The Importance of DJ Year 4

[McD]

Not to put a damper on this, but this "team building" concept is now outdated...it surely has it's merits, but even we in the military have moved past this concept about 5 years ago.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Haha, thanks. I'll admit, my green ass first heard of this theory the other night ( ) and the wheels started turning right away as my beloved Bills came rushing to mind. Putting the work into posting it here was almost entirely self-therapeutic because, like you mention, this place was getting mighty boring, and as the last surviving Jauron supporter, I had no way of really expressing ANOTHER way to look at things- a way that actually lend itself to optimism -without getting e-stoned in the TSW square!

I could probably be labeled a Jauron supporter as well, although it didn't seem that way above. While I wouldn't exactly be outraged if he was canned, I prefer to give him at least another year. He's not perfect, but we're more desperate for changes both above and below the position of Head Coach than we are for a new skipper.

[The Big Cat]

Not to put a damper on this, but this "team building" concept is now outdated...it surely has it's merits, but even we in the military have moved past this concept about 5 years ago.

 

It's definitely not "out-dated" if it's still be studied and applied in the world of academia. It's been improved upon and two more stages have been added, but just because the military took it out of practice doesn't mean it's an antiquated idea.

[McD]

It's definitely not "out-dated" if it's still be studied and applied in the world of academia. It's been improved upon and two more stages have been added, but just because the military took it out of practice doesn't mean it's an antiquated idea.

 

 

As I stated, it still has it's merits, but it's been improved upon and therefore my response was to enlighten those that there are better team building concepts/practices out there. I think we can agree that the basic concept is pretty much the same across the board as it deals with human nature.

[The Big Cat]

As I stated, it still has it's merits, but it's been improved upon and therefore my response was to enlighten those that there are better team building concepts/practices out there. I think we can agree that the basic concept is pretty much the same across the board as it deals with human nature.

 

Very niiiice. Well, anything pertaining to this kind of psychology is universally applicable, but if I happen to stumble across another theory I'll see if I can apply the same sort of Bills logic to it.

[cody]

Interesting concept.

How long does it take a good team to complete this process? Training camp, a full season, 3 years?

 

If a team fails to have any success in the 'forming' and 'storming' phases, can they really be expected to enter the 'norming' phase?

[Ramius]

Forming: 7-9

Storming: 7-9

Norming: 7-9

 

Performing: 8-8?

[The Big Cat]

Interesting concept.

How long does it take a good team to complete this process? Training camp, a full season, 3 years?

 

If a team fails to have any success in the 'forming' and 'storming' phases, can they really be expected to enter the 'norming' phase?

 

To my knowledge, it's an ongoing, non-progressive cycle. You can apply it to one practice, then apply a greater arc to one week's worth of practice, or to one game, and then to an entire season's worth of games. In terms of moving through the stages, I think team's continually go back in forth between the various levels, but rarely would I say they regress all the way back to 'forming.' But, since new players are added all the time, it's likely it's part of the ongoing process as well.

 

By saying the team exists in one stage is a generalization. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a problematic, it's just a less detailed observation. It's like saying the weather is warm and sunny in Florida. Well, yeah for the most part, but it rains, and gets cold sometimes too. But for the most part, you know what to expect during each of the four seasons.

 

It's also not based on "success," but rather on team cohesion, that's what the goal is, assuming team cohesion generally = success, thus the reason I included the definition of 'team.'

[crazyDingo]

The Bills plan is Boring, Snoring, Not-scoring, Abhorring. Dick wrote the book on it.

 

crazyDingo, you've done it again.

[cody]

It's also not based on "success," but rather on team cohesion, that's what the goal is, assuming team cohesion generally = success, thus the reason I included the definition of 'team.'

 

I hear a lot of reporters talking about how 'together' the Bills are. How much they stick together, like eachother etc.

If cohesion is the goal, doesn't that mean this is as good as it gets?

[Beerball]

The Bills plan is Boring, Snoring, Not-scoring, Abhorring. Dick wrote the book on it.

