Prior to the workshop all participants were asked to complete an online survey comprising the Team Development questionnaire described in section 3.4.2, which gives an impression of the context within which a respondent works, and a questionnaire about their career experience. The results are reported in §7.2.1 and §7.2.2.
7.2.1 Stage of team development (Tuckman questionnaire)
All participants (24 developers in 5 workshops across 4 companies) completed the questionnaire. Scores out of 40 representing each stage of team development were calculated as shown in Appendix M as a measure of how participants perceived the developmental stage of their team. A score of 32 or higher indicates a clear perception by the respondent that the team is in that stage, and a score of 16 or less it is not in that stage.
No scores indicated the first stage, Forming, characterising the initial orientation of a new group. This would be an interesting environment in which to test the workshop. As a means of helping team members get to know each other and start to understand how they will approach the task ahead, it may be useful. But this stage is also one in which team members are still orienting themselves, and may be anxious (Mind Tools, n.d.) or cautiously polite.
The second stage, Storming, was the only one to have scores indicating that the team was not in that stage (one respondent at Company B and one at C). In the Storming phase there is “conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues, with concomitant emotional responding in the task sphere. These behaviors serve as resistance to group influence and task requirements.” (Tuckman, 1965, p.396). One respondent’s responses moderately indicated this perception at company A, scoring 24 for Storming. Had there been a consensus on this stage, any failure of the workshop would have to be evaluated in light of this finding. Similarly, a successfully constructive discussion in more cohesive environments cannot be ascribed to the workshop alone. Evaluating the contribution of the workshop format to a Performing team depends on participants’ perceptions of its value.
Three participants’ scores indicated the third stage, Norming, in which “ingroup feeling and cohesiveness develop, new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted. In the task realm, intimate, personal opinions are expressed.” (Tuckman, 1965,
p.396). This is a suitable environment in which to evaluate the workshop as
participants in this stage are willing to express their opinions and the material could be helpful to the evolution of team standards.
Most participants believed their team was in the Performing stage — “the fourth and final stage …Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into the task. Structural issues have been resolved, and structure can now become supportive of task performance” (Tuckman, 1965, p.396). This maturely functioning environment is one in which the workshop can be evaluated as a tool to support the
team in reflecting on their practice and focusing their discussions.
The results are summarised in Table 11; numbers of respondents showing a clear perception of a stage (i.e. score greater than 32) are shown in bold. Guidance for interpreting the questionnaire scores (Clark, 2016) is vague: having “only a small difference” between scores for each of the four stages can occur during the volatility of Storming but Clark does not define “small”. Apart from one participant at Company D (forming 27, storming 26, norming 27, performing 29), there was a minimum difference of at least 6 between any one respondent’s highest and lowest stage scores. Given the strength and consistency of the Performing responses, results are reported here on the assumption that 6 does not constitute a “small difference”.
Company Forming Storming Norming Performing
A 0 1 0 3 + 3
B 0 0 2 3 + 0
C 0 0 0 4 + 4
D 0 0 1 2 + 1
Table 11: Number of respondents with clear or predominant perception of each team stage
7.2.2 Participant demographics
All 24 participants completed the profile questions (Appendix L). Descriptive statistics for their work profile are shown in Table 12. Figure 15 shows that a range of experience was represented, from software developers just starting out to those with a long career behind them. One participant commented that team sizes at company B are dynamic, with people being moved between teams depending on the needs of the projects.
Profile Mean SD Median Minimum Maximum
Experience (years) 11.58 8.90 10.0 <1 30
Previous companies 2.5 2.57 2.0 0 10
Current team size 7.62 2.24 8.0 2 10
Table 12: Work profile statistics of workshop participants
The questionnaire used a free-text question when asking participants to describe their role. The majority, 83%, identified with a technical role directly associated with software development (developer, software developer, software engineer or quantitative analyst). The roles that participants reported are shown in Table 13. These are matched by the activities that account for most time in participants’ current jobs, with 92% of participants citing some aspect of software development as their main activity (Table 14).
≤5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 0 2 4 6 8
Number of years’ experience
No.
of
participan
ts
Figure 15: Workshop participants’ experience in software development Two identified in leadership roles but it was evident from the discussions that all participants were closely familiar with details of the team’s software; “manager” did not signify a participant at any remove from the day-to-day technical minutiae.
Role Qualifiers Subtotal Total
Developer Senior 1 1
Software developer <5 years experience 1 8
Senior 3
— 4
Software engineer and scrum master 1 7
Graduate 3 Junior 1 Principal 1 — 1 Quantitative analyst — 4 4 Web developer — 1 1 Consultant Senior 1 1
Software team leader — 1 1
Manager — 1 1
Table 13: Work roles of workshop participants
These statistics show that the workshop was delivered to the audience of software development professionals for whom it was intended, and that maintenance and adapting existing software play a substantial role in their jobs.
Main activity No. of participants Software development:
System analysis/design 1
Writing new software 9
Adapting existing software 11
Maintenance 1
Other:
b2b technical support 1
researching/learning a technical specification or piece of equipment 1
Table 14: Main work activity of workshop participants