Copyright © 2016 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wheelan, Susan A.
Creating effective teams : a guide for members and leaders / Susan A. Wheelan, G.D.Q. Associates,
Inc.—Fifth Edition.

pages cm

ISBN 978-1-4833-4612-0 (pbk.)

1. Teams in the workplace. I. Title.

HD66.W485 2015
658.4′022—dc23 2014024362

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

14 15 16 17 18 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
FOR INFORMATION:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: [email protected]

SAGE Publications Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
United Kingdom

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483

Acquisitions Editor: Maggie Stanley

Editorial Assistant: Nicole Mangona
Production Editor: Kelly DeRosa
Copy Editor: Rachel Keith
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Sue Irwin
Indexer: Scott Smiley
Cover Designer: Dally Verghese
Marketing Manager: Liz Thornton
 Brief Contents

Preface
About the Author

1. Why Groups?
2. Effective Organizational Support for Teams
3. From Groups to Teams: The Stages of Group Development
4. How Do High Performance Teams Function?
5. Effective Team Members
6. Effective Team Leadership
7. Navigating Stage 1
8. Surviving Stage 2
9. Reorganizing at Stage 3
10. Sustaining High Performance
11. Virtual Teams
12. Recent Research

References
Bibliography
Index
 Detailed Contents

Preface
About the Author

1. Why Groups?
Groups Have a Long History of Success
We Need Groups Every Day
Groups Increase Our Knowledge Base
When Teams Are Good, They’re Very, Very Good
Creating Effective Teams
How to Use This Book

2. Effective Organizational Support for Teams

Plant Groups in a Favorable Organizational Climate
Give Groups What They Need to Do Their Best
Pick Members Based on Their Ability to Do the Task and Their
Ability to Contribute to Group Success
Educate People for Group Participation Competence
Avoid Unsubstantiated Team Development and Consultation
Strategies
Avoid Helping Groups Too Much
Make Sure That Each Group Has Enough Autonomy to Do Its Work
but Remains Connected With the Rest of the Organization
Conduct Organizational Support Reviews Regularly
THE ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT CHECKLIST

3. From Groups to Teams: The Stages of Group Development

Stage 1: Dependency and Inclusion
 Stage 2: Counterdependency and Fighting
Stage 3: Trust and Structure
Stage 4: Work
Surviving Group Development

4. How Do High Performance Teams Function?

The Characteristics of High Performance Teams
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
TEAM PERFORMANCE CHECKLIST

5. Effective Team Members

Don’t Blame Others for Group Problems
Encourage the Process of Goal, Role, and Task Clarification
Encourage the Adoption of an Open Communication Structure in
Which All Member Input and Feedback Is Heard
Promote an Appropriate Ratio of Task Communications to
Supportive Communications
Promote the Use of Effective Problem-Solving and Decision-
Making Procedures
Encourage the Establishment of Norms That Support Productivity,
Innovation, and Freedom of Expression
 Go Along With Norms That Promote Group Effectiveness and
Productivity
Promote Group Cohesion and Cooperation
EFFECTIVE MEMBER CHECKLIST

6. Effective Team Leadership

Don’t Take On Every Leadership Assignment You Are Offered
Adjust Your Leadership Style to Meet the Developmental Needs of
the Group at a Particular Time
Leadership at Stage 1: Be a Directive and Confident Leader
Leadership at Stage 2: When Members Begin to Demand More
Participation in Running the Group, Slowly Begin to Empower
Them
Leadership at Stage 3: Involve Members in the Leadership Function
Leadership at Stage 4: Participate as an Expert Member of Your
Team
EFFECTIVE LEADER CHECKLIST

7. Navigating Stage 1
Goals of Stage 1
Concerns About Safety and Inclusion
Dependency on the Designated Leader
A Wish for Order and Structure

8. Surviving Stage 2
Goals of Stage 2
Creating a Unified Group Culture
Creating a Unified and Effective Group Structure

9. Reorganizing at Stage 3
Goals of Stage 3
Fine-Tuning Roles, Organization, and Procedures
 Solidifying Positive Relationships

10. Sustaining High Performance

Goals of Stage 4
Getting the Work Done Well
Making Decisions
Cohesion and Conflict
Maintaining High Performance

11. Virtual Teams

Video Conferences
LinkedIn
Skype
Blogging
Virtual GDQ Online Scoring Systems
Star Trek Changed the World

12. Recent Research

On Average, How Long Does the Development Process Take?
Does Group Size Affect Group Productivity?
Does Group Age in Months Affect Group Productivity?
How Do Work Groups in Different Sectors Function?
Do Leadership Teams or Membership Work Teams Function More
Effectively?
A Final Thought

References
Bibliography
Index
 PREFACE

Over the 15 years since the publication of the first edition of Creating
Effective Teams, work group research and methods to improve work groups
have continued to develop. Also, because work team members and leaders
frequently operate internationally, the world has become more connected. I
wrote this fifth edition to keep up to date with new information, such as
recent changes in work group research and the way virtual teams operate.
It is my hope that academics, human resource managers, educators,
organizational consultants, health care managers, business teams, and others
will find this edition helpful and interesting.

Acknowledgments
SAGE Publications would like to thank the following reviewers:

Stephen R. Balzac
Wentworth Institute of Technology

David Biemer
Texas State University

David S. Bright
Wright State University

Denise M. Cumberland
University of Louisville

Gloria J. Galanes
Missouri State University
Carol Schmer
University of Missouri, Kansas City

Jeff Zimmerman
Northern Kentucky University
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Susan A. Wheelan is president of G.D.Q Associates, Inc. Until 2001, she

was a professor of psychological studies and faculty director of the Training
and Development Center at Temple University. Dr. Wheelan received
Temple University’s Great Teacher Award in 1992. She has also worked as
a psychologist in a number of hospital and clinical settings. Currently, Dr.
Wheelan is engaged in research projects and consults with work groups in
the United States and Europe.
Dr. Wheelan is the author of Facilitating Training Groups; Group
Processes: A Developmental Perspective; Creating Effective Teams: A
Guide for Members and Leaders; and Faculty Groups: From Frustration to
Collaboration. She is editor of the Handbook of Group Research and
Practice and co-editor of The Lewin Legacy: Field Theory in Current
Practice and Advances in Field Theory. She has also written 66 research
articles for publication.
 ONE

WHY GROUPS?

Groups Have a Long History of Success

People have formed work groups to accomplish goals and tasks since the
beginning of human history. The small group, whose members work
collaboratively for their mutual benefit or survival, is the oldest form of
social organization. Groups have played a major role in both the survival of
human beings and the development of human culture. Some would argue
that our ability to work together was, and is, the key to human survival and
advancement. Work groups have a long and remarkable track record of
success. From the beginning of human history, people have used work
groups to generate new ideas, get things done, and nurture individuals.

We Need Groups Every Day

Most people participate in work groups on a daily basis and have always
done so. Imagine building a house or an airplane, putting out a newspaper,
developing a strategic plan, or doing almost anything, all by yourself. Of
course, there are tasks that can, or should, be done by one person, but given
the complex nature of work in the 21st century, more and more tasks
require people to work in groups.
There was a time when people tried to get rid of the collaborative nature
of work. We set up assembly lines and precisely defined each person’s job
so that he or she could do that job without input from others. Often, this was
effective. The industrial revolution was a success, after all. But this strategy
worked best for repetitive tasks in which innovation, creativity, and
problem solving were not necessary. In the 21st century, few such tasks are
performed by humans. Robots have most of those jobs.
Even in the early industrial period there were groups throughout the
workplace. People made decisions together. Engineers created new products
together. Managers determined schedules and hammered out work flow
processes together. There was a need for work groups then, and there is an
even greater need for work groups now.

Groups Increase Our Knowledge Base

The current emphasis on work groups reflects our growing awareness that
the complexity of work at this point in history necessitates collaboration.
More work is conducted by groups of employees than by individuals
because collaboration is the only way to accomplish complex tasks. Too
much knowledge and too many different skills are needed for any
individual to accomplish such tasks alone.
The knowledge explosion led us to reevaluate the way we work. The
assembly line model has lost much of its relevance. The individual
contributor no longer can go it alone. Teamwork is necessary for
organizational success.

When Teams Are Good, They’re Very, Very Good

Lots of people don’t like to work in groups. Many of us don’t like to go to
meetings and think they’re a waste of time. Most of us have had bad
experiences working in groups. Some of us associate work groups with
fighting, hurt feelings, and inefficiency. This is not surprising, because
many groups have difficulty functioning effectively. Even groups that
ultimately succeed in becoming teams have periods that are stressful and
unpleasant.
The distinction between a work group and a team is an important one in
this book. A work group is composed of members who are striving to create
a shared view of goals and to develop an efficient and effective
organizational structure in which to accomplish those goals. A work group
becomes a team when shared goals have been established and effective
methods to accomplish those goals are in place. How work groups become
teams is what this book is about. It chronicles how some groups develop
into high performance teams and why other groups fail to become teams.
Throughout the book, I refer both to groups that have not reached a level of
effectiveness and productivity as work groups and to groups that are
effective and productive as teams.
When a group becomes a team, there is nothing like it. Work doesn’t feel
like a chore. It’s fun. Members of high performance teams feel involved,
committed, and valued. Time flies, work flows, and people help each other
to meet goals and deadlines. There’s nothing like playing on a winning
team. Effective teams are more productive, and that means that companies
and organizations win, too. The trick to creating teams is to learn enough
about how work groups function that we can increase the chances that they
will become high performance teams.

Creating Effective Teams

Books, articles, and research studies that attempt to describe the
characteristics of high performance work teams have proliferated over the
past few decades. The importance of teamwork in increasing organizational
productivity is clear, and everyone has jumped on the bandwagon to ensure
team success. However, in recent years, there has been a significant
decrease in methods used to improve team performance. Instead of
consulting with team members and leaders together, many trainers and
consultants focus on coaching leaders. The assumption is that leaders who
are coached will be able to lead group members to high performance. I have
yet to find any solid research to support this assumption. Members and
leaders need to know how work groups develop across time. They need to
know what members and leaders should do to help their group become a
high performance team.
Groups and teams have always been with us, and the importance of teams
in the workplace is here to stay. Despite the intense focus on coaching
leaders, strategies designed to increase work group effectiveness continue to
exist. Unfortunately, current team development strategies range from the
ridiculous to the sublime. (My personal favorite in the ridiculous category is
a group of executives playing basketball while riding donkeys as a way to
build a high performance team. Second best goes to a group of accountants
who took cooking lessons with a very pricey chef in order to improve their
team meetings at work.) As a result of the multitude of available strategies,
determining what to do to help groups perform effectively has become
extremely difficult and has spurred questions such as, “Which strategies
work? Which strategies are based on solid research evidence? Which
strategies are least time-consuming and most cost-effective?” These and
similar questions are on the minds of many people charged with ensuring
the effectiveness of organizational work groups. Until recently, however,
answers to these questions were not so easy to come by. The good news
about this intense focus on groups is that it has rejuvenated the scientific
study of work groups and high performance teams and made the answers to
these questions easier to obtain.

Box 1.1 Corporate Teams at Higher Stages of Development

At higher stages of development, corporate teams:

• Are rated higher in customer service

• Take less time to complete work
• Generate more revenue for the corporation

We don’t yet know everything there is to know about groups, but we

know enough to be able to help people working in groups. We know enough
to answer the difficult questions posed earlier. That’s what this book is
about. The goal of Creating Effective Teams is to translate what we’ve
learned about groups and teams into straightforward, user-friendly, practical
guidelines for members and leaders. This book will also provide guidance
for those who interact with a particular work group and for those who
manage work groups.
 I bring about 40 years of experience with groups and teams to this
project, and I’m not bored yet. Studying groups and working with their
members and leaders is endlessly fascinating and challenging. Beyond that,
I believe that helping work groups to become high performance teams is
crucial not only to the bottom line but also to the creation of humane,
interesting, diverse, and challenging workplaces. I hope this book continues
the work of the first four editions in furthering the achievement of those
goals.

How to Use This Book

Originally, this book grew out of a number of requests I’d had from
organizational members to write a jargon-free how-to book describing how
work groups function and what to do to help work groups become high
performance teams. Although I was not enamored of how-to books, I
decided to try my hand at this one because the topic is so important. My
decision turned out to be a good one. Creating Effective Teams has been
read by thousands of team members and leaders, in a number of countries,
and by team consultants charged with helping groups become high
performance teams. I wrote this fifth edition to keep the ball rolling and to
add new information that has emerged since the fourth edition was
published.
As in the first four editions, whatever I write is based on research
evidence, and if I’m speculating, I’ll let you know. I promise not to
overwhelm you with references in the text; those references will appear at
the end of the book. If you want more information, the references will be
there for you. In fact, in response to requests from readers, I have included
more references and recent studies.
I’ve included recent research throughout the book and a few things I’ve
heard, witnessed, been told about, or asked people about over the years.
These will appear in boxes like the one in this chapter. These anecdotes
have helped me, and people I’ve worked with, to maintain a sense of humor
and compassion about working in groups and teams. I hope you find them
useful.
 This book is meant to be used, not just read. Members of newly formed
groups could begin by reading the first six chapters and discussing them
together as a way of getting off to a good start. Chapter 2 describes what the
larger organization can do to help groups be successful. Chapter 3 discusses
how groups develop and function. Chapter 4 outlines the characteristics of
productive teams, which will help members of a new group know what
they’re shooting for. Chapters 5 and 6 describe the characteristics of
effective members and effective leaders, respectively.
Talk with each other about what you’ve read. Use the information as a
way to begin to organize your group. Use the book as you would use a
manual for a computer program. When you get stuck, refer to the
appropriate chapter. There are a few checklists scattered throughout the
book. Use the checklists to monitor your group’s progress.
Once the group gets under way, refer to Chapter 7, which describes
typical situations that arise in Stage 1 of group development, outlining ways
in which members and leaders can be helpful during this stage. Chapters 8
and 9 do the same thing for groups at Stage 2 and Stage 3, respectively.
Chapter 10 outlines how to reach and sustain high performance at Stage 4. I
have added two additional chapters that have been requested by readers:
The topic of Chapter 11 is virtual teams, and Chapter 12 covers recent
research related to work teams.
Reading this book once won’t be enough. Like other changes in attitudes
or behavior, learning to apply this information in the work groups you
belong to will take time. Attitudes and behaviors don’t change overnight. If
you read and work with this information, however, it will happen. And you,
like others before you, will find your work groups transformed into high
performance teams.
 TWO

EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT FOR TEAMS

S ome organizations have been very successful in making the shift to a

team environment. Others haven’t done so well. There is a compelling
reason for organizations to help work groups to become effective, however.
Based on my assessments of more than 700 work groups whose members
had been working together for six months or more, only 46% of those
groups were capable of contributing to their organization’s goals; 54% were
not. Of the 700 work groups, only 17% were high performance teams.
Although organizational support is not the only thing that work groups
need, it plays a key role.
This chapter outlines what research and theory teach us about the role of
the organization in facilitating or inhibiting the development of high
performance work teams. That role is quite large and very important, but it
receives little organizational attention. The reason for this is simple: It is
easier to create work groups and focus our efforts on group results than it is
to address organizational issues that may be inhibiting group performance.
If organizations want effective teams, however, all organization members,
especially upper management, should consider using the following
guidelines for creating them.

Plant Groups in a Favorable Organizational

Climate
Work groups and teams function better in an organizational culture that
encourages high performance by following these principles:
 • Clearly define the organization’s mission
• Support innovation
• Expect success
• Value superior quality and service
• Pay attention to detail
• Value team recommendations
• Set clear expectations for group output, quality, timing, and pacing
• Reward teamwork rather than individual performance

I discuss each of these principles in more detail in this section.

Clearly Define the Organization’s Mission

Groups flourish when their members are clear about what business they
are in. This may seem obvious, but it is not always so. Once, when I asked a
group what the mission of its organization was, the members couldn’t tell
me even though the organization’s mission statement was clearly displayed
on the wall of the group’s meeting room. In another case, I asked a group
what its organization’s mission was, and the members sang the mission
statement. Their singing was not sweet or lyrical, but done in a singsong
manner expressing derision and disrespect. Not only do organization
members need to know the words contained in the mission statement, but
they also need to understand and believe those words.

Support Innovation
Some organizations tend to do things the way they’ve always been done.
In organizations where this is the case, or where organization members
believe it is the case, groups will have more difficulty being successful.
Putting people together as a group, and thus combining their intelligence
and creativity, often leads members to come up with new and unexpected
ideas and solutions. If the group is functioning in an organization that
encourages new ideas and new ways of doing things, group members feel
energized and supported. If not, group members quickly become dispirited
and begin to believe that there is no point in making suggestions that
challenge the status quo.
Expect Success
Some organizations don’t expect to be successful. This may sound
absurd, but there are many different ways in which this attitude is expressed
by organization members. Here are just a few examples:

“What do you expect? This is a government agency.”

“The CEO is leaving soon and doesn’t really care about what we do.”
“We’re going to be merged anyway.”
“People would rather be safe than successful.”

If attitudes such as these exist in an organizational culture, group

members will not give their best effort because they believe that giving
100% is not encouraged or valued.

Value Superior Quality and Service

In the real world, there is always some tension among quality, service,
and profit. However, if organization members perceive that profit is more
important than quality and service, they will become dispirited and cynical.
Here are some examples of how this is expressed:

“People care more about their stock options than doing a good job.”
“They want us to pretend to be working to keep the inspectors off our
backs.”
“They talk about customer service, but they don’t really mean it.”

Pay Attention to Detail

“Get a group together and work out this policy issue” is an example of a
directive from upper management that has no detail and leaves the group
leader with little to go on. A better alternative would be for management to
give the group leader a clear definition of the group’s task, supply all
backup materials, and provide awareness of and planning regarding group
membership, time lines, meeting times, workloads, availability of potential
members, and the like.
Value Team Recommendations
If group members believe that whatever they come up with will be
rejected or changed by upper management, the chances of group success are
diminished. If group leaders are told in advance what the group should
come up with, success is even more unlikely. Again, this is self-evident,
but, unfortunately, examples such as these are all too common. In an
environment where team recommendations are not valued, it is clear to all
that groups are used to make the organization seem to be seeking group
input when, in fact, it is not.

Set Clear Expectations for Group Output, Quality, Timing, and

Pacing
If the group is given realistic guidelines and goals for what members are
expected to produce and by when, the chances of success are much higher.
For example, it is unrealistic to give a group two months to complete a
complex task, especially if the members of that group have not worked
together as a group in the past. It is also unrealistic to give a group a long-
term project without some way of measuring progress along the way.

Reward Teamwork Rather Than Individual Performance

How to reward teamwork rather than individual performance is one of
the most difficult issues that organizations face with regard to setting up
work groups. Most compensation systems are designed to evaluate and
reward individual contributions, not team contributions. If individuals are to
be motivated to create a high performance team, however, then the team’s
performance should be a determinant of compensation and bonuses.
Team compensation systems are discussed and written about quite a lot.
However, most organizations still don’t have team compensation systems in
place. When the first four editions of Creating Effective Teams were
published, few team compensation systems were available. That is no
longer the case. Despite the availability of these models, however, many
organizations still have not made the shift to team compensation.
 Some organizations use recognition of team performance as a substitute
for financial reward. Although this is helpful in some cases, this type of
recognition has to be thought out carefully. Sometimes recognition of one
team may create competition between teams. This can inhibit performance,
because most teams rely on cooperation from other teams to accomplish
their goals. In other cases, certain kinds of recognition may be a source of
embarrassment to some team members.
Successful team compensation strategies are now readily available.
Ideally, employees will be compensated both for meeting their individual
goals and for their membership on a team that has met its goals and
objectives. Organizations that don’t offer this combination will not get
maximum results from their teams.

Give Groups What They Need to Do Their Best

Work groups function better in organizations that:

• Establish meaningful group goals and tasks that are varied and
require skill and interdependence
• Establish meaningful group goals and tasks that require continuous
learning
• Establish access to the human resources necessary to accomplish
group goals
• Establish access to the technical resources necessary to accomplish
tasks
• Establish defined team work areas

Establish Meaningful Group Goals and Tasks That Are Varied

and Require Skill and Interdependence
Group members function better when they feel that group goals and tasks
are meaningful and interesting and challenge them to think and work to
capacity. If tasks are seen as routine or boring, motivation is diminished. Of
course, many organizational tasks are routine or boring but must
nevertheless be done. A team format may not be the best way to accomplish
those tasks.
Group goals and tasks should also require interdependence. That is, a
team should be necessary to accomplish them. Again, this seems self-
evident, but the following examples will make it obvious that many groups
have goals and tasks that do not require members to work together. These
groups are treated as teams when in fact they are not teams:

• Phone solicitors who work independently but are called a team and
meet once a week to discuss team performance
• Salespeople who work independently, are paid for individual sales,
and meet once a month to discuss team performance
• The top 50 administrators in an organization, who meet monthly to
hear a report from the CEO
• People who report to the same boss but don’t interact with each other
at any other time

Establish Meaningful Group Goals and Tasks That Require

Continuous Learning
Groups with goals and tasks that require continuous learning are the most
successful groups. In fact, the best thing about a group with such goals and
tasks is that its members will learn from each other and will seek out
information to learn more about how to proceed. If a group’s goals and
tasks don’t require new learning, a group format is probably not necessary
for their accomplishment. Give group members the tools they need to be
successful.

Establish Access to the Human Resources Necessary to

Accomplish Group Goals
A group that is expected to produce a new product on time and under
budget but has no authority over or access to the people who set production
schedules will not be successful. A group that is expected to determine best
practices in a certain area but has no budget to visit other organizations or to
consult experts in that area will probably be unsuccessful. A group that is
mired in conflict and cannot ask for assistance from an internal or external
consultant to help its members work out their differences will also have
great difficulty being successful. Make sure that team members have the
help they need.

Box 2.1 Old English

The boss asked, “What are you guys going to need to do your best
work?” A team member replied, “A work space with more modern
equipment than Dickens used would be helpful.”

Establish Access to the Technical Resources Necessary to

Accomplish Tasks
You can’t build a house without tools. However, some teams I’ve worked
with have been expected to accomplish tasks without even minimal access
to computer equipment, fax machines, computer programs, archival
materials, and other resources necessary for goal achievement.

Establish Defined Team Work Areas

A group needs a territory. This had been difficult for larger organizations
whose group members are spread out over large geographic areas. In earlier
editions of Creating Effective Teams, I said that “while e-mail and
teleconferencing can help to some extent, groups do better when they have
regular face-to-face meetings.” I have softened my opinion on this in the
last few years. We have become used to conference calls, video
conferencing, group discussions via e-mail, and Skype. Some research in
this area suggests that these forms of work group interaction can work well.
I still advocate periodic face-to-face meetings. If distance prohibits frequent
meetings, the meetings that do occur should be long enough to allow
extended planning, discussion, and decision making. For groups in the same
location, a defined work area is very useful. Proximity makes
communication easier and allows the work to progress faster. After all, we
are still human. We need to know the people in our groups. We don’t need
to know other members intimately, but we do need to know people’s
thoughts and attitudes about the work we’re doing together.

Pick Members Based on Their Ability to Do the

Task and Their Ability to Contribute to Group
Success
A lot more research has been done about leaders than about members.
Thousands of studies have been done to determine what makes a good
group leader. Even with all the attention paid to leadership, we still don’t
know very much. In the case of members, we know even less.
What is known about effective members is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 5. As a preview, however, I can say that the research literature does
not conclude that personality assessment of potential group members or the
personality or style compatibility of group members is key to group
success. Rather, it suggests that the best work groups comprise members
who are knowledgeable about how groups operate and about the group’s
tasks.
In addition, the research literature does not suggest that group members
have to like each other or socialize outside work for their groups to be
successful. Instead, it suggests that people trained in the technical aspects of
the job, in how groups function, and in what members and leaders can do to
help the group function more effectively make good group members.

Educate People for Group Participation

Competence
Organizations that focus on educating and training people about the
technical aspects of their jobs and about effective group participation will
increase the likelihood that their groups will become high performance
teams.
Most organizations do a reasonable job of choosing people with technical
expertise and providing ongoing technical training to their employees.
When it comes to facilitating the group participation of members or leaders,
however, organizations don’t do so well. Most employees in large
organizations have attended the obligatory half-day workshop on group
dynamics, and many have attended leadership training or team development
workshops. However, the quality and duration of these experiences vary
widely.
Imagine providing computer training that is inaccurate or incomplete.
Imagine giving technicians inexact information about turbine maintenance.
Although I’m sure that this happens occasionally, organizations tend to be
careful and conservative about technical training. Unfortunately, this is not
the case with group or leadership training.

Box 2.2 Looking Good

As part of a class assignment, some of my students surveyed

companies, asking how they selected outside trainers to conduct team-
building workshops. The most common response was that the trainer’s
brochure and materials (e.g., overhead, manuals) had to be of the
highest professional quality. The trainer’s references were rarely
checked.

Organizations often forget to ask training providers some very basic and
important questions. These questions include the following:

• What is taught in this training?

• Is the content of the training based on solid research evidence?
• Can the trainer provide social science references that support the
training content?
 • Does the training work? Do people who attend this training actually
perform better as group members or leaders?

These questions do not have easy answers, and training providers should
not be expected to be able to answer each question completely. All training
providers should be able to answer the first three pretty well, however.
Trainers should be aware of the body of literature that supports the content
of the training they provide. Trainers should also be aware of literature that
disagrees with their approach. If a trainer is unable to answer the first three
questions, head for the hills.
With regard to the fourth question, we know that most approaches to
team-building training have little or no effect. People who attend group
dynamics or leadership training do not necessarily perform better as group
members or leaders. This is because individuals rather than work groups are
trained. More effective approaches are described in the next section.

