OBHR GROUP PROJECT PAPER

Shepherds - OBHR 3310.007 16S

Development and Progress of the Shepherds Group: Evolution as a Team

Xin Gao - Marketing

Mark Grace - Supply Chain management

Sunho Kang - Finance

Hyeon Kim - Business Administration & Biology

Sinai Ramirez - Business Administration

Sonia Saldana - Accounting

Thomas Vollmar - Finance

 Introduction

In this essay we will depict the evolution of our team from beginning to end through the

five stages of group development. The forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning

stages will provide the framework of our essay as we move along in a time oriented explanation.

In each of these stages we will use Kendall Life Languages Profile, sociometric analysis, and

multiple diagnoses of team effectiveness as tools to gauge and explain our experience within

each of the five stages aforementioned. Our team is comprised of seven members each with their

own life language. Mark and Sinai comprise our responders, they provide the compassion the

group needs. Xin is an influencer and she is very relationship oriented. These three fall within the

emotive category; those who follow their hearts before anything else. Thomas is a mover and

direct with what is on his mind. He falls within the kinetic category; those who are action

oriented. Sunho and Sonia are shapers who are organized and strategic. Hyeon is a producer who

is philanthropic and thoughtful. These three fall within the cognitive category; those who think

with their head rather than their heart. In understanding these differences in life languages, our

team will be able to recognize where certain members will excel or struggle and how they can

effectively communicate with one another. Through sociometric analysis, we will be able to

understand what degree of cohesion the group lies within. By diagnosing team effectiveness, we

will be able to see a gradual evolution of the team’s satisfaction with multiple scales. These

scales measure our satisfaction level in six different categories, those being: work goals,

involvement and commitment, division of duties and responsibilities, trust, problem solving, and

discussing problems. By textbook definition, a team is a cohesive coalition of people working

together to achieve mutual goal. Our team objective is laid out in our SMART goal. A SMART
1
goal is an acronym for specific, measurable, actionable, responsible or realistic, and time bound.

Our SMART goal is to successfully incorporate 100% of the group members in order to finish

this essay two days before its due date. In applying these tools provided to us, we will be able to

efficiently depict our group from formation to adjournment.

Forming

Our group first met informally on January 20th, 2016 in the rotunda. This was when the

group came together for the first time. Through 3 different topics given from Dr. Ford that was

presenting who we are, all seven of us roughly talked to each other. What brought us together

was when we picked: dog for animal, the color blue, where we fell within siblings ranking in our

families, for all of us we were in the middle. All of us were in same group at least 3 times and

all of us were in ‘Dog’ group where we easily approached each other rather than any other

classmates. A ‘Dog’ is represented normally by loyalty, kindness, and is easy to approach. This

common knowledge looks like it reflected on all of our group members, this is a big reason our

group members got together. The reason our group name has been decided to be “The Shepherd”

was also because of this fact. During the short time spent in choosing our group name, all of us

also showed ‘Dog’ characteristics. Most of us did not speak up what we would like to name of

the team to be nor disagreed on other group members’ opinions. During this gathering, we wrote

down our name and contact information on a sheet of paper so that one of group member could

create a group text to communicate easily. Our group communicated via UTD e-mail for the first

time on January 22nd, 2016.

On January 25th, after class, we had an informal group meeting to discuss the official

meeting time. Since everyone was a full-time student and some of us had part-time jobs, it was

2
extremely difficult. We ended up having our group meetings before our scheduled weekly class

meeting. We agreed on and adopted the use of Group Meet application on our phones on January

25th, 2016. At this point we were just a group, having discussions on early stages of forming a

team. Our meeting presentations were awkward.

At this stage our group did not have the KLLP tool or the sociometric data. Our

classifications of life languages were unknown to one another. Our only relatable qualities were

the choices we made in the rotunda on January 20th, 2016. During this early stage we were

unaware of who would be a leader or major influence on guiding our group in a united direction.

At this point the group was unsure of the assignment, and were bound solely by the fact we had

formed a loose group that would be assigned a team project. Our team was so young at this stage

that the rating for a Diagnosis of team effectiveness would have been on the lowest level of

satisfaction of performance. Our group rating was between 1-10 on the task effectiveness scale.

