MGT 415 Group Behavior in Organizations Week 1 Introduction

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 1/31

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Discuss and evaluate Tuckman’s sequential stage theory.

Contrast sequential stage theory with Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

Assess the practical implications of the team evaluation and maturation model.

Identify critical elements in setting the stage for effective teamwork.

Correlate commitment, attachment, and trust with shared leadership, meaningful and measurable performance goals, and mutual accountability.

Describe �ive major sources of objections to group work and teamwork, as well as strategies for overcoming them.

2Group Development

Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 2/31

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 3/31

Introduction

As senior manager at a large marketing company, Tai has successfully overseen the development of several small groups into high-functioning teams. She was recently asked to form a new group that will create a marketing campaign for a struggling product line. Although past experience tells Tai that this will likely call for a team, she begins the team-building process by �irst con�irming that a team best suits the project’s complexity. Once she does so, Tai determines that the structural parameters surrounding the team’s project, and the essential nature of what it is expected to do, call for a design team in which members with problem-solving experience and skills are particularly desirable. Tai meets with potential team leaders, both in-house and out-house, to discuss the resources they will need. They conclude that understanding and addressing the issues surrounding the product’s current market struggles will require the team to coordinate and exchange information with a knowledgeable individual or group within the client organization. They discuss potential team leader and member combinations that can skillfully accomplish this.

The challenge is to keep the team small but represent enough KSA combinations so as to support an effective solution. Tai likes to keep teams as small as possible because she’s found that they work more quickly. Furthermore, her company is busy —wasting human resources is not an option. After a lively discussion on how various members might work together and complement each other’s KSAs, Tai selects a team leader—Maya—along with the other members. The discussion also helps clarify the major issues that need to be addressed to meet the team’s objective and which activities will support this. The process is helpful for Maya because she needs to explain the project to her new team.

Although Tai will continue to check in on Maya and the team’s progress, she knows her role in planning the team is, for the most part, over. Maya will take over ongoing resource planning and management and continue the process of team building. Tai knows that both Maya and her team members are experienced in this process and have worked together in many combinations before. In fact, some of the most dif�icult work of developing the team is already done—the team has a sturdy foundation of commitment, attachment, and trust thanks to past work experiences, and their socioemotional interdependencies are already strong. The team members trust Maya’s leadership and know the teamwork process well—she won’t be alone in developing her team.

In Chapter 1 we explored the fundamental qualities of groups and teams, the reasons we form work groups and teams, and the practical differences between them. In Chapter 2, we examine group development and the concepts that support effective team building by addressing another set of fundamental questions: How do groups form? How do they develop over time? How can we build an effective team? And, why do some people avoid groups and teams?

Group development theorists have struggled to answer these questions ever since group dynamics emerged as a prominent �ield of study. We will seek to gain some understanding of these questions by exploring major theories of group development, methods for building effective groups and teams, and common obstacles to group development.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 4/31

2.1 How Do Groups Form?

We have looked at different types of groups and explored how their members can have varying degrees of relatedness, cohesiveness, and interdependence. We know that informal and formal groups have very different developmental contexts. Despite these differences, all groups have some signi�icant elements in common. Groups are composed of people, and people relate and interact in speci�ic ways. Group development theories seek to identify and describe recurring patterns of structural change and interactions throughout a group’s existence. Although the basic concepts may be loosely applied to any group, most developmental theories are created in reference to task groups and outline the group’s formation and progression through performance, goal attainment, and dissolution. Recall from Chapter 1 that task groups include most of the informal and formal groups found in the workplace, such as social clubs, interest groups, lunch buddies, boards, committees, work groups, and teams.

Task groups feature two synergistic elements that evolve over time (Seers & Woodruff, 1997):

1. The interpersonal dynamics between members as they develop into a cohesive group or team 2. The operational dynamics that describe the group’s progression toward its performance goals

Group development theories are numerous and varied. Some theorists choose to focus on the progression of interpersonal dynamics (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977); others on the operational dynamics (Gersick, 1988); and a growing number are coming to view the process as an integrated whole (Bene�ield & Utley, 2007; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993). The three theories presented in the following sections were selected because they represent each of these perspectives and because they are relevant to understanding and working in organizational groups and teams. The �irst of these, Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, is the most well known and represents a large body of accepted theories that outline group development as occurring in sequential stages. The second, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory, offers an alternate view of the developmental process as one that occurs in dramatic leaps at predictable intervals within the performance timeline. Finally, the team evaluation and maturation model integrates Tuckman’s and Gersick’s theories into a new and more comprehensive whole. We will examine each of these theories in turn, beginning with the oldest and most in�luential.

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory

Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequential process in which group members enact a series of �ive developmental stages, known as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of con�lict while adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to performance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s �ive stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and primary interpersonal dynamic.

Table 2.1: Tuckman’s �ive stages of development

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Forming Individuals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.

Task-orienting behaviors: Identi�ication of the group’s objective, structural parameters, primary task type, and method of interaction.

Uncertainty: Members try to understand the “ground rules” of belonging to the group, how to approach group process and performance, and what they need to do to achieve group goals.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 5/31

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Storming Members shift from I to we thinking; script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustment occur.

Boundary testing and rede�inition: There is con�lict between members, role emergence, and task designation.

Resistance: Members chafe against new constraints associated with the group context, assigned roles, script differences, and perceived status within the group.

Norming Members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good. They develop procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

Script uni�ication: Assimilation and emergence of group norms. Task and socioemotional interdependence increase.

Cooperation: Members accept the group and seek acceptance via observation and open exchange of information, feedback, and norms.

Performing Members achieve positive interdependence and focus energies toward goal accomplishment.

Participation in task- oriented processes and activities: Behaviors and activities geared toward productivity and goal attainment.

Positive interdependence: Members engage in cooperative action, group energy is channeled toward task work, and the group becomes a functional instrument for accomplishing its objective.

Adjourning Members physically and emotionally disengage from the group as membership ends.

Physical and emotional closure: Task activities and behaviors are terminated. Members prepare to resume pre-group duties and roles and disengage from their roles and relationships within the group. Members are recognized for their participation and achievement and achieve emotional closure.

Evaluation and re�lection: Members assess their participation and personal development within the group, group process, and performance outcome.

Mapping the Developmental Processes Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics between group members. The �ive-stage model represents a simpli�ied outline of the developmental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential nature of the �irst four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metaprocess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that de�ines and guides the activities within the stages of forming, norming, storming, and performing.

When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmental processes encompassing member identi�ication and the emergence of group structure. In relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:

Social identi�ication. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individuals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group. Shared social identity, status, and role clari�ication. Represented by the storming stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustments also occur. Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops procedural and behavioral norms that support this

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 6/31

outcome. Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.

When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identi�ication and integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly de�ined, socialization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more con�ident in their ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also experience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team leader or group facilitator) and everyone must resocialize to the new conditions (Moreland & Levine, 2002).

Examining Tuckman’s Fifth Stage Tuckman’s theory suggests that a group will dissipate after accomplishing its primary task or objective; however, many collective goals are only temporarily realized. Or, after achieving its initial goals, a group may face new goals. A professional baseball team’s ultimate goal is to win the World Series, and this goal carries over from season to season, regardless of whether they win or lose in any given year. Winning simply con�irms the team’s existence. Although chronic losses can affect the team’s value and popularity, failure is more likely to cause changes in membership or leadership (such as changes in players or coaches) than total dissolution of the group. Likewise, an executive team’s primary goal is to enhance the productivity and viability of the organization as a whole. Measurable by the company’s quarterly and yearly bottom line, this goal simply “reboots” as the team turns its focus to supporting and enhancing that growth over the next �iscal year.

Groups like these may never adjourn. A sports team may change members, leadership, and even af�iliation without losing its identity as a team. Similarly, top management, executive teams, and advisory boards continue to exist as long as their organization remains intact. Many manufacturing work groups and teams may for all intents and purposes do the same. Members of groups that do not adjourn may instead face a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization as new members join and assimilate and established members adjust to changing personalities, roles, expectations, and norms (Moreland & Levine, 1989; 2002).

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral

All groups have a starting point. Some, especially those in the workplace, never end. Companies continually attract new hires, train them, help them �it in, and encourage them to grow with the organization. Socializing new group members can be dif�icult for both new and existing members. As they work with new hires, existing employees may feel like they are reliving the stages of group development as they adjust to newcomers’ behaviors and beliefs and help them assimilate into the group, workplace environment, and organizational culture.

