9781420025422%2Ech20

7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

1/10

197

20 Challenge No. 6:TeambuildingWhy do some project teams move forward while others come to a screeching halt?

Why do some teams work together like a well-oiled machine while others resemble

a cacophony of forced parts that never seem to work smoothly together? Why does

one team achieve what seems to be an impossible goal and another take a great idea

and destroy it? The answer is often the compatibility and incompatibility of differentstrategic styles.

COMPATIBILITY

People of different styles, and even of the same style, often find it a challenge to

work together. It is important first of all to understand what each style brings to a

relationship and the synergies created.

Reactive stimulator. When working with another RS, an RS could be very quick

and efficient at getting somewhere. However, he could benefit from the insight ofan HA in helping the team to target their efforts. Once targeted, an RS can be counted

on to get things done.

When working with an RI, an RS can find this arrangement very invigorating.

However, it may be best to think of a three-person team rather than leaving the RS

and RI to the results of their own imaginations. Adding an LP or an HA is well

worth considering.

When working with an LP, an RS will feel the LP is too slow. The RS may

demand more variety and action than the LP is comfortable with providing. Under-

standing will be required on both sides.When working with an HA, this arrangement is probably the best natural fit for

an organization because an HA will help an RS with goal setting by providing

guidance and alternatives within the boundaries of the goals.

Overall, the other styles can help RS performance in several ways.

An LP can help an RS ensure that results are obtained consistently and in an

organized, logical fashion. An LP can contribute the ability to stick with something

until it is done. His methodical, detailed approach lends focus and his adherence to

known, proven procedures can help ensure consistency in output. An RSs challenge

in working with an LP is understanding an LPs need for a stable, disciplinedenvironment.

An HA can contribute his ability to ponder and consider a variety of viewpoints

before drawing a conclusion. An HA can help an RS ensure that all of the bases are

covered before a decisive course of action is followed. An RSs challenge in working

Copyright 2003 CRC Press, LLC

7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

2/10

198 The Organizational Engineering Approach to Project Management

with an HA may be to understand an HAs need for time to consider and evaluate

before committing to a course of action.

An RI can contribute his ability to frame an RS in terms of how his decisions

and actions fit into the big picture. He may help an RS uncover new possibilities

and opportunities and can help an RS synthesize ideas into coherent theories which

are more easily communicated and more readily accepted by others. An RS may

find it a challenge to accept An RIs need to generate new ideas, sometimes at the

cost of actually getting the immediate job done.

Relational innovator. Working with other RIs can create a good brainstorming

team when new ideas are needed. However, they can benefit from input of an LP

or and HA in tasks requiring disciplined, focused action.

When working with other RSs, the relationship can be very invigorating. How-

ever, it may be better to add an HA or LP to keep a team on task rather than leaving

them to their own creative imaginings.

When working with other LPs, the LP will help keep an RI focused on the

immediate task. Conflict may arise if either feels the other is too far out of sync.

This relationship creates the best chance for a good fit when working with HAs

because both are abstract thinkers. An HA provides the structure that an RI lacks.

Overall, the other styles can help RI performance in several ways.

An RS can contribute his natural tendency toward action and his focus on a task

rather than the more abstract mission orientation of an RI. The speed of his reaction

is well-suited to the speed with which an RI can generate new ideas. The challenge

for an RI and RS will be to discipline themselves to remain focused long enough

to achieve significant results.

An LP can contribute a methodical, detailed approach and his ability to stick

with a job until it is done. Used effectively, he can bring an RIs ideas to systematic,

long-term fruition. The challenge for an RI will be to understand an LPs need for

stability and help him accommodate to the change inherent in an RIs style and

approach to problems.

An HA can contribute his ability to analyze, organize and solve problems at the

more tangible project level. He shares an RIs ability to see the big picture and

can accommodate change if given the time to use his analytical and planning skills.

The challenge for an RI may be to understand the need to address all operational

aspects of a situation before arriving at conclusions and to tolerate the seeming

inactivity of an HA during that process.

Logical processor. When working with other LPs, the relationship provides for

a good fit in a stable environment. In an unstable or changing situation, LPs would

benefit from the variety of input of other decision-making styles.

When working with RSs, the arrangement is not a natural fit. While an RS may

consider an LP slow, the reverse is true when viewed from the perspective of an LP.

An LP will rarely get enough satisfying consistency or structure from an RS.

When working with RIs, an LP would consider them too far out. He would

consider them abstract thinkers who are not rooted in the here and now.

When working with HAs, the relationship is a natural fit. However, the LPs

penchant for action may conflict with the HAs desire for analysis.

