She Loves a Challenge

1. The four stages of team development included: (a) solving employees’ private issues; (b) solving employees’ collective issues; (c) implementation of new rules and motivation; (d) the continuity of the system, promoted by old workers with changed models of collective action. According to Tuckman’s teamwork theory, they can be defined as forming, storming, norming, and performing respectively (The Happy Manager, n.d.). The first stage included one-to-one sessions with each employee that was aimed at revealing personal motives and principles of interaction with the rest of the staff. The director explained the above-mentioned as a difficult start with the purpose of changing personal attitudes. The second stage required the confrontation of employees altogether to ensure revealing, discussing and eliminating the basis for future confrontations. The aim of this stage was explained clearly and honestly. The director agreed that it was an extremely difficult task, but it was also of crucial importance for future collective interaction in a positive way. The next stage was about the implementation of the new rules, which excluded potential threats of conflict behavior. The rules were explained in a strict manner, though by motivation of the staff followed it. Overall, this stage of team development is characterized as implementing new principles of collective conduct, shifting accents from “I/me” to “us/we”. The director reasoned that unity of action and thought at work provides a positive-thinking environment that enhances the productivity. The last stage was the succession of a new paradigm of collective action. This time, old employees with brand new model of cooperative interaction were sharing it with individuals that wanted to fit this system. Thus, the circle of succession was closed and the new model became fixed and permanent.

2. In this case, the director’s strategy affected team spirit and team work. These notions are different because team spirit mainly means the characteristic of psychological atmosphere of the staff, whereas teamwork is the process of collaborative completing the task in order to achieve the set goal (“How to Build,” n.d.). If every individual from the staff shares collective values and appreciates the views of one’s colleagues without confronting them, such staff can be characterized as the one that has team spirit. Organizations can experience serious troubles while lacking team spirit. Even a well-organized and planned venture may fail its objectives without the commitment of the team behind it. Building team spirit is about engaging the emotions of the team members (“How to Build,” n.d.). In its turn, team-work is the process affected by the existence of the team spirit. When every individual trusts his or her colleagues, it will assist an effective teamwork. Thus, a team is more than a group of people, aimed at the achievement of a collective goal. It is a group of people, which strength is based on the relationships among team members. Members of such group are interdependent. An ideal team is characterized by the feedback and communication behaviors of its members, their behavior and conduct courtesies, and their ways of approaching tasks and problems (Nazzaro & Starazzabosco, 2009). This particular case has stressed team spirit in order to change it and improve the characteristics of the teamwork.

3. MBWA is a practice of team building that has full name as Management By Wandering Around, or Management By Walking About. This concept includes approaches aimed at active interaction of a director or a staff manager with his or her team. Experts say this practice can increase the potential of a team through the influences on staff approachability, trust, business knowledge, accountability, morale and productivity (“Management By Wandering Around,” n.d.). All in all, this practice makes a director an active member of the life of one’s staff, providing him or her with persistent contact with the team. In connection to the studied case, such choice of a management approach by the director serves as evidence that she is an open-minded person, willing to take part in daily life of her team and be able to assist it whenever there is a need. The case also serves as an example of great teambuilding skills the director has. Judging from the presented case, one may assume the results of the above-mentioned approach were extremely productive as it was supported by the evidence. The director observed positive effect of her methods of teambuilding: employees seemed to become closer together, all sources of confrontations were excluded, and the staff worked according to the new principles of work.

4. Dr. Shaheen used various methods for motivating her employees. Her usual accent was on the unproductiveness of selfish behavior while being a part of a team. The behavior of the director in this sense goes along with McClelland’s theory of learned needs. According to this approach, a person is led by three motivation factors in one’s life: achievement, affiliation, and power (“McClelland’s Human Motivation Theory,” n.d.). Dr. Shaheen first referred to achievement, stating that the team is to successfully achieve its tasks and be productive. Then, she shifted to affiliation, applying to the fact that hand-in-hand work provides a great experience of cooperation. Power was mentioned the last, insisting that a united team can achieve greater goals than a usual group of people. Thus, the director used a comprehensive method of motivating her team. Another positive fact about her approach is that she did not try to motivate the team with money. Motivation by material things has a short-term perspective, but more important goals and challenges need a ground that is more stable than finance. More than that, the question of difference in wages may lead to confrontation of one member of a team with another. If I happened to be a consultant observing Dr. Shaheen’s performance, I would advise her to conduct sociometric studies from time to time. I believe that this procedure would add more objective information concerning the relations inside the team because sociometric measurement methods give insights about an individual’s social competence and standing within an examined group (Busse, 2009). Such analysis would make it possible to ensure minor corrections in the attitudes of team members towards each other.