P a g e 1 | 40

INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Group 22, which consists of six members: Dam Bao
Ngoc, Nguyen Khoi Nguyen, Pham Hieu Trung, Trinh Yen Nhi, Le Anh Vu, Nguyen
Thanh Phuong. As a problem-solving group, we have to work together to address the
assignment focused on organizational behavior over the duration of one month. The
document will assess effective collaboration among team members by utilizing ideas,
principles, and methodologies from organizational behavior and related fields. Each
member will take responsibility for addressing one of the questions assigned to them,
drawing from their personal experiences and areas of expertise

Member ID Task

Dam Bao Ngoc 10230235 1

Nguyen Khoi Nguyen 10221001 2

Pham Hieu Trung 10190652 3

Trinh Yen Nhi 10230462 4

Le Anh Vu 10221034 5

Nguyen Thanh Phuong 10210365 6

All 7

P a g e 2 | 40
 MAJOR FINDINGS
TASK 1: GROUP PROPERTIES
1. Roles
Belbin’s team role model highlights how team roles emerge, evolve, and interact over
time. Organizations can utilize this model to pinpoint individuals’ behavioral strengths
and weaknesses, as well as to address interpersonal and cross-team conflicts.
Moreover, these roles facilitate team members’ adaptation to existing or new working
relationships (James, 2023). In Group 22, members apply Belbin’s team role model to
define each person’s role during their first online meeting. Through various case
studies conducted in class, the team gradually builds trust, leading to more open
expression of opinions. Consequently, the individual roles of team members start to
surface and are subsequently clarified as follows:

Member Roles Description

Dam Bao Ngoc Plant As a leader, Ngoc is responsible for
(Leader) Completer/ devising plans and setting goals for the
Finisher group while constantly reminding everyone
to meet deadlines in order to maintain
progress; therefore, Ngoc fulfil the role of
Finisher. To ensure the quality of the
assignment, Ngoc will review each
member’s work for any issues, offer
feedback, and suggest necessary
improvements. Moreover, in Ngoc’s
capacity as a Plant, Ngoc actively
contribute ideas during the meetings.
Nguyen Khoi Monitor- Nguyen is an enthusiastic and sociable
Nguyen evaluator individual with a wide-ranging network of
Resource acquaintances. This allows him to offer
investigator valuable insights and suggestions from his
contacts to improve the group’s work.
Moreover, during discussions, Nguyen
takes on the role of a monitor; he listens

P a g e 3 | 40
 attentively to everyone in the group,
evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of
each viewpoint, and then shares his
perspective. This approach aids the group
in reaching a final decision.
Pham Hieu Trung Team worker Hieu Trung serves as the Resource
Resource Investigator in our team, utilizing her
investigator outgoing personality and curiosity to seek
out opportunities and connections that
benefit our projects. Her extensive network
allows her to gather valuable resources and
insights, which she shares enthusiastically
with the group. As an effective
communicator, Hieu Trung brings fresh
perspectives and innovative ideas, keeping
the team motivated and informed about
external trends. Her contributions are
essential in enhancing our strategic
approaches and ensuring we are well-
prepared to achieve our goals.
Trinh Yen Nhi Team worker Yen Nhi openly shares her opinions and
Specialist thoughts on various topics. She
Resource consistently seeks to consider issues from
investigator multiple perspectives when voicing her
views. Additionally, she demonstrates a
vivid imagination by asking numerous
questions regarding knowledge and the
implementation of ideas during group
assignments. Her enthusiastic work ethic is
effective and passionate, and she
continually encourages others to foster a
collaborative spirit in pursuit of the group’s

P a g e 4 | 40
 common goals.
Le Anh Vu Team’s worker Anh Vu is an active contributor to the
Implementer group's activities and overall progress. As a
team player, he prioritizes listening to
everyone’s opinions to gain an objective
perspective, share ideas, and offer
thoughtful advice that prevents the group's
work from stagnating. Additionally, Vu
often serves as an implementer, ensuring
that the group’s tasks are completed
promptly and thoroughly. During
discussions, he also proposes solutions that
help keep the group from reaching a
standstill.
Nguyen Thanh Monitor- Thanh Phuong possesses a strong
Phuong evaluator analytical mindset and is a valuable source
Plant of ideas for the group. She consistently
offers work analysis and innovative
approaches during every meeting. In her
role as a Plant, she has developed
numerous creative strategies and
suggestions that have significantly helped
the team when progress stalled.
Additionally, as a Monitor-Evaluator, she
conducts thorough situation analyses and
closely monitors each member's
contributions throughout the work process,
enabling others to work more effectively.

P a g e 5 | 40
 2. Norms
In the first online meeting, group 22 established a set of norms, approaching each type
systematically. Members took time to reflect and share their thoughts on norms they
believed should be included. All suggested ideas were compiled and collectively
assessed to determine their appropriateness for the group. The established norms are
as follows:

a. Appearance norms
Group 22 has no specific requirements regarding attire and appearance, as all
members prioritise comfort in their clothing choices. However, when presenting in
front of teachers, it is advisable to wear smart casual clothes. This includes wearing
collared shirts or blouses, along with pants or chinos that are comfortable yet
appropriate for a professional setting. Closed-toe shoes, such as polished sneakers or
loafers are recommended to maintain both comfort and style. It is best to avoid gym
wear and overly casual items like sweatpants during presentations to uphold a sense of
professionalism. By blending comfort and a touch of professionalism, group 22
members can feel confident while delivering presentation.

b. Performance norms
These norms focus on the group’s performance. First, all members must submit their
assignments by the deadlines set by the leader. If a member is unable to meet a
deadline, they are required to provide a minimum of 24 hours advance notice.
Furthermore, the member must commit to submitting their work within the subsequent
two days following the original deadline. For individual tasks, each member is
expected to meet all requirements and present their contributions clearly and
cohesively. If a member struggles to complete the requirements, they must
communicate this to the group, allowing others to collaboratively assist in finding
solutions. After finishing individual tasks, members should review their work
carefully, confirm its completion, and read others’ contributions to understand the
overall context, providing necessary feedback and evaluations. Participation in all
scheduled online and offline meetings is mandatory; members who cannot attend or
will be late must notify the group leader at least two hour before meeting with a valid

P a g e 6 | 40
reason. Members who are unable to attend are required to read the meeting context,
which will be distributed post-meeting, and confirm their understanding of the
discussed topics and decisions.

c. Social arrangement norms

In terms of social interactions, group 22 members must treat each other with respect,
employing polite and courteous language during conversations. In case of conflict,
members are encouraged to manage their emotions, avoid raising their voices, and
provide constructive feedback rather than criticizing others’ view. Team members
should take initiative, accept responsibility, and support one another in achieving the
common goals of the group.

d. Resource allocation norms

Prior to distributing tasks, the leader should solicit input from members to agree on a
fair method of allocation. This approach ensures that everyone has a designated task,
promoting equity and preventing any single member from receiving preferential
treatment or being overloaded with work.

