Compare And Contrast Of: Four Stage Team Performance Model & The Drexxler/Sibbet Team Preformance Model

Micheal Warren

The Four-Stage Team Performance Model

&

The Drexler/Sibbet High Performance Model

BA 285

11/25/07

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

FOUR STAGES MODEL 3

TEAM PERFORMANCE MODEL 4

Similarities 6

Differences 7

Conclusion 7

APPENDIX 8

WORK CITED 8

Introduction

The exploration of two models will show an interesting relationship when compared and contrasted. Both can increase competency levels in team building. The models are the Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance model (Human Performance Strategies) and the Four Stage Team Performance model (Developing Management Skills). When they have been used correctly they’ve been shown to improve efficiency and profitability in organizations. “Developing team skills is important because of the tremendous explosion in the use of teams in work organizations over the last decade (Developing Management Skills).” An examination of these models will show the similarities and differences they have in the context of team building.

Four Stages Model

“The Forming вЂ" Norming вЂ" Storming вЂ" Performing model of team development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. This model has become the basis for subsequent models of team dynamics and frequently used management theory to describe the behavior of existing teams (Wikipedia).”

The first stage of team building is called the forming stage. “ The team meets for the first time and learns about the opportunity and challenges, and then they agree on goals and begin to tackle tasks. Team members tend to behave quite independently. They may be motivated but are usually relatively uninformed of the issues and objectives of the team (Wikipedia).

The group has reached the Norming stage when they begin the second stage. “The team is faced with creating cohesion and unity, differentiating roles, identifying expectation for members, and enhancing commitment. Providing supportive feedback and fostering commitment to a vision are needed from the team leaders (Developing Management Skills).”

In the third stage of the model the storms start to brew- so to say. “Different ideas compete for consideration. The team addresses issues such as what problems they are supposed to solve, how they will function independently and together and what leadership model they will accept. It can be contentious, unpleasant and even painful to members of the team who are averse to conflict. Supervisors of the team during this phase may be more accessible but tend to still need to be directive in their guidance of decision-making and behavior (Wikipedia).”

The fourth and final stage is Performing. “The team is faced with the need for continuous improvement, innovation, speed, and capitalizing on core competencies. Sponsoring team members’ new ideas, orchestrating their implementation, and fostering extraordinary performance are needed from the team leaders (Developing Management Skills).” High performance teams should be the desire of all companies. Such teams can increase the overall profitability of the whole organization. Pictures of both models are in the appendix.

Team Performance Model

The second well-known model for team development that will be explored is the Team Performance Model. “Alan Drexler, PhD and David Sibbet, PhD spent many years refining this comprehensive model of team performance. The Drexler/Sibbet Team Performanceв„Ñž Model illustrates team development in seven stages, four to create the team and three to describe levels of performance (Human Performance Strategies).”

The first stage in the model asks the question, why am I here? “When team members have resolved the issues of this stage, they have purpose, personal fit, and membership. When team members are blocked at this stage, they show uncertainty and fear (Human Performance Strategies).”

The second stage in the model is about trust building, and the model poses the question of, who are you? “When team members have resolved the issues of this stage they have mutual regard, forthrightness, and spontaneous interaction. When team members are blocked at this stage they show mistrust, and caution or facade. Concern with trust occurs in direct proportion to the need for interdependence (Human Performance Strategies).”

The third stage in the model is goal clarification. The model poses the question of, what are we doing? “When team members have resolved the issues of this stage they have explicit assumptions, clear integrated goals, and identified roles. When team members are blocked at this stage they show apathy, skepticism, and irrelevant competition. Completion of the orientation and trust stages leads to a focus on goals and roles. Because people vary widely in their understanding and use of language, clarity is often a challenge at this stage. Willingness to debate can be a sign of trust (Human Performance Strategies).”

In the fourth stage, commitment, the question asked is, how will we do it? “When team members have resolved the issues of this stage they have shared vision, allocated resources, and made organizational decisions. When team members are blocked at this stage they show dependence and resistance. If goals and roles seem clear, teams will automatically begin to ask how they can move into action (Human Performance Strategies).”

The fifth stage of the model is the implementation stage. This stage asks the question of who does what, when and where? “When team members have resolved the issues of this stage, they have clear processes, alignment, and disciplined execution. When team members are blocked at this stage, they show conflict, and nonalignment (Human Performance Strategies).”

When the team has reached the sixth stage in the model they have reached the point of being a high performance