It can also be a struggle for new members to �ind their place in a group that already has established roles and norms. Newcomers have their own ideas on how things should be done, based on their previous experiences. They may hold attitudes or expectations formed by their experiences in other groups or conversely have no prior group experience and need to come to terms with their new role and identity. Existing members may forget that newcomers need time to assimilate to group norms and procedures and may thus view the socialization process as an unnecessary or annoying setback in their formerly smooth-running operation.

In ongoing groups in which membership �luctuates over time, each new member experiences a miniature spiral of forming, storming, norming, performing, and possibly adjourning. Tuckman’s stages may seem to never stop. This is referred to as the Tuckman spiral. The average time from the start of socialization to full productivity of external new hires can range from 8 to 20 weeks for clerical positions and up to 26 weeks for executives (Williams, 2003).

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 7/31

During this time, organizational group and team members must be prepared to support joining and adjourning members and the group’s evolving developmental needs.

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Describe a time that you joined an existing group or were present in a group that took in new members. Using your knowledge of Tuckman’s stages and theory, describe some of the socialization dynamics that occurred.

2. Did the group experience any of Tuckman’s stages with the incoming members? If so, which ones? 3. How did existing members treat the new members? In what ways did they address the competing needs

for socialization and productivity? 4. Looking back on that situation with the knowledge you have now, what would you change if you could?

What would you suggest group members in a similar situation do to help their group progress more effectively toward productive performance?

Practical Implications of Tuckman’s Theory Tuckman’s theory tends to view groups as composed of strangers coming together for a singular purpose and dissolving after that objective is accomplished. Tuckman developed his theory based on a comprehensive synthesis of his own and 50 other empirical studies on group development, during a time when study groups tended to be either arti�icially composed or short term, chosen speci�ically so that they could be observed from beginning to end. While an organization that is establishing new groups and teams may do so from scratch, employees more typically join preexisting groups or form new groups in which some or all of the members have worked together before. In these situations, familiarity with other members and preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases. This does not mean that they skip these phases entirely, however.

When we enter a group, we bring with us our own personal scripts, or procedural and normative templates for behavior and interaction within groups. Based on our past experiences and current expectations, scripts represent our view of how we and others should act in a given situation (Dennis, Gar�ield, & Reinicke, 2003). Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Within Tuckman’s model, script uni�ication—the development or assimilation of shared scripts—occurs during the norming phase. This is essentially what happens during the initial phase of socialization as well; however, once a new member becomes familiar with the group’s existing scripts, the person may compare them unfavorably to previously held scripts and attempt to insert these into the current group. This results in a renewed cycle of storming and norming. Although the storming process can be eased in formal groups by preset organizational structure and guidelines, members may still chafe at unsatisfying or ill-�itting roles, and status balancing will occur as members establish informal hierarchies based on personal status within the group. While the process areas represented by Tuckman’s sequential stages are all present within the socialization process, they do not follow the rigid patterning envisioned in Tuckman’s theory.

Tuckman’s work thus has its limitations, but it remains a popular and useful developmental theory. Our modeling of the stages provides practical descriptors of the outcomes, activities, and dynamics inherent in the cohesion process and when group membership adjourns. Our exploration of these and related concepts also offer some useful takeaways:

Incoming members bring procedural and normative scripts based on past experiences and current expectations (Dennis et al., 2003). Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). There will always be some degree of storming and norming as members work to generate or assimilate shared scripts. Storming is essentially a competition of personal status and scripts; when status balancing is complete, the group moves toward script uni�ication, and the norming process begins.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 8/31

New members joining established groups could be initially set back if their personal scripts are misaligned with the established shared script. Established members could resent the apparent process and performance loss that results from incorporating new group members. Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases by speeding the evolution of shared scripts. Though not all groups dissolve after performance, adjourning remains a vital process, as even permanent groups lose established members and welcome new ones. The process of group socialization and resocialization can be continuous if the group outlasts its original membership.

What does this mean for group members and managers? Developing group cohesion is the core purpose behind the forming, storming, and norming stages, and script uni�ication is their major outcome. Shared scripts become the primary tools by which group members effectively coordinate their performance toward a common purpose or goal. Support for group cohesion and script uni�ication can include the following:

Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive con�lict, knowledge sharing, and member feedback Encouragement of new and established members to view socialization and resocialization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity to reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new KSAs Acknowledgment of the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire group is dissolving or individual members are moving on

The labels and concepts in Tuckman’s theory are practical and easy to remember, making it perhaps the most popular and widely taught group developmental theory to date. However, not everyone subscribes to the idea of steady progression over time. Focusing on task-oriented development, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory suggests that group development occurs as a sort of growth spurt, a dramatic evolution tied to a speci�ic time in the group’s performance schedule.

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that groups consistently experience two major phases in which working methods, interaction styles, and project direction remain relatively stable. These are separated by a crisis and transition at precisely the midpoint of the group’s of�icial performance deadline (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory assigns critical value to key interactions at the group’s �irst meeting and midpoint transition.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&c… 9/31

Source: Based on Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.C. (2006). Project management (3rd ed., p. 346). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Phase one takes place during the �irst half of the performance timeline. Rather than experiencing the open-ended script comparison, testing, and uni�ication suggested in the initial stages of most sequential theories, Gersick found that the group’s approach at their �irst meeting sets the script for group interaction and work through the timeline’s midpoint. Phase one work is not characterized by any particular process or even speci�ic productive value; some groups work steadily toward a goal and on tasks determined in the �irst meeting, while others spend the entire �irst phase in an indecisive haze.

Midpoint transition occurs at the timeline’s midpoint. At this point, Gersick observed that groups consistently suffer a brief crisis in which members recognize time constraints and feel the urgency of approaching deadlines. During the midpoint transition, group members evaluate work completion and direction, reconnect with outside authorities or in�luences, reformulate their shared scripts, and often abandon old patterns in favor of radical new perspectives.

Phase two occurs during the second half of the performance timeline. In this phase, groups undergo a period of productivity reminiscent of Tuckman’s performing stage, as they implement the decisions made at the midpoint transition. The radical shifts in perspectives or performance agenda at transition may result in a shuf�ling of roles or a universal change of group interaction. As shown in Figure 2.1, phase two culminates in completing the performance objective.

Critical Analysis of Punctuated Equilibrium Whereas Tuckman’s theory represents group development as a graduated, linear process, Gersick’s theory assigns critical value to key interactions at two concrete points in the group’s timeline: �irst meeting and midpoint transition. Gersick observed that by the end of the group’s �irst meeting, members have naturally formed complete scripts for phase one interactions and group work. Rather than adopting a lengthy process of script exploration, testing, and uni�ication, Gersick’s theory suggests that members quickly throw together a unique temporary script that depends on unpredictable combinations of existing individual and organizational scripts, situational conditions, and member dynamics. For example, Gersick observed that if one member tended to dominate and direct the discussion during the initial meeting, this pattern would continue throughout phase one interactions—although the dominating member was not always the same individual (Gersick, 1988). Unlike the sequential models, there is no proposed predictability for what member interactions might entail during the �irst meeting or the ensuing work phase. Some groups may begin by mapping out the overall work plan, spend the entire initial phase simply clarifying what they are trying to achieve, or jump right into task planning and assignation. Others may experience a period similar to storming in which they address perceived con�licts with project scripts, member roles, or task parameters.

The midpoint transition is characterized by a sudden spike in concern for project deadlines, a use-it-or-lose-it practicality with respect to work completed thus far, and renewed awareness and acceptance of external in�luences, authority �igures,

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 10/31

and aid. At this point, the temporary script the group initially adopted is con�irmed or adapted and made permanent or discarded for a new version. According to Gersick’s model, regardless of performance setting, project type, or speed with which members move from planning to implementation, groups consistently experience a crisis at the midlife transition point and thereafter follow modi�ied tactics or project direction. Subsequent studies have indicated that while groups consistently experience a performance pause and reevaluation at the temporal midpoint, radical revision is not a given. This suggests that the midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change but does not guarantee one (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002).

