This document provides an overview of team dynamics in project management. It discusses research conducted on news consumption habits, stages of team development using Tuckman's model, personality profiles and how they relate to team roles, sources of conflict and strategies for resolving them, cultural factors that influence team dynamics, and approaches to decision making. The team analyzed survey results showing most people receive news from online and social media sources. They experienced forming, storming, norming, and performing stages. Personality types influenced leadership and communication styles. Conflicts were addressed through discussion and setting clear expectations. Cultural differences impacted tasks like communication and decision making.

1. TEAM DYNAMICS IN PROJECT
MANAGEMENT

2. TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
01
Team Dynamics are invisible forces that operate between different people or groups in a team.
They can have a strong impact on how a team behaves or performs and their effects can be complex.
Table of Contents
 RESEARCH PROJECT
- Objective ………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
- Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………...2
 TEAM DYNAMICS
- Stages of Team Development (using Tuckman’s Model) ………………………...4
- Personality Profiles, Temperament & Learning Experience ………………..…..6
- Conflicts and Resolving Conflicts ……………………………………………….…….…….9
- Cultural Factors …………………………………………………………..…………….….……..11
- Decision Making ………………………………………………………………………..………...13

3. 02
Research Project - Objective
Due to our surrounding political, economic, and environmental factors, accessing news is one of the most important elements of a person’s daily life. Our
group wanted to understand the most significant factors that determine where and through what sources people are receiving their news.
Our Process
• Each team member came up with 5 questions and from this pool, 4 main questions were selected.
• One question was added to see if the participants had access to smart phone and home internet.
• Four scalable questions asking gender, age, education level, and location were added in order to create a path to the analytical data that was collected.
• The survey form was tested to confirm it was functional and that the time spent on the screen was less than 5 minutes.
Research Project – Results
Based on 41 participants, the collected data shows that 48% of people
surveyed, frequently got their news from online sources such as NPR, NY Times,
and CNN. Interestingly enough, 37% received news from social media sites like
Facebook and Twitter.
TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION

4. 03
Research Project – Results (cont.)
As far as large internet only source networks such as BBC, CNN, and
Yahoo; we concluded that 66% participants spent less than 30
minutes per day getting the news from these networks.
We also found an interesting breakdown in that 82% of our
participants received their news from CNN, 75% via New York Times,
and 72% from the Wall Street Journal.
TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION

5. 04
Team Dynamics – Stages of Team Development (Using Tuckman’s Model)
Our Team went through Bruce W. Tuckman’s four stages of development where we were able to recognize different feelings and behavior; understanding WHY things were happening a
certain way helped us a lot in the self-evaluation process.
TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
Stage 1: Forming
- During the Forming Stage, all of us were quite excited and eager to collaborate having high expectations of the entire experience, after writing our names against the topic for the
Research project we wished to work on, in class.
- Somewhere, there was also a certain amount of anxiety, wondering if each one of us would be able to fit in the team and if our performance would measure up.
- In terms of team tasks, the principal work in this stage was to create a team with clear structure, goals, direction and roles which would help us deliver all three projects successfully.
- We focused our energies in establishing team expectations and the process.
Stage 2: Storming
- We had our minor share of disagreements in the Storming stage - about project expectations, roles and responsibilities which we expressed openly.
- We realized that certain tasks/behavior called for the team to refocus on its goals while working on the Leadership Project. We also had to develop conflict management skills which
would help members past any frustration or confusion experienced during this stage of development.
- There were also a few instances, during the Research Project where we became critical of the content in the document and shared our individual POV (point of view) via multiple
email exchanges on the change.

6. 05
Team Dynamics – Stages of Team Development (Using Tuckman’s Model) contd.
TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
Stage 3: Norming
- The Norming stage helped us resolve any discrepancies we felt between the individual expectations and the reality of the team’s experience for our project deliverables.
- We made a conscious effort towards the end of the Leadership project and beginning of the Research Project to resolve problems by openly discussing them during F2F/Hangouts
meetings in order to achieve group harmony.
- We noticed that we were now able to have more frequent and meaningful communication with each other, increased willingness to share ideas and ask teammates for timely help.
- Constructive criticism was both possible and welcomed as every member felt as a part of the team and took pleasure from increased group cohesion.
Stage 4: Performing
- In the final “Performing” stage, we were able to solve or prevent problems with a “can-do” attitude that was visible with gestures such as offering to assist each other for task closure,
pro-actively willing to picking up tasks to timely hit project due date, more communication amongst team members using mediums such as Google chat, iMessaging, emails, phone
calls, etc.
- During the Leadership and Research projects, we were able to identify our individual (and each other’s) strengths/weaknesses.
- We continued to encourage recognition; to appreciate a team member for his/her work through email or during the team meetings.
- Differences were definitely appreciated amongst team members and was used to enhance our team’s performance.

