The importance of team building, the stages in the development of team cohesion Essay Example

classified by Dr. Meredith Belbin who identifies nine roles that team members may fall into. Such roles are usually assigned during the storming stage and will be discussed further on in this paper.

Whilst still at the forming stage, the team has little guidance and direction and is characterised by a great deal of uncertainty about the group's purpose, structure and leadership. The team may still be seen as a collection of individuals and one could argue that it is not a team at all. Controversy or conflict is usually avoided; however the avoidance of conflict means that not much actually gets done as a result of team members becoming distracted with attempting to be accepted by the others.

Team members also experience many feelings during this stage; some of these feelings may include excitement, optimism, anticipation, suspicion, fear and anxiety. Members are also uncertain of their roles and there can be some amount of confusion within the group. It is important that some rules are established at this early stage and that members are aware of the common issues and what they are each required to do or be capable of doing to achieve their objective. Once the rules and roles have been agreed this can empower the team to work more effectively.

Fundamentally the forming stage consists of creating a framework for interaction. Storming quickly follows, as these interactions are examined in more detail.

Storming is the second stage described by Tuckman where individual's goals are revealed, examined and scrutinised. This is when conflict can often occur and it can be very uncomfortable for certain members. It is a period of negotiation and can often lead to

the disruption of relationships that have been established in the forming stage. There can be resistance to leaders and to tasks, as well as some questioning of commitment. The key issues at this stage are the management of the conflict and the organisation of group objectives by the leader.

The challenging part of this stage is that problems begin to be faced more openly than in the earlier stage. Team members begin to question the task and may confront and challenge the leader about their choices. This is especially true if the team members realise that the task is more difficult than originally thought. Consequently, there is much blaming, defensiveness and confrontation. Team members experience impatience, frustration, anger and some form of resistance.

Despite team members being infinitely more tolerant of the strengths and weaknesses of each other than they were earlier, they must also confront emotional issues between themselves and some members may even refuse to communicate with certain members of the group. Arguments about roles in the team may occur and one could argue that even at this stage of development the group may not show the characteristics of a team. However this may equally lead to a positive effect on performance as members battle for positions resulting in a higher work rate. On the other hand members may feel threatened and pressured by others and may be nervous in their performance in case they lose their position. Of course, whereas some may think it is good to get into the real issues, others may be more inclined to remain in the comfort and security of the forming stage. As a result of the conflict

productivity is likely to decrease during this stage.

The team does slowly begin to interact more by sharing ideas but remains far from an effective team as there are no clear plans to take them forward. However, with good leadership internal conflicts can start to be managed constructively. In some cases storming can be resolved quickly but in others the team may never leave this stage or fail completely. The maturity and the willingness to compromise of some team members usually determines whether the team will ever move out of this stage.

It is important for all teams to have some conflict as this maintains effective checks against over-consensus. "Conflict can be used as the spur to find the wider solution, the solution that will meet the mutual interests of the parties involved"2 In other words; conflict should be embraced as a way to come to a mutually beneficial decision and understanding.

Constructive conflict occurs when the team reaches a solution, members learn from the situation, and it builds a stronger team. Each team is bound to have members that have different outlooks, priorities and interests, role conflicts, power struggles, and improper communications that can undermine the team's process. It is important for team members to work together so that they can understand these barriers and overcome them as a team.

One view contends that the most common causes of negative conflicts within a group would include unresolved anger, low self-esteem or confidence, unclear or opposing views and miscommunication. Additional causes would include personality clashes, unyielding compromise and a lack of individual contribution and participation.

The most frequently cited factors that prevent group members from cooperating with each other are

personality conflicts and egos; conflicting goals; reward systems based on individual performance; lack of unifying vision; and ineffective leadership from above. Hackman identifies the top ten effects of inadequately managed teams to be: communication breakdowns, decreased performance and productivity, wasted resources and effort, ill-will and, in some unfortunate cases 'scape-goating' individuals that are unlike them in some way, bad feelings, decrease in morale, loss of coordination and planning breakdowns, failing to fix problems and improve processes.3

A certain amount of frustration and conflict is normal. There may be times when the conflict does not immediately pose a threat to the team's main objective and in such circumstances the team leader may choose to avoid dealing with it appropriately as they feel that it is in the group's best interest to move on. At the same time, group members will be relating to one another interpersonally, and these relations can assist or slow down task performance. An effective team is one that accepts the strengths and weaknesses of its members and seeks to capitalise on each member's strengths.