Storming

Once the Forming stage was accomplished, the next step to follow was the Storming

stage. According to the textbook this stage is where members of the group already feel well

integrated into their group and can start showing their real personality. However, the conflict

may arise at this early stage because some members may feel attacked or indifferent to the other

members’ ideas, and for many groups, this is the hardest stage to overcome. Though, group

members can follow a few guidelines to avoid getting stuck at this stage, such as staying

positive, listening and supporting all members, they should avoid rushing through the

development process (Bauer). At this phase, each group member would need to focus less on

keeping their guard up and allow their social facades to fade to allow each member to contribute

3
more. As the group becomes more authentic and casual, a safe amount of conflict could arise.

This phase of the group was critical because it began to establish the role that each group

member would play throughout the lifespan of the group. It would indicate how the group would

perform. In this phase the group was able to see how each member would perform in

accomplishing our task.

Professor Ford handed out the Group Temperature quiz #1 to all of the groups in our class.

The Group Temperature quiz asked four questions. The Quiz asked how each person felt about

our individual class groups at that time. It inquired about what events occurred in developing

our groups that had surprised us the most about our group, what new insights about our own

social interaction styles had we gained, and what concerns we had about our group. We then had

to answer fifteen questions based on a rating between 1 - strongly disagree and 5 - strongly

agree. This indicated a rating for the attitudes each member had toward the group. We had our

first group temperature quiz February 3rd, 2016 and we collectively had a rating of 3 as a group

temperature. This indicated our group was neutral on our experience regarding our team

development. We felt this indicated that we were still in a very early stage of team development

based on the group temperature. Our team members started to reveal their individual

characteristics. We found out that we have common worries about our future such as careers and

raising a family.

We were given an assignment from the professor to talk in front of the class about where

we were in our group and if we had any issues that may have surfaced through using the handout

called “Group Discussion Issues during Early Stages.” As a team, we met in class and discussed

the questions that were given. Then, we presented our responses to the class as part of our first

group report. We realized that we all had different personalities when some of us were rather
4
quiet in discussing the topic given and others spoke up quickly and were more social. We all had

different backgrounds and there was some age differences. We agreed that this enabled us to

bring different experiences to the team and a variety of pinions. The most difficult thing we

could agree on at that point was establishing a proper meeting time. Most of us had schedules

that conflicted with the other team members’ schedules. As a group we then set expectations to

respect each member’s opinion and that each member would pull their own weight to accomplish

the project. Each of us had a responsibility to the group to accomplish what was expected of us.

The team was concerned about the group project because we had not been given the specific

directions for completing the assignment yet. Our concern about the course was whether or not

we were studying the right material at that time and would we be prepared for the course exams.

Another thing we discussed was how we could all have more fun and make this group

assignment more creative.

After a few group meetings in the classroom, we had our actual first meeting on February

8th, 2016; it was before the preliminary group progress report was due. During this meeting we

answered the first questionnaire Professor Ford provided to us to get to know each other. Our

major discussion was about the KLLP Personal Insights. We found that Xin is influencer and as

influencers do, Xin had a great attitude towards maintaining all the group members to work

together and get to know each other better besides just knowing each other from the classroom.

Mark is a responder, and at this stage he always listened to everyone and let us know what each

member had to do. Sinai is also a responder; she always reacted with harmony .Thomas is a

mover; he always gave helpful ideas to start and continued the project. Sonia and Sunho are

shapers; they were always focus and enthusiastic for a successful end of the project. Hyeon Kim

5
as a producer, he made everyone feel welcome in the group. Along with our different

characteristics, we agreed that all will be organized and focused on completing the project.

On February 24th, we had another in class meeting where we discussed our

SMART goal. Through several inputs, our SMART goal is to incorporate one hundred percent of

the group in order to finish the assignment two days before the due date. Also, we planned to

succeed this goal by having a rubric to which we can referred to, meet continuously, give ideas

to each other, write on our sections assigned, proof read the paper and meet as finally agreement

for the project. After feeling comfortable in the group and completing our first informal

presentation, class assignments, and having a group goal, we were ready to move into the next

stage.

Norming

At the Norming stage, group members traditionally feel relief as members of a group

establish their own expectations (or norms) and define operating procedures and goals. At this

point members are more committed to the project. It is normal for members to be “energized”

and ready to get to work (Bauer). This point is characterized by the forming of friendships,

expectations of others, and correct behavior.

