W1_Muslem_Tuckman Model of Team Development

Opportunity Statement:

This is my first blog report as part of the PTMC - PMI Prep Course that is being currently steered by Dr. Paul D. Giammalvo for a team from OPWP. Dr. Paul has instructed us to write our first blog about Bruce Tuckman model of team development. The model or ladder involves five stages; Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning [1].  

In order to assess the stage the team is in, a questionnaire [2] of 32 questions have been answered by the team for the first four stages of Tuckman model. The results are shown in the table below.

Team Members	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	Average
Forming	19	22	23	26	27	22	22	23	22	24	23	21	24	23
Storming	20	21	21	21	17	21	22	21	18	23	20	22	20	20
Norming	28	34	29	28	29	28	26	28	27	22	15	21	27	30
Performing	31	32	37	24	31	30	30	35	28	29	15	18	30	31

The results indicate that the team is in transition between norming and performing stages, although the team is newly formed. This shows that team were able to reach maturity in one week of face-to-face session. The target now is to maintain this score by adapting a specific leadership style.

Feasible Alternatives:

There are different leadership styles that can be adopted to score high in the Tuckman ladder. The coaching leader and democratic leader are two feasible options [3]. Another option is to have a combination of both styles depending on the specific needs.

Outcomes of each alternative:

Coaching Leader aims to develop team members for future, and have lasting personal skills. Whereas, democratic leader tries to encourage team members to have a say and take decisions by asking “what do you think?”.

Selection of the acceptable criteria:

 The two leadership’s styles will be assessed against the listed criteria in the table below. The criteria are developed by understanding the nature of the projects and results of the questionnaire above. Understanding practicality of leadership styles has also played a major role in developing criteria [3]. The scoring scale is from 1 to 4, from lowest to highest effectiveness.

Analysis and comparison of alternative:

The table below shows the thorough analysis that has been carried out in assessing the two styles.  It is also useful to note that most of the team members (if not all) are new to the set of projects identified under this course. In this case, democratic leadership could be more favorable than the coaching leadership or combined-style approach.

Criteria	Coaching Leader	Democratic Leader	Comments
Project Completion	4	1	Democracy is usually time consuming
Quality of Outcomes	4	2	Coaching will impose multiple layers of quality checks
Initiatives	1	4	Democracy allows team to identify new ways of doing things.
Ownership	1	4	Democracy allows team to have ownership of decision making, goals and plan.
Commitment	2	4	Ownership leads to higher commitment of team
Total	12	15

Selection of preferred alternative:

From the above analysis, the democratic leadership is the best option. This also adhere to the result of questionnaire where the team shows high confidence and efficiency in working together.

Monitoring Performance:

A new assessment might be required in week 6 of the 13-week period in order to measure the team ability to maintain this performance, and whether the preferred alternative is improving the team development.

References:

[1] PMI (2013), a Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. USA, Pennsylvania.

[2] Barkema, E & Moran, J (2013), Scoring The Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire Electronically. PDF [http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/Electronic_Tuckman.pdf].

 [3] Fast Company (2012), 6 Leadership Styles, and When You Should Use Them. Retrieved from; https://www.fastcompany.com/1838481/6-leadership-styles-and-when-you-should-use-them [06 November 2017].