Avoid Unsubstantiated Team Development and

Consultation Strategies
Because not all work groups manage to reach high levels of effectiveness
and productivity on their own, efforts to develop intervention strategies that
will assist groups in meeting goals and maximizing effectiveness have been
used for many years. Unfortunately, most team interventions don’t work.
For example, Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990) examined a number
of intervention studies and noted that four of the nine interventions had
positive effects on group performance. That means that for five of the nine,
performance was unchanged. Interventions have had mixed results, at best,
on group effectiveness and productivity.
Guzzo, Jett, and Katzell (1985) conducted an analysis of 330 group
intervention studies. They found that interventions that included goal
setting and feedback had the most positive effects on group productivity.
Interventions that take group development into account are also useful,
because groups need different types of interventions at different points in
their development.
 To date, the most promising intervention type appears to be goal setting
combined with feedback that includes attention to group development
issues. The likely reason for the effectiveness of this combined intervention
type is that group members set the goals and determine the strategies for
improvement themselves. In short, group members and leaders are active as
opposed to passive participants in the intervention process. Also, this type
of intervention is tailored to the needs of a group at a particular time. It does
not assume that one intervention type fits all groups.
Needless to say, research does not suggest that rock climbing, whitewater
rafting, blind trust walks, or donkey basketball increases productivity in any
way. These kinds of activities are fun for some people and distasteful to
others. In any case, there is no evidence that they facilitate changes in group
effectiveness or productivity.
Before choosing an intervention to improve group performance,
organization members should ask the consultant the following questions:

• What are the underlying assumptions of the intervention? That is,

how will the intervention change the dynamics of the group?
• Is the intervention based on solid research evidence?
• Can the consultant provide social science references that support the
intervention content?
• Does the intervention work? Do work groups that participate in this
type of intervention increase their effectiveness and productivity?

If the consultant cannot answer the first three questions or bases her or
his response solely on personal experience, head for the hills. Regarding the
fourth question, we can say that although more research is needed, if the
intervention includes goal setting, performance feedback, and attention to
group development issues, it will work better than other approaches. Until
we learn more, it is best to use interventions that contain these three
elements.

Avoid Helping Groups Too Much

Many groups get too much help. They may have an array of helpers such as
sponsors, coaches, leaders, trainers, and consultants. However, this help is
not always helpful. Throughout this chapter, I have outlined the things
groups really need to function and to get moving again when they get stuck.
I have found no evidence in the literature that increasing the number of
expert helpers who meet with the team on a regular basis has any positive
effects.
When groups ask for help, they should get the help if it conforms to the
guidelines outlined here. Too much help often increases group dependency
on experts and reduces the chances that group members will learn to be
effective and productive on their own.
I mentioned feedback earlier, but I will mention it again because it is so
important: Groups need accurate and frequent feedback about their
performance so that they can learn to help themselves. Without feedback, it
is very difficult for groups to judge their progress or make corrections to get
back on course. Some groups get lots of feedback. Others get almost none.
Research tells us that groups that get feedback regularly are more
successful.

Make Sure That Each Group Has Enough

Autonomy to Do Its Work but Remains
Connected With the Rest of the Organization
The mission of every group should be clear to other groups and individuals
in the organization. If organization members and units are expected to help
each other, they must know what others are doing.
Groups also need sufficient autonomy to do their work. They need to be
clear about what decisions they can make on their own and what decisions
must be reviewed by others. At the same time, groups must stay in close
contact with other organization members and groups. If an isolated group
makes a decision without involving others in that decision, the odds of
having the decision countermanded or ignored increase significantly.
Groups must stay in close contact with others in the organization, because
good working relationships with other organization members and groups
are important indicators of an effective team.

Conduct Organizational Support Reviews

Regularly
Many of the guidelines outlined in this chapter could be read as things that
only upper management can accomplish. It is not my intention to imply
that. Every member of the organization has a role to play in the success of
the groups with which she or he interacts. Each group has a responsibility to
solicit the things necessary for its success as well.
Before and during the life of any group, it would be helpful to review
these guidelines. Group members or potential members, along with others
who interact with the group in some meaningful way, should conduct these
reviews to determine the group’s level of organizational support and to
make changes as needed. Periodic review sessions focused on
organizational support, not group performance, will have at least two
effects: First, problems with the level of organizational support can be
identified and corrected early. Second, group members will be encouraged
by the efforts of others to ensure that the group becomes a high
performance team.
Organizational support review sessions have not been researched.
However, because research has outlined a number of organizational factors
that increase the chances of group success, it is only logical that
organization members should use such review sessions to ensure that these
factors are being addressed.
The following checklist is provided to help people participating in an
organizational support review session evaluate the level of organizational
support for a particular group. Work group members should complete the
checklist anonymously before the meeting. Individual anonymity is crucial
to the success of this process. Individuals must feel free to be candid in their
responses.
 A summary should be prepared before the meeting. At the meeting,
participants should discuss the summary and identify areas where
organizational support is adequate or superior and areas that need
improvement. Action steps should be outlined as well. Although there will
be areas where, for legitimate reasons, support cannot be provided at ideal
levels, both the work group and the organization it is part of should aim to
do the best they can.
 THREE

FROM GROUPS TO TEAMS

The Stages of Group Development

G roups develop across time very much as people do. People

experience childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood, and
old age. Childhood is associated with dependency. Adolescence usually
contains periods of conflict. Young adulthood requires a lot of time spent
developing trusting relationships and preparing for a career. In adulthood
people spend a significant amount of time working, and in old age people
typically reduce their focus on work.
Research has found that groups also experience periods of dependency,
conflict, trust and structuring, work, and disengagement. Group
development and human development have much in common.
The concept of group development is well documented in the social
science literature. In view of the general consensus that groups develop and
change across time, extensive reviews of the literature have been conducted
to consolidate previous research and to propose a unified model of group
development. These reviews have produced similar results. What follows is
a brief description of the integrated model of group development that I use
in my own work. This model was initially based on previous research.
Since then, a number of studies have been conducted to determine whether
these stages actually occur in work groups. These studies have confirmed
that the stages of development outlined in the model do occur in groups in
the real world.

Stage 1: Dependency and Inclusion

The first stage of group development is characterized by members’
dependency on the designated leader, concerns about safety, and concerns
about feeling included in the group. This first stage of group development
may manifest itself as members’ compliance with plans proposed by the
group leader or by a powerful member. Group members often engage in
what has been called pseudo work, or flight, such as exchanging stories
about customers or their families that are irrelevant to the task at hand.
Members may also wait for the group leader to make decisions. In fact,
members often urge the leader to take charge and tell them what to do.
Members seem more concerned about being accepted by others than about
the task at hand. They are unlikely to express different points of view as a
result.

Identifying a Stage 1 Group

• Members are concerned about personal safety in the group
• Members are concerned about acceptance and inclusion by others in
the group
• Members fear rejection
• Members communicate in tentative and very polite ways
• Members express a need for dependable and directive leadership
• Members see the leader as benevolent and competent
• Members expect and encourage the leader to provide them with
direction and personal safety
• Members very rarely challenge the leader
• The group’s goals are not clear to its members, but members don’t try
to clarify them
• Members rarely express disagreement with the group’s initial goals
• The group assumes that there is consensus about its goals
• Role assignments tend to be based on external status, first
impressions, and initial self-presentation rather than on matching
member competencies with goals and task requirements
• Member compliance is high
• Communication tends to go through the leader
 • Participation is generally limited to a few vocal members
• Conflict is minimal
• Conformity is high
• A lack of group structure and organization is evident
• Member deviation from emerging norms is rare
• Cohesion and commitment to the group are based on identification
with the leader
• Subgroups and coalitions are rare

Box 3.1 Silence of the Lambs

You know you’re in a Stage 1 group when the leader asks a question
and no one responds. The leader’s words seem to vanish into the
Bermuda Triangle.

Stage 2: Counterdependency and Fighting

At Stage 2, the group seeks to free itself from its dependence on the leader,
and members fight about group goals and procedures. Task conflict is an
inevitable part of this process. The group’s task at this stage is to develop a
unified set of goals, values, and operational procedures, and this task
usually generates conflict. Task conflict also is necessary for the
establishment of trust and a climate in which members feel free to disagree
with each other.
Some groups become mired in interpersonal conflicts and remain stuck at
this developmental stage. Other groups are overwhelmed by the stress of
this phase and revert to leader dependence in an attempt to avoid further
conflict. Research tells us that task conflict is essential if teams are to
become effective and productive. However, interpersonal conflict can stop a
work group in its tracks. When disagreements become personal, trust is lost
and members do not feel safe in the group. Stay focused on work tasks and
avoid conflicts that are based on personality or incompatibility.
 Box 3.2 Toxic Waste

You know you’re in a Stage 2 group when the thought of going to a

team meeting makes you feel ill.

Neither remaining stuck in Stage 2 nor regressing to Stage 1 has positive

effects for the group or for the quality of work generated by the group. Only
through resolution of task conflicts and the development of a unified view
of the group’s purpose and procedures can true collaboration be achieved.

Identifying a Stage 2 Group

• Conflicts about values emerge
• Disagreements about goals and tasks emerge
• Increased feelings of safety allow dissent to occur
• Dissatisfaction with roles may surface
• Goal clarification begins
• Role clarification begins
• Members challenge the leader and each other
• Subgroups and coalitions form
• Group intolerance of subgroups, cliques, and coalitions is evident
• Member participation increases
• Conformity decreases
• Deviation from emerging group norms begins to occur
• Attempts at conflict management begin
• If efforts to resolve conflicts are successful, consensus about group
goals and culture increases near the end of this stage
• Conflict resolution, if successful, increases trust and cohesion

Stage 3: Trust and Structure

If a group manages to work through the inevitable conflicts of Stage 2,
member trust, commitment to the group, and willingness to cooperate
increase. Communication becomes more open and task oriented.
Professional territoriality decreases as members focus more on the task and
less on issues of status, power, or influence. This third stage of group
development is characterized by more mature negotiations about roles,
organization, and procedures. It is also a time in which members work to
solidify positive working relationships with each other.

Identifying a Stage 3 Group

• Goal clarity and consensus increase
• Roles and tasks are adjusted to increase the likelihood of goal
achievement
• The leader’s role becomes less directive and more consultative
• The communication structure becomes more flexible
• The content of communication becomes more task oriented
• Pressures to conform increase again
• Helpful deviation is tolerated
• Coalitions and subgroups continue to emerge
• Tolerance of subgroups, cliques, and coalitions increases
• Cohesion and trust increase
• Member satisfaction increases
• Cooperation is more evident
• Individual commitment to group goals and tasks is high
• Greater division of labor occurs
• Conflict continues to occur, but it is managed more effectively
• The group works to clarify and build a group structure that will
facilitate goal achievement

Stage 4: Work
As its name implies, the fourth stage of group development is a time of
intense team productivity and effectiveness. At this stage, the group
becomes a high performance team. Having resolved many of the issues of
the previous stages, the team can focus more of its energies on goal
achievement and task accomplishment. Although some work occurs at
every developmental stage, the quality and quantity of work increase
significantly during Stage 4.
Whenever I teach or give a talk or presentation, I describe Stage 4 and
ask audience members to raise their hand if they have ever been a member
of a Stage 4 group. About one in four people raise their hand. That, coupled
with the fact that only a small percentage of the groups in my database are
Stage 4 groups, as described in Chapter 2, leads me to believe that many
readers of this book have never been a member of a Stage 4 group. So read
this next section carefully. Working in a Stage 4 group is a wonderful
experience.

Identifying a Stage 4 Group

• Members are clear about the team’s goals
• Members agree with the team’s goals
• Tasks require a team rather than individual effort
• Members are clear about their roles
• Members accept their roles and status in the team
• Role assignments match member abilities
• Delegation or “unleadership” is the prevailing leadership style
• The team’s communication structure matches the demands of the task
• The team has an open communication structure in which all members
participate and are heard
• The team has an appropriate ratio of task communications to
supportive communications
• The team gets, gives, and uses feedback about its effectiveness and
productivity
• The team spends time defining problems it must solve or decisions it
must make
• The team spends time planning how it will solve problems and make
decisions
• The team spends enough time discussing its problems and decisions
• The team uses participatory decision-making methods
• The team implements and evaluates its decisions and solutions to
problems
• Voluntary conformity is high
• Task-related deviance is tolerated
• Team norms encourage high performance and quality
• The team expects to be successful
• The team encourages innovation
• Team members pay attention to the details of their work
• The team accepts coalition and subgroup formation
• Subgroups are integrated into the team as a whole
• Subgroups work on important tasks
• Tasks contain variety and challenge
• Each subgroup works on a total product or project
• The team contains the smallest number of members necessary to
accomplish its goals
• Subgroups are recognized and rewarded by the team
• The team is highly cohesive
• Interpersonal attraction between members is high
• Members are cooperative
• Periods of conflict are frequent but brief
• The team has effective conflict management strategies

Box 3.3 Pride in the Work

You know you’re in a Stage 4 group when you can’t wait to get to the
team meeting because it’s exhilarating, fun, and important and makes
you feel like a grown-up.
 Box 3.4 The Stages of Group Development

1. Dependency and Inclusion

2. Counterdependency and Fighting
3. Trust and Structure
4. Work and Productivity

Group development does not always proceed in a positive direction.

Groups can get stuck at a particular stage for an extended period of time,
resulting in long-term ineffectiveness and low productivity. Also, groups
may fluctuate widely based on the circumstances and forces affecting them
at a given moment. Changes in membership, external demands, and changes
in leadership can all affect the work of a group. Turnover rates,
reassignments, and new upper-level managers often produce regression and
necessitate the rebuilding of group structures and culture.
Not all work groups, of any type, achieve adequate levels of effectiveness
and productivity. In fact, some studies estimate that between 80% and 90%
of all groups have difficulties with performance. Although achieving an
effective performance level is difficult for any group, it is even more
problematic for groups with diverse members. Groups composed of
members from different professions, for example, have additional obstacles
to productivity. These include the lack of an organizing framework, issues
of professional territoriality, and miscommunication. The road to
productivity is fraught with difficulties.

Surviving Group Development

There are a few things people can do, and a few attitudes people can take
on, that make the process of group development easier. Like human beings,
groups have some rocky times on the road to maturity. Here are a few
suggestions to help group members survive, and even enjoy, the process of
group development.
Learn About Group Development
It helps to know what’s in store for you as you move through the various
stages of individual human development. For example, when social
scientists determined that adults experience developmental stages, some of
which are not so pleasant, we all breathed a sigh of relief. Once we started
talking about adolescent insecurities, midlife crises, menopause, and the
like, many people stopped feeling alone and out of control. Instead of
feeling scared or depressed, people felt normal. Other people were
experiencing the same things, and that made individuals feel better.
Knowledge of developmental stages also makes an individual’s experiences
at a particular age seem more manageable. Finally, this knowledge usually
leads to better, happier individual development.
The same is true of group development. When group members know that
all groups go through predictable stages of development, they can relax and
enjoy the ride. When groups don’t know about group development, their
members might think that their fellow group members are strange or that
their particular group is extremely dysfunctional or unusual. Clearly, people
with knowledge of group behavior make better group members and leaders.
Such knowledgeable people are less likely to misinterpret what they see and
more likely to be constructive in what they say and do.

Be Patient
Although human development and group development have a lot in
common, group development doesn’t take as long. However, it does take
some time. My colleagues and I have been monitoring the progress of
hundreds of groups over the years, and we have yet to see a high
performance team that had been meeting for less than six months. For the
first two or three months, groups are dealing with the issues characteristic
of Stages 1 and 2. Groups generally enter Stage 3 in the fourth or fifth
month, and Stage 4, or high performance, typically begins during the sixth
or seventh month. Of course, this is assuming that a group does not run into
any snags.
Most people in upper management and in groups don’t understand that
groups develop over time. They want groups to function at high levels from
the beginning. That simply doesn’t happen. It takes time to figure out what
the goals really mean. It takes time to figure out how to accomplish those
goals and who should do what. It takes time to resolve problems and
disagreements that come up. It’s important to be patient.
Unfortunately, some groups, like some people, never mature. They stay
stuck in dependency or conflict for as long as the group exists. Other groups
manage to become high performance teams only to regress to earlier stages
later on. This is usually due to some internal crisis or a change in the level
of organizational support.
Fortunately, no group has to stay stuck or regressed. If members are
willing to work to turn things around, it can be done.

Expect Things to Be Murky at the Beginning of a Group

Things are never clear at the beginning of a group. Often, after an early
meeting, you’ll hear people asking each other questions about what went on
during the meeting. Of course, no one asked those questions during the
meeting. This is normal, and as time goes on people will begin to feel free
to ask for clarification during group meetings. A person who expects a new
group to have a perfectly organized meeting with clear outcomes will be
disappointed. This person might even get angry, and that will do no one any
good.

Expect Conflict and Treat It as a Positive Sign of Progress

Most of us avoid conflict as much as we can. The problem in groups, as
in life, is that conflict is inevitable. Each group has to define its goals,
clarify how it will function, and determine the various roles that members
will play. Group members should expect disagreements about the content of
the group’s goal and how to solve specific problems related to that goal.
Task conflict is a necessary part of this process because, from divergent
points of view, a more unified direction must be agreed upon if group
members are to work together in a productive way.
On a more psychological level, task conflict is necessary for the
establishment of a safe environment. Although at first glance this may seem
paradoxical, task conflict promotes the development of trust. We all know
from our own experience that it is easier to develop trust in another person
or in a group if we believe that we can disagree and we won’t be abandoned
or hurt because we have a different perspective. It is difficult to trust those
who deny us the right to hold different views. To engage in a task conflict
with others and to work it out is an exhilarating experience. It provides
energy, a shared experience, and a sense of safety and authenticity and
allows deeper trust levels and collaboration.
From the task perspective, if people are not free to express their points of
view, the group’s product is likely to be inferior. If everyone just goes along
with the first idea that’s expressed, the outcome is unlikely to be of high
quality. Task conflict is a normal, natural, and necessary part of group life.
Keeping that in mind will make things much easier.

Help the Group Limit Conflicts to Those About Tasks, Roles,

Structures, and the Like; Don’t Get Involved in Personal Feuds
or Personality Conflicts
Although conflict may be normal and necessary, some kinds of conflict
can be very detrimental to group development. Personal feuds and
personality conflicts that erupt in groups can cause group progress to cease,
sometimes permanently. The problem with personal conflicts is that they
usually can’t be resolved. If one person doesn’t like another’s personality,
the rest of the group can’t really do anything about it. However, what
appear to be personality conflicts are often really the results of other factors
in the group that can be addressed, such as goal confusion and role
assignments. The group can deal with these things more successfully. In
general, it’s good to disagree about goals, tasks, roles, and so on. It’s not
good for group members to personalize these things and see other members
as bad or incompetent because they have a different opinion or a different
way of doing things.

Compromise on Issues When Possible and Help Others Resolve

Differences
 In the course of my research, I have attended or listened to tapes of many
group meetings. Sometimes members are disagreeing and no one is willing
to compromise. Although I would not advocate compromise on an issue
that is really important to group success or that has ethical consequences,
compromise is essential to group productivity.
One example of unwillingness to compromise stands out in my mind. A
certain group was working on a very important new product for the
company. The company had had a recent layoff, and more layoffs were
anticipated. The group was over budget and had missed several deadlines.
During my observation, a conflict unrelated to the goal of the group kept
emerging. Members had taken sides on this issue, and neither side was
willing to give in. This story has a happy ending. I worked with the group
and helped them to see that this conflict about who was right and who was
wrong would ultimately result in group failure. Most stories like this don’t
have happy endings.

Don’t Sit on the Sidelines; Take Responsibility for What Is

Going On, Even If It Doesn’t Involve You Directly
Every group member is responsible for the group’s outcomes. Group
members shouldn’t wait for other members or the leader to solve a problem
or save the day. Members should make suggestions and share their ideas,
concerns, and reservations. Of course, it helps if they can do this in a
diplomatic way.

Be Supportive of Other Members and the Leader

Some of the research that my colleagues and I have conducted over the
years has required us to put each verbal statement made by group members
into one of a number of categories. Here are examples of supportive
statements:

“Thanks for that suggestion, Joe.”

“I appreciate your saying that, Mary.”
“I agree with you, Abe.”
 In groups that are doing well, out of every 100 statements made by group
members, between 15 and 20 are supportive statements. That sounds like a
lot, but we see this over and over again. There’s nothing like a little support
to encourage people to work to capacity.

Complete Your Tasks in a Timely Fashion

Groups are not groups just during meetings. Group members work
together and separately outside the group to complete work related to the
group’s goals. Nothing slows down group progress more than failure to
accomplish those tasks in a timely fashion. Trust is built between members
not by words but by actions. If group members can trust each other to do
what they say, things will go very smoothly.

Don’t Be Upset When Subgroups or Coalitions Emerge

Sometimes subgroups are formed when they are needed to get a group’s
work done. At other times, group members will form a coalition with others
to emphasize a point they’re trying to make. These are natural and good
things, but the existence of subgroups and coalitions upsets some people.
These people may feel left out or believe that the presence of smaller units
within the group will interfere with the group’s success. Some group
members call these subgroups “cliques,” which has negative connotations.
However, the presence of subgroups generally is not negative. It is a sign
that the group is getting organized and will be able to get its work done
during the inevitable crunch time. Coalitions can help the group to see
another point of view, which often turns out to be the right one.
Of course, subgroups and coalitions can have negative effects sometimes.
When coalitions are unwilling to compromise, for example, things can go
awry. When subgroups take action without checking with or informing the
whole group, the results can be negative. Most of the time, however, the
appearance of subgroups and coalitions is a healthy sign of group progress.

Encourage Your Group to Regularly Assess How It Is

Functioning
 People at work these days are very busy. They want the meeting to end
quickly so that they can deal with the piles of work on their desks. The last
thing people want to do is take five minutes out of the meeting to discuss
how they are working together. The very last thing they want to do is spend
an entire meeting every two months or so discussing how the group is
functioning. That seems like a big waste of time. I encourage groups to do it
anyway. In the long run, it will save time and aggravation. More on how to
assess group progress regularly can be found in Chapter 10.

Show Up
I once worked with a group in which the membership changed almost
weekly. There were 20 people in this planning group. Each week about 10
people showed up, and those 10 were different almost every time. There is
nothing like unstable membership to slow group development or to stop it
altogether. Each meeting becomes a repeat of the last, and the focus
becomes catching people up on what happened at the last meeting.
In later chapters, I will offer more suggestions to members and leaders
about what they can do to help their groups be successful.
 FOUR

HOW DO HIGH PERFORMANCE

TEAMS FUNCTION?

S ome people I’ve come across think that all this focus on team
development is a waste of time. They ask whether any of this effort
makes a difference to the bottom line. They are usually very surprised when
I tell them that it does. For example, work teams functioning at the higher
stages of group development finish projects faster, produce products of
higher quality, and generate more revenue than groups functioning at the
lower stages of group development. Students taught by faculty teams
functioning at the higher stages of group development score higher on
standardized tests. Intensive care staff teams functioning at higher stages of
group development save more lives. Paying attention to group development
is the key to successful outcomes.
People are right to be skeptical about lots of the things currently being
done to increase team effectiveness and productivity. Many of those things
actually are a waste of time. However, there are things that high
performance teams do that make a very real difference to the bottom line.

The Characteristics of High Performance Teams

Research studies on the relationship between internal team processes and
productivity have identified a number of characteristics of high
performance teams that are associated with productivity:

• Members are clear about and agree with the team’s goals
• Tasks are appropriate to team rather than individual solutions
• Members are clear about and accept their roles
 • Role assignments match members’ abilities
• The leadership style matches the team’s development level
• An open communication structure allows all members to participate
• The team gets, gives, and uses feedback about its effectiveness and
productivity
• The team spends time defining and discussing problems it must solve
or decisions it must make
• Members also spend time planning how they will solve problems and
make decisions
• The team uses effective decision-making strategies
• The team implements and evaluates its solutions and decisions
• Task-related deviance is tolerated
• Team norms encourage high performance, quality, success, and
innovation
• Subgroups are integrated into the team as a whole
• The team contains the smallest number of members necessary to
accomplish its goals
• Team members have sufficient time together to develop a mature
working unit and to accomplish the team’s goals
• The team is highly cohesive and cooperative
• Periods of conflict are frequent but brief, and the group has effective
conflict management strategies

Box 4.1 Education Matters

Faculty groups at higher stages of group development have a

significantly higher percentage of students who pass statewide
proficiency tests than faculty groups at lower stages of group
development.

10 Keys to Productivity
The previous list of the characteristics of high performance teams suggests
that there are 10 key areas that members should pay attention to in order to
ensure the productivity of their group:

1. Goals
2. Roles
3. Interdependence
4. Leadership
5. Communication and feedback
6. Discussion, decision making, and planning
7. Implementation and evaluation
8. Norms and individual differences
9. Structure
10. Cooperation and conflict management

Each of these areas is discussed next.

Goals
The most important characteristic of a high performance team is that its
members are clear about the team’s goals. Although this seems obvious, I
have seen too many groups in which this was not the case. Even if all the
group members seem to know what the goals are, they often have different
ideas about what accomplishing them entails. Even if people are saying the
same words, those words may mean different things to different people. For
example, I remember a group that was established to develop a strategic
plan for a division of a large organization. Each member knew what the
goal was, but there were different opinions about what developing a
strategic plan actually meant. For some, developing a strategic plan meant
engaging in a lengthy process of collecting data from organization
members, competitors, and customers; reading literature about the industry;
and making predictions about future trends in the industry. Once that
information was collected and analyzed, the group would devise a decision-
making process that involved members and customers. Finally, the group
would formulate a strategic plan.
Others in the group had a very different view of what it meant to develop
a strategic plan. For them, it meant holding two or three committee
meetings, discussing ideas about what the division should do over the next
five years, and writing up the ideas that the majority of committee members
agreed with.
This example underscores the necessity of thoroughly discussing group
goals and what those goals mean to different group members. Until
everyone is clear about the goals, it makes no sense to try to accomplish
them.
Even after everyone is clear about the group’s goals, it does not
necessarily follow that everyone agrees with the goals. However, one of the
characteristics of high performance teams is that members agree with the
team’s goals. This means that they think the goals are important,
reasonable, and attainable and will benefit the team as well as the
organization.
I do not mean to imply that people must think that every group goal is the
best thing since sliced bread or the most exciting assignment they have ever
been given. Some goals (e.g., cutting the budget, reducing overhead,
changing the shipping schedule) are not very exciting but may be important
to the team and the organization. The point is that members need to see the
relevance of the goals if the team is to be successful.