Overall, the other styles can help LP performance in several ways.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

3/10

Challenge No. 6: Teambuilding 199

An RS can contribute a natural ability to do things without planning, pondering,

or worrying. He can be valuable in situations where structure is not available and

where fast results are required. The challenge for an LP is to accept an RSs intuitive

strategies and instant reactions.

An HA can contribute his ability to analyze, organize, and solve problems. His

talent at seeing the big picture and keeping things in perspective can help ensure

that plans fit into a firms overall activities. The challenge for an LP is to understand

an HAs vision of problems as complex entities and the HAs need to address all

aspects before arriving at conclusions.

An RI can contribute his ability to generate new ideas and unrecognized rela-

tionships. His ability to synthesize principles and theories can help frame an LPs

work in terms of a larger whole. The challenge for an LP is to accept the threat to

proven policies, practices, and methods implied by an RIs new ideas. An RIs

seemingly unorganized methods may require an LP to relax his need for consistency

and predictability.

Hypothetical analyzer. When working with other HAs, the relationship is a good

fit. If the project permits, each HA would provide a maximum contribution if HAs

broke the task down and by agreement each worked on a different segment of the

problem. On some projects HAsmay benefit from the introduction of a third party,an LP or an RS, who is more action-oriented.

Working with RSs, would be a good fit although in an unstructured environment

the RS might frustrate an HA with his desire to act spontaneously without fully

considering all consequences.

When working with RIs, the relationship is also a very good fit if the different

styles are made known to the parties. When known, the two styles will likely have

a mutual appreciation. The team may benefit from adding an LP or RS to inspire

action.

Working with LPs, is a natural fit. Both an HA and LP desire structure. However,

an HA does so only at a high level while an LP seeks to define details.

Overall, the contribution of the other styles can help HA performance in several

ways.

An RS can contribute his natural ability to do things without planning. He can

be valuable in situations where time constraints do not permit careful planning and

where fast results are required. He also can complement an HA by assuming respon-

sibilities in the execution phase where an HA is not naturally inclined. An HAs

challenge is to accept an RSs intuitive strategies and impatience with the planning

process.

An LP can contribute a methodical, detailed approach and his ability to stick

with a job until it is completed. He is a natural complement to an HAs planning

abilities. An HA will have few challenges working with an LP, except perhaps for

an LPs conservative tendencies to stick to the proven and resist change.

An RI can contribute his ability to generate new ideas and unrecognized rela-

tionships. An RIs mission focus can help an HA accurately frame his natural process

focus. An HAs challenge is to accommodate an RIs tendency to work in a nonlinear

fashion and be easily diverted by the new ideas that he constantly generates.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

4/10


TUCHMAN MODEL

Since Bruce W. Tuchman published his groundbreaking article on team building

(Scholtes, 1988), the concept of team dynamics has never been the same.Tuchman, whose model bears his name, identified four phases through which

teams evolve: forming, storming, norming, and performing. Each phase progresses

from one to the next and has its own unique set of characteristics and risks.

During theforming phase, the team initially comes together. It resembles a group

rather than a team, the primary difference being that the former is a disparate

association and the latter is a cohesive, goal-directed assembly.

During this phase, everyone has a keen sense of excitement as well as fear since

there is only a vague idea of the teams purpose; they know little about each other

and have even less of an idea about their own contribution. The forming phase islike going to a party where you know one or two people and thats all. This provides

a host of unknowns and can either lead the team to start off well or deteriorate to

an unpleasant experience for all concerned.

During the storming phase, team members start working things out. They start

defining and discussing the details for getting started. It is a time of intense discus-

sion, more so than during the forming phase. Ideas are presented, different

approaches are discussed, and meaningful questions are raised. It all provides the

framework for moving forward and moving backward. Tensions and rivalries can

increase as people try to establish themselves and their interests on the team.During the norming phase, assuming that it can move to this next phase, the

team has overcome or reconciled its divisions and is ready to move toward a goal.

A more cooperative atmosphere exists; roles and responsibilities have become more

defined and accepted, and harmony, rather than conflict, is the rule.

During the performing phase, the rubber meets the road. The entire team is

focused on accomplishing the goal and a wide range of ideas, approaches, and

peoples differences exist. What matters is accomplishing a goal and each persona

is identified with the teams success.

RISKS, STRENGTHS, AND VULNERABILITIES

Risks occur at each phase. Each style brings strengths and predispositions that

decrease and increase risks, respectively.

During the forming phase, the main risk that can occur is that the team forms

with an unclear purpose or direction. Without such clarity the likelihood of pro-

gressing beyond the forming phase decreases or increases the chance that the next

phase will be unpleasant.

