Teams are formed for a variety of reasons, and thus there are many kinds of teams. They can be categorized by function or by performance. For example, a “cross-functional team” combines people with diverse areas of expertise (such as mechanical, electrical, and software engineering) to all work on connected parts of the same project, while a “within-function team” is comprised of people with the same area of expertise.

Teams can also be categorized by how well they perform. Katzenbach and Smith inThe Wisdom of Teams^[1] describe 4 categories of teams based on how well they perform.

Pseudo Team:  a group of people not achieving what you would expect, based on their individual potential. They tend to work as isolated individuals rather than as a cohesive team, lacking strong communication with each other and commitment to the team’s goals. They either lack clear team processes, or do not follow them; team meetings are not productive; team members don’t feel accountable to each other; and there is little or no attempt to improve.

Potential Team: each team member performs at the level of the average team member, or maybe slightly above, developing some synergy and effective communication, but not reaching their potential as a team.

Real Team: A small number of people with complementary skills and compatible commitment levels maintain accountability to each other, their team processes, and overall goals to achieve a successful outcome through a high level of synergy.

High Performing Team: Few teams reach this level. A “high performing team” exceeds the abilities of individual team members and can accomplish far better results together than they could individually. Team members bring out the best in each other and see the interpersonal aspects of the team as just important as the tasks. Team synergy is established through strong communication, clear team processes, and commitment to the project and to each other’s continual development. Building this kind of team synergy usually happens over time (and multiple projects) and takes consistent effort and commitment.

For a team to reach this level of performance, all members need to be focused not only on the success of the project, but also on effective team dynamics as well as personal growth.  To set your team up for success, consider the following:

SIZE: You need to be able to meet and communicate regularly. Typically, smaller teams are more effective than larger ones, but that will depend on the kind of project or task you are working on.

SKILLS: team members should have adequate levels of complementary skills, and/or be willing to develop skills required to complete the project.

PURPOSE & GOALS: all team members need to feel that the project is meaningful and important, and should have some agency in defining the purpose and goals. All team members must be able to clearly articulate the goals.

PROCESSES: the team needs to have clearly stated processes and approaches to completing work that are understood by all, and that allocate work equitably and fairly to each team member.

ACCOUNTABILITY: All team members need to feel accountable to each other and to the project, and the team needs to have mechanisms in place to ensure ensure accountability and address lapses fairly.

They say “teamwork makes the dream work!” Becoming a member of a real or high performing team requires significant commitment and an understanding of team dynamics. The following sections provide some perspectives on team dynamics that are often used in professional contexts to promote strong team performance and manage crises effectively; these include the GRIP model, the Tuckman model, the Lencioni model, the DISC model, and the Thomas Kilman Conflict Management model.

GRIP Model

Richard Beckhard’s GRPI model,^[2] originally developed in 1972, has been widely adapted in sports contexts as the GRIP model (see Figure 4.1.1), outlining four interrelated components of highly effective teamwork:

Goals: everyone must fully understand and be committed to the goals of the team, and of the organization. Everyone’s goals must be aligned in order to establish trust, make progress, and achieve desired outcome.

Roles: all team members must know what part they play, what is expected, and how they will be held accountable and responsible.

Interpersonal: quality communication and collaboration require and foster trust among team members; sensitivity and flexibility needed to deal with conflict and make progress.

Processes: well-defined system for how decisions are made, how the team solves problems and addresses conflict; well-defined work flow and procedures to be followed in completing the project.

The Tuckman Team Model

“Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development,” proposed by psychologist Bruce Tuckman in 1965,^[3] is one of the most famous theories of team development. It describes four stages that teams may progress through: forming, storming, norming, and performing (a 5th stage was added later:  adjourning). The stages move from organizing your team (defining goals, choosing roles, and developing processes) to collaborating on the results you are trying to achieve.

Although the stages appear linear, in fact teams may move back and forth through these stages, depending on events that may influence the team and the communications strategies that they use. For example, a new member may be added to an already established team, which will require the team to revisit the forming stage. Some teams can also stall in a stage and never fully realize their potential. Figure 4.1.2 outlines these stages that are described in more detail below. While reading about each stage, you will note how crucial clear communication is at each stage!

.

FORMING: During the team forming stage, everyone is getting to know each other and are trying to make a good impression. A fun team-forming activity can be a good way to help get to know each other, build trust, and get to know the various strengths and weaknesses of the team members and how these might apply to the team project. This is a good time to create a set of shared expectations, guidelines, or a Team Charter, that defines how the team agrees to operate for the duration of the project. Team members usually exchange contact and scheduling information, and set up a communication channel. This is an orientation stage, on both an interpersonal and professional level, where preliminary boundaries and expectations are established.

