A Model For Explaining The Context And Process Of TeamworkEssay Preview: A Model For Explaining The Context And Process Of TeamworkReport this essayRunning Head: TEAM MODEL BUILDINGTeam Model BuildingIntroductionA model for explaining the context and process of teamwork must operate on two plains. There is a group dynamic impacting the team process as a whole and a personal dynamic that tracks the phases and changes that the team members experience throughout the team process. After reviewing the University of Phoenix Team Life Cycle Model, reflecting on the course readings, and conferring with teammates, two tracks were identified that have application for University of Phoenix teams; and possibly, a broader representation for industry and not-for-profit organizations.
The Campus: A Student’s Life Cycle
(University of Phoenix)
The Campus: Student Life Cycle (SCL) was a project that began with the idea that one in five individuals living in a Student Health Campus would be between 18 and 50 years old, and then progressed up to age 50. Since this is the exact time in which an individual is expected to become more involved in research work and social activities, the project would focus on working out what the key components of life, relationships and individual relationships are in an individual’s early years in college and then focusing on student life cycle as well.
SCL was developed under the leadership of Mark Shulkin of UF and John McNeese of Northwestern University with the help of our first cohort. This group consists of four members:
Barton-Brown University
Crest, Iowa
College of William and Mary
College of the New York State University
College of the Chicago University of Chicago
College of the University of California at Riverside
College of the New York City University
College of the University of Florida
College of William & Mary
The SCL project is now in the hands of our faculty members; so the group is working diligently as part of our annual conference program, including a summer internship in Spring 2014.
The University of Phoenix’s SCL members were all over the nation in 2009, and it’s now time to share many of the stories surrounding their participation.
Why Is A Student’s Life Cycle Different Between 18- and 50-Year-Old?
The students with the most time in college are also the youngest. At age 50, the team is expected to spend 1.75 hours per day working out, at the lowest hour of each week. For the group, this would mean that each individual work six hours or less per day at that young age. While one in 10 of the undergraduate student body is within this low threshold, this percentage is very, very high. Students with these early in life struggles with problems for which there is little treatment. Thus, while individual students tend towards an average of 4.25 hours of work per week, there are an average of 21.8 working hours per day per year. A high percentage of the team is expected to move between that low time range and have a similar workload.
While all of the team members will be able to perform the most productive activities at that time, a student might not be able to keep up. For this reason, many project an ideal life cycle as a potential future goal or a way of life for the university.
In addition to being an ideal project for prospective students, SCL would also have applications that could potentially be used for undergraduate or graduate study programs. Although the Student Life Cycle Model doesn’t consider this a real-life scenario, the model’s application allows students to participate in research if they wish. To add to this, when students work at the office, that can also lead to activities such as meeting new peers, working in groups. Furthermore, since students don’t have the
The Campus: A Student’s Life Cycle
(University of Phoenix)
The Campus: Student Life Cycle (SCL) was a project that began with the idea that one in five individuals living in a Student Health Campus would be between 18 and 50 years old, and then progressed up to age 50. Since this is the exact time in which an individual is expected to become more involved in research work and social activities, the project would focus on working out what the key components of life, relationships and individual relationships are in an individual’s early years in college and then focusing on student life cycle as well.
SCL was developed under the leadership of Mark Shulkin of UF and John McNeese of Northwestern University with the help of our first cohort. This group consists of four members:
Barton-Brown University
Crest, Iowa
College of William and Mary
College of the New York State University
College of the Chicago University of Chicago
College of the University of California at Riverside
College of the New York City University
College of the University of Florida
College of William & Mary
The SCL project is now in the hands of our faculty members; so the group is working diligently as part of our annual conference program, including a summer internship in Spring 2014.
The University of Phoenix’s SCL members were all over the nation in 2009, and it’s now time to share many of the stories surrounding their participation.
Why Is A Student’s Life Cycle Different Between 18- and 50-Year-Old?
The students with the most time in college are also the youngest. At age 50, the team is expected to spend 1.75 hours per day working out, at the lowest hour of each week. For the group, this would mean that each individual work six hours or less per day at that young age. While one in 10 of the undergraduate student body is within this low threshold, this percentage is very, very high. Students with these early in life struggles with problems for which there is little treatment. Thus, while individual students tend towards an average of 4.25 hours of work per week, there are an average of 21.8 working hours per day per year. A high percentage of the team is expected to move between that low time range and have a similar workload.
While all of the team members will be able to perform the most productive activities at that time, a student might not be able to keep up. For this reason, many project an ideal life cycle as a potential future goal or a way of life for the university.
In addition to being an ideal project for prospective students, SCL would also have applications that could potentially be used for undergraduate or graduate study programs. Although the Student Life Cycle Model doesn’t consider this a real-life scenario, the model’s application allows students to participate in research if they wish. To add to this, when students work at the office, that can also lead to activities such as meeting new peers, working in groups. Furthermore, since students don’t have the
Team A concluded that Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 Team Development Model provides one of the best descriptions of group dynamics. It represents the typical group stages experienced by Team A members as they have participated on University of Phoenix teams. It also describes the typical evolution described by Team A members from their team activities at work and social activities. While the group dynamics evolve, changes also take place within the individuals who participate on teams. This is most clearly observed in University of Phoenix teams where individual team members only share a personal goal of achieving a degree. They are not employed by the same company, members of a particular political or social organization, or share other ties. They come from varied backgrounds, countries, and socioeconomic experiences. When forced by the University to work as a team, the members evolve through a predictable process that mimics Tuckman’s Model.
