Organizational Behavior and Team Development
Domain 3 tests how groups actually behave: how they form, why capable people underperform in teams, and how to handle conflict without destroying trust.
Team formation
Tuckman's stages are forming (dependence, politeness), storming (conflict over roles and influence), norming (agreed rules), performing (task focus), and adjourning. A team arguing about ownership in week two is normally storming, not dysfunctional, and the leader's job is to surface the disagreement rather than suppress it.
Motivation at work
- Herzberg: hygiene factors (pay, policy, working conditions) prevent dissatisfaction but do not motivate; motivators (achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth) drive effort. A pay rise removes dissatisfaction and fades.
- Vroom expectancy: effort must plausibly lead to performance, performance to outcome, and the outcome must be valued.
- Adams equity: people compare their input/outcome ratio with a referent, and perceived inequity produces reduced effort or exit.
- Locke goal setting: specific, difficult but accepted goals with feedback outperform vague encouragement.
Group dynamics that distort performance
Social loafing rises with group size and unclear individual accountability; counter it with visible individual deliverables. Groupthink symptoms include illusion of invulnerability, self-censorship, and pressure on dissenters; counter with a devil's advocate or anonymous input. Psychological safety predicts speaking up and is not the same as low standards.
Conflict modes
Thomas–Kilmann: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating. Collaborating suits important issues with time available; avoiding suits trivial issues or cooling emotions; accommodating suits preserving a relationship over a low-stakes point.
Worked example
A manager reports that a high performer has become withdrawn since a restructure removed her project lead role. Her salary rose but her scope shrank. Applying Herzberg, the pay change is a hygiene improvement while the lost responsibility removed a motivator; the fix is restoring ownership or a development path, not another bonus.
Traps that cost marks
- Treating all conflict as bad; task conflict can improve decisions, relationship conflict rarely does.
- Naming compromise when the item demands a win-win solution.
- Confusing a team norm with a formal policy.
- Assuming a quiet team agrees with the plan.