Once conflict has risen, it needs to be dealt with accordingly. In order for a team to be productive, all members must be on the same page. 'The first attempt to conflict resolution should come in the way of negotiation.'4 Some members have ideas which they think are better and maybe for very good reasons. Competitive conflict is common among teams and arises when a team member feels so strongly about their own perspective that they try to influence the other members to see things the same way. This is also a suitable reaction if a team member feels that

the decision being made is impractical.

In the majority of these cases, the more communication there is within a team, the less chance there is for conflict to arise. Team members must communicate their ideas and feelings toward others in the group and address areas of disagreement in a respectful manner within the team to respect other's opinions. It is essential to keep an open mind when listening to others and, in order to tackle conflict, there must be an open line of communication at all times.

According to McShane: 'minimising dysfunctional conflict can be achieved through the emphasis of super-ordinate goals, differentiation reduction, improved communication, reduced task interdependence, increased resources and clear rules and procedures.'5

Ultimately, in order for a team to be effective, all members must recognize conflict and move aggressively to correct it, before it becomes a deterrent to their goals.

Intra-Group Conflict is characterised by disagreement among team members about task content, different viewpoints, ideas, opinions, values and interpersonal incompatibilities including tension, animosity, and annoyance. However, if regulated and monitored correctly, conflict in a team is beneficial as it allows members to challenge one another's thinking, develop a more complete understanding of the choices and make the kind of effective decisions which is necessary for a team's success.

Working in groups can sometimes be a difficult task, regardless of the background of each group member. Sometimes, during the process of working in a group, conflicts may arise which can cause a great deal of friction amongst group members. This conflict however, while it may create some animosity amongst members, if dealt with in the correct manner, could also provide beneficial discussion that may ultimately lead to

a more successful group project. The key is to find a means of working through these conflicts before they become a hindrance to overall group performance. If members allow a conflict to go unresolved, a result of such poor group interactivity could significantly impair the overall outcome of the project. By setting ground rules for group discussions, and adhering to the rules agreed to by all members, group interaction can be productive and provide successful results both for the group and its members.

One theorist identifies the categories of attributes of successful teams as falling under individual and relationship issues such as: commitment to the team, improvement of safety, narrowing the discussion, neutralisation of defensiveness, explanation of each perspective, changing of one's behaviour (compromise) and tracking it, well defined purpose and values, team empowerment, relationships and communication, flexibility, optimal productivity, recognition, appreciation and morale.6

The reality is that without conflict, there is no need for a group as the project will inevitably be the voice of the most aggressive. Bringing conflict into the group creates a new dynamic of conversation that, if controlled correctly, can truly enhance the overall outcome of group project.

In order to best understand group conflict, we have to know the meaning of it. Group conflict is defined as "a manner in which collective social behaviour causes groups of individuals to contradict each other." Virtually anything that makes a person an individual could be reason enough for conflict.

With a well established plan of action, conflicts can be resolved without creating irreparable damage within the group. In order to establish these ground rules, all participating parties must be present and all rules must be agreed

upon. Without agreement on the rules, the group is setting itself up for disagreement in the future.

This period of relative upheaval then moves into the norming stage where conflicts are settled, new standards are developed by members, and co-operation begins. The team begins to show the first signs of cohesiveness and there is a sense of group identity and camaraderie. An outline of each individual's duties begins to emerge, responsibilities are clarified and committed and it becomes evident that most members begin to settle down and an established structure begins to develop.

Working practices and patterns of action are set in place and members agree rules amongst themselves as to acceptable behaviour, expected requirements and even taboos. As the members progress through this stage they tend to reconcile their competing differences and responsibilities in accordance with the team's goal. As they work out their differences, the effort of the team is increased and significant progress can be made towards reaching this. As members start to conform to a given set of ideas they will experience feelings of acceptance, relief, trust, and respect.

Members of the group start to feel that they belong to it, rather than merely being in it. They begin to share ideas and feelings, give and receive feedback, and generally chat about what is going on and what they are doing. During this period, members of the group feel good about being a part of their group and work together to figure out ways of collaborating and developing closer degrees of relationship and cooperation. The group should have already identified its strengths and weaknesses and the team is better able to deal with conflict

should it arise.

Depending on each group's situation, the conflict will be more or less suppressed, but with some groups it may well still be there. For example competing strategies may be advocated thus forcing the team to chose between them and resistance may arise to the constraints that the group imposes on individuality with some members experiencing pressure with the change in dynamics. Without strong leadership such non-conformity may revert the entire team to the storming stage.

Norming paves the way for the most productive stage: performing. The group is now working effectively both in terms of its goals and its internal relationships. This stage involves all the players working together towards their common goal. Each individual accepts their role and, as roles become more flexible and functional, more proficient members will begin to support others accordingly.