Further testing of Gersick’s theory (Dennis et al., 2003; Seers & Woodruff, 1997) suggests that groups follow the punctuated equilibrium model when the rapid development of shared scripts is:

facilitated (for example, in groups in which members have worked together before or that formed using preexisting organizational hierarchies, procedures, and norms); and required (for example, when groups are under a rigid and urgent timeline that forces immediate task orientation and action).

Groups in which members were neither under extreme scheduling and time demands nor aided by preexisting or previously shared scripts follow developmental patterns more akin to Tuckman’s stages (Dennis et al., 2003).

Practical Implications of Gersick’s Theory Gersick’s observations offer signi�icant practical value in understanding key points in a group’s performance. Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guideposts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynamics, and performance input.

1. The �irst meeting creates a template for phase one interactions. Group members and leaders should be prepared to set the tone for phase one interactions at the �irst meeting and to work on foundational tasks and issues that will foster a strong midpoint transition. This includes clarifying performance goals, facilitating effective communication and con�lict resolution among members, and settling issues of hierarchy and role differentiation within the group.

2. The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change. Gersick’s (1988) research suggests that the midpoint transition can be utilized as a speci�ic and predictable point in project performance when group members are most open to external in�luence and intervention. For this reason, she suggests that the midpoint transition presents external leaders with a unique opportunity to in�luence changes in project direction or performance agenda and should be carefully considered, as once passed, the opportunity will not present itself again.

The main weakness in any practical application of the punctuated equilibrium model is the lack of clarity regarding what groups actually do during the two phases. Gersick’s focus on operational dynamics does not encompass the attention to detail typically found in sequential models. Tuckman’s sequential stage theory may not be a one-size-�its-all template, but the model remains popular in both education and management circles mainly because the stages provide a useful platform of practical knowledge about the member activities and dynamics that occur over the course of a group’s existence. Since Gersick and Tuckman each address an area the other leaves relatively untouched, the two theories are not incompatible. In fact, some contemporary schools of thought suggest that Gersick and Tuckman work best when we put them together.

Team Evaluation and Maturation Model

The diverse and subjective nature of group interactions has long been an obstacle for researchers trying to uncover some scienti�ic order and practical guidance for the group development process. Mid- to late-20th-century studies �ixated on the sequential model, while Gersick’s 1988 model addressed the issue from a new perspective without truly contradicting or offering a holistically useful replacement of the older models. More recently, theorists have proposed a new vision in which Tuckman and Gersick’s theories combine to create a symbiotic and practical whole. Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) team evaluation and maturation model is a notable example of the current trend in group development theory.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all&… 11/31

In an effort to develop a more holistic understanding of team development, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman developed a model that integrated Tuckman and Gersick’s research and incorporated minor concepts from others (Davis, Gaddy, & Turney, 1985; McGrath, 1991; Bowers, Morgan, & Salas, 1991). Using this new model, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman undertook a comprehensive investigation into the development of Navy Command Information Center tactical decision- making teams during operational training. The results, published in Analysis of Team Evolution and Maturation, suggest that while both Tuckman and Gersick offer signi�icant frameworks for group developmental processes and dynamics, the path taken throughout group formation and development is more complex and variable than any single sequence of phases or developmental leaps (Morgan et al., 1993). Instead, they offer the team evaluation and maturation (TEAM) model, which postulates two phases, a midpoint transition, and nine sequential stages that can be repeated or recycled to address interaction failures, changes in environmental demands, or complex issues. The model is outlined in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: TEAM model of group development

The TEAM model combines elements of Tuckman’s and Gersick’s group development theories to create a holistic model of team development.

Source: Based on Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277–291.

As shown in Figure 2.2, the TEAM model directly addresses both interpersonal and operational dynamics by proposing that group energies and interactions work along two distinct but simultaneous activity tracks that converge as performance progresses (Morgan et al., 1993):

1. Teamwork activities, or those that deal with the interpersonal functioning of the team (Davis et al., 1985). These include the interpersonal dynamics of group development and performance and consciously enacted person-to- person activities that support interpersonal communications, socioemotional interdependence, and positive interaction patterns (Morgan et al., 1993).

2. Task work activities, or those that deal with the technical functioning of the team (Davis et al., 1985). These include activities and exercises pertaining to task requirements and interdependence, technical skills, work procedure, in-task communication, and collective performance efforts.

During the �irst meeting and forming stage of group development, Morgan et al. (1993) observed that members were unclear as to what constitutes teamwork and task work, the differences between them, and the comparative importance of each. These tended to differentiate into meaningful concepts and activities over the course of phase one, as members

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 12/31

learned how and how not to work together, generating shared scripts. The primary outcome of the midpoint transition was a conscious integration of teamwork and task work activities, as team members acknowledged that effective performance is achieved when teamwork and task work converge. These activity tracks diverge after the completion stage, as members detach from task work activities and prepare to exit the group. This process is graphically represented in Figure 2.2.

Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) study of the TEAM model suggests that certain developmental qualities remain consistent regardless of team setting, purpose, or operational requirements:

Team members’ perceptions of performance processes and teamwork and task work activities change as the group moves through the initial developmental stages and performance. To achieve optimal performance, teamwork and task work activities must be differentiated; the skills associated with each must be separately enhanced and progressively focused. Then the two activity tracks must converge and integrate. Ultimately, effective performance depends on the convergence of teamwork and task work activities, so that these tracks work collaboratively in support of team development, viability, and performance.

The TEAM model represents a combination and extension of previous theories. As such, its practical implications can be combined with those in Tuckman’s sequential stage theory and Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

The �irst meeting represents the initial opportunity to in�luence the group’s development. It is an opportune time to call attention to the signi�icance of each of these activity tracks; establish any preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles; and initiate norms and scripts to openly accept and facilitate constructive con�lict, effective communication, knowledge sharing, and feedback. Group members and managers can facilitate effective performance by sequentially guiding members’ ability to (a) differentiate between teamwork and task work activities, (b) enhance and focus their related skills, then (c) work toward convergence and integration of the two activity tracks. The midpoint transition represents the point of convergence for teamwork and task work activities. It also marks a speci�ic and predictable point in project performance when group members are most open to external in�luence and intervention. Fortunately, this second opportunity to in�luence group development occurs just when it may be needed most. Group members and managers should keep abreast of group development, any issues impeding group progress, and the need to converge teamwork and task work activities. This will facilitate relevant and supportive in�luence at the midpoint transition.

The practical implications of developmental theories touch on concepts relevant to building an effective team. Section 2.2 examines the process of team building, outlining the steps for planning a team and the concepts and strategies supporting the team’s development.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 13/31

2.2 Team Building

There are countless pop strategies and motivational tools that advertise themselves as team-building exercises. These are not what we are addressing here. Team building—the practical process of putting together an effective team—is enacted in two major phases: planning and development. In the planning phase, the stage is set for effective teamwork: A team- worthy objective is identi�ied, a team type is selected, membership is composed, and necessary resources are acquired. Simply rounding up suitable members, aiming them at an objective, and giving them access to resources does not guarantee they will effectively collaborate as a team. The development phase focuses on enabling the transition from group to team and maximizing the team’s potential for effectiveness.

Planning the Team

Planning a team is a multistep process that encompasses four essential activities:

1. Con�irming that a team is the best option 2. Clarifying the basic team type and primary task type 3. Identifying and acquiring necessary resources 4. Managing team composition

The �irst step in planning an effective team is to con�irm that a team is the best option for the situation. The guidelines (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Coget.1752.17.1/sections/navpoint-9#_idContainer026) for this process are outlined in Chapter 1. While we will not repeat them here, it is important to note that any team will have dif�iculty realizing its full potential if it is set up to work in a situation in which teams are not a good �it.

The second step is to clarify the basic team type and primary task type. This involves examining the team’s major task or objective and:

1. identifying any structural parameters that dictate the fundamental nature of the team or how it will work, and 2. narrowing down the primary task type required for the team to realize its purpose.

For instance, a comprehensive study regarding an organization’s potential expansion into a foreign market (major objective) represents a unique one-time output that is time-sensitive but not urgent (team type—project team). It also requires delivery of expert advice (task type—advising others). Therefore, an advisory project team would be well suited to this purpose. See Chapter 1 for a review of the basic team types (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Coget.1752.17.1/sections/navpoint-10#_idTextAnchor001) , primary task types (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Coget.1752.17.1/sections/navpoint-10#_idTextAnchor002) , and how they can be combined to describe the fundamental nature of a speci�ic team, how that team is expected to work, and what it is expected to do.