Roles
Once group members have clarified the group’s goals and agree on them,
they can begin to organize themselves to accomplish those goals. This
usually includes deciding what needs to be done and who should do what.
Using the previous example as a case in point, let’s imagine that group
members have agreed that the tasks involved in developing a strategic plan
are as follows:
 1. Collecting data from organization members
2. Collecting data from competitors
3. Collecting data from customers
4. Reading literature about the current state of the industry
5. Reading literature about future trends in the industry
6. Analyzing the data
7. Developing a decision-making process involving organization
members and customers

After lengthy discussions about how each of these tasks might be

accomplished, decisions about which member or members should work on
each task must be made. Often, people volunteer to take on certain tasks, or
the group leader assigns them to tasks. Neither of these options is inherently
good or bad. Three things are crucial, however. First, each member must be
clear about the role she or he is being asked to play. That is, the
expectations must be clear, and the process for accomplishing the assigned
task must be clear as well. Second, each member must have the ability and
skills necessary to accomplish the assigned or chosen task. Third, each
member must agree with and accept the assigned role.
Again, these requirements for assigning roles seem obvious. In reality,
however, it is a rare group that meets these requirements. There are many
reasons for this failure to ensure that members are clear about their roles,
have the abilities necessary to accomplish them, and are willing to take on
the roles they have been assigned. Here are just a few examples of how
good people set themselves up to fail:

• Mary volunteers to collect data from organization members. She is

new to the company and doesn’t know too many people yet. She has
worked for three competitors and would be more valuable in helping
to collect information about competitors. Because she volunteered,
however, no one is willing to raise any of these issues.
• Joe volunteers to review the literature about current and future trends
in the industry. He is not computer literate, however, and much of the
information will have to be gathered through online databases and the
Internet. Again, because he volunteered, no one raised these
concerns.
 • The group’s leader, John, volunteers to analyze the data as it comes
in. Sarah is a statistician and would be perfect for this job, but
because John is the leader, no one questions his right to assign
himself this task.

Interdependence
In successful teams, tasks require team members to work together as a unit
and in subgroups. In the case of a team developing a strategic plan, because
the amount of work involved to reach that goal is well beyond the ability of
a single individual, members need to work together as a unit and in
subgroups. In addition, the goal requires interdependence, because a
strategic plan developed by one person is not likely to reflect the division
accurately. A successful strategic plan is one that works. The team working
to create such a plan needs to incorporate many viewpoints, accurately
interpret and sift through those differing views, and develop a plan that is
acceptable to others and will lead the division in a positive direction. This is
one of the best reasons for using a group rather than an individual to
accomplish certain goals. A well-functioning team will beat an individual in
accomplishing this type of goal any day.

Leadership
In productive teams, the leader’s style changes when necessary to meet
emerging group needs. Members’ perceptions of the role of the leader also
change at different stages of group development. At Stage 1, group
members perceive the leader as benevolent and powerful. She or he is
perceived as the source of members’ safety and reward. At this stage,
members expect the leader to be directive. At Stage 2, however, members
begin to challenge the leader’s authority and control. In order for the group
to mature, such challenges are necessary. The role of the leader must be
redefined if the group is to move into the more mature stages of
development. Stage 2 leaders should still remain directive and gradually
begin to involve members in discussing options and exploring issues. By
the time a group has reached the third stage of development, group
members have assumed many of the roles that initially were the domain of
the leader. Finally, at Stage 4, effective leaders act like expert members.
Most of the leader’s functions have been distributed among team members.
In high performance teams, members assume many of the functions that
leaders performed at earlier stages. For this to occur, the leader’s role must
become less directive and more consultative. The leader can help to
redistribute power among members by altering her or his leadership style to
match the needs of the group. This requires that the leader know what the
needs of the group are at any given time and how to behave to facilitate
movement. If a leader maintains one style of leadership throughout the life
of a group, she or he will not meet group needs and will not facilitate the
development of a high performance team. More information about effective
leadership can be found in Chapter 6.

Communication and Feedback

High performance teams have an open communication structure that allows
all members to participate. Individuals are listened to regardless of their
age, title, sex, race, ethnicity, profession, or other status characteristics. This
increases productivity because all ideas and suggestions get heard.
High performance teams get regular feedback about their effectiveness
and productivity. When members are asked to assess the team’s
effectiveness and productivity, they are able to answer accurately. This
means that members seek feedback about how the team is performing from
each other and from external sources.
Members of high performance teams give each other constructive
feedback about individual performance and contributions. Constructive
feedback promotes improvement and individual development. That is, the
feedback is intended to be helpful to the team by improving member efforts
to accomplish goals. It is also intended to be helpful to the individual by
providing information that she or he can use to become a more effective
team member. If feedback does not meet both of these criteria, it should not
be given.
 Finally, high performance teams use feedback about team processes and
productivity to make improvements in how they are functioning. You would
be surprised at the number of groups I have encountered whose members
receive feedback about group performance but do not use that feedback to
implement constructive changes. In most cases, this is due to a simple flaw
in the group’s internal processes. Groups that do not use feedback
constructively usually do not have a mechanism in place to evaluate the
validity of the feedback and to make decisions about what changes should
be made based on that feedback. An example of such a mechanism might
be one where internal and external feedback are sought on a regular basis
and where the feedback is discussed and evaluated at the beginning of the
next meeting. If the feedback is judged to be valid and helpful, members
discuss ways to improve team performance, decide what changes to make,
and implement those changes.
This may seem like an elaborate process, but in reality it usually takes 10
minutes or less. The trick is to collect the feedback from members at the
end of one session and discuss it at the beginning of the next. Feedback
from external sources should be collected between meetings.

Discussion, Decision Making, and Planning

Members of high performance teams spend time planning how they will
solve problems and make decisions. That is, they determine how decisions
will be made before they attempt to make decisions. They may decide that
majority vote, a two-thirds majority vote, consensus, or another decision-
making strategy will be used. The key is that these determinations are made
in advance and that the team’s decision-making strategy is effective and
meets with member approval.
Also, members of high performance teams spend time defining and
discussing problems they must solve. That is, in advance of a final decision,
sufficient discussion has occurred so that everyone is clear about the issues
involved and the alternative ways of dealing with those issues. If
insufficient time is spent in discussion before a decision is made, the
resulting decision may be inadequate or in error.
Implementation and Evaluation
High performance teams implement the solutions and decisions made by
members. That is, members and the leader follow up on those decisions and
hold each other accountable for acting on those decisions. Teams that are
successful also develop methods to evaluate team solutions and decisions.
Decisions may turn out to be in error or inadequate, but in effective teams
those errors or inadequacies are caught and corrected quickly.

Norms and Individual Differences

Successful teams establish norms that encourage high performance, quality,
and success. Such teams also have norms that encourage members to be
creative and innovative. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a team
to be successful if its members were not expected to perform at high levels.
Another interesting characteristic of effective teams is that members who
behave differently are accepted as long as their behavior is perceived as
helpful to task accomplishment. For example, if a member does not talk as
much as other members expect, that member will be accepted as long as the
contributions she or he does make are considered helpful. A member who
seems loud or a bit aggressive also will be accepted if her or his task-related
performance is perceived as useful. In short, successful teams contain
members who tolerate, or even enjoy, each other’s idiosyncrasies in order to
get the job done.

Structure
Three factors are important to the structure of successful teams. First,
successful teams contain the smallest number of members necessary to
accomplish goals and tasks. In a recent study, I investigated 329 work
groups to determine whether the size of these groups influenced
productivity. The results were clear. Groups containing three to six
members are significantly more productive than larger groups. Second, the
hallmark of a mature team is that members are able to form subgroups to
get work done. Third, subgroups are not perceived as threatening by
members who are not part of these groups. Instead, subgroups are accepted
and valued for their contribution to the team. Subgroups are not seen as
renegade or revolutionary groups. Rather, subgroups are integrated into the
team as a whole. In short, productive teams are organized. In addition, these
teams have sufficient time together, overall and at each meeting, to develop
and maintain high performance and to accomplish goals.
This last point is worth emphasizing. Most groups need eight or nine
months together to be successful. I base this time estimate on the research I
described earlier that suggests it takes at least six months for a group to
mature fully. Requirements for the length of individual meetings vary with
the complexity of the group’s goals. Many meetings are simply too short,
however. In my experience, the most tragic examples of this occur in
schools. Elementary, middle, and high school teachers are expected to deal
with complex matters. Their responsibilities include coordinating the
curriculum, developing interdisciplinary lesson plans, and monitoring the
behavior and progress of students taught by a number of faculty members,
just to name a few. In general, the faculty of a school meets as a whole
group once a month or less and for about an hour. Faculty subgroups (e.g.,
the seventh-grade teachers) meet more frequently. These subgroups usually
meet for 45 minutes once a week. Of course, 45 minutes is actually 30 or 35
minutes, because teachers need time to dismiss their students and to settle
into the meeting. Teachers also have to leave before the end of the allotted
time in order to get to their next class on time, making it difficult for them
to have meaningful and thorough discussion, planning, and decision
making.
Each group will have to judge for itself how much time it will need to
accomplish its goals and how long each meeting should be. It’s important
that a group not shortchange itself or set itself up for failure by not allowing
enough time or by using time inefficiently. Individual members and
subgroups can do many tasks between meetings.

Cooperation and Conflict Management

A large body of research confirms that a high performance team is highly
cohesive and contains cooperative members. Of course, cooperation alone
is insufficient to achieve success. The other factors outlined in this chapter
must be in evidence as well. For example, in some groups, members
cooperate to avoid work. In others, members cooperate to do the minimum
amount of work. Clearly, cooperation is not enough, but without it success
is very unlikely.
That members cooperate does not mean that conflict never occurs. In
fact, research tells us that productive teams have frequent but brief periods
of task conflict. Task conflicts are brief because high performance teams
have effective conflict management strategies.
Productive teams operate differently than unproductive groups.
Productivity is not an accident or the result of one or two people. The way a
group functions, from the beginning, does make a difference in its
productivity. Studies have found that high performance teams actually
produce more than other work groups. They are also rated as more
productive by their managers, and their members rate their team as more
productive. These studies have been conducted in the financial industry, the
hotel industry, the manufacturing sector, the service sector, the healthcare
industry, and educational institutions.
It’s not a waste of time to pay attention to how your group is functioning.
Based on what we now know, it’s clear that time spent on improving the
functioning of your group is time well spent. It might be helpful for your
group to review the characteristics of high performance teams and
determine what your group is doing well and what needs improvement. Use
the Team Performance Checklist in this chapter to assess your group’s
current level of effectiveness. Collate members’ responses to questions and
determine the group’s average score. If that score is 85 or above, you can
legitimately call yourselves members of a high performance team.
Regardless of the score, there will be areas that need improvement. Plan
ways to make the necessary improvements.
 FIVE

EFFECTIVE TEAM MEMBERS

S o much has been written about leaders that it would take at least one
large library to house all the books, journals, magazines, and other
materials that focus on leadership. Materials that focus on membership still
fit neatly in a corner on my desk. Leadership training and coaching leaders
abound. In all likelihood, you have attended leadership training at some
point in your career. But have you been to membership training? Sadly, I
think your answer would be no. Have you ever seen a brochure or ad in a
professional journal that describes a membership training workshop? I
haven’t, and advertisements for training cross my desk almost every day.
Besides, who wants to go to membership training? It would be like
volunteering for a remedial class in high school. Winners go to leadership
training. Only losers need to learn how to be effective members.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Unless all members
work to ensure group success, it won’t happen. Leaders and members all
have to put their oars in the water and row in the same direction to reach the
group’s goals. No one gets to be a bystander in the process of group
development.
Actually, I’m getting tired of writing about the lack of work group
membership training. The first edition of Creating Effective Teams was
published in 1999. It’s now 2014, and nothing much has changed in the
membership training department. Membership training hasn’t caught on.
It’s not fair to ask people to participate in a group at work without helping
them acquire the skills they need to be effective members. For my part, I no
longer offer leadership training. Instead, I train work groups in effective
membership and effective leadership. Members and leaders of real work
groups learn together and learn each other’s roles. This approach is much
more effective because the attitudes and skills participants acquire can be
put to use at the group’s next meeting. Also, members and the leader can
help each other become more effective by supporting each other and
offering advice.
This chapter outlines what research tells us about the behaviors and
attitudes of effective team members. These are presented in the form of
guidelines. None of these characteristics requires any special personality
type, but they all require goodwill and some degree of effort. As you read
the chapter, think about a group you are working with at the moment. Ask
yourself the following questions:

• Do I follow these guidelines?

• Can I think of times when I exhibited these behaviors and attitudes?
• Can I think of times when I should have exhibited these behaviors
but, for some reason, did not?
• In what areas do I need to improve?
• What do I plan to do to improve in those areas?

If you’re going to be an effective team member, you’ll need to take a

closer look at your own behaviors and attitudes and at the way you interact
with the group. Here are some guidelines to help you evaluate your
performance as a group member.

Don’t Blame Others for Group Problems

One of the more difficult problems I encounter in working with groups is a
general feeling of helplessness. Somehow, members of groups are
convinced that they can’t make a difference. I hear lots of statements like
the following:

“Unless the leader is replaced, there’s nothing the rest of us can do.”
“These people are crazy. I don’t even want to come to meetings.”
“Team meetings are like swimming with sharks. I just keep my head
down.”
“Our meetings are a waste of time. I wish the leader were stronger.”
 “I’m not even sure what we’re supposed to be doing, but I’m afraid to
ask.”
“The same people talk in circles. I just keep quiet and hope the meeting
will end soon.”
“There’s nothing we can do. Upper management has to get into the act
before things will change.”

I encounter these feelings of helplessness very often among people in the

workplace. Of course, I realize that things can be pretty chaotic in
organizations due to downsizing, mergers, new initiatives, recessions, and
the like, but I am not convinced that those are the only reasons for the
passivity I observe. One reason is the human tendency to blame the other
guy.
It will probably surprise many readers to learn that there’s a social
science term for this tendency to blame the other guy. It’s called the
fundamental attribution error. What it means is that humans tend to attribute
the actions of others to personality characteristics without taking other
factors into account. Most of the time that’s an error.
Our tendency to blame the boss for poor group results without taking
budgetary constraints, the lack of group member cooperation, or the lack of
other necessary resources into account is an example of an attribution error.
When we say that lack of upper management support is the reason for group
failure, despite the fact that many group members don’t even come to
meetings and no one can agree when they do come, that’s an attribution
error. When members say that Harry is at fault because he just won’t shut
up despite the fact that no one else seems willing to talk, that’s an
attribution error.
Researchers have also uncovered general patterns in how individual
group members interpret group success or failure. For example, leaders and
powerful members tend to feel personally responsible for both group
success and group failure. On the other hand, less powerful members take
responsibility for group success but not for group failure. Instead, these
members attribute group failure to leaders, powerful members, the
organization, upper management, or other situational constraints.
 People tend to misinterpret the behavior and motivation of others. This
tendency to misinterpret increases conflict. When things aren’t going well
for the group, we are much more likely to blame others. Although the
tendency to misjudge people, events, and actions is natural, it also has very
negative effects on the group and on individuals who are wrongly judged.
For example, I often am called on to assist work groups that are mired in
conflict and, as a result, are not within budget or time constraints or are not
meeting target goals. There is usually a stable behavior pattern of attacks
and counterattacks that has been going on for some time. My goal in
working with such a group is to help the group free itself from this pattern
and get back on track.
The problem confronting me in such a situation is that because the group
is stuck in a pattern of conflict, members tend to focus on blaming outside
forces, other members, or the leader for the group’s predicament. As long as
blaming is the primary pattern, the group will remain stuck. Also, the longer
the blaming continues, the more powerless and frustrated group members
will feel.
Changing a pattern of blame to one of collaboration and shared
responsibility for group functioning and productivity is no easy task,
however. Schein (1988), a well-known organizational consultant, wrote that
the concept of teamwork is inconsistent with the U.S. emphasis on
individualism and personal responsibility. Consequently, if the members
accept shared responsibility for group function, each member will feel
compelled to accept personal blame for group failure as well. Resistance to
any information that disconfirms the belief that the group’s problems are
due to the actions of individual members, the leader, or authority figures
external to the group is the inevitable result. Unless group members begin
to see the situation differently, no change will occur.
One of the most powerful ways I have found to help members change
their view of the situation is to talk with them about the normal human
tendency to blame the other guy. Once members realize that they have made
a mistake, they begin to look for other factors that are inhibiting progress.
From that point on, changes happen fairly rapidly. Simply put, blaming is a
symptom of a negative group pattern. Blaming is almost never a statement
of fact. It is rare that one person is responsible for a group’s problems. I
believe that it is best to assume that is never the case, because that stops the
blaming, which often leads the group in a positive direction.
Because I’ve heard it so many times before, I can almost hear some
readers saying that, in their case, the leader really was to blame. Others are
thinking it really was that member Harry’s fault. Still others are thinking
that upper management really was to blame.
I hear these statements so often it seems as if every leader, on every
continent, is incompetent. I hear these statements so often that it seems as if
every group, on every continent, contains an incompetent, evil, or mentally
unbalanced member. This is simply not the case. Most groups contain
people who are trying to do a good job. They may not know how. They may
not be socially skilled, but they are trying.
My advice is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt not just for his or
her sake but for your own and the group’s sake. Blaming doesn’t help. It
only starts cycles of revenge and retaliation. Instead, find other factors that
might be blocking group progress and fix them. Use the checklists in this
book (for instance, the Effective Member Checklist at the end of this
chapter) to help you determine other things to focus on. You’ll be surprised
at what happens when you do that. Things will start to get better.
By the way, I want to encourage people in management roles to start
taking this advice as well. Stop replacing leaders or group members for
alleged incompetence. Give teams the resources and training they need to
work together effectively. Supply consultants, if necessary. All of us can
make attribution errors, and the human cost of these errors is very high.
I had two reasons for starting this chapter by introducing the reader to the
human tendency to blame the other guy. First, it pains me to repeatedly
witness these misjudgments and their aftermath (e.g., transfers, firings, hurt
feelings, and stress). Second, it means that all group members and leaders
have responsibility for group success and group failings. The rest of the
organization does also. Chapter 2 outlined what we know from research
about how organizations can help the groups functioning within them.
Chapter 6 will outline what leaders can do to help their groups be
successful. This chapter outlines what members can do to help their group
be successful. Everybody shares in the responsibility, and that’s the truth.
Encourage the Process of Goal, Role, and Task
Clarification
Encouraging the process of goal, role, and task clarification is simple to
implement. All it means is that when you don’t understand what’s going on,
ask questions until you do. It helps to ask questions of the group and not
just the leader, because the discussion that follows will be richer and more
likely to really clarify things for everyone.
Although this is a very simple thing to do, people hesitate to ask
questions in the early stages of group development. This reticence is quite
natural, but try to overcome it a little. Even if you ask only one question of
the group, it will make a difference.
Many people have told me that they’re afraid to ask questions for fear of
being perceived as incompetent or naive. I am quite aware that image is
seen as an important thing at work, but image is not everything. Even if
image is very important, asking clarifying questions is unlikely to hurt your
image. In fact, it may improve it. Others are most likely to see you as
helpful, courageous, or down to earth for asking clarifying questions. None
of those qualities is bad for your image.

Encourage the Adoption of an Open

Communication Structure in Which All Member
Input and Feedback Is Heard
It won’t surprise most readers to learn that some people talk more than
others during meetings. Of course, some people are just shy or have less
need to be heard than others do. However, many talk less because they
don’t feel invited to speak. This has happened to most of us at one time or
another. You go to the first meeting of a group, and few people talk to you.
When you do say something, very few people respond to what you have
said. If this has happened to you, think about the kind of group it was and
the kind of people it contained. Was there anything about you that was
different from others? Were you:
 • one of the oldest in the group?
• one of the youngest in the group?
• new to the organization or group?
• one of only a few women in an otherwise male group?
• one of only a few men in an otherwise female group?
• the only one from your profession or area?
• one of only a few minorities in the group?

Were there any other obvious differences between you and other group
members?
People tend to unconsciously classify others and assign high or low status
to them based on external characteristics, especially during early meetings.
Sometimes, it can be things as seemingly meaningless as height, clothes,
mannerisms, and the like that get you classified into a high- or low-status
position in a group.
By the way, people aren’t bad when they classify others and assign them
high or low status based on that classification. We all do it, all the time,
sometimes without even being aware of what we’re doing. In some cases,
our tendency to do this can be very helpful. It can keep us out of harm’s
way. In work groups, however, our tendency to do this can be quite
detrimental.
In the beginning of a group, communication patterns get established very
quickly. Who talks to whom and who gets to talk a lot or a little become
clear within a few meetings. No one talks about this; it just happens. The
problem with this is that who talks to whom and who gets to talk a lot or a
little are usually determined by status characteristics such as age, gender,
ethnicity, and organizational position. Once a person is assigned a position
in the food chain, it’s hard to break out of it.
For example, women and minorities still tend to be assigned lower status
in groups. As a result, they are expected to talk less, and they may be
assigned less influential group roles. They often report dissatisfaction with
their lower status, and other group members sometimes report uncertainty
about the status of minority and female group members. Although this is
beginning to change, we still have a long way to go before this tendency to
assign lower status to members of certain groups is eradicated.
Group performance suffers when member role and status assignments are
inappropriate or when member contributions are ignored. Potentially
valuable contributions are overlooked, and goal achievement and
productivity suffer as a result. Researchers have identified individual
strategies and group conditions that increase the status of women and
minorities in groups, however. These strategies may be helpful to any
person whose group role or status is not commensurate with his or her
abilities.
People who do not accept the lower status assigned to them increase the
likelihood of improving their position in the group. People who act in
group-oriented, as opposed to individual-oriented, ways tend to improve
their group status as well. Also, people who demonstrate their competence
and abilities to the group tend to increase their status, especially if they
have enough time to demonstrate that competence. Eventually, other group
members see these demonstrated abilities, and there is no longer a need for
the person to prove his or her worth to the group.
Although research has focused mainly on women and minorities, the
same advice works for anyone who is perceived as lower in status for
whatever reason. On the individual level, the research suggests that the
following strategies can help to elevate one’s status in the group:

• Diplomatically resisting an inappropriate role assignment or status

• Demonstrating one’s competence and abilities
• Acting in a cooperative, group-oriented way

On the group level, time aids the process of redefinition or reassignment

of roles and changes in communication patterns. There’s also another factor
that helps tremendously. When all members take responsibility to ensure
that everyone is heard from and that they are all clear about and
comfortable with their roles, the chances of group success increase.
Valuable input and skills will be used instead of lost.
Ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to be heard can be as simple
as stopping periodically to check in with everyone. This takes only a few
minutes but can make a big difference in group success.

Promote an Appropriate Ratio of Task

Communications to Supportive Communications
In Chapter 3, I discussed the importance of supportive comments to group
success. Statements focused on the group’s work task are also very
important, of course. If we engage only in supportive conversation, we may
feel better but won’t get much work done. Members of work teams that are
successful spend between 70% and 80% of the time talking about goals and
tasks. That means that out of 100 statements made by team members, 70 to
80 are work oriented. The next most common kind of statement made in
high performance teams is supportive. The remainder are statements that
express disagreement, focus on topics unrelated to the task, or express some
form of dependency. If the proportion of these various kinds of statements
changes very much, the group will be less successful.
What this means in practical terms is that when the group strays into an
extended conversation about a football game, it is helpful to try to refocus
the discussion on the task at hand. Likewise, if the group has been intensely
discussing work tasks for an extended period of time, it might be helpful to
compliment the group for its efforts or express support in some other way.
Balance in group conversation, as in life, helps a lot.

Promote the Use of Effective Problem-Solving and

Decision-Making Procedures
Before I discuss the process of problem solving and decision making, it is
necessary to bring up an important question: Who should participate in
solving problems and making decisions? Most organizations encourage
workers at all levels to participate in these important processes. However,
research suggests that not all employees are capable of contributing to the
problem-solving or decision-making process. Some people simply are not
interested in these processes, and others do not think they know enough to
be of help. To solve problems, group members need expertise in the
problem area, confidence in their ability to help solve the problem,
knowledge and experience related to the problem, interest in participating,
and problem-solving skills.
Effective methods for problem solving and decision making have been
studied by a number of researchers. Their results overlap. For example,
Shaw (1954), a social psychologist, stated that effective group problem
solving and decision making consists of four steps:

1. Recognizing the problem

2. Diagnosing the problem
3. Making the decision
4. Accepting and implementing the decision

Others have outlined a process, similar to Shaw’s, that includes the

following:

1. An orientation phase
2. A discussion phase
3. A decision phase
4. An implementation phase

Each of these phases has significant impact on the quality of a group’s

solutions and its overall productivity. For example, during the orientation
phase, it is helpful to avoid dwelling on the problem, because focusing on
deficiencies may lead members to become defensive. Instead, it is useful to
begin by discussing good solutions that have been effective and
investigating solutions developed by teams in other organizations that have
proved to be effective. This puts a positive spin on the process and may
expand the group’s solution options. Then the problem is defined and
strategies are outlined for solving the problem. Strategies include such
things as how to gain needed information about the problem, how to
analyze the information, and how to make the final decision. Research tells
us that groups that outline these strategies in advance are more successful
than those that do not. Unfortunately, many groups spend little or no time
planning strategies for problem solving and decision making. Some groups
consider it a waste of time, even if members have been made aware of the
fact that planning improves solution quality and group performance.
The amount of time spent discussing the problem and potential solutions
increases the quality of the outcome. The amount of member participation
in the discussion relates to the quality of the group’s solution and overall
effectiveness as well. Again, many groups do not spend adequate time
discussing an issue. In some cases, a group will discuss only a few
alternative solutions.
Groups can make the actual decision in a number of ways. The group
may delegate the responsibility for the final decision to an individual, a
subgroup, or an expert. Member inputs can be averaged to form the basis
for a decision. Group members can vote on alternative proposals or may
choose consensus as their decision-making method. Consensus refers to
reaching a decision that is agreeable to all members. Efforts to determine
which of these methods is best have been unsuccessful. People like the
consensus method, but it doesn’t necessarily produce better decisions. In
general, people tend to like any method as long as they can live with the
final decision. It is certain that participation in the decision-making process
increases member satisfaction, however. It may also increase performance
to some extent.
I want to insert a word of caution about using consensus inappropriately.
In the last paragraph, I defined consensus as the process of reaching a
decision that is agreeable to all members. This does not mean that all
members would rate that proposed solution as their first choice. It simply
means that they can live with that decision.
Many people think that consensus means that everyone must agree 100%
with the proposal. If that is not the case, they believe, consensus has not
been reached. This way of looking at consensus is very dangerous. If one
person objects, the group cannot move forward. Viewed in this way,
consensus is more like tyranny. One person can stop the group in its tracks.
To avoid this potential pitfall, I recommend a modified version of consensus
in which members assume that consensus exists if 70% to 80% of the
members agree.
 Implementing group decisions and evaluating those decisions are key
elements in the process. Ideally, evaluation is built into the process, and the
results of the evaluation form the basis for the group’s next problem-solving
process. Many of us have sat on committees and made recommendations
that were never implemented. This is often the case when the group making
the decision does not have the authority to implement its solution. Nothing
is so demoralizing to a group. It is incumbent on the group, then, to interact
with other groups that will be involved in implementation throughout its
deliberations. This increases the likelihood of successful implementation of
group decisions.
These findings suggest that problem solving and decision making are
enhanced when groups outline, in advance, the strategies they will use to
solve problems and make decisions. Discussing alternative solutions,
ensuring implementation and evaluation, and involving all members in
these processes are also associated with high quality problem solving and
decision making.

