Case Study: Building a Coalition Essay

The first goal of stage three is to solidify positive relationships between members. The second goal is to engage in more mature negotiations about group roles and organizational procedures. Once the three are stages are worked through the n the fourth stage, Work (Wheelan, 2013), can be accomplished. Wheelan (2013) identifies the fourth stage as a time of intense team productivity and effectiveness. This is the stage that is the result of creating the effective team. Once the four stages have been identified and understood, Wheelan (2013) goes on to elaborate on how a group leader can keep the team effective. Wheelan (2013) speaks of 10 keys to productivity (goals, roles, interdependence, leadership, communication and feedback, [discussion, decision making and planning], implementation and evaluation, norms and individual differences, structure, cooperation and conflict management). Wheelan (2013) also shares the ways that group members become effective team members (don’t blame others, support the leader, promote effective problem-solving, etc…) as well as how a leader can be an effective team leader (be direct and confident, involve members in leadership, adjust your leadership style to the group, etc…). Finally, Wheelan (2013) highlights effective organizational support for teams, which includes an organization support checklist.

The forming stage is characterized by dependency, and need for acceptance and guidance. In this stage the "meet and greet" is done. During the meet and greet each member gathers information that will determine the strength of potential relationships amongst group members, as well as establish group hierarchy. Generally, in this stage the leader of group is selected. The group leader has a tendency to be someone that is viewed as stable and

The forming and orientation stage of the group is the initial step of getting the group started. Gladding (2012) outlines seven steps that make up the forming stage of group development. First, one must develop a basis for the group.

Similar to Tuckman’s five stages of group development is Corey and Corey, they claim that the first stage; Pregroup is “setting expectations, establishing group rules and procedures, role preparation and skills building” (Corey, Corey, Corey 2010 p123). The group did well in this stage, as the group was given a very clear aim, we discussed each members skill sets and while preparing a group contract with our aims objectives and rules. A group contract is a very useful facilitation tool as it sets out very clear guidelines for the group and defines what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour for the group members (Tuckman 1965). The group members were able to gain clarity from the group contract, allowing them to identify the norms and boundaries of the group. For example our group decided that if a member were for any reason not be able to attend a meeting they would have to let the team know in advance, if this did happen the rest of the team would relay the information via email to the missing group member.

Assessment of the stage of the group’s development. (Use Garland, Jones, Kolodny’s Five Stage Model of Group Development). Cite examples to support your assessment.

The five stages of developing groups is an important part of the position. In many cases it is the relationships that a person will have with other individuals who will determine the best members to put into the different groups. As well, the different skill sets that individuals have are also an important part in placing group members together. The observation of the first groups placed together will be a good gauge in learning how some of the individuals work and observing how others work well together. The group size should be eight to 10 people to facilitate greater ease of equal participation among the individuals.

Wheelan (2013) provides many good examples of what to do in certain circumstances that deal with safety and inclusion, conflict resolution, identifying roles and responsibilities, and fostering esprit de corps during group development. In addition, she identifies the positive traits that should be displayed by both team members and team leaders alike such as involving other members in the leadership of the group and actively participating in achieving objectives.

For example both the YAM and PTV groups I had experience with were set up to encourage social interaction and personal development. Having an awareness of group stage theory enabled my colleagues and myself to structure the early encounters for the groups to be;

Tuckman (1965) proposed that when developing teams, groups proceed through four general stages of development, namely: Forming, storming, norming and performing.

Bruce Tuckman suggests that there are four stages of team development; Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. At the forming stage, the team needs to mature and allow relationships to establish. Everyone’s position is currently unclear so the leader must be ready to answer questions and give a lot of guidance. The storming stage is where goals need to be set. At this stage each team member is trying to establish themselves within the group however this can cause friction and power struggles. Emotional issues need to be ignored in order to achieve goals. At the norming stage, the team members are clear on what their role within the group contains. They’ve gained respect for their leader and other members in the group and make decisions together.

During the forming stage, the group takes considerable direction from the group’s leader, as the roles of the other team members are yet to be defined. Members of this group have their guard up, are on their best behavior and/or feeling anxious or nervous.

The team is assembled and the task is allocated. Team members behave independently, with anxieties about inclusion and exclusion. Their time is spent planning, collecting information and bonding, with an apparent willingness to conform. This can happen whenever new circumstances occur within a group, or when new challenges or projects are set within established

Work Team development is a dynamic and often difficult process. Most teams find themselves in a continuos state of change and development. Eventhough, most teams never reach full stability, there is a general pattern that describes how most teams evolve. There are five stages of team development, the first stage is forming. In this stage there is a great deal of uncertainty about the teams purpose, structure and leadership. Members are testing the the waters to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable. This stage is complete when members began to think of themselves as part of the team. The second stage is called storming. In this stage there is much intragroup conflict.Team members accept the existence of the team, but there is resistance to the control that the team imposes on individuality. Conflict can arise from numerous sources within the team setting but generally falls into three categories:communication, factors, structural factors and personal factors (Varney, 1989/Townsley). In addition, there is conflict over who will control the team.

Stage 2: During this stage, the team competes for status and approval of their individual ideas. Again, due to the familiarity of each other, the team members did not have incidents of competition or need to project personal prestige. They were well-aware of the individuals who felt the need to be in control and be the leader of the group. The group personalities were well-balanced and efficient; allowing for a give and take relationship.

The secondary problem that the foundation faces is the conflict on the way the members think it should be done. The school district members want the control to be in their hands because they know their students well and understand what would and wouldn’t work for them while the parents what to also have control because they too believe they know what is best for their children. When it was concluded that the development team was going to have representatives from all parties be part of the group, the Woodson Foundation should have made it a point to understand the existing conflicts between them as school districts and PTAs always have conflicts on how things should be done, that would help eliminate the secondary problem by reducing the role of one of its members. For the primary problem, the foundation needs to speak to the parties involved and explain to them the importance of what it does and explain why what they are doing and how they do it is the best option. They need to also speak to the school district to help understand where their priorities stand and how willing they are to break from some of their existing cultures and then develop a plan from there. The resolution to any