knew what the task was and what they had to do to help achieve success. The collaboration as a team was good because we had a small team where we knew each other already, that meant it was easy for the leader Lachlan to tell us what role or task we had within the task. On the other hand there were not as much team collaboration within the catapult building task, which meant that a lot of the team didn't know what they were doing to help achieve success in building a catapult. There was poor collaboration because it was a larger team and the team leader wasn't able to clearly instruct the team to help them understand their tasks and role with the building. Another reason why there was poor collaboration was because a lot of people within the team were not focused on the task itself and were focused on other things around them as well as some people were working on their own designs rather than the teams. This had a negative impact on the teams overall performance.
When completing both of the tasks we split up the equipment we were allowed to use and decided what we were to do with all the pieces of equipment. The task of raft building we allocated the materials into different piles such as a pile for bamboo, a pile for string and a final pile of tires. Further on we then separated the piles into small categories such as organising the bamboo in length order. From looking at the equipment that we had we all contributed ideas to the best way the raft will withhold our collaborated body weight. The benefit that came from splitting up the equipment clearly was that we could see clearly what we had to use as well as being able to see what materials were left as we were building. On the other hand with the catapult task we didn't use the same work ethic. We didn't split the equipment up, we just grabbed materials and started trying to build. Also another issue that we came across with not splitting up the equipment we weren't able to see what we had left as well as people within the team started to play with the equipment as well as making their own design with the team materials rather than contributing to the teams catapult.
Throughout completing the tasks there were always disagreement between people in the team. If it were the overall design or because the didn't want to contribute to a design they didn't like. When completing the raft building the main conflict that we had within our team was the initial design of the raft. Some people wanted a square and others wanted a triangle. Some people were giving their opinions of why they think a design wouldn't work and why others would work better. The way in which this conflict was resolved is that we collaborated everyones idea into the final design, which meant that everyone had contributed to the overall and final design. On the other hand throughout the catapult task there was a lot more conflict between the team and not very much decision making on the design of the product. The reason behind this was because due to more people being in this group compared to the raft building task, there were many more ideas about the design and some members of the group didn't really know each other. The way in which this conflict was resolved was that the leader that was selected made the final decision and the idea they had said was what everyone had to follow. Many people didn't like the design of the catapult but they just got on with the role that they were asked to do. After this the conflict between the team decreased and completed the task.
When in a team everyone must be patient and solve problems that may occur when carrying out different tasks. This is because if the people within the team are unable to problem solve and made the leader solve the problem the task will not only take longer but will also mean that the team isn't actually working in a team. Another reason why a team must be willing to solve problems that occur is because if they don't work as a team and suggest way in which the problem can be solved more mistakes may be made because the leader may not think about all the possible outcomes from the way they solved it. A team must be able to come up with different solutions and as a team or the leader must pick the best solution that they feel will have the better outcome for the team to succeed.
With any task a team is always going to have someone who will be more experience or expertise in the specific area of the task. When completing the task of raft building the first person to show experience and expertise in the area were the instructors as a team we didn't know what knots we were to use or what knots were the best to tie the bamboo together or the bamboo to the tires. We were then taught by the instructor and then with the knowledge that had been passed on to the team we were able to work a lot more effectively. Together as a team we then wanted to come up with designs that would best suit the task that we had been asked to complete. We used our knowledge from previous camps that we had been to where we were also asked to make a raft and used those designs as our ideas. This helped when we came to our decision of what the raft will look like. On the other hand with the task of building a catapult we had a lot more people within our team, which helped because it meant that with more people came more knowledge. We had more people of expertise of how to tie knots as well as some of the people within our team had built a catapult before so they were able to give their designs to help create the master design.
The way that different skills and talents were recognised throughout the two tasks:
Throughout the raft building task not many skills that the people within the team brought to the task apart from the overall design of the raft. Some people were more skilled in they were tying two bamboo sticks together where as others who were not so skilled would help by making sure that the bamboo sticks didn't move whilst they were being tied, making a solid knot and helped the overall strength of the structure. On the other hand when building a catapult the camp leaders showed us a few different ways that we could create the raft and taught us rather than people within the team already knowing how to build a catapult. Again due to more people within the team there were more people who knew how to tie a know well so others who didn't helped by holding the structure together.
Overall I felt that I not only performed better in the raft building task but also enjoyed it more as it was a smaller group and there were many different minor tasks that had to be carried out, which meant I was more involved. Also throughout the task not only did I perform well as an individual but as a team we were able to work well together and succeed in the challenge.