Encourage the Establishment of Norms That

Support Productivity, Innovation, and Freedom of
Expression
You might be surprised at the number of groups I encounter that don’t
expect to generate the best possible product or result. I hear about what
group members think they can get away with and about why time
constraints, policies, and lack of resources will prevent the group from
doing a good job. Although some of these constraints are very real, if a
group agrees to mediocrity, that is what it will get. When groups agree to do
the best possible job and to remove as many obstacles from their way as
they can, excellence is the likely result.
Freedom of expression was discussed earlier when I advocated the
development of an open communication structure. If members don’t feel
free to offer their ideas, it will be difficult for the group to be successful. In
this section, I would like to add a few additional comments about freedom
of expression.
 Research on the effects of diversity on work group procedures and
productivity has not led to unanimous conclusions. Some findings suggest
that diversity improves work group performance, but other findings
conclude that diversity has negative effects on performance. Surface-level
differences, such as ethnicity, gender, race, and age, have been found to
have negative effects on group processes and performance. Underlying
differences, such as personality, education, and life experiences, do not have
as much impact on work groups. Interpersonal conflicts have very harmful
effects on groups, however. Whether those conflicts are instigated by
diversity, personality, or gender, these conflicts can have very negative
effects on work groups. Sometimes diversity increases interpersonal
conflicts. However, diversity can also increase team learning, problem
solving, and innovation.
It may be that the contradictions in research findings result from the
significant increases in racial and ethnic diversity not only in the United
States but also in countries all over the world. Social scientists are capturing
glimpses of the rapidly changing makeup of populations across the globe
and our efforts to become more inclusive.
In the meantime, what can work group members do to improve group
performance and increase the participation of all members? Fortunately, the
research is quite clear about one thing. Group members need to avoid
interpersonal conflicts and embrace task conflicts. Functional differences
among members, such as differences in expertise, background, and
educational level, lead to task conflicts, which are necessary for effective
problem solving, decision making, and high performance. If team members
focus on the work and avoid interpersonal conflicts, diversity of all types
becomes a resource. Members learn from each other, make better decisions,
and improve group productivity and effectiveness. To benefit from
diversity, everyone must be heard and involved in the discussion.

Go Along With Norms That Promote Group

Effectiveness and Productivity
Norms are collective value judgments about how members should behave
and what should be done in the group. Norms are necessary if group
members are to coordinate their efforts and accomplish their goals.
Establishing rules or norms about unimportant things or the wrong things
has a chilling effect on groups, however. If individuals cannot express
dissent, for example, things will not go well.
Sometimes norms get established about unimportant things. For example,
I know of groups in which members are expected to eat lunch together
every day. In other groups, members are expected to come to work at least
an hour before work actually begins. Norms like these may inhibit
individual freedom and cause resentment.
On the other hand, some degree of coordination and conformity is
necessary for group success. It is important, then, to go along with norms
that promote group effectiveness and productivity. Although you might
prefer a different way of doing things, if the established norm is likely to
work, conformity is advised.
Which norms encourage productivity? Research tells us that norms
encouraging high performance standards and effectiveness increase team
productivity. Shared expectations of success also support productivity. A
norm that encourages innovation increases the likelihood of higher
productivity as well. Norms and values that support superior quality,
service, innovation, and attention to detail significantly increase team
effectiveness and productivity. Make sure that your team has norms like
these and does not create other norms that block effectiveness, and things
will go well.

Promote Group Cohesion and Cooperation

The following are some of the positive effects of cohesion in groups:

• Increased conformity
• Increased group influence over its members
• Increased member satisfaction with the group
• Increased group integration
 • Increased cooperation

Box 5.1 Group Therapy

I got a call from a group leader. He said his group was a mess. When I
asked what was happening, he gave me a lengthy personality profile of
each group member. He also told me how each person related to other
members and who was feuding with whom. The group’s problem was
caused by a lack of clarity about goals and tasks. When these issues
were straightened out, the “personality problems” went away.
Psychoanalysis was not necessary.

Cooperation, which is facilitated by cohesion and shared goals, has many

positive effects on group functioning. The characteristics of cooperative
groups are as follows:

• More effective communication

• A friendlier group atmosphere
• Stronger individual desire to work on group tasks
• Stronger commitment to the group
• Greater division of labor
• Greater coordination of effort
• Greater productivity
• Increased trust and the development of lasting agreements
• Increased ability to resolve conflicts

A word of caution with regard to cohesion is appropriate at this point.

High levels of cohesion, in conjunction with certain factors, can have
negative effects. That is, a group can make poor or, in some cases,
dangerous decisions due to an overriding wish to maintain unity and
cohesion. This wish can lead the group to overlook other choices or courses
of action. A cohesive group may be in danger of making a poor decision, a
condition called “groupthink,” in the following circumstances:
 • When groups deliberate in isolation and do not report or check their
conclusion with others outside the group, the possibility of poor
decisions increases.
• If the group’s leader controls the discussion and makes his or her
positions clear from the outset, poor group decisions are more likely.
• When groups are faced with important and stressful decisions, they
tend to decide quickly to reduce the stress. This often results in poor
decisions.

Cohesion alone does not pose a threat. As long as a group stays

connected with others outside the group and has an effective leader, high
levels of cohesion will have many positive effects on group productivity.
How, then, can group members promote cohesion? Research tells us that
when goals and methods to reach those goals are clear, cohesion increases.
Also, successful conflict resolution reduces individual fears of rejection and
increases trust between members. A feeling of “we-ness,” or cohesiveness,
results. Finally, although it is rarely clear what causes what in an interacting
system, increased communication is associated with increased cohesion and
vice versa.
Notice that the research does not suggest that sharing personal feelings,
developing personal friendships, socializing outside work, or similar things
increase group cohesion. It is not necessary to know other group members
on a personal level to promote cohesion. Working to increase goal clarity
and communication should occur in the work group. Conflict resolution
should as well.
Conflicts continue to occur throughout a group’s life. In fact, group
conflict is almost as common as group cooperation. One could conclude
that conflict seriously impairs group cohesion. Although this can be the
result, cohesion can also be increased by conflict. Although this sounds
paradoxical, it is important to note that in any relationship, the freedom to
be oneself and to disagree without fear of rejection or retribution increases,
rather than decreases, cohesion and trust. Also, conflict provides energy to
the group and allows clarification of group values, goals, and structures. All
of these have been found to be associated with increased cohesion and trust.
Cohesion and conflict are linked. You can’t have one without the other, so
to speak.
 Of course, how conflict is dealt with is the crucial factor in determining
its effect on cohesion. Inevitably, conflict is resolved. How it is resolved
will determine whether group cohesion is positively or negatively affected.
Six methods of conflict resolution have been described by a number of
researchers:

• Imposition of the position of an individual or subgroup on other

members
• Withdrawal of an individual or subgroup from the group
• Inaction, whereby one or both sides of a conflict do nothing to
resolve the conflict
• Yielding, in which one side gives up its position
• Compromise, in which the parties find a solution somewhere between
their respective positions
• Problem solving, in which the source of the conflict is located and a
mutually agreeable solution is found

The first four solutions have many negative repercussions. Imposition

can result in hostility and passive-aggressive behavior on the part of group
members. Withdrawal threatens the life of the group and reduces its
resources through member loss. Inaction can result in simmering discontent,
apathy, or alienation. Yielding may also elicit alienation and covert hostility.
Compromise can be viable if the resolution of the conflict seems reasonable
and acceptable to all concerned. Problem solving gives the best results,
however, because it requires the actual resolution of different perspectives
and a new group conceptualization of the issues involved in the conflict.
Some groups navigate their conflicts well, and others disband or become
dysfunctional by dealing with their differences ineffectively. What do
successful teams do to promote positive conflict resolution? Members of
successful teams communicate their views clearly and explicitly. They
avoid generalizations and are specific in their communication. They talk
about trust and cooperation during the discussion. Members also initially
respond cooperatively to others who are behaving competitively. If others
continue to respond competitively, successful group members demonstrate
their willingness to compete by arguing their position. Although this sounds
like an inappropriate strategy, research suggests that it may result in
cooperation from others because not to do so would result in continued
stress or personal losses. Sometimes, demonstrating a willingness to
compete will bring about cooperation from others. Demonstrating a
willingness to compete may also result in being viewed as a more
formidable opponent.

Box 5.2 Intensive Teamwork

Intensive care teams at higher stages of development save more

patients’ lives than ICU teams at lower stages of development.

All of these strategies help maintain a reasonable trust level, which

allows negotiations to proceed. Negotiation is an important conflict
resolution strategy. Seeking a mutually agreeable, or win-win, solution has
been found to increase communication and cooperation. It also tends to
reduce conflict by breaking it down into specific issues that can be dealt
with one at a time.
Sometimes the intensity and depth of the conflict are too great to be
solved by the group members themselves. In such cases, a third party can
help resolve the conflict. Group and organizational consultants are often
asked to assist groups that are stuck as a result of seemingly insurmountable
conflicts. This can be a useful strategy for conflict resolution. However,
third-party intervention should be sought only if all parties want the help
and if the intensity of the conflict is high. This last-resort strategy requires
willingness on the part of the group and skill on the part of the third party.
 SIX

EFFECTIVE TEAM LEADERSHIP

T he belief that leaders are instrumental in the creation of effective

teams is deeply rooted in society and in the social sciences. Today’s
conceptions of leadership are not very different from the earliest views,
which described leaders as people with special inborn characteristics that
propelled them into leadership roles. Currently, although most social
scientists reject the notion of inborn traits, many still see leadership as
residing in the individual because it is assumed that people can learn how to
be effective leaders by acquiring certain knowledge and skills. Hundreds of
thousands of managers and executives have attended leadership training
programs over the years in order to learn to be effective leaders. Now, most
leaders have coaches as well.
Leaders are thought to facilitate the development of shared understanding
and interpretations of reality among group members. They articulate things
that haven’t previously been explicitly stated that can provide new visions
for the group. Inherent in this position is the assumption that the leadership
role is vital to the creation and maintenance of an effective team. This
assumption has led some researchers to study the cognitive capacities of
leaders to determine how effective leaders think about their role. Again, the
goal of such studies is to discover effective leadership styles that can then
be taught to other leaders or potential leaders.
The old notion of the charismatic leader is experiencing a comeback. In
this view, the leader is seen as the one who instills new thinking in
followers and redirects group activities. These views of leadership support
the assumption that leaders are central to the creation and redirection of
group culture. In fact, leaders are perceived as having so much power that,
should they act in selfish or unethical ways, great damage can be done to
the group and its members. Leaders are clearly perceived as capable of
making a significant difference in groups.
 For the average person in a leadership role in the workplace, these views
of leaders as crucial to group success can be overwhelming. It’s all up to
you when you’re the leader. If the group fails, it’s your fault. The stress of
this enormous personal responsibility can have negative effects on potential
and actual leaders. Potential leaders may choose not to become leaders, and
actual leaders may suffer emotional or physical stress as a result of this
sense of responsibility. Also, leaders worry about repercussions if their
groups are perceived by upper management to be unproductive. Leaders
know that they will be held accountable for the group’s lack of productivity.
Some social scientists disagree with the prevailing, one-sided view of the
leader as central to team effectiveness and success. Some emphasize the
interdependence of leaders, followers, and the dynamic forces in which a
group operates. In this view, all group members share responsibility for
creating an effective team. Multiple discussions among all members
eventually result in shared assumptions about goals and the methods needed
to accomplish those goals. Leaders are part of this process but are not
necessarily a primary part. Group success or failure is the result of many
mutual influences.
Group development theories also suggest that a group’s culture and
structure are the products of processes inherent in groups. This view of the
creation of effective teams is not as leader-centric. The creation of group
culture is seen as the result of intrinsic forces. Consequently, the content of
culture in different groups is not uniform. Rather, the particulars of a culture
result from the resolution of differences and disagreements that emerge in
that group. However, the process is the same from group to group, and all
members are involved in the creation of a group’s unique culture and
structure.
Although minority opinions such as those just reviewed do exist, the
majority view of leaders as key to group success dominates our thinking. In
the current climate, the focus is on leaders, not members. In this chapter, I
will try to reduce that focus a bit and decrease the overwhelming feeling of
responsibility associated with leadership in today’s work environment. I
will present guidelines for what leaders can do to help their groups become
effective and productive teams. As has been the case throughout this book,
the guidelines are based on research. Inherent in these guidelines is an
assumption of mine, which is that leaders alone cannot be held responsible
for group success or failure. Having reviewed the leadership research, I am
convinced that the view of groups as interdependent systems is the more
accurate one. I have already alluded to this assumption in previous chapters.
In fact, two of the preceding chapters could not have been written if I had
believed that leaders are ultimately responsible for group outcomes. The
larger organization, external conditions, and group members also influence
group success or failure. Although leaders can help or hinder the process, so
can members.
I also want to dispel the myth that leaders must be special people with a
tremendous amount of skill in order to be effective. The average person of
goodwill, who is flexible and willing to learn some basic skills, can be an
effective leader. Not all situations require leaders of exceptional skill. In
fact, in many group situations, charismatic leaders may inhibit group
progress because their dominating presence may reduce member
participation and motivation to take on certain tasks necessary for group
success. Groups work well when all members actively participate. If leaders
remain prominent throughout group life, groups will be less likely to
succeed. With these assumptions as a foundation, the following guidelines
for effective leadership are presented. As you read the rest of this chapter,
think about a group that you are leading at the moment or have recently led.
Ask yourself the following questions:

• Do I follow these guidelines?

• Can I think of examples of times when I exhibited these behaviors or
attitudes?
• Can I think of times when I should have exhibited these behaviors or
attitudes but, for some reason, did not?
• In what areas do I need to improve?
• What do I plan to do to improve in these areas?

There are certain things you must keep in mind and certain things you
must do if you are going to be an effective team leader. The following
guidelines outline how leaders become effective.
Don’t Take On Every Leadership Assignment You
Are Offered
Research attempts to determine the personal characteristics of effective
leaders have a long and disappointing history. The search for leadership
traits has not resulted in many consistent findings. Despite all the effort,
only a few traits have been consistently identified. Effective leaders tend to
have more task-related abilities, be more social, and be more motivated to
be leaders than others.
Although these findings indicate that a few personal characteristics do
influence leadership capabilities, it is important to note that task-related
abilities will vary in different situations. The same is true of the kinds of
social skills required of leaders in different situations. Therefore, the same
person will not necessarily be an effective leader in every context.
An effective leader of an engineering product development team, for
example, might be ineffective as a leader of a group in the financial or hotel
industry. Although this may seem self-evident, in large organizations
composed of many different businesses, people are often transferred
between businesses without regard to task competence. Such transfers are
based on the assumption that effective leaders will be effective in a variety
of contexts and that knowledge of a group’s task is not essential for
leadership. Research suggests that this is not the case. To be effective,
leaders must understand the work of a group.
The social skills needed in different leadership roles also vary. An
outgoing, engaging, and charming style might be needed in some situations.
In others, a more sedate, low-key style works best. Although some people
may be able to adjust their styles to meet different social demands, others
may not be as successful. All leaders must adjust their styles at different
times in order to facilitate group progress. However, leaders should be
aware that certain personality characteristics are difficult to change, and
task competence in very different areas is difficult to come by. The bottom
line, then, is that it is best to be selective about the leadership roles you take
on. Choose to take on a leadership role when you understand the group’s
work and you believe that you will be able to meet group needs.
Adjust Your Leadership Style to Meet the
Developmental Needs of the Group at a Particular
Time
Member perceptions of the role of the leader change at different stages of
group development. In Stage 1, the group perceives the leader as benevolent
and powerful. She or he is perceived as the source of member safety and
reward. In Stage 2, members begin to challenge the leader’s authority and
control. In order for the group to mature, such challenges are necessary. The
role of the leader must be redefined if the group is to move into the more
mature stages of development. When power is redistributed as groups
mature, all group leaders experience some loss of influence and
prominence.
Groups that successfully move through the developmental sequence do
so in part by changing the relationship between members and the leader.
The leader—once benevolent, then authoritarian in the eyes of members—
emerges in later stages as a more realistic group facilitator and coordinator.
Earlier mythic qualities ascribed to the leader by members are stripped
away, and a human being with a job to do emerges. Leader prominence is
less necessary in later stages of development because goals and roles have
become clear. Members’ roles have emerged that take over certain aspects
of the leader’s role. The elaborated group social structure makes leader
prominence unnecessary and potentially disruptive. Leadership is still
necessary for coordination; however, both leaders and members provide
that coordination.
These changes in status and perceptions take their toll on the bravest of
leaders. Because most people who assume a leadership role are not aware of
these naturally occurring group processes, they may feel defeated as a result
of attacks and challenges to their authority that occur in Stage 2. However,
for the group to develop further, the leader’s role must change significantly.
In mature and productive teams, members assume many of the functions
that leaders performed at earlier stages. For this to occur, the leader’s role
must become less directive and more consultative. Leaders can help to
redistribute power among members by altering their leadership style to
match the needs of the group. This entails knowing what the needs of the
group are at any given time and how to behave in order to facilitate
movement.
In a way, leadership and parenting have a lot in common. An effective
parent interacts differently with a small child than with that same child as
an adolescent or a young adult. Maintaining one parenting style throughout
the life of a child would be disastrous. Maintaining one style of leadership
throughout the life of a group would be detrimental also. One style will not
meet group needs and will not facilitate the development of an effective and
productive team. The question for leaders, then, is, “What leadership style
is best at the different stages of group development?” The following
guidelines suggest ways for leaders to behave when groups are in the
different stages of group development.

Leadership at Stage 1: Be a Directive and

Confident Leader
In a new group, members expect leaders to be directive, confident,
organized, and task oriented. Group members haven’t had the time to
organize themselves yet. That will come later. In the meantime, members
want the leader to provide that structure for them. Don’t be afraid to do that.
Many new leaders feel that it is best to ask members to help structure the
group from the beginning. Although this may seem democratic and right, it
tends to make members feel insecure and slows group progress.
Come into meetings with a clear, written agenda. State the group’s goals
as clearly as possible. Run meetings efficiently and assign tasks to
individuals as necessary. If decisions are called for, make them. Your initial
attempts to organize things will be modified later as group members
become more involved. In the beginning, however, providing direction and
appearing confident of group success are essential.

Work to Reduce Members’ Anxiety, Fears of Rejection, and

Concerns About Safety
 In the first stage of group development, members’ dependency, anxiety,
and need for inclusion and safety are at their height. The leader is likely to
be seen as benevolent, competent, and the provider of safety to anxious
group members. One of the leader’s main jobs during this time is to reduce
the anxieties of group members. Leaders can reduce member anxiety by
expressing confidence and providing direction. In addition, it is important
to be fair and sensitive when dealing with members. Make sure that you
don’t put individuals on the spot or react negatively to anyone. Also, help
members to feel included by addressing people by name and inviting
members to participate. Initially, inviting participation is helpful. Insisting
on participation or singling out nonparticipators is not helpful, however.

Provide Positive Feedback

In the beginning of a group, positive feedback from the leader increases
cohesion. Using your leadership position to reward rather than punish
members will facilitate group development. There are many ways to
accomplish this. Thanking people for their attendance, input, and ideas is
just one way to provide positive feedback.

Facilitate Open Discussion of Goals, Values, and Tasks

In the first stage of group development, leaders play an important role in
facilitating group growth. This is because leaders have the most clearly
defined role during this period. Because development is progressive, the
task of a leader at Stage 1 is to facilitate movement to the next
developmental phase. That is, the leader’s task is to act in ways that will
precipitate open discussion of values, goals, tasks, and leadership so that
differences of opinion about these elements of group life can surface. This
will move the group in the direction of Stage 2. Because people are hesitant
to express different opinions at Stage 1, it is sometimes useful to ask people
to express their views anonymously. This can be accomplished by asking
people to write down their views on a specific issue. Next, those views can
be summarized and shared with all members. This makes open discussion
of divergent opinions much easier because no individual has to claim
responsibility for expressing a difference of opinion or for being the first to
disagree with a particular view.
Help Members Feel Competent by Providing Supervision,
Training, and Education for Task- and Process-Related
Activities
It is important for members to feel competent in relation to group goals
and tasks. In some groups, members enter the group with great skill.
However, skill levels may not be the same for all group members. It is
helpful to review the skills necessary to accomplish the group’s tasks with
all members to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
Training in group participation skills is as important as training in task-
related skills. Typically, group leaders have received much more training
about groups than members have received. As stated earlier, hundreds of
thousands of people have attended leadership training. I know of very few
membership training seminars besides those that I conduct myself. The
assumption seems to be that if leaders understand how groups operate, they
will be able to make those groups and their members behave effectively.
This is not the case. Members are vital to group success and need the same
knowledge and skill about group participation that leaders need.
If certain necessary skills in the task or group participation area are
lacking, then training, education, supervision, or a combination of these
may be needed to ensure group success. Again, members are unlikely to ask
for these things at this early stage of development. Therefore, it is
incumbent on leaders to determine members’ skill levels and which skills
might need strengthening. Anonymous surveys or private interviews with
group members may be helpful in this regard. Use the Effective Member
Checklist in Chapter 5 to determine what group members need to learn. It
would be helpful to ask members to read this book. They will learn not only
about their role as members but also about your role as leader. That will
make a big, and positive, difference.

Set High Performance Standards and Provide Guidance as

Needed
Research tells us that groups with high performance standards tend to be
more successful. Setting those standards from the beginning is very
important. During discussions about goals, then, it is helpful not only to
describe the product that the group is expected to generate but also to
discuss expectations about the quality of that product. It is also helpful to
review standards for group participation. Use the Effective Member
Checklist in Chapter 5 and the Effective Leader Checklist in this chapter as
ways of setting performance standards for member and leader participation.

Manage the External Environment for the Group

One of the important functions leaders must perform in the early stages
of group development is managing the group’s interaction with the rest of
the organization. Later on, members will take over some aspects of this
function. Initially, however, it falls to the leader to negotiate with other
groups and individuals for needed resources, buffer the group from
excessive external demands, and report on group progress as a way of
ensuring that the group is regarded positively by the rest of the
organization.

Leadership at Stage 2: When Members Begin to

Demand More Participation in Running the
Group, Slowly Begin to Empower Them
In the first stage of group development, leaders have great influence.
Members tend to depend on the leader for direction and safety. Leaders
have a good deal of influence with regard to initial definition of goals and
preliminary decisions about the type of group structure being established.
Group members expect the leader to provide direction, safety, order, and
group goals and structures. Attempts to engage members in these activities
at Stage 1 would be futile.
During Stage 2, however, member expectations and reactions to the
leader change quite a bit. As members become more comfortable in the
group, they begin to resent what they now perceive to be undue influence
on the part of the leader. The leader’s competence may be challenged. Some
members may feel manipulated by the leader. The safety and competence
that members perceived the leader as providing are questioned. Suspicion of
and challenges to the leader’s authority often begin to take place.
Not all members become disenchanted with the leader. Some remain
loyal. The group may split into two factions over this issue. One faction is
supportive of the leader and the other is not. These two factions often fight
about their expectations of the leader and her or his performance with
regard to those expectations. Some of this conflict may be due to actual
leader behavior in the group. Much of the conflict is about things that go
beyond the role of the leader, however. In essence, the conflict with and
about the leader is a way for the group to discuss who can have input into
decisions. Roles and decision making, power, status, and communication
structures are being clarified in this process. Efforts to redistribute power
begin to occur as well. This is all necessary for group progress.
During the first stage of group development, the role of leader is the most
differentiated and important role. Other roles are just being assigned. The
leader role is necessary to the establishment of some sense of safety and
order. In effect, the role of leader and members’ reactions to that role are the
impetus for the emergence of other roles and structures in the group. The
prominence of the leader at Stage 1 and member dependence on the leader
allow initial structures to form. Once these are in place, the group can begin
to define its structure even further. A major way that the group does this is
by redefining the leader’s role and reducing, to some extent, the power
associated with that role. This redistribution of power clears the way for
other structures and roles to emerge.
So far, this seems like a reasonable and natural transition. However,
leaders have used their power during Stage 1. The acquisition of power
tends to make people want more power, not less. Thus, the redistribution of
power necessary for further group development is not an easy process.
When leaders meet resistance, their efforts to exert power and influence
tend to increase, not decrease.
Three types of power have been described in the literature. There is
power over, which is associated with dominance. Power from is the ability
to resist unwanted influence and demands. Power to, or empowerment, is
the ability to act more freely through power sharing. The strategies of
power over and power from tend to have negative effects on group
relationships and goal achievement. Such leadership tactics often push
others to attempt to take power from the leader, and conflict is the
inevitable result. Leaders who use power to, or empowering, strategies
facilitate group development because no leader can perform all the
functions of leadership alone. Redistribution of power is essential to group
development and productivity.

Box 6.1 From Dead Birds to the Newsroom

She was the leader of specialists working to find ways to prevent birds
from flying into airplane engines. She was so effective as a leader that
the corporation, which had acquired many enterprises, transferred her
to become the leader of a network newsroom.

Given the previous discussion, a group is not always successful in

altering its perceptions, or the leader’s perceptions, of the leadership role.
Also, even if the group’s perceptions change, the leader may force or coerce
the group into continuing to respond as it did in Stage 1. Should the group
fail to alter its perceptions, it will regress to the dependency stage of group
development. Should the leader and group disagree about the leader’s role
and be unable to resolve this controversy, a prolonged fight for power and
control is likely to occur. The group will then remain in Stage 2 for an
extended period of time. Should that happen, the group’s cohesiveness,
social structure, and productivity will be adversely affected. Power
struggles, fights, and the like will take precedence over goal achievement,
efficiency, and productivity.
Effective leaders expect challenges to their authority and expect member
demands for more participation in running the group. These leaders see
those challenges and demands as a positive sign of group progress and not
as threats to their authority. They respond to these challenges by slowly
beginning to empower group members to participate more equally in group
management functions. Effective leaders do this slowly, because it will take
members some time to work out conflicts and roles with regard to group
management. Giving up the reins all at once could be disruptive. A slower
redistribution of power will be most effective.

