West Transit Team Effectiveness and Conflict Management
This paper analyzes the West Transit case study through established organizational behavior frameworks. It evaluates team effectiveness across the dimensions of task performance, member satisfaction, and team viability, and identifies the group's position within Tuckman's five stages of group development. Drawing on Edgar Schein's behavioral profiles, the paper categorizes each team member's role and assesses communication breakdowns within the group. It further distinguishes between substantive and emotional conflict, proposes direct and indirect conflict management strategies, and examines motivational challenges facing individual members. Equity theory, prompt feedback, and empowerment are among the strategies recommended to improve team cohesion and performance.
- Team Effectiveness in the West Transit Case: Evaluates team performance, satisfaction, and viability
- Tuckman's Stages of Group Development: Identifies group's position in Tuckman's five stages
- Schein's Behavioral Profiles: Maps Schein's three profiles onto team members
- Communication and Group Dynamics: Analyzes communication failures within the group
- Types of Conflict and Management Strategies: Distinguishes conflict types and proposes remedies
- Task, Maintenance, and Disruptive Behaviors: Reviews group behavior categories and recommendations
- Motivational Problems and Solutions: Diagnoses and addresses each member's motivation issues
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Systematically applies multiple theoretical frameworks — Tuckman's stages, Schein's behavioral profiles, and equity theory — to a single concrete case, demonstrating integration of course concepts.
- Each team member is analyzed individually, giving the paper specificity rather than relying on generalizations about the group as a whole.
- Distinguishes clearly between types of conflict (substantive vs. emotional) and between categories of group behavior (task, maintenance, disruptive), showing command of organizational behavior vocabulary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper consistently moves from theory to application: a concept is defined with a citation, then immediately illustrated with a named character from the case. This cite-then-apply pattern is a strong model for case study writing at the undergraduate level, keeping analysis grounded and traceable to evidence in the source material.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a three-part definition of team effectiveness and maps it onto the West Transit situation. It then proceeds section by section through Tuckman's developmental stages, Schein's three behavioral profiles, communication failures, conflict typology, group behavior roles, and finally individual motivational diagnoses with tailored remedies for each team member. The conclusion is embedded in the final section rather than presented as a standalone paragraph.
Team Effectiveness in the West Transit Case
The relevance of teams in an organizational setting cannot be overstated. However, for teams to accomplish the tasks for which they were formed, they must be effective. There are various approaches that can be used to gauge team effectiveness — specifically, on the basis of task performance, member satisfaction, and team viability. Task performance concerns how effectively the team attains its performance objectives within defined timelines. Member satisfaction refers to the extent to which team members feel that their contributions are valued and their personal needs are addressed. Team viability is essentially the willingness of members to continue collaborating in order to accomplish team goals going forward.
The team Bernie Hollis assembled falls short on the effectiveness front. It remains unclear whether team objectives will be attained within the timelines given. Some members have already voiced their opinion regarding the "massive and unattainable" nature of the undertaking. Member satisfaction is also not guaranteed: Tanney has pointed out that spending too much time at work is causing her family problems. Furthermore, with Lea Jing apprehensive about her transfer to another department and Tanney fearing that the new project could further complicate her personal situation, team viability remains under threat.
Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
According to Tuckman, there are five group formation stages. As Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2010) identify them, these are "forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning" (p. 296). Forming is the initial stage, often characterized by uncertainty and anxiety among group members about the group's purpose and how to relate to peers. Storming is the second stage, in which members begin to acquaint themselves with the group's direction and their individual roles. As Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2010) note, this stage can be chaotic, with hostilities arising as group members compete and begin work on the task at hand.
In the norming stage, group participants adopt a more conciliatory approach and develop a common strategy for solving the problem or accomplishing the task. During performing, "members try to perform their tasks and maximize the group's performance" (Kassin, Fein, and Markus, 2010, p. 296). Finally, adjourning involves the dissolution of the group, which typically occurs once the task for which the group was formed has been completed.
In the West Transit case, it appears that the group is currently in the storming stage. According to Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2010), during this stage "members try to influence the group so that it fits their own needs," which can give rise to conflict. In the case, Tanney clearly states that working overtime is not an option for her and that she is unwilling to work with Denson due to a comment he made that left her feeling disrespected. This confrontation reflects the initial interactions between group members as each person attempts to clarify their role and place within the larger group.
Schein's Behavioral Profiles
According to French (2011), the three behavioral profiles identified by Edgar Schein are the tough battler, the friendly helper, and the objective thinker. The tough battler "is frustrated by lack of identity in the new group and may act aggressively or reject authority" (French, 2011, p. 412). In this case, that role is clearly filled by Katarina Tanney. She feels that the group will further complicate her family situation and rudely reprimands Denson, the team leader.
The friendly helper, on the other hand, extends extraordinary assistance to other group members and is likely to pursue alliances within subgroups (French, 2011). In the case, this role is played by Jon Mahonney, who appears reluctant to offend anyone. At one point he praises two of his colleagues, acknowledges the challenging task ahead, and stresses the importance of unity of purpose.
Finally, Lea Jing fills 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 maintains a calm, collected demeanor. Notably, she was the only member who came to the first meeting having already reviewed the agenda and prepared suggestions.
References
French, R. (2011). Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2010). Social Psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.