The chronological order of events during this period consists of receiving the instructions

on March 7th, 2016 on the paper for the usage of Sociometric, and diagnosis of team

effectiveness techniques. This gave the group its first measuring tool we used to accurately

gauge both sociological hierarchy of the group, but also allowed us to see real numbers as to the

level of effectiveness we are collectively experiencing at this point of the project. On March

23rd, 2016 in the group meeting before class, we gathered the ratings for effectiveness and social

6
mapping. We also decided as a group, the initial outline of the group paper. In our meeting of

April 4th, 2016, we decided to assign two members to each of the four stages left to write an

outline and a rough draft.

Our findings from the Sociometric analysis indicated the structure of the group from the

results of analyzing the two roles of Task leader and Lunch partner. The conceptual framework

of the Sociometric relationship rating was taken in respect to how the function of the relationship

affects the task accomplishment as “task Leader”, and how the function of the relationship

affects group maintenance as “lunch partner. After choosing the member we would most likely

choose as a group leader, and whom we would most likely choose as a lunch partner, we then

determined the reciprocal relationships and group cohesion index for both relationships.

On our cohesion rating as a team on the group leader relationship, the results indicated

we were at 56% cohesion on our consensus. As we plotted the reciprocal relationship results, we

decided that our two dimensions would be gender based using male and female genders, and the

dimension of ethnicity based on eastern and western hemispheres. The relationship chart of the

task leader showed us a strong reliance as a group on the relationships of three members we

believed were the best choice for leading the task of this project. The life languages of these

three are diverse and include a responder, an influencer and a mover. This shows a well-balanced

realm of qualities for the leading “staff” of our team. Our leadership has compassion, strong will,

and urgency as qualities. This gave us the other half of our team; we labeled as followers. The

follower’s languages indicated this segment of our group consists of two shapers, a responder,

and producer. We believe our shapers would organize, and the producer being a help to others on

the team. We felt this indicated the support segment of the team for the directions of the team

leaders.
7
 Our cohesion as a team on the “lunch partner” results indicated the team is of a 67%

consensus on cohesion in deciding a lunch partner. The relationship chart depicted the person we

would most likely decide to have lunch with indicated a very close relationship between three

members as they all were very close to the center of the chart. The same two dimensions were

used in plotting the relationship of the lunch partner as was used in the Task leader chart. The

three life languages to the highest valued lunch partners were responder, influencer, and shaper

respectively. The responders compassion for helping combined with the influencers drive to be

relationship oriented makes them key “lunch partner” choices. A second most preferred group

was a producer and a shaper. The producer shows a philanthropic and thoughtful characteristic

for others, while the shaper is strategic and organized. A third group based on choice were a

responder and a shaper. We felt the results indicated a degree of easily accepted behaviors of the

higher rated members make the relationship with the highest ranked members more desirable on

a social level.

Our group conducted the Diagnoses of team effectiveness at this point for the first time.

We collected the ratings from each member on March 28th, 2016 (see attachment in appendix –

DOE). We were asked to rate effectiveness on work goals. Our results were an average of 4.21.

This indicated we all share the opinion that we are closer to everyone in the group being clear on

our goal. We all share the same amount of responsibility, and we collectedly care out our teams’

effectiveness. We rated our involvement and commitment. The average rating was 3.71. This

indicated we are barely on the positive side of the consensus that all members are committed to a

job “well done” where each member does their best. We felt there was a degree in lack of

confidence on this rating of our team. We then rated our division of duties and responsibilities.

We rated this aspect as an average of 3.28, and this is also barely on the positive side of the
8
agreement that there is an accepted division of duties, responsibilities and work. Flexibility is at

a hallway point on the scale of team effectiveness. Trust was averaged at 4.6. We feel this

indicated a general sense of the belief we can count on each other, and we consider this a good

sign at this point. Next we rated problem solving. Our average was 4.28. This indicated our

feeling of the handling of problems, i.e. the assignment, was being handled in a diplomatic, and

sincere manner with an over feeling of we are taking care of issues within the team as they arise.

Finally, the diagnosis of team effectiveness tool asked us to rate “discussing problems”. Our

rating is 4. We felt this indicated we were just beginning to “sharpen” our team skills and are

getting down to work. We felt this would improve as the project progresses from this point. Our

overall rating of the effectiveness is 4.1. On the graph we are, as a team, to the left of the peak of

the curve. This puts our team at a level between a low level of performance satisfaction, and an

acceptable level of satisfaction. We felt this overall satisfaction will increase as the project enters

the next phase of performing.