STORMING: The storming stage is the one most often characterized by group conflict. It is the stage where the preliminary boundaries and expectations are tested as individuals learn more about each other’s motivations, commitment levels, strengths, weaknesses, ideas and strategies. This coincides with the “brainstorming” stage of the design process, in which each member contributes ideas to help define the focus and trajectory of the project. It is important to recognize that conflict at this stage can be very productive, if managed effectively (using the strategies outlined in your Team Charter). Remaining overly polite and accommodating might seem like a tempting way to avoid conflict, but this rarely results in innovative ideas and approaches. Sometimes the best ideas are forged in the fires of disagreement and animated discussion where all team members feel safe to voice their ideas. However, some teams get stuck at this stage and revert back to working individually and become a “pseudo team.”

To help get through this stage successfully, you might agree on brainstorming rules (“no bad ideas!”), use pros and cons list, designate someone as the “devil’s advocate” whose official role is to poke holes and argue against. Commit to valuing the diversity of opinions and approaches in your team (see 4.2 Managing Team Conflict for additional tips). At this stage, team members may refine their goals and roles in the project. Learning to harness the constructive potential of conflict and compromise in this stage is important to setting your team up for a successful “norming” stage where you start to really make progress.

NORMING: During the norming stage, conflicts have been largely resolved, team members have proven flexible and supportive, each team member knows their role and works on their part of the project, follows the designated team processes and guidelines, and all is going well. Sometimes, people work independently in this stage, but frequently check in with teammates to make sure workflow is efficient and effective. For example, you will want to make sure you aren’t accidentally duplicating work or developing work that is inconsistent with what other team members are doing. A teammate may become ill and unable to meet a deadline, so others agree on how to proceed. Group cohesion ensures that everyone is responsible for their task and accountable to the team; team members acknowledge and appreciate each other’s contributions. Gantt Charts or Work Plans can be very helpful in keeping everyone on track during this stage. Problems might arise at this stage if a team member has been absent and has not caught up, or if team members do not fully understand their role, team expectations, or the overall goal. If this happens, revisiting the forming or storming stage may be required.

PERFORMING: Reaching the performing stage is the goal of high-performing teams. This usually only happens when teams have worked together well on several projects, have established a synergy, and have developed systems that that make projects go smoothly and efficiently. The first time a team works together, they might not reach this stage; “performing” teams have established trust in each other, have well-defined roles and goals, and follow the strategies and processes they have chosen to achieve them. They can move quickly and efficiently, work interdependently, and understand how to best support each other when needed.

ADJOURNING:  At the end of the project, team members celebrate their achievements, express their appreciate for each other’s contributions, reflect on what they have learned, and go their separate ways. If the team has successfully established trust and synergy, this parting can be somewhat emotional (leading to what some have called a “mourning” stage).

Figure 4.1.3 ^[4] depicts the trajectory of each team member during each stage.

For an entertaining overview, watch this video on the Tuckman phases of team development, as depicted in The Fellowship of the Rings:

Lencioni Model

In his 2005 book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni, ^[5] outlines five common problems teams experience that impact their effectiveness:

Lack of trust:  if team members do not trust each other, they are unlikely to feel safe enough to speak honestly, take risks, or ask for help. A lack of trust means a low level of comfort that makes it difficult to communicate, commit, and perform effectively as a team

Fear of conflict:  avoiding conflict can lead to an artificial “peace” at the expense of progress and innovation, or it can lead to unaddressed dysfunction that undermines the team. Shifting mindset to see conflict as a normal part of teamwork can be very productive if managed effectively.

Lack of commitment:  having insufficient control or ownership of team processes and decisions can lead to a lack of commitment, where team members do not complete their assigned work, do not follow through on decisions or tasks, do not meet deadlines, and let their teammates down, ultimately affecting the success of the whole project.

Avoidance of accountability: if team members do not feel accountable to all other members of their team (rather than just the “boss”), they are less likely to care about not letting each other down.

Inattention to team results:  when team members focus on their own personal goals instead of project goals, they lose sight of the expected results that actually measure the success of the project. Not focusing on the results during the process means that no one is planning how to improve those results.

Lencioni designed a “pyramid” showing how each “dysfunction” is connected and builds upon previous ones. Figure 4.1.4 illustrates how to proactively address each of these issues, first and most importantly by establishing trust among all team members. Establishing trust is a crucial foundational step to being able to manage conflict effectively, achieve commitment, create accountability and focus on team results.

