Engineering Co. - Illustrative Case Study: Phil Jones' Dilemma

Illustrative Case Study: Phil Jones’ Dilemma

0 | P a g e A u t h o r : J L é o n a r d K o l l e h

Organisational Teams



II Introduction

V Tuckman and Jensen

IX The Performance Stage

XIV Leading a Virtual Team

XVII A Team-based Approach

XX Bibliography



Introduction


Phil Jones is a project leader at Engineering Co. and leader of a team

operating in six different geographical locations across two time

zones. Phil as an individual is a mechanical engineer with recognised

technical skills, a logical thinker who believes in rational decision-

making. As Senior Project Leader of a blue-chip project (a Gulf Metro

System) for Engineering Co, a renowned project-based organisation,

Phil has gradually realised that he is first and foremost a mini HR

manager and secondly a Project Team-Leader.

The Gulf Project is essentially at the planning phase of which much of

the work has been performed reasonably well, however to a driven

individual such as Phil ‘reasonably well’ equates to a sub-optimal

performance. Phil endeavours for it to be an exceptional team and he

is determined to direct it in-line with that objective. With a certainty

that the team-members, all of which were internal applicants, are the

right people with the rights skills in the right jobs at the right time, a

sub-prime performance is simply unacceptable for Phil.



Six months into the project, he senses undercurrents of tension

amongst team members. Unimpressed by the way the team is

performing, Phil feels he is losing focus on the project as much of his

time is increasingly occupied with ‘people issues’, an area where Phil

is open to admit his strengths do not lie. It has emerged that there is

duplication of work, as team members state they are unsure as to

their role within the team, which is costing the project time and

expense.

Phil has also identified underlying cultural issues surrounding

authority, responsibility and decision-making, several members turn

to him for final decisions. This is an irritation to Phil as he has openly

expressed his approval of team members being empowered to make

decisions, however several members countered that they are unsure

of the parameters in which their decision-making ‘power’ lies with

many stating a contradiction in Phil’s ‘encouragement of pro-

activeness’ and then his active overruling of their decisions at a later

stage.

As a problem-solver Phil has turned to his logical side, deciding that

the right step of action is to engage in active study of ‘group dynamics

theory’. At first, Phil addressed these issues through the lenses of an

engineer; the group is a system and if the issues are dissected

impartially the examination will produce arrangements which ought



to be accepted by everybody as they are the result of a rational

decision-making process.

Phil keenly analysis the stages of group-development by Bruce

Tuckman, concluding with a conviction that the team is now at the

‘storming-stage’ and the solution is in identifying how the team can

transition from a ‘storming’ to ‘performing-stage’. His actions are

driven by a desire to ensure that the personal experiences of each

member are positive and that each member reflects on their

involvement with the Gulf Metro Project Team with pride in

conjunction with the overall success of the project.



Tuckman and Jensen’s Stages of Group Development

Labelling a group of individuals as a 'team' is not a guarantee that they

will be prompted to act as one, they develop before they get to a stage

of being distinctly effective with at least four phases as described by

Bruce Tuckman (1965), and further on by both Tuckman and Mary Ann

Jensen (1977): an immature group, fractional group, sharing group,

effective team and a disbanding group (IFHE, 2015). When a team is

working on a project, the primary focus is usually on “technical

issues”, but not enough attention is directed to addressing “people

issues” (Smarkusky et al., 2005). As is within the situation of the case

study when an assumption by Phil, that each member is inclined to

think rationally, was seemingly refuted. The project leader Phil Jones

came across two main “people issues”.

Firstly, the main phase of development is the 'forming stage', the time

when cohesion is stimulated between individual members. This stage

exhibits nervousness, instability and ineffectiveness at working, where

individuals are careful of their conduct or essentially driven to be

acknowledged by all members. Struggle, discussion and individual

sentiments are typically dodged at a phase where individuals are



starting to form impressions of each other and attaining familiarity

with the group’s core purpose (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). It appears

that Phil's team is well beyond this point with ‘reasonably well’

effectiveness and work achieved though not at the level Phil desires

with instances of duplication.