Don’t Take Attacks and Challenges Personally

One of the reasons why groups fail to resolve the tension and conflict
inherent in this stage of group development is that leaders and members
tend to personalize the experience. That is, when others challenge an
individual member’s views, the member has a natural tendency to feel hurt
and personally attacked. Leaders who are attacked or discounted by
members also tend to perceive these incidents as personal affronts. As a
result, people may become quite defensive or combative. This escalation of
tension to unmanageable levels may significantly reduce the group’s
chances of resolving conflict and creating a unified group culture and
structure.
Adopting a group perspective can be very helpful to members and
leaders, especially at this stage. If the events of Stage 2 are viewed from
this perspective, they are understood very differently. Rather than feeling
personally attacked, a leader with a group perspective could view the attack
as a sign that the group is ready to define its structure further. The leader
would view her or his role at this stage as a focus or catalyst for continued
development. She or he would not feel threatened by the loss of some
power or influence. Rather, the leader might come to view this
redistribution of power, roles, and tasks as essential to group productivity
and goal achievement.
In like fashion, a member whose views are challenged by others could
see the challenges as necessary to the establishment of shared goals and an
integrated group culture and social structure. Instead of reacting
defensively, the member might focus on clarifying her or his views and the
views of others in an attempt to gain consensus. A group perspective makes
it possible for people to view conflict as normal and necessary at this stage
of group development.
In real situations, on numerous occasions, I have seen the positive effects
of adopting a group perspective. If a group that is stuck in the conflict stage
can adopt a group perspective, it may be able to free itself and move to
higher developmental stages. The first step, then, is learning about group
development and dynamics. Simply knowing about these phenomena is not
enough, however. Leaders and members must be able to give up blaming
each other in order to begin to resolve the conflicts. This is not easy. Even
though we know intellectually that conflict, attacks, and disagreements are
normal and necessary parts of group development, on an emotional level we
may feel hurt or angry. Our emotions may overwhelm us and lead us to seek
revenge or vindication rather than reconciliation and consensus. In many
cases, group members and leaders would rather get even than succeed.

Act in Ways That Facilitate Open Discussion and Resolution of

Conflicts Regarding Values, Goals, and Leadership
Conflict resolution increases group cohesion and trust, which makes it
possible for the group to focus on strategies to achieve shared goals. In
short, it moves the group toward the third stage of group development.
Some strategies to manage conflict were discussed in the previous chapter.
They are briefly outlined again here because both members and leaders
have responsibility for discussion and resolution of conflicts.
Leaders and members of successful teams communicate their views
clearly and explicitly. They avoid generalizations and are specific in their
communication. They talk about trust and cooperation during the
discussion. Leaders and members also initially respond cooperatively to
others who are behaving competitively. If others continue to respond
competitively, successful group leaders and members demonstrate their
willingness to compete by arguing their position.
Negotiation is an important conflict resolution strategy. Seeking a
mutually agreeable solution has been found to increase communication and
cooperation. It also tends to reduce the conflict by breaking down the
problem into specific issues that can be dealt with one at a time.
When the intensity and depth of the conflict are too great to be solved by
the group members themselves, a third party can help resolve the conflict.
Third-party interventions should be sought only if all parties want the help
and if the intensity of the conflict is high. This last-resort strategy requires
willingness on the part of the group and skill on the part of the third party.
Leadership at Stage 3: Involve Members in the
Leadership Function
Involving members as participants in the leadership process is the hallmark
of Stage 3 leadership. Because leaders cannot perform every task,
delegation and power sharing are necessary and indicative of an effective
leadership style at this stage.
Leader prominence is less necessary at later stages of development
because goals and roles have become clear. Member roles have emerged
that take over aspects of the leader’s role. The elaborated group structure
makes leader prominence unnecessary and potentially disruptive. The
leader moves into a more consultative role with the group. Leadership is
still necessary for coordination; however, that coordination function is now
shared by members and the leader. The following guidelines describe what
effective leaders do at Stage 3.

Encourage and Support Members’ Efforts to Share in the

Leadership Function
In Stage 3, members are ready to facilitate meetings or portions of
meetings. By this time, they are capable of working in subgroups to
accomplish goals. Members will be giving reports about subgroup meetings
and about tasks that have been accomplished between meetings. They will
be involved in decision making and conflict resolution. Members will also
be involved in negotiation, scanning, buffering, and group image and
profile management within the larger organization. In short, members will
have assumed many of the functions that were performed solely by the
leader at earlier stages of development.
The leader is freed up to act more as a consultant to and supporter of
members. The tasks of leaders and members of Stage 3 groups are the same.
By this time, the power difference between leaders and followers has been
reduced, and participants are operating in more egalitarian ways. All
participants share equal responsibility for and commitment to the group.
Their shared task is to consolidate gains in trust and cohesion and to
organize themselves in ways that will ensure group productivity. Leaders
who support, compliment, and praise members’ efforts to share in the
leadership function will increase the likelihood of group success.

Encourage the Group to Make Any Necessary Changes in the

Group’s Structure to Facilitate Group Productivity
One of the primary tasks of a Stage 3 group is to assess how it is
functioning and to make any adjustments that will facilitate group
productivity. Leaders encourage members to do this but do not do the work
for the group. Instead, they provide ways for members to identify issues
that may impede productivity and to determine ways to remove those
impediments. They also participate, along with members, in identifying
impediments to group success and in planning strategies to overcome those
impediments. The checklists in previous chapters could be used as one way
to approach this task.

Leadership at Stage 4: Participate as an Expert

Member of Your Team
Leaders of Stage 4 teams can relax a little bit. Things should be going pretty
smoothly. Members have taken on responsibilities and are actively pursuing
group goal achievement. Leaders continue to act as consultants, as needed.
In general, however, they participate along with members in achieving
objectives and team success.

Continue to Monitor Team Processes, Especially for Signs of

Regression
Each time a member leaves, new tasks are added, external conditions
change, or other factors shift in some significant way, team dynamics are
affected. In each of these circumstances, the team will experience
disruptions, and adjustments will be needed to regain former levels of
cohesion and productivity. Awareness and discussion of this fact of team
life on the part of leaders and members is essential. Leaders and members
can help maintain team effectiveness by periodically assessing the team and
identifying issues that must be addressed. In this way, a team can
continually monitor its functioning and make necessary adjustments. Ways
to conduct these periodic assessments are described in Chapter 10.
No team or individual sustains high levels of productivity for long
periods of time. People and groups need periods of rest, relaxation, flight,
grumpiness, and fun. Unrealistic expectations of our human capacities may
be one of the biggest threats to individual and team effectiveness.

Conduct Organizational Support Reviews Regularly

In Chapter 2, the importance of organizational support to team success
was discussed. I recommended that relevant external individuals and groups
meet with the team on a regular basis to assess the adequacy of that
organizational support and to plan ways to increase the level of support, if
necessary. I encourage leaders to ensure that these reviews happen regularly
throughout the life of the group. The frequency of reviews will vary from
group to group, depending on the time frame allotted to the group to
accomplish its work. For example, if a product development group has 18
months to accomplish its goal, I suggest a review at the very beginning, one
about three months later, and then reviews at longer intervals. Do what
makes sense for your group.

Regardless of the Stage of Your Group, Be an Effective Group

Member
Leaders also must be effective group members. Review the Effective
Member Checklist in Chapter 5 to assess how well you are doing in that
regard. Also, review the Effective Leader Checklist provided next to assess
how well you are doing in your current leadership role.
 SEVEN

NAVIGATING STAGE 1

Goals of Stage 1
Certain behaviors are characteristic of all beginning, or Stage 1, groups.
These behaviors can be classified into three categories: concerns about
safety and inclusion, member dependency on the designated leader, and a
wish for order and structure. Because these categories of behavior happen
in all groups during the dependency and inclusion stage, there must be a
reason, or purpose, for their occurrence. If the overall goal of group
development is to create an organized unit capable of working effectively
and productively to achieve specific ends, then each stage of group
development contributes to that overall goal in some way. The first step to
achieving that overall goal is to create a sense of belonging and the
beginnings of predictable patterns of interaction. That is the purpose of
Stage 1.
By the end of Stage 1, members should feel a sense of loyalty to the
group. They should want to belong to the group, and they should feel safe
enough to contribute ideas and suggestions that will, in their opinion, help
the group to achieve its overall objectives. If they don’t, the group is likely
to disintegrate or stagnate. Groups disintegrate when members stop
attending meetings or participating in group-related activities between
meetings. Groups stagnate when the group system fails to grow and mature.
This chapter describes events that typically happen during Stage 1 and
what members and leaders can do to increase the likelihood that group
members will emerge from Stage 1 with a sense of belonging and a feeling
of safety. Also, through the efforts of members and leaders, the group will
have developed rudimentary structures that provide an initial sense of order
and predictability.
 Box 7.1 Best Excuse

This group ran the company. The members were the senior vice
presidents and the CEO. I was going over the results of a group
assessment I had done with them. The group was stuck in Stage 1.
Although they knew they disagreed about many things, no one was
willing to raise controversial issues. In fact, many members didn’t talk
very much at meetings. I told them that things wouldn’t change unless
they began to discuss these things. The CEO said, “Oh, we forgot to
tell you that we took the Myers-Briggs test and all of us scored high on
introversion. We’re all introverts.” I replied, “I don’t care if you’re
aardvarks. You guys run the show. Your cars cost more than people’s
homes. You have to talk to each other.”

Concerns About Safety and Inclusion

The behaviors, feelings, and attitudes that members of new groups express
can be summarized as follows:

• Members are concerned with personal safety in the group

• Members want to be accepted by other members and the leader
• Members fear rejection
• Members communicate in tentative and very polite ways

Here is an example of how concerns for safety and inclusion might occur
in a new group:

You have been assigned to work on a new group. The first meeting is to
be held at 10:00. People begin to arrive a few minutes before 10. You
have decided to check things out during this meeting. After all, you
know only two people in the room. You smile at a few people and they
smile back, but there’s not much talking going on. You feel a little
awkward, and it’s obvious that others do, too. A brave soul asks the
 person sitting next to him what the purpose of this team is going to be.
She shrugs her shoulders in response. A couple of folks smile and
giggle a bit. Someone says, “Adam told me something about it, but I’m
not very clear on it. He just said that he was putting a group together
to work on a new project, and he wanted me on the team.” Another
person says, “That’s how it was with me, too.” Others nod in
agreement, and the room falls silent again.

What You Can Do

Now that you know that one of the goals of the first stage of group
development is to create a sense of safety and inclusion, there are some
things you can do in a situation like this one to help the group achieve that
goal. For example, you can introduce yourself to the person next to you and
talk about what you do in the organization. If you do this loudly enough,
others may introduce themselves as well. If not, ask other people who they
are.
When the room falls silent, you can comment on how first meetings are
always a little awkward, but it usually gets better pretty quickly. Statements
like these tend to make others feel more comfortable and stimulate further
conversation. The key is to keep the goal in mind (safety and inclusion) and
act in ways that increase the likelihood of achieving that goal. Don’t wait
for others to act. Don’t wait for the leader to act. Remember that everyone
is responsible for the achievement of group goals. So just do it.

Dependency on the Designated Leader

• The members express a need for dependable and directive leadership
• The leader is seen as benevolent and competent
• The leader is expected and encouraged to provide members with
direction and personal safety
• The leader is very rarely challenged
 • Cohesion and commitment to the group are based on identification
with the leader

Here is an example of how these issues might occur in a new group:

After a few minutes, Adam arrives. He stops to greet a few people as

he walks into the room. Everyone seems grateful for his arrival. You
think to yourself that Adam is the designated leader of this new group,
and he will get the ball rolling. Just his arrival seems to have made a
difference. People seem more relaxed already. They are all looking at
Adam, smiling, and waiting for him to speak.
Adam doesn’t waste any time. He doesn’t even ask people to
introduce themselves. Because he knows everyone, he assumes that the
others know each other as well. Instead, he begins to outline the tasks
of the group and the timeline in which tasks have to be accomplished.
Some people begin to look a little confused, and others seem a bit
tense. No one says anything, though.

What You Can Do

At this time, dependence on the leader is normal. Members expect Adam
to take charge. You don’t want to undermine Adam’s authority or credibility
at this point, but you do want to help him do a good job. Adam has
forgotten to do a few things. In the best of all possible worlds, Adam would
have introduced himself and asked others to do the same. He would have
stated the agenda of the meeting and handed out copies of that agenda. He
would have stated the goal of the group and launched a discussion about
that goal.
If you are the leader of a new group, don’t make Adam’s mistakes. Come
to the meeting prepared. Make sure that people are introduced in enough
depth so that they learn not just each other’s names but also what everyone
does and what they do well. Provide a detailed agenda that includes a
written statement of the group’s goal. Spend the first meeting discussing
that goal.
 Because Adam forgot to do those things, you as a member could help
him and the group by asking him for introductions. It helps to say
something like, “Adam, I may be the only one, but I don’t know everybody.
Can we introduce ourselves before we get started?”
In a similar fashion, you might ask what the agenda of the meeting is and
ask for clarification of the group’s goal. Usually, you won’t have to ask all
these questions. Others will chime in once the ice is broken. The key is to
keep this goal in mind as well. At this point, the group needs a dependable,
directive, and competent leader. Help Adam to meet that group need.
If you are the leader and members ask questions, make suggestions, or
point out things that you have forgotten to do, thank them for their help.
Don’t get defensive or embarrassed, even if a member says something in a
way that seems rude or challenging. Assume that group members are trying
to be helpful and encourage them to participate. In the long run, you’ll be
happy that you did.
Some groups don’t have designated leaders. This can be a problem that
can slow group progress. If this is the case in your group, suggest that a
group coordinator be chosen. Research suggests that leaderless groups have
more difficulty getting organized and more difficulty progressing through
the stages of group development.

A Wish for Order and Structure

• Goals are not clear to members, but clarification is not sought
• Members rarely express disagreement with initial group goals
• Group members assume that consensus about goals exists
• Role assignments tend to be based on external status, first
impressions, and initial self-presentation rather than on matching
member competencies with goal and task requirements
• Member compliance is high
• Communication tends to go through the leader
• Participation is generally limited to a few vocal members
• Conflict is minimal
 • Conformity is high
• A lack of group structure and organization is evident
• Member deviation from emerging norms is rare
• Subgroups and coalitions are rare

Here is an example of how these issues might occur in a new group:

Adam responds to your request and states the goal of the group. He
asks whether people are clear about the goal, and everyone nods. You
remain a little confused by the goal, but because everyone seems to
understand what’s expected, you don’t say anything. Next, Adam
returns to outlining the tasks of the group and the timeline in which
tasks have to be accomplished. He asks for volunteers to take on the
various tasks.

What You Can Do

From reading this book, you know that if goals are not perfectly clear and
accepted by everybody, the chances of group success are limited. You also
know that planning how to accomplish tasks and discussing who should do
each task are crucial to group success.
Finally, you know that ensuring that input is sought from all group
members increases the chances of group success. So you ask Adam and the
group members to discuss their understanding of the goal in a little more
depth. Later, you raise the issue of role assignments. It’s best to raise this
issue by inquiring about your own role, especially if it doesn’t seem
appropriate to you based on your skills and abilities. Of course, chances are
slim that you will have to raise all these issues. By now, other members will
be raising issues as well.
A word of advice for leaders is in order here. You know that discussing
goals at length, spending time planning how to accomplish tasks, and
assigning tasks based on member skills are important to group success.
Make sure these things happen, but don’t hog the limelight. Having
members raise issues, rather than raising all of these issues yourself, is a
good thing. Don’t be too perfect, and don’t be too dominant. Provide for
member safety. Provide initial direction and support members’ attempts to
participate.
This chapter has provided some examples of events that typically occur
in Stage 1 groups. It is not meant to cover all possible scenarios. The real
intention of this chapter and those that follow is to help members and
leaders develop a framework to guide their actions in groups. The
framework is pretty simple: Know the goals of each stage of development
and act in ways that will help your group achieve those goals. If the
members and leaders described in this chapter follow that advice, the group
will move forward. Everyone will develop a sense of belonging and safety,
members will begin to trust Adam’s leadership skills, and the beginnings of
order will appear. The group will be ready to move on.
 EIGHT

SURVIVING STAGE 2

Goals of Stage 2
Having safely navigated the first stage of group development, members and
the leader have developed an initial sense of loyalty to the group. Some
degree of organization has begun to emerge, and people feel safer about
speaking up in the group. Now, some hard work has to be done. If the group
is to become a unit capable of performing at high levels, then both members
and the leader need to create a unified group culture and an effective
organizational structure in which to work.
Group culture is a set of shared perceptions or assumptions about values,
norms, and goals. These assumptions, once established, dictate how people
will behave and the kind of organizational structure the group will need in
order to express its cultural assumptions and achieve its goals.
In the first stage of group development, members were concerned
primarily about personal safety and feeling included. Preliminary
discussions probably revolved around how people should interact in the
group and how members should organize themselves to accomplish tasks.
More discussion will be needed to reach agreement about these things,
however. Every member will have to participate for this to occur.
The second stage of group development is described as a period of
counterdependency and fighting. This is because conflict with the leader
and among group members is inevitable if the goals of Stage 2 are to be
reached. The group’s goal at this stage is to develop a unified set of goals,
values, and operational procedures, and this goal usually generates conflict.
Differences of opinion are very likely to occur. Conflict is also necessary
for establishing a trusting climate in which members feel free to disagree
with each other.
Some groups become mired in conflict and remain stuck at this
developmental stage. Other groups are overwhelmed by the stress of this
phase and revert to leader dependence in an attempt to avoid further
conflict. Neither of these outcomes has positive effects for the group or for
the quality of work that will be generated by the group. Only through
conflict resolution and the development of a unified view of the group’s
purpose and processes can true collaboration be achieved.
This chapter briefly describes typical events that happen during Stage 2
and what members and leaders can do to increase the likelihood that group
members will emerge from this stage with a shared culture and an
organizational structure that will enable them to be productive and
successful. It also describes how working to achieve the goals of Stage 2
increases trust among group members and makes working together more
enjoyable and more effective.

Creating a Unified Group Culture

The first thing a group needs to do during Stage 2 is to begin to create a
unified group culture. Here are some things that happen as a group attempts
to do this:

• Conflicts about values emerge

• Disagreements about goals and tasks emerge
• Increased feelings of safety allow dissent to occur
• Members challenge the leader and each other
• Clarification of goals begins
• Decreased conformity begins
• Deviation from emerging group norms begins

Here is an example of how these issues might occur in a Stage 2 group:

 The group has been meeting for about eight weeks. Nina, the group’s
leader, is going over a list of things that the group needs to work on in
the coming weeks if they are to stay on schedule. Suddenly, Jack says,
“I’m not sure about this, Nina. How can they expect us to come up
with such a complicated policy in such a short period of time? I’m not
even sure that a policy will solve this problem. I’m not convinced this
is the right way to go.” A few other members nod their heads in
agreement with Jack.
Nina is stunned. She thought that members had agreed to the
group’s goal weeks ago. She wonders whether this is just a power play
on Jack’s part or whether he really means it.

What You Can Do

This kind of situation occurs quite often in Stage 2 groups. When people
say that the group seems to be going in circles or rehashing topics that have
already been discussed and resolved, it is usually due to situations like this
one. People are in a hurry to get on with business. They easily get upset
with members who revisit issues that they think have been decided already.
Instead of getting frustrated or angry with an individual or two, try to
remember two things. First, remember that when things were initially
discussed, the group was in Stage 1. Some people didn’t feel safe enough to
express disagreement at that point. It seemed like everyone agreed, but not
everyone expressed her or his opinion. Later on, when feelings of safety
have increased, disagreements can be voiced. This is a good thing.
Second, when a group is faced with a complicated set of goals and tasks,
it takes people some time to examine those goals and tasks thoroughly.
Opinions can’t be formed quickly, especially if those opinions are important
to individual and group success. It’s a good thing to revisit issues after
members have had time to think. It’s a very good thing, actually. Decisions
or agreements made in haste often end up being the wrong ones.
To help the group, you could say something like, “I’m glad Jack brought
this up. It makes a lot of sense to discuss our goals and objectives again to
make sure everybody’s on the same page.” Whether you’re a member or the
leader of this group, this is a very helpful thing to say. It may be harder for
Nina, as the leader, to say it because she may think Jack’s comments were
meant as an attack on her leadership. It would be wise of her to say it
anyway. If Nina doesn’t say it, a member should try to ward off a
potentially negative argument between these two people. The issue isn’t
whether Jack is trying to undermine Nina’s authority; he may or may not be
doing that. It doesn’t matter. What matters for the group at this stage in its
development is to make sure that everyone agrees with and understands the
group’s goal.
Let’s look at another example:

The group had developed the habit of holding lunch meetings. Jane
didn’t like this because she usually worked out at the company’s gym
during lunch. She skipped a meeting and went to the gym. Other
members were appalled and confronted her about her lack of
commitment to the group at the next meeting. Jane said that she didn’t
like the meeting time because it infringed on her personal time. She
even said she bet that some other people were unhappy with the
meeting time, too. A couple of people said they agreed with Jane. Some
people just shook their heads.

What You Can Do

During Stage 1, many norms get established without much discussion. In
this case, it is likely that meeting during lunch worked well for the group
leader. In Stage 1, people tend to go along with whatever the leader
proposes, so lunchtime meetings became the norm. As the group developed
and people began to feel more comfortable with each other, those who
didn’t like the meeting time became more vocal. This, too, is a good thing.
If group norms undermine people’s motivation to attend or participate in
the group, changes are in order. Finding a mutually agreeable meeting time
in a busy workplace is challenging. It’s important, though. If members skip
meetings, the effects on the group will be negative. A large part of each
meeting will be devoted to catching people up on what occurred at the last
meeting. This will slow down or stop group progress. If people attend but
are resentful of the meeting time, they won’t participate fully and may act in
unproductive ways.
If a situation like this occurs in your group, it would be helpful to say
something like this: “I think we should try to find a meeting time that fits
everyone’s schedule. How’s Tuesday at 3?”
Many norms emerge during the first stage of group development that will
be challenged in the second stage. Here is an example of how this might
happen:

Lora tends to go on and on at meetings. Whatever the topic, she has an

opinion, which she expresses in great detail. You want to express an
opinion as well, and you know that other people would like to air their
views. No one interrupts Lora, however. Everyone just sits and fidgets
or stares straight ahead. No one feels that she or he can give feedback
to others about their group behavior. Although it’s never been voiced,
everyone knows that giving feedback violates some unstated rule.
Members feel that they have to be nice and that they have to be
tolerant in this group.

What You Can Do

Generally speaking, being nice and tolerant of others is a good norm to
establish. If that means that the group will fail to achieve its work goals,
however, then the norm is too strict and should be altered. As people begin
to feel safer, voicing disagreement with norms and suggesting elimination
or alteration of some norms will occur. In fact, it must occur if the group is
to develop a culture that will support group goal achievement.
In this case, you could say something like the following: “Lora, I think I
understand your position on this, and I want to hear from others as well
before I make up my mind. What do the rest of you think about this?”
You’ll probably feel a little uncomfortable doing this because you’re
breaking a group rule. Keep in mind, though, that if Lora is allowed to
monopolize the conversation for much longer, the frustrations of others will
continue to mount. Eventually, someone (maybe even you) will explode and
confront Lora in a very negative way. The confrontation may get very
personal and precipitate a feud in the group. Some members will rush to
Lora’s defense, and others may join the attack against Lora. This not only
will be a colossal waste of group time but will also be very hurtful to Lora
and to group morale. It’s better to intervene early in a situation like this. Do
so with all the diplomacy and tact you can muster. Be gentle. Don’t blame
Lora for her behavior. Focus on what the group needs to do to accomplish
its goals.
These examples emphasize two important things about norms. First,
don’t make norms about unimportant things. Adopting too many norms is
like having too many laws in a society. If every aspect of group life is
legislated, people feel constrained. They won’t feel free to express
themselves, which seriously limits input and creativity. Ultimately, this will
decrease the chances of group success.
Second, scrutinize norms for their contribution to group effectiveness and
productivity. If they don’t measure up, eliminate or modify them. Norms are
necessary for creating predictable patterns of behavior and similarity in
member values and attitudes. They must relate to goals and objectives,
however. If norms interfere with achievement and high performance,
change them.

Gordon, the leader of the group, has just laid out his plan to increase
sales in a specific region. Walter, the sales director in that region,
reacts by saying, “You just don’t get it, Gordon. What you’re proposing
won’t work in a million years! If you had any sense of the history of
this problem or the people in my region, you’d know that. When was
the last time you met with us? Was it two or three years ago?”

What You Can Do

 This is one of the scarier moments in group life. A member has attacked
the leader in a very personal and confrontational way. This kind of
confrontation doesn’t always happen. In groups that are ultimately
successful, disagreements with the leader happen quite a lot. Generally,
however, the disagreements are milder, are more tactfully phrased, and
don’t challenge the leader’s competence or intelligence.
Challenging the leader is an essential part of group life. If group
members always accept the leader’s views, there is no reason to have a
group at all. A major reason for working in groups is the assumption that
decisions made by groups will be better than those of the best and brightest
group member alone. That is, collective intelligence is assumed to be
greater than individual intelligence. Although I’m not sure this is always the
case, it is the case in a high performance team. The dominance of the leader
must be reduced so that others can contribute to that collective intelligence.
Disagreements with leaders are necessary at times in order to produce the
best decisions and to achieve at high levels.
Obviously, how one disagrees with a leader or another member is key. In
the current example, Walter not only disagrees with Gordon’s plan but also
challenges Gordon personally. He chastises Gordon for his lack of
knowledge about the region and for his lack of attention to regional
problems. This type of conflict can be very destructive to a group. Some
members will be frightened by this situation. Feelings of safety, so essential
to group unity, will be undermined, and some members may retreat into
silence. Other members may jump to Gordon’s defense. Still others may
side with Walter in opposition to Gordon. This could lead to a split in the
group. It could spell doom for the group if the split cannot be repaired.
You must act quickly to keep these things from happening. Keep a few
things in mind as you do this. First, in all likelihood, Gordon is hurt and
angry because of what Walter has said. He may also be embarrassed by this
public challenge to his leadership and will want to save face. Walter is
probably feeling angry, a little embarrassed about his outburst, and anxious
about what Gordon will do in response. You should proceed with caution in
this emotional situation. You should act, however, because this situation
could have very negative effects on the group.
 Say something like the following: “I know what it’s like to feel loyal to
the people back home, Walter. It’s hard for any of us to know what’s really
going on there. All of us, including Gordon, want you to lay out your plans
to increase sales. Maybe some others have ideas to contribute, too. Is that
okay with everybody?”
Your intention in making this or a similar statement is to refocus the
group on developing a plan to increase sales and to defuse the tension
between Gordon and Walter. If your intervention works, the focus will
return to the task at hand. You will probably get a lot of help from other
group members once you say this. Other members will be eager to reduce
the mounting tension.
Earlier in this book, I talked about how important it is to avoid getting
involved in personality conflicts and personal fights. This example makes
clear why this is so important. Nothing threatens group success more than
destructive personal arguments.
If you find yourself in a position similar to Walter’s, don’t do what he
did. This situation could have been avoided if Walter had instead said, “I
see what your plan is based on, Gordon, but I want to update you on some
current issues in the region. Some things have happened that you may not
be aware of.”
If you find yourself in Gordon’s situation someday, and someone like
Walter challenges you in a negative way, remember that a leader’s job is to
work for the good of the group. It would be in the group’s best interest for
you to say, “You’re right, Walter, I may not be aware of some recent
developments. Tell me what’s been going on lately.” This is not easy to do
when you’re feeling unduly attacked. It’s not easy to stifle your urge to
retaliate. No one said leadership was easy, however. Do what’s best for the
group.

