Service Operations Management: Assessing Team Effectiveness Report

This report is a reflective account of a group's approach to a task in service operations management. It assesses the impact of the team's attitude using Tuckman and Jensen's theory on team development, exploring stages like forming, storming, norming, and performing. The report also evaluates the influence of individual capabilities and competencies, applying Belbin's theory of team roles (Shaper, Implementer, Complete Finisher, Coordinator, Team Worker, Resource Investigator, Plant, Monitor-Evaluator, and Specialist). Furthermore, it provides recommendations for enhancing team effectiveness, including emphasizing teamwork, teaching teamwork skills, using team-building means, thoughtful group formation, ensuring clarity of goals, considering roles, requesting interim reports, allowing individual tracking of contributions, and incorporating peer assessment. The report concludes with these recommendations to improve group performance.

Running head: SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Service Operations Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Executive Summary:
This is a reflective account of the group in presenting a task. There is an assessment on the report
that describes the impact of the team’s attitude towards a group work. This assessment of the
group takes place with the help of Tuckman and Jensen’s theory on team development. There
report also puts forward an evaluation on the impact of individual capabilities and competencies
in the context of Belbin’s theory. There is also a set of recommendations provided on improving
the effectiveness of the team.

2SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Task 1...............................................................................................................................................3
Assessing the Impact of the Team’s Attitude towards Group Work...........................................3
Task 2...............................................................................................................................................6
Evaluation of the Impact of Individual’s Capabilities and Competences towards Group Work. 6
Task 3...............................................................................................................................................7
Recommendations for Improving the Effectiveness of the Group..............................................7
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
References:......................................................................................................................................9

3SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The report is a reflective account on the attitude and approach of a group followed in
presenting a task. The report provides an answer to three questions divided into Task 1, Task 2
and Task 3. In task one there is an assessment done on the impact of the attitude of the team in a
group work. The report however presents the assessment in the context of Tuckman and Jensen’s
theory on team development. The second task is an evaluation on the impact of the competencies
and capabilities of the individuals towards a group. This evaluation is done in the context of the
Belbin’s theory relating to team roles for a task. The report also presents recommendations as a
part of task 3 where steps for improving the effectiveness of the group mentioned.
Task 1
Assessing the Impact of the Team’s Attitude towards Group Work
While forming a team I have found that it is a time consuming process as the members go
through recognizable stages from being a group of strangers to a united group having common
set of goals. Thus, understanding the team’s attitude towards the group work through Tuckman
and Jensen’s theory on team development is important which helped the team become more
effective in a short time. Bruce Tuckman, a professor of psychology, helped in the identification
of four stages to team development (Fransen, Weinberger and Kirschner 2013). These stages
include forming, storming, norming and performing, experienced by every team. He also
suggested that every team goes through an initial unproductive stage until it becomes self-
sufficient.
According to Haines (2014), three issues determine the performance of the team. These
issues include the content, the process and the feelings. Content focuses on activities undertaken

4SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
by the team, process is to how the team moves towards its objectives and feelings implies the
feeling of the team members towards each other. In this context, through his research Tuckman
found that it is a common nature of most of the team to focus primarily on the content leaving
aside the process and feelings. This helps in explaining that teams that appear to be stronger on
paper can under perform in real situations.
As per Tuckman, the life cycle of a team has four stages. The dynamics of the team
undergoes a dramatic change at every stage from the periods of uneasiness and inefficiency to a
period of higher performance. Let us now look at each of the stages:
The Stage of Forming:
This is a stage where like most of the team members my team was polite and positive.
Some were anxious whereas others who were excited about the team work (Porter and Wimmer,
2012). The leader however plays a vital role at this particular stage since there is no clear outline
on the roles and responsibilities of team members. Here, the team members worked together and
made an effort in knowing their colleagues.
The Stage of Storming
The team enters into storming phase when people starts pushing against boundaries
created in forming stage. However, at this stage most of the teams fail (Posthuma and Al-Riyami
2012). This stage began with the conflict of team members in respect to their natural working
styles. Different working styles led to the creation of unforeseen problems. Storming also
happened when the team members challenged the authority regarding the clarification of their
position. There were even questions related to team goals. In absence of the clearance about the
teamwork, the members felt overburdened with the task in hand (Cheung 2012).

5SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
The Stage of Norming
This is a stage when the people in the team started resolving the differences, appreciate
the strengths of the colleagues and respected the authority of the leader. At this stage,
socialization amongst the team members took place where they reached a position where they
could ask for constructive feedback and help from one another (Colombini and McBride 2012).
At this stage, members also developed a strong commitment to the goals and work towards its
progress. However, in most cases there is an overlapping between the norming and storming
because new task at this stage forces the team to lapse back to the behavior of the storming stage.
The Stage of Performing
The performing stage reached when hard work of team members leads to achievement of
the goals (Edson 2012). In this stage, the leader can delegate much of his work and concentrate
on the development of the team development.
Thus, my team could work faster by considering the stages of Tuckman and initiating the
necessary changes at each of the stages.
Task 2
Evaluation of the Impact of Individual’s Capabilities and Competences towards Group
Work
The Belbin theory explains the evaluation of the impact of individual capabilities and
competencies towards Group Work. According to Belbin, understanding of a role with a group
can help develop strength and at the same time effectively manage the weakness of team
members (Batenburg, van Walbeek, and in der Maur 2013). Thus, with the help of this theory, I

6SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
was able to create a more balanced team. Belbin helped in identification of nine team roles and
divided each of the roles into three groups. These groups are people oriented, action oriented,
and thought oriented. Each of the team roles is associated with interpersonal and behavioral
strengths. There is also weakness of the team that according to Belbin is the allowable weakness
that exists in a team (Smith, Polglase and Parry 2012). These areas need potential improvement.
However, the nine-team roles of Belbin include:
Action Oriented Role (Zarzu, Scarlat and Falcioglu 2013) includes the Shaper (SH),
Implementer (IMP) and Complete Finisher (CF). Shaper (SH) represents the people in my team
who initiate team improvement. These people are not only dynamic but also extrovert who helps
in stimulating others. They also question norm and put forward the best approaches in solving
problems. On the other hand, Implementer (IMP) represents the people in the team who convert
the concepts and ideals as per the plans and practical actions (Senaratne and Gunawardane
2015). They are the most disciplined and well-organized people of the team who work efficiently
and systematically. The Complete Finisher of the team is the people for whom the completion of
the project has been possible. At the same time, they also make sure that there are no emissions
or errors and attention paid to every detail.
People Oriented Role includes the Coordinator (CO), Team Worker (TW) and Resource
Investigator (CF) (Meslec and Curşeu 2015.). The Coordinator represented here acts as a
chairperson who takes the initiative of guiding a team. The Team Workers (TW) represents the
people responsible for providing support and ensuring that the teammates can effectively work
together. These people are the negotiators in a team who are diplomatic, flexible and perceptive.
Resource Investigator (RI) are the people within a team who helps in exploring options that are
available, negotiating resources and developing contacts on the team’s behalf.

7SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
The Thought Oriented Roles included the Plant (PL), Monitor-Evaluator (ME) and
Specialist (SP) (Belbin 2012). Plant represents the innovator who is creative and is responsible
for forwarding new approaches and ideas. They are introverts by nature and prefers in working
apart from the team. Monitor-Evaluator (ME) plays the role of evaluating and analyzing ideas of
other people. Specialist (SP) is the people in possession of specialized knowledge necessary for
the job. They possess enough pride on the skills and abilities that they possess.
However, being a small team of four, my team focused on the action-oriented role of
Belbin’s Theory.
Task 3
Recommendations Leading to Effectiveness of the Group
The recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the group include the following:
1. Emphasizing the Importance of Teamwork: It is important to convey to the group why
the particular assignment needs a group work
2. Teaching Teamwork Skills: Each member of the group must know their individual
responsibilities and their individual contribution in achieving the goals of the group.
3. Using Team Building Means for Building Cohesive Groups: The members of the
group must know each other well and be in talking terms.
4. Thoughtful Consideration of Group Formation: Groups selection thoughtfully done to
enhance productivity

8SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
5. Ensuring Reasonable Workload and Clarity of Goals: The group members must have
clarity of goals and objectives of the task.
6. Considering the Roles of the Group Members: The roles of the members assigned
clearly, so that they can individually contribute in the completion of the task
7. Ensuring Request for Interim Reports and Feedback of Group Process: The group must
ensure maintaining a timeline about how they are going to go about the task.
8. Allowing Individual Members in Keeping Track of Contributions: There should be an
individual report mentioning from every member that helps in the identification of their
contribution.
9. Ensure the inclusion of Peer Assessment in the Process of Evaluation: A peer
assessment at the beginning of the process helps the members identify the problems experienced
at a particular stage.
Conclusion
The report ends with various recommendations on improving the effectiveness of the
group. There is also an evaluation done on the impact of capabilities and competencies of the
individuals towards the group done in the context of Belbin’s theory relating to team roles. The
report also assesses the attitude of the team that affects the group. This assessment done based on
Tuckman and Jensen’s theory on team development.

9SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
References:
Batenburg, R., van Walbeek, W. and in der Maur, W., 2013. Belbin role diversity and team
performance: is there a relationship?. Journal of Management Development, 32(8), pp.901-913.
Belbin, R.M., 2012. Team roles at work. Routledge.
Cheung, C.H., 2012. The “storming” stage: Conflict as a Source of Learning. Peer-Led Team
Learning: Leader Training, Online at http://pltlis. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Group-
Dynamics-and-Leadership-Cheung-Storming-Stage. pdf.
Colombini, C.B. and McBride, M., 2012. “Storming and norming”: Exploring the value of group
development models in addressing conflict in communal writing assessment. Assessing
writing, 17(4), pp.191-207.
Edson, M.C., 2012. A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), pp.499-516.
Fransen, J., Weinberger, A. and Kirschner, P.A., 2013. Team effectiveness and team
development in CSCL. Educational psychologist, 48(1), pp.9-24.
Haines, R., 2014. Group development in virtual teams: An experimental
reexamination. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, pp.213-222.
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.
Porter, H. and Wimmer, G., 2012. A winning strategy: Using Glory Road to illustrate the stages
of group development. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(2), pp.247-256.

10SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Posthuma, R. and Al-Riyami, S., 2012. Leading Teams of Higher Education Administrators:
Integrating Goal Setting, Team Role, and Team Life Cycle Theories. Higher Education
Studies, 2(3), p.44.
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.
Smith, M., Polglase, G. and Parry, C., 2012. Construction of student groups using Belbin:
Supporting group work in environmental management. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 36(4), pp.585-601.
Zarzu, C., Scarlat, C. and Falcioglu, P., 2013, June. Team composition and team performance:
achieving higher quality results in an international higher education environment. In Proceedings
of the Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference (Vol. 2013, pp. 1321-
1328).