The Likert's Theory Of Team Management Style

Analysis;

Tuckman (1965) describes four stages of team development, these being; Forming, Storming, Norming & Performing. The team began to form before I even arrived, as the existing team were aware of my imminent arrival, and most knew me or knew of me. As Tuckman (1965) wrote, team members often display excitement, fear and anxiety, and this was apparent in that some felt that I was a “new broom” brought in to clear out the dead wood, and others were excited at the prospect of change.

McGrath & Bates (2013) suggest that the team leader should provide guidance from the inception of the team, and clearly set out their aims, objectives and expected contributions, whilst listening to their concerns. I had taken the opportunity to analyse the

My typical style according to this theory is consultative, where I will discuss situations with my team members but usually retain the deciding vote, which I find appropriate when dealing with failing parts of the organisation (McGrath & Bates, 2013). When faced with this role, I deployed an exploitive-autocratic management style as I felt the team leaders had too much authority over their senior manager, evidenced by their bullish meeting etiquette and willingness to blame him for the teams failings (McGrath & Bates, 2013). This worked well, in that the negative behaviors ceased, meetings became productive and our team achieved its objectives, however, particularly at meetings, and until this module, I forgot to return to a more inclusive approach and as a result, my team felt stifled at meetings. Following this module, I have returned to a far more consultative approach, team members speak more freely, and meetings are more productive. It is important to vary the style deployed according to the situation, as one style seldom addresses all situations (McGrath & Bates,

Guiliani (2005) described “Compstat”, a balanced scorecard which was pivotal in his transformation of civic services as mayor of New York. Locke’s Goal Setting Theory (Locke, 1968) reiterates the relationship between goals and team performance. Our team was set specific performance metrics in relation to their objectives, giving them a clear and specific goal. Locke (1968) refers to this as “Clarity”, which reduces misunderstanding, and provides focus. The team’s performance was shown as a league table, which contained all of the teams other teams’ performance. Challenge is an important motivating factor in teams; goals should be difficult, but never impossible, as the satisfaction of achieving the goal generates enthusiasm (Locke, 1968). Locke (1968)describes a commitment principle, where teams prefer goals that they are involved in setting. This was difficult to achieve as our goals are set by the Department of Health, however, I could have allowed the team to create some measurable goals that were important to them, as opposed to focusing on those of the organisation. Once the scorecard was defined, meetings were held monthly to review each team’s performance with all teams present. This is described as the “Feedback” principle (Locke, 1968), where teams react to action by their leader and achievement is acknowledged. This fostered