1. Problem Definition.


Takatuf program was initiated to develop project management competency on selected individuals from various industries in Oman. The program kicked off with a 5 days intense face to face session. This resulted in forming a Takatuf_PMI 2014 team consisting of 25 members with different backgrounds and experience levels in their associated industries. As the objective of this program is to produce High performing team, that embraces challenges and problems, finds solutions, plans and delivers results effectively. The first step to achieving this target is to analyze the current behavior and leadership style that the team is situated at. This blog post explains the outcome of this task.

  1. Methodology:

To reach an understanding of the teams behavioral development situation, Dr. Bruce Tuchman Model typically known as the “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups” was used as a basis for this study. Hence, a survey was conducted between the team members to gather the views on where it stands as opposed to Tuchman’s model. Following is a further explanation on the analysis.

  1. Feasible Alternative.

Dr. Tuckman’s model recognized that each newly formed group go through distinct phases known as Forming, Storming , Normimg and Performing and suggested that the team will need to experience all four stages before they achieve maximum effectiveness.


Tuckman Stages of group development


  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

As illustrated in the above diagram. There are various stages that the team goes through in terms of the level of collaboration and hence the required leadership style. In order to illustrate the Takatuf team’s current position on this model a survey of 32 questions between the active members of the team was conducted. A collection of 23 responses from the team illustrated the various interpretations of the team members and the current team development stage.


4. Selection of Criteria.

Delphi technique with P85 was used to analyze the outcomes of the survey critically. This method was used to provide an approximate 85% chance of illustrating the stage that the teams fall in. The following table illustrates the results

  Forming Storming Norming Perfoming
Average 21 20 22 27
Maximum 33 29 30 35
Minimum 8 8 10 22
Mean 21 19 22 28
Standard deviation 4 4 3 2
Standard variance 16.7 14.0 13.3 8.7
P85 25 23 25 30


  1. Analysis and Comparation of the Alternative.

As shown in the above analysis, it is clear the Takatuf_PMI 2014 team is stationed in the Performing Stage. This could also be confirmed by the lower variance illustrated in the table above.



6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

The result informs us the team is at a stage where the members are motivated and knowledgeable. They have shared vision and are able to stand on its own feet with no supervision or participation from the leader. The members are competent, self-directed and able to handle the decision-making process without supervision at the this stage the leader can delegate the tasks to the team members and focus more on developing the team members


This is a quite clear if compared to the team’s position during the first stage of the program Face-to-face 1 session. The team now is clear on the goals to be achieved, and clear form of collaboration can be noticed between the members to achieve these goals.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

A constant monitoring is required to ensure the team maintains its position as self-dependent high performing team. This would require a periodic review between the leader and the team members as individuals and as team to be conducted as frequent as a monthly basis


  1. References:

Smith, M. K. (2005). ‘Bruce W. Tuckman – forming, storming, norming and performing in groups, the encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved June 7, 2014 from



Joey Pauly Admin(April, 2012), Leading High Performing Teams blog. Retrieved June 7, 2014 from



Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing, Understanding the Stages of Team Formation (n.d.)

Retrieved June 7, 2014 from



Clark, D. (1998, January 1). Survey: What Stage is Your Team in.?

Retrieved June 6, 2014, from http://www.cscaweb.org/EMS/sector_team/support_files/tools_for_the_team/tool_stage.pdf



  1. Mahfoodha…… Too bad!!! If only you had read the directions more carefully and/or had researched what others had done, you would have realized that the “Feasible Alternatives” are NOT what phase or stage the team is in but which Leadership Styles we should be using which are appropriate……

    Other than that, you did a great job especially on your citations, which were very well done….

    Suggest in the future that you think very carefully about exactly what the problem is and what viable or feasible alternatives there are to address of “fix” the problem.

    One last piece of advice….. Do NOT wait until the last minute to post your blogs…… IF you are following our “one honest hour per day” “lesson learned” I should be seeing your blog postings being done on Sunday/Monday; your paper drafts coming in on Tues/Wed/Thurs leaving you with plenty of time on Friday and Saturday to work on your Weekly Report.

    Dr. PDG, Cape Cod, MA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s