3. Status
Each member’s status within the group is determined by their influence, ability to
further the group’s objectives, and personal characteristics. This status can impact
norms and conformity, group interactions, and perceived equity (Robbins and Judge,
2018). In group 22, Ngoc holds the highest status due to her position as the leader.

Typically, high-status members are less bound by group norms and pressure to
conform, enjoying a certain latitude as long as it does not hinder the group’s goals
(Robbins and Judge, 2018). However, in the case of group 22, Ngoc is quite
disciplined; she adheres to established rules and norms and strives to set a positive
example for other members. Therefore the influence of status on norms and
conformity doesn’t apply to her in this context.

Regarding group interactions, Robbins and Judge (2018) suggest that high-status
individuals are usually more assertive, frequently speaking up, critiquing others,

P a g e 7 | 40
issuing directives, and interrupting. In contrast, lower-status members tend to be less
engaged in discussions. Furthermore, significant status disparities can stifle idea
diversity and creativity. However, these effects are not present in group 22, as the
leader fosters a non-authoritarian environment where all members are encouraged to
express their opinions and contribute to the group’s efforts. This dynamic ensures that
status differences do not hinder-creativity or the diversity of ideas.

Lastly, concerning equity, all members of group 22 perceive my leadership and

elevated status as fair and just, leading to the absence of corrective behaviors during
group activities. Instead, each member is treated with fairness and respect, promoting
an equitable working environment.

4. Size
Groups with fewer than seven members are classified as small groups (Robbins and
Judge, 2018). Consequently qualifies as a small group with its six members. Small
groups offer several key advantages as well as some drawbacks.

On the positive side, a smaller membership allows for easier management of group
activities and progress by the leader. Moreover, members can form closer connections
during communication, creating opportunities for everyone to voice their opinions and
fell heard. This dynamic also contributes to a quicker decision-making process. While
the group size is small, all members express satisfaction with the work achieved, and
tasks have been distributed fairly.

On the other hand, the limited number of members can restrict the diversity of ideas,
presenting a significant challenge.

5. Cohesiveness
Cohesiveness within the group enhances both individual and overall working
efficiency. To strengthen their connections, group 22 has adopted several practices.

During the initial meeting, all members were determined to achieve the highest score
possible, striving for Merit. As a result, everyone is eager to offer support and

P a g e 8 | 40
encouragement to ensure that tasks are completed thoroughly. Each member is
committed to meeting deadlines established by the group leader and actively seeks
feedback and guidance from lecturers during classes and tutorials to improve their
work.

Although the members had not previously met, we chose to sit together in lectures to
foster familiarity and build relationships. This interaction allows them to gain a deeper
understanding of one another’s working styles, personalities, strengths, and
weaknesses. Furthermore, members work to manage their tasks and schedules
effectively, ensuring full participation in both in-person and virtual meetings. These
efforts have fostered a collaborative spirit, thereby narrowing the gaps between team
members.

P a g e 9 | 40
TASK 2: GROUP BEHAVIOR AND THEORIES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT

The Tuckman Ladder, developed by American psychologist Bruce Tuckman in 1965,

is a model that explains the journey of team development. It posits that teams progress
through five essential stages: forming, stroming, norming, performing, and
adjourning. These stages are crucial for a team develop, face challenges, resolve
issues, discover solutions, strategize, and achieve its objectives. Ultimately by
understanding and navigating these stages, teams can grow, overcome obstacles, and
work together effectively to achieve successful outcomes.

1. Forming
The first stage of team development is the forming stage, where the team is created,
and members are introduced to each other. During this phase, teams spend time
getting to know one another, although this can sometimes fell uncomfortable for new
members. Nevertheless, this social interaction is a vital aspect of team development as
it lays the groundwork for future collaboration. At this point, team members form
their initial impressions of each other, typically exhibiting polite and positive
behavior. They start assessing the amount of energy and time they will invest in the
group, but roles and responsibilities are not yet clearly defined (Tuckman and Jensen,
1977)

P a g e 10 | 40
Group are organized according to their order on the class list. All participants are
required to collaborate on this project as part of the Organizational Behaviour course,
which mandates teamwork. Within this group 22, every member is enrolled in
Organizational Behavior, instructed by Mr. Huy Phuong. Our first meeting took place
in class on April 1, 2025, When there is a list of group members, people find each
other through relationships and find names through the class list, from there they
exchange facebook and create a private group for group 22 on Messenger.

At this stage, we aim to evaluate and define the context of membership and individual
work responsibilities. Some members display enthusiasm of the new assignment,
while others are cautious due to the ambiguity surrounding it. It is important to note
that while none of the participants have substantial experience working together, Yen
Nhi and Bao Ngoc have collaborated in a group once before. However, they are not
very close, which still creates challenges in sharing their viewpoints openly. In this
situation, participants tend to each how each other communicates in order to
understand individual traits and levels of enthusiasm for the assignment. They observe
how others express themselves through messages to guess personality traits and see
how eager team members are about the work, which affects their willingness to
participate.

We decided to schedule in-person working sessions when everyone was available in

class, and also held online meetings via Messenger and Google Meet due to
scheduling conflicts. To facilitate collaboration, we shared and discussed tasks
through Google Docs and Messenger, ensuring that all members had access to the
materials. During our first online meeting, we had open discussions and assigned tasks
to each member. Although the group’s connection was still developing at that time,
Bao Ngoc was chosen as the group leader because she was the one who had the first
say and could connect the group members together, so when electing the group leader,
everyone agreed to let Bao Ngoc be the group leader., provided clear guidance and
task allocation. This leadership helped encourage more input and active participation
from all members in completing the assignment.