Creating a Unified and Effective Group Structure

As Stage 2 groups begin to create an effective group structure, the
following things are likely to occur:
 • Dissatisfaction with roles surfaces
• Role clarification begins
• Disagreements about strategies to accomplish group tasks surface
• Disagreements about how to make decisions emerge
• Subgroups and coalitions form
• Group intolerance of subgroups, cliques, and coalitions becomes
evident
• Increased member participation becomes evident
• Attempts at conflict management begin
• Increased consensus about goals and culture becomes evident near
the end of this stage
• Conflict resolution, if successful, increases trust and cohesion

Here is an example of how these issues might occur in a Stage 2 group:

In one of the early meetings, Penny, the group leader, asked you to
investigate the budget implications of increasing the sales force in a
certain area. At the time, you agreed to do it. After a while, you began
to feel uncomfortable with the assignment because you’re unfamiliar
with the product line in that area. You believe that Jean would do a
better job but don’t know how to bring this up.

What You Can Do

Perhaps the best way to handle this situation is to approach Penny outside
the meeting and say something like this: “I’m feeling a little queasy about
my assignment. Jean is more familiar with the product line in that area than
I am. She might do a better job. I think she’s working on getting the figures
for the ad campaign. I’m pretty up on that. Maybe we could switch? If you
think it’s a good idea, we could suggest a switch at the next meeting.”
If the role you are in doesn’t match your abilities and talents, try to
negotiate for one that does. In the long run, the group will benefit from
having the right people in the right roles. Don’t avoid challenges, though.
Another way to deal with this might be to team up with Jean to work on
your assignment. You might learn a lot that way. Whether you switch with
or team up with Jean should depend on the group’s needs. If time is of the
essence, switching is probably best. If developing group members with
multiple skills is important to group success, working with Jean on the
assignment might be best.
Here’s another example:

The group is discussing what to do about a particularly difficult

decision it must make. Mary breaks into the conversation and says, “I
thought we decided this last week. Doesn’t anybody else remember
that? This happens all the time. We keep revisiting our decisions. They
never seem to stick. No wonder we’re behind schedule.”

What You Can Do

This is a common situation in groups. Typically, the reason for this is that
the group has developed a very informal decision-making process.
Sometimes it’s so informal that some members don’t even know when a
decision is being made. There was a time when minutes were taken at every
group meeting. There also was a time when votes were taken and members
raised their hands to signify their position. Over the years, such practices
have been abandoned in favor of more informal meeting procedures. The
results of this informality are not always positive. Groups need clear
decision-making processes that members accept. How groups make
decisions may vary. There is no best decision-making process that should
be used in all cases. Regardless of which decision-making process is
chosen, however, members and the leader should agree to that process in
advance.
In this case, an informal process has been enacted, and I would bet that
this was done with no discussion. Like many other aspects of group
structure, it just happened without much thought or discussion. You could
help in this situation by saying something like, “I remember, Mary, but
some other people don’t. That worries me. Maybe we should make a list of
recent decisions we’ve made to see what we all remember. It also might be
a good idea to talk about how we want to make decisions and whether we
should record the decisions we make.”
Let’s look at this example:

In an effort to get tasks done faster, group members have decided to

delegate some tasks to a subgroup of three members. These three are
to report back to the group when they have finished. Lately, however,
some other members have become a little irritated with and suspicious
of members of the subgroup. They wonder what they’re doing and
seem to feel excluded by them. They even seem to resent the fact that
“The Group of Three” tend to talk with each other more than with the
rest of the members.

What You Can Do

Establishing subgroups is a logical way to increase group output and task
performance. Division of labor is necessary whenever complex tasks must
be completed in a timely manner. Logical though it may be, it is usually
perceived by others as a threat to group unity and cohesion. This is a normal
human response. Remember how it felt in high school when you weren’t
invited to join a popular clique? Even if you didn’t really want to be part of
that group, it didn’t feel good to be excluded. We may be all grown up, but
some of those feelings remain. Most people want to be in on things. We
want to know what others are doing. We want to belong.
In a Stage 2 group, trust is just beginning to build. Members haven’t
developed enough faith in the trustworthiness of their colleagues to be
certain that a subset of them will work for the good of the whole group.
Maybe they’re looking out for themselves or talking about other members
in their private meetings. Although this may sound paranoid, human beings
do have a bit of a paranoid streak.
There are two options in situations like this. The group could choose not
to use subgroups to accomplish tasks, or members could use the emergence
of subgroups as an opportunity to increase group trust and cohesion.
Obviously, I endorse the latter. The emergence of subgroups is very
important to group effectiveness. It’s a sign that the group is getting
organized, and an organized group is much more likely to be successful.
Learning to tolerate and to trust subgroups, then, is vital to group success.
If you’re not a member of the subgroup and you’ve noticed that other
nonmembers (perhaps yourself included) are uncomfortable with subgroup
members, you might say something like the following: “We’re not very
comfortable yet with delegating tasks to subgroups. Maybe it would help if
the subgroups we created reported more frequently about what they’re
working on. That might help them stay on track and help the rest of us feel
more comfortable. It would also give the subgroup members the
opportunity to get some input from us and give us some ideas as well.”
If you are a member of the subgroup and you’ve noticed that others seem
a little uncomfortable with you, you could raise the same issue by saying,
“The three of us have been thinking that we’d like to keep you up to date
about what we’re doing. Could we get five minutes on the agenda to fill you
in and ask for advice if we need it?”

Box 8.1 Holy War

An interfaith group of priests, nuns, and ministers was in conflict. The

male priests and ministers blamed the nuns for the group’s problem.
They accused the nuns of being too enamored of discussion and
dialogue. The men felt that all this talk was going nowhere. After I
worked with this group for a while, it became clear that the real
problem was that the group didn’t have a clear decision-making
procedure. Once a decision-making procedure was in place, peace was
restored.

Also, if you’re a member of a subgroup, keep your commitments. If you

are scheduled to report back to the whole group on a given date, do so. This
is always important to do, especially for the first few subgroups. If early
subgroups keep other members and leaders informed of their progress and
keep their commitments, group trust and cohesion will increase
significantly.
Here’s one last example:

Marie and Tim are arguing about the best way to raise money for the
new wing of the museum. Grants and state funding will provide 60% of
what’s needed. The museum staff must raise the rest. Marie believes
her plan will raise the most money in the shortest time, and Tim
believes his plan will raise the most money in the shortest time. The
rest of the staff have taken sides, and the disagreement is intense.

What You Can Do

Conflict resolution is an essential component of group success. If this
becomes a long, drawn-out disagreement, nobody benefits. You can help in
this situation by saying something like this: “Let’s stop for a minute and
outline both plans in detail. Then we can see what we’re really talking
about in terms of investment of money and staff time. Who knows? Maybe
there’s a way to combine aspects of both plans. We won’t know that,
though, until we go over each plan in detail. What do the rest of you think?”
The second stage of group development can be difficult. The goals of this
stage are not easy. On U.S. coins is the phrase e pluribus unum, which
means “from many, one.” From many individuals with many points of view,
one group must be forged with a coherent culture and structure that will
facilitate goal achievement. This is no easy task, but it is made less difficult
if members know what to expect and how to help each other accomplish it.
 NINE

REORGANIZING AT STAGE 3

Goals of Stage 3
If a group manages to work through the inevitable conflicts of Stage 2, then
members’ trust, commitment to the group, and willingness to cooperate
increase. Communication becomes more open and task oriented. Members
focus more on the task and less on issues of status, power, or influence.
This third stage of group development, called the trust and structure phase,
is characterized by more mature negotiations about roles, organization, and
procedures. It is also a time in which members work to solidify positive
relationships with each other.
Some things that happen during Stage 3 are described next.

Fine-Tuning Roles, Organization, and Procedures

In the process of fine-tuning roles, the level of organization, and group
procedures, the following things are likely to occur:

• Goal clarity and consensus about goals increase

• Roles and tasks are adjusted to increase the likelihood of goal
achievement
• The leader’s role becomes less directive and more consultative
• The communication structure becomes more flexible
• The content of communication becomes more task oriented
• Tolerance of subgroups, cliques, and coalitions increases
• Greater division of labor occurs
 • Conflict continues to occur, but it is managed more effectively

Here is an example of how these issues might occur in a Stage 3 group:

Phyllis, the group’s leader, is actively engaged in the group’s

discussion. A member named John is running the meeting. Phyllis
brings up some new ideas, but after some discussion the group decides
to go with another plan. Then the group runs into a snag. Members are
unsure how to implement the plan. Everyone turns to Phyllis for her
input.

What You Can Do

At the third stage of group development, leaders are not as prominent as
they were in earlier stages. By this time, members are beginning to take
over some leadership functions. In this example, a member is running the
meeting, which allows the leader to participate more actively in the
discussion. Members are much more comfortable with and, in general, less
dependent on the leader for direction. This way of operating is new for the
group, however, and there will be moments when the group may revert to
previous ways of behaving. In this case, when the group could not reach a
decision, members looked to the leader for direction.
This situation is quite common. Development doesn’t proceed in one
direction. We often take two steps forward and one step back. On the one
hand, members and the leader should be mindful of this tendency but not
overly concerned. On the other hand, members and leaders should strive to
support forward motion. If Phyllis makes this decision for the group, it
won’t be the end of the world, but it may slow progress a bit.
If you are a member of the group, you could help by saying something
like, “Hey, let’s try to resolve this issue as a group. There’s no need to put
this on Phyllis. We’ve dealt with tougher issues than this before.”
Obviously, you should make this statement with good humor and a smile.
 If you are Phyllis, you may feel the urge to “save the group” by making
the decision. Try to resist that urge. It would probably be best to say
something like, “Let’s discuss this a while longer and see what we come up
with.”
Here’s another situation that might arise in a Stage 3 group:

Todd just came back from a fishing trip. He is telling fish stories that
are pretty funny. Everyone is enjoying listening to him. He’s been
talking for about five minutes, and the meeting is scheduled to last an
hour. A number of issues must be dealt with in that hour.

What You Can Do

Having a bit of fun at a meeting is a positive thing and a sign that people
are comfortable with each other. It reduces stress and can increase feelings
of cohesion. When the fun goes on too long, however, productivity may be
compromised. In a Stage 3 group, members are very interested in work.
Their conversations are more task oriented, and everyone is interested in
being efficient and productive. The group is not a high performance team
yet, but members want the group to reach high levels of productivity.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Todd’s fish stories. However, if
you are beginning to worry about getting work done, or if you sense that
others are, you might say, “Todd, these stories are wonderful, but it’s time
for us to get to work.”

Annette has just returned from a meeting with Nancy, the vice
president, and other project leaders. She reports the details of the
meeting to the group members. She’s a little worried because two
coordinating groups are being set up to oversee aspects of the overall
contract. Annette feels stretched to the max and says, “I don’t know
how I can attend all these meetings, get my other work done, and be
responsible to the group.”
What You Can Do
One of the hallmarks of a Stage 3 group is that members begin to take on
aspects of the leadership role. One important aspect of that role is to
communicate and negotiate with other parts of the organization. Groups can
lose their way if members don’t maintain open communication with other
groups that are relevant to their success.
In today’s workplace, everyone is busy. Most people I run into feel
overloaded. Interacting with other relevant groups is important to group
success, however. You could help by saying something like, “Annette,
maybe a few of us could represent our group at those meetings. Someone
needs to go, but I don’t think it has to be you.”

Solidifying Positive Relationships

In the process of building positive relationships among group members, the
following things are likely to occur:

• Cohesion and trust increase

• Member satisfaction increases
• Cooperation becomes more evident
• Individual commitment to group goals and tasks is high
• Voluntary conformity with group norms increases
• Helpful deviation is tolerated

Examples of how these things might occur in Stage 3 groups are

provided next.

Al is an odd duck. He doesn’t say much during meetings and seems to

spend his time doodling on a notepad. For the first few months, group
members were uncomfortable with Al and rarely asked for his opinion.
After all, he didn’t seem to care enough to participate. Every once in a
while, though, Al would say something that was right on and very
helpful. When it comes to engine design, he really knows his stuff.
What You Can Do
This group has developed a strong norm for participation, and that is a
very good thing. It’s difficult to develop a high performance team without
the participation of the majority of members. For whatever reasons, Al is
not a talker. This makes others uncomfortable with him, and they question
his commitment to the group. They don’t perceive him as a team player. On
the other hand, when Al does say something, it’s worth listening to him.
What he does say is usually very helpful.
Ignoring Al or insisting that he become a more active participant will not
help the situation. Al is Al, after all. You could help by noticing the kinds of
input that Al contributes and, when those topics come up, asking Al for his
thoughts. You could say, “Al knows more about this than any of us. Can
you help us out with this, Al?”

Box 9.1 Strangest Goal

I asked a team what their goal was, and they said, in unison, “To be a
cohesive team.” I asked them whether the company paid them well for
their efforts.

People are different. Some of us are talkers and some of us are not. Some
of us follow rules and norms to the letter. Some of us don’t. As long as
people are making a positive contribution to the group, however small, let
them be. The workplace values conformity, and some degree of conformity
is necessary if groups are to be successful, but too much conformity can be
a negative. If we are all behaving and thinking in the same way, generating
new ideas may be difficult. Sometimes, oddball ideas are the best ideas.

Some people in the group are expressing concern about whether

Colleen, Barbara, and Chris will finish their report in time. They didn’t
 come to the meeting today, and no one knows why.

What You Can Do

By the third stage of group development, trust is pretty high. However,
there will be moments when feelings of mistrust surface. This is natural,
especially when time is of the essence. Most readers probably know people
like Colleen, Barbara, and Chris. They’re just worried about staying on
schedule.
You could help by saying something like, “Colleen, Barbara, and Chris
will get it done. They’re as worried about deadlines as we are. They may
need some help, though. I’d be willing to check in with them this week and
offer a hand if they need it.”

Brigid has been asked by the group to fill in the details of a new
insurance product that members are considering. She’s been working
on this project for two weeks. At the meeting, Brigid says, “I’ve got
most of the details worked out, but a few things have me stumped. I
could use some help.”

What You Can Do

In the competitive world of business, asking for help isn’t easy. The fact
that Brigid asked for help is a sign that she trusts other group members and
that she is committed to doing the best possible job. This is terrific and
should be encouraged.
You could help by saying something like, “Can you tell us what’s got you
stumped? I’m sure one of us could help. If not, someone probably knows
who to go to for the answers.”
The third stage of group development is a time when group processes and
procedures are adjusted so that the group can work at higher levels of
performance. Some issues were already resolved at Stage 2, but other
norms, strategies, and roles must be scrutinized to ensure that they
contribute to group achievement.
Now that group members have resolved many earlier issues, trust has
increased. Members feel comfortable enough to question how the group is
functioning and to suggest changes to increase the chances of success. It’s a
time to get more organized and to plan better ways of working together. It’s
also the time to solidify working relationships among members.
One word of caution is necessary here. Some groups enter Stage 3 and
focus too much energy on building relationships and not enough on getting
organized. These groups begin to resemble love-ins after a while. Members
are so busy supporting each other that they forget to make sure that the way
they’re working together is the best way. Remember that research suggests
that members should spend about 15% to 20% of group time focusing on
supporting each other. The rest should be focused as much as possible on
work. Often, groups focus too much energy on getting organized and forget
to support and encourage each other in that endeavor. This is a classic
formula for burnout. If members don’t feel supported by the group and
others external to the group, they will become disillusioned and resentful. If
that happens, the group will find itself back at Stage 2 in a flash.
 TEN

SUSTAINING HIGH PERFORMANCE

Goals of Stage 4
As its name implies, the fourth, or work, stage of group development is a
time of intense productivity and effectiveness. It is at this stage that a work
group becomes a team. Having resolved most of the issues of the previous
stages, the team can focus most of its energy on goal achievement and task
accomplishment. Although work occurs at every developmental stage, the
quality and quantity of work increase significantly during Stage 4.
The goals of Stage 4 include getting the work done well, making
decisions, remaining cohesive while encouraging task-related conflicts, and
maintaining high performance over the long haul.
Sadly, many people have never been members of a Stage 4 team. They
don’t know what it’s like to work at high performance levels and to enjoy
the experience. Some teams that make it to Stage 4 contain members for
whom this is a new experience. They are excited by the ease with which
work gets done. They are thrilled with the feelings of camaraderie and trust
generated by the team. They are happy they are learning so much and are
eager for this experience to continue for as long as possible. The problem is
that unless members are careful, backsliding may occur.
Getting to Stage 4 is not easy. Many groups never do. Staying at Stage 4
isn’t easy, either. Without constant vigilance, teams may regress to earlier
stages of development. To maintain high levels of performance for an
extended period of time, team members need to learn some things and to do
some things that will keep their effectiveness and performance at high
levels. Some of the things that high performance teams do to remain
effective are described next.
 Box 10.1 Pride Cometh . . .

Two groups were working on similar projects. They asked for

feedback on how they were doing. I assessed both groups and gave
them suggestions on how to improve. The Stage 3 group used the
feedback and worked hard to improve. The Stage 4 team didn’t. They
felt they were doing great and would beat the other group easily. They
did not.

Getting the Work Done Well

The norms in high performance teams support not only getting the work
done but also getting the work done well. Those norms include the
following:

• Team norms encourage high performance and quality

• The team expects to be successful
• The team encourages innovation
• The team pays attention to the details of its work

Here is an example of how these norms are enacted in high performance

teams:

Felice has just suggested a way to get things done faster by

eliminating a few steps where quality checks are made. After all, there
are other points in the process where the quality is checked. She
believes this will save valuable time and some money as well. You
aren’t sure this is a good idea.

What You Can Do

 One of the goals of a Stage 4 team is to get the work done well. Norms
for quality and high performance have been established, and everyone
wants to do the best job possible. You know that Felice does as well. She
also wants to save time and money, which isn’t a bad idea if it can be done
without compromising quality. Felice’s idea will save money. There’s no
doubt of that. You’re not sure how her plan will affect product quality,
however.
Given that the goal is to get the work done well, you might say
something like, “Felice, I think we should go over your plan very carefully.
I’m as eager as you are to save money and time. I just want to make sure
that product quality won’t be affected.”
The point of saying this is to remind everyone of the norm for quality as
well as for high performance. As work intensifies and deadlines loom, it’s
easy to forget commitments to quality. Gentle reminders are very helpful.

Felice agrees with you that quality is important and describes her plan
in more detail. She says there are enough checks at other points in the
process to ensure that quality is not compromised. You and other team
members are impressed with Felice’s careful evaluation of the steps in
the process. She really did her homework.

What You Can Do

Part of getting the job done well is to encourage team members to be
innovative. Felice has come up with an innovative idea, and, after lengthy
team discussion, members think her idea is a good one. You might say,
“Felice, I didn’t understand at first, but you’ve made a believer out of me. I
say we go with your idea. What do the rest of you think?”
Here’s another example:

Renaya is feeling overwhelmed by the team’s current workload. She

says, “I’m not sure we can do all this by the end of the month. It seems
 like too much for us to handle.”

What You Can Do

Even members of Stage 4 teams can become anxious about team success.
Teams can also set goals for themselves that are too ambitious. The feeling
that the team will succeed is vital to high performance. If teams become
uncertain about goal achievement, there will be negative repercussions. You
want the team to maintain its expectation of success. You also want to
address Renaya’s concern. You might say, “Renaya, I think we should
review our plans for the month. Maybe they are too ambitious. Maybe we
haven’t divided the workload evenly enough. It could be that you got more
than your share. What do the rest of you think about this?”

The team is planning a meeting with the production team to establish

the time frame for launching a new product. Dan has been given the
responsibility for working out the agenda with George, who heads the
production team. Dan has just presented the agenda to the group. Jane
says, “Dan, I think that the agenda includes most of what we need to
clear up, but I’m a little concerned about coordinating marketing and
production timelines. Shouldn’t marketing be included in that
meeting?”

What You Can Do

Because paying attention to details is an important component of group
success, you might say something like this: “I agree with Jane, Dan.
Marketing should be represented at the meeting. I also think it would be a
good idea to go over the agenda again to make doubly sure we’ve covered
everything and have all the right players at the meeting.” If you are Dan,
don’t get defensive. People aren’t trying to find fault with your work. In
Stage 4 teams, everyone is committed to getting the work done well.
Reviewing plans and checking things twice are expressions of that
commitment.
Making Decisions
Decision making in high performance teams is a careful process that
involves the following:

• The team spends time defining problems it must solve or decisions it

must make
• The team spends time planning how it will solve problems and make
decisions
• The team spends enough time discussing problems that must be
solved and decisions that must be made
• The team uses participatory methods for decision making
• The team implements and evaluates its solutions and decisions

Following is an example of how a high performance team makes

decisions and what you can do to help.

Kate says, “Can’t we just change the schedule of the show so that it
doesn’t occur on the same weekend as the Motherwell exhibit at the
museum? I don’t want our artist to be overshadowed by anything.”
Mike says, “I agree with you, but I’m worried about what that will do
to the whole schedule.”

What You Can Do

The team is about to make a decision. You know that in order to make a
good decision, the team needs to define the problem clearly. It may seem
that the problem is clear: Another institution has scheduled an exhibit that
may keep people from attending your institution’s art exhibit. Before
rearranging your schedule, however, it would make sense to make sure you
have defined the problem correctly. You might say, “You might be right that
the Motherwell show will compete with ours. I’d feel better, though, if we
talked about that a little before we start thinking of solutions.”
 Lise has a different take on the situation. She thinks that the
Motherwell show will attract different people. Midge disagrees. She
says, “Motherwell has earned a place in art history. Even people who
are not particularly attracted to his work will go to the exhibit because
of his stature in contemporary art.” Other group members begin to
take sides with either Lise or Midge.

What You Can Do

Defining problems clearly often entails going beyond the team for
information. You might say, “I think we’re stuck. We have two different
opinions about this. Maybe we should ask some other people for their
thoughts on this. Who might know more about this kind of situation than
we do?”

Lise and Midge contact three curators whose institutions had exhibits
that were held at the same time as exhibits of well-known figures in the
art world. All three said that attendance at their exhibits was higher
than expected. People who came from out of town for the major exhibit
made the rounds of other art exhibits and shows in the area. Kate
remains unconvinced.

What You Can Do

You might say, “Kate, I think the team is ready to make a decision on
this. We usually vote and go with the majority. Since this is really important
to you, I think it would be best in this case to try to reach consensus on this
decision. Let’s discuss all the options again and see if we can come up with
a decision that everyone can live with. Is that okay with everybody?”
By suggesting a change in the decision-making process, you are making
it clear to everyone that Kate’s position has to be taken seriously. You are
also reminding Kate that the team cares about her and also must take action
on this issue. In this team, consensus does not mean that everyone has to be
enthusiastic about a decision. It simply means that everyone can live with
the decision. After further discussion, Kate may still be skeptical, but she
may be willing to go along with the emerging consensus. She may agree to
go along this time as an experiment. It is unlikely that Kate will attempt to
block the decision. This team has established a norm that encourages
members to go along with decisions as long as the team has done its best to
discuss the problem, to uncover relevant information, and to seek input
from all members.

Cohesion and Conflict

Positive relationships are evident in high performance teams. Conflicts
continue to occur as well. In high performance teams, the following
characteristics are in evidence:

• The team is highly cohesive

• Interpersonal attraction among members is high
• Members are cooperative
• Periods of conflict are frequent but brief
• The team has effective conflict management strategies

Here is an example of how teams remain cohesive and deal with conflict:

The team has been thrown a curveball. The court date has been moved
up because of political pressure, and this legal defense team must be
prepared for trial much earlier than expected. Members of the team
know there’s no chance of getting the date moved back. They’ll just
have to be ready.

What You Can Do

You might say something like, “I was planning to go away for the
weekend, but I’ll cancel that. That will give me time to work with Janice on
preparing those motions. What do you say, Janice?”
Teams, at Stage 4, step up to challenges. The world is not predictable.
What’s more, it is often stressful. In teams that are functioning well, people
make the necessary adjustments to get the job done. A word of caution is in
order here. If members find themselves in situations like this frequently, it
may be a sign that they should review their operational procedures. Too
many situations like this one may overload team members and cause
burnout. This particular situation seems unavoidable. Others may be
avoidable with some forethought, however.
Here’s another example:

Bob is getting hot under the collar. He strongly disagrees with Tom’s
proposed changes in patient education procedures for the unit. “Sure,
these changes will save time, but I will not compromise patient care for
anybody.” Tom is hurt by this statement and says, “I’m not trying to do
that. I’m just trying to standardize our approach to patient education.
That is what will save the time.”

What You Can Do

You know that conflicts occur at every stage of group development. In
fact, conflicts are good because they help provide clarity. You also know
that the way conflicts are handled is critical. So you say, “This is a very
important issue. I think we should take both these points of view very
seriously and get other members’ opinions as well. In fact, it might be
useful to see what other units like ours are doing about patient education.
What do the rest of you think?”
As the conversation is redirected away from Bob and Tom and back to
the team as a whole, tempers will undoubtedly cool. Both men’s concerns
have been acknowledged and taken seriously. Other members will have the
opportunity to weigh in on these issues, and the idea of seeking information
from other hospitals will probably be received positively by team members.
The trick in conflict situations is to intervene quickly and stay focused on
the task.

Maintaining High Performance

High performance is maintained in Stage 4 in the following ways:

• The team gets, gives, and uses feedback about its effectiveness and
productivity
• The team evaluates its performance on a regular basis
• The team takes steps to avoid routine and getting stuck in a rut

Examples of how teams maintain high performance and what you can do
to help are provided next.