 

crazyDingo, you've done it again.

yes you have you crazyDingo.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I hear a lot of reporters talking about how 'together' the Bills are. How much they stick together, like eachother etc.

If cohesion is the goal, doesn't that mean this is as good as it gets?

That's what I said. Although, that's not the happiest conclusion from this.

 

But, yes, the vast majority of the team is reportedly very happy with the status quo. They love Dick to death and can't wait to get to work each day. Ralph's own conclusion was that they'd need to "not be complacent" and draft some players (do they have an option to skip the draft?) and hope that some of the young veterans take on more leadership. No changes to upset the stats quo anywhere in the organization. Applying the Tuckman theory to an entire organization is forced, but we don't even have to go there. There may be a couple of players that aren't thrilled out of their minds with everything, but extrapolating that those few personal situations (one of the examples is no longer part of the organization, so it has been "corrected" already) has caused a tumultuous locker room with plenty of constructive conflict resolution by team leaders seems forced at best. (Speaking of which is Brandon ever going to pick up the phone and talk to Peters' people?) Maybe we need a poll to see if anybody thinks that Ralph will pay for the entire organization to go climb Denali, or some other adventure activity, to learn how to communicate and work together better?

[bowery4]

I think you like our coach are over-thinking it. It really is not something to write a dissertation about, it is a football game. Yes it is a team endevor and so that theory may be somewhat applicable but the fact is we had coaches and players who made bad choices during games and seemingly they were not called out. To me that fact speaks for its self. Everything will stay the way it is or get worse. I see 5-11 next year and hope you are right and I am wrong.

[Thurman#1]

If you can't follow that a theory that tries to wrap up group dynamics in 4 (or 5) words is an oversimplification then there is nothing more to discuss. Also, if you can't see from reading posts here that Jauron is far from the only bearer of all blame, well, what can one say? Finally, Tuckerman's model is over 40 years old. It's not a revelation to everyone.

 

 

 

 

4 or 5 words? Did you read that post? It certainly took me more than the fraction of a second it would take me to read 4 words. This model is not oversimplified. If might be flawed or wrong, but oversimplified, no. The point that teams don't just make an orderly progression through the four steps, and that many teams never reach the 4th, or even sometimes the 3rd step hints at the complexities here. Also, the fact that business theorists are still using it after 40 years shows that it is pretty close to a reasonable synthesis of an impossibly varied and complex process. If it obviously didn't fit what happened in the real world, we wouldn't still be talking about it in 2009.

 

Also, he clearly wasn't even pretending that nobody here had ever heard of this theory. He was doing something new by applying this theory to the specific case of the Buffalo Bills.

 

OP, nice job. Stimulates thought, at least. I know I'm a bit out of the mainstream of this one, but my preliminary prediction for next year is 10 - 6 for many of these same reasons. And I'm a guy who predicted the last three years would be 8 - 8, 7 - 9 and a very mediocre team going 9 - 7 strictly because of a shockingly easy schedule. Losing the Browns and 49ers games totally ruined me. I didn't think they would beat a single good team, and I was right.

 

I think that this is a very young team. They are finally reaching the points where they mature and take their places as knowledgeable and physically mature and ready football players. Placing this in terms of your model, I think this year may well be the time they finally move into the norming phase. Could be wrong obviously, and like you I have some doubts that Trent will have emerged from his NFL adolescence next year, so I don't see them leaping any further forward than that.

 

Still, interesting post. Thanks for putting it forward.

[Thurman#1]

I think you like our coach are over-thinking it. It really is not something to write a dissertation about, it is a football game. Yes it is a team endevor and so that theory may be somewhat applicable but the fact is we had coaches and players who made bad choices during games and seemingly they were not called out. To me that fact speaks for its self. Everything will stay the way it is or get worse. I see 5-11 next year and hope you are right and I am wrong.

 

 

 

I hear you, but I don't think there's any reason to think they are not called out. During film sessions, I would think that it is pretty obvious who caused the failures of each particular play, and that while Jauron wouldn't be screaming into their face with snot flying out of his nose, I would be he's saying "Hey, that can't happen."

