This paper examines how teamwork principles operate within a small optometry practice. Drawing on the "3 Cs" framework — clear goals, context, and commitment — the author describes the everyday collaboration among billing staff, administrative assistants, and medical technicians. The paper then applies Bruce Tuckman's forming, storming, norming, and performing model to a real workplace event: the introduction of a new computer system. It traces each stage of team development through that transition and concludes by contrasting small, stable workplace teams with the larger, more diverse teams common in bigger organizations, highlighting how diversity and clear leadership contribute to cohesive team dynamics.
This paper demonstrates applied theory: the author takes two established frameworks (the 3 Cs of team building and Tuckman's four-stage model) and tests them against lived workplace experience. Rather than merely summarizing theory, the paper uses specific evidence — team behaviors during a software transition — to validate and extend theoretical claims, showing how real-world nuance confirms or complicates textbook models.
The paper opens by establishing the workplace context and introducing the 3 Cs framework. The second and longest section walks through each of Tuckman's stages chronologically as they unfolded during a system change. The third section addresses the adjourning stage and explains why it does not fully apply to a stable, ongoing team. The paper closes by contrasting small office teams with larger organizational teams, discussing how diversity and leadership style must be calibrated accordingly.
It occasionally surprises people to hear that work teams are a critical part of a busy optometrist's practice. Beyond the expected medical duties that form the heart of the physician's practice, many different individuals are required to make the office functional. The billing department, the administrative assistants, and the various technicians must all work together to ensure that the office can serve patients — from the moment an appointment is recorded in the computer system to any questions a patient might have about insurance coverage after a visit.
This collective team has demonstrated consistent success because of its mastery of what is often called the "3 Cs" of teamwork: clear goals about what a good patient experience should look like over the course of a visit; context, meaning each team member understands his or her unique contribution to the team; and commitment to the goal of quality service (Heathfield 2008). For the most part, team members like and fundamentally respect one another as individuals and for their contributions to the office.
When the office embarks on more concentrated short-term projects, a more formal approach to teamwork is required — similar to what Bruce Tuckman has called the forming, storming, norming, and performing model of team development (Tuckman 2008). For example, when the office introduced a new computer system, all employees had to come together to discuss their different needs, some of which were in conflict. The individuals orchestrating the change had to exercise a great deal of control over meetings during this uncertain forming stage.
During the storming stage, there was considerable resistance to the change and discomfort with the new roles team members would be required to play during the transition. Next came the norming stage: as staff learned to operate and implement the new system, they were able to exercise more ownership over how the program would fit into daily work life. Because team members had already worked well together on a daily basis, the group reached this stage fairly quickly and exhibited signs of strong team health — including tolerance of differing viewpoints, the ability to compromise and reach consensus, the willingness to disagree openly yet change one's mind without loss of face, and the capacity to make independent decisions without always deferring to hierarchical leadership.
During the performing stage, team members were no longer intimidated. Administrative and billing staff were able to troubleshoot certain problems with the IT department without feeling self-conscious about their limited technical background — everyone was confident in their own area of expertise. After the system was fully integrated and staff input had been taken into consideration, the team felt it had made a positive contribution to the office's standard operating procedures. The group was performing as a unit once again, without outside assistance, and the transition was complete.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.