- Problem Definition
During the course of this program a lot has changed since the first 5 day face to face phase. Team has been underachieving and is not as gelled as initially anticipated. A second Tuckman assessment is being done to redefine the leadership style suitable for us if required. The same questionnaire was used by the team to answer the same 32 questions and to help rank what stage we think the team is currently on. This time both the Mode and the Median were taken into consideration for the calculation of the P(90).
|P(90) Mode (z=1.29)||17||18||–||–|
|P(90) Median (z=1.29)||19||17||18||17|
- Development of the feasible alternatives
In accordance to Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model there are four types of leaders:
- Telling(Forming) – is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, why, when and where to do the task;
- Selling (Storming)– while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socio-emotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process;
- Participating (Norming)– this is how shared decision-making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviours while maintaining high relationship behavior;
- Delegating (Performing)– the leader is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.
- Possible solution / alternative
The group can be either in one of the four phases; Forming phase, Storming Phase, Norming Phase or Performing Phase.
- Selection of Criteria
It is clear from the analysis results seen in section 1) that using the mode we see that the team is in the Storming Phase whereas when using the median we see that the team is in the Forming phase (similar to the mean).
- Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative
By analyzing the results obtained in table 1, we can see that result for the P90 show a clear indication that the team has changed back to the forming stage or storming stage. As mentioned in the previous blog the Program manager has gone MIA and there is no clear commitment by most of the team members thus there is no clear direction on what needs to be done and when it needs to be done.
- Selection of the Preferred Alternative.
The results give a clear indication that a Telling style leadership is what is required for the Takatuf PMI 2014 Team in we take the median where as a selling style leadership is required if we take the results using the mode .
- Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.
Similarly to the previous post it can be concluded that the group has lost its vision on what needs to be done and when things need to be done and require a leadership that will direct the team in the correct path . Also, working as a team all members have to be on the same page, this is not the case for Takatuf PMI 2014 Team.
- Related materials. (n.d.). situational leadership analysis. Retrieved August 4, 2014, fromhttp://www.businessballs.com/slanalysis.htm
- org. (2012). Survey: what stage is Your Team In?. Retrieved August 4, 2014, fromhttp://www.cscaweb.org/EMS/sector_team/support_files/tools_for_the_team/tool_stage.pdf
- Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing: Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. (n.d.). Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Retrieved August 4, 2014, fromhttp://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
- MAHAKAM13: W1_HERU_Tuckman Assesment. (2012, September 14). MAHAKAM13: W1_HERU_Tuckman Assesment. Retrieved June 4, 2014, fromhttp://aacemahakam.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/w1herutuckman-assesment.html