Quais são os modelos de team building mais eficazes?

A very flawed model build on samples and settings completely unrelated to work. Although the simplicity of the model is compelling, the practical applications are limited.

In my experience each of these models has a place depending on the needs of the team. The most important aspect is to assess the team dynamics against what they are trying to achieve as a team and then focus on both strengths and opportunities that will move the performance and effectiveness of the team.

The power of Tuckman comes from understanding it's not a linear evolutionary process, and there can be reversals, that a team leadership approach needs to consider the teams collective maturity as the primary contextual issue to respond to, and that real life is messy.

Bruce Wayne Tuckman (I don't think he was from Gotham) was a pioneer (1965) as an educationalist and navy psychologist shortly after the Human Relations movement. This does not make his contribution "very flawed" - unless someone is trying to lambast the work of others to commercially prove how brilliant their own questionnaire is (tiring and disrespectful). Tuckman has stood the test of time and is extremely popular and he helped to legitimize the insight that teams are temporary in nature and go through conflict phases ('storming').

Effective team building is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. Each team is unique, with its own dynamics, strengths, and challenges. Tuckman's Stages of Group Development is particularly apt for teams navigating through various developmental phases, offering insights into overcoming challenges. Belbin's Team Role Theory, on the other hand, is well-suited for creating balanced teams by recognizing and utilizing individual strengths effectively. These models provide valuable frameworks tailored to the unique dynamics of teams at different stages or with specific composition considerations. The choice between them depends on the team's developmental needs, goals, and the emphasis on individual roles and strengths within the team.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming Belbin can be used to pigeon-hole people; it's a reflection of current comfort zones and these are neither permanent nor all-consuming. Also, Belbin gives us just 9 roles, 3 less than Astrological star-charts and no-one credible would use that to plan their team structure. People are not somewhat transient labels; instead consider Belbin as uncovering skills or capacity gaps in your ensemble.

Individual difference measures applied to teams are not particularly useful, nor are static team roles. As such, the Belbin model is not of much use.

A great piece of fiction that has no grounding in research. The model has a number of flawed assumptions and gaps that severely limit its usefulness to anyone seriously interested in improving team effectiveness. For example, situational factors, such as the economy, demographics, competitors, customers, pandemics, remote work, suppliers, wars, inflation and the like can have a big impact on team goals and dynamics. Where are these accounted for in this model? Ditto with groups vs teams?

In my mind, we (again) focus on two wrong prospects: - First we conjugate team Leadership with "to be" and not "to do". This is a recurring bias not to say error we see in many of those posts. - Second we focus on the "what" and not the "how". And everybody knows that if easy to state "constructive conflict", "accountability" (the what), it requires hard work to actually create it (the how). Working with C-level teams, we spend a lot of time addressing the team Vs group, their purpose & unicity, their functions (decision-making, problem solving, etc.), shared accountabilities, how they keep improving - and as a result, ROUTINES to create the what. And this "how" requires they invest a lot of work and time... with data & science.

I will add this thought to each of these models. Without a model, any understanding is much more difficult, so at least these provide a simple framework to add discussion. They can be explanatory but they are not Truth. As the statistician George Box said in his 1976 book, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." ALL the weather forecasting models are wrong, but they are useful and they do somewhat predict daily happenings and weekly possibilities. "The Truth is Out There." (But not so much when it comes to predicting human behavior or team realities. (grin) And I have never read Lencioni's stuff...

This is a good model that is backed by considerable research. However, it does not work as well with groups or with collections of people that fall somewhere in the middle of a group vs team continuum. The model also fails to address some key factors affecting teams and is overly academic. If you need an advanced degree to understand a model, then it probably is not going to play well with for- and non-profit clients.

I will add this thought to each of these models. Without a model, any understanding is much more difficult, so at least these provide a simple framework to add discussion. They can be explanatory but they are not Truth. As the statistician George Box said in his 1976 book, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." ALL the weather forecasting models are wrong, but they are useful and they do somewhat predict daily happenings and weekly possibilities. "The Truth is Out There." (But not so much when it comes to predicting human behavior or team realities. (grin) I don't even think the Hackman stuff is useful.

These are fantastic team building models for anyone stuck in the 20th century. Our knowledge of groups and teams, how they fit into talent management systems, and how to scale effective teamwork has advanced rapidly over the past 25 years. There are much better researched, more comprehensive, and highly practical models available, and they include the Tannenbaum and Salas 7C model and the Rocket Model by Curphy, Nilsen, and Hogan.

By far the best exploration of team functioning based on comprehensive evaluation (3 years) of more than 200 different teams is the work of Carl E. Larson (University of Denver) & Frank M. J. LaFasto eliciting eight factors. In 'Teamwork' they explore the eight properties of successful teams: a clear, elevating goal; a results-driven structure; competent team members; unified commitment; collaborative climate; standards of excellence; external support and recognition; and principled leadership.

My advice: "Don't just DO Something. Stand There." Keep looking at how things are working and reflect on what needs attention. One key is active involvement and ownership engagement because, "Nobody ever washes a rental car." Another factor is that so much team building anchors in activity that is DESIGNED to have winners. Remember that if you are intentionally trying to create winners, you are actually creating many more LOSERS. Not everybody is motivated by competition. And the reality of most organization is that 1 in 5 people are actively unengaged. 20% of your people are NOT on your teams and many of them will be actively working against your initiatives. ONE in FIVE.