Steps 3 and 4—identifying and acquiring necessary resources and managing team composition—require more detailed explanation. The next two sections address these in turn.

Identifying and Acquiring Necessary Resources Team resources can be described as human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial elements that satisfy four basic functions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007):

1. Assist and support goal accomplishment. 2. Address speci�ic performance demands. 3. Encourage cohesion and member well-being. 4. Support the team’s effective functioning.

Human resources meet the team’s compositional needs in terms of the size, diversity, and skill requirements suggested by its major objective, structural parameters, and primary task type. Skill and expertise pooling is foundational for a team’s strength, �lexibility, and effectiveness as a unit of performance. Different projects or objectives will require different combinations of skilled personnel, and composing a team in which member experience and KSAs complement each other is a signi�icant factor in supporting effective team performance. Solving a complex design problem, for

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 14/31

instance, often requires cross-functional membership that re�lects a diverse range of expertise. Designing a vehicle like the Tesla required collaboration between members knowledgeable in the technical engineering of the unusual engine and battery components, auto body design and aerodynamics, marketing research (regarding aesthetics, style, and interior options), and so on.

Physical resources meet the team’s obvious material, technological, and operational needs as it acts within a given context and set of objectives. These can vary by team and task type and can change over the course of a team’s performance. For instance, a marketing team may initially need only work space and access to data and basic computer technology. Later on, however, marketing studies and product testing may require access to customers and resources with which to perform product trials and interviews. Effective teams continuously reevaluate their physical resource needs and make adjustments accordingly. Physical resources might include meeting and work spaces; computer hardware, software, data, and Internet access; of�ice equipment and design tools; �inancial resources; raw production materials; and manufacturing machinery.

Along with providing physical resources, all organizations develop systems, strategies, and norms within their infrastructure that support work processes and facilitate management, coordination, problem solving, and quality control (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). Aligning these organizational resources with team operation and performance is a critical factor in organizational teams’ short- and long-term effectiveness (Beyerlein, Hall, Harris, & Beyerlein, 1997; Mohrman & Tenkasi, 1997; Mohrman et al., 1995). These might include employee training, empowerment, and participation in organizational decision-making processes; organizational leadership philosophies; and managerial strategies and norms regarding communication, con�lict, diversity, and performance errors or failure. Chapter 10 further explores the connection between organizational resources and team effectiveness.

Finally, psychosocial resources support team members’ psychological well-being and the team’s cohesiveness. At the most basic level, our psychological well-being revolves around three innate drives (Reeve, 2015): autonomy, or self- determination; ef�icacy, or sense of self-competence; and relatedness, or the strength of our associations with others. A functioning team supports each of these fundamental needs, as indicated in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Supporting psychological well-being through teamwork

Fundamental need

Method of support in a team

Autonomy The collaborative nature of teamwork ensures that members have some degree of in�luence over their overriding purpose and agenda, as well as in their decisions and actions. Collaborative goal setting plays an important role in establishing member participation, autonomy, and buy-in from the beginning of team performance.

Ef�icacy Teamwork practices that support entitativity, value skill and knowledge diversity, and facilitate learning from errors boost member con�idence and esteem while maximizing the potential for success.

Relatedness Positive interdependencies and interrelations develop between members, which fosters cohesiveness and supports teamwork.

In the workplace, psychosocial resources include structural components and leadership strategies that can be established during the planning phase, (e.g., establishing comuunication and responsibility structures, adding a facilitator, or planning shared leadership roles). Valuable psychosocial resources also include the supportive interrelations between colleagues and organizational groups that can be initiated during the development phase (e.g., establishing norms for information and viewpoint sharing, goal-setting activities) and continue to evolve over time.

As a work model, an effective team balances human and organizational needs, which in turn generates an organizational effectiveness that both supports and depends on employees’ psychological well-being (Richter, Dawson, & West, 2011). While human and physical resources are obvious focal points for resource management, effective team performance depends just as heavily on organizational and psychosocial resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Richter et al., 2011). Teams require support from organizational systems, and they must also develop and maintain member relations and interdependencies that support teamwork, member well-being, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances (Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 15/31

A team is assembled to safely rescue 33 Chilean miners trapped a half a mile beneath the earth's surface. The team conducts a continent-wide search to acquire the resources to rescue the miners.

Figure 2.3: Best practices for team composition

Teams should feature members who have complementary KSAs and the ability to develop more. This helps pack a wide range of expertise into a team that is also small and functional.

Finding the Right Resources

Managing Team Composition The team’s major objective, structural parameters, and primary task type help identify the basic compositional requirements for team size, diversity, and task-speci�ic expertise. The basic formula for selecting team members is short and sweet: Minimize team size and maximize skill potential. To perform effectively, team members must have or develop the KSAs required to accomplish the team’s purpose and goals. Team builders must therefore identify what expertise is required by a particular performance challenge, as well as the degree and type of diversity that best supports the desired outcome. A �inal screening should assess potential members’ capacity to develop further KSAs, based on their willingness and ability to learn. Though hard to measure, this potential can be assessed on the basis of past performance, personal interviews, recommendations by colleagues and managers, and testing for personality factors that indicate knowledge sharing, openness to learning, cooperativeness, and conscientiousness. Once the basic combination of expertise, diversity, and potential for development has been identi�ied, it must then be squeezed into the smallest team possible (see Figure 2.3).

Why minimize team size? For several reasons:

Smart use of human resources: Organizations have a limited number of employees, and most streamline their employee base to keep operation costs low. Minimizing team size makes the most of the available human resources without wasting any by tying them up in super�luous positions. Simplicity of coordination: Team members must coordinate internally with each other and externally with managers, other organizational groups, and satellite members and other teams (on complex problem-solving or production processes). The more people involved in a situation, the more complex and comprehensive their coordination needs become. Process effectiveness: Teams must be large enough that members are not overburdened by responsibilities or

Finding the Right Resources From Title: Chilean Mine Rescue: The Unstoppable Team—A Ca... (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?

wID=100753&xtid=53322)

  0:00 / 5:54 1x © I f b All Ri ht R d L th 05 55

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 16/31

workloads, and they must possess the diversity to support the team’s creative scope and adaptability. However, having too many members limits the team’s ability to effectively function within performance and time constraints. Although there is no perfect size, teams typically function best with 5 to 10 members.

Maximizing skill potential within a small team requires action in both phases of team building:

Planning: Select members on the basis of their relevant KSAs, their potential for expanding these, and their ability to complement other members. Development: Balance the bene�its of diversity with its potentially negative issues, and foster members’ development of useful KSAs.

As with team size, member skill and diversity requirements will depend largely on expected performance parameters, the type of team being assembled, and what it is expected to do. It is important to select members whose skills speci�ically apply to expected performance demands and whose combined skill set encompasses what team-building experts call the right mix. People are often good at many things but have true expertise in only one or two areas. The beauty of teamwork is that no single member is required to have all the skills necessary to get the job done. By collaborating, members with complementary KSAs work together to achieve more than they could alone. While project and performance needs vary, team skills generally fall into four basic categories: hard, soft, critical thinking, and creative problem solving. Table 2.3 outlines these basic categories.

Table 2.3: Basic team skill categories

Skill category

Description Examples

Hard sklls

Also referred to as technical skills, these encompass skills that enhance one’s ability to perform speci�ic tasks or functions. In building a speci�ic team, there will be some hard skills that all members should have to some degree.

In all cases, teams will require that all members have some base-level hard skills and that some members have speci�ic hard skill expertise. On a team of architects, for example:

All members should have a certain level of pro�iciency with design and computer aided-drafting, shared terminology, and both physical and digital model making. Certain members may have particular areas of expertise, such as LEED certi�ication for sustainable building design.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 17/31

Skill category

Description Examples

Soft skills

Also referred to as teamwork skills, these encompass the knowledge and use of teamwork values, communication and other interpersonal skills, and leadership and management skills.

The most commonly desired soft skills fall into several categories that deal with:

Interaction, including communicating effectively, working cooperatively, and other interpersonal skills Facilitation, including coaching, mentoring, teaching, and acting as a group facilitator Direction, including coordinating and managing people and processes, leading, self-directing, and sharing power Mediation, including negotiating, compromising, and resolving con�lict.