The performing stage for the leader should be less difficult because the group should know their common goal and should be working towards that goal well. The leader now simply tends to delegate and oversee the group as teamwork develops and solutions are found. By this stage performance expectations are well established which results in clear progression towards the goal. Team members feel satisfaction, understanding, cooperation, productivity and a close attachment to the team and there is a greater sense of purpose and interdependency as the team begins to perform competently.

As a result of a clear and organised pattern being established, based on mutual respect, team members are sharing ideas and the drawing out of plans and proposals from all members of the team are welcomed and took on board. Open communication is encouraged and expected and information is freely

and openly exchanged among all team members. All members therefore contribute in the best possible way towards the team's progress, action plans are implemented and progress is made. Moreover the team has a shared vision, is generally self-sufficient and works autonomously with little participation from the leader.

Disagreements may still occur but they are now resolved within the team positively as they make necessary changes to structure. The emphasis is now on reaching the team goals, rather than working on the team process. Relationships are settled, and team members are likely to build loyalty towards each other. This team is now able to manage more complex tasks, and cope with greater change. Not all groups can reach this stage, which is characterised by a state of interdependence and flexibility.

Teams do not develop until the people in them work hard to overcome barriers that stand in the way of collective performance and by overcoming such obstacles together, people on teams build trust and confidence in each other's capabilities. They also reinforce each other's intentions to pursue their team purpose above and beyond individual agendas.

Task cohesion refers to the shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group. A group with high task cohesion is composed of members who share a common goal and who are motivated to coordinate their efforts as a team to achieve that goal. As the team develops there should be a conscious balance between task-performance and the well being of team-members, as one will falter without maintaining the other.

It must be noted that individual goals can lead to competitive rather than co-operative behaviours from group members

which is often the case in some ranks of the military. Moreover, individuals with both group and individual goals tend to outperform those with only individual goals. Furthermore, when self-interest prevails, the direction of the team is thwarted; members become more critical to faults within the group, hence blame and criticism becomes more apparent.

"A team is only as strong as the individual members. If individuals don't have the proper skills to be an effective team member then productivity of the team is compromised."7

According to Adair "a team is more than a group with a common aim. Rather, it is a group in which contributions of individuals are seen as complementary." Adair further suggests that the test of a good effective team is "whether its members can work together as a team, contributing to a sequence of activities."8

However, successful teams should not limit themselves to just reaching a common goal, they should strive to reach higher ground. Reaching higher ground goes beyond mere agreements among team members. It helps in building effective and highly functioning teams. It nurtures individual development inviting respect, recognition and trust and creates a dream and imagination for the team to break away from any dysfunctional practices.

By creating this personal interaction team members will have much more respect for the others in the group and will be less willing to dismiss their opinions. This creates a much more open, stable environment for discussion thus opening a wider opportunity to select the best applicable approach towards a resolution without the fear that one's opinion will be struck down. A team displays high social cohesion to the extent that its members like each other,

prefer to spend their social time together, enjoy each other's company, and feel emotionally close to one another.

'With a positive attitude toward team efforts, and with increased opportunity and time to practice teamwork skills, members can develop as an effective working team, and consequently have greater impact in facing problems.'9

Being part of a team can offer a sense of belonging and gives members a chance to aid others in their development as well as be aided themselves. "For some, a group is a place to belong, where mutual support, inspiration and trust are offered."10 As participants develop stronger relationships with each other through repeated or continued team interaction, the links between the participants become stronger. All good team members work for each other therefore there is no concern for individuals to be prolific unless part of an unsuccessful team. This shows that cohesion has a positive effect on performance. Having too many individuals in a team will result in poor cohesion.

'Although all the attributes and skills needed for an ideal working relationship are important at every stage, some become more crucial as the team develops and members increase their level of involvement.'11

At a minimum, it is important for individual team members to realise the benefits of teamwork and to have a commitment towards working together. Without such elements, further team development will be less likely to occur; 'conflict, a natural part of the development process, will overpower or dominate the situation, preventing the team from ever reaching its full potential.'12

Teams whose members genuinely get along with one another are likely to be more cohesive than those where there is personal disliking, ignorance of others or

indifference. Team affinity is aided by team bonding. The common bond could be age, gender, status, experience, outside interests, qualifications and education or shared ambitions.

Working together under stress to overcome difficulty and discomfort in order to accomplish a common goal is a good way to build cohesion in a small team.

Successful teams are interdependent and recognise that the joint contributions of team members will yield a better solution than the individual contributions could.

