Understanding Team Development: A Study of Group Dynamics

The article discusses the five stages of team development as proposed by Bruce Tuckman: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. The author applies these theories to their own team, analyzing strengths and weaknesses, and identifies areas for improvement. According to Belbin's theory, the team lacked a chairperson and a plant, which may have contributed to their success. The author concludes that while the presentation went well, it could have been better if roles were assigned based on personal strengths and weaknesses.

team building theories

Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
What is Team Building?..............................................................................................................................2
TYPES OF TEAM BUILDING THEORIES..............................................................................................2
Belbin’s team role theory............................................................................................................................3
Tuckman’s theory of group development....................................................................................................5
Stages of Group Development.................................................................................................................5
Analysis of team issues by applying both the theories.................................................................................6
Ways to overcome issues by applying both the theories..............................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................7
References...................................................................................................................................................8
1

Introduction
Working with a team and leading teams is one of the key elements of success. But it is not an
inherent skill possessed by all. Thus, many researchers have developed various team theory in
order to illustrate and develop the skills needed to ensure success while working in a team. To
become effective in teams, one requires having an understanding of a mixture of theories,
reflection, and experience.
TYPES OF TEAM BUILDING THEORIES
There are a number of theories given by various researchers relating to team building. Our team
which consisted of five individuals who were all different gave a group presentation. We had
mainly applied two major theories of group building namely; Tuckman’s theory of group
development and Beldin’s team role theory to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of our
team (Raes, 2015).
Belbin’s team role theory
Belbin, in his theory, has explained various roles to be played by each individual while working
in a team. These can be categorized as:
Action oriented roles are played by following:
Shaper’s role is to challenge the team in order to improve. Implementer’s role is to put the ideas
into action. Completer’s role is to finish the task with timely completion.
People Oriented Roles are played by following:
2

The coordinator is acting as a chairperson. Team Worker who encourages cooperation. Resource
Investigator who explores outside opportunities.
Thought Oriented Roles are played by following:
A plant, whose role is to present new ideas and approaches. Monitor-Evaluator who analyzes the
options. A specialist who provides specialized skills (Seck, 2014).
Besides the role to be played by each individual in a team, Belbin’s theory also gave various
strengths and weaknesses pertaining to those different roles which we could relate to ourselves
while we were playing those roles in the real situation. These strengths and weaknesses are given
ROLE STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Plant
(played by S)
creative solves difficult
problems, imaginative,
unorthodox
ignores incidentals and too
much preoccupied to
communicate effectively
Resource-investigator extrovert, communicative,
enthusiastic, develops
contracts, explores
opportunities
overoptimistic loses interest
once initial enthusiasm has
passed
Co-ordinator
(played by ‘N’)
mature, confident, a good
chairperson, clarifies goals,
promotes decision-making,
delegates well
can be seen as manipulative,
offloads personal work
Shaper is challenging, thrives on
pressure, dynamic, the drive
and courage to overcome
obstacles
which are prone to
provocation, offends
people's feelings
Monitor–Evaluator
(played by A)
sober, strategic and
discerning, sees all options,
judges accurately
and lacks drive and ability
to inspire others
Team-worker
(played by E)
co-operative, mild,
perceptive and diplomatic,
listens, builds, averts
indecisive in crunch
situations
3

friction
Implementer
(Played by E and A)
disciplined, conservative,
reliable and efficient, turns
ideas into practical actions
can be inflexible, slow to
respond to new possibilities
Completer–Finisher painstaking, conscientious,
anxious, searches out errors
and omissions
inclined to worry unduly,
reluctant to delegate
Specialist single-minded, self-starting,
dedicated, provides
knowledge and skills in rare
supply
contributes on only a
narrow front, dwells on
technicalities
in the table below:
Tuckman’s theory of group development
Bruce Tuckman brought this model for group development in the year 1965. This theory talks
about the development of the team from the starting of the project till its end (Senaratne, 2015).
Tuckman has given four main stages of team development, in which a fifth stage was also added
later in his career. So now it is said to be a five stage model of team development.
Stages of Group Development
Stages Development theory
Forming Stage  It is the first stage and denotes uncertainty.
 Members join and define the purpose, structure, and leadership of
the group.
Storming Stage  It is the second stage and denotes intragroup conflict.
 Individuals resist to control by the group and disagree about
leadership.
4

