Team Assignment Criteria and Tuckman's Stages at FEL
This paper examines the case of Franklin Equipment, Ltd. (FEL) and its approach to assembling project teams, using Project Abu Dhabi as a focal point. It evaluates the criteria FEL applies when assigning managers — primarily availability and experience — and identifies significant gaps, including failure to account for interpersonal histories and employee preferences for international work. The paper discusses why cohesion is especially critical on international projects, analyzes the dilemma facing project coordinator Jobe, and recommends a path forward grounded in Tuckman's five stages of group development — forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning — with particular emphasis on facilitating an open "storming" session to clear interpersonal conflicts before the team departs for Abu Dhabi.
- FEL's Manager Assignment Criteria and Their Limitations: Gaps in FEL's team selection process
- The Importance of Team Cohesion on International Projects: Why cohesion matters more abroad
- The Dilemma Facing Jobe: Jobe's challenge managing a dysfunctional team
- Recommendations for Jobe and Gatenby: Using Tuckman's stages to resolve conflict
- Conclusion: Summary of FEL's failures and the path forward
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Directly addresses each case question in sequence, giving the paper a clear and organized analytical structure that is easy to follow.
- Grounds its recommendations in a recognized academic framework — Tuckman's five stages of group development — rather than offering purely anecdotal advice, lending theoretical credibility to practical suggestions.
- Identifies concrete, actionable improvements to FEL's team selection process (e.g., screening for interpersonal history and travel preferences) while acknowledging real constraints on what can still be changed.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: it takes an organizational behavior framework (Tuckman's model) and maps it directly onto a real management scenario, showing how each stage relates to the specific characters and conflicts described in the case. This technique — theory-to-practice bridging — is a foundational skill in business and management writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief abstract and keyword set, then works through four case questions in order, each forming its own section. The first section evaluates selection criteria and their consequences. The second explains why international context amplifies team dysfunction. The third diagnoses Jobe's dilemma. The fourth offers specific recommendations using Tuckman's stages. A short conclusion synthesizes the core argument before a reference list closes the paper.
FEL's Manager Assignment Criteria and Their Limitations
The criteria that FEL uses to assign managers to project teams are only partially efficient. The criteria consist of availability (who is free when a new project starts) and experience (those with relevant experience are given preference). However, additional criteria should be considered — for example, which workers have a history of collaborating effectively and which workers have a history of conflict with one another. The bad blood between Rankins and Perry is a clear illustration of this gap. Out of an abundance of caution, FEL should have at least recognized the risk that their strained relationship posed to the project. Rather than placing both workers on the same team, it might have found a replacement for one or the other.
Another criterion that should have been considered is whether personnel are genuinely interested in working abroad. Workers like Stonebreaker relish the opportunity to travel and look forward to the challenges such work brings, while employees like Bruder do not. Bruder clearly holds a negative perception of the assignment precisely because it is overseas, and this attitude is shaping her expectations about whether the project can be completed on time. Before assigning workers to international postings, FEL should determine which employees prefer to work abroad and which prefer to remain at home. Factoring in these preferences would meaningfully improve team morale from the outset.
Adding these additional criteria would make the team-building and assignment process more efficient and reduce the effort required to hold a dysfunctional team together. Stonebreaker is optimistic — but his optimism stems from past experiences when team members had worked together successfully. Those dynamics have since deteriorated: the relationship between two team members has only grown more bitter, and a third has no genuine interest in being abroad (though she has not openly admitted this, it is the most logical explanation for her negative outlook). The resulting problems created by FEL's limited assignment criteria are significant: a dysfunctional team with poor morale and a highly pessimistic outlook has been assembled when a more cohesive team could very likely have been put together with a little more care and consideration.
The Importance of Team Cohesion on International Projects
It is especially important that project team members work well together on international assignments like the Abu Dhabi project because they will face stress and tension in a foreign environment and will have to rely on one another far more than they would on a domestic project. As foreigners working abroad, they are unlikely to find sympathetic compatriots or a familiar support network outside their immediate work circle. Were the team working stateside, members could find friendship and comfort at home, in their neighborhoods, and among other Canadians — outlets that simply do not exist in the same way when living abroad.
As Muslihat (2018) points out, communication is an essential element of teamwork and cannot be dispensed with in project management. Yet this team includes two members who actively dislike each other and refuse to communicate, and a third who is emotionally disengaged from the assignment. This is a serious problem that is likely to grow worse over time. International projects demand team members who are committed to one another — even more so than on domestic projects — because in a foreign country, the team is essentially all its members have. They must trust one another implicitly and find the work environment tolerable; otherwise the experience risks becoming overwhelming. Being away from home amplifies every frustration and grievance, since individuals lack their usual support systems. For this reason, teams being sent abroad must be assembled with morale and interpersonal compatibility firmly in mind.
The Dilemma Facing Jobe
Jobe now faces the challenge of getting the team members to function together effectively — and he faces significant hurdles. Perry knows that Rankins risks being fired if the two cannot maintain a working relationship, and that outcome would likely suit Perry just fine. Rankins, meanwhile, has developed a drinking problem and appears deeply insecure when he measures himself against Perry. Jobe essentially has to help Rankins address his insecurities while simultaneously persuading Perry not to exploit his awareness of Rankins' precarious employment situation. He also has to bring Bruder onboard emotionally and professionally. None of these outcomes seems straightforward to achieve. Critically, Jobe should have been consulted before the team was organized — not after the fact. As things stand, it may already be too late to make significant structural changes.
Conclusion
The Abu Dhabi project is Gatenby's dream assignment; unfortunately, the team that has been assembled is far from a dream team. It includes disgruntled employees — one of whom does not want to be abroad and two of whom actively dislike each other. FEL should have applied better criteria when assembling the team, such as considering personal preferences for international travel and identifying which workers have a proven history of collaborating effectively. However, the team has been selected and Jobe must now make it work. The best path forward is for everyone to clear the air, voice their frustrations, and let go of the negative attitudes that are already threatening the project's success. Drawing on Tuckman's five stages of group development, Gatenby should now focus on facilitating the storming phase — allowing everyone to express their concerns openly while he takes firm control of the group and refocuses them on the task at hand. They are professionals, and it is time for them to act accordingly.
References
Lumsden, G., Lumsden, D., & Weithoff, C. (2010). Communicating in groups and teams: Sharing leadership (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Muslihat, D. (2018). Why you need good teamwork for project management success. Retrieved from https://zenkit.com/en/blog/why-you-need-good-teamwork-for-project-management-success/
Natvig, D., & Stark, N. L. (2016). A project team analysis using Tuckman's model of small-group development. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(12), 675–681.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.