Critical- thinking skills

Encompass those processes that facilitate logical problem solving and decision making to help teams:

Identify critical questions and problems Gather, interpret, and assess relevant information Clarify solution needs and expectations Recognize biases, assumptions, and logical fallacies Test the practical implications and consequences of potential solutions against thoughtfully determined standards and criteria

Also known as critical analysis, critical thinking includes a wide range of investigative and evaluative skills generally associated with convergent thinking, including:

Researching and gathering information Analyzing and de�ining problems Identifying and testing assumptions and fallacies Identifying and assessing idea or solution viability, including pros and cons Being able to acknowledge and accept personal ignorance or fallibility Interpreting and correlating informative data Comparing and contrasting processes Identifying root causes of problems or errors

Creative problem- solving skills

Encompass those processes that facilitate solutions that require more than logic, where innovation and invention are key determinants in effective performance.

Also known as creative solutioning, creative problem solving includes a wide range of skills generally associated with creativity and convergent thinking, including:

Framing and reframing problems Associating normally unrelated concepts Using speci�ic group ideation activities, such as brainstorming, paradigm shift, and 180-degree thinking Improvising new procedures or processes Thinking outside the box

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 18/31

Developing the Team

Our group is gathered and the stage is set for effective teamwork. But how do we turn our group into a team? Group performance represents a state of positive interdependence in which members work cooperatively toward a mutually bene�icial outcome. Positive interdependence refers to the constructive interrelations between members that support the group’s existence and enable cooperative action. In work groups, positive interdependence is achieved through coordination of individual motivation, effort, and accountability. Rather than engaging in joint effort, work group members act alone, following the direction of the group leader, and it is only through the group leader that their efforts are connected at all. In teams, positive interdependence is re�lected in the basic elements of collaborative performance: high cohesiveness, common purpose, mutual accountability, shared fate, and common reward. These elements are irrevocably tied together; each supports the existence of the others.

Team members go beyond simple cooperation or coordination of efforts. They engage in a continuous teamwork process. Even when members handle their tasks alone, they are working toward a shared fate and common reward. Members are accountable to each other, and individual success or failure is tied to the team’s performance as whole. The team’s success becomes each member’s common purpose, and high cohesiveness is simultaneously an outcome of these other factors— the glue that binds them together—and the means by which team members support collaborative performance. Let’s take a closer look at team cohesion.

Team Cohesion Team cohesion can be divided into three dimensions (Mullen & Copper, 1994): task cohesion, interpersonal cohesion, and team pride. Task cohesion re�lects the team’s shared valuation and commitment to tasks, task work activities, and goals (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Interpersonal cohesion refers to the level of attachment and camaraderie between team members (Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003). Finally, team pride represents a combination of team potency, ef�icacy, and morale that synergistically combine to describe the general sense of usefulness and value attached to the group and to holding membership in it. The elements of team pride represent different dimensions of trust within the team.

Team potency re�lects a collective trust in the team’s power to exist as a relatively stable and cohesive entity and to perform collaboratively until it succeeds—or fails—as a whole. Where potency is, in effect, the team’s collective sense of self, ef�icacy centers on the sense of self-competence. Team ef�icacy represents members’ collective belief in their ability to accomplish tasks and goals, overcome obstacles, resolve con�licts, and perform effectively (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Team morale is more than just an average of individual morale levels within the group. It represents a shared sense of well-being, satisfaction, and trust that the general quality and tone of group interactions will maintain these conditions (Peterson, Park, & Sweeney, 2008).

To support the development of team cohesion, team builders must foster its three foundational elements: commitment, attachment, and trust. Let’s examine these elements and their integral value within team development.

Commitment, Attachment, and Trust Chapter 1 described identi�ication as a process that involves both our thoughts and emotions. In an organizational setting, social identi�ication is imposed on team members when they are assigned to a team. While this takes care of the intellectual side of things, our emotions are not so easily ordered into place. We can be told to approach group work with an all for one and one for all mentality, but developing the commitment, attachment, and trust that inspires us to truly believe and follow through on this sentiment is a bit more complex.

In the context of teamwork, commitment represents the extent to which team members acknowledge the signi�icance of the team’s purpose and accept the proposed agenda and approach for accomplishing it. It also represents how strongly they intend to cooperate throughout the performance process (Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). Commitment to a common purpose motivates and focuses team performance. It provides a supportive framework and rallying point for strategic planning and for setting tasks, agendas, and goals. It also helps guide member decisions and actions during performance. By collectively maintaining the standard that every decision and action should support the common purpose, team members can police the balance of individual and collective interests, trusting each other to make choices and contributions that support the success of the team.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 19/31

Attachment is an integral component of group cohesiveness. It represents members’ socioemotional identi�ication with the team and their feelings about other members. It encompasses the extent to which members feel they are part of the team, included in team activities and processes, and look forward to working with other members. Attachment is a signi�icant factor in a team’s ability to cooperate and perform effectively over the long term. When members feel detached, ignored, or excluded from team activities and processes, they sense their contributions are not valued, have little impact, or lack meaning (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Sapienza, 2003). We all have a basic desire to be valued as individuals and to feel that our efforts are meaningful (Kelly Global Workforce Index, 2013; Wrzesniewski, 2003). Although the premise of teams is that no one individual is a “star,” the �lip side of this is that each member is considered a valuable and meaningful contributor to team outcomes. This helps inspire and maintain member commitment and trust. Therefore, when attachment is high, team members work more cooperatively and diligently toward team goals (Korsgaard et al., 1995).

Trust re�lects team members’ intention and ability to be vulnerable to each other and to the group. It is founded on the expectation without guarantee that all members will act in support of the team and treat each other considerately and benevolently (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998; Williams, 2001; Korsgaard et al., 2003). In a sense, trust represents a buy-in to the team, from which cooperative attitudes and behaviors naturally follow. Team members work collaboratively, which means that member interdependence is high across all dimensions of interaction. Such interdependence requires trust in other members’ capacity to support the team through their contributions and in their willingness to work cooperatively and take responsibility for both their own actions and those of the team as a whole. But where does this trust come from?

Like most good things, trust is developed over time. However, commitment, attachment, and trust are initiated by speci�ic elements of team interaction:

Owning team actions Unifying team purpose Upholding mutual accountability Building team ef�icacy

Let’s examine the interplay between these factors and their role in developing and maintaining commitment, attachment, and trust within the team.

Owning Team Actions All teams engage in some degree of shared leadership. Owning team actions through participation in team strategy and decision making is integral to developing attachment, trust, and commitment to a common purpose (Korsgaard et al., 2003). Team members play an active role in shaping and directing their team when they work cooperatively across a range of task work and teamwork processes. Collaborative agenda and goal setting are key activities in developing a sense of:

working toward a mutually bene�icial common purpose, trusting that everyone on the team is aware of and supports team activities and goals, being included and valued in team process, and owning team decisions, actions, and purpose.

Setting speci�ic and meaningful performance goals also works to guide and unify team members’ motivations and expectations for performance.

Unifying Team Purpose To activate and sustain commitment, team members must feel their efforts are meaningful and that they are making measurable progress toward a clear and common purpose. Performance goals provide a shared vision to unify member motivations and expectations. They offer rallying points around which members can develop commitment and enthusiasm, and they act as tangible milestones that mark team progress and setbacks. Locke and Latham’s (1990, 2002, 2006) goal-setting studies suggest that the best performance outcomes evolve from teams that are committed to goals that members perceive as:

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 20/31

clear and noncon�licting, speci�ic and challenging, and achievable along a given agenda.

Agreeing on speci�ic performance goals puts everybody on the same page, unifying team purpose so that team members can effectively work together. By helping create such goals, team members accept ownership over them. They also acknowledge understanding of their role in accomplishing the team’s purpose and become independently accountable for their own contributions and collectively accountable for the team’s performance as a whole. In Chapter 1 this was identi�ied as mutual accountability.

Upholding Mutual Accountability The need for mutual accountability is most easily observed in a team sport. In football, a quarterback throws the ball to a hal�back, who runs it down the �ield under the protection of blocking fullbacks. Each player depends on the others to carry out their role-related tasks to the best of their ability. When one falters, the ball comes to stop or is lost to the opposing team. For any team to succeed, all members must make signi�icant contributions, carry out their individual and collective responsibilities, and support each other’s ability to do so.

