Team Dynamics and Change Free Essay Example

Introduction The purpose of this annotated bibliography is to demonstrate the effect of Team dynamics and change. In many terms, team dynamics is focused on mutual interaction among the team members, their actions, and responses. Therefore, the rapidly changing work environment and adaptation to the changes are the major facts leading to the switch of the comfort zones and fear of the possible changes within almost all the levels of the organization. The theories of Kurt Lewinee and Bruce Tuckman are reviewed by the modern authors and conclusions are made about the modern implications of these theories.

The annotation in this bibliography consists of two quantitative research articles. One of the articles examines the aspects of social psychology and its effects on group dynamics. The author of the articles identifies Lewine’s change processes. Specifically, Cartwright identifies that change in the workplace could be identified as both positive and negative outcome; therefore, he provides eight principles that support Lewine’s theory.

According to the author, the practical application of group dynamics consists of knowledge about what unites the group, what modifies them, and what consequences they have.

The findings were not supported by the qualitative research. Bonebright (2010) analyses Tuckman’s team dynamics model (forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning) and its effect on groups in the workplace. The author agrees that Tuckman’s team dynamics model is easy to understand and flexible to apply in diverse settings. However, no theory developed from this theory was demonstrated. In overall, these two articles analyse the theories of team dynamics and change and focus on the application of these theories in the modern environment.

Critique of journal articles

The first article discusses Lewine’s theory of group dynamics in terms of group productivity, communication, social perception, intergroup relations, group membership, leadership and improving the functioning of the group. The article provides ideas about the group facilitators and group process that take place during the change process. Content is focused on Lewine’s theory of team dynamics, analyzes the ideas of Lewine, Polansky, Newcomb, Marrow, Festinger, etc. As a result, the author provides eight principles contributing to theory of invention and group dynamics.

Cartwright discusses several components of the processes of group dynamics and change. He admits there are three different ways of making a change, such as medium of change, target of change, and agents of change, depending on the nature and dynamics of the group. Moreover, groups refer to a class of social units that are mutually dependent on the major members. Therefore, the group dynamics depends on the decisions the major members of the group are accepting. Similarly as Lewine, Cartwright believed in empirical research, social science, practical application of the major findings, and interdependence among the group members.

The author agrees that his findings are insufficient in the field of group dynamics. Currently, there are much more theories of group dynamics and change; however, the major ideas provided by the author are still valid. The more up-to-date research could be more valid. The research is based on study of Lewine and social psychology. None of the sources were taken to compare or contrast. Moreover, it was conducted in 1951. Therefore, it could be partially updated and incomplete in the modern realities. The article is well structured.

It focuses on one specific area and provides logical description for the ideas with the support of the arguments and claims. By providing eight principles Cartwright contributes to the main ideas of Lewine and social psychology. The article is limited to one theory only. Since the article was written many years ago, it does not cover issues of the modern life, such as virtual teams, demographic changes, globalization, etc. Moreover, the article is not supported by quantitative research. The key findings of the article are group dynamics is more than a collection of gadgets.

The need for change should not be reviewed as unnecessary fact that could be negatively accepted by the people. Otherwise, people should be educated about the need for change and not restricting their freedom or abilities. Moreover, the change process should also be done in respect with the differences of people (age, race, nationality, etc. ). This will allow eliminating resistance, troubles, malcontent, etc. The author concludes that any change in the organization require scientific understanding of the group in terms of medium of change and target of change.

The aim of the second article was to analyze Tucman’s model of group dynamics and its relevance to the modern theory of Human Resource Development and team dynamics. Content is focused on Tuckman’s theory of team dynamics, analyzes the ideas of Drucker, Ericson, Gersick, Heinen, Parker, Robins, Miller, etc. The author identifies the development of the model over the last 40 years and describes its impact on community of practice, and academic research. Tuckman’s model is well known development theories, which allowed to develop new theories of group dynamics.

This theory is focused on the ways the team is completing the task from the initial stage until its completion. However, team building and resisting the change aspects are very important in this model. Despite of the fact there are more than 250 different models and theories, Tuckman’s model is one of the mostly known for its impact on group development. Tuckman’s theory provides with five steps of successful collaboration among the group members. As a rule, these groups go through the five stages of collaboration in order to achieve a mutual consensus.

Some of the conflicts could bring the groups to the next level. While reviewing the development of the Tuckman’s theory the author provided with the implication of the theory in practice and its impact on the other theories, such as Scholtes. By providing the historical development of the theory, the author demonstrated the impact this theory had on the modern management, human resource development, and group development theories. The article is limited to academic setting and theoretical application of the Tuckman’s theory.

Moreover, the author did not mention the exact areas Tuckman’s theory was applied. The article is well structured. It provides information about the Tuckman’s theory, its background, limitations, and development over 40 years. The author uses diverse examples, which contribute to the understanding of the theory and its development. The entire article is easy to read and comprehend. All ideas and findings are supported by the arguments from external academic sources. However the article does not demonstrate whether Tuckman’s model is applicable in the modern business environment.

No alternative to Tuckman’s model was provided. Conclusion This annotated bibliography examined the development of group dynamics and change theories for the last 40 years. Information provided in the articles greatly contributes to the subject of Group dynamics and change management. The articles of Bonebright (2010) and Cartwrigh (2008) demonstrate the development of the modern group dynamics theories, attitudes towards the change, collaboration, and leadership. Moreover, the influence of these theories on the modern models of group development is also demonstrated.

In many ways, the group dynamics is a long and continuous process in the modern environment. All of the group members should realize the necessity of the change in order to eliminate all unnecessary resistance and unwillingness to accept the change. These two articles also contribute to the comprehension of the understanding of the nature of interdependence of group members, stress management, motivation, and other theories adopted by the modern companies. Tuckman’s idea of linear development of the group demonstrates the fact that a group should enter the next stage only after completion of the previous one.

Lewine, on the other hand, was the follower of the social psychology and his notion of group dynamics was based on the feelings and emotions of the person. In overall, these two articles demonstrated the change of the group dynamics theory through the years. References Bonebright, D. A. (2010). Perspectives 40 years of stroming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111-120. Cartwrigh, D. (2008). Achieving Change in People: Some Applications of Group Dynamics Theory. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 9, 59-65.