West Transit Case Study The relevance of teams in an organizational setting cannot be overstated. However, for teams to accomplish tasks for which they were formed, they ought to be effective. In essence, there are various approaches that could be used in seeking to gauge team effectiveness – i.e. on the basis of task performance, satisfaction of members, and the viability of the team. While task performance has got to do with how effective the team is in attaining the various performance objectives set within the timelines defined, member satisfaction is the extent to which members of the team feel that their contributions is valued and that their personal needs are addressed. On the other hand, team viability is essentially the willingness of team members to continue collaborating going forward so as to accomplish team objectives and goals. The team Bernie Hollis assembled lacks on the effectiveness front. This is more so the case given that it is still not clear whether or not team objectives will be attained within the timelines given. Some of the members have already voiced their opinion regarding the “massive and unattainable” nature of the undertaking. Further, member satisfaction is not guaranteed - with some team members (Tanney) pointing out that her spending too much time at work is causing her family problems. Also, with Lea Jing apprehensive of her transfer to another department and Tanney fearing that the new project could further complicate matters for her, team viability remains under threat.

According to Tuckman, there are five group formation stages. These, according to Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2010), include “forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning” (296). While forming is the initial stage of group formation that is often characterized by group members being uncertain and anxious about group purpose and how to relate with peers, storming is the second stage in which group members get to acquaint themselves with the direction of the group and their roles. The latter stage, as Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2010) point out could be chaotic and hostilities could arise as group members compete and commence on the task at hand. Next, in norming, group participants strike a conciliatory approach and come up with a common approach to solving the issue or accomplishing the task at hand. When it comes to performing, “members try to perform their tasks and maximize the group’s performance” (Kassin, Fein, and Markus, 2010, p. 296). Lastly, adjourning has got to do with the termination of the group. This mostly takes place once the task for which the group was formed is accomplished. In the case, it appears that the group is in the storming stage. According to Kassin, Fein,...

In the case study, Tanney clearly points out that working overtime is out of question for her. She also points out that she is unwilling to work with Denson due to a comment he made that made her feel disrespected. This ought to be seen as confrontation arising out of the initial interactions between group members as each person attempts to clarify their rightful place (and role) in the larger group.
According to French (2011), the three behavioral profiles Edgar Schein identifies include the tough battler, the friendly helper, and the objective thinker. The tough batterer, according to French (2011) “is frustrated by lack of identity in the new group and may act aggressively or reject authority” (412). In the case study, this is clearly Katarina Tanney. She feels that the group will further complicate her familial problems and rudely reprimands Denson – the team leader. The friendly helper, on the other hand, extends extraordinary help to other group members and is likely to pursue alliances in subgroups (French, 2011). In the case study, this is a role played out by Jon Mahonney who appears afraid of offending anyone and at some point praises two of his colleagues, points out the challenging task ahead, and observes that unity of purpose is of great relevance. Lastly, we have Lea Jing who plays the role of the objective thinker. The objective thinker, according to French (2011), often acts “in a passive, reflective and even single-minded manner…” Jing appears to be the voice of reason in the group and has a collected and calm demeanor. As a matter of fact, she is the only member who came to the first meeting with suggestions after having gone through the agenda.

Communication among participants in a group setting ought to be effective. In the case study, group members do not communicate in an effective way. The common code of etiquette when it comes to interpersonal relations was constantly ignored. Being the group leader, Denson ought to have been the one in charge and the rest of the group members should have advanced him some level of respect. This is clearly not the case with unstructured exchanges through the meeting and Denson’s standoff with Tanney. The fact that only a single person had reviewed the agenda at the time of the first meeting is yet another contributor to poor communication regarding the overall direction of the team.

The two kinds of conflict that ought to be highlighted in this text include emotional conflict and substantive conflict. While emotional conflict is closely associated with feelings of…