Dyer demonstrated that the quality of teamwork could comprehensively be assessed by considering six dimensions of the collaborative work process: communication, coordination, balance of member contributions, mutual support, effort, and cohesion.13 He demonstrated that performance resulting from using both feedback and goals far exceeds the performance benefits of using goals alone. Goals direct behaviour, but the addition of performance feedback informs team members as to their progress and deficiencies.

'Teams bring together complementary skills and experiences that should collectively exceed those of any individual on the team. If each member participates in a problem-solving role, the potential ways a problem can be solved is increased.'14

Team cohesion can be assessed critically in various groups but nowhere more-so than in the armed forces. Military units rely heavily on cohesive teams for both the success of their missions and the safety of their soldiers. As with many arms of the military, soldiers in the British Army hold a high degree of cohesion by virtue of common purpose and in accomplishing high risk missions.

Soldiers are part of a team, and the effectiveness of that team depends on each individual playing his or her part to the full. Soldiers are often required to close with the enemy and fight,

operating in the face of mortal danger. Success depends above all else on good morale, which is the spirit that enables soldiers to triumph over adversity. Morale linked to, and reinforced by, discipline.

Military discipline does not just happen. It must be taught by leaders who have the trust of people who will live, and sometimes die, under their command.

Morale consists of many factors, including confidence in equipment, good training and sound administration. But ultimately it is the confidence between commanders, subordinates and individual soldiers. Such confidence is a product of leadership and comradeship. High morale cannot be created overnight. It requires the forging of close bonds of professional and personal trust which will withstand the stresses imposed by the demands of operations. It requires commitment and self- sacrifice and to put the interests of the team and the task ahead of one's own.

Many soldiers testify that what keeps them there amid the fear of death and mutilation is, above all else, their loyalty to their fellow soldiers. This loyalty was first called cohesion by Ardant Du Picq (a 19th century French officer and student of men in battle).15

Values and Standards directly contribute to the Army's ethos and to fighting power. Upholding them is the collective responsibility of all members of the Army. They are the foundations of teamwork, and are interdependent. If any one of them is lacking, the team and the mission are threatened. They are fostered and enhanced by good leadership, training and man-management, throughout the chain of command.

Cohesion literally means stick together. Bonding in combat has been documented for centuries and a measure of cohesion in the Army is whether a soldier

will choose to stay with his friends and face discomfort and danger when given the opportunity or temptation to choose comfort and safety. The extreme measure of cohesion is willingness to die with fellow soldiers rather than leave them to die alone, or to choose certain death in order to save their lives.

Normally, such bonding requires a long period of working together to become strong. However, the addition of danger and potential death which can be prevented only by trust and teamwork, along with living together every day for months on end, forges the bond much faster and stronger. This bonding will include some people whom a person might have expected to dislike intensely due to individual personality differences or ethnic or racial prejudices. However, once these soldiers have proved themselves reliable, trustworthy, and competent, they become bonded 'brothers in arms.'

Of course personal bonding is not enough to produce a good military unit. It is possible to have teams which share very high personal bonding, but which are not dedicated to the unit's mission. In that situation, their cohesiveness may be directed solely to keeping each other comfortable and safe. Such teams can be difficult and even dangerous to lead. They may try to take as little risk as possible, and leaders who lead them into danger may find themselves alone and unsupported.

Scores of soldiers will have built good relationships during their training. The majority of who will have been together through basic training before building links with their leaders upon the joining or formation of their unit. The forming of these relationships can be identified as 'horizontal' and 'vertical' bonding. Horizontal bonding being: 'the

personal loyalty between peers in a small team, complimented by vertical bonding: the personal loyalty and trust between the team's enlisted soldiers and their officer and NCO's.'16 Both types of cohesion develop from strong bonds of mutual confidence, trust and discipline that make survival possible under chaotic wartime conditions.

The British Army's basic training program keeps soldiers aspiring to join a specific unit or regiment together as much as possible throughout the preliminary stages and, if possible, upon completion. A soldier's identity is still strongly focused on the regiment they serve in, which, with the exception of the Parachute regiment, has a regional basis for recruiting. This maximises their bonding and therefore; upon initiation, their team cohesion. However, they also demand much more of their leaders.

Team cohesion is then strengthened by a sense of the regiment's military history and by a sense of shared identity which reminds soldiers of how they should act. This sense is called 'esprit de corps' (team spirit). Cohesion holds units together; team spirit keeps them dedicated to the mission. Particularly in small units, soldiers come to know and appreciate their peers and leaders. The size of a group is very important in terms of group dynamics and 'should be large enough for stimulation, yet small enough for contribution and acknowledgment of each member.'17 They recognise how all members of the unit depend on one another. With this recognition comes a feeling of familiarity and a strong sense of responsibility. This mutual trust, based on personal interaction further strengthens cohesion.