[jester43]

Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing

 

A very good friend of mine is presently studying the application of the forming-storming-norming-performing theory of team development and others like it; and I'm curious to see if anyone else here finds it applicable to the development of The Bills in the Jauron era. I know it's the popular trend to flame anything that even HINTS at being pro-DJ, but to my knowledge there has yet to be a post which incorporates this sort of academia in order to evaluate Jauron and progress of the team he has helped assemble. I'm making the effort to apply the current Bills regime to this theory because I think that having the coaches and and the majority of the current players coming to the organization at the same time creates a unique situation, and one which is paramount to the application of this theory.

 

Again, I understand that most of the people who come here are Jauron skeptics, no matter HOW the information is conveyed, but try to read through with an open mind. It's not all pro-Jauron anyways, and in some places the theory does point out his potential short comings.

 

For the sake of this theory, a "team" is defined as the following:

 

 

 

Stage 1: Forming

 

 

 

I believe everything mentioned above applies, almost universally, to the 2006 team. One aspect of the team's play- especially the play of the defense- was the heart and motivation each player exerted. Furthermore, one of the praises of Jauron early on was his ability as a "teacher," that he was a good coach to have in place when assembling a young team. That year we had rookies and first-time Bills all over the field- at least one per unit (Whitner, Simpson, Ellison, Pennington, Williams, Royal, Fowler, and to certain extents, Losman and Price), so the idea that they played beyond their abilities can be attributed to this idea of positive, motivated behavior throughout the forming stage.

 

What's really tricky about the different phases is identifying when one ends and when the other begins. Given the lack of continuity brought about by the orgy of injuries in 2007, it's my belief that we stayed in the forming stage through most of 2007, but that certain goings on boosted us into the second, and hardest phase to move beyond:

 

Stage 2: Storming

 

 

 

Here is where the application to the Jauron regime ends, because it's quite clear that we're knee deep in the 'storming' stage. What's nice is that we're not the kind of team with a sharply divisive locker room, in fact, one would argue quite the opposite. However, from my point of view, the storming stage began amidst the JP v Trent controversy last season, especially when players like Evans were vocal about their own preference.

 

Also, one can't help but think of Donte's guarantee when "unrealistic goals" are mentioned as part of the storming phase. Looking at the schedule I (admittedly a newcomer fan in comparison to some of you older guys) thought there was no way we'd finish worse than 10-6, and was baffled that most folks projected the team to finish in the range of 7 to 9 wins. Perhaps you all were subconsiously aware of the forming-storming-norming-performing theory!

 

I think that the Peters hold-out plays into this stage as well. Clearly, his work habits and not on par with the rest of the team's, at least not publicly. As someone playing a position which doesn't allow or encourage him to be on an island, it's a deficit to the team's development when he's simply not present. I also have to believe it caused some (unpublicized) tension amongst everyone on the roster. Folks will cite Bruce Smith as a player who continually pulled the same kinds of shenanigans but to little consequence, but let's face it, even if you ignore the fact that the duties of their position are starkly opposite, Jason Peters is no Bruce Smith.

 

As for Jauron, according to the theory, it was in his better interest to be more 'directive' and under the guidance of rookie OC Schonert, it's likely he tried to take it a step too far- the second NYJ game comes to mind, as does the decision to abandon the run during the Niners game- a decision which welcomed criticism from the players AS WELL as the fans.

 

However, one thing which lends itself to hope, is the "high character" guys with whom they've filled the roster. As the theory mentions, some teams never get themselves out of this phase, but with the intelligent, goal oriented players we've brought on board, it's unlikely this will be the case. Working against the team's progression, obviously, is the hellish schedule they'll be up against next year, and I fear that the storming stage will prolong itself through (at least) the latter portion of 2009.

 

One thing's for certain (to me, at least), a changing of the guard while the team is struggling through this phase would NOT be the way forward. I think in these terms, it's clear how immature the team remains, and how much work is required to get them to the next stage:

 

Stage 3: Norming

 

-For the sake of seeing where