The Division concept Part I – Introduction and Tuckman’s model

In 2009, everyone agrees that teams are the way to go in management. Everyone has strengths that put together are better than just the sum of them. That synergistic event is what most people seek when they create teams. This is why companies create cross functional teams. In this post however, I’m mainly thinking about reinforcing the structure of unifunctional teams through the idea of Divisions. These divisions would be comprised of people with more or less the same skill set and the same official position. The only large difference between the members would be their personalities.

Before going into the details of the concept, let’s just look at Tuckman’s old model for team development, with the four phases, and how it would apply to a division.

• The Forming Phase: The team is created. Normally, members get to meet each other, learn about themselves and their objectives. This is a period of awkwardness where a certain form of “polite” groupthink emerges. Basically, everyone tries to be polite with one another and doesn’t disagree with anyone. Idea rarely emerge at this stage. With a division, this stage would be short. If you create it within an existing structure, the members will already know each other and their objectives. As we’ll see later, these objectives will be the same the members had individually before the creation of the divisions.
• The Storming Phase: The created team starts to generate ideas. Members start to find out how to work together. The ideas that arise create conflict but there isn’t enough synergy in the team to quickly resolve them. This is the phase where the most problems arise. Within a division, this phase will be longer and more dangerous. Members are used to working as individuals and having their actions only impacting themselves. Some will work more, some will work less. Those working more will enter in conflict with those working less. A lot of mistakes will also be made at this point and demoralization might seep in. This might seem like a bad idea but this phase is important. These hard times are what will create the bonding necessary to create a performing division. Members will learn the strengths and weaknesses of others. Yes, they did know each other before but because the work was mainly individual they will still find out quite a bit about the others during the storming phase.
• The Norming Phase: The team emerges from the storming phase. Objectives are understood and a team structure starts to appear. The team members start to work together effectively. It is during that phase that the real groupthink might begin to rise its ugly head. As they get to see the team as a unique entity, members start to think alike. This might stifle creativity and should be avoided. Our division has survived storming and is now in a good position. At this point the benefits will make themselves obvious. The work will get done more efficiently and the members will be more engaged. Also, during this phase, a leader should organically emerge in each division. This should be encouraged. By this I mean that a formal division leader should not be named in the beginning. By having the leaders evolving from the situation, you will get the most adapted person for the job. Formally naming a leader at this phase might be possible but even then I do not think it is a good idea since, as said in earlier posts, leaders are situation dependent. Let the division evolve as naturally as possible.
• The Performing Phase: Tuckman says that not all teams reach this phase. Indeed the norming phase is usually enough to meet most objectives. In the long term however, a performing team is a truly impressive tool. All team members understand their roles and the objectives of the team. They all know what they have to to do and how to do it. The division IS a long term team but getting to the performing phase might be harder since the goals themselves change continuously through time. They are not created for a single clear project but with the idea of making their department work. A performing division will be able to anticipate problems and as with a regular team, the division’s supervisor’s job will be that of a mentor. The division will be mostly autonomous and will perform with far greater ability than the sum of its members. The danger here is to have disengagement. The division should be constantly challenged and its successes must be met with salient rewards.

With this overview, I’ll post next on how to bring together the division’s group idea with the individuality of its members.