Beyond the 'forming', we arrive at the 'storming stage' (Bonebright,

2010). (Tuckman, 1965) Where individuals begin to push against the

limits set up in the 'forming-stage'. This is the phase where many

groups come up short. 'Storming' usually begins where there is strife

between colleagues' natural working styles. Individuals may work in

various ways for a wide range of reasons be that as it may, if varying

working styles cause unanticipated issues, they may become

increasingly frustrated. Colleagues may challenge your authority,

manoeuvring for position as their roles are clearly defined. In the

instance where the group's functionality is still ambiguous, members

may feel overpowered by their workload, or become uncomfortable

with the approach taken. (Feather, 1999) Some may question the

value of the group's objective, and they may oppose taking up tasks.

Team members still aligned with the task at hand can experience

stress, especially as they don't have the support of set up procedures,

or concrete relationships with other members. It is at this stage, per

Phil’s diagnosis, where he discovers the underlying tensions within the

group and where the main two problems arise.



Problem One

The team members’ actions implied a lack of clarity about their

individual roles which therefore lead to high costs both timewise and

monetarily. This raised concerns, on the part of Phil, about the team’s

performance and the threat of regression towards the ‘forming stage’.

Phil was under the impression that he erected clear and concise goals

and objectives, allowing team members to operate with autonomy.

The initial commitment of the team members left the impression of

order and understanding by everyone, Phil inclusive.

The nature of Phil’s team, being a virtual team, requires them to

operate through a network of information (ICTs) (Powell, Piccoli, and

Ives, 2004) to overcome geographical dispersions (Cramton, 2001).

(ZIGURS, 2003) pieced together the four key features of virtual teams:

geographic dispersion, cultural dispersion, temporal dispersion and

organisational dispersion. Phil highlights the problem of managing

project complexity and risk, with the intention of achieving

effectiveness and efficiency, (Anantatmula and Thomas, 2010) in the

presence of varied perceptions of instructions and authority due to

cultural differences (Park and Popescu, 2014). A greater focus on

interpersonal communication by Phil is a derivative of the situation, at

which point, post theoretical research, he concluded the team’s

position within the ‘storming-stage’.



A regression to the ‘forming-stage’ at this point is a credible threat

within Phil’s purview, given the reluctance of members to engage in

conflict and ambiguity as to their roles, both characteristics of the

initial stage.

Problem two

Team members are often in agreement, circumventing conflicts

overtly due to equivocal ‘autonomy’. (Beauchamp et al., 2002) In

Phil’s professional opinion, this makes the team ineffective and

inefficient as objectives are pursued with a sub-optimal team

approach. Inter-member challenging of the outline of the team’s

course of action and performance measures allows for a more

efficient approach to achieving its objectives (Neely et al., 1997). In

the absence of hierarchical monosemy, Phil’s members tend to

conform with each other even in the presence of insufficient

information (Abrams et al., 1990). This unwillingness to engage in

conflict is disparate to the nature of the ‘storming-stage’ where

opinion-rivalry is ripe. The evidence points against Phil’s diagnosis and

towards an inaccurate estimation of the group’s position. At the

transition of ‘forming-storming’ there should be patent disagreement

and inter-member conflicts as each member establishes their

presence within the team. The ambiguity of responsibility due to Phil’s

‘inconsistent’ decision-making process and paucity of member

hostility bears resemblance to a state of ‘forming’.



Interventions for reaching the Performance Stage

The inter-actions of the project’s team members, Phil included, is

indicative of the ‘forming-stage’. Phil’s perception of the team’s

position is dissimilar to reality, however reflects his commitment to

ensuring an efficient evolution of the team from the ‘forming’ to

‘performing’ stage. Perhaps Phil’s expectations of the ‘team’ are

faintly premature.

Here Phil must identify the characteristics of the stages between

‘forming’ & ‘storming’ to ‘performing’ to effectively transition his

team from one to the other.

Firstly post- ‘storming’, Phil’s team should theoretically transition to

the ‘norming-stage’ before reaching the ‘performing-stage’. ‘Norming’

is distinctively characterised by the establishment of a consensus: an

acceptance of leadership, formation of a standards set, clarification of

responsibilities, cooperation and the attainment of inter-member

trust.

It is advisable that Phil augments the working environment by (Gersick

and Angeles, 1988) facilitating smooth communication and direction

of the team’s collective objectives and individual roles through a



democratic leadership style, (Sochova, 2016) allowing each member

to contribute. Therefore, achieving a consensus as to how both sets of

objectives will be attained. An agreement of the boundaries, working

processes and (Bradley and Hebert, 1997) lucidity of communication

enables Phil to capitalise on the synergistic impact on the team’s

collective and individual productivity, as well as ushering in a trust

both in his ability to be consistent and with one another.

Consequently, the formation of a succinct set of boundaries will

diminish role ambiguity and imbalances in perceived authority.

Furthermore, (O’Neill, 2000) the utilisation of SMART Goals to make

the objectives: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-

based, will stimulate confidence in team goals and ensure a process of

collective evaluation and critical analysis of the team’s performance,

enabling a benchmark or set of standards for achievement to be

established, measured, and altered if necessary. It is essential that Phil

stimulates a respectful critique-environment.

In the process of team development, even when objectives are clearly

defined and the organisational structure is adequate, there is still a

possibility of organisational and team-resources support failure (Osca

et al., 2005). In accordance with Hackman’s study, there are four

significant supports needed: a reward system based upon the

collective performance, training and technical consultation,

(Hackman, 2002) access to information systems, (Stark, 2002)



managerial confidence in member’s ability to use such information

and the routine aspects and tools needed to get the job done. It is

imperative that (CMI, 2015) Phil ensures a mechanism that addresses

member’s individual project-related needs to ensure motivation, a

sense of value and group efficiency.

In addition, the nature of the project Phil leads does not entail a high

pace of innovation but rather premised on the existing competences

of Engineering Co. (Hitt et al., 1997) This induces overall operational

stability and predictability, (Dess and Beard, 1984) such environment

is optimal for the utilisation of (Chittka and Muller, 2009) efficiency-

catalysing task-specialisation. (Dimotakis, Davison, and Hollenbeck,

2012) Considerations may be taken by Phil to explore the

effectiveness of centralisation in such a scenario, (Fenton-O’Creevy,

Gooderham, and Nordhaug, 2007) it can potentially be of conflict to

member-autonomy, or contrastingly (Gilbert, Malta, and Schapper,

2006) enhance transparency, accountability and efficiency.

Moreover, it is imperative to highlight the possibility of a slight

misjudgement, by Phil, regarding the competences of his team-

members. Phil assumes he has ‘the right people with the right skills in

the right jobs at the right time’ which could’ve stimulated a sense of

compliancy on Phil’s part. However, to maintain effectiveness, teams

all require on-going support regardless of their capabilities. What’s

also evident, is that there are no assurances that members with the



‘right skills’ are naturally inclined to perform at the ‘right level’ within

a team (Paskevich et al., 1999). (Bloom, Stevens, and Wickwire, 2003)

suggested an outline for the training component which involves

technical, mental, and tactical training. An effective group training

program whether at one geographical location or (Heinrichs et al.,

2008) a virtual simulation program, will enable Phil to identity both

the proficiencies of members and an adequate expectation of (Hall

and Williams, 1970) group dynamics and (Siebold, 2007) cohesion.

Consolidating these interventions: the establishment of an open,

incisive information and communication system, an effective

appraisal model, adequate organisational structure, distinctly defined

objectives and operational parameters and an effectual group training

model for cohesion and team efficacy.

Phil’s implementation of these interventions will actuate the

evolution of his team to the ‘performing-stage’ where by the Gulf

Project Team will begin to exhibit flexibility in task roles once order

has been erected and each member executes their role with

understanding and confidence, and an openness to critique, appraise

and assisting individual team members. Sequential successes in the

team’s performance will bring into realisation Phil’s objective of his

team’s collective and individual growth and appreciation of their

participation in this project, coupled with the team’s capacity to meet



the demands of Engineering Co.’s middle-eastern client and

preservation of the firm’s distinguished reputation for excellence.

The Interventions illustrates to Phil the merits of utilising a mix of

Tuckman’s ‘development theory’ and Hackman’s theory in the

consecutive operations of project-based teams, but withal the kernel

element of team collective and individual fruitfulness is in identifying

the correct stage of development pre-designing of an effective

progression path.



Leading a Virtual Team

It is critical for one to acknowledge the impartiality of the problems

facing Phil’s project team at Engineering Co. but rather they are

generic issues associated with virtual project teams (Bellamy et al.,

2005).

Virtual teams are an increasingly used medium, commonly defined as

teams utilising technology to function across time and cultural

boundaries. (Moore, 2016) Virtual groups embrace the idea of teams

directing all group work via (Ehsan, Mirza, and Ahmad, 2008) Voice

over Internet Protocol (VOIP) innovation and emerging technologies

for virtual meeting, permitting multinational organisations to draw

upon the most extensive talent pool accessible worldwide.

