Essay On Tuckman v. Bechard and Harris

Have you been looking for a professional paper writing service? Are you in High School, College, Masters, Bachelors or Ph.D All you need is to ask for research, term paper, thesis help written by a specialist in your academic field. When you buy a customized essay from PremiumPapers.net. We offer you an original, 0%- plagiarized and unique research paper written by a dedicated writer who is PhD or Masters qualified. PremiumPapers.net is an experienced service with over 8 years experience having delivered over 79,500 essays over the years. Just in case you're looking to buy a research paper on this topic or simply need a jumping off of your own feel free to contact our customer support staff. Head on over to the PremiumPapers homepage to get started.

Get Your Essay Done by a Specialist

NB: Click Our Prices for more. Our starting prices are as shown below!

Tuckman v. Bechard and Harris

The Tuckman’s model of team change involves four stages, and they include the forming stage, the storming stage, and the norming stage. The team development model can be described as an elegant as well as helpful explanation of both team development as well as behavior (Green & Cameron, 2012). The Tuckman’s model explains in detail that the team often develops in terms of ability and maturity and that as relationships are being established, in most instances the leader often changes the leadership style. The leader in the initial stages often starts with the directing style, and this slowly moves on to the coaching style and then participation and finally delegating of duties that are almost a detached model. In fact, it has been determined that at this point, the team may produce a successor leader and the previous leader that served in the former capacity can be able to move easily on and develop a new team (Green & Cameron, 2012). This progression of team behavior is extremely important and the leadership style is paramount. It can be seen as the strength of the team increases, the control of the leader often reduces in a dramatic way.

The Tuckman’s model initial stage is the forming stage where there is a high dependence on the leader. The team in this instance looks for the leader for both direction and guidance. It is critical to understand that in this stage, there is often little agreement when it comes to the general aims of the team and most of the directives come from the team leader. Further, in the forming stage, the individual responsibilities and roles are often unclear and the leader must be able to take charge and tell the team about their objectives, purpose as well as external relationships (Green & Cameron, 2012). The Leader can direct and he or she is the one that currently possesses the mantle in making almost every decision regarding the team.

The storming stage is the second stage. It is critical to understand that indeed in a group setting, decisions do not often come easily. For this reason, team members often view for several different positions as they try as much as possible to be able t establish themselves about the other different members as well as the leader. The clarity of purpose occurs at this stage, and it makes the persons realize their responsibilities in the group. The team at this moment often needs to be focused on its goals to avoid the relationships as well as emotional issues. In this stage, according to Tuckman, there is a need for compromise for progress to continue.

The norming stage is the third stage and in this stage, there is often agreement and consensus among the team. The team is often well adjusted to the leader, and they can respond well to him. Further, it is of the essence to understand that in this stage, the roles, as well as responsibilities, are often clear, and they are accepted. When it comes to the big decisions, they are identified and made by group arrangement where the smaller decisions are delegated to smaller teams within the large group. In this stage, there is often the general respect for the leader, the leader can facilitate and enable different issues.

The fourth stage is the performing stage. In this stage, the team is often strategically aware, and they often know and understand what is needed for them. In fact, is critical to note that indeed at this stage, the team often has a shared vision and it can stand on its own feet without the participation or even the interference of the tea leader (Green & Cameron, 2012). There is a focus at this stage on the team being able to achieve the goals that they set out to achieve.

Richard Beckhard and Rubin Harris argue that for change to happen in a successful manner, there is a need for a company to fulfill a certain equation. The statement is that dissatisfaction X desirability X practicability> Resistance to change. There are some critics that have argued that indeed this is a simple statement. However, it is important o understand that is surprisingly powerful when it is implemented (Nieuwenhuizen, 2008). The first element in the statement is dissatisfaction. In this instance, the team often feels dissatisfied with the current situation before the change happens, it is important to note that indeed without dissatisfaction, there is no one that is likely to be motivated in order to change. The dissatisfaction can include competition pressures, workplace pressures and general conditions that make the people feel uncomfortable with the current situation.
When it comes to desirability, it is critical to note that the proposed solution to the current problem should be attractive and that people need to understand what it entails. There is a need for the team to have a clear vision of how things will be like after the change and why things will be better. In this stage, the clearer as well as the more detailed the vision is made, the more likely that the team will agree with the plan and move forward in the right direction.

Practicality is another important stage in the Bechard and Harris change equation. The team should be convinced that indeed the change that is being proposed is realistic as well as being executable (Nieuwenhuizen, 2008). The team will, therefore, be more confident in the decision that has been made and will most likely support it.

The final item in the equation is resistance to change. The resistance to change often involves people’s beliefs in the limits of their change. The team often believes that the new system that is being introduced will not be able to fit in the current business model and in fact there is often a general inertia as well as lack of interest when it comes to the beginning of the change process. In this equation, it is important to stress the fact that there is a multiplicative relationship that exists between dissatisfaction, practicality, and desirability. Therefore, if one of the elements is missing, it means that the variable will have a total value of zero, and this, therefore, means that the whole side of the equation will lead to a zero.
The system uses five organizational steps which are internal organizational analysis, which identifies the forces for and against change, secondly, it determines the need for change and the degree of the choice (Elearn Limited, 2007). Thirdly, there is the issue of gap analysis where it defines the current state of the organization as compared to the desired state, there is action planning that assesses the present in terms of the future in a bid to determine the work to be done. Finally, there is the management of the transition which involves the implementation of the plan through effective role assignment and collaboration.

References

Green & Cameron., (2012) Making sense of Change Management: A complete guide to tools and techniques of organization change. Sage: New York.
Nieuwenhuizen, C., Rossouw, D., & Badenhorst, J. A. (2008). Business management: A contemporary approach. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.
Elearn Limited (Great Britain). (2007). Change management. Oxford: Pergamon Flexible Learning.