Unit III — Group Dynamics
18. Team Development
Teams evolve through predictable stages of development, and getting stuck at an early stage (especially storming) prevents the coordination and trust needed for high performance. Shared mental models let members anticipate each other's actions without constant explicit communication, which becomes critical under time pressure.
- Forming (orientation and politeness)
- Storming (conflict over roles, power, direction)
- Norming (agreement on working rules)
- Performing (interdependent, trust-based execution)
- Trust building mechanisms
- Shared mental models and coordination
- Frequency and tone of conflict episodes logged in retrospectives
- Cycle time for decisions requiring cross-member agreement
- Trust survey scores (cognitive and affective trust)
- Rework caused by misaligned assumptions between sub-teams
- Time to consensus on technical disputes
Kalyan Financial Services is implementing a new core-banking ERP system across 60 branches, with a 14-member project team drawn from IT, operations, compliance, and an external vendor. Four months into a planned nine-month rollout, the team is stuck: IT and operations leads openly disagree in every steering meeting about data-migration sequencing, compliance flags risks late because it is not consulted early, and the vendor consultant complains that internal members contradict each other in front of clients. Trust between IT and operations has visibly eroded, with each side documenting issues to protect itself. The steering committee sponsor, a VP, must intervene before the next milestone review shows a formal delay, which would trigger penalty clauses with the vendor.
Rollout timeline
9 months planned, 4 months elapsed
Branches covered so far
12 of 60
Team size
14 members, 4 stakeholder groups
Steering meetings with open IT-ops conflict
5 of last 6
Compliance issues raised late (post-decision)
3 major flags in 2 months
Vendor penalty clause trigger
Formal delay beyond 1 month
AAppoint a neutral facilitator to run structured norming sessions
Bring in an internal OD facilitator to run a series of sessions establishing explicit decision rights, escalation paths, and communication norms between IT and operations.
BRestructure team with a single accountable delivery lead
Replace dual IT/operations leadership with one accountable delivery lead who has final decision authority on sequencing disputes, with compliance embedded from day one.
CPause and rebuild shared mental models via a joint workshop
Halt migration work for one week to run a cross-functional workshop mapping the end-to-end process, dependencies, and risk points jointly, including compliance and the vendor.
AAppoint a neutral facilitator to run structured norming sessions
Strengths
- Directly moves the team from storming to norming with a structured process
- Neutral facilitation reduces perception of taking sides
Risks
- Takes time the team may not have before the milestone review
- Success depends heavily on facilitator skill and genuine buy-in
BRestructure team with a single accountable delivery lead
Strengths
- Removes ambiguity in decision rights that fuels the storming conflict
- Speeds up decision cycle time immediately
Risks
- May be seen as favoring one function and alienate the sidelined lead
- Single point of accountability increases key-person risk
CPause and rebuild shared mental models via a joint workshop
Strengths
- Builds a shared understanding of the whole system, reducing future misalignment
- Surfaces compliance risks earlier by including them structurally
Risks
- A pause adds real schedule risk given the looming penalty clause
- Workshops can become talk-heavy without concrete decision outputs
Should the VP sponsor prioritize speed (restructuring authority) or team process (facilitated norming/shared mental models) to unblock the ERP team, and what is the risk of each path given the penalty deadline?
Bring in an internal OD facilitator to run a series of sessions establishing explicit decision rights, escalation paths, and communication norms between IT and operations.
Strengths: Directly moves the team from storming to norming with a structured process; Neutral facilitation reduces perception of taking sides. Risks: Takes time the team may not have before the milestone review; Success depends heavily on facilitator skill and genuine buy-in.
Replace dual IT/operations leadership with one accountable delivery lead who has final decision authority on sequencing disputes, with compliance embedded from day one.
Strengths: Removes ambiguity in decision rights that fuels the storming conflict; Speeds up decision cycle time immediately. Risks: May be seen as favoring one function and alienate the sidelined lead; Single point of accountability increases key-person risk.
Halt migration work for one week to run a cross-functional workshop mapping the end-to-end process, dependencies, and risk points jointly, including compliance and the vendor.
Strengths: Builds a shared understanding of the whole system, reducing future misalignment; Surfaces compliance risks earlier by including them structurally. Risks: A pause adds real schedule risk given the looming penalty clause; Workshops can become talk-heavy without concrete decision outputs.
Set the weight of each criterion (1–5), then score every alternative (1–5). The matrix is a thinking aid, not a verdict.
| Criterion | Weight | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behavioural impact | ||||
| Employee acceptance | ||||
| Feasibility | ||||
| Cost (higher = more affordable) | ||||
| Risk containment | ||||
| Long-term sustainability |
With your current weights, alternative A scores highest. A matrix only reflects the weights you chose. Evidence, ethics, feasibility and the people affected still belong in your judgement — you decide.
Use Tuckman's stage model to diagnose that the team is stuck in storming, and trust theory to explain why documentation-for-self-protection behavior signals low affective trust. Shared mental model theory explains why compliance and the vendor are misaligned with IT/operations. A good justification weighs schedule risk against the durability of the fix chosen.
- Short-term: any intervention will consume scarce time against a tight penalty deadline
- Short-term: restructuring authority may cause a leadership exit or morale dip
- Long-term: reaching a performing stage improves velocity for the remaining 48 branches
- Long-term: unresolved distrust between IT and ops could recur in future joint projects
- Long-term: vendor relationship credibility is affected by how internal conflict is perceived externally
- What specific behaviors indicate this team is stuck in storming rather than progressing to norming?
- Why does low trust lead people to document issues defensively rather than resolve them collaboratively?
- How does excluding compliance early undermine the team's shared mental model?
- What would a performing-stage version of this team look like in observable terms?
In Tuckman's model, the stage characterized by conflict over roles and direction is:
Which piece of evidence best indicates a breakdown in trust rather than a purely technical disagreement?
Given the penalty-clause deadline, which approach best balances urgency with addressing the root cause?