Running head: WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 1

Week 5 Assignment

Yusniel Romero Torres

Florida National University

Management Practices for the 21st Century

MAR5829

Dr. Ernesto Gonzalez, Ph.D.

October 7, 2015
WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 2

Week 5 Assignment

1. Identify the current stage of your team. Show calculations. Identify weaknesses and

strengths of the group and recommend actions to improve group effectiveness. Recommend

some actions to take the current group stage to the next one.

Based on the tabulated statistics the lowest score for the team is 16 (almost never). The

highest scores are in the ‘occasionally and frequently’ categories with 48 and 45 respectively.

There is a strong indication that this team is either in the storming or norming stage. The team is

least likely to be in the forming stage because the ‘almost never’ opinion had the least score of

16. It is clear that this team has graduated from the forming stage.

Two scores are very close i.e. the occasionally and the frequent opinion seems to indicate

that the team is going through a transition most probably from storming to norming. The almost

always category has higher figure compared to the figure in the almost never category. The

indication is that the team is moving closer to the performing stage although it is still in the

norming stage.

Based on the strong figures from occasionally and frequently categories the team seems

to have a clear perception of where it is at the moment. There seems to be a general opinion that

the team is not in the forming stage due to the low score on the almost never category. The

contention seems to be between the storming and norming level. The entire statistics obtained is

shown in the below figure.

Looking at the scores the persuasion is that the team is also moving away/graduating

from the storming stage but yet to settle fully on the performing stage. It is wise to conclude that

the team is squarely on the norming stage but gradually developing into the performing stage.
WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 3

The divided opinion between performing and storming presents a paradox that needs to be

carefully interpreted.

Table 1

Table

Almost Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Almost Always

0 1 2 7 4

0 4 7 3 0

0 5 4 4 1

1 1 6 5 1

2 4 4 2 2

0 0 8 5 1

0 0 1 8 5

4 2 3 4 1

3 6 5 0 0

5 4 4 1 0

1 0 2 3 8

0 0 2 3 9

0 2 2 3 4

0 0 1 4 9

0 0 4 6 4

0 3 3 5 3

0 3 3 4 4

4 2 4 3 1
WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 4

0 0 2 8 4

2 7 4 0 1

2 7 3 0 2

1 1 5 5 2

4 2 5 2 1

2 2 7 3 0

2 2 3 4 3

0 4 6 2 2

5 6 1 2 0

7 4 1 2 0

1 2 6 5 0

0 6 6 1 1

3 3 4 4 0

0 0 2 6 6

16 27 48 45 32

The figure for seldom is 27 and that of almost always is 32. It then appears that there is a

strong division of opinion concerning the stage the team is in. Although the numbers are in favor

of performing the 27 figure seems to suggest that some people are yet to settle in the team. The

thought that the team is still in the storming stage means that some of the team members are yet

to be fully absorbed into the team.

A valid opinion is that the team is in the norming stage. In this stage, the members can

find their footing and settle down. It means that the team is beginning to cultivate a mentality

oriented towards achieving the team’s objectives. In this stage, all members can polish out
WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 5

differences and form a working relationship between members and the team leadership. A

graphical expression can do justice to the team’s progress as shown below.

60

50

40
perfoming stage
30 norming stage
48 storming stage
45
20 forming stage
32
27
10

0
seldom occasionaly frequently almost always

The stakes are highly in favor of storming and norming as seen in this chart. It is

imperative to indicate that the almost never opinion was left out due to its inadequacy scoring

only a 16.It is obvious that the team is not in the forming stage.

2. Find out how to measure "group cohesiveness." Mention at least two cohesiveness

models, compare them, and define which one is better from your managerial perspective, and

why.

The high opinion that the team’s goals are unrealistic is alarming. The goals of any team

must be set to such a level that they are achievable and realistic. There is also a high opinion that

there is not much being done to achieve the team’s goals. The opinion that the initial objectives

of the team have been abandoned is high and the new cause been chart also seem difficult for

most of the team members. The level of trust in the team also seems to be highly in question.
WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 6

This is something the team needs to work on urgently. The togetherness in the team is

also wanting. This supposed to be a team; the level of teamwork is critically low. The team needs

to address these weaknesses to move swiftly to performance. The purpose of any team is to

perform specific tasks that are well-defined.

A team that lacks vision is bound to fail. This team needs to set clear goals make them

realistic, stick to a cause and work towards achieving the set objectives. For this team to graduate

from forming to performing the goals need to be clear, and the level of trust between and among

members has to be high. It is imperative to develop the team’s motivation. This is something the

team leadership has to work towards.

Team cohesiveness can be measured in different ways depending on the team dynamics.

The definition of team cohesion is also different and variant. The most agreeable definition of

cohesion is ‘commitment to tasks and interpersonal attraction to the team. Cohesion can be

interpreted as the unity tendency in a team in the process of working towards toward achieving

specific goals and satisfying the needs of the team members, both emotional and physical.

Some of the most pronounced aspects of cohesion include dynamism,

multidimensionality, emotion and instrumental dimensions. Multidimensionality is an aspect of

the many factors influencing cohesion. Dynamism is the gradual change of the team from

formation to performance. The strength and form of the team change with time from team

formation to the time the team is disbanded.

The instruments of cohesion are the determining factors of motivation and a general

feeling of persuasion to the team members. Some researchers argue that cohesion cannot be

generalized from one group to another bearing in mind that each team has its unique qualities

and preferences.
WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 7

 The single factor model: this model is founded on the assumption that cohesion is one-

dimensional. The assumption here in is that cohesion assumes a singular construct united

by the highly interactive perceptions regarding the team (Schachter, 1951).

 The two-factor model: the model illuminates the difference between the level of

integration of team members and the attraction of members to the group (Widmeyer

Brawley, & Carron, 1985).

The dynamics of team cohesion measurement seem to indicate that cohesion is not static,

and the construct of teams’ cohesion is by all means multidimensional. The research conducted

by experts indicates that there are differential correlations found between the cohesion of teams

with respect to tasks, social aspects, attraction levels and the examined variables (Salas et al.,

2015).

The partial correlation indicator showed that out of the three cohesion components the

cohesion of tasks illuminated the differences between working teams characteristics. The

cohesion of tasks was shown as the best predictor of the performance of teams in comparison to

the cohesion of social aspects and the attraction of individuals to the group (Back, 1950).

The strength of this correlation between the cohesion of tasks and other characteristics of

working teams poses the challenge of operationalization and conceptualization of social

cohesion. The research by Carless & De Paola (2000) indicates that, the need for further

empirical and theoretical research on the work team cohesion.

WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 8

Conclusion

For any given group, it is important to take decisions, which are based upon (i) gathering

of sufficient information and (ii) consulting with each other on this information and (3) deciding

upon a mutual understanding. The approach to applying normative model for decision making is

worthwhile to take rational and logical decisions. It will help them in achieving the desired

objectives in a given scenario.

WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT 9

References

Back, K. (1950). The exertion of influence through social communication. Ann Arbor,

MI: Edwards Bros.

Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The Measurement of Cohesion in Work Teams.

Small Group Research, 31(1), 71-88.

Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015). Measuring Team

Cohesion Observations from the Science. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society, 57(3), 365-374.

Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 46, 190-207.

Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion

in Sports teams: The group environment questionnaire. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics.