I need a theory on this study and new references Review of the Case Study In th

WRITE MY ESSAY

I need a theory on this study and new references
Review of the Case Study In the NYC Department of Education, a School Business Manager has identified a pressing issue of trust deficit among team members. This issue is a hurdle and a critical barrier that significantly impairs collaboration and efficiency. The problem has led to detrimental behaviors such as information withholding, conflict avoidance, and low engagement and commitment to shared goals. The team’s inability to function cohesively has resulted in missed deadlines, decreased productivity, and frustration among members. Summary of the Primary Issues The primary issues stem from a fundamental lack of trust, which creates an environment where team members are hesitant to share information or engage in constructive conflict. This has led to poor collaboration and a noticeable decline in team morale, significantly impacting performance. The absence of trust has made it difficult for the team to commit to decisions, hold each other accountable, or focus on collective results. Purpose of the Case Study This case study thoroughly analyzes the team’s current issues, focusing on understanding the root causes of the lack of trust and its impact on team dynamics. By examining these challenges through the Tuckman Team Development Model lens, this study aims to propose practical solutions that can significantly enhance trust, improve collaboration, and lead to a more effective and cohesive team. II. Background Team Composition and Structure The team comprises key roles essential to the school’s functioning, including the School Business Manager, school administrators, department (subject) chairs, guidance counselors, social workers, support staff, and secretaries. Each member brings unique expertise and responsibilities: 2 / 9
· School Business Manager: Oversees financial operations, procurement, and resource allocation, ensuring the efficient management of school funds and assets. · School Administrators: Oversee overall operations, strategic planning, and policy implementation. · Department Chairs: Lead specific academic departments, coordinate curriculum development, and support faculty members. · Guidance Counselors: Provide academic, career, and personal counseling to students, facilitating their overall development. · Social Workers: Address students’ social and emotional needs, providing critical mental health and wellbeing support. · Secretaries and Support Staff (IT et al.): Manage administrative tasks, maintain records, and support daily operations. The current team structure involves a hierarchical reporting system: School business managers and department chairs report to school administrators, guidance counselors and social workers report to their respective leads, and secretaries support various departments under the guidance of department chairs and administrators. Current Challenges The team faces several significant challenges, primarily revolving around the lack of trust: · Withholding Information: Team members often hold back crucial information, fearing negative consequences or mistrust from colleagues. This has led to fragmented knowledge and inefficiencies in decision-making. · Avoiding Conflict: Due to the lack of trust, team members avoid engaging in necessary conflicts. This avoidance results in unresolved issues festering, which hampers progress and innovation. · Low Engagement and Commitment: The lack of a trusting environment has led to disengagement, with team members showing minimal commitment to shared goals. This is evident in missed deadlines, incomplete tasks, and a general lack of enthusiasm for collaborative projects. 3 / 9
Specific Example One specific example of the challenges faced by the team involved implementing a new student information system. The school business manager, who was responsible for overseeing the financial aspects of the project, needed timely updates from various departments to allocate resources effectively and ensure the project stayed within budget. However, due to a lack of trust, department chairs were reluctant to share progress reports and encountered issues until they were too significant to address quickly. During a crucial project phase, the IT department discovered a major integration issue that required immediate attention. Instead of reporting the problem promptly, the IT team attempted to resolve it internally, fearing criticism from other departments. This delay in communication resulted in a significant setback, pushing the project timeline back by several weeks and increasing costs due to last-minute troubleshooting and additional resource allocation. When the issue was finally brought to light in team meetings, there was visible tension and blame-shifting among team members. The reluctance to engage in open and honest discussions prevented the team from effectively addressing the root cause of the problem. As a result, the team struggled to find a cohesive solution, further exacerbating frustration and eroding trust among members. III. Analysis of Current Issues- Based on scenario details, Ex. The lack of cohesion within the team, as seen in the example of implementing the new student information system, has significantly impacted the team’s performance and project outcomes. 1. Delayed Progress: The reluctance to share crucial information and promptly communicate issues has resulted in project progress delays. In the case of the integration issue discovered by the IT department, the delay in reporting it led to a setback in the project timeline and increased costs. 2. Unresolved Issues: Avoiding conflicts and the reluctance to engage in open and honest discussions have led to unresolved issues festering within the team. This lack of communication hampers the team’s ability to address the root causes of problems and find cohesive solutions. 4 / 9
3. Lack of Trust: The team’s overall lack of trust has resulted in disengagement, low commitment, and a lack of enthusiasm for collaborative projects. This affects the team’s ability to work together effectively towards shared goals. Possible reasons for the lack of cohesion within the team include: 1. Fear of Consequences: Team members may withhold information or avoid conflicts out of fear of negative consequences, such as criticism or blame from colleagues. 2. Lack of Trust: Past experiences of betrayal or lack of support from team members may have eroded trust within the team, leading to a reluctance to share information or engage in open discussions. 3. Communication Barriers: Ineffective communication channels or a lack of proper communication processes within the team may hinder information sharing and conflict resolution. 4. Leadership Issues: A lack of solid leadership or guidance within the team may contribute to the lack of cohesion and trust among team members. To address these challenges and improve cohesion within the team, the team needs to build trust, promote open communication, and foster a culture of collaboration and support. This may involve team-building activities, conflict resolution training, establishing clear communication channels, and providing leadership support to facilitate better team dynamics. III. Analysis of Current Issues Lack of Cohesion The lack of cohesion is a significant issue in the team, negatively impacting team performance and project outcomes. Cohesion is a fundamental pillar in a team that represents how together the team is and how effective it can be in achieving its role. A core aspect of an effective team is proper communication between the team leader and the members. Communication ensures that everyone in the team understands the vision and direction they need to pursue (Folkman, 2016). Looking at the team, it is evident that it lacks cohesion, which, in effect, ensures that there is no communication even when it is urgently required to solve a pressing matter. The apparent lack of cohesion, which has impeded communication, has further ensured that the team is highly 5 / 9
