West Coast Transit Case Study: Three Criteria for Evaluating Effective Team/Group Work

West Coast Transit Case Study
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
West Coast Transit Case Study
Three Criteria for Evaluating Effective Team/Group Work
Team viability, member satisfaction, and task performance are criteria for assessing efficient team or group work (Ivancevich et al., 2014). Team viability estimates how better a group perceives it could perform in upcoming assignments and whether it will feel comfortable working with similar members. Member satisfaction proves the team's effectiveness, whereby the members are contented with the degree to which a specific assignment was performed, including the team member's contributions. Lastly, task performance assesses a group regarding its work quantity and quality, including its results timelines. Bernie Hollis and Pete Denson serve within the Marketing department as workers, whereby Hollis is the Vice President and his counterpart is a manager. The team assemblage is hardly compelling. Employees within the department have received an enormous workload to complete within a short timeframe, which is undoubtedly against the task performance condition. Moreover, the group members conflicted on task management and implementation—this affected members' gratification. Denson angered Katarina Tanney, making the latter claim she was not ready to work with Denson again ("West Coast Transit Case Study," 2021). The situation opposes the team viability criterion due to the inability to work together in the future.
Group Formation Stages Review
The group formation stages are evident in the case study. Firstly, there is a forming stage. This is where individual members come together and join to become a team, each contributing uniquely to the team and delivering value by completing assignments. Secondly, there is a storming stage. This is characterized by interpersonal conflicts and the organizing of tasks. Specifically, we can observe Tanney and Denson having disputes that, in turn, result in their disagreements and failure to work collaboratively. Thirdly, there is the norming stage. It is where an agreement results around whoever the leader(s) is and members' duties. There is resolving of existing interpersonal differences. Concerning the case, the conflict between Denson and Tanney is solved, creating a favorable atmosphere to work together. Fourthly, there is a performing stage. After conflict solving and integration of other members, working together becomes less complicated. Finally, if a group is not permanent, the adjourning stage follows, whereby the group is disbanded (Ivancevich et al., 2014). Project completion led to the team's disintegration, including the roles.
Schein's Three Behavioral Profiles Application
The case study's team reflects Edgar Schein's behavioral profile roles. Firstly, there is a friendly helper role. The behavioral profile defines an individual that is always ready to help other group members in any circumstance (Coghlan, 2021). Jon Mahoney demonstrates this role. For instance, when Denson and Tanney are involved in a disagreement, Mahoney peacefully intervenes and acts as a arbitrate to address the conflict. Secondly, there is an objective thinker role. The behavioral profile denotes the actions of a person intere...