In the discussion, I talked about a team I was a part of that followed Tuckerman’s stages. Now, I will talk about a team that seemed not to have any structure whatsoever, and it nearly collapsed before it achieved anything.
I was sent to Oregon Ballistics Laboratory, which is one of three NIJ Certified ballistics testing facilities in the US, to have a new type of body and vehicle armor material tested. We were fully expecting it to pass. The test director put the plate through their course, which includes two drops from a height of 1 meter, a submersion test in water for 30 minutes, three test shots against just backdrop to bring the table-mounted gun’s muzzle up to temp, and then two 30 06 armor piercing rounds hitting two spots within two inches of each other on the plate.
The first shot cut through our armor like butter.
I was immediately assigned to a team that was basically thrown together to “figure this out”. In any team, there is a very important concept called cohesion. This is the dynamic process by which the group tries to stick together and operate as a unit in trying to solve the problem or complete the project they are assigned to (Gruman et al., 2017, p. 132). My team was not cohesive whatsoever. Each person went their own way trying to figure out what went wrong. One person went with one theory, another person went with something totally different. We disagreed, and the only cohesive about the team was the mutual decision that each of us would go down our own rabbit hole and figure it out for ourselves.
Eventually, it turned out my theory was correct. The submersion test is where things went wrong. In an effort to save costs, the R&D director downgraded the sample’s cloth surround to one that wasn’t water resistant, which caused the material to delaminate just enough during submersion that the bullet shredded the adhesives holding the hardened materials together.
I found the answer not through my own super genuis, but rather by sheer luck, and without a team effort. I suspect the answer would’ve come much quicker and with less wasted resources (upwards of $100,000 of billable time by consultants, additional testing, and man hours) if our team had cohesion and at least created a list of potential causes and solutions to explore together before totally fracturing.
Sources:
Gruman, J., Schneider, F., & Coutts, L. (Eds.) (2017). Applied social psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071800591
Hi! This definitely sounds like a frustrating situation. I will say that Copeland and Straub (1995) state interpersonal compatibility within teams is just as important as delineating tasks and roles. Compatible attributes, such as friendliness, dominance, and acceptance of authority, may have increased your ability to function effectively as a team. That being said, your experience sounds like there was little to no role acceptance within your group; everyone wanted to control the situation in their own way. No one facilitated or collaborated in problem-solving discussions and you essentially did solo work. It’s a reminder that in high-pressure situations, taking the time to establish clear roles, communicate openly, and work together is still important.
Reference
Copeland, B. L., & Straub, W. F. (1995). Assessment of team cohesion: A Russian approach. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 443–450.
Hello,
Cohesion is an extremely important factor in groups working together to achieve a goal. It seems from the information you have highlighted that there was no role acceptance. Role acceptance can be defined as “the degree to which the person expected to fill a role agrees to comply with the requirements of the role”. (Gruman et al., 2017). Even though there was no formal agreement on which role the members of your team fit into, the group members all wanted to fill the leader role. Since no one stepped up as a leader, the group failed to work together effectively. There are a lot more factors that can affect a group’s performance, but in this case, role acceptance was the main issue.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W. & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks; CA: Sage Publications.