Part I: Group Development

I believe Christine and her group weren’t properly developed from the beginning stages which is why they are currently at the storming stage. “The storming stage of team development is a period of high emotionality and tension among the group members. During the storming stage, hostility and infighting may occur, and the team typically experiences many changes”. (Schermerhorn, John R. (11/2011) The hostility came from Mike who felt he was being excluded from the group and meetings. He has other demands in his life that are not allowing him to actively participate and be an active/vital part of the group. If Christine had known of the five stages of development: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning she could have avoided the many problems she faced in her group or found better ways to handle the situations that arose. She could have made sure her team was effective in their roles and would have been able to achieve the common goal of working together and receiving a good grade on their project. She would have been able to know her role as the “Team Leader” and been able to work with the strengths and weakness’s of her team members. Christine was forced to pay more attention to the short comings of Mike and wasn’t able to fully focus on the group or her role as a leader.

Part II Problem Identification

The group is facing many problems. The primary problem is Christine is not an effective leader of her group. As a leader you must have an understanding of individual members in the teams in order to build a supportive and cohesive unit. No clear work was assigned to any of the other team members so the seem never went through the forming stages. She didn’t know her team well and didn’t assess the abilities of those who actively participated. Steve seemed to take on the role of team organizer. He was very businesslike and was always wanting to ensure that group meetings were guided by an agenda and noting the tangible results achieved or not achieved at the end of every meeting.
The secondary problem is social loafing behavior of the team member Mike. In accessing each member she would have been able to determine that Mike was unreliable and not pulling his weight. Mike missed most of the meetings and gave Christine poorly written notes for her to discuss in the group meetings. She never held him accountable for his behavior and lack of effort. Instead she enabled him and began to feel bad for him when he said he and his girlfriend broke up.

Part III: Retrospective Evaluation

One possible solution to the situation that Christine is incurring is she could resign as team organizer and allow another team member to take her place. She was unable to be firm with Mike and force him to be an active member of the group. I think she was too consumed with being like and not stepping on anyone’s toes, especially Mike, that she became too passive in her decision making. By allowing Mike to do as he felt the rest of the team could have observed this and decided to do the same thing. She would have been left to do the entire project alone and she would have had no one to blame but herself for allowing her group to lose control. By removing herself from the leadership role she could have observed how to be a more direct and firm leader.

A second solution would have been to talk to Mike directly. Based on Christine’s style of handling Mike speaking to him alone probably would have been easier for her to address the issues that she and the other group members are having with him. Make sure that is aware of his lack of participation and poor work ethics. Since the project was a group effort I think the entire group should have spoken to Mike and told him he either needs to step up and contribute work like an adult college student or he would have to be removed from the group. If she felt that didn’t work she could go to Professor Susan and seek her advice. If Christine didn’t want Professor Susan to step in at least she would be aware of the situation and that would help in the final grade.

Part IV: Reflection
I don’t feel that Christine was an effective leader. She went into her group project with no plan on how to direct the project or how to lead her group. If she had never lead a group before then she should have not allowed herself to be placed in the team organizer role and allowed someone else to do it. If she wanted to be in that position but was unsure of where to begin then she should have had someone else direct her in the right direction. I believe she had good intentions but she allowed to many boundaries to be crossed with Mike.