Numerous substantial multi-national organisations including Apple®,

Microsoft®, Atkins® Global, Rolls-Royce®, EADS (Airbus consortium)

and Boeing® utilise virtual project groups.

Pragmatic issues enveloping virtual-based project teams has been

explored in previous in examining Phil’s diagnosis. However, for the

purposes of extensiveness, it would be of value to examine further

underlying problems, with a focus on the emotional interaction of



team members and the management of real-time decision-making.

Thereby identifying emerging tools that can be employed to counter

these dilemmas.

Problem Three

(Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002) Akin to virtual-teams is the

problem of diminished exchange of social-emotional information

between members (Kelly and Barsade, 2001) in the absence of face-

face interaction. (Townsend, DeMarie, and Hendrickson, 1998) As

technology evolves so do the mediums of virtual communication.

(ARHT, 2017) are just one of the pioneers a of the wave of

HumaGram™, immersive holographic human projections, effective at

inducing realistic face-face communications. Additionally, many firms

such as Apple®, IBM® and (Behrmann and Bergen, 2017) Google® are

all hotly anticipated to provide solutions to this problem via

‘augmented reality’. As the technology is explored, developed and

matures, this barrier of face-face communication will no longer exist

for virtual-teams that can afford such platforms. (Lipnack and Stamps,

1999) Successful leadership now involves active knowledge and

implementation of technological breakthroughs regarding virtual

communications for team efficiency and relevance.



Problem Four

Further on, (Townsend, DeMarie, and Hendrickson, 1998) the

management of real-time decision-making and an adequate

resolution process can be difficult for virtual-groups on account of

geographic-cultural-organisational-dispersion. An instrument at the

disposal of modern-day virtual-teams is the emergence of ‘The-Cloud’

/ ‘Big-Data’, (Intel Corporation, 2017) which ignites virtual-team’s

agility, innovativeness and real-time decision-making capabilities

(Black, 2017) in addition to enhancing team-collaboration and

accessibility of information and data, enabling near-instant problems

resolution and capitalisation of new ideas and information.

Ultimately, the accessibility and maturity of these instant-access-

technologies are increasingly transforming the efficiency of team-

based projects within organisations. It is essential to note that the

benefits of these technologies are felt when firms implement them on

an integrated scale which comes at a price-tag, though access to a

cloud network-server can now be obtained via an affordable option of

subscription rather than a hefty one-off initial cost. Lastly, leaders

must acknowledge their role in pioneering the use of these platforms

to increase their team’s intra-firm and inter-firm competitiveness.



A Team-based approach to work. --- 12 References

This section explores the personal experiences, within a team-based

setting of the authors, outlining and explaining the strengths and

weaknesses of a team-based approach in various scenarios.

Examination of Phil’s dilemma and diagnosis, constructing an

adequate analysis of his observations and providing systematic

recommendations for progression, allowed for the authors’ personal

exposure to a team-based approach.

Authors A & B’s Group Dynamic

Constructing an analytical recommendation for Phil was aided by the

established friendship between both authors (Francis and Sandberg,

2000). Each author participated in research, analysis and assembly of

this piece with no designated leader. (Grosse, 2002) The language

barrier between authors A & B was quickly overcome by active

discussion and engagement paired with automatic-translation

software-tools for data-sharing between authors. Each author worked

both interdependently and independently with openness to engage in

opinion-sharing and quickly establishing consensus decision-making

and clear individual roles from the onset. (Tuckman, 1965) Thus,



enabling the authors to transition smoothly from the ‘forming’ to

‘norming-stage’.

Author A’s Team-Based Experiences

Author A’s experience within sports (4x100m Relay) as allowed him to

be exposed to the practicalities of working within a team. The nature

of the relay means teams have very little preparation time to attain

cohesion and rely mostly on the instinctive ability of each sprinter.

Furthermore, the inconsistency of which member are within the team

prevents a formation of affection-based relations and member’s

confidence in each other. This has enable author A to perform general

team-tasks at short notice, high-pace and increasing adaptability.