When completing both of the tasks we split up the equipment we were allowed to use and decided what we were to do with all the pieces of equipment. The task of raft building we allocated the materials into different piles such as a pile for bamboo, a pile for string and a final pile of tires. Further on we then separated the piles into small categories such as organising the bamboo in length order. From looking at the equipment that we had we all contributed ideas to the best way the raft will withhold our collaborated body weight. The benefit that came from splitting up the equipment clearly was that we could see clearly what we had to use as well as being able to see what materials were left as we were building. On the other hand with the catapult task we didn't use the same work ethic. We didn't split the equipment up, we just grabbed materials and started trying to build. Also another issue that we came across with not splitting up the equipment we weren't able to see what we had left as well as people within the team started to play with the equipment as well as making their own design with the team materials rather than contributing to the teams catapult.
Throughout completing the tasks there were always disagreement between people in the team. If it were the overall design or because the didn't want to contribute to a design they didn't like. When completing the raft building the main conflict that we had within our team was the initial design of the raft. Some people wanted a square and others wanted a triangle. Some people were giving their opinions of why they think a design wouldn't work and why others would work better. The way in which this conflict was resolved is that we collaborated everyones idea into the final design, which meant that everyone had contributed to the overall and final design. On the other hand throughout the catapult task there was a lot more conflict between the team and not very much decision making on the design of the product. The reason behind this was because due to more people being in this group compared to the raft building task, there were many more ideas about the design and some members of the group didn't really know each other. The way in which this conflict was resolved was that the leader that was selected made the final decision and the idea they had said was what everyone had to follow. Many people didn't like the design of the catapult but they just got on with the role that they were asked to do. After this the conflict between the team decreased and completed the task.
When in a team everyone must be patient and solve problems that may occur when carrying out different tasks. This is because if the people within the team are unable to problem solve and made the leader solve the problem the task will not only take longer but will also mean that the team isn't actually working in a team. Another reason why a team must be willing to solve problems that occur is because if they don't work as a team and suggest way in which the problem can be solved more mistakes may be made because the leader may not think about all the possible outcomes from the way they solved it. A team must be able to come up with different solutions and as a team or the leader must pick the best solution that they feel will have the better outcome for the team to succeed.
With any task a team is always going to have someone who will be more experience or expertise in the specific area of the task. When completing the task of raft building the first person to show experience and expertise in the area were the instructors as a team we didn't know what knots we were to use or what knots were the best to tie the bamboo together or the bamboo to the tires. We were then taught by the instructor and then with the knowledge that had been passed on to the team we were able to work a lot more effectively. Together as a team we then wanted to come up with designs that would best suit the task that we had been asked to complete. We used our knowledge from previous camps that we had been to where we were also asked to make a raft and used those designs as our ideas. This helped when we came to our decision of what the raft will look like. On the other hand with the task of building a catapult we had a lot more people within our team, which helped because it meant that with more people came more knowledge. We had more people of expertise of how to tie knots as well as some of the people within our team had built a catapult before so they were able to give their designs to help create the master design.
The way that different skills and talents were recognised throughout the two tasks:
Throughout the raft building task not many skills that the people within the team brought to the task apart from the overall design of the raft. Some people were more skilled in they were tying two bamboo sticks together where as others who were not so skilled would help by making sure that the bamboo sticks didn't move whilst they were being tied, making a solid knot and helped the overall strength of the structure. On the other hand when building a catapult the camp leaders showed us a few different ways that we could create the raft and taught us rather than people within the team already knowing how to build a catapult. Again due to more people within the team there were more people who knew how to tie a know well so others who didn't helped by holding the structure together.
Overall I felt that I not only performed better in the raft building task but also enjoyed it more as it was a smaller group and there were many different minor tasks that had to be carried out, which meant I was more involved. Also throughout the task not only did I perform well as an individual but as a team we were able to work well together and succeed in the challenge.
TANNENBAUM & SCHMIDT'S LEADERSHIP CONTINUUM
The Tannebaum & Schmidt's Leadership continuum is a model that was created to show the amount of freedom that is given by a manager to their employees as well as the level of authority of the manager. There are seven stages to this model which I will explain below.
The Seven Stages:
1) The manager will make a decision and announce it:
The manger makes all the decisions for the team whilst they will not and the team don't have any input. They will review all the options taking into consideration of the aims, priorities, timescale and the issues with the decision. A manager will also take into consideration of how the team will react but will still make the overall decision.
2) The manager decides and then “sells” his decision to the team:
The manager will not change their decisions once it has been made but the team are able to say what they think about the decision. They will highlight the positives of the decisions and how the team will enjoy the task better through his or her decision. A manager will always show a concern for the team, which is shown through this second stage.
3) The manager presents decision with background ideas for the decision and invite questions:
The team knows previous thoughts and ideas and things that he has thought of and from then on there will be a lot more team involvement as the manager will listen to questions from their team as well as the points bought up about the idea. The third stage is where the team is able to appreciate the issues and reasons that the manager chose this decision. Also the appreciation of the implications of all the options. This is a higher level of team involvement and discussion since it is more of a motivational approach than the first or second stage.