At this point we were provided with the SYMLOG results of the group temperature #3

taken in class, and was supplied to the group on April 4th, 2016. The results of the average

values our team rated for our current state (CTM) showed we all felt that we show equality,

democratic participation in decisions, social idealism, and collaboration. We believed this was

close to the (DOE) diagnosis of effectiveness tool we used and evaluated in our group. It

indicates on the SYMLOG graph a very close relationship to the halfway points we graphed on

the DOE. The future expectation ratings of the SYMLOG indicate a higher rating, and mirrors

with our belief our effectiveness will improve as the project progresses.

Our Smart goal is: To incorporate 100% of group to finish the group project 2 days before

the Due date. Our Smart Plan included using the project rubric, meet, form ideas as a group, have
9
individuals write paragraphs and stages, collectively combine as group, and edit. The perfect

work environment we collectively agreed on was to be smart, humble, cohesive, energetic and

funny. We have met several times as a group, developed an outline and section format, assigned

and accepted volunteers to write stages of our project, and have begun compiling the paper. Our

group's progress at this point in regards to our SMART goal is a 40% level of completion our

goal statement. The group's plan is logical, and our ability to be polite is generally accepted at

this stage. Cohesiveness and effectiveness data indicates we are at 50% rating, and as we

consider the progress we have made as a group at this point. We feel this is accurate. Our energy

is building from last stage, but as a SMART goal we need to improve, and add the “humor”

aspect of our goal as well. At this stage we are meeting each day before class to discuss progress,

edit and approve contributions, form a collective consensus on the paper, relate goals, develop

strategies for exams and address group issues.

Performing

Galvanized by a sense of shared vision and a feeling of unity our group was ready to go

into high gear. Members were more interdependent, their individuality was respected, and group

members felt that they were part of a greater entity. According to our textbook, in the performing

stage, participants are not only getting the work done, but they are also paying greater attention

to how they are doing it. At this point the group has matured, becoming more competent,

autonomous, and insightful. Group leaders would move into coaching roles and help members

grow in their skills and leadership qualities (Bauer).

The Norming stage assisted greatly with this stage of the team's development. Through

different assessments and knowledge about each other’s behavior, we were able to find the

correct resolutions to our problems. Through the different assessments and instructions provided
10
by Dr. Ford team members were able to understand each other in greater depth and were able to

get the project moving forward. We had specific instructions and a plan. Our team members had

different personal characteristics and ethnic diversity, which could be a beneficial factor, while

being an obstacle. Some of us were leaders, and some were followers. Beginning of this stage,

we had multiple obstacles concerning time and place of meetings. To complete the project by the

deadline, it was crucial for us to perform quickly. While searching for a right solution to our

problem, our team was able to observe the dedication and compassion our group members had.

As a solution, we decided to have a group meeting every Monday and Wednesday before

class. We met at 10:30 a.m. on each class day and had a one-hour meeting to discuss how to

write the paper and to divide the task as a team. Our group member's profile on the Kendall Life

Languages consisted of an influencer, two responders, two shapers, a producer and a mover. We

expected the influencer to be enthusiastic and would encourage members to share their thoughts

on the project openly. The responders would be passionate about finishing the project, keep

everyone on the same page, and provide feedback. Even though some people missed the group

meetings, responders helped them catch up and did not “leave anyone behind.” We felt the

Shapers would be more organized and the provided information to the team during these

meetings and kept the team focused on the topic. We felt the producer would be responsible and

understanding. We felt this person would bring humor to the group when needed. We expected

the mover would be direct and would always want to get the work done. However, looking at our

Kendal life language during the performing stage, we did not reach the ideal level and we needed

to improve our strengths and be more united as we moved forward.

During the first meeting at performing stage, we also agreed on remembering to use our

SMART goal, which is to successfully incorporate 100% of the group members in order to finish

11
this essay two days before its due date. With our main goal set in place, we recorded the progress

of our meeting and took notes about the meeting to improve our behavior as a team.

On April 4th, 2016, we had a very conducive group meeting, we decided to divide the

paper into several parts and had each member pick their part and started writing the paper. We

used Google docs where team members could write, edit and contribute individually. Writing

each part in Google doc helped with the performing stage because it assisted in having the work

completed before each meeting. It allowed us to write a well-shaped team paper due to the ability

for anyone to contribute and edit the documents. When we had each group meeting, we

discussed the progress on the paper and shared our thoughts.

On April 6th, 2016, we had a group meeting where only three people showed up, and we

found that these three people where the task leaders as indicated in the sociometric evaluations

the team had completed as a group. These three were the influencer, responder and mover. They

were leading the group to write the paper and move forward in absence of the members. This

reaffirmed the sociometric findings.