DISC Model

DISC theory, developed in 1928 by Dr. William Moulton Marston (who also, as it happens, created the Wonder Woman comic series!), has evolved into a useful model for conflict management as it predicts behaviours based on four key personality traits he originally described as Dominance, Inducement, Submission, and Compliance.^[6] The names of these four traits have been variously revised over the decades, so you might find different terms used in different contexts. The four general traits are now often described as (1) Dominance, (2) Influence/Inspiring (3) Steadiness/Supportive, and (4) Compliance/Conscientiousness (see Figure 4.1.5).

Industries often use DISC assessments in professional contexts. Having some insight into your teammates’ personality traits can help when trying to resolve conflicts. General characteristics of each trait are as follows:

Dominance

Characteristics: direct, decisive, ego-driven, problem-solver, and risk-taker; likes new challenges and freedom from routine; driven to overcome obstacles

Strengths: great organizer and time manager; challenges the status quo; innovative

Weaknesses: can be argumentative, disrespectful of authority, and overly ambitious (taking on too much); can be blunt, stubborn, and aggressive

Inspiring/Influential

Characteristics: enthusiastic, persuasive, optimistic, trusting, impulsive, charismatic, and emotional

Strengths: creative problem solver; great cheer-leader, negotiator, and peace-maker; a real “people person”

Weaknesses: more concerned with popularity than tangible results; lacks attention to detail

Steady/Supportive

Characteristics: reliable, predictable, friendly, good listener, team player, empathetic, easy-going, and altruistic.

Strengths: dependable, loyal; respects authority; has patience and empathy; good at conflict resolution; willing to compromise.

Weaknesses: resistant to change; sensitive to criticism; difficulty prioritizing

Cautious/Conscientious/Compliant

Characteristics: has high standards; values precision and accuracy; analytical and systematic; even-tempered, realistic, and logical; methodical; respect for authority

Strengths: great information gatherer/researcher; able to define situations precisely and accurately; offers realistic perspective

Weaknesses: can get bogged down in details; needs clear boundaries, procedures, and methods; difficulty accepting criticism; may avoid conflict or just “give in.” May be overly timid.

You might recognize yourself in one of these descriptions, or you might have characteristics of 2 or more “types.” Having the team consider where they might fall in this typology can help you determine roles and give you insights into how to resolve issues.

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Model

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Management model^[7] is used by Myers Briggs among others for understanding and managing conflict. This model, shown in Figure 4.1.6,  outlines 5 main conflict styles or “modes” (competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and collaborating), and places them in a matrix with two dimensions: Assertiveness (the degree to which one tries to meet their own needs) and Cooperativeness (the degree to which one tries to meet the needs of the other team members).

Each approach can have both positive and negative impacts:

Collaborating requires high level of both cooperativeness and assertiveness, but often leads to the best results. However, this may require persistence and effort for team members to successfully persuade each other and achieve consensus.

Compromising can seem a bit easier to achieve, but by definition, it “compromises” the quality of the final product. Everyone “gets a little” and everyone “gives a little;” everyone may be somewhat happy, but also a bit unhappy with the final result.

Competition can drive excellence, but within a team, keep in mind that competition usually results in “winners” and “losers” – and this does not make for a constructive team.

Accommodating can also be a useful approach if someone feels very strongly about their position and there is no harm in giving them the win. However, this should not come at the expense of something you also feel strongly about that could have really helped the team.

Avoiding conflict can sometimes be a wise choice, if the issue is a small one and the outcome does not have a significant impact. The old adages “don’t sweat the small stuff” and “pick your battles” apply here. However, in many cases, avoiding a problem will not make it go away, and indeed, it may well get worse, leading to unwanted consequences. Consider the “cost-benefit” analysis of avoiding vs engaging with the conflict to solve the problem.

Applying the Models

Clearly collaborating with others can have its challenges! But consider the pros and cons of individual vs teamwork when working on a writing-intensive project:

Ideally, students can learn a great deal from their teammates – the more diverse the team, the more opportunities to learn! For example, your teammates can help you

• develop a greater awareness of many different perspectives and approaches
• combine your different knowledge and skill levels to fill in gaps and solve problems in innovative ways
• understand the assignment expectations more fully and know if you are on track
• learn different ways of communicating ideas, needs, and concerns
• develop ways of sharing the workload equitably and efficiently
• understand how to establish trust and accountability, how to support each other without overstepping, how to give constructive feedback, and when to compromise.

Seeing first-hand how others approach the project you are working on – how they do task analysis, research, brainstorm, and plan; how they write (draft, revise, give and receive feedback, etc) – can teach you more than any lecture!