Team Analysis Four Stages That Promote Effective Group Development - 1100 Words

Team Analysis: Four Stages That Promote Effective Group Development (Term Paper Sample) Content: Team Analysis Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Team Analysis Introduction The major objective of this paper is to come up with a succinct description of a group development. The analysis of the group takes the form of personal experience attained during the MGT 4270 class. Using Wheelan’s four stages that promote effective group development, the analysis uses various theories to result in the application of the four steps in the team development. Among the core theories used in the paper include contingency, situational, and Bion’s model. Further, the application of specific examples during the group meeting would be useful in bringing forth the understanding of Wheelan’s stages of development as displayed by the team members. The paper concludes by providing insights into the main lessons learned throughout the MGT 4270 class. Wheelan’s Four Stages of Group Development i. Dependency and Inclusion During the first level of team development, the level of uncertainty is usually high. At this point, there are no set rules defined to guide group activities (Wheelan, 2016). Immediately after group formation, communication structures, the definition of roles, and the acceptable objectives are not clear. Considering these factors, the human need for attaining a sense of belonging is strong as individuals tend to express behaviors aimed at exchanging acceptance with others. In fact, group members accept one another with the hope that they will also be appreciated back. With a high degree of uncertainty, people in the new group depend on each other to provide a roadmap for achieving the desired outcomes. It is necessary to invite the assistance of a leader to offer better advice on how to carry out group activities at this stage. With no formal structures that govern members’ behaviors and communication processes, the feelings of dissonance and ambiguity are the key characteristics of this stage in group development. If dissonance grows further, group members are likely to react based on personality traits. Bion’s concept of group development highlights that fight, dependence, flight, and pairing are the various approaches that people portray when responding to dissonance (Levine Civitarese, 2016). At the early stages of group development, dependence is the possible way that members respond to in such situations. This reaction is usually evident when the new team members seek the support of a leader or an expert. However, participants can also pair and bring together different degrees of experience to find a solution. During the MGT 4270 class, one specific period that reflects this first stage is during the early weeks of the semester. The development of our group began with people being unable to contribute toward decision-making. This hesitation continued until Brenda took the initiative upon herself to walk us through the expectations of the team. In conjunction with the contribution of Morgan’s inclusion learning style, the group was able to gain strength. From this argument, Morgan and Brenda paired together to help the group in making significant strides in its first stage. The next time I am part of any group, I would emulate Brenda’s leadership skills and Morgan’s inclusion strategy. Additionally, it will be important for me to engage in a behavior that encourages listening and analyzing when group members are brainstorming ideas. With these practices, I am certain that I will be able to help the team in overcoming such challenges as uncertainty and negative reactions to dissonance. ii. Counter-dependency and Fight After overcoming uncertainty in the first step of developing the group, members are no longer concerned about safety and inclusion. In the second stage of group development, the goals and procedures take a central point among members. The development of these important aspects creates conflicts among individuals. This situation elicits personality characteristics of using fight and flight as responses to dissonance (DeLamater, Myers, Collett,  2014). Some individuals may choose to withdraw from the conflict, while assertive people are likely to react by fighting. For example, those who choose to avoid conflicts may maintain silence, whereas those that opt to fight are likely to engage in verbal exchanges. In my group, a period that expressed the concepts outlined in the counter-dependency and fight stage was the fourth week of team initiation. Although the group members had already established comfort and confidence, several conflicts about goals and objectives came up (DeLamater et al.,  2014). For example, people disagreed on the desirable behaviors, the activities aimed at achieving targets, and the effective communication structures. The conflict resulted in verbal confrontations between two of the members who wanted their views considered. In a bid to bring the group into the right direction, Justin analyzed the current events at hand before explaining the consequences of a fight. By listening to the contributions of everyone, I used my ability to evaluate the situation and inform Justin of the importance of evaluating the various perspectives held by every individual. In the end, we were able to brainstorm the presented ideas in a manner that eventually resulted in a positive conversation in the group (DeLamater et al.,  2014). In his efforts, Justin reacted to dissonance by choosing to fight for the group’s well-being. This argument is in agreement with Bion’s model that assertive individuals may fight with the aim of ensuring a positive outcome that benefits most of the involved people. This stage of group development allowed me to learn how to handle conflicts. In the future group engagement, I will confront such situations by listening carefully to the presented ideas. Assessing people’s views with an objective mindset enables one to understand what is important and what would harm the group. Explaining these concepts to the group eventually ensures the adoption of the best suggestions that would deliver team objectives easily (DeLamater et al.,  2014). This strategy is useful since the group cannot be able to foster commitment and trust by inculcating open communication as a way of resolving conflicts. iii. Trust and Structure A group can move to this stage after successfully resolving conflicts as explained in the previous section. This third phase of group development focuses on strengthening trust among the involved members. At this point, individuals hold the perception that teamwork is of great importance in enhancing the achievement of the set goals (Wheelan, 2016). With reputable levels of comfort and the willingness to participate fully in group activities, members reach a point of less dissonance and well-defined tasks. Hence, accepting roles and negotiating any arising issues in an amicable manner is a factor that determines group success at this stage. The crucial concept of this stage is the need for members to exercise leadership styles that do not provoke anger (Northouse,  2017). Such approaches should focus more on providing support for one another. This tactic is contrary to a directive method of giving instructions. A supportive behavioral leadership is effective in encouraging members to put more focus on practices that promote group norms and overall objectives (Northouse,  2017). This argument is in agreement with the situational theory of leadership where the manager has to adjust to meet the level of followers. The sixth week of this semester is when my team experienced the third stage of group development. During this period, members were able to communicate openly when asking for clarity in various aspects. In such instances, every member of the team expressed willingness to offer support. Since the definition of roles was clear, every member knew what the group expected of him/her (Northouse,  2017). However, in the event of any difficulty, we would come together and provide support where necessary. As the engagement progressed, we developed trust and commitment. The backing provided by each member later led to the realization of areas of weaknesses and strengths, something that would result in the success of the team as specialization improved. Leadership skills and support for one another are the core values that I will take from this stage and apply in my future group engagement (Northouse,  2017). I realized that trust development among members requires the nee...