During the performing stage, our team’s diagnose of team effectiveness first was 45% to

50%, which was in a range from low to acceptable. The reason for this was because we lacked

communication, there were still a few members who would not open up to the group and would

not share their thoughts during the group meetings. Even though we have the app GroupMe to

communicate as a team, we seldom use it to communicate with each other. Some members were

procrastinating and would not finish their part on time, while other members seldom showed up

to the group meeting and some members were always late. We realized that these actions by the

group member slowed the progress and did not help the group environment. We realized that we

had a lot of problems during the performing stage and we would try to solve those problems as

12
soon as possible. Through communication and a lot of group meetings, we were finally moving

efficiently as a team; we were slowly finishing the paper and starting to make PowerPoint for the

presentation. At the end of the performing stage, our teams diagnose of team effectiveness

reached 80% to 90%.

Adjourning

At this point in time we are fine tuning the essay and really going back to basic writing

etiquette to polish the effectiveness of our message. As we move into this final stage, we have

decided to take another D.O.E in order to depict change in group attitude. Our last D.O.E. was

dated March 28th while our most recent was April 18th. The rating went from a 4.1 to a 5.4. This

change in rating shows that as a group we’ve become more satisfied with the development of this

essay. The final aspect of this project is that we are to present our essay to the class and explain

the ins-and-outs of our group evolution. To do so, we are developing a PowerPoint to move us

along, presenting data and charts that back-up our analysis. If we were to continue in this group

and take on another project, we feel that we would be able to get the project done and be satisfied

with the outcome. The process that we applied to finishing this project worked well but along the

way we had ups and downs in participation. As we approach the deadline, group participation

and cohesiveness has skyrocketed. Although this procrastination was present, everyone seemed

to jump on board with ample time left to finish without added stress.

In conclusion, the defining factors that comprised our team; each individual’s background

and KLLP language, group sociometric analysis results, the diagnosis of team effectiveness, and

our SMART goal effectively set us up to achieve our desired result of finishing this essay in a

timely manner.

13
 Appendix

1. Sociometric Relationship Ratings & Charts

2. Relationship Chart - Leader

3. Relationship Chart -Lunch Partner

4. Diagnosis of team effectiveness ratings & charts

5. Smart goal worksheet

6. Group presentation # 1 early stages

7. Works cited

8. Group sign off page

14
Sociometric Relationship Ratings & Charts

Relationship Chart - Leader

15
16
17
 Relationship Chart -Lunch Partner

Diagnosis of team effectiveness ratings & charts

18
19
 Smart goal worksheet

Group presentation # 1 early stages

20
 2/8/2016

Meeting Minutes:

1. How are we similar & different:

a. Life languages ( 2-2-1-1-1)

b. We have different personalities

c. “right now” we all agree

d. Some of us are quiet, some speak up quickly

e. Most difficult thing to agree on: meeting time

2. How we will use similarities & differences to complete project:

a. Because our viewpoints differ, we will have different inputs

b. Three of us are the same: Shapers = so we will be organized & focused

c. Influencer = Glue , Responder = compassion, Doer = dedicated

3. Expectations:

a. Respect each other’s opinions, and get the work done

4. Background & culture develop team & be assets:

a. Diverse cultures = creativeness

21
 b. Students = adept at meeting deadlines

5. Concerns about class:

a. Are we studying the right material, and how to apply to exams

6. What is unclear at this point, and what is the source:

a. What is the assignment (at this point)? To make friends?

b. See Syllabus – write a paper on the group's development process and growth

7. Who is in our group:

a. Life languages ( 2-2-1-1-1)

i. What resources do we bring:

b. Respect as students, diverse group, so we are creative.

i. Resources: Dr.Ford, JSOM HR dept.

8. How to have Fun : Meet somewhere else, Go out to eat, bring humor to class

22
 Works Cited

Bauer, Talya, and Berrin Erdogan. Organizational Behavior Version 2.0. Washington, DC: Flat.

World Knowledge, 2014. Print. Pg 243,

23
 Group sign off page

We confirm each member has contributed and proofread the project paper.

Name Date

Xin Gao ________________________ _________

Mark Grace _______________________ _________

Sunho Kang _______________________ _________

Hyeon Kim ________________________ _________

Sinai Ramirez ________________________ _________

Sonia Saldana ________________________ _________

Thomas Vollmar ________________________ _________

24