Building Teams

Hello and welcome to my blog—PMGT 611- Anatomy of Project Organizations. As part of my Master’s coursework at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, I am tasked to analysis different project management lessons and/or scenarios. Each time I learn valuable lessons while gaining a little insight into myself.

This leads us into this week’s discussion topic: Building Teams.  Being a military veteran, I have had the pleasure of working on many projects with diverse people. Some teams were effective, some ineffective. However, the underlining theme of the military teams was order, discipline, and rank structure. Though informal leaders were common, the formal leadership position was always established. It was not until I retired and worked with a team of volunteers on a project did I have a reality check.   You cannot just order volunteers to do something! Here is an example of when I participated in a charter school Parent Advisory Council (PAC) project.

As a retired military, graduate student I spent some of my new found freedom as a volunteer at a local charter school. The school is only in its third year of operation and is still dealing with some growing pains. The PAC was a parent group charged with advising the “CEO/Principal on matters related to parent involvement, fundraising, and other matters of interest” (Levinson, 2012). Though open to all parents, there was only a baseline of eight regulars. These eight formed the first council and truly tried to do great things for the school. However, the principal was having trouble with the direction PAC was headed and the formation of cliques. These cliques alienated other parent volunteers. I can only assume that the reason a volunteer organization would alienate others was ego. The PAC felt as if the school was theirs and nobody else impedes on their turf (honestly, I couldn’t make this up!). 

Background

I volunteered many hours as recess monitor, lunch room monitor, car rider attendant, and various other roles. Though I was a volunteer, I was not “accepted” into the PAC inner circle. I did not personally know these people and they frequently would meet at each other’s’ homes instead of the school. I was fine with the situation as I did not like the drama the PAC seemed to enjoy. The school became a place for the PAC parents to have a social club instead of actual projects to help. The only activities the PAC engaged in were teacher appreciation luncheons and Pizza Fridays, a fundraising initiative.

Principal Request

Within two months of the school year, the PAC president was asked (forced!) to resign due to position abuses (use of parental emails for personal issues as well as other actions). There was to be an election for a new president which was advertised amongst the parent community. Though not as heated as the current US Presidential situation, it was close! The day of the election meeting, I was asked by the principal to meet prior to the meeting. During this meeting, the principal informed of the PAC issues, how the school board of directors was very unhappy, and that of changes were not made, the PAC would be resolved. The principal, knowing my background and experience, asked if I would undertake restructuring the PAC. The project called for review of the current procedures, rewriting policies, and guiding the PAC to become an effective team.  Thinking I could do some good, I agreed. At the election meeting, the principal announced that there was going to be no election. Instead, the principal solicited parents to join my project team in restructuring the PAC.

Five-Stage Team Development Model

The model that best idealizes the project team would be the Five-Stage Development Model. This model “identifies five stages through which groups develop into effective teams” (Larson & Gray, 2014 pg. 377). Stage 1, Forming, the “members get acquainted with each other and understand the scope of the project” (Larson & Gray, 2014 pg. 377). This stage was started when I scheduled a meeting to discuss the mission, goals, and objectives. Certainly, the previous PAC participates (the clique) were not happy about the situation. They saw me as a threat to their power and position within the school. Right from the start, the team experienced negative synergy. After introductions and before meeting agenda items were discussed, the team went right to Stage 2, Storming. “This stage is marked by a high degree of internal conflict” (Larson & Gray, 2014 pg. 378). The main source of the conflict was the positional power and group control. The original PAC felt they were still in charge. They did not agree with how decisions were to be addressed, as they felt being original council members, they had final say. Egos were definitely getting in the way of progressing into the next stage. This initial meeting was adjourned after two hours of ineffective discussions. I was in shock over the whole situation. I wanted to make a positive impact on students and teachers. To help establish future projects to enhance playground equipment, create a student library, and develop tutor courses. Instead, I was met with a barrage of arguments over the title of “president” and why the original PAC should be in control.

Project Team—Take 2!

Obviously, a different approach had to be taken to garner any kind of productivity from this group. Sharpening my political skills, I engaged in recruitment through networking. By directly soliciting volunteers and discussing how they can contribute, I was able to build a coalition that supported the change process. Parents felt like outsiders with the previous PAC. Now, they had a chance to participate and not be isolated (this was the general consensus among the parents I spoke with). At the second scheduled meeting, we had a good turnout of enthusiastic volunteers. As before, the original members went straight to storming again. However, this time, they were outnumbered and peer pressure ensured behavior accountability. Some of the original PAC walked out. Others just sat quietly, choosing not to engage in discussions. Though this meeting was better, it was still not an effective team.