Norming Stage  It is the third stage and denotes close relationships and
cohesiveness.
 The group becomes cohesive and sets norms for acceptable
behavior.
Performing Stage  It is the fourth stage and denotes that group is fully functional.
 This structure allows the group to focus on performing their task at
hand.
Adjourning Stage  It is the final stage and denotes concerns regarding wrapping up
activities instead of performance.
 Here the project is complete, and the team wants to disburse. There
is a feeling of fulfillment and a loss of team unity at the same time.
Analysis of team issues by applying both the theories.
In my team, each member was assigned a different role and an initial where mine was ‘I,' and
played the role of an implementer and a team worker. ‘E' played the role of an Implementer/team
worker. ‘A' played the role of an Implementer/monitor and evaluator. ‘N' played the role of
chairman and 'S,' played the role of a plant. I, E and A, are sharing the same role of an
Implementer, thereby sharing common weaknesses and common strengths. Also, E and I have
shared the role of a team worker. If any team members have common weaknesses, then the team
as a whole will tend to have those weaknesses (Mathieu, 2015). Similarly, if any team members
have common strengths, then they might start to compete with each other rather than co-
operating for the tasks and responsibilities of the team. But in the case of our team, the scenario
was totally opposite. Despite sharing the same roles, I, E and A used to always work together
5

with good communication. As per the Belbin’s theory, a chairperson is the one who delegates
work to others in the team. But again the situation with our team was totally opposite as the
chairperson was absent. S was given the role of a plant whose task is to bring new ideas in the
group. But he used to perform his task in the last minute and never participated in the group. So
again it is in contradiction with the Belbin’s theory. Our group never had any arguments. I, A
and E made the PowerPoint. I had given the ideas for the design. I had worked with E earlier.
Also, I had worked with E before also so I had an idea about her weaknesses and strengths while
working in a team. It was a bit stressful to work with her because although E was a good team
worker but at the same time also liked to be on top, and this was not possible in this group.
Ways to overcome issues by applying both the theories
Thus it can be found that though the presentation went well, but it could have been much better it
the roles were assigned to all according to their personal strengths and weaknesses. For this
following steps must be taken:
 Step one is related to observing the behavior of each individual members of the team over
a period of time while in the forming stage itself, and it should be seen that how those
individuals behave with each other within the team.
 Step two is making a list of all the members of the team and noting down their strengths
as well as weaknesses that were observed while observing their behavior in order to avoid
the occurrence of any kind of conflict as stated by the storming stage.
 Comparing each person’s strengths and weaknesses and assign the role as per Belbin’s
theory which best suits them to ensure the building of close relationships among team
members as defined in the Norming Stage (Meslec, 2015).
6

 Considering the team roles that are missing from your team to make sure team is not
unbalanced, and the group is fully functional at the performing stage.
 If the team is found unbalanced, then considering the options to improve or change this.
Conclusion
We had assigned the same role to I, E and S, that is, the role of the Implementer and also the role
of team worker was given to I and E. I used to give ideas for designs, so would have been given
the role of a plant. S used to remain absent from the group, so assigning him the role of a plant
was not a right step. Thus, it can be concluded that though the presentation went well, but it was
not in line with the principles laid down by the two team building theories.
7

References
Raes, E., Kindt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P. and Dochy, F., 2015. An exploratory
study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1),
pp.5-30.
Seck, M.M., and Helton, L., 2014. Faculty development of a joint MSW program utilizing
Tuckman's model of stages of group development. Social Work with Groups, 37(2), pp.158-168.
James, J., 2015. Team Coaching: What is going on when I am coaching the team?
Senaratne, S. and Gunawardane, S., 2015. Application of team role theory to construction design
teams. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(1), pp.1-20.
Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kukenberger, M.R., Donsbach, J.S. and Alliger, G.M., 2015.
Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group &
Organization Management, 40(1), pp.6-34.
Meslec, N. and Curşeu, P.L., 2015. Are balanced groups better? Belbin roles in collaborative
learning groups. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, pp.81-88.
8

9