P a g e 11 | 40
 2. Storming

Storming is the second stage of group development, characterized by the emergence

of disagreements and conflicts among team members. As individuals become more
familiar with one another, they start to feel more comfortable expressing themselves.
However, this increased familiarity also brings personality differences to the forefront,
which can lead to conflicts within the group (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977).

After opening up to each other, the first formal meeting was held for one hour and led
by Bao Ngoc, who was chosen as the group leader after several group work sessions
in the classroom.

Communication among members was not very smooth. Since the group members
were not familiar with each other previously and had different personalities, initial
interactions remained limited. It was also challenging to gather all members for a full
meeting, as scheduling both online and offline sessions was difficult due to everyone's
busy personal timetables. Some group meetings experienced delays or absences, and
discussions often went off-topic. These issues contributed to conflicts regarding task
priorities and workload distribution, leading to decreased motivation or delayed
contributions from certain members. To address this, Bao Ngoc asked all members for
their available times, and everyone agreed to organize their schedules to ensure
participation in the online meetings, which were scheduled for every Friday night.

There is also the issue of group goals in the group because members will have their
own scoring goals, so this issue also needs to be discussed. Because each scoring band
has its own requirements. To tackle this, Bao Ngoc and Yen Nhi convinced all
members to aim for Merit grade with Nguyen providing his insights into the
advantages and disadvantages of pursuing this score, he also used the SMART model
to help all members to have better understanding. Therefore, everyone agreed that
they would initially focus on meeting all the Pass requirements. Subsequently, Ngoc
and Nhi would review everyone’s work, offering assistance and corrections to help
achieve the Merit criteria

P a g e 12 | 40
At first, the unfamiliarity among group members made it harder to build trust and
coordinate effectively in the early stage, which resulted in misunderstandings and a
lack of cohesive effort during the planning and execution of tasks. However, after
open discussions, the team members became more acquainted, leading to a clearer
understanding of individual responsibilities and well-defined direction for their work.

3. Norming

The storming stage ends with a consensus on shared objectives and defined roles,
allowing the team to move into the norming stage. In this phase, differences among
team members are understood and accepted, removing any prior discomfort. Instead,
group members start to appreciate each other’s strengths, and roles are allocated
accordingly. The team finds a rhythm, with members feeling involved and dedicated.
This leads to greater confidence and lower stress levels. Although new tasks or
challenge may cause the group to briefly go back to the storming stage, the team now
has effective conflict-resolution skills learned during the norming stage (Tuckman and
Jensen, 1977).

The acceptance phase is characterised by individuals embracing diversity, actively

working to resolve disagreements, recognising the strengths of their participants, and
displaying mutual respect. Building on the discussions of the storming phase, the
group members develop stronger bonds and collectively support each member’s
contributions. Thanh Phuong and Hieu Trung are known for attentively listening to
others viewpoints and sharing their own perspective at the end of the discussions. Bao
Ngoc manages the meeting schedules and consistently reminds everyone to complete
their tasks by setting deadlines for each request.

Eventually, the group agrees to establish the rules outlined in Task 1. Once these
norms are defined, disagreements decrease considerably. Every team member
consistently attends school and is punctual for meetings. During this phase, the
duration of group meetings and breakout sessions increased significantly. Unlike the
one-hour sessions in the earlier phase, meetings now lasted at least two hours or more,
reflecting the group's growing engagement and commitment. Each member actively

P a g e 13 | 40
raised concerns during discussions, helping the group identify and implement
corrective actions in a timely manner.

To better understand each other and enhance group coordination, Yen Nhi suggested
using online tools to take personality tests, specifically the MBTI and Big Five (Big 5)
tests. She also provided reliable websites for these assessments. The results helped the
group identify individual working styles and communication preferences, which
served as valuable references for role assignment and collaboration.

Consequently, individuals start to focus on the common objective and show increased
dedication to their tasks. Efficiency improves at this stage, as the team can now
dedicate more attention to collectively pursuing a shared goal. Workplace
communication is enhanced as individuals are more willing to engage in conversations
and share ideas. Everyone's efforts have motivated others to strive to complete tasks to
an exceptional standard.

4. Performing

The performing stage represents a team operating at its peak. Team members continue
working on their assigned tasks, and the group feels connected with comfortable
interactions among members. Tension is minimal, and the team members openly
discuss differing opinions while holding each other accountable. The focus is on
achieving shared team success, as members collaborate to reach their goals (Tuckman
and Jensen, 1977). Full trust within the team leads to high commitment and
motivation towards assigned tasks.

During this stage, the team engaged in consistent and goal-oriented discussions as
they developed a structured work plan. Once individual tasks were completed, the
group collaboratively reviewed and refined the content to remove redundancies and
integrate the parts into a unified, coherent report. The team also conducted thorough
evaluations of both content and technical aspects to enhance their presentation skills.

At this stage, all members agreed on the importance of deepening their understanding
of the report's evaluation criteria. In addition, Bao Ngoc encouraged each member to
share their preferences regarding the tasks they wished to undertake. This approach

P a g e 14 | 40
promoted a sense of autonomy, allowing members to work on what suited them best,
while also improving communication, comprehension of key concepts, and adherence
to the word count requirement.

Ultimately, with a more cohesive and efficient working strategy in place, the group
was able to resolve challenges effectively and significantly reduce conflicts.

5. Adjourning

The adjourning stage marks the end of team’s work of significant transition. This can
lead to the team disbanding or shifting towards a new task, focus, or membership.
This stage provides a valuable opportunity to celebrate accomplishments and reflect a
areas for improvement (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977).

This adjourning stage occurred when group 22 completed the entire project and
disbanded. With the guidance of the group leader and the collaborative efforts of all
members, the group successfully worked together for over 1 month. Once we meet the
course deadline, we plan to celebrate our accomplishments by gathering for coffee,
using the fines collected from each member for this final get-together. As part of the
conclusion, we will engage in a final group activity called "anonymous feedback,"
where we will provide self-assessments and evaluate each other to reflect on the
lessons learned from our collective experience.

