Why Project Teams Fail and How to Make Them Succeed

Introduction: The Challenge of Building Effective Project Teams

Teamwork is one of the most common buzzwords in corporate language today, yet creating a fully functional team can be extremely hard work. The process of team development presents challenges at every step and requires a differentiated approach from leadership. Bruce Tuckman's model of team development identifies four stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing. Tuckman's model explains that as a team develops maturity and ability, relationships become established and the leader adjusts his or her leadership style — beginning with a directing style, moving through coaching, then participating, and finally delegating, becoming almost detached (Chapman, 2009). Over the course of team development, leaders must adjust their style to the needs of the team.

However, progressing through the Tuckman stages is not always a linear process. When setbacks occur, teams may devolve and fall back to earlier stages, moving from performing back to storming. Understanding this dynamic is essential for any project manager hoping to build a cohesive, high-performing group.

Assembling the Team: People, Personalities, and Diversity

Even before the Tuckman process is underway, the first challenge of team leadership is assembling the right people. The best project teams include stakeholders at all levels, from executives to front-line individuals (Flynn & Mangione, 2011). All too often it is easy to forget that people are the core foundation of any team. Particularly in IT, there can be a strong focus on technical skills to the point that the need to harmonize personalities is set aside. Teams must be assembled with consideration for people as well as processes.

A good team will include members who can relate well to one another, yet have sufficient diversity so that groupthink or overly homogenous decision-making does not result. It is also essential that teams are oriented to each member's different working styles, so that interpersonal differences become an asset rather than a source of friction.

Forming Stage: Establishing Trust and Direction

The first stage of team development in the Tuckman model is called "forming," and it is a process just as integral to the eventual success of the team as the actual execution phases. Team members must get to know one another. This may include having members complete a personality inventory — such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator — to better assess their different interpersonal styles, setting ground rules for team functioning, and discussing what worked and what did not work on previous teams. Often there is little trust, shared vision, or peer accountability at this stage (Six Characteristic Stages of Team Development, 2011). Group members may be wary because of previous bad experiences, or they may view participation in a team as a self-interested exercise. This is a testing process, and the leader often feels the need to take a directive approach. During the forming stage, there is high dependence on the leader for guidance and direction, with little agreement on team aims beyond what is received from that leader (Chapman, 2009).

There is some dispute regarding the best way to manage a team at this stage. Although Tuckman advocates a more democratic process as the team gets to know one another — viewing autonomous functioning as the ultimate goal — other authors see the need for singularly directed leadership. Identifying an individual within the organization to serve as the project manager and single point of contact throughout the project is important. This individual is the liaison through which all communications pass, thus maintaining a clear communication structure. The project manager remains involved throughout the duration of the project and is ultimately accountable for all project details and deliverables (Flynn & Mangione, 2011). Having a strong leader can create an atmosphere of accountability and focus; even the most motivated team members may not agree upon a common goal without leadership. However, if there are many options or flexibility in how a goal is achieved, teams are more likely to find innovative approaches (Six Characteristic Stages of Team Development, 2011).

Communicating to team members early on that they have an investment in the final, collective outcome — and that their opinions are truly valued — requires a more expansive approach than one that is purely directional. Once again, the leader must use judgment: for an inexperienced team with a complex task, less autonomy may be desirable, while for a team of seasoned veterans, too much direction may be perceived as patronizing. Ideally, whenever possible, the leader should let the group establish its own tasks and make its own decisions, because an autocratic leadership style will prevent a work group from forming into a true team (Six Characteristic Stages of Team Development, 2011). While certain aspects of the project — such as deadlines — may need to be established early on, the steps to reach short-term goals are best left open to debate if the team can be trusted to work together.

The second stage, according to Bruce Tuckman, is "storming" — the phase when group members jockey for position. During this stage, uncertain goals and the desire of many team members to assume leadership (or, conversely, a lack of energy and direction) come to the forefront. In this stage, timely, accurate, useful, and credible communication is critical to maintaining a cohesive team environment and achieving project success (Flynn & Mangione, 2011). While clarity of purpose increases, plenty of uncertainties persist; cliques and factions may form, and power struggles can emerge (Chapman, 2009). At this juncture, the leader must often take on a coaching capacity — team members are responsible for their specific tasks but may need to consult with the leader to manage conflicts.