Unclear direction can occur for several reasons. Top management supportfor the team may not exist. The purpose for the team may not have been well

defined. Information about the situation may not exist or is sketchy at best. It

might be left for team members to distinguish between what information is or

is not important.

During the forming phase, the basic process is that each strategic style will attempt

to define a situation favoring its strategy. To each style, its strategy appears rightits


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

5/10


simply because it is the one that is most familiar. Not knowing the position of others,

each type tends to identify positions and then tries to identify potential allies and

enemies.

An RI provides the strength of generating ideas and can be expected to see the

issue as one of discovering new and novel approaches. This strength is especially

useful for teams with a vague mission. He can get input from others and combine

it with his own, thereby generating a sense of ownership by everyone. An example

is a project manager who meets with each team member to gather preliminary

information about the expectations for a project.

An RI can introduce the vulnerability of turmoil by allowing ideas to flow

incessantly and eratically and potentially threatening team cohesion. A srong RI can

maintain generation of this turmoil for a considerable time, causing delays in pro-

gressing to the next phase. An example is a project manager who takes too much

time soliciting team members feedback on how to approach a project.

An RS brings to the table the strength of enthusiasm. His desire for action is

contagious. He gets himself and others excited for action, that is, to quickly go for

the goal. The team is likely to get a sense of momentum from his participation. An

example is a project manager who unrelentingly pushes for a team to get started.

While admirable, this enthusiasm can also cause premature action by the team.

The desire to begin can become so strong that the team may decide something before

thinking about ramifications or before aligning all members toward a common goal.

This can lead to greater divisiveness during the next phase, storming. An example

is a project manager who pushes certain team members to act before they feel

comfortable about what they must do.

An HA brings the strength of having the team not lose sight of the overall goal.

If a goal does not exist, he will remind everyone that one is necessary. If one has

been defined, he will remind everyone that the discussion should focus on achieving

the goal. An example is a project manager who encourages new team members to

focus on the overall goal of a project.

He also brings a vulnerability to the project. An HA uses a structured method

and a thought-based mode. This strategic posture is best served by listening and

thinking rather than by jumping into a discussion. This posture creates an impres-

sion of being reserved and contemplative. He may see the team as lacking focus

and going astray, but he does not express the need to pull on the reigns before he

is satisfied that he can offer a better alternative. He is probably formulating ideas

and an overall structure to achieve a goal, if one exists, and if not, defining one.

Dont expect him to be assertive during this time when much uncertainty and conflict

exist. An example is a project manager who recognizes the need for structure but

fails to assert himself in this regard.

An LP has the attribute of raising important questions about the goal. He wants

to know the specifics. He demands the answers even when he knows theyre non-

existent. His structured method and action mode will cause him to focus on what

worked in the past. Expect him to tenaciously argue for what worked earlier. An

example is a project manager who raises important questions of detail that a team

may overlook when initially kicking off.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

6/10


He also brings vulnerability. An LP has a need for certainty. If his questions

about details cannot be clearly answered, he will either revert to what worked or

seek better alternatives that satisfy his high standards. The high-level discourse and

the ambiguities of this phase can make it very difficult for him to contribute. An

example is a project manager who retreats to matters of unimportant detail when

a much wider focus is necessary.

During the storming phase, the main risk is that team members reach a stalemate;

they are unable to move forward as a team. Lack of conflict resolution may be the

problem. Interpersonal conflicts may be too strong to overcome. An inability to reach

consensus over an approach may be the cause. Disunity may just be the overall state

of the team. The bottom line is that tension becomes so intense that the team cannot

proceed to the next phase.

During the storming phase, an RI can provide options that might allow the team to

avoid an impasse. He is the idea generator. An example is a project manager who

generates options and solicits feedback before beginning the execution phase of a project.

The vulnerability that an RI brings is that he cant find the right moment for closure

of solicitations and ideas that he generates. After a while, people can grow impatient

as options continue to flow when current ones would suffice. An example is a project

manager who generates many options, changes his mind, and fails to solicit feedback.

An RS contributes his strength of action, which can help overcome the risk of

stalemate during this phase. He provides the push for action, even if it means

drawing the lines and taking sides. To him, a bad decision is better than no

decision at all. An example is a project manager who will take action regardless of

the level of disagreement among team members.

He can also bring vulnerability. He can push so hard for action that he augments

conflicts, leading to an insurmountable stalemate, making it almost impossible to

progress to the next phase. An example is a project manager who engages in action

with the consensus of key team members and other stakeholders.