Author B’s Team-Based Experiences

As part of culturally-diverse teaching-assistant team, author engaged

actively in the established model of teaching used as a means of

familiarising himself with those standards set. The team leader initially

organised a social session for team cohesion and trust (James, 2001).

Next, she identified the individual member-roles for operational

clarity (J, RC, and PMC, 2011). The characteristics of the forming stage

were present as mistakes were made due to role unfamiliarity,

however, (Tjosvold, Yu, and Hui, 2004) these were quickly resolved

through the problem-solving approach of open-discussion and senior-

member coaching. This problem-solving method was observed by



author B as an effective method of correct mistakes and improving

clarity and efficiency (Commons, 2012).

A team-based approach is advantageous in many ways: minimal

organisational layers for augmented communication flow (Carzo and

Yanouzas, 1969), (Bhagwatwar, Massey, and Dennis, 2013) team-

brainstorming induces creativity, innovation and enhances

productivity via 3D-virtual-environments, (Pinsonneault et al., 1999)

though some may argue that virtual brainstorming creates an illusion

of productivity. Further disadvantages are: (Duggan, 2017) the need

for effective leadership, organisational instability and inconsistency

and inter-teams’ communication break-down which has an overall

adverse effect on organisations. However, some thinkers may argue

that inter-team rivalries improve the overall competitiveness of firms

(de Rond, 2012).

In conclusion, whether a team-based approach is deemed the ‘right’

approach is determined by various factors: the teams purpose and

objectives, its members, the resources at its disposal and essential the

nature of the work they are undertaking. Much of the barriers for

effective team-performance are now being countered by increasing

technological developments, making it easier for teams to

communicate, collaborate and produce. The absence of much of these

barriers will enable the team-based approach to become much more

appealing and effective.



Bibliography

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M.A. and Turner, J.C.

(1990) ‘Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-

categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and

group polarization*’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), pp.

97–119. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x.

Anantatmula, V. and Thomas, M. (2010) ‘Managing global projects: A

structured approach for better performance’, Project Management

Journal, 41(2), pp. 60–72. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20168.

ARHT, M. (2017) Technology. Available at:

http://www.arhtmedia.com/technology/ (Accessed: 3 March 2017).

Beauchamp, M.R., Bray, S.R., Eys, M.A. and Carron, A.V. (2002) ‘Role

ambiguity, role efficacy, and role performance: Multidimensional and

mediational relationships within interdependent sport teams’, Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(3), p. 229. doi:

10.1037/1089-2699.6.3.229.

Behrmann, E. and Bergen, M. (2017) Google moves into augmented

reality shopping with BMW and gap. Available at:



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-04/google-

moves-into-augmented-reality-shopping-with-bmw-gap (Accessed: 3

March 2017).

Bellamy, T., Williams, A., Sher, W., Sherratt, S. and Gameson, R. (2005)

‘Design communication: Issues confronting both co-located and

virtual teams’, .

Bhagwatwar, A., Massey, A. and Dennis, A.R. (2013) Creative Virtual

Environments: Effect of Supraliminal Priming on Team Brainstorming.

Available at:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6479860

(Accessed: 3 March 2017).

Black, J. (2017) ‘Collaborating in the cloud: Connecting your virtual

team’, Salesfroce Blog, Available at:

https://www.salesforce.com/blog/2014/08/collaborating-cloud-

connecting-your-virtual-team-gp.html (Accessed: 3 March 2017).

Bloom, G., Stevens, D. and Wickwire, T. (2003) ‘Expert coaches’

perceptions of team building’, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

15(2), pp. 129–143. doi: 10.1080/10413200305397.

Bonebright, D.A. (2010) ‘40 years of storming: A historical review of

Tuckman’s model of small group development’, Human Resource

Development International, 13(1), pp. 111–120. doi:

10.1080/13678861003589099.



Bradley, J.H. and Hebert, F.J. (1997) ‘The effect of personality type on

team performance’, Journal of Management Development, 16(5), pp.

337–353. doi: 10.1108/02621719710174525.

Carzo, R. and Yanouzas, J.N. (1969) ‘Effects of flat and tall organization

structure’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, pp. 178–191. doi:

10.2307/2391096.

Chittka, L. and Muller, H. (2009) ‘Learning, specialization, efficiency

and task allocation in social insects’, Communicative & Integrative

Biology, 2(2), pp. 151–154. doi: 10.4161/cib.7600.