4) The manager suggests provisional decision and invites discussion regarding the decision:
The team are much more involved as this stage involves a lot more discussion about the managers decisions and make points that are bought up so that the decision can be changed to make a better decision. This stage will also allow the team to have the first grasp of some real influence into the shape of the managers final decision. The team will feel more motivated that the previous stage because they acknowledge that they have a lot more involvement in the decision-making process.
5) The manager presents the problem, then gets suggestions, and then decides:
From the problem given by the manager along with some possible options, and the team have freedom of speech to discuss and give any ideas any ideas that they may have. The team have the bigger role on the overall decision that the manager will finally make. The manager will still have the overall decision but will use points brought up by his or her team to make the best decision that suits the whole team and the task. The team this stage provides more motivation and freedom than any previous stage.
6) The manager explains the situation and defines the factors and then asks the team to decide a solution:
The manager give full responsibility to the team to create a solid solution but whatever the outcome the manager will typically be held accountable for it. However, this appears give a high amount of responsibility to the team and the manager will be running a high risk because if the outcome turns for the worst, they will have to deal with the issues that will be brought to the surface. This stage requires a mature team as well as it being the most motivational compared to the previous stages.
7) The manager allows team to develop options and decide on the action, within the manager's received limit:
This is the final stage whereby the team have complete control of all the decisions that are made and come up with the idea to go with. They are almost like the managers during this level. They have the most freedom compared to that of any stage within this model. The team will have to identify and analyse situations and problems, then have to find the best way in which they can resolve the situation/problem. They will do this by assessing and developing options along with evaluating all the implications that could occur. After that they will take course of action. The manager will also make sure that the team is aware in advance that they will support the decision and help the team implement it. The team must be mature and competent, as well as being capable of acting at what is a genuinely strategic decision-making level.
The Seven Stages:
1) The manager will make a decision and announce it:
The manger makes all the decisions for the team whilst they will not and the team don't have any input. They will review all the options taking into consideration of the aims, priorities, timescale and the issues with the decision. A manager will also take into consideration of how the team will react but will still make the overall decision.
2) The manager decides and then “sells” his decision to the team:
The manager will not change their decisions once it has been made but the team are able to say what they think about the decision. They will highlight the positives of the decisions and how the team will enjoy the task better through his or her decision. A manager will always show a concern for the team, which is shown through this second stage.
3) The manager presents decision with background ideas for the decision and invite questions:
The team knows previous thoughts and ideas and things that he has thought of and from then on there will be a lot more team involvement as the manager will listen to questions from their team as well as the points bought up about the idea. The third stage is where the team is able to appreciate the issues and reasons that the manager chose this decision. Also the appreciation of the implications of all the options. This is a higher level of team involvement and discussion since it is more of a motivational approach than the first or second stage.
4) The manager suggests provisional decision and invites discussion regarding the decision:
The team are much more involved as this stage involves a lot more discussion about the managers decisions and make points that are bought up so that the decision can be changed to make a better decision. This stage will also allow the team to have the first grasp of some real influence into the shape of the managers final decision. The team will feel more motivated that the previous stage because they acknowledge that they have a lot more involvement in the decision-making process.
5) The manager presents the problem, then gets suggestions, and then decides:
From the problem given by the manager along with some possible options, and the team have freedom of speech to discuss and give any ideas any ideas that they may have. The team have the bigger role on the overall decision that the manager will finally make. The manager will still have the overall decision but will use points brought up by his or her team to make the best decision that suits the whole team and the task. The team this stage provides more motivation and freedom than any previous stage.
6) The manager explains the situation and defines the factors and then asks the team to decide a solution:
The manager give full responsibility to the team to create a solid solution but whatever the outcome the manager will typically be held accountable for it. However, this appears give a high amount of responsibility to the team and the manager will be running a high risk because if the outcome turns for the worst, they will have to deal with the issues that will be brought to the surface. This stage requires a mature team as well as it being the most motivational compared to the previous stages.
7) The manager allows team to develop options and decide on the action, within the manager's received limit:
This is the final stage whereby the team have complete control of all the decisions that are made and come up with the idea to go with. They are almost like the managers during this level. They have the most freedom compared to that of any stage within this model. The team will have to identify and analyse situations and problems, then have to find the best way in which they can resolve the situation/problem. They will do this by assessing and developing options along with evaluating all the implications that could occur. After that they will take course of action. The manager will also make sure that the team is aware in advance that they will support the decision and help the team implement it. The team must be mature and competent, as well as being capable of acting at what is a genuinely strategic decision-making level.