Procedural justice theory asserts that members attach most strongly to groups in which individual worth and status are validated by fair treatment (Korsgaard et al., 2003). This suggests that in regard to social exchanges within our groups, we primarily fear rejection and lack of reciprocity (Lind, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Our desire to be perceived as valuable and to avoid rejection can strongly motivate us to make positive contributions to the group via proactive, voluntary teamwork (Tyler & Blader, 2003). However, we need to believe that teammates will accept and reciprocate our efforts; otherwise, we may not see any compelling reason to cooperate (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996). In practice, mutual accountability represents being committed to having a fair exchange, contributing and valuing other’s contributions, and fostering a supportive climate within which team members can engage (Korsgaard et al., 2003). Fostering a climate of cooperation among team members means encouraging members to:

share knowledge and viewpoints, including contrary opinions or concerns; engage in collaborative problem solving and con�lict resolution; offer constructive feedback and discuss mistakes and failures; and view failure and mistakes as opportunities to learn and improve.

Building Team Ef�icacy A climate of cooperation generates a working environment in which team members are supportive of and supported by each other, and the success of one is felt as success for all. Cooperation enhances team members’ sense of individual and team ef�icacy. Team ef�icacy levels in�luence motivation and performance across the board, signi�icantly impacting individual members’ output and effort on collective endeavors and whether to persevere or give up when faced with adversity, opposition, or a failure to garner “quick results” (Bandura, 1997). The initial framework on which team ef�icacy rests—self-con�idence within the team setting, respect for each other’s abilities, trust in our ability to work collaboratively—is built when the team �irst develops its agenda of tasks and goals and its approach for accomplishing them. This brings us full circle to participating in team strategy and decision making.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 21/31

Practical Implications for Team Builders, Managers, and Leaders Translating the team’s purpose into speci�ic and meaningful performance goals is often the �irst team effort in which members engage. Collaborative goal setting provides the basic foundation for team ef�icacy and ownership of team purpose, agenda, and activities. It also provides clear and tangible progress markers the team can rally around. The shared scripts generated in this process help unify performance motivation and expectations, including expectations of fairness and mutual accountability. Meanwhile, clarifying the team’s purpose—which stems from collaborative decision making and “making sure everyone’s on the same page”—fosters the development of a shared mental model that encompasses the team’s primary purpose and how to achieve it. A mental model is an internally held conceptual model that allows people to describe, understand, and explain phenomena; recognize component relationships; draw inferences; and predict behavior and events (Rouse & Morris, 1986; Johnson-Laird, 1989. Developing a shared mental model dramatically enhances a team’s ability to coordinate performance, discuss task-related issues, problem solve, and make decisions that support its effectiveness.

So how do we facilitate collaborative goal setting? Peter Drucker (1954) �irst addressed this question in his now classic book, The Practice of Management. In 1981 George Doran built on Drucker’s “management by objectives” system to introduce the concept of SMART goals, which stands for goals that are speci�ic, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time related. Doran’s SMART goals inspired various interpretations and expansions on the idea, including the START model (Johnson & Johnson, 2013, which suggests that goals should be speci�ic, trackable, achievable, relevant, and transferrable; and Yemm’s (2013) SMARTER model, which replaces Doran’s assignable with achievable/attainable and adds evaluate

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 22/31

and review/revise. All are useful guides for developing effective performance goals, and the speci�ic terms are typically adjusted to best �it given performance needs. Here, we discuss Yemm’s SMARTER goal setting guidelines and how they help create the sense of common purpose that is crucial to a team.

Speci�ic Goals should be speci�ic so all members clearly understand them. An effective manager knows that poorly understood goals are less likely to be achieved. Breaking down the team’s overall purpose and performance challenge into speci�ic performance goals serves several purposes:

It provides an immediate framework for the initial norming, role-selection, information-processing, and problem- solving phases. It helps develop meaningful common purpose and cohesion by opening communication and constructive con�lict, as members collectively determine clear and speci�ic goals and reexamine these as per the team purpose. It establishes an accessible jumping-off point to develop team goals, strategies, and agendas that are related to yet distinct from the organizational directives that originally led to the team’s initiation.

Measurable Goals that are measurable, or trackable, provide tangible evidence of progress. Quantifying or measuring goals also helps maintain focus by allowing the group to see what has been accomplished and what remains to be done. A clear gauge of progress is critical to avoid ambiguity over whether the team has achieved its objectives. It also reminds members that they are both individually and mutually accountable for the team’s performance outcome.

Achievable Goals should be challenging, but achievable. The group’s level of aspiration constantly adjusts to prior successes or failures. If a group continually aspires to an unattainably high standard, they will lose morale and become disillusioned. However, if the goal is not challenging enough, members will become bored or dissatis�ied, engage in side conversations, or put forth little effort. Group members must be aware of these constraints to ensure they avoid either extreme.

Interestingly, initially failing to achieve a challenging, speci�ic objective does not necessarily hurt performance. Collectively overcoming performance obstacles is one of the best ways to encourage collaborative teamwork and further develop the group as a team. Collective challenges also tend to level members’ perceptions of each other’s external characteristics (for example, their gender, ethnicity, pay grade, or extraneous titles), allowing teammates to focus on each other’s real strengths and weaknesses. Characteristics that do not immediately affect the activities at hand become less relevant—and therefore less detrimental to team cohesion and performance.

Relevant The group must recognize that its goals and the work related to achieving them are relevant and aligned with the organization’s strategy. Speci�ic performance goals must be directly related to the team’s performance challenge and its common purpose. Most people lose interest if they do not see a reason for doing something; this directly opposes the need to feel like one’s efforts are meaningful. Irrelevant goals and busywork will decrease group focus and commitment and, consequently, its effectiveness and productivity. The most effective teams periodically check in with their purpose throughout their work. This is an ongoing purposing activity that helps members gauge and adjust the direction of their performance, the ef�icacy of their roles and tasks, and the strategic implications of their actions.

Time Related Goals should be time related. Setting a speci�ic timeline and limit in which to achieve goals keeps team members focused on attaining them. It also acts as a checkpoint for progress and mitigates team members’ tendency to overthink or overprocess a problem or solution.

Evaluate

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 23/31

Teams should be able to evaluate their progress toward goals. Effective teams do not simply set an initial agenda and approach and then follow these no matter what. Goals that are measurable provide a clear gauge of progress toward the team’s purpose. Likewise, periodic assessments of member contributions and process dynamics, and the degree to which performance products or solutions satisfy the team’s purpose, are critical for maintaining growth and adaptability.

Review/Revise Teams should review and revise their processes and goals when necessary. Once the team has evaluated its progress, process, and performance outcomes, it may (or may not) be necessary to review and revise its overall agenda, expectations, strategies, and proposed goals. Keeping this process alive throughout the team’s performance increases the quality and effectiveness of its �inal outcome.

Team building is not a �inite process. Although individual steps—such as selecting a team type and choosing members— may come up just once, certain areas require ongoing monitoring and management. For example, a team’s resource needs can continue to evolve over the course of its work; likewise, developing the team is a continuous process. The different phases and steps of team building are not necessarily handled by one person or even by one group. A manager or management group may engage in the initial planning phase but hand off the development phase and ongoing resource management to a team leader or empower the team to manage these duties internally. Regardless of who or how many people are involved, both the planning and development phases must be executed to build a working team, and ongoing processes must be continuously managed to make sure the team stays effective. Next, we’ll look at apprehension toward groups and teams that can affect our ability to effectively work together and even cause some people to avidly avoid group and team situations.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 24/31

2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

Whether we acknowledge them or not, groups and teams touch nearly every facet of our lives. We see evidence of successful groups and teams in business, sports, politics, technology, and science. Yet some people simply do not buy into the idea that groups and teams really work; in particular, they doubt that teams can be more effective than any other group or individual. Working as a team means depending on others. We relinquish sole control over our own success or failure and take responsibility for these qualities in our teammates. The potential bene�its of group work and teamwork are compelling, but it can be equally daunting to feel a loss of individual autonomy; trust others; and learn new methods of coordinating information, people, tasks, and activities. Intellectually, we may see the value of working together, but when it comes to actually joining a group or team, several objections are frequently raised:

“I’m not comfortable in groups, so I end up just being quiet and going along.” Or, “I guess I’m just a loner—I work better alone.” “Nobody in a group knows what they are doing, so I have to take control.” Or, “I end up doing all the work—I might as well have worked alone.” “Working in groups and teams is too much work, and the interactions are a waste of time.” Or, “I am more ef�icient and effective on my own.” “Teams are just a motivational concept; they are no different from any other group.” Or, “I’ve been in groups and teams—call it what you want, they’re the same thing.”