An HA brings the strength of raising everyones attention above the fray by

keeping focused on the overall goal and continually developing plans to surmount

current difficulties. He raises issues and evaluates them according to how to achieve

a goal. An example is a project manager who uses a goal as the unifying theme

among all the team members, regardless of their differences.

An HA also brings the vulnerability of diversion by being energized by people

arguing that his own position is best. An HA considers information seriously and

can find himself in continual assessment. Deadlines can help pressure an HA to

make progress. An example is a project manager who retreats from the dissension

by continuously reassessing the situation.

An LP provides the strength of removing the emotions from the deliberations

during this phase by concentrating on facts. He provides the objective coolness that

brings people back to reality. An example is a project manager who emphasizes

facts over emotions during periods of disagreement.

He brings the vulnerability of focusing on details in a way that makes it difficult

for him to distinguish between what is and is not important. He grows impatient,

too, with emotional issues. An example is a project manager who may emphasize


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

7/10


a specific fact that may have a major emotional impact but not necessarily result in

significant progression.

During the norming phase, it is hard to imagine that a risk can arise. The reality

is that this harmony might reflect team members acquiescence to the teams leader

or dominant coalition. Conflict avoidance may occur, either to gain in the long run

or just avoid meetings. The result can be something as extreme as groupthink, where

peer pressure overrides any alternative idea. Penalties could be severe for those

opening their mouth such as ostracism.

During the norming phase, an RI brings the strength of generating ideas and

options that adjust to norms, roles, and processes so that he is tolerable to all involved.

His unpatterned method and thought mode are especially applicable for moving a

group forward. An example is a project manager who encourages and maintains

dialogue between himself and team members.

He brings vulnerability with his potential positive contribution. Because he lacks

attention to details, he can quickly lose interest when moving to a more stable,

normalized phase. As a result, he may not participate with the same level of enthu-

siasm that he did during earlier phases. An example is a project manager who

withdraws from the everyday tasks of managing a project.

An RS brings the strength of pushing for the first real action to achieve a goal.

He feels the dialogue is over and its time to start sawing wood. He wants action,

now. This desire can help a team avoid becoming filled with administrative minutia.

An example is a project manager who keeps a project focused on action rather than

being comfortable with routine.

This desire to act can, when pushed to the extreme, jeopardize processes that

now put together a decisive team. He could start clashing and, once again, push

teams back into the storming phase. An example is a project manager who may take

a controversial action that does not abide by the consensus of key team members

or stakeholders.

An HA once again keeps the focus on the overall goal. Only this time, he works

to establish a structure to support achieving the goal. In other words, he provides a

framework within which norming can occur. An example is a project manager who

develops a methodology or framework for managing a project.

He also brings a potential vulnerability. He tends to lack assertiveness. His use

of structured methods and thought mode causes him to value understanding before

acting. Still, he must assert himself if his ideas are to be adopted. An example is a

project manager who fails to speak up when certain team members fail to comply

with the methodology or framework for managing a project.

An LP can provide the details behind the structure developed by an HA. To an

LP, details provide the meat supporting any structure; otherwise, the structure is

of little use. He can translate the conceptual schemes of an HA and the vague ideas

of an RI into operationally useful processes and procedures. An example is a project

manager who provides the operational details for implementing a methodology or

framework for managing a project.

He can also bring a vulnerability to the group in this phase. He can overempha-

size the importance of details for supporting the overall structure. Delays can occur

because every detail to an LP is important and he is uncomfortable fully committing


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

8/10


unless his need for detail is satisfied. An example is a project manager who refuses

to budge or move a project forward beyond an unimportant detail.

During the performing phase a risk looms in the background. The desire to reach

a goal may lead to tunnel vision with its associated loss of opportunity. If all the

team members stay focused on a goal, they may overlook better ways to achieve it.

The defined goal becomes consuming and best practices are overlooked because

perception is that what is working now necessitates no need to change. Ironically,

this current success may lead to failure at the last moment since the assumption may

be wrong that what worked yesterday and today will work tomorrow.

During the performing phase, an RI brings the strength of generating ideas that

facilitate implementation. An RIs unpatterned method and thought mode never ceases.

It can be applied to any issue at any level. At the implementation level it might be

used to discover opportunities to ease or improve processes. An example is a project

manager who encourages stakeholder participation in addressing problems.

Like the previous phase, an RI can have trouble maintaining interest on his part.

Being an idea person, his interest in concrete details can wane, sometimes dramat-

ically. He can deviate from achieving the overall goal because he is lured into

pursuing a greater interest. An example is a project manager who begins pursuing

topics outside the scope of a project.