CMI (2015) » KEY THEORIES Action-centred leadership. Available at:

http://www.valuing-your-talent-

framework.com/sites/default/files/resources/THK-

032%20John%20Adair.pdf (Accessed: 3 March 2017).

Commons, C. (2012) ‘Leadership, Roles, and Problem Solving in

Groups’, in A Primer on Communication Studies. pp. 794–856.

Cramton, C.D. (2001) ‘The mutual knowledge problem and its

consequences for dispersed collaboration’, Organization Science,

12(3), pp. 346–371. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098.

Dess, G.G. and Beard, D.W. (1984) ‘Dimensions of organizational task

environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 52–73.

doi: 10.2307/2393080.



Dimotakis, N., Davison, R.B. and Hollenbeck, J.R. (2012) ‘Team

structure and regulatory focus: The impact of regulatory fit on team

dynamic’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), p. 421. doi:

10.1037/a0026701.

Duggan, T. (2017) ‘The disadvantages of team-based organizational

structure’, Small Business Chron, Available at:

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-teambased-

organizational-structure-22216.html (Accessed: 3 March 2017).

Ehsan, N., Mirza, E. and Ahmad, M. (2008) ‘Impact of Computer-

Mediated Communication on Virtual Teams’ Performance: An

Empirical Study’, International Journal of Electrical, Computer,

Energetic, Electronic and Communication Engineering, 2(6), pp. 1194–

1203.

Feather, S.R. (1999) ‘The impact of group support systems on

collaborative learning groups“ on collaborative learning groups”

stages of development stages of development’, Information

Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 17(2), pp. 23–34.

Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Gooderham, P. and Nordhaug, O. (2007)

‘Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and

Australia: Centralisation or autonomy?’, Journal of International

Business Studies, 39(1), pp. 151–166. doi:

10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400313.



Francis, D.H. and Sandberg, W.R. (2000) - document - friendship within

entrepreneurial teams and its association with team and venture

performance. Available at:

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA74524630&si

d=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=10422587&p

=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true (Accessed: 3

March 2017).

Gersick, C.J.G. and Angeles, L. (1988) ‘Time and transition in work

teams: Toward a new model of group development’, Academy of

Management Journal, 31(1), pp. 41–9. doi: 10.2307/256496.

Gilbert, D., Malta, J.N.V. and Schapper, P. (2006) ‘Analytical

framework for the management and reform of public procurement’,

International Handbook of Public Procurement, 6(1 & 3), pp. 1–26.

doi: 10.1201/9781420054590.ch4.

Grosse, C.U. (2002) ‘Managing communication within virtual

Intercultural teams’, Business Communication Quarterly, 65(4), pp.

22–38. doi: 10.1177/108056990206500404.

Hackman, J.R. (2002) ‘Supportive Context’, in Leading teams: Setting

the stage for great performances. Harvard Business Press, p. pg 155.

Hall, J. and Williams, M.S. (1970) ‘Group dynamics training and

improved decision making’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

6(1), pp. 39–68. doi: 10.1177/002188637000600103.



Heinrichs, W.L., Youngblood, P., Harter, P.M. and Dev, P. (2008)

‘Simulation for team training and assessment: Case studies of online

training with virtual worlds’, World Journal of Surgery, 32(2), pp. 161–

170. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9354-2.

Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E., Kim, H. and A, T. 1 (1997) ‘International

diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in

product-diversified firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 40(4),

pp. 767–798. doi: 10.2307/256948.

IFHE (2015) Bruce Tuckman’s Stages of Team Development. Available

at: https://www.lfhe.ac.uk/download.cfm/docid/3C6230CF-61E8-

4C5E-9A0C1C81DCDEDCA2 (Accessed: 2 March 2017).

Intel Corporation (2017) Enterprise Cloud. Available at: https://www-

ssl.intel.com/content/www/uk/en/cloud-computing/enterprise-

cloud.html?cid=sem43700017444445421&intel_term=software+defi

ned+cloud&gclid=Cj0KEQiAxeTFBRCGmIq_7rGt_r8BEiQANdPqUvMj

W7YyspA5__vswuwjQidixe1H5jOLrTFruHOPqM4aAmIU8P8HAQ&gcls

rc=aw.ds (Accessed: 3 March 2017).

J, H., RC, L. and PMC, E. (2011) ‘Antecedents of team potency and team

effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant

leadership’, The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), pp. 851–862.

doi: 10.1037/a0022465.