6. Evaluating

Applying Tuckman's Ladder to Group 22 reveals both its strengths and limitations in
understanding their team's evolution. The model accurately reflects their journey
through distinct stages, from the initial cautious assessment during forming to the
efficient collaboration of the performing stage. Bao Ngoc's leadership role aligns with
the model's emphasis on adaptation, guiding the team through conflicts and task
allocation. Their successful navigation of norming is evident in improved
communication and established rules, while the planned celebration during adjourning
shows an understanding of reflection

However, it assumes a linear process, which may not reflect reality, and overlooks
individual or external factor, like changing deadlines or unexpected personal issues,

P a g e 15 | 40
could affect their progress. While the model provides tools for tracking process and
resolving conflicts, it gives less attention to the importance of individual
contributions, such as Yen Nhi’s initiative in introducing personality tests to enhance
understanding, or Bao Ngoc’s flexibility in managing shifting targets. Despite these
drawbacks, the core ideas within Tuckman's theory—like the need for clear
communication, constructive handling of disagreements, and well-defined roles

remain useful. By following these theories and fostering effective collaboration

among team members, we can successfully reach our objectives and create a highly
efficient team.

P a g e 16 | 40
 TASK 3: MOTIVATION FOR AN EFFECTIVE TEAM

1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Maslow’s theory presents human needs as a hierarchy, starting with basic

physiological (survival) needs at the bottom and progressing to higher-level, creative,
and intellectual “self-actualization” needs at the top. Maslow argued that basic
survival needs must be met before an individual can focus on satisfying higher needs.
As one moves up the hierarchy, fulfilling the needs at each stage becomes more
challenging due to interpersonal and environmental obstacles that often cause
frustration (Maslow, 1943).

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs offers a useful structure for understanding and

promoting team dynamics in collaborative settings.

Group 22’s current learning environment adequately meets their basic physiological
needs, such as those for food, rest, comfort and safety. To enhance convenience and
flexibility in working schedules, group 22 opted for two methods that facilitate
collaboration while minimising disruption to individual space and time. Team leader
Bao Ngoc scheduled online meeting every Friday evening (7:10 p.m – 9:10 p.m),
incorporating a 15-minute break after each hour of work. In addition, the group
convened for weekly offline meetings during brunch. To foster a comfortable
atmosphere and boost morale, the group also used its funds to provide food and
beverages, promoting a positive working environment and enabling members to enjoy

P a g e 17 | 40
a meal together. These meetings, lasting at least one hour, were designed to ensure
effective collaboration without unduly burdening member schedules.

Building upon this foundation of physiological needs, group 22 also addressed safety
needs by establishing a set of explicit group working norms, encompassing
implementation standards, dispute resolution process, formal procedures, and specific
rewards and penalties. To reassure team members of the group’s commitment to their
well-being and to ensure transparency regarding the stability of teamwork, the group
fostered a psychologically safe environment where members could voice concerns
without fear of negative consequences, ensuring physical safety. The team also agreed
to non-violent conflict resolution methods.

Group 22 underscores the significance of relationships and social needs within

Maslow's hierarchy. Regular face-to-face and virtual meetings, alongside collaborative
projects like case study analysis and assignment completion, have cultivated
relationship and social interaction among members. To build upon this foundation,
Group 22 actively fostered a friendly atmosphere characterized by mutual respect and
appreciation. This was achieved by promoting interpersonal relationships through
organized activities and adapting to the diverse needs of individual assignments, such
as collaborative assistance with Task 7 and shared responsibilities in creating
presentation slides and proofreading. In order to encourage transparency and build
trust, team members were encouraged to express their opinions openly and listen
attentively, thereby promoting collaboration and constructive feedback. Furthermore,
regular in-person gatherings at school or coffee shops were deliberately arranged to
facilitate the exchange of ideas and the collaborative editing of articles, thus
reinforcing a sense of community and a shared objective.

Recognizing the vital role of self-esteem in group performance, group 22 made it

priority to consistently value and acknowledge each member’s contributions. Leader
Bao Ngoc regularly praised individuals for their productivity, the quality of work, and
their insightful contributions, while also ensuring that all perspectives were heard and
respected during group meetings. To further foster self-esteem, Bao Ngoc committed
to publicly recognizing each member’s achievements, which served to inspire both
those acknowledged and their peers to strive for excellence. The team also facilitated

P a g e 18 | 40
the sharing of valuable experiences and innovative approaches to task completion,
promoting skill development goals aligned with their roles, cultivating self-confidence
and willingness t articulate their ideas, ultimately reinforcing their self-esteem. This
dedication to open communication and mutual appreciation enhanced the team’s
collective sense of worth and self-respect.

Self-actualization, representing the apex of Maslow's hierarchy, was a key objective

for Group 22, with the team leader empowering each member to reach their maximum
potential through innovation, autonomy, and personal growth in each task. To achieve
this, team members were given assignments that challenged their boundaries and
ignited their intellectual curiosity, along with opportunities to tackle complex
problems and develop original solutions, fostering a sense of accomplishment and
satisfaction. Moreover, the team fostered an environment that valued experimentation
and brainstorming to explore innovative ideas and methods, appreciating creativity
and acknowledging failure as a vital part of the learning process, rather than adhering
to strict guidelines. This extended to granting team members autonomy in decision-
making and accountability for their work, promoting independence and self-direction,
even if it meant some projects experienced delays. Furthermore, to ensure inclusivity,
each person was given the opportunity to voice their opinions during discussions, with
team members actively soliciting input from those who weren't contributing. By
acknowledging diverse knowledge and perspectives, Group 22 cultivated an
atmosphere where each member could develop and contribute individually, realizing
their potential and fostering a sense of self-actualization.

Evaluation: Group 22 shares a common goal of fostering a positive, cohesive team

environment characterized by seamless collaboration. Regarding esteem needs, group
22 emphasizes valuing each other's perspectives and relying on constructive criticism
to improve their work. This collaborative approach ensures efficient task completion
and consensus among members. Moving towards self-actualization, group 22
collaborates to enhance each member's contribution to the team's objective and to
meet deadlines. However, this approach has certain limitations. While Maslow's
theory posits a universal hierarchy of needs, individuals' priorities and perceptions of
those needs may vary depending on their experiences and personalities. It can be

P a g e 19 | 40
challenging to implement an one-size-fits-all strategy for teamwork and motivation, as
team members may have diverse goals and incentives. Moreover, this strategy has
limited predictive potential due to its primary focus on individual demands and
motivations, rather than considering the dynamics of group behavior and interactions.
Effective collaboration necessitates attention to shared goals, conventions, and
procedures, in addition to individual needs. An excessive focus on individual needs
may obscure the significance of teamwork, communication, and common objectives.