John is facilitating this meeting. The team rotates the job of meeting
facilitator, which gives Joyce, the designated leader, the chance to
participate more fully in discussions. Halfway through the meeting,
John says, “It’s time to do a process check.”

What You Can Do

This is a simple one. Because you know it’s important to evaluate team
processes regularly, go along with John’s suggestion. There are three ways
to evaluate how a team is doing. The first way, which John has suggested, is
to take five minutes in the middle of a meeting to answer the following
questions:

• Are we on task and on schedule in terms of covering the agenda?

• Does everyone think that she or he has been heard?
• Does anything need clarification at this point?
• Is there anything we could do at this point to improve our process?
 Taking the time to do a quick evaluation halfway through the meeting is
called a process check. Process checks make it possible to correct things
that are not going well during the meeting so that changes can be made
right away. This prevents the team from spending time unproductively.

Bill, the group leader, says, “At the next meeting, we’re scheduled to
do a periodic review of how the team is doing. Take the next few
minutes to fill out the checklist. Patrick has volunteered to summarize
the results for us and to present the summary at the next meeting.”

What You Can Do

This one is easy, too. Go along with Bill’s suggestion. Respond to the
checklist as honestly as possible. The second way to ensure continual
evaluation is to do periodic reviews of team function as Bill has suggested.
The length of time between reviews will vary for each team. In general,
once every six to eight weeks seems reasonable. The idea is to avoid long
periods of lowered productivity by making any necessary changes as soon
as possible.
In Chapter 4, I introduced the Team Performance Checklist. Every six to
eight weeks, all members and the leader should take a few minutes at the
end of a meeting to complete the checklist. One member should be asked to
organize the responses and present the results at the next meeting. The best
way to organize the responses is to determine the average response to each
question and the average total response.
Begin the next meeting by going over the responses. Look at items where
the average response is high (3 or 4). These are things that the team is doing
well. Keep doing those things. Next, look at items where the average
response is low (1 or 2). Discuss strategies to improve the team’s
performance in those areas. Implement those strategies immediately. Don’t
forget to check up on yourselves. Do another evaluation about two months
later. Repeat the process just described and make any necessary changes.
 To some readers, this may seem like a waste of time. It’s not. The
dynamics of groups and teams can shift quickly. Before you know it,
regression to earlier stages can occur. Teams do not operate in a vacuum.
Changes in the external environment can take their toll on the best teams.
Budget cuts, downsizing, shifts in organizational priorities, and many other
things can affect internal team functioning. Stage 4 teams are not immune
to these things. They do have a better chance of surviving these pressures
than groups at lower developmental levels, but only if they are vigilant.
Internal forces can also affect team dynamics. Work pressures, new
members, conflicts that arise, and lots of other things can turn a silk purse
into a sow’s ear. Getting to the top of the development ladder is hard.
Staying there is just as hard.

Oscar is worried that the team isn’t getting enough feedback about its
performance from others outside the team. He says, “I think we should
try to figure out ways to get better and more regular feedback from
others in the organization. We get so caught up in doing the work that
we don’t take the time to find out what others think of the quality of
that work. Can we make that an agenda item at our next meeting?”

What You Can Do

Support Oscar’s effort to get the team to discuss ways to get feedback.
The third way to evaluate team effectiveness and productivity requires
feedback from sources outside the team. Some teams get constant feedback
about their performance. Others get almost none. All teams need to figure
out ways to determine whether they are meeting goals and whether others
are satisfied with their progress and output. Without feedback, it’s
impossible to know how to improve.
The type of feedback and methods to get that feedback will vary from
team to team. The ease or difficulty of devising methods to obtain that
feedback will as well. If the team’s goals are concrete, getting feedback will
be easier. If goals are more abstract, it will be harder. For example, if the
goal of the team is to increase the number of cars produced in a quarter,
feedback is easy to obtain. On the other hand, if the task of the team is to
improve the corporate climate, obtaining timely feedback will be more
difficult. Whether it is difficult or hard to obtain, without feedback the team
is flying blind. Figure out ways to obtain performance feedback on a regular
basis.
By the way, although I included these evaluation strategies in a
discussion of Stage 4 teams, assessing group progress and obtaining
performance feedback are necessary at every stage of development. Do it
early and often throughout the life of your group.

Jane says, “I’ve been feeling a little flat at meetings for the past
month. Are we getting a little dull? We were such pistols for quite a
while, but I think we’re starting to bore each other a little. Is there
something we can do to spice things up?”

What You Can Do

My colleagues and I have been doing research on work teams for years.
One of the things we’ve noticed is that teams tend to experience process
losses as they age. We’ve noticed that after about 18 to 24 months, teams
that were working at high levels start to falter. Productivity and
effectiveness begin to decrease. No one is sure why this happens, but I think
it may be the result of fatigue. Team members simply get tired of doing the
same old things in the same old way even when those things have been
effective. After all the work that goes into creating a high performance
team, members tire of it. They want something new and different.
This is not surprising. Human beings tend to be a bit perverse in this
regard. After spending years renovating a house, its occupants tire of the
décor. After years of living somewhere, some people feel the urge to move.
After months of eating a salad for lunch every day, the thought of another
salad bores us to tears. We long for stability, and when we achieve it we
want something different and challenging.
 Teams are composed of humans, and so the urge for novelty and change
influences team members. When things become too routine, most of us
want change. Our attention goes to other things and away from maintaining
high levels of performance.
Again, this is as natural as can be, but from a work perspective it may
have negative consequences. If the work of the team is completed, it might
be best to disband and to distribute the now-routine tasks to others. If the
work is not complete, however, team members will need to think of ways to
revitalize themselves. Some ways to do this follow:

• Add new goals and interesting tasks for the team to work on
• Hold a retreat focused on ways to revitalize team members
• Switch roles around so that members are doing new and different
things
• Teach each other new aspects of the work
• Rotate some members off the team and add new members
• Change the way meetings are conducted
• Change the meeting time
• Do other creative things to energize the process

Stage 4 is the best of times. Do whatever it takes to ensure that “the best
of times” doesn’t become “the good old days.”
 ELEVEN

VIRTUAL TEAMS

O ver the years, nine of my colleagues and I have trained and certified
1,159 people to become GDQ consultants. Most of these GDQ
consultants work with face-to-face groups. At the present time, 754
consultants have used the paper version of the Group Development
Questionnaire to determine what stage a work group is in and to plan what
they can to do to help work group members and their leader improve their
performance and create a more effective work team.
Four hundred and six consultants have worked with virtual teams for the
same reasons. Virtual teams are groups whose members and leaders don’t
work together face to face very often or at all. Unlike traditional team
members and their leader, who work together in a room, virtual team
members and their leader may be in different parts of their organization, in
different states, or in different countries. Of course, members or leaders
might be sending e-mails from their homes, airports or coffee shops as well.
For example, I go to work in Europe two or three times a year. I will be
sending e-mails from Europe and my team in the United States will be
responding. This is referred to as computer-mediated discourse. In a very
real way, computer-mediated discourse has changed the world of work.
Researchers Ale Ebrahim, Ahmed, and Taha (2009) describe a virtual
team as a “geographically dispersed team, distributed team, or remote team
in which individual members work together across time, space, and
organizational boundaries, with links strengthened by webs of
communication technology” (p. 2667). Powell, Piccoli, and Ives (2004)
define virtual teams as “groups of geographically, organizationally and/or
time dispersed works brought together by information and
telecommunication technologies to accomplish one or more organizational
tasks” (p. 7). A body of research on virtual teams has developed over the
last decade that supports the utility, and necessity, of virtual teams. The
number of face-to-face teams is becoming smaller and the number of virtual
teams working in business, health care, education, manufacturing, and other
enterprises is increasing. Even high school and university project teams
work together virtually more than face to face.
A recent Society for Human Resource Management (www.shrm.com)
survey of 379 human resource professionals found that 46% of
organizations use virtual teams for communication. Organizations with
multinational operations use virtual teams 66% of the time, which makes a
great deal of sense. In U.S. organizations, however, only 28% of work
teams use virtual teams. In the near future, that will change.
Fifty-three percent of human resource professionals say that virtual teams
are necessary because of increased interaction among organizations.
Organizations with multinational operations employ virtual teams 66% of
the time. However, U.S. government agencies use virtual teams only 9% of
the time. Fifty percent of for-profit companies use virtual teams, and
privately owned for-profit companies employ virtual teams about 46% of
the time.
The majority of human resource professionals working in organizations
believe that virtual teams are necessary to increase interaction among
international organizations. Another interesting finding is that 39% of
organizations use virtual teams to increase productivity and another 39%
use virtual teams to minimize cost.
In the next few sections of this chapter, I will describe four virtual venues
that are often used to support and assist work team members and leaders.
These are video conferences, LinkedIn, Skype, and blogs.

Video Conferences
When I was teaching master’s and doctoral graduate students at Temple
University, I was introduced to video conferencing. Like many universities
at that time, Temple had two locations. One location was in Philadelphia
and the other was in Harrisburg. For some time, I had to drive 180 miles
round trip between the two locations. This was not fun.
 Fortunately, the university installed video conferencing in both locations
at about that time, which made my work much easier. Video conferencing
allowed my student work teams in one location to communicate with each
other and with me. In this case, multipoint video conferencing allowed
student work team members in one location to sit in a room and
communicate with team members in another location. Many researchers
believe that video conferencing continues to remain the fastest-growing
segment of the computer industry.

LinkedIn
GDQ consultants often ask other consultants for help with a difficult work
group. However, instead of sending an e-mail to a single colleague, GDQ
consultants in Europe and the United States have established their own
LinkedIn online network. They can ask for help with a difficult work group,
or suggest strategies for helping a work group to improve their performance
and become a high performance team. From all reports, this has been a very
useful process. Without a doubt, LinkedIn is very useful to GDQ
consultants.

Skype
Skype provides verbal voice, video, screen sharing, instant messaging, and
direct file transfers. Skype is also capable of making international phone
calls. Over 40 million individuals across the world use Skype. Skype has
been used by GDQ consultants across the world.
Here is an example of Skype’s usefulness: A virtual team contained a
group of research scientists from different countries. The researchers’ goal
was to increase the quantity and quality of food in countries where food was
very scarce. Planning ways to accomplish this goal required discussion
among the researchers. They wanted to discuss alternative methods of
achieving these goals. An earlier form of Skype was their method of choice.
 Also, the researchers wanted to see how well they were working together
and what they could do to become a high performance team. In conjunction
with GDQ consultants, the researchers employed the strategies described in
this book. At first, the research team was in Stage 1. The GDQ consultants
worked with them to improve their performance. After a few months, the
research team was functioning as a high performance team. As a result, the
quantity of food in selected areas increased significantly over time.
Over the years, I have trained individual consultants to assess work
groups and help group members and leaders to improve their performance.
At this point, approximately 857 work groups in the U.S. have worked to
improve group performance. In Europe, about 642 have done the same.

Blogging
A blog is one type of virtual grouping. It is a site for discussion and
information sharing on a particular topic. Blogs are connected to the World
Wide Web. In blogs, individuals ask questions, discuss a specific topic, and
share information about that topic. Blogging is done in a virtual online
sight.
However, bloggers are not work teams. Rather, bloggers are individuals
interested in discussing a chosen topic, or question, with other individuals.
Some blogs involve a small number of individual participants. Others
involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Blogs do not directly relate to
virtual teams that are goal directed and focused on improving work team
development. However, team members and team consultants often explore
blogs to seek out information related to their work groups.

Virtual GDQ Online Scoring Systems

A number of years ago, when I was working with an organization in
Michigan, I was in an airport waiting to board a plane. I had my computer
on my shoulder. A man in a hurry ran into me, and my computer dropped to
the floor. It was severely damaged. Fortunately, when I arrived at my
destination, I had enough copies of the paper version of the GDQ
questionnaire to gather the results by hand. But that wasn’t much fun either.
Based on that experience, two virtual scoring systems were developed.
One was the GDQ Online Scoring System. This online program has been on
my website for some time now, and certified GDQ consultants can access
the GDQ website and to use the program at any time.
The Learning Bridge is a company that develops all kinds of
questionnaires. With the help of Learning Bridge staff, another virtual GDQ
scoring system was developed.
Certified GDQ consultants can access either of the GDQ scoring systems.

Star Trek Changed the World

When I was a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin, I analyzed
my research data on a computer that was about 20 feet long and 7 feet high.
To organize my data, I needed lots of punch cards. Each punch card
consisted of different patterns of zeros and ones. Somehow those zeros and
ones generated an analysis of statistical data and the research results that
were incorporated into my dissertation.
The process was tedious and took forever.
Star Trek movies and television shows taught us about virtual team work
and collaboration. Also, Star Trek showed us a number of imagined
technologies that we eventually adopted and developed in the real world.
Cell phones, much better computers, data analysis methods, conferencing,
Skype, virtual teams, and the like led research scientists to learn about, and
create, new products and methods that we use today.
 TWELVE

RECENT RESEARCH

S ince this is the final chapter of the fifth edition of Creating Effective
Teams, I want to answer the questions that work group members and
leaders have asked. I will do my best to do that.

On Average, How Long Does the Development

Process Take?
Although team members and the leader are eager to reach Stage 4, it takes
time for that to happen. Based on the results of a number of research
analyses, Table 12.1 describes how groups move through the stages. It is
important for work groups members and the leader to understand this and to
move through the process in an orderly manner. As I said earlier, work to
accomplish each stage and then move to the next stage.

Table 12.1 How Long the Team Development Process Takes, in Months

Does Group Size Affect Group Productivity?

Group size is an important factor for group development and group
productivity. The good news is that group leaders and members prefer small
groups about 80% of the time. Based on the data previously described,
group members and leaders choose small groups, as opposed to larger
groups, for a number of reasons. Smaller groups function better than larger
groups. In small groups, each individual member and the leader can discuss
her or his ideas and participate in decision making. In larger groups, a
number of members may not have the opportunity to speak; usually, a small
number of members discuss things while the rest of the members listen.
This process excludes some members’ thoughts and ideas as a result.

Table 12.2 Group Members and Leaders’ Preferred Group Size (N =

709)

If decisions must be agreed on by a large group, there is a strategy that

can be very useful to that large work group. For example, I was asked to
help a teacher group that monitored elementary educational progress in the
state of Massachusetts. This group contained 40 professionals, and the
group met once a week. When I arrived, I was directed to the room the
group was working in. All 40 members, including the leader, were sitting
around the largest table I’d ever seen. The table barely fit in the room.
I observed their discussion for a while, but it was hard to hear what
people were saying. Members were having problems hearing as well. I
suggested that members break into groups of five, and that each subgroup
discuss a particular issue. This worked well. Each small group reported
their ideas to the large group and received input from their colleagues. That
process was very successful and has been continued to this day.
Does Group Age in Months Affect Group
Productivity?
Based on the data I have collected, the age of work groups does influence
productivity. The older groups become, the less productive they become.
Members and leaders in younger groups function better and are generally
more productive than older groups. As a result, it would be helpful to limit
the length of time that a group spends working. Of course, this is not always
possible. Some groups, such as faculty groups and management groups, go
on forever, with a member occasionally leaving and others joining the
ongoing group. The implication of this finding is that planning ahead is
important. Often, group members and their leader assume that a team can
function at a high level in a very short period of time. As you know, this is
not the case.

Table 12.3 Productivity of Work Groups According to Group Age (N =

521)

How Do Work Groups in Different Sectors

Function?
Currently there are 815 work groups in my database, including those
involved in business, manufacturing, education, and health care. I was
curious to know whether the performance of work groups in these sectors
was similar or different.
 Business work group members at Stage 1 spent 27% of their time
listening to their manager’s goals and responding with questions for the
manager. This is normal. However, if this pattern continues for some time
and members continued to take direction from their manager, creativity,
suggestions from members, and discussions between members and the
leader will be limited at best. I have observed many business work groups
whose leader defines goals, and assign roles, to different members while
members take dictation.

Table 12.4 Business Work Groups at the Various Stage of Development

(N = 416)

Business work groups in Stage 2 spent less time challenging the

manager’s ideas and clarifying goals in comparison to work groups in the
other stages. Only 20% of the work groups were in Stage 2, which means
that goals were often not clear.
Members and leaders of Stage 3 groups spent time organizing to become
high performance teams and developing solid relationships among team
members. However, only 23% of work groups functioned well enough to be
considered high performance teams.

Table 12.5 Manufacturing Work Groups at the Various Stage of

Development (N = 175)
 At Stage 3, manufacturing work groups spent most of their time
organizing and preparing to become high performance teams. Some of
those work groups did become high performance teams. However, reaching
that level, and remaining at that level, is difficult. Only 22% of
manufacturing teams became high performance teams.
Teachers work most of their time alone in the classroom. However,
teachers and the principal meet together as faculty groups to discuss
educational goals for their students and ways to improve student
performance. Discussions about these goals occur at Stage 2. Based on the
data outlined in Table 12.6, only 16% percent of faculty groups actually
work on establishing those goals. Teachers and principals spend most of
their time planning and organizing.

Table 12.6 Education Work Groups at the Various Stage of

Development (N = 128)

All of us, health care workers included, would want health care groups to
be high performance teams. However, based on the data I have collected,
that is not often the case. Only 18% of health care groups function as high
performance teams. We all need that percentage to increase significantly. I
have consulted with health care groups in a number of hospital settings.
Most of the hospital groups I encounter are in Stage 1 or 2. This may be due
to a history of top-down patterns that have kept health care work groups in
Stage 1 or 2 for generations. Changing those patterns is essential to the
quality of patient care and important to health care workers.
Research conducted by my colleagues and me in 17 intensive care units
established that fact. A total of 394 staff members of the intensive care units
completed the Group Development Questionnaire. Each unit’s predicted
and actual mortality rates were calculated for the month in which data were
collected. Hospital teams whose members and leaders worked together as
high performance teams saved more lives than hospital teams whose
members and leaders did not. This was a very important study. I hope, for
all of us, that all health care staffs become high performance teams. Health
care teams can save so many more lives.

Table 12.7 Health Care Work Groups at the Various Stage of

Development (N = 97)

Do Leadership Teams or Membership Work

Teams Function More Effectively?
Leadership teams consist of leaders and membership teams consist of
members. In a research study that I conducted, the results suggested that
membership teams and leadership teams have some similarities and some
differences. The results of that study also suggested that leadership teams
and membership teams, in general, are equally variable in terms of member
perceptions of their internal dynamics. In some ways, this is good news.
Not all leadership teams are inevitably trapped in patterns of unproductive
dynamics. Many leadership teams are capable of functioning in productive
ways. That is true of work teams as well.

Table 12.8 Percentages of Leadership and Membership Teams at the

Different Stages of Development
 However, based on the evidence, a sizable percentage of leadership teams
may not be able to function well. Sixty percent of the leadership teams were
in Stage 1 and 2, and 40% of the leadership teams were in Stage 3. There
were no leadership teams in Stage 4. In comparison, 49% of membership
teams were in Stages 1 and 2, and 51% were in Stages 3 and 4. Given that
research studies have determined that there is a link between the stage of
group development and productivity, one can assume that a large
percentage of leadership teams are not working as effectively or
productively as they might.

A Final Thought
I hope that this fifth edition is useful and helpful for all the members and
leaders of work groups out there. All of you are the real heroes of the 21st
century. Individual heroism is a fine thing, but we need heroic work teams
as well. Any time you hear of a scientific advancement, a newly created
medicine, or a school where student achievement has improved
significantly, a heroic team was behind it.
Thanks!
 REFERENCES

Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature
review. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2653–
2669.
Guzzo, R. A., Jett, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of
psychologically-based intervention programs on worker productivity: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275–291.
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of
current literature and directions for future research. Data Base for
Advances in Information Systems, 35, 6–39.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation (Rev. ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Shaw, M. E. (1954). Some effects of problem complexity upon problem
solution efficiency in different communication nets. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 48, 211–217.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams:
Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

his bibliography is divided into the following 11 sections: groups and

T group development; virtual teams, groups and productivity;
organizational culture; effective group membership; effective
leadership; diversity in work teams, effective meetings; group processes and
structures; team building, organizational development, and staff
development; and team compensation.

Groups and Group Development

Akrivou, K., Boyatzis, R. E., & McLeod, P. L. (2006). The evolving group:
Towards a prescriptive theory of intentional development. Journal of
Management Development, 25(7), 689–706.
Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Bouas Henry, K., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R.
(2004). Time, change and development: The temporal perspectives on
groups. Small Group Research, 35, 73–105.
Bennis, W., & Shepard, H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human
Relations, 9, 415–437.
Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Burnand, G. (1990). Group development phases as working through six
fundamental human problems. Small Group Research, 21, 255–273.
Bushe, G. R., & Coetzer, G. H. (2007). Group development and team
effectiveness: Using cognitive representations to measure group
development and predict task performance and group viability. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 184–212.
Caple, R. (1978). The sequential stages of group development. Small Group
Behavior, 9, 470–476.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B.
(1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and
effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678–711.
Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training, 29, 59–
65.
Hogan, R. (1975). Theoretical egocentrism and the problem of compliance.
American Psychologist, 30, 533–539.
Mills, T. (1964). Group transformations: An analysis of a learning group.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slater, P. (1966). Microcosm. New York, NY: Wiley.
Tilin, F., & Broder, J. (2005). Team consultation. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.),
The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 427–439). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages in small group
development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427.
Verdi, A. F., & Wheelan, S. (1992). Developmental patterns in same-sex
and mixed-sex groups. Small Group Research, 23(3), 256–278.
Wheelan, S. (2004). Workplace teams. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, D. A.
Gerrity, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group work
(pp. 401–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wheelan, S. (2005). Faculty groups: From frustration to collaboration.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wheelan. S. (2005). Group processes: A developmental perspective (2nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wheelan, S. (2005). Handbook of group research and practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wheelan, S., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group development: Reality
or illusion? Small Group Research, 34, 223–245.
Wheelan, S., & McKeage, R. (1993). Developmental patterns in small and
large groups. Small Group Research, 24(1), 60–83.
Wheelan, S., & Verdi, A. (1992). Differences in male and female patterns of
communication in groups: A methodological artifact? Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 27(1/2), 1–15.
Wheelan, S., Verdi, A., & McKeage, R. (1994). The group development
observation system: Origins and applications. Philadelphia, PA: P.E.P.
 Press.
Wheelan, S., & Williams, T. (2003). Mapping dynamic interaction patterns
in work groups. Small Group Research, 34, 443–467.

Virtual Teams

Ahuja, M. K., & Carley, K. M. (1999). Network structure in virtual

organizations. Organization Science, 10, 741–757.
Anawati, D., & Craig, A. (2006). Behavioral adaptation within cross-
cultural virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 49(1), 44–56.
Andres, H. P. (2002). A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software
development teams. Team Performance Management, 8(1/2), 39–48.
Archer, N. P. (1990). A comparison of computer conferences with face-to-
face meetings for small group comparison of computer conferences with
face-to-face meetings for small group business decisions. Behaviour and
Information Technology, 9, 307–317.
Axelsson, K. (2003). Analysing business interaction in a virtual
organization: Using business action theory to study complex inter-
organisational contexts. Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, 1, 1–27.
Balthazard, P., Potter, R. E., & Warren, J. (2004). Expertise, extraversion
and group interaction styles as performance indicators in virtual teams.
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 41–64.
Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). Self-
governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring
deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 42(5), 595–634.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported
groups. MIS Quarterly, 20, 143, 163.
D’Urso, S. C. (2009). The past, present, and future of human
communication and technology research: An introduction. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 708–713.
Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature
review. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2653–
2669.
Fiol, C., & O’Connor, E. (2005). Identification in face-to-face hybrid, and
pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science,
16(1), 19–32.
Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., & Valacich, J. S. (2006). Measuring group
efficacy in virtual teams: New questions in an old debate. Small Group
Research, 37, 65–85.
Krumpel, K. (2000). Making the right interactive moves for knowledge-
producing tasks in computer-mediated groups. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 43, 185–195.
Lind, M. R. (1999). The gender impact of temporary virtual work groups.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 276–285.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. (2000).
Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-
organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24, 569–600.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time:
Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science,
11(5), 473–492.
Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., & Mykytyn, P. P. (2004). Impact of
heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the
performance of synchronous global virtual teams. Information and
Management, 41, 303–321.
Rutkowski, A.,Vogel, D., van Genuchten, M., & Saunders, C. (2008).
Communication in virtual teams: Ten years of experience in education.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3), 302–312.
Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2002). Group polarization and
computer-mediated communication: Effects of communication cues,
social presence and anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13, 70–
90.
Schiller, S. Z., & Mandviwalla, M. (2007). Virtual team research: An
analysis of theory use and a framework for theory appropriation. Small
Group Research, 38(12), 12–59.

Groups and Productivity

Bachiochi, P. D., Rogelberg, S. G., O’Connor, M. S., & Elder, A. E. (2000).
The qualities of an effective team leader. Organization Development
Journal, 18(1), 11–26.
Bruner, D. Y., & Greenlee, B. J. (2000). Measures of work culture in high
and low performing schools. Research in the Schools, 7(2), 71–76.
Bushe, G. R. (2007). Group development and team effectiveness: Using
cognitive representations to measure group development and predict task
performance and group viability. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
43(2), 184–212.
Campany, N., Dubinsky, R., Urch Druskat, V., Mangino, M., & Flynn, E.
(2007). What makes good teams work better: Research-based strategies
that distinguish top-performing cross-functional drug development teams.
Organizational Development Journal, 25(2), 179–186.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A
meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175–186.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhull, P. F. (1999). The impact of
teaming: Five research-based outcomes. Middle School Journal, 31(2),
57–60.
Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small
Group Behavior, 20, 70–86.
Guzzo, R. A. (1990). Productivity research: Reviewing psychological and
economic perspectives. In J. P. Campbell, R. J. Campbell, & Associates
(Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 63–81). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hoy, K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical
assessment of organizational health and student achievement.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 290–311.
Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Team work: What must go
right/What can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. (1988).
Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 337–358.
Reich, R. B. (1987). Entrepreneurship reconsidered: The team as hero.
Harvard Business Review, 64(3), 77–83.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really
matters? Sloan Management Review, 3, 25–31.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups as human resources. In K. M.
Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 5, pp. 323–356). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams:
Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.
Wheelan, S., & Brewer Danganan, N. (2003). The relationship between the
internal dynamics of student affairs leadership teams and campus leaders’
perceptions of the effectiveness of student affairs divisions. National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 40(3), 93–112.
Wheelan, S. (2009). Group size, group development and group productivity.
Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–266.
Wheelan, S., & Burchill, C. (1999, April). Take teamwork to new heights.
Nursing Management, pp. 28–32.
Wheelan, S., Burchill, C., & Tilin, F. (2003). The link between teamwork
and patients’ outcomes in intensive care units. American Journal of
Critical Care, 12, 527–534.
Wheelan, S., & Kesselring, J. (2005). The link between faculty group
development and the performance of elementary students on standardized
tests. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 323–330.
Wheelan, S., & Lisk, A. (2000). Cohort group effectiveness and the
educational achievement of adult undergraduate students. Small Group
Research, 31(6), 724–738.
Wheelan, S., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Fried-Kline, S. (1998). Member
perceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group
Research, 29(3), 371–393.
Wheelan, S., & Tilin, F. (1999). The relationship between faculty group
effectiveness and school productivity. Small Group Research, 30(1), 59–
81.
Wheelan, S., Tillin, F., & Sanford, J. (1996). School group effectiveness and
productivity. Research Practice, 4(1), 11–14.
Organizational Culture

Ancona, D. G. (1987). Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory

models. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group and intergroup processes (pp. 207–
230). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cohen, M. D., & Sproull, L. S. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deutsch, M. (1990). Forms of social organization: Psychological
consequences. In H. T. Himmelweit & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Societal
psychology (pp. 157–176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kennedy, F. A., Loughry, M. L., Klammer, T. P., & Beyerlein, M. M.
(2009). Effects of organizational support on potency in work teams: The
mediating role of team processes. Small Group Research, 40(1), 72–93.
O’Neil, J. (1995). On schools as learning organizations: A conversation
with Peter Senge. Educational Leadership, 52(7), 20–23.
Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2),
109–119.
Schein, E. (1991). What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis,
C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture
(pp. 243–253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity
and create unity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tjosvold, D., Dann, V., & Wong, C. (1992). Managing conflict between
departments to serve customers. Human Relations, 45, 1035–1054.
Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace.
Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 76–84.
Wheelan, S., & Abraham, M. (1993). The concept of intergroup mirroring:
Reality or illusion? Human Relations, 46(7), 803–825.
Wheelan, S., & Conway, C. (1991). Group development as a framework to
understand and promote school readiness to engage in an OD project.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(1), 59–71.
Wheelan, S., & Krasick, C. (1993). The emergence, transmission and
acceptance of themes in a temporary organization. Group and
Organization Management, 18(2), 237–260.

Effective Group Membership

Allen, M., & Bourhis, J. (1996). The relationship of communication

apprehension to communication behavior: A meta-analysis.
Communication Quarterly, 44, 214–226.
Bass, B. M., Wurster, C. R., Doll, P. A., & Clair, D. J. (1953). Situational
and personality factors in leadership among sorority women.
Psychological Monographs, 67, 16.
Belbin, R. (2010). Team roles at work (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA:
Butterworth Heinmann/Elsevier.
Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Caul, W. F. (1974). Sex, personality, and
physiological variables in the communication of affect via facial
expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 587–596.
Haythorn, W. (1953). The influence of individual members on the
characteristics of small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 48, 276–284.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic
review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 681–706.
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1967). Group risk taking as a function of
members’ anxiety and defensiveness. Journal of Personality, 35, 50–63.
Leonard, R. L., Jr. (1975). Self-concept and attraction for similar and
dissimilar others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 926–
929.
McCroskey, J. C., Hamilton, P. R., & Weiner, A. N. (1974). The effect of
interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal
attraction. Human Communication Research, 1, 42–52.
Ryan, E. D., & Lakie, W. L. (1965). Competitive and noncompetitive
performance in relation to achievement motive and manifest anxiety.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 342–345.
Sorrentino, R. M., & Sheppard, B. H. (1978). Effects of affiliation-related
motives on swimmers in individual versus group competition: A field
experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 704–714.
Teichman, Y. (1974). Predisposition for anxiety and affiliation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 405–410.

Effective Leadership

Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and
CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional drivers and
CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93,189–213.
Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership
theory building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33.
Bang, H., & Midelfart, T. N. (2008). Dialogue and effectiveness in
management teams. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 47, 1.
Bang, H. (2012). What prevents senior executives from commenting upon
miscommunication in top management team meetings? Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal,
2, 189–221.
Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Burke, W. W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivasta &
Associates (Eds.), Executive power: How executives influence people and
organizations (pp. 51–77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, T. A., & Kanugo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The
elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
DeRue, D. S., Barnes, C. M., & Morgeson, F. P. (2010). Understanding the
motivational contingencies of team leadership. Small Group Research,
41, 621–651.
Goleman, D. (2011). Leadership: The power of positive emotional
intelligence. Northhampton, MA: More Than Sound.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational
images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,
239–263.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great
performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hart, A. (1990). Managing school performance: The role of the
administrator. In P. Reyes (Ed.), Teachers and their workplace:
Commitment, performance and productivity (pp. 277–298). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., Brown, P. M., Eggins, R. A., Morrison, B. E.,
& Reynolds, K. J. (1998). Inspecting the emperor’s clothes: Evidence
that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group
Dynamics, 2, 168–184.
Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1976). Leader effectiveness and
adaptability description (LEAD). In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E. Jones (Eds.),
The 1976 annual handbook for group facilitators (Vol. 5, pp. 68–79). La
Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational
behavior: Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hollander, E. P. (1995). Organizational leadership and followership. In P.
Collett & A. Furnam (Eds.), Social psychology at work (pp. 69–87).
London: Routledge.
Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (1993). Communicating in groups and teams:
Sharing leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional
approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of
Management, 36(1), 5–39.
Nicholls, J. R. (1985). A new approach to situational leadership. Leadership
and Organizational Development Journal, 6(4), 2–7.
Northhouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering
leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy
and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. A. (1994). Self
and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a
prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 444–451.
Von Cranach, M. (1986). Leadership as a function of group action. In C. F.
Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Changing conceptions of leadership
(pp. 115–134). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom/Yetton
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 151–162.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Weiss, D., Tilin, F., & Morgan, M. (2013). The interprofessional health care
team: Leadership and development. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett
Learning.
Wheelan, S. (2003). An initial exploration of the internal dynamics of
leadership teams. Consulting Psychology Journal, 55(3), 179–188.

Diversity in Work Teams

Brief, A. P. (2008). Diversity at work. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.
Ely, R. J., & Roberts, L. M. (2008). Shifting frames in team-diversity
research: From difference to relationships. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity
at work (pp. 175–201). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects
of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team
and organizational diversity, SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of
Management, 29, 801–830.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
256–282.
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L. L., & Rupert, J. (2008). Diversity, conflict, and their
consequences. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 127–174). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kirchler, E., & Davis, J. H. (1986). The influence of member status
differences and task type on group consensus and member position
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 83–91.
Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.
Lockheed, E., & Hall, K. (1976). Conceptualizing sex as a status
characteristic: Applications to leadership training strategies. Journal of
Social Issues, 32, 111–124.
Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference?
The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 32–55.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Wheelan, S. (1996). Effects of gender composition and group status
differences on member perceptions of group developmental patterns,
effectiveness, and productivity. Sex Roles, 34(9/10), 665–686.

Effective Meetings

Poole, M. S. (1991). Procedures for managing meetings: Social and

technological innovation. In R. A. Swanson & B. O. Knapp (Eds.),
Innovative meeting management (pp. 53–110). Austin, TX: 3M Meeting
Management Institute.
Shelton, M. M., & Bauer, L. K. (1994). Secrets of highly effective meetings.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Silberman, S. (1999). 101 ways to make meetings active: Surefire ideas to
engage your group. New York, NY: Wiley.
Tropman, J. E. (2003). Making meetings work: Achieving high quality
group decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Group Processes and Structures

Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of

conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance.
 International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239–253.
Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in
organizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory
and research (pp. 369–411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barr, S. H., & Conlon, E. J. (1994). Effects of distribution of feedback in
work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 641–655.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. (2002). Comparing alternative
conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process
and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875–893.
Carnevale, P. J. D. (1986). Mediating disputes and decisions in
organizations. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman
(Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 251–269).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Deutsch, M. (1971). Toward an understanding of conflict. International
Journal of Group Tensions, 1, 42–54.
Deutsch, M. (1990). Cooperation, conflict and justice. In S. Wheelan, E.
Pepitone, & V. Abt (Eds.), Advances in field theory (pp. 149–164).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of
role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320–333.
Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The development of working relationships. In J. W.
Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 172–189).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Glynn, M. A., & Barr, P. S. (2003). Team decision making in organizations.
In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International
handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative learning (pp.
211–228). New York, NY: Wiley.
Gratwitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., Elliott, E. K., & Mathis, A. (2003).
Promoting creativity in temporary problem-solving groups: The effects of
positive mood and autonomy in problem definition on idea-generating
performance. Group Dynamics, 7, 200–213.
Hembroff, L. A. (1982). Resolving status inconsistency: An expectation
states theory and test. Social Forces, 61, 183–205.
Hembroff, L. A., & Myers, D. E. (1984). Status characteristics: Degrees of
task relevance and decision process. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47,
 337–346.
Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A. G., Mossholder, K. W., & Touliatos, J. (1985).
Outcomes of role stress: A multisample constructive replication.
Academy of Management Review, 28, 103–110.
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S.
Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication
theory and research (pp. 251–287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-
functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence:
A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 24, 779–784.
Miller, C. E., Jackson, P., Mueller, J., & Schersching, C. (1987). Some
social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 325–332.
Miller, C. E., & Wong, J. (1986). Coalition behavior: Effects of earned
versus unearned resources. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 38, 57–277.
Morris, W. N., & Miller, R. S. (1975). The effects of consensus-breaking
and consensus pre-empting partners on reduction of conformity. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 215–223.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. In S. Moscovici,
G. Mugny, & E. V. Avermate (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence
(pp. 9–48). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 347–
412). New York, NY: Random House.
Nadler, D. A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behaviors: A
review of the experimental research. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 23, 309–338.
Nadler, D. A., Cammann, C. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1980). Developing a
feedback system for work units: Field experiment in structural change.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16(1), 41–62.
Peele, H. E. (2006). Appreciative inquiry and creative problem solving in
cross-functional teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4),
447–467.
Pruitt, D. G. (1987). Creative approaches to negotiation. In D. J. D. Sandole
& I. Sandole-Staroste (Eds.), Conflict management and problem solving:
Interpersonal to international applications (pp. 62–76). London, UK:
Frances Pinter.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. D. (1992). The development of integrative
agreements. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grezlak (Eds.), Cooperative and
helping behavior (pp. 151–181). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Rawlins, W. K. (1984). Consensus in decision-making groups: A
conceptual history. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Emergent
issues in human decision-making (pp. 19–39). Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Salazar, A. J., Hirokawa, R. Y., Propp, K. M., Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G.
B. (1994). In search of true causes: Examination of the effect of group
potential and group interaction on decision performance. Human
Communication Research, 20, 529–559.
Shaw, M. E. (1954). Some effects of problem complexity upon problem
solution efficiency in different communication nets. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 48, 211–217.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between
team design features and team performance. Journal of Management,
32(1), 29–54.
Sundstrom, E., & Altman, I. (1989). Physical environments and work group
effectiveness. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 175–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Theodorson, G. A. (1962). The function of hostility in small groups.
Journal of Social Psychology, 256, 57–66.
Weldon, E., Jehn, K., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the
relationship between a group goal and improved group performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 555–569.
Wheelan, S. (2009). Group size, group development and group productivity.
Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262.

Team Building, Organizational Development, and Staff

Development
Buzaglo, G., & Wheelan, S. (1999). Facilitating work team effectiveness:
Case studies from Central America. Small Group Research, 30, 108–129.
Cummings, T. G. (1981). Designing effective work-groups. In P. C.
Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol.
2, pp. 250–271). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Evans, N., & Jarvis, D. (1986). The group attitude scale: A measure of
attraction to group. Small Group Behavior, 17(2), 203–216.
Goldstein, I. L. (Ed.). (1989). Training and development in organizations.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward
the implication of instructional innovation. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 4, 63–69.
Guzzo, R. A., Jett, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of
psychologically-based intervention programs on worker productivity: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275–291.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff
development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Longman.
Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. E. (1999). The effect of
team building on performance: An integration. Small Group Research,
30, 309–329.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation (Rev. ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Silberman, M. (1990). Active training. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its
influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and
empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research
in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117–153). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Wheelan, S. (1990). Facilitating training groups. New York, NY: Praeger.
Wheelan, S., Brunner, A., Burchill, C., Craig, R., & Tilin, F. (1996). The
utility of group development theory in consulting with small, social
service organizations: A case study. Organization Development Journal,
14(3), 4–15.
Wheelan, S., Buzaglo, G., & Tsumura, E. (1998). Developing assessment
tools for cross cultural group research. Small Group Research, 29(3),
359–370.
Wheelan, S., & Furber, S. (2006). Facilitating team development:
Communication and productivity. In L. Frey (Ed.), Facilitating group
communication in context: Innovations and applications with natural
groups (Vol. 2, pp. 155–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wheelan, S., & Hochberger, J. (1996). Validation studies of the Group
Development Questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27(1), 143–170.

Team Compensation

Brown, M., & Heywood, J. S. (2002). Paying for performance: An

international comparison. London, UK: M. E. Sharpe.
Caudron, S. (1994). Tie individual pay to team success. Personnel Journal,
73(19), 40–46.
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives.
European Economic Review, 14, 687–724.
Gross, S. E. (1995). Compensation for teams: How to design and implement
team-based reward systems. New York, NY: American Management
Association.
Hamilton, B., Nickerson, J., & Owan, H. (2003). Team incentives and
worker heterogeneity: An empirical analysis of the impact of teams on
productivity and participation. Journal of Political Economy, 111, 465–
497.
Honeywell, J. A., Dickinson, A. M., & Poling, A. (1997). Individual
performance as a function of individual and group pay contingencies.
Psychological Record, 47(2), 261–274.
Kauhanen, A., & Piekkola, H. (2006). What makes performance-related pay
schemes work? Finnish evidence. Journal of Management Governance,
10, 149–177.
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (1995). Designing
team-based organizations: New forms of knowledge work. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Parker, G., McAdams, J., & Zielinski, D. (2000). Rewarding teams: Lessons
from the trenches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saunier, A. M., & Hawk, E. J. (1994). Realizing the potential of teams
through team-based rewards. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26(4),
24–33.
Sherriton, J., & Stern, J. (1997). Corporate culture/team culture: Removing
the hidden barriers to team success. New York, NY: American
Management Association.
Zingheim, P. K., & Schuster, J. R. (1997). Best practices for small-team pay.
ACA Journal, 6(1), 40–49.
 INDEX

Ability-based choice of members, 13

Age of a group, and productivity, 132
Ahmed, S., 125
Ale Ebrahim, N., 125
Attendance, 35
Autonomy, 17

Beginning groups. See Stage 1 (dependency and inclusion)

Blaming, 50–53
Blogging, 128
Business work groups, 132–133

Checklists
Effective Leader Checklist, 84–89
Effective Member Checklist, 64–69
Organizational Support Checklist, 18–23
Team Performance Checklist, 45–48, 122
Clarifying questions, 53–54
Coalitions
factions, 78
subgroups, 34–35, 104–106
Cohesion, 61–64, 119–120
Collaborative work, history of, 1–2
Communication
conflict resolution and, 63–64
discussion, 43, 58
freedom of expression, 59
open communication structure, 42, 54–56
with other groups, 110–111
ratio of task communications to supportive communications, 56
Compensation strategies, 10
Compromise, 33–34
Computer-mediated discourse, 125
Conflict
blaming, patterns of, 50–53
confrontational, 101–102
diversity and, 59–60
factions over leadership, 78
high performance teams and conflict management, 45
interpersonal, 26, 60
personal feuds and personality conflicts, 33, 102
personalizing vs. group perspective, 80
as sign of progress, 32–33
stage 2 and, 96–97, 98, 101–102
stage 4 and, 119–120
task conflicts, 26–27, 33, 45, 60
third-party interventions in, 81
Conflict resolution
leadership and, 81
members and, 62–64
methods of, 63
stage 2 and, 106
Consensus, 58, 119
Continuous learning, 12
Cooperation, 45, 61–62, 64
Counterdependency and fighting stage. See Stage 2 (counterdependency
and fighting)
Culture, organizational, 7–10
Culture of a group, 71, 96, 97–102

Decision making
changing the process, 119
high performance teams and, 43
informal processes of, 104
large groups and, 131
member participation in, 56–59
methods for, 57
stage 2 and, 104
stage 4 and, 117–119
Defensiveness, 80
DeMeuse, K. P., 15
Dependency and inclusion stage. See Stage 1 (dependency and inclusion)
Detail, paying attention to, 9, 117
Development. See Group development
Disagreements. See Conflict
Discussion, 43, 58, 94–95
Diversity
conflicts and, 59–60
individual behavioral differences, 43–44
performance level and, 30
status, open communication, and, 55

Education. See Training

Education work groups, 133–134
Effective Leader Checklist, 84–89
Effective Member Checklist, 64–69
Empowerment, 79
Evaluation
group progress assessment, 35
high performance teams and, 43, 121
problem solving and, 58–59
See also Checklists
Expectations, clear, 10
Expression, freedom of, 59
External environment, management of, 77

Face-to-face meetings vs. teleconferencing, 13. See also Virtual teams

Facilitation by members, 82
Factions, 78
Feedback
constructive, 42
helping too much and, 16–17
high performance teams and, 42
internal and external, 42
interventions and, 15
positive, in stage 1, 75
 stage 4 and, 122–123
Feuds, personal, 33, 102
Fighting. See Conflict; Stage 2 (counterdependency and fighting)
Freedom of expression, 59
Fundamental attribution error, 51
Futrell, D., 15

GDQ consultants, 125, 127–129

GDQ Online Scoring System, 128–129
Goals
clarifying questions, 53–54
conflict over, 98
discussing and clarifying in stage 1, 94–95
goal setting as intervention, 15
high performance teams and, 38–39
interdependence and, 40–41
meaningful, 11–12
of stage 1, 90
of stage 2, 96–97
of stage 3, 108
of stage 4, 114–115
success, expectation of, 8–9, 116–117
Group culture, 71, 96, 97–102
Group development
adjusting leadership for, 73–74
assessing progress, 35
attendance, 35
characteristics by stage, 25–30
compromise and, 33–34
concept of, 24
conflict as sign of progress, 32–33
diversity and, 30
integrated model of, 24
knowledge about, 31
member responsibility, 34
murky beginnings, 32
patience with, 31–32
 personal feuds and personality conflicts and, 33
subgroups and coalitions, 34–35
supportiveness, 34
survival tips, 30–35
time frame for, 130
timely task completion, 34
uneven process of, 30
See also Stage 1 (dependency and inclusion); Stage 2
(counterdependency and fighting); Stage 3 (trust and structure);
Stage 4 (work)
Group Development Questionnaire (GDQ), 125, 128–129, 134
Group members. See Members of groups and teams
Groups
age of, 132
dislike of working in, 2
everyday need for, 1–2
as interdependent systems, 71, 72
knowledge base and, 2
size of, 131
See also Work groups
Groupthink, 62
Guzzo, R. A., 15

Health care work groups, 134–135

Helplessness, feelings of, 50–51
High performance teams
characteristics of, 36–37
communication and feedback in, 42
conflict management and, 45
cooperation in, 45
decision making in, 117–119
goals, clear, 38–39
implementation and evaluation by, 43
individual behavior differences in, 43–44
interdependence and, 40–41
leadership roles in, 41
norms, establishing, 43
 norms for quality and high performance, 115–116
planning, decision making, and discussion in, 43
roles in, 39–40
structure and, 44–45
Team Performance Checklist for, 45–48, 122
See also Stage 4 (work)
Human resources, access to, 12

Implementation, 43, 59
Inclusion concerns in stage 1, 91–92
Individual behavioral differences, 43–44
Individual performance vs. teamwork, 10
Innovation, 8, 60, 61, 116
Interdependence
group goals and tasks and, 11
groups as interdependent systems, 71, 72
high performance teams and, 40–41
Intervention strategies, 15–16
Introverts, 91 (box)
Ives, B., 125–126

Jett, R. D., 15

Katzell, R. A., 15
Knowledge base, group role in, 2

Labor, division of, 62, 105, 109

Leadership
charismatic leaders, 70, 72
conflict resolution and, 81
confrontational challenges, 101–102
Effective Leader Checklist, 84–89
external environment, managing, 77
facilitating group growth, 75–76
group membership of a leader, 84
high performance teams and, 41
member facilitation, 82
 organizational support reviews and, 83
overfocus on, 3
parenting compared to, 74
performance standards, setting, 77
personalizing vs. group perspective and, 80
positive feedback and, 75
power and, 78–79
progress and regression, monitoring, 83
reducing member anxiety, fear, and concerns, 75
stage 1 and, 74–77, 92–93
stage 2 and, 77–81
stage 3 and, 81–82, 109, 110
stage 4 and, 83
structural changes and, 82
style adjustments, 73–74
supervision, training, and education for members, 76–77
training and, 14
traits, skills, and selection of roles, 72–73
views of, 70–72
Leadership teams vs. membership teams, 135
Learning, continuous, 12
The Learning Bridge, 129
LinkedIn, 127

Manufacturing work groups, 133

Membership teams vs. leadership teams, 135
Members of groups and teams
ability-based choice of, 13
blame patterns and, 50–53
clarifying questions by, 53–54
cohesion and cooperation, 61–64
dependency, anxiety, and need for inclusion and safety, 75
Effective Member Checklist, 64–69
leadership involvement by, 82, 109, 110
norms and, 60–61
number of, 44
problem-solving and decision-making procedures, 56–59
 ratio of task communications to supportive communications and, 56
status classifications, open communication structure, and, 54–56
supporting productivity, innovation, and free expression for, 59–60
training, lack of, 49–50
See also Conflict; Diversity; Training
Minorities. See Diversity
Mission of groups, 17
Mission statements, organizational, 8

Negotiation, 64, 81
Norms
decision making and, 119
high performance teams and, 43
productivity and, 60–61
for quality and high performance, 115–116
stage 2 and, 99–100
Number of members, 44

Open communication structure, 42, 54–56

Operational procedure reviews, 120
Organizational culture, 7–10
Organizational support
autonomy and connection, 17
checklist for, 18–23
favorable organizational culture, 7–10
giving groups what they need, 11–13
helping too much, 16–17
importance of, 7
intervention strategies, 15–16
review sessions on, 17–18, 83
training, trainers, and, 14–15
Organizational Support Checklist, 18–23

Performance standards, setting, 77

Personality conflicts, 33, 102
Piccoli, G., 125–126
Planning
 detail awareness and, 9
education work groups and, 134
group age and, 132
high performance teams and, 43
lack of, 58
stage 1 and, 94, 95
strategic plans in high performance teams, 38–40
for structural changes, 82
Powell, A., 125–126
Power
redistribution of, 73, 79
types of, 78–79
Problem solving
conflict and, 63
diversity and, 60
member participation in, 56–59
methods for, 57
stage 4 and, 117–119
Productivity
group age and, 132
group size and, 131
high performance teams and, 45
internal team processes, relationship with, 36–37
keys to, 37–45
norms and, 60–61
process losses and routine in stage 4, 123–124
structure changes to facilitate, 82
Profit vs. quality and service, 9

Quality, 9, 115–116. See also High performance teams

Questions, clarifying, 53–54

Recognition, 10
Recommendations from teams, valuing, 9–10
Regression, 83, 122
Relationship building in stage 3, 111–113
Responsibility, taking, 34
Revitalization, 124
Roles
clarifying questions on, 53–54
dissatisfaction and clarification in stage 2, 102–103
in high performance teams, 39–40
leadership roles, selection of, 73
Routine, avoiding, 124

Safety concerns in stage 1, 91–92

Schein, E. H., 52
Service vs. profit, 9
Shaw, M. E., 57
Size of groups, 131
Skype, 127–128
Stage 1 (dependency and inclusion)
characteristics of, 25–26
goals of, 90
leader dependency, 92–93
leadership at, 74–77
leadership perceptions and, 41
order and structure, wish for, 93–95
safety and inclusion concerns, 91–92
time frame for, 130 (table)
Stage 2 (counterdependency and fighting)
characteristics of, 26–27
goals of, 96–97
leadership at, 77–81
leadership perceptions and, 41
time frame for, 130 (table)
unfed group structure, creating, 102–107
unified group culture, creating, 97–102
Stage 3 (trust and structure)
characteristics of, 27–28
fine-tuning of roles, organization, and structure in, 108–111
goals of, 108
leadership at, 81–82, 109
leadership perceptions and, 41
 relationship building in, 111–113
time frame for, 130 (table)
Stage 4 (work)
characteristics of, 28–30
cohesion and conflict in, 119–120
decision making and problem solving in, 117–119
getting the work done well, 115–117
goals of, 114–115
high performance, maintenance of, 121–124
leadership at, 83
leadership perceptions and, 41
time frame for, 130 (table)
Star Trek, 129
Status classifications, 54–56
Strategic plans, 38–40
Strategies for team development, 3–4, 15–16
Structure
change to facilitate productivity, 82
group size, 131
high performance teams and, 44–45
stage 1 and, 93–95
unified, in stage 2, 102–107
See also Roles; Stage 3 (trust and structure)
Subgroups, 34–35, 104–106
Success, expectation of, 8–9, 116–117
Sundstrom, E., 15
Supervision, 76–77
Support from the organization. See Organizational support
Supportive statements, 34, 56

Taha, Z., 125

Task clarification, 53–54
Task competence and leadership, 73
Task conflicts, 26–27, 33, 45, 60
Tasks, meaningful, 11–12
Team members. See Members of groups and teams
Team Performance Checklist, 45–48, 122
Teams, high performance. See High performance teams
Teams, virtual, 125–129
Teams vs. work groups, 2–3
Teamwork, 2, 3, 10
Technical resources, access to, 12
Teleconferencing vs. face-to-face meetings, 13. See also Virtual teams
Time for teams, sufficient, 44–45
Timely task completion, 34
Training
educating for group participation competence, 14–15
leader focus, 3
membership training, lack of, 49–50
stage 1 leadership and, 76–77
Trust
conflict resolution and, 64
stage 2 and, 105
stage 3 and, 112, 113
timely task completion and, 34
Trust and structure stage. See Stage 3 (trust and structure)

Video conferences, 126–127

Virtual teams, 125–129

Wheelan, Susan, xii

Work areas, defined, 13
Work groups
defined, 2
in different sectors, 132–135
history of, 1
teams and, 2–3
See also Group development
Work stage. See Stage 4 (work)