Building of an Effective Team

“Team building and development is the process of forming, growing, and improving the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of those people who serve on teams as well as those who provide support to teams” (Cleland, 1997). At our next meeting, the mood of the team members improved. We became focused on the mission of helping students and teachers. The team developed objectives together and became excited at getting started on some projects. The team accomplished Stage 1, Forming, Stage 2, Storming, and began to enter Stage 3, Norming. In Stage 3, Norming, “the team members begin to work together and adjust their work habits and behaviors to support the team” (Project Management Institute, 2013 pg. 276). The team was together for four months (Jan-Mar) of the school year. With limited time, the team was only able to accomplish most of the PAC restructuring project. The team developed six committees to divide up and monitor project processes. Financial guidelines were also put in place to help manage and track PAC funds. The team was reaching for Stage 4, Performing, however the school year ended before we could complete the PAC transformation. In Stage 4, Performing, the “team operating structure is fully functional and accepted” (Larson & Gray, 2014 pg. 378). At the end of the school year, the team entered Stage 5, Adjourning.

In Stage 5, Adjourning, “the team completes the work and moves on from the project” (Project Management Institute, 2013 pg. 276). The team put created a documentation control system to file all project proposals, lessons learned., financial forms, and the new PAC structure. The newly formed PAC wanted to ensure that the next school year started off productive.

Team Meetings—Productive or Not?

At the first PAC restructure project meeting, things do not go well. Though there was an agenda prepared, no topics were discussed. The team was too busy arguing over titles and roles. After two hours of negative discussions, the meeting was adjourned. After which a couple of the members discussed how to improve the situation. As mentioned earlier, a coalition was formed to bring in positive, caring parents to help. This helped weed out the negative naysayers. The second meeting was effective in that we started making positive progress on focusing on the PAC and changes needed.  To have a productive meeting, there are some tips and guidelines (Cleland, 1997):

- Establishing the purpose of the meeting. Prepare an agenda and use it! Provide time limits, as well as a preliminary definition of the expected output of the meeting.
- Managing the meeting. Keep to the agenda and avoid diversionary discussions. Summarize progress, or lack of progress, during the meeting. Encourage all attendees to participate, to include taking adversial positions as appropriate to help ensure that all issues are thoroughly discussed and evaluated.
- Summarizing the results, or lack of results, at the end of the meeting. Identify those persons who have been assigned the responsibility to follow up on agenda items and discuss those items at the next meeting. Provide meeting attendees with a brief summary of the meeting minutes, including follow-up responsibilities. (Cleland, 1997)

The next meetings, following this guideline, produced positive results. Changes were being proposed and group decisions were made. This is the area the project manager (this was my position) could have done better to increase team effectiveness.

Increasing Team Effectiveness

As a former military leader, I was well versed in proper meeting preparations and documentation (agenda, meeting minutes, etc.). Since I did this for over 20+ years, it was in my nature to continue and run this project team as a military team. That was one of my mistakes. These volunteers were not interested in paperwork or formal guidelines. I had to adjust my leadership style to compensate. Instead of preparing and briefing tasks, I asked the group for input first. I also stated some of the paperwork was mandatory (meeting minutes, financial data, etc.) and that if they did not understand I would personally help them complete. This less aggressive and informal attitude helped the team come together. They had ownership by proposing and voting on projects.

The Result—Positive or Negative?

With only four months of the school year left, the team was able to accomplish most objectives. In the short time span, processes, policies, and procedures were put in place. The committees were formed and monitored. By the end, the team increased parent participation by 120%! The team also completed some fundraising projects earning $13,000 for the school. That was simply amazing! I was grateful for the opportunity to help and share my experience. “The most successful projects are almost always characterized as having had a well-considered plan, developed by an outstanding and committed team” (Thomas, 2008).

Damien

References

Cleland, D. I. (1997). Team building: The new strategic weapon. PM Network,

Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2014). Project management: The managerial process (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Levinson, D. (2012). Anderson creek club charter school: Charter school application. Unpublished manuscript.

Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.

Thomas, M. (2008). Developing an effective project: Planning and team building combined. Project Management Journal,