Applying Team Development Theories to Our Group: A Short Reflection

The team development model by Tuckman consists of five stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. Belbin's theory also describes eight team roles. Our team went through these stages, but the assigned roles did not match our strengths and weaknesses, leading to issues. To overcome this, we could have observed individual behavior, made a list of strengths and weaknesses, and assigned roles accordingly. This would have ensured participation and a well-functioning team.

Team Group Presentation
Service Operation Management
North Middlesex A&E Department
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.
Some of them are as follows:
● Beldin’s team role theory,
● Abraham Maslow Hierarchy of Needs theory;
● John Adair Leadership theory;
● Isabel Briggs-Myers’s MBTI theory;
● Douglas McGregor X and Y theory;
● Tajfel, Social Identity theory,
● Tuckman’s theory of group development; and
● Jung’ color works theory

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:
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
1

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 friction
indecisive in crunch
situations
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
contributes on only a
narrow front, dwells on
technicalities
2

skills in rare supply
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.
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.
3

● 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.
All the group members in my team played various roles as described by this theory. Every
individual team member was assigned an initial I had already worked with ‘E.' I played the
role of an implementer and a team worker. ‘E' who is a female played the role of an
Implementer/team worker. An individual ‘A' who is a male played the role of an
Implementer/monitor and evaluator. An individual ‘N' who is a male played the role of
chairman and individual 'S,' who was a male played the role of a plant.
It has been observed that E and A also had sharing the same role as me, of an
Implementer, thereby sharing common weaknesses and common strengths. Also, E
and I have shared the role of a team worker. If we go as per the two theories, it has
been observed, that most of our team members in the forming stage of the team are
positive and polite. While few people were anxious as they could not understand the
work to be done by our team. Others were simply excited about the task to be
performed by the team. Also 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, E,
A and me used always work together with good communication. There was no feeling
4

of competition felt between them. Which is totally opposite of what is given by Belbin's
theory. Also, the chairman of the group, N, remained absent but his work was somehow
done. 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. Thus, it
can be analyzed that almost all the theories had been contradicted.
Our group never had any arguments, and on the day of presentation, everything went
well, and all participated in good spirit. Me, A and E made the PowerPoint. I gave some
ideas for the design. N had given the idea of a group in WhatsApp so as to share
everyone’s work and to communicate better. 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.
It has also been observed that most of our team members in the forming stage of the
team are positive and polite. While few people were anxious as they could not
understand the work to be done by our team. Others were simply excited about the task
to be performed by the team.
5

Ways to overcome issues by applying both the theories
Thus by analyzing our group based on the principles given by two theories, 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. That
would have ensured participation of all in the group. To overcome this, we could have
taken following steps based on the two theories discussed earlier:
● 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).
● 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
Thus, it can be concluded that the group that we had formed for giving the presentation
6

was subject to some issues. We had assigned the same role me, E and A, that is, the
role of the Implementer and also the role of team worker was given to me and E. Thus,
this needed to be corrected in accordance with the Beldin’s team role theory and
Tuckman’s theory of group development. As me 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 Thus, with respect to our team, it can finally be
concluded that it was not the best structure of the team that was adopted by us and if
some corrections were made, the results would have been even better.
In future I my strengths should have been more valued, If communication were more
open and enthusiastic, my ideas will be more accepted and less discussed. Because in
the end they worked.
My weakness point to work more, still going my nerves to talk in front of people. Control
the nerves on the day of the presentation so as not to affect the speech. Because it can
affect all teamwork.
In future I still try to improve my qualities In my qualities as a colleague, as a student,
focus on group work and more on the potential of new technologies.
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