James, J.D. (2001) ‘The role of cognitive development and socialization

in the initial development of team loyalty’, Leisure Sciences, 23(4), pp.

233–261. doi: 10.1080/01490400152809106.

Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002) ‘Dynamic nature of trust in

virtual teams’, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4),

pp. 187–213. doi: 10.1016/s0963-8687(02)00019-7.

Kelly, J.R. and Barsade, S.G. (2001) ‘Mood and emotions in small

groups and work teams’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 86(1), pp. 99–130. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2974.

Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1999) ‘Virtual teams: The new way to work’,

Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), pp. 14–19. doi: 10.1108/eb054625.

Moore, K. (2016) Global virtual teams definition from financial times

lexicon. Available at: http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=global-virtual-

teams (Accessed: 3 March 2017).

Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K. and Bourne, M. (1997)

‘Designing performance measures: A structured approach’,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management,

17(11), pp. 1131–1152. doi: 10.1108/01443579710177888.

O’Neill, J. (2000) ‘SMART goals, SMART schools’, Educational

Leadership, 57(5), pp. 46–50.

Osca, A., Urien, B., González‐CaminoGenoveva, Dolores Martínez‐

PérezM. and Martínez‐PérezNuria (2005) ‘Organisational support and



group efficacy’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), pp. 292–

311. doi: 10.1108/02683940510589064.

Park, A. and Popescu, L. (2014) E-leadership for project managers:

Virtual leadership and trust-building for perceived project success.

Available at: http://www.wenell.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/e-

leadership-for-project-managers-alfred-park-luminita-popescu.pdf


Paskevich, D.M., Brawley, L.R., Dorsch, K.D., Widmeyer and Neil, W.

(1999) ‘Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion:

Conceptual and measurement issues’, Group Dynamics: Theory,

Research, and Practice, 3(3), p. 210. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.3.3.210.

Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R.B. and Hoppen, N. (1999)

‘Electronic Brainstorming: The illusion of productivity’, Information

Systems Research, 10(2), pp. 110–133. doi: 10.1287/isre.10.2.110.

Powell, A., Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2004) ‘Virtual teams’, ACM SIGMIS

Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1),

pp. 36–6. doi: 10.1145/968464.968467.

de Rond, M. (2012) Conflict keeps teams at the top of their game.

Available at: https://hbr.org/2012/07/conflict-keeps-teams-at-the-to




Siebold, G.L. (2007) ‘The essence of military group cohesion’, Armed

Forces & Society, 33(2), pp. 286–295. doi:

10.1177/0095327x06294173.

Smarkusky, D., Dempsey, R., Ludka, J. and de Quillettes, F. (2005)

‘Enhancing team knowledge’, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), p. 460. doi:

10.1145/1047124.1047493.

Sochova, Z. (2016) The great ScrumMaster: #ScrumMasterWay.

Available at:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ve3MDQAAQBAJ&

oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=James+Manktelow+(2016)+Forming,+Storming

,+Norming,+and+Performing+Understanding+the+Stages+of+Team+F

ormation&ots=H1Rs6K5CQX&sig=159f9xe0me4eoFSsctbpElX4ZQo#v

=twopage&q&f=false (Accessed: 2 March 2017).

Stark, M. (2002) Leading teams: Setting the stage for great

performances - the Five keys to successful teams. Available at:

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2996.html (Accessed: 3 March 2017).

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. and Hui, C. (2004) ‘Team learning from mistakes:

The contribution of cooperative goals and Problem-Solving*’, Journal

of Management Studies, 41(7), pp. 1223–1245. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

6486.2004.00473.x.

Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M. and Hendrickson, A.R. (1998) ‘Virtual

teams: Technology and the workplace of the future’, The Academy of



Management Executive, 12(3), pp. 17–29. doi:

10.5465/AME.1998.1109047.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965) ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’,

Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), p. 384. doi: 10.1037/h0022100.

Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M.A.C. (1977) ‘Stages of small-group

development revisited’, Group & Organization Management, 2(4), pp.

419–427. doi: 10.1177/105960117700200404.

ZIGURS, I. (2003) ‘Leadership in virtual teams:’, Organizational

Dynamics, 31(4), pp. 339–351. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00132-8.

Engineering Co. - Illustrative Case Study: Phil Jones' Dilemma

Leadership & Management