7. 06
Team Dynamics – Personality Profiles, Temperament & Learning Experience
TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
Personality Profiles
We had three guardians and one rational in our team but everyone helped each other and understood personal and professional circumstance of each other. We set up the
expectations, roles and create a communication plan at the very early stage of this course. We also tried to rotate the leadership responsibilities but due to some circumstances we
could not achieve it.
 For the Leadership project, we let the rational to lead the project but an ESTJ guardian had to take over the responsibility.
 For the Research project we had an ISFJ leading the project and everything went as planned.
 For the Team Dynamics project, we had an ESTJ as the lead and once again, everything went as planned.
The goal for every project was to meet its desired objectives meaning finishing them on time within the defined timelines and we achieved them all for every single project, in spite of
minor hiccups along the way. In order to do that, project leads had to investigate more on the inspirations, motivations and human energy of the team members.
 Guardians in our team were cooperative, organized and compliant. They were always on time and well prepared to some degrees.
 The rationale was logical, competent and systematic. He was also skeptical and critical at some time but had a good sense of humor to balance it out.

8. 07
Team Dynamics – Personality Profiles, Temperament & Learning Experience
TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
Temperament
We had three introverted and one extroverted
The only extroverted person helped the team thrive on order and continuity. Her focus involved team organization and tasks. This was quite helpful, but at some point created a
conflicting situation with another member; her tangible expression of responsibility was very valuable to keep the team focused on the timelines for the deliverables. We also practiced
peer pressure and made each other accountable to solve problem and work over conflicts.
We had two feeling and two thinking
This empowered the team to make decision based on logic and feeling at the same time. The creativity of feeling members polished the thinker analytics and data and made the finals
deliverable easier to understand and presentable. Thinkers also help the feelers to avoid moodiness in the project.
We had three sensors and one intuitive
Having three sensors in this team helped us to focus on the real world. This empowers our deliverables to be objective and result oriented. Intuitive team member tended to correct
others directly when the shade of the meaning was off.
We had one perceiving and 3 judging
This helped us to avoid excessive improvising and sticking to the plan. The projects time lines were short and did not give us enough time to follow the perceiver desire to explore
different options and alternative solutions. The perceiver was easy going to the degree that his point of view and principals were not violated.

9. TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
08
Learning Experience
In order to be able to work with guardians on the team, we tried to make each other feel welcome and spent some time to explain each project.
We respected each other and appreciated our efforts in the team. This was more visible from our only extrovert (E) team member who spent time
to appreciate the values of deliverables from each individual in the team.
Guardians were punctual and direct with clear plan, which was not always the case for our rational member. When it comes to dealing with
rational, we understood that he want to be logical and required us to think along with him. Even though we had a democratic way of selecting the
topics, we had challenges to have him on board on time. That created some ambiguity on the first project that rational thought guardians did not
understand his ideas. Moving forward, the guardians put more effort to acknowledge his ideas/thought process and tried to give him some
independencies.
Our rational member was a sharp thinker with problem solving abilities and guardians in this team acknowledged his good points and then asked
him to share his thinking process. We identified that independency is strong need between rational and guardians. This independency connected
ideas, thoughts and facts to form a strategic view and action for our team.
Team Dynamics – Personality Profiles, Temperament & Learning Experience (contd.)

10. TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
09
Conflicts and Resolving Conflicts
Team conflict is caused by factors related to individual behavior as well as disagreements about the team's work. Ours was no exception to it. There were three common causes of
conflict in our team which included:
1. Different Behavioral Style: Team members tend to clash over individual work habits, communication style, level of detail, tone of expression in voice/email. We observed that –
Issue
During the Research Project, two members (ESTJ/INTP) thought that the “Summary” in the document was too elaborate, running an entire page. When this feedback was given via
email, the other two team members (ISFJ/ISFJ) were of the opinion that it needed to make a point and analyze the data, not just a few lines that talked only numbers/statistics.
Resolution
After a few email exchanges, our group used the “Disagree and Commit” method to resolve this situation (given the limited time frame for project submission). In the end, we
realized that the summary did have a detailed level of explanation to the survey results and also included a conclusion.

11. TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
10
Conflicts and Resolving Conflicts (contd.)
2. Failure to Follow Team Norms: If a team member’s attitude or behavior goes against a specific function, that would create a conflict as it would ignore group norm set in the
‘Forming’ stage. We observed that -
Issue
- During the Leadership Project, we observed that a team member would either join meetings 15 - 30 minutes late or not show up. This was a cause of concern for the other team
members as they felt their time was not valued and they were missing out on important and timely feedback needed before project submission.
- Also, when the Project Leader asked every member on the team about things that they would like to change to better the process, a team member felt they were not being heard
and their opinions didn’t matter.
Resolution
- After discussing via Hangouts meeting, it was concluded that every team member would be mindful of the time to join in the call (no later than 10mins after the call has started).
Also, timely communication to the meeting facilitator would be required, in case someone was not able to make it for the call (no later than 1 hour before the call starts).
- Other team members heard the concern and decided that moving forward, each member’s feedback/concerns would be timely heard and required action to better the process
would be taken. That way, each member’s contribution would make him/her motivated thus empowering the entire team for each project delivery.
3. Poor Communication: When a team member does not timely share information relevant to the project, other members may make assumptions about the level of commitment to a
project delivery, which may cause the project to derail. We observed that -
Issue
During the Research Project, a team member who joined the call late, was asked by the Project Leader if the invite was received since it “wasn’t accepted.” Since there was no
communication from that member about their ability to join the call, the other members assumed their absence. The response was that the email invite was not received as that
specific email address was not used on a regular basis.
Resolution
To resolve, the Project Leader asked if there was an alternate email address where the invite and other project related communication could be shared. The team member provided
another email address and from then on, the other members only communicated using this email address. This resolution has positively changed the team member’s communication
with the other members (timely accepting meeting invites, responding to email, giving timely feedback).

12. TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
11
Cultural Factors
Our team consisted of: 2 Male and 2 Female members ; 3 from EAST and 1 from WEST. All 4 members came from diverse professional
backgrounds having strong project management experience.
1. Communicating:
As we had a mix of low context and high context cultures, the team made sure everyone understood their tasks and ideas well by :
a) Conducting hangout sessions twice a week
b) Sending meeting minutes after a every meeting
c) Laying out the tasks/action items for each member
d) Clarification via emails/hangout sessions twice a week
e) A team member repeated often to make sure everyone understood the project and tasks
2. Evaluating:
• Team members from the EAST provided direct feedback during the first two projects.
• However, the direct feedback has started to fade with time and lessons learnt from the project. This may be attributed to the early forming/norming stage behavior as well.
3. Persuading:
Our team consisted of many application thinkers who focused on what practical aspects should be applied to the project. There was one principles’ “first-thinker” who took more time
on the “why” question leading others to believe the task was not worked upon.
4. Deciding:
Most of the decisions were consensual in nature in the Leadership project. We always adopted the Group consensus paradigm in most cases. There was some hierarchical decision
made in the Research project in one scenario due to constraints in time to delivery. We did discuss the decision via emails, however while we did not arrive at a consensus, we agreed
to “Disagree and Commit”.

13. TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
12
Cultural Factors (contd.)
5. Trusting:
We adopted a task based trust to ensure that project is completed successfully. All tasks were outlined well ahead of time. Status meetings were held to discuss the current state of
the tasks.
6. Disagreeing:
Certain members were confrontational at times while some avoided confrontation depending on the scenario. The disagreements were totally project-specific and brought the best
ideas for the project. However, we all adopted the “Disagree and Commit” approach and this kept the projects moving forward, without much hiccups.
7. Scheduling:
Most of the team members followed the linear time culture informing others about delays in attending the meeting or if they are unable to do so. One team member with a flexible
time mindset caused some confusion in the Leadership project. However, things have improved since the Research project.

14. TEAM DYNAMICS PRESENTATION
13
Decision Making
While there are a wide variety of decision-making techniques and tools, many tend to revolve around the same key principles of figuring out the
decision that needs to be made, considering and researching the options and reviewing the decision once it's been made. For our team, we adopted
a ‘Consensus and Democratic’ decision-making process where in:
• Each project had a Project Lead. However, there was an instance during the Leadership project where another member had to step-in to manage
the Project.
• Each idea was discussed across the team; we consulted each idea with other and then arrived at the decision.
• Once the decision was reached, we also adopted the Disagree and Commit contract -
- We all explained the rationale in our project.
- We worked together to complete the project
- We conducted inspections to see what went wrong and noted this for the next project.
Key Highlights of decision-making strategies adopted for each project :
• We used the ‘Fist of Five’ decision-making method in choosing a leader (in this case, Oprah Winfrey) for our Leadership project.
• For the Research Project, we took the approach where each team member came up with 5 questions for the survey. From this pool, 4 main
questions were selected over a Hangouts meeting and used for creating the survey questionnaire.
• For our last project Team Dynamics, we used ‘collaborative decision-making’ approach where each individual was given a chance to share their
ideas/thoughts while other team members were encouraged to provide constructive feedback to shape the final outcome of the project. Everyone
was empowered to provide their inputs to ensure success.