Statements like these are typically connected to several core conditions that affect our perception of and experience with group work and teamwork. In this section, we explore four root causes for apprehension and avoidance of groups and teams: (a) member attachment styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience, and (d) underdeveloped soft skills. As we address each of these in turn, we will also discuss how they can be mitigated or overcome.

Member Attachment Styles

As social beings, people have an innate need for a certain degree of relatedness. From birth, we are instinctually driven to establish and maintain attachments to the people around us (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building on seminal works by psychiatrist John Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1982), adult attachment theory proposes that individuals have inherently different attachment styles that are founded on behavioral expectations and scripts generated by early attachment experiences (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Attachment styles vary along two signi�icant dimensions (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999): attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals can be tracked on a sliding scale in each of these dimensions, from high to low.

Anxiety: High attachment anxiety is characterized by a sense of unworthiness as a group member, excessive worry over acceptance, and fear of rejection. On the �lip side, low attachment anxiety is characterized by the expectation of acceptance and approval from the group. Avoidance: High attachment avoidance is characterized by a tendency to view group relationships, intimacy, and dependence on others as unnecessary or undesirable. On the other hand, low attachment avoidance is characterized by the view that group relationships, intimacy, and interdependence are positive.

Our personal attachment style, or characteristic behavioral, cognitive, and affective orientation towards social interactions, can be found by correlating our high/low levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance on a double-axis graph (see Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Group member attachment styles

Attachment styles contribute to the extent to which an individual is willing to participate in a group or team.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 25/31

As shown in Figure 2.4, individuals may be classi�ied into four personal attachment style categories—conformist, socially anxious, secure, or loner—depending on where they fall along the two corresponding scales.

1. Loners (high attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety) tend to refuse collaboration and work individually, undermining efforts to include them in group and team work.

2. Socially anxious (high attachment avoidance/high attachment anxiety) members tend to avoid participation and engagement, assuming that their contributions are neither valuable nor necessary.

3. Conformists (low attachment avoidance/high attachment anxiety) attempt to �it in and please others by parroting or supporting popular thoughts and opinions within the group or team.

4. Secure (low attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety) members assume that their participation and contributions are valuable to the group or team—and they are right.

True loners are rare, but if an individual sincerely refuses to work with others, it may be best to simply leave him or her alone. True loners are typically not an issue, as most are attracted to jobs or �ields in which they can work alone. More often, individuals develop loner tendencies based on previous bad experiences working in pairs, groups, or teams. If these individuals have more positive experiences, over time, more positive attachment styles may emerge.

Members with either conformist or socially anxious styles tend to undermine teamwork by not offering their own thoughts and opinions or by not participating in a truly collaborative way. In effect, they cut their own KSAs out of the collective pool, becoming nothing more than another pair of hands. These members need to be motivated to see their own contributions as uniquely valuable. Ideally, effective group and team members should be secure, as this style has the optimal potential for developing commitment, attachment, and trust between members and for motivating real and valuable contributions to group and team efforts.

Understanding the basic attachment styles can help project managers or team leaders select their team members, and identify and mitigate potential problems during performance. Being aware of member attachment styles—either through observation or personality testing—is critical for adopting strategies to deal with less desirable styles when composing groups or teams, or when managing those that already exist.

When composing groups or teams, use knowledge of member attachment styles to:

screen out individuals who exhibit loner tendencies, conformists, or the socially anxious; and support loner, conformist, or socially anxious members with others who are aware of their tendencies and willing to foster their inclusion within the group or team.

For existing groups and teams, use knowledge of member attachment styles to:

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 26/31

build awareness of individual attachment styles and how these can affect our perception of and participation in group or team interactions; notice when and how members are not fully contributing; and encourage undercontributing members to improve by facilitating and rewarding desired behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses.

Next we examine social value orientation, another area in which the way we think about and perceive interactions can affect our intentions within (and attraction to) group and team work.

Social Value Orientation

How people prioritize individual accomplishment and accountability at home or in the workplace plays a role in how they feel about group and team work. Individuals’ national and family culture, worldview, and experience interacting both cooperatively and competitively with others over time generates their social value orientation toward either an individualistic or a prosocial mindset (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000). Someone with an individualistic mindset values personal recognition and gain. In a sports team, this is the player who is always showboating, or passing up opportunities to work cooperatively in favor of personally making the score. On the other hand, someone with a prosocial mindset values working cooperatively, offering concern and support for others’ well-being, and maximizing positive outcomes for all (De Dreu et al., 2000). Even Michael Jordan, recognized by the NBA as “the greatest basketball player of all time” (“Michael Jordan,” 2016, para. 1), noted that when players are unwilling to prioritize the team’s success over their own, it only makes individual goals and accolades more dif�icult to achieve (Favale, 2013).

However, transitioning from I to we in perspective, expectation, and goal setting is not easy when someone is used to working alone. While the �ields of social psychology, organizational behavior, and business have long recognized the value of work groups and teams, most people have very little practical experience with collective coordination, group process, and mutual accountability until well into college or when they start their career. Coordinating group effort can require detailed organization of time and effort, as well as the ability to understand other people’s values and needs. When we focus only on our own accomplishment and accountability, there is no need for comprehensive script uni�ication. When we are not used to working with others, it can be dif�icult to acknowledge value in other viewpoints or ways of doing things and to be �lexible with our own. With little or no positive team experience, it can be hard to accept the idea that we must take responsibility for others’ actions and accomplishments—or lack thereof. The effort it takes to develop and maintain commitment, attachment, and trust in teams can be seen as an additional and needless burden that interferes with an individual’s time, energy, and ability to perform.

How can we address this problem? If members are having trouble transitioning from an individualistic to prosocial mentality, managers can help them by doing the following:

Foster an organizational climate that values cooperation and teamwork. Create small-scale opportunities for employees to have positive experiences with interdependence and teamwork. Limit individual rewards to verbal approval of prosocial attitudes and behaviors during group interactions, and acknowledge a member’s special contributions or skill in a private moment outside team processes. This will model appreciation for prosocial attitudes and behaviors and help team members feel individually valued and appreciated, while not creating a situation where personal praise motivates destructive competition. Establish desirable group rewards and tie individual motivation to these by letting members know that working effectively as a team raises their value as individual employees.

Next we look at how past negative experience with groups and teams can in�luence our understanding of how they work, our expectations for productive outcomes, and our desire to join them.

Lack of Positive Team Experience

We all have a unique patchwork of experiences that drive our emotional and psychological expectations for future activities and interactions. In fact, an individual’s past experiences with groups and teams can be one of the most persistent obstacles to team development. Many negative opinions of and objections to group work and teamwork are supported by previous experiences that were poor, unrewarding, or unproductive, in which the outcome failed to meet

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 27/31

expectations. Teams are particularly vulnerable to judgments based on bad experiences because inexperienced team members or team builders are often misinformed about what constitutes a true team, the processes that support or impair team development and functioning, and the need to continuously monitor and manage these processes.

Becoming a real team is a complex process that cannot be completely de�ined or controlled by a simple formula. It depends on generating enough commitment, attachment, and trust to fuel willing and active participation, collaboration, and belief in the team itself. Socioemotional interdependence can be encouraged by facilitating certain activities and processes, but it is not guaranteed and cannot be forced. If we have never experienced a team that functions effectively, teams may seem to offer nothing more than unnecessary and unproductive interactions or meaningless motivational labels. Unaware that these were failed teams, these experiences can rewrite our concept of and expectations for teams and teamwork. Even positive group or work group experiences can seem to support this outlook, since the term team is often misapplied to groups or group activities.