An RS brings the strength of continued action. He doesnt relish repetitious

work. His unpatterned method can divert his attention to new ideas and novel

approaches. An example is a project manager who is willing to take a risky action

to further goal achievement.

This very strength can become a weakness if left unchecked. His zeal to move

forward and his interest in new stimulation may mean taking a wrong turn and

lead to performing tasks that do not add but even subtract value. An example is

a project manager who diverts resources to action that is outside the scope of a

project.

An HA can provide the necessary check by constantly asking whether current

activities are achieving the overall goal. He is constantly asking: Are we doing things

right or doing the right things? An example is a project manager who uses metrics

to measure progress towards achieving the goal of a project.

Asking that fundamental question, however, might require slowing or stopping

current efforts by the team to make an assessment. When an HA contemplates that

question he appears to others as a procrastinator or slow mover. Others can then

become frustrated, especially an RS whose action orientation clashes with the

thought-based strategies of an HA. An example is a project manager who falls into

analysis paralysis when assessing the progress of a project.

An LP brings the strength of tracking details relevant to team performance. He

is comfortable diligently executing an agreed upon course of action and views the

final product as an index of success. An example is a project manager who seeks

precise, reliable measures for ascertaining the progress of a project.

However, an LP loves details so much that he might keep asking for them and

lose sight of which ones are important to achieve the overall goal. In fact, details

may become more important than the goal. Additionally, midcourse changes may

pose an issue to the highly committed LP. Changes can compromise certainty of


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

9/10


outcome, which is held in high regard by an LP. An example is a project manager

who is uncomfortable with taking a radical, new approach to achieve the goals of

a project.

PHASE FACILITATION

Knowing the primary styles of people can facilitate progression through the phases

in the Tuchman model.

When the forming phase is riddled with suspicion and fear, provide an RI to

generate ideas and options; an HA to provide a clear focus on the goal; an LP to

ask the right operational questions; or an RS to generate enthusiasm and momentum.

When the storming phase reaches a stalemate, provide an RI to offer ideas for

conciliation; an HA to raise people above their divisions and concentrate on the

abstract principles and common goal; an LP to direct peoples attention on facts and

not emotions; or an RS to push for action.

When the norming phase results in extreme conformity, add an RI to bring out

alternative ideas, opinions, etc.; an HA to provide an overall structure that encourages

expression of different viewpoints; an LP to provide detail behind the structure; or

an RS to take action that may be adverse to the overall sentiments of the team but

would further goal achievement.

When the performing phase results in a team losing the big picture, focus

attention on an RI to generate alternatives to the current way of doing business; an

RS to keep action ongoing rather than let the team rest on previous achievements;

an HA to constantly raise the questions regarding the validity of the teams actions;

or an LP to track details about the actions of the team.

Of course, de-emphasize some of the strategic styles, too. If the team cannot

focus on the overall goal during the forming phase, consider reassigning an RI or

redirecting his efforts. If the team members are too divided during the storming

phase, consider reassigning an RS or redirecting his efforts. If the team fails to take

decisive action during the norming phase, consider introducing deadlines to help an

HA. If the team achieves only moderate success during the performing phase,

consider devoting resources to help an LP reform his approach and refine his

practices.

NO ASSURANCE

The progress of a team reflects largely on the abilities and characteristics of the

individuals that comprise it and the quality of their relationships with others.

Throughout each phase of the Tuchman model, the potential for positive and negative

dynamics exists. Naturally, as a team progresses through the phases of the model,

it has a greater chance of achieving its goal. However, success is not ensured until

the team does, in fact, achieve its goal.

OE provides a guide to the process. When applying OE, difficulties might be

recognized as originating from perspective. The process can be orchestrated by

exercising capacities at the right time and in the right amount. The process is the

same as with conflict resolution, project management, and leadership.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech20

10/10


SUMMARY

According to the Tuchman model, a team typically evolves through four

phases: forming, storming, norming, and performing.During the forming phase use:

An RI to generate ideas

An RS to add enthusiasm

An HA to focus on the overall goal

An LP to raise important questions about the overall goal

During the storming phase use:

An RI to provide options

An RS to encourage action

An HA to continue focus on the overall goal An LP to concentrate on facts and data

During the norming phase use:

An RI to continue generating ideas and options

An RS to push for real, concerted action

An HA to maintain focus on the overall goal

An LP to provide detailed data

During the performing phase use:

An RI to generate ideas to facilitate project execution

An RS to maintain the momentum of the team An HA to provide necessary checks to gauge progress

An LP to track details relevant to team performance

9781420025422%2Ech20

Documents

Transcript of 9781420025422%2Ech20