dysfunctional, and even when there is communication, it is characterized by shifting blame instead of working together toward addressing the issue and finding a lasting solution. Various possible reasons may have resulted in the lack of cohesion within the team. One of the issues is the evident lack of trust, which has impeded the ability of the team to work together toward achieving a common goal. The lack of trust is a genesis for animosity in the team, where the members cannot share the burden of desiring to achieve a common goal. The lack of proper communication skills among the team members can also be one of the reasons for the lack of cohesion. Ideally, the members cannot seem to share their thoughts openly and prefer to remain mute even when things are getting out of hand. Effective communication is not just a tool but necessary for the team to function at its best. Having the courage to share one’s mind openly is an important act of effective communication that can help the team to work effectively (McCreary, 2024). Therefore, developing effective communication skills appears to be a significant step towards ensuring the team works effectively. IV. Tuckman Team Development Model Overview of the Model Tuckman’s model has become the most widely used and recognized model in organizational literature for great reason (Bonebright, 2010). The model, which has been in use for almost 60 years, has provided understanding as to why events are occurring within groups and provides predictability for managers and leaders across organizations. Furthermore, due to the widespread acceptance of the model, it provided the first form of common language for group work in the business world. Although the model initially did not contain the names “Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing”, Tuckman’s model always consisted of four stages that needed to be properly navigated (Bonebright, 2010). Over ten years later, in 1977, a fifth stage was added, “Adjourning”. However, for the sake of this case study, only the original four stages will be included. Brief explanation of the four stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Tuckman proposed that there are four stages that must be completed for a group to function properly. The first stage is “Forming”. In the forming stage, group members orient themselves to the task and to each other. In the forming stage, ground rules are usually set and norms are 6 / 9
beginning to form. The second stage is “Storming”. In the storming stage, conflict tends to arise due to a lack of trust and unity and that causes some members to resist forming relationships. Group members are likely to resist change in this stage and may even have emotional outbursts (Bonebright, 2010). The third stage is “Norming”. In the norming stage, cohesion, roles, and norms form. The group will now implement methods to avoid conflict to ensure harmony and share ideas. The final stage is performing. In the performing stage, the group is operationally and functionally effective (Bonebright, 2010). At this junction, team roles enhance the tasks and their energy is devoted to the success of the group. Application of the Model to the Current Team and Identifying the Team’s Current Stage The team is currently stuck in the “Storming” stage. The lack of trust and unity in the group is causing constant setbacks such as low engagement and missed deadlines. It is apparent that the team has surpassed the “Forming” stage. In the forming stage, the NYC Department of Education team was getting to know each other as well as the ground rules for the group. In the forming stage, concepts such as meeting etiquette, due dates, and general formalities were being exchanged. The group has not elevated to the “Norming” stage yet because of their unwillingness to share ideas and information. Additionally, the group refuses to share common goals, collaborate, or participate in healthy conflict; all of which is normal in the norming stage. V. Proposed Solutions Forming Stage Implementing structured team-building activities and workshops that focus on trust and open communication is crucial to improving initial team bonding and setting clear objectives. Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and goals from the outset will help create a shared understanding and alignment among team members (De Meuse & Liebowitz, 1981). Regular meetings should be scheduled to provide a platform for members to express their concerns, share information, and offer support, fostering an environment of transparency and collaboration. 7 / 9
Storming Stage Conflicts and differences in opinions are natural during the storming stage. Creating a safe space for team members to express their views and engage in constructive conflict resolution is essential. Implementing conflict resolution training and promoting a culture of psychological safety will help team members feel comfortable addressing issues directly (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Encouraging open dialogue and actively listening to each other will help build trust and understanding within the team. Norming Stage In the norming stage, the focus should be reinforcing positive behaviors and solidifying team norms (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Recognizing and rewarding collaborative efforts and successes will encourage continued cooperation. Regular feedback sessions should be held to assess team dynamics and promptly address emerging issues. Establishing clear communication channels and protocols will help streamline information-sharing and decision-making processes. Performing Stage In the performing stage, the team should focus on achieving high performance and maintaining a cohesive working environment. Continuous improvement practices, such as regular team reviews and reflective sessions, will help identify areas for enhancement and ensure sustained productivity. Providing ongoing support and development opportunities will keep team members engaged and motivated. Celebrating milestones and successes will strengthen team bonds and commitment to shared goals. 8 / 9
References Bookboon. (n.d.). Teambuilding: Threats to Teamwork. Retrieved from Teambuilding PWC. (n.d.). Project Management and IT Project Failures. Retrieved from PWC Bonebright, Denise A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099 De Meuse, K. P., & Liebowitz, S. J. (1981). An empirical analysis of team-building effectiveness. Human Relations, 34(3), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678103400301 Folkman, J. (2016). 5 Ways To Build A High-Performance Team. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joefolkman/2016/04/13/are-you-on-the-team-from-hell-5-ways-to-create-a-high-performance-team/?sh=396ab53c7ee2 Hunt, J. (2017). Can We Fix Dysfunctional Teams? LeaderShift Perspectives. Retrieved from LeaderShift Perspectives Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453 McCreary, G. (2024, April 21). How to develop good communication skills (with pictures). wikiHow. Retrieved July 15, 2024, from https://www.wikihow.com/Develop-Good-Communication-Skills 9 / 9
McManus, P. (2014). 3 Types Of Dysfunctional Teams And How To Fix Them. Fast Company. Retrieved from Fast Company Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404

WRITE MY ESSAY