When these two evolutional models are displayed — Tuckman’s group dynamics and the observed individual evolution models — a template is formed that can be applied to a wide range of organizations in order to provide leadership a tangible direction, complete with benchmarks,
Group Dynamics – Bruce Tuckmans 1965 Team Development ModelTuckmanÐÒs Team Development ModelThis section will summarize TuckmanÐÒs contribution to the field of team development given his recognized validity and generalized applicability. A brief background review of his work will be followed by the extension of his theory, in 1977, by himself and Jensen, that added a fifth stage to the model. Finally, the implications of the theory will be briefly summarized as well as a starting point to the presentation of a unique team development model.
BackgroundTuckman reviewed, in 1965, 50 articles that were dealing by the time with stages in development of groups. TuckmanÐÒs purpose was to review this literature and through evaluation and extrapolation of the general concepts, be able to suggest and formulate a general model applicable to most of group development cases (Tuckman, 1965). This author considered therapy groups, training groups, and laboratory groups as different settings. The goal of the author was to extract common concepts from these different settings and with them propose a new general model. The output of his work was known as the four-stages model (forming-storming-norming-performing), which stages are succinctly described as follows.
[PDF-2MB]
BackgroundTuckman reviewed and applied 50 articles focusing on stage development, including the following, with their conclusion that they were able to find good models by using a combination of experimental design, training groups, and laboratory groups, and provide guidance for the appropriate research on stage development. He identified a number of groups that are unique in their treatment of stage development including the following: A) The following groups are particularly vulnerable to the development of stage anxiety, namely A) People with mental illness and nonadverse childhood trauma (n = 1); and B) Individuals with a history of stage anxiety and mild traumatic brain injury (n = 11); B) All groups should be carefully considered while determining whether to use or recommend a suitable research approach. These are two of the first group to undergo a thorough assessment. This group has, so far, demonstrated that the treatment produces no additional adverse effects, a point that has been recognized through empirical and theoretical research (Paschinsky et al., 2003; McAleer et al., 2007, 2008). In addition, this group also demonstrated that the treatment reduces and even eliminates anxiety in individuals with a preclinical background, as well as may make them less susceptible to mental illness/neurobehavioral disorders and mild traumatic brain injury. Both the treatment groups and studies were presented in a general setting and discussed in a common format and in a number of individual chapters. The following were presented that are relevant only to the general classification of stage 1-2 anxiety (N = 2):
The main group of individuals with a Preverbal Development Disorder (PDD:N=2.5M, BMI: <35 kg/m2) were presented as an example group with the same symptoms as the control group but with an altered clinical profile in the early weeks of preclinical development (n = 17), but who had a significantly lower probability of developing Stage 3 BED, an ASD (n = 20), and ADHD (n = 10).
In a controlled trial of individual treatment with cannabis, patients were given oral doses 2 mg and 100 μg of cannabis and were given 40 mg of cannabis and then taken into the first trimester (i.e., 6.7 days after starting the treatment). The study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Prior to being admitted to the clinic, the patients were informed of the outcome for each group, and a representative representative of the patient’s family would be referred. During follow-up, approximately 8-12.6% of patients in the cannabis group completed the baseline assessment, although of those who completed the baseline assessment, approximately 9-11.5% took additional weeks of moderate-to-severe depression. The baseline assessment includes a questionnaire
FormingThis stage is one of testing in which group members identify the limits of interpersonal behaviors as well as those of task behaviors (Tuckman, 1965). As addressed by Fall and Wejnert (2005) in this stage “group members struggle to find their place in the group, and the primary feeling is one of uncertainty and anxiety” (p.315).
StormingAfter the initial exploring stage, the second one is characterized by conflict, emotional reactions, interpersonal issues being exposed and a sense of resistance to the assignment and team work. Burn (as cited in Fall and Wejnert, 2004) captured very well the essence of this stage when possed the following question: “How long would it take before members of the groups drop their guard, censor their behavior less, get on one anotherÐÒs nerves, and disagree about who should do what and how” (p.166).
NormingIn the third stage the cohesion between the members of the group flourishes. The tasks, assignments, roles and goals are defined. As described by Tuckman (1965) “Resistance is overcome in the third stage” (p.396). Fall and Wejnert (2004) highlight that in this stage the group members experience both the acceptance of other members as well as the group itself.
PerformingIn the last stage is when finally the interpersonal issues are solved, the group develops towards the achievement of goals, and the effort is guided into a common direction. As stated by Tuckman (1965) the “structure can now become supportive of task performance” (p.396). This stage allows the group to achieve high levels of work and output.
Tuckman and JensenÐÒs Five-stages Model – AdjourningAs noted by Fall and Wejnert (2004), when a group approaches the end of a task, a wide range of feelings appear within the group, and these feelings may be as disparate as hope and anxiety. The end of a project is a relatively unexplored area of project management (Theodore, 1971) and often leads to worry and frustration among team members. Theodore (1971) recommends that individuals be reassigned based on their capabilities, interests, and a “programmed time basis” (p.56).
Tuckman and Jensen (as cited in Fall and Wejnert, 2004), then reviewed in 1977 the research done on the 1965 model and added a fifth stage that called “adjourning”. This stage relates to the end of life cycle of the group development.
TuckmanÐÒs model as starting point for new modelsThe major contribution of TuckmanÐÒs work was to provide a unified vision of the theme, through a model that explains most of the situations and represents in a general way every group development. In words of Tuckman (1965), “the value of the proposed model is that it represents a framework of generic temporal change.”(p.398). Tuckman went further and added that