Lack of positive team experience is a major obstacle to team development. If an individual resists or refuses to join a team, managers can retrain his or her expectations by doing the following:

Foster a climate of cooperation. Like teamwork, a climate of cooperation and the values that contribute to it are not exclusive to teams. Many managers are �inding that a working environment based in the values of teamwork is conducive to employee satisfaction, motivation, and effectiveness, whether they are working individually, in groups, or in teams. Create opportunities for small, temporary interdependence and teamwork. People learn from experience. Whether team members lack positive team experience because they have no experience working in teams or because of previous negative experience, setting up conditions for creating new and positive experience can be an effective way to retrain expectations.

Fostering a climate of cooperation and creating opportunities for small, temporary interdependence and teamwork can facilitate employee commitment, attachment, and trust within the organization, with managers, and between fellow employees. Small cooperative or collaborative interactions can also help employees develop soft skills that enhance interpersonal relations and teamwork. Underdeveloped soft skills, which we discuss next, are another source of group or team apprehension.

Underdeveloped Soft Skills

Repetition and practice helps us get better at working effectively with others, just as maintaining a weight-lifting routine can increase muscle tone and mass over time. When we consistently interact and work with others, we �lex and build our existing soft skills. Ironically, soft skills are often far more dif�icult to learn and strategically apply than their harder counterparts. Discomfort with group interactions and the tendency to either withdraw or dominate can be related to individual personality and attachment styles; however, these reactions are often caused by a lack of well-developed soft skills in group interactions and a lack of experience with functioning groups and teams. These are both common results of growing up in an environment that stressed individual rewards and accountability. Given the prevalence of groups and teams in the workplace, as well as group interactions in our own lives and in the world at large, group- and team-oriented soft skills are critical to achieving and sustaining a satisfying and successful life.

Lacking soft skills tends to cause or exacerbate misunderstanding, con�lict, and dysfunctional dynamics between team members. Shyness or discomfort in groups can often be overcome through conscious practice and positive interactions. Some team members have a tendency to take control and perceive themselves as solely responsible for keeping the team on track and accomplishing its work—even if it means working alone. Dominating the team in this fashion is just as indicative of a lack of team experience and soft skills as is the tendency to submit and withdraw. Neither behavior contributes to the formation of an actual team. However, one does not need to perfect one’s soft skills prior to joining a team.

A functioning team is more likely to emerge when its members have experience in teamwork and possess interpersonal skills. However, few teams are composed of members with all of the necessary soft (or hard) skills for collaborative performance (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Most team members grow together and learn along the way. Team process and performance both requires and supports the development of relevant soft skills such as effective communication, viewpoint sharing, constructive con�lict and criticism, active listening, power sharing, self-management, negotiation, and

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 28/31

compromise. As long as some soft skills exist within the team, these skills and others will continue to develop with each team activity. Managers can avoid having a team with underdeveloped soft skills by carefully considering both hard and soft skills when selecting members.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 29/31

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

Organizational groups and teams do not just materialize as effective work units—their development must be carefully planned and coordinated. Cohesion, its related elements, and their effects on interpersonal and operational dynamics have been a common thread throughout our discussion of group development and team building, and will continue to be important throughout this text. As we’ve seen, cohesion depends on many factors within the team. Members bring certain expectations and qualities into the team setting, and these profoundly affect their ability to interact and effectively work together. Much depends upon how members interrelate and integrate their diverse experience, perspectives, and KSAs. Chapter 3 examines this vital aspect of group and team work, with a focus on interpersonal skills and communication.

Chapter Summary Developing group cohesion and shared scripts is the core purpose of the forming, storming, and norming stages. Group members and managers should therefore focus on supporting these processes before initiating the performing stage. Support for group cohesion and shared scripts can include the following:

Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive con�lict, knowledge sharing, and member feedback Acknowledging the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire group is dissolving or individual members are moving on Encouraging new and established members to view socialization and resocialization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity to reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new KSAs

Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guideposts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynamics, and performance input.

The �irst meeting creates a template for phase one interactions. The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change.

Practical implications of the TEAM model represent the combined knowledge and implications of Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s study and the theories contributing to their model of group development. Team building consists of two parts: planning and developing the team. Team skills generally fall into four basic categories: hard, soft, critical thinking, and creative problem solving. Team resources include human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial elements that satisfy four basic functions:

1. Assist and support goal accomplishment. 2. Address speci�ic performance demands. 3. Encourage cohesion and member well-being. 4. Support the team’s effective functioning.

Psychological well-being depends on the satisfaction of three innate needs: autonomy, ef�icacy, and relatedness. The basic guidelines for selecting team membership suggest minimizing team size while maximizing skill potential by selecting members with relevant and complementary skills. Maximizing skill potential requires:

selecting members based on relevant KSAs and members’ potential for expanding these and developing new KSAs, and balancing the bene�its of diversity with its potentially negative issues and fostering members’ development of useful KSAs.

Developing a team involves facilitating the development of cohesion by fostering commitment, attachment, and trust. Collective input into the team’s tasks and goals, and the approach for accomplishing them, is integral to developing attachment, trust, and commitment to a common purpose. SMARTER goals are useful for developing effective performance goals and enhancing team performance. Team members are de�ined by:

their participation in team activities and processes; their input into team strategy, problem solving, and decision making; and the value they place on contributing and supporting the contributions of others.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 30/31

Major sources of objections to group work and teamwork include: (a) member attachment styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience, and (d) underdeveloped soft skills.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Consider some of the groups you have belonged to. Using either Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, Gersick’s

punctuated equilibrium theory, or the TEAM model, describe your own experience with the group development process.

2. Both Chapters 1 and 2 correlate teams with collaborative performance. Clearly this is a de�initive point. Using what you learned from Chapter 2, explain the signi�icance of collaborative performance on team development. Relate this to critical developmental factors such as commitment, attachment, and trust, and explain how it helps avoid major obstacles to team development.

3. Using the SMARTER goal attributes, explain why the following statement is true: “Performance goals provide a vision with which to motivate members and act as tangible milestones that mark team progress and setbacks. They also provide rallying points around which members can develop commitment and enthusiasm.”

Additional Resources Links

Five Easy Ways to Kill Your Team’s Motivation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/02/25/�ive-easy- ways-to-kill-your-teams-motivation/#5d6a5ee85c15 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/02/25/�ive- easy-ways-to-kill-your-teams-motivation/#5d6a5ee85c15) Building High-Performance Teams Takes More Than Talent: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscancialosi/2015/05/11/building-high-performance-teams-takes- more-than-talent/#4d708c553c33 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscancialosi/2015/05/11/building-high- performance-teams-takes-more-than-talent/#4d708c553c33) Three Management Strategies You Can Use Today for Higher Team Performance: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinready/2016/02/02/three-management-strategies-you-can-use- today-for-higher-team-performance/#5101c533570e (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinready/2016/02/02/three-management-strategies-you-can-use-today-for-higher-team- performance/#5101c533570e) 12 Leadership Behaviors That Build Team Trust: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2015/12/01/12-leadership-behaviors-that-build-team- trust/#4914377f5220 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2015/12/01/12-leadership-behaviors-that- build-team-trust/#4914377f5220) A Dozen Team-Building Tips Inspired by a Great War Film: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2014/03/03/a-dozen-team-building-tips-inspired-by-a- great-war-�ilm/#76a629bd68ec (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2014/03/03/a-dozen-team-building- tips-inspired-by-a-great-war-�ilm/#76a629bd68ec) Why Your Team Is Not the Same as Teamwork: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jef�boss/2016/03/03/why- your-team-is-not-the-same-as-teamwork/#7dd803692c5c (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jef�boss/2016/03/03/why-your-team-is-not-the-same-as-teamwork/#7dd803692c5c)

Video Build a Tower, Build a Team: http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower (http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower)

Key Terms

adult attachment theory

attachment

climate of cooperation

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-12,navpoint-13,navpoint-14,navpoint-15,navpoint-16,navpoint-17&content=all… 31/31

commitment

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory

human resources

individualistic mindset

interpersonal cohesion

mental model

organizational resources

performance goals

personal attachment style

physical resources

positive interdependence

procedural justice theory

prosocial mindset

psychosocial resources

script uni�ication

scripts

SMART goals

social value orientation

socialization

status balancing

task cohesion

team ef�icacy

team evaluation and maturation (TEAM) model

team morale

team potency

team resources

trust

Tuckman’s sequential stage theory