2. Locke & Latham’s Goal-setting Theory

The following standards allow for the application of Locke’s Goal-setting theory to
group 22 (Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, 1984).
Team leaders support members in setting challenging yet achieveable goals that align
with the team’s overall mission. The team regularly provides resources,
encouragement, and feedback to help members reach their objectives. Recognizing
accomplishments and progress serves to strengthen teamwork and motivation (Edwin
A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, 1990).

There is substantial evidence supporting the effectiveness of goal setting. Research

indicates that explicit objectives enhance performance, that accepting challenges leads
to better outcomes than not doing so, and that feedback improves performance
compared to a lack of input (Robbins, 2018). In group 22’s first online meeting,
members discussed the output targets for the assignment. Utilizing the SMART
model (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, time-bound), group 22 is
determined to strive for Merit points on this assignment, aligning our goals with
each member’s abilities. This approach not only promotes individual accountability
but also inspires enthusiasm and focus on each task, allowing us to create a thorough
assignment. Throughout the project, each member is also expected to meet deadlines
and maintain an updated understanding of the group’s collective knowledge.

According to Locke and Latham’s goal-setting theory, effective goals must encompass
five essential components: clarity, challenge, commitment, feedback and complexity.
These elements play a vital role in influencing performance, task engagement, and

P a g e 20 | 40
motivation. Group 22 applied these principles thoughtfully to enhance both individual
and group productivity.

Clarity is fundamental to effective teamwork, as well-defined objectives provide

members with direction and purpose. To minimize confusion and facilitate
coordination, group 22 met early to discuss and assigned tasks based on each
member’s preferences and strengths. We ensured that goals, expected outcomes,
and progress were clearly communicated, which increased efficiency and
accountability. After all tasks were assigned, group leader Bao Ngoc established
deadlines for Draft 1, Draft 2 and the final submission. Each deadline required all
members to meet specific criteria for their respective drafts, ensuring that
everyone stayed aligned and focused throughout the project.

Including team members in the goal-setting process fostered commitment. Rather than
relying solely on team leader Bao Ngoc to assign tasks, members chose tasks aligned
with their skills. This participatory approach led to increased personal investment and
ownership. Additionally, all members committed to attending Lectures and
Tutorial classes; if they were unable to attend, they were responsible for reaching out
to friends or other team members to catch up on missed information. We also
established accountability measures, such as requiring members who missed deadlines
to contribute to the group budget, further ensuring that everyone remained engaged
and informed throughout the course.

Open discussions during meetings allowed every voice to be heard, cultivating mutual
respect and a shared objective. Feedback was an ongoing practice within our team,
creating an environment where members regularly evaluated their own and each
other’s work. Constructive feedback sessions enabled all members to contribute to
the refinement of content, with Yen Nhi and Bao Ngoc’s frequent proofreading
helping us quickly identify and correct errors. These interactions not only improved
the quality of our work but also enhanced group learning and individual growth.

The complexity of goal-setting is reflected in the interconnectedness of our

collaborative efforts, where the successful completion of certain tasks depended on

P a g e 21 | 40
earlier steps being finalized. For instance, task 7 required the prior sections to be
completed to ensure an unbiased analysis. This reliance necessitated careful
coordination and constant communication among members. Budgetary and
timing constraints further complicated the challenge, requiring thoughtful planning,
efficient resource management, and flexibility to balance short-term objectives, like
weekly task completion, with the long-term goal of achieving a high grade on the final
project.

Evaluation: It can be said that this program aligns well with group 22’s personality,
skills, and working style. It’s important to regularly assess the effectiveness of
motivational techniques and seek feedback from team members. Adjustments to the
strategy should be made as needed to maintain momentum and address emerging
challenges. Promoting cooperation, teamwork, and a culture of mutual support and
collective success is essential. To enhance group cohesion and motivation, fostering
open communication, recognizing contributions, and celebrating achievements should
be prioritized. By setting clear objectives and guidelines, team members will
understand what needs to be accomplished and where to focus their efforts. When
individuals feel they are working towards meaningful goals, they are more likely to
give their best effort, thereby increasing overall productivity.

P a g e 22 | 40
 TASK 4: INDIVIDUAL’S PERSONALITY AND PERCEPTIONS
1. MBTI analysis
Every individual possesses a distinct personality, each with its own strengths and
weaknesses. A person’s ability to effectively utilize their skils within a group setting
influences the overall quality of the work produced by the team. Additionally, the
capacity for leadership is a critical factor, as it directly impacts both the quality of the
outcomes and the progress made. In group 22, we decided to adopt the MBTI model,
which is a personality assessment with four key components that categorizes
individuals into sixteen different personality types (Gardner and Martinko, 1996).
Below are the various personality types represented within our team.

BAO YEN ANH KHOI HIEU THANH

NGOC NHI VU NGUYEN TRUNG PHUONG
(LEADER)
ENERGY Extraverted 51% 51% 51%
Introverted 74% 94% 51%
MIND Intuitive 70% 89% 52% 60% 64%
Observent 54%
NATURE Thinking 71% 53%
Feeling 75% 64% 51% 56%
TACTICS Judging 71%
Prospecting 51% 64% 54% 51% 51%
IDENTIT Assertive 53%
Y Turbulent 86% 75% 63% 67% 61%

P a g e 23 | 40
 Member MBTI Analysis

Dam Bao Ngoc (Leader) INTJ-T Strong strategic planning skills and meticulous thinking are traits of Bao Ngoc's INTJ personality
type that guarantee methodical task completion. She brings creative ideas while upholding strict
quality standards through painstaking review procedures, acting as both a Plant and a Completer
(Turbulent characteristic). Her preferred method of thinking makes it easier to make unbiased
decisions that are in line with the team's performance norms for deadlines and helpful criticism. Her
efficiency-driven Judging attitude supports task completion, while her introverted nature allows her
to work independently and with focus.

But when assessing other people's work, Bao Ngoc's high Turbulence can cause her to be overly
meticulous, which could lead to micromanagement and stifle team innovation. In a similar vein, her
strong Judging orientation may cause conflict with more adaptive team members who favor flexible
methods of work performance, even while it ensures discipline. These traits offer advantages in
upholding standards as well as difficulties in team dynamics that require careful balancing.

Nguyen Khoi Nguyen ESFP-T Khoi Nguyen's strengths as an ESFP-T closely align with his positions as Resource Investigator and
Monitor-Evaluator. He can establish robust networks while keeping a balanced, considerate
approach because of his moderate level of extroversion. He successfully assesses group talks and
promotes interpersonal harmony, which are in line with the Social Arrangement Norms. Supporting
the Resource Allocation Norms, Khoi Nguyen’s Prospecting attribute increases his adaptability in

P a g e 1 | 40
 obtaining ideas and adjusting to task requirements.

Although his Observant nature supports practical assessments, it may sometimes limit broader
strategic thinking. His Feeling preference, while fostering group cohesion, could occasionally
hinder fully objective analysis when critical feedback is needed. Similarly, while Khoi Nguyen’s
Prospecting trait promotes adaptability, it may challenge his ability to maintain sustained focus on
long-term, independent tasks. The Extroversion trait, though generally advantageous, might at times
cause over-reliance on external opinions rather than independent judgment.

Pham Hieu Trung ENFP-T As a Resource investigator and Team’s worker, Hieu Trung's ENFP-T personality offers significant
advantages. She can create wide networks, come up with creative ideas, and spark team debates
because of her balanced extroversion and good intuition, all while being open to feedback from
others. She greatly improves the team's strategic skills as a Resource Investigator by spotting new
patterns and tying together seemingly unrelated ideas. Her Prospecting propensity gives her the
adaptability required to adjust to shifting project requirements, while her moderate Feeling
characteristic ensures that all members feel appreciated and helps to preserve happy relationships.

Nonetheless, Trung's psychological profile presents certain difficulties. Although her Prospecting
attribute allows for flexibility, it may also make it difficult to stay focused on regular activities or
adhere to strict deadlines. She may occasionally miss important implementation details due to the
same intuitive inventiveness that produces insightful ideas.

Trinh Yen Nhi INFP-T Yen Nhi’s inherent strengths as an INFP-T personality type align well with my roles as a Resource

P a g e 2 | 40
 Investigator, Specialist, and Team Worker. Her strong intuition fosters innovative thinking and the
ability to approach problems from multiple perspectives, making me particularly effective in
brainstorming and problem-solving contexts. Furthermore, her enthusiasm and curiosity, expressed
through insightful questioning and creative strategies, enhance my contributions both as a Resource
Investigator, by sourcing diverse ideas, and as a Team Worker, by supporting a collaborative
atmosphere. Additionally, Yen Nhi’s prospecting orientation provides adaptive flexibility that
complements our resource allocation norms.

However, high Turbulence may cause stress and self-doubt under a deadline or criticism, potentially
reducing productivity. Strong Introversion (94%) can also make it difficult to assert opinions
quickly when needed. While Feeling preference fosters empathy, it may conflict with the
performance norms' demand for objective feedback.

Le Anh Vu INFP-T Anh Vu exhibits remarkable team cohesion due to his INFP-T personality, which is balanced at
51% Introversion and 52% Intuition. He excels as a Team Worker because of his Feeling attribute,
which allows him to actively listen to different viewpoints and provide insightful advice that
precisely aligns with the group's Social Arrangement Norms of polite communication. Vu's near-
balanced Introversion-Extraversion enables him to give ideas while staying open to others'
opinions, and his moderate intuition helps him come up with creative solutions amid deadlocks. +

As an Implementer, while his Feeling-oriented approach supports group cohesion, it may at times
conflict with the performance norms' emphasis on objective and critical evaluation. Moreover,

P a g e 3 | 40
 although his Prospecting trait fosters adaptability, it may also lead to difficulties in maintaining
consistent focus on long-term assignments.

Nguyen Thanh Phuong ENTP-A Thanh Phuong, an ENTP-A personality, has remarkable strategic thinking and problem-solving
skills that are well-suited to her multiple responsibilities. As the team's Plant, she is crucial because
of her high intuitive preference that allows her to come up with new ideas amid blockages of
inspiration. Her Assertive character and Thinking attributes work together to enable her to boldly
offer analyses and assess ideas objectively, successfully carrying out her duties as a Monitor-
Evaluator. She also has the adaptability to change tactics as projects go, while her modest
Extroversion creates the perfect mix between collaborative enthusiasm and introspective
contemplation. These traits guarantee in-depth examination and ongoing enhancement of work
procedures, which directly support the team's Performance Norms.

However, Phuong's big-picture focus may cause her to overlook details, potentially affecting task
completion under Performance Norms. While her assertiveness drives decisive action, it could
sometimes dismiss alternative views, requiring conscious effort to align with social arrangement
norms. Her moderate Prospecting trait, though flexible, may lead to inconsistent follow-through on
long-term tasks. Pairing her with detail-oriented teammates like Bao Ngoc (leader) would help
balance her strategic strengths with practical execution.

P a g e 4 | 40
 2. Management approach

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory employs the Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale as a

tool to evaluate a leader’s motivational tendencies. This instrument requires leaders to
assess the colleague they found most difficult to work with by rating them on a set of
bipolar adjective pairs, such as Unfriendly-Friendly and Uncooperative-Cooperative
(Fiedler, 1972).

Bao Ngoc’s elevated LPC score of 107 places her firmly in the relationship-oriented
category, indicating a strong focus on interpersonal harmony. Despite her strategic,
task-focused INTJ and Plant/Completer traits, her motivation centers on fostering
positive team dynamics. This creates a dynamic balance between her cognitive drive
for performance and relational needs. Her Turbulent trait enhances adaptability and
self-improvement but requires stress awareness. Her leadership blends high standards
with a deep commitment to team cohesion.

To lead effectively, Bao Ngoc tailors her approach to each team member’s personality
and motivational needs. For Yen Nhi (INFP – Helper), a supportive leadership
style is key, fostering trust and emotional safety, which aligns with Bao Ngoc’s high
LPC orientation. Directive elements may help clarify tasks when ambiguity arises,
while participative leadership can boost engagement when value-aligned decisions
are at stake.

Anh Vu (ESTP – Promoter) thrives on autonomy and challenge, making

achievement-oriented leadership ideal—setting high expectations, offering freedom,
and linking rewards to outcomes. Directive guidance can help him navigate structural
expectations, while supportive tactics may assist during setbacks.

Similarly, Khoi Nguyen (ISTJ – Inspector) values clarity and order, responding
best to directive leadership. As he gains experience, achievement-oriented and
participative elements can motivate continued improvement, but change should be
gradual to respect his need for stability.

P a g e 1 | 40
For Hieu Trung (ENTP – Inventor), participative leadership is most motivating—
he values intellectual freedom and engagement in decision-making. Bao Ngoc can
channel her creativity with achievement-oriented goals while offering minimal
directive input to maintain strategic alignment. Occasional supportive interactions
may also sustain motivation through challenges.

Lastly, Thanh Phuong (ESFJ – Supporter) benefits most from a warm, appreciative
environment fostered by supportive leadership. Her sensitivity to criticism means
feedback should be delivered thoughtfully, complemented by recognition. When
needed, directive leadership can clarify expectations, and involving her in team-
related decisions may enhance motivation and connection. Across the team, Bao
Ngoc’s ability to flex her leadership style—leveraging her high LPC score and INTJ
strengths—supports both performance and relational cohesion.

P a g e 2 | 40
 TASK 5: TEAM EFFECTIVE/ INEFFECTIVE

1. Effective factors
Size of team:
Small groups enhance accountability and cohesiveness among members, thereby
improving overall group effectiveness due to increased communication opportunities
(Robbins and Judge, 2018). With only six members, group 22 benefits significantly
from this efficiency. The management style and communication among members
clearly demonstrate the advantages of a smaller group size. Each member is assigned
specific tasks, making it easy for the team leader to monitor and evaluate individual
progress. Additionally, we quickly became comfortable communicating with one
another, which cultivated an open and positive environment within the group. This
setup allows each member to express their personal ideas during discussions, thereby
enhancing commitment and encouraging active participation from everyone.

Personality of members:
The personality of each member in group 22 significantly contributed to achieving the
group’s goals effectively. Each individual’s unique traits enhanced team dynamic,
allowing members to complement one another’s strengths. For instance, Khoi
Nguyen’s sociability helped create a positive atmosphere, while Thanh Phuong’s
analytical mindset ensured clarity and precision during discussions, Yen Nhi and Anh
Vu’s empathetic nature promoted open communication and collaboration, fostering a
supportive environment. Hieu Trung’s creativity allowed for innovative solutions,
enhancing the team’s problem-solving abilities. This diverse array of personalities not
only cultivated a sense of belonging but also encouraged accountability and
engagement, driving the team toward their shared objectives. Ultimately, the synergy
created by these varied traits was essential to the group’s success, illustrating that
diverse personalities serve as an effective factor in achieving collaborative goals

Specific goals:
Team with clear goals find it easier to focus on achieving outcomes through
measurable and transparent communication (Robbins and Judge, 2018). Additionally,
the objectives should be challenging yet attainable to enhance collaboration. Group 22

P a g e 3 | 40
established a common goal of obtaining Merit points for assignment 2 while
breaking down the tasks. We applied the SMART model to establish both our primary
and specific minor objectives. In our first online meeting, the initial goal set for each
member was to complete the first draft of the assignment within one week. After
receiving feedback on draft 1, we advanced to draft 2, where members were expected
to finalize their writing to meet the passing criteria. Draft 2 was then submitted to
team leader Bao Ngoc, who would request feedback from the teacher to help the team
to achieve Merit. Following this, Yen Nhi and Bao Ngoc would assist each member in
refining their work to meet the Merit criteria for the final submission. Achieving
Merit points poses a challenging objective that requires thorough discussions and
careful assessments of each member’s contributions during our meetings. The team
agreed to focus on meeting the requirements for Merit points in the final week leading
up to the deadlines

P a g e 4 | 40
 2. Ineffective factors
Team cohesive:
Team cohesion in group 22 has become an ineffective factor due to the impact of
personal schedules, which often prevent all members from meeting together. As a
result, communication has primarily relied on messaging platforms, leading to slower
progress and reduced collaboration. For example, during the final session of the
Organizational Behavior Management course, coinciding with Vietnam Reunification
Day, five members had conflicting personal commitments, leaving only Bao Ngoc
available to meet with the teacher for assignment feedback. Consequently, she was
responsible for remembering and conveying the instructor’s comments to the rest of
the team. This reliance on a single member for crucial information increases the risk
of miscommunication and may lead to misunderstandings or overlooked details. As a
result, the lack of direct interaction and the coordination challenges stemming
from varying schedules hinder group 22 overall effectiveness and sense of cohesion
as a team.

Feedback from assignment 1:

Feedback from assignment 1 acted as an ineffective factor for group 22, as some
members did not achieve Merit points. Consequently, even if they perform better in
assignment 2 and earn Merit or higher points, the overall score may only reach a
passing level. This situation lead to a decline in motivation among team members, as
they may feel their contributions are not enough to make a significant difference in
their overall performance. Furthermore, the worry that past results may continue to
influence future assessments can undermine morale and engagement.

P a g e 5 | 40
 TASK 6: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
TEAMWORK AND GOAL ACHIEVEMENT

For group 22, attaining a Merit grade on this assignment is the main aim.
Therefore, each member of group 22 is expected to diligently execute their
responsibilities for the collective benefit of the entire group, thereby facilitating the
attainment of their shared goal. This intrinsic relationship between group effectiveness
and goal attainment is examined through factors such as feedback and group
commitment to the group’s goal (Robert, 2016).

Feedback serves as a critical component in group 22’s pursuit of Merit points,

fostering an environment of continuous improvement and shared understanding.
Despite initial differences in capabilities and methodologies, the members of group 22
actively sought and offered feedback to one another, which bolstered our capacity to
collaborate effectively. This practice was apparent during our online meetings, where
team members openly assessed each other’s drafts, shared constructive critiques, and
refined their ideas collaboratively, while consistently supporting one another in
meeting deadlines. Furthermore, group 22 prioritised attending regular feedback
sessions with their teachers, utilising the insights gained to further refine our work
and ensure it satisfied the necessary Merit criteria. By embracing a culture of
feedback and proactively seeking external guidance, group 22 cultivated s sense of
shared accountability and dedication, enabling us to advance consistently towards
their objective of achieving Merit points.

Group commitment to shared objectives acted as a primary catalyst in group 22’s

pursuit of Merit points, fostering a cohesive environment essential for overcoming
challenges. This commitment manifested through proactive participation in online
meetings, task completion, and willingness to support each other in meeting deadlines.
Although feedback from assignment 1 acted as an ineffective factor for some
members who felt their contributions might not significantly impact their overall
score, the group’s commitment remained steadfast. Inspired by Hieu Trung’s success
in achieving Merit on the first assignment, the team resolved to strive for Merit in
subsequent assignments, viewing it as a benchmark for collective success. This

P a g e 6 | 40
dedication stemmed from a shared understanding that each individual’s efforts were
integral to the group’s overall success, fostering a strong sense of collective
responsibility. This shared commitment translated into tangible actions, such as
providing constructive feedback on each other’s work, sharing resources and insights,
and offering encouragement during challenging moments. Through unwavering
commitment, group 22 cultivated a strong synergy, enabling them to overcome
obstacles and progress steadily towards achieving their objective.

Evaluation: Group 22’s efficacy has a direct bearing on its overarching objective of
attaining Merit points in this assignment, underscoring a strong correlation between
these two elements. Explicitly identifying elements that contribute to both efficacy
and inefficiency has empowered group 22 to optimise its collaborative endeavours.
Although challenges arose during the working process,both the continuous feedback
and the group’s unwavering commitment to the Merit objective were crucial. The
group’s strong commitment, coupled with our capacity to provide and act on
constructive feedback, facilitated increased productivity and a positive, collaborative
working environment. To summarise, group 22's efficacy and the accomplishment of
shared objectives are intrinsically intertwined, with each member capitalising on their
distinct strengths and capabilities while sustaining a culture of feedback and
commitment.

P a g e 7 | 40
 TASK 7: TEAM MEMBER’S CONTRIBUTION
Member Tasks Evaluation Level of
contribution
Bao Ngoc contributes ideas during meetings.
Regarding the group assignment, she is
respinsible for composing task 1 and has
significantly aided in enhancing group work
effectiveness. Bao Ngoc develops the
Introduction timeline, allocates tasks and deadlines, and
Dam Bao Ngoc Task 1 routinely encourages members to maintain
Task 7 progres. Furthermore, utilizing her High
Conclusion understanding of Organizational Behavior, she
Slide provides guidelines for each task, notes to
avoid plagiarism, referencing errors.
Addtionally, she consistently monitors
member performance and provides
recommendations when necessary. Lastly, she
is the final individual to review the entire
assignment before submission.
Khoi Nguyen, responsible for task 2,
consistently submits his work ahead of Medium
Nguyen Khoi Task 2 deadlines. He readily adheres to the guidance
Nguyen Task 7 provided by team leader Bao Ngoc, adjusting
Slide his work as necessary. Furthermore, Khoi
Nguyen regularly offers his insights, seeking
useful resources and assists other team
members in completing their respective tasks.
Hieu Trung, tasked with task 3, consistently
Task 3 identifies dependable and valuable resources Medium
Pham Hieu Trung Task 7 for the team. She fosters a positive atmosphere
Slide within the group. While her initial work may
not always reach the desired quality, she
reliably demonstrates an ability to refine and

P a g e 8 | 40
 enhance her contributions constructively.
Yen Nhi, a meticulous and reserved member,
consistently supports the team leader by High
methodically proofreading the work of other
Task 4 team members. Entrusted with task 4, she
Trinh Yen Nhi Task 7 continuously refined the MBTI analysis,
Slide adjusting descriptions and insights to maintain
consistency with other sections. Her revisions
helped integrate personality-based roles with
team dynamics, ensuring cohesion across
tasks. Additionally, she collaborated with
teammates to verify accuracy and relevance,
making task 4 a well-connected part of the
final report. Functioning as the group's
secretary, she shares relevant knowledge
acquired from the course, assisting the team
leader in providing clear and effective
guidance.
Anh Vu, responsible for task 5, played a key
role in motivating the group to strive for their Medium
collective objective after feedback on
Task 5 assignment 1. He diligently monitored
Le Anh Vu Task 7 deadlines, reminding team members to ensure
Slide timely submissions. He contributed to group
discussions, provided constructive feedback,
and supported other members whenever
challenges arose. While his work may not
always have met the required criteria initially,
he consistently demonstrated a willingness to
incorporate feedback and make necessary
adjustments.
Thanh Phuong consistently attended group
meetings and was an active participant,

P a g e 9 | 40
 offering constructive ideas during discussions. Medium
She responsible for task 6, Her work aligned
well with the team’s overall objectives and,
Task 6 alongside Hieu Trung and Anh Vu, fosters a
Nguyen Thanh Task 7 positive, comfortable, and supportive
Phuong Slide atmosphere within the group. Moreover,
Thanh Phuong serves as a significant
motivator, encouraging the group to achieve
its objectives, particularly when members
experience waning enthusiasm.

P a g e 10 | 40
 CONCLUSION

Group 22’s analysis of collaborative dynamics group work led to the determination
that varied personality traits, strong commitment to shared goals, motivating
influences all contribute to the efficiency of group function, which in turn empowers
individuals to meet task requirements and achieve their objectives. Engaging in this
team assignment allows participants not only to broaden their knowledge but also to
cultivate robust collaboration skills that will serve them well in their future.

P a g e 11 | 40
 REFERENCE LIST
 Fiedler, F.E. (1972). Personality, Motivational Systems, and Behavior of High
and Low LPC Persons. Human Relations, 25(5), pp.391–412.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677202500502.
 Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal
of Management, 22(1), 45-83.
 James, W. (2023) Belbin Team Roles — Does It Really Work? One Edu i
cation. 2023 [online]. Available from:
https://www.oneeducation.org.uk/belbin-team-roles/ [Accessed 25 April 2025].

 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique

that works! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review,
50 (4), 370-96
 Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2018). Organizational Behavior (18th
Edition). Pearson.
 Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2018). Organizational Behavior (18th
Edition). Pearson.

 Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development

revisited. Group & Or - ganization Management, 2(4), 419-427.
 Trent, R. J. (2016). Understanding the many factors that affect the success of
organizational work teams. Journal of Business, 1(3), 01-14.

P a g e 12 | 40