GM591 Professor Carr
Case Study Essay

There are five stages of group development: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. After reading the case study “The Forgotten Group Member”, I believe that the whole of the group and the majority of the group are in two different stages. They experienced the forming stage when the teacher assigned their group. They got to know each other and what to expect from each member, good or bad. As a whole group they are in the storming stage now, dealing with the tension created by Mike. Ideally, they will pass into the norming stage where they can work cohesively as a team. At the performing stage they will each be turning in their completed pieces of work and meeting the expectations of their peers. This is where the majority of the group is, minus Mike. At this point the group has all turned in their completed parts of the whole while Mike has turned in hand scratched incomplete notes. Once the team has completed their tasks, they can complete the final stage of adjourning or disbanding the group. If Christine, the team leader, had a clear understanding of these stages, she might have been able to motivate Mike out of his social loafing as well as create a cohesive team with a sense of belonging that could have fostered better performance from all members. The primary problem I see with this case study is the social loafing Mike is exhibiting and that the group is allowing. With one week left before the final product needs to be presented, this issue should have been addressed weeks ago. Mike’s social loafing, or lack of performance because someone else in the group will make up for his shortfall, has been an ongoing issued from the beginning. He has not shown up to meetings, was not able to adjust his schedule to accommodate others, and submits subpar work that he expects Christine to interpret and present to the group. By accepting his partial work, holding meetings without him and presenting his work for him, Christine is condoning his behavior. The secondary problem I see with this case study is team cohesiveness among all members. Cohesiveness is when all members are motivated to perform and remain a part of the group. It is a “feel good” feeling members experience because they are part of a productive group. Based on the case study, I feel that there are two people who are not feeling cohesive with the group: Mike and Diane. Mike, as previously stated, is not performing to the expectations of the group. He is upset when he sees the group at lunch without him yet does not show up to scheduled group meetings. Diane, on the other hand, shows up to meetings and performs well. Christine notes that she has great ideas but has difficulty expressing them with the group and speaking up during discussions. She may feel that they do not value her opinions. The first and most important solution to this problem would have been for Christine to create job simplification by clearly defining what was expected of everyone and when. As team leader, she needed to plan what would have been best for the team’s finished product and then upheld the standards. She could have even created job enrichment by involving the other team members in creating the expectations, due dates and standards of the whole group. This could have created ownership in each individual to live up to the standards they each agreed on. There needed to have been a sit down meeting of all members from the beginning to set all expectations, meeting times and due dates. She could have made it easier for Mike to arrange to be at the meetings and, if he had participated in the brainstorming of the group’s expectations, he may have felt more responsibility to uphold the standards. The second solution I would suggest is to create cohesion among group members. To do this I think Christine, as team leader, could have done a number of things to make the team feel more connected. First, I would suggest a brainstorming session of ideas for both how the group would work and ideas for the project. This is a great way to get Diane to open up when there is no criticism allowed and the free flow of ideas is encouraged. They could round robin to discuss concerns and narrow down ideas. They could use consensus or unanimity to make decisions and if attendance issues persist with Mike, they could use alternative methods of communication. Christine could have planned conference calls, online group chats and group emails to hold all parties accountable and keep them in the loop of all communications and questions. I feel that it is difficult to be a strong leader with peers and I feel that is why Christine feels so out of control of the group and the project outcome. Christine’s agreeableness allowed Mike’s social loafing to continue the duration of the project. She also allowed Diane to remain in her shell and perhaps feel less part of the group. Through proper leadership methods such as motivation, encouraging team brainstorming, creating job simplification and allowing for malleable communication methods, Christine could have been better able to facilitate a cohesive team with better outcomes as far as participation and project results.