Being on a team can be challenge. If you are the team leader in the group which consider you are the person who can be counted on for getting the work finish regardless if challenges arise while working on the group project.
Part One: Group Development
The textbook states there are five stages of team development which are forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. The team appears to be in the norming stage of development. The textbook describes this stage as the “point at which the members really start to come together as a coordinated unit” (Organizational Behavior, 11th Edition. John Wiley & Sons). The assignments and roles within the group were defined, and most of the members have made progress on their given assignments. The problems were in the “Storming” stage. Christine should have addressed these problems with the group. In this case study, I believe Mike was too busy with own life issues which it seems he was left feeling excluded and unimportant to the group. If Christine had a better understanding of group development, she would have known that during this stage emotions run high, and group members can quickly loose desire to work with the group if it is not properly managed.
Part Two: Problems Identification
The primary problem within the group was Mike’s perception of exclusion from the group. During this stage Mike’s desire to perform was because he felt like it was exclusion from the group. When he feels that the team is meeting without him, it leaves him with a feeling unimportant in the group. This affects the whole group and Mike’s performance as a negative issue. If Christine noticed this, at this stage of development, she could have easily made the effort to bring Mike back into the group, defining his importance to himself and the group. If this had happened, the entire group would have entered the “Norming” stage with well-defined goals, expectations, and a drive to perform with the group.
The second problem within this case study is Mike’s feeling of dissatisfaction which should have been brought up in the group. Mike is displaying characteristics of someone who didn’t care about his performance in the group and handing in unvalued work. Mike was not showing up for meeting and having poor performance which can relate back to low satisfaction levels caused by a poorly unified team.
Part Three Retrospective Evaluation:
One course of action, Christine could have reintroduce Mike back into the group. When Mike was having issues with his personal life, Christine empathizes with Mike which she realize that he must be involved in the group meetings so he can turn his notes for the group project. During meeting, she needs to keep Mike involved in meetings in order to reinforce his role and importance to the group.
The pros and cons of this plan of action are:
• reinforce Mike’s role and expectations within the group
• allow for a distributed communication network in the group
• allow for closer observing of Mike’s progress on current assignments
• Mike could have felt he was being treated unfairly forced to attend meetings, while other group members had a choice to attend or not
• Other group members may consider a view of Mike as being lazy, and place pressures on him, or reject his ideas because he was not joining the meetings.
• Mike was likely to be combative with team members due feelings of exclusion.
Another solution would be for Christine to have separate meetings with Mike. She could have work with Mike on putting a schedule in place which could have best satisfy his needs then the group performances could be on the same page. These options would require a lot time and effort from Christine which she might not had the time for because of her busy schedule. She would not only have to work with Mike to complete past due assignments, but this would had kept Mike up to date with meeting notes and ideas from the