W1_TOM_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

1. Problem Recognition, Definition and Evaluation

Simatupang AACE 2004 Team has completed the face to face class on Friday, 30-Aug-2013. It was very interactive class, successful in minimize conflict, demonstrated respect each other, very good team work and everybody done his individual assignment properly.

But now it’s time to face the real assignment which we have implemented what we obtained from the class and has to collaborate in long distance which is not an easy thing to do.

Dr. PDG understood this situation and he was giving the Team an interesting topic to work on which is Tuckman Analysis Assignment, as it has relevancy to help us learn how best to manage our team as well as providing the entire team an idea of who might be having problems with the blog postings.

As advised by Dr. PDG I have visited the following website:


This is a survey regarding Team development consist of 32 questions with main objective to asses: What Stage is your team in?

Following is the result we had from 11 Team members and has been analyzed by using PERT Formula (Calculation) by one of our team member with initial HWB (this Tool & Technique is adopted from Dr. PDG Day 2 Slide page 63-64):

The result is that we are in the Performing Stage.

2. Development of the Feasible Alternatives

Dr Bruce Tuckman published his Forming Storming Norming Performing model in 1965. He added a fifth stage, Adjourning, in the 1970s. The Forming Storming Norming Performing theory is an elegant and helpful explanation of team development and behaviour (US spelling: behavior).

Figure 1 – Tuckman’s Team Development Model

(source: http://salvos.org.au/scribe/sites/2020/files/Resources/Transitions/HANDOUT_-_Tuckmans_Team_Development_Model.pdf)

What kind of leadership style appropriate of each the phases? Here is one of leadership theory to match up with:

Figure 2 – Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership® model

(source: http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm)

3. Development of The Outcomes for Each Alternative

Hersey and Blanchard characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Task Behavior and Relationship Behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behavior types, which they named S1 to S4:

  • S1: Telling – is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, why, when and where to do the task;
  • S2: Selling – while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socio-emotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process;
  • S3: Participating – this is how shared decision-making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviours while maintaining high relationship behavior;
  • S4: Delegating – the leader is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.

Of these, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_leadership_theory

4. Selection of a Criterion

As the result from Don Clark’s survey tool and PERT calculation method for Simatupang AACE 2014 Group shows that this Team of 11 members are on performing stage and Leadership Model for effective team growth in performing stage is Delegating.

Not only proven from the PERT calculation that Simatupang AACE 2014 Group is in the Performing Stage but proven from the behaviors of performing stage which are work collaboratively, care to each other, establish unique identity, and interdependent. And we are in the delegating style of leadership since we have proven that everybody has been performed individual task and the group managed to submit the Project Plan on due course to the client with all the required document is attached.

5. Analysis and Comparison of The Alternatives

Member of the Group are from Energy Sectors which dominated by Oil and Gas professional either from the Regulator or the Operators, the monitory member of the group are coming from Mining and Power (PLN) while for educational background are dominated by engineers and minority member are holding accounting degree.

Member of this group are people who day to day is dealing with cost management, risk management, project management, and Economic. In motivation we have people who driven by passion either for people who self-pay and company-pay.

Those background are what made Simatupang AACE 2014 are heading to Performing Stage and motivation from our Mentor Dr. PDG was really work that not only we have wanted to be World Class Professional but we wanted to implement to real life and works (ROTI) and prove that in Indonesia there are lot of smart people with commitment to deliver project into the highest level.

However there are some alternatives that can be implemented that people from difference background are doing task which are new for them, for example the engineers background are to be assigned performing finance & accounting task and methodology which for sure will become a challenge.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Delegating is the preferred alternative for this group since everyone is highly committed individual, responsible and excellent team player which makes problem is transforming smoothly to become solutions.


7. Performance Monitoring and Post Evaluation of Results

Consistency and continuously to be in the Performing Stage and Delegating Leadership model shall be maintained to achieve the goals and objective of this course therefore the Program Manager supported by Weekly Program/Reporting Manager shall assess the Group and Individual performance and immediately taking necessary actions to change problems to become solutions.


  1. Clark, D. (2002). Survey: What Stage is Your Team in?. Retrieved from http://www.cscaweb.org/EMS/sector_team/support_files/tools_for_the_team/tool_stage.pdf

  2. Tuckman, B. (1965). Tuckman forming storming norming performing model.

    Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm

  3. Tuckman, B. (1965). Tuckman’s Team Development Model.

    Retrieved from http://salvos.org.au/scribe/sites/2020/files/Resources/Transitions/HANDOUT_-_Tuckmans_Team_Development_Model.pdf

  4. Hersey, P. (1977). Situational leadership theory. Leadership Styles.
    Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_leadership_theory



Filed under Tommy Edward, Week 01

5 responses to “W1_TOM_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

  1. EXCELLENT job, Tommy!!! Good morning from Shanghai!!!

    You followed our step by step model very well and your citations were spot on!!! Doesn’t get much better than this…..

    Time will tell if your assessment of the data was or was not correct…… We probably will do this again in another 4-6 weeks and see if your original assessment was or was not correct, but what you did and how you did it was just great.

    Keep up the good work and looking forward to seeing more postings like this……

    BR, Dr. PDG, Shanghai, China

  2. Pingback: W1_GW_Tuckman Analysis Assignment | Kristal AACE 2014

  3. Pingback: TEST | Gideon's Blog

  4. Pingback: W1_GW_Tuckman Analysis Assignment | Gideon's Blog

  5. Pingback: W1_AJ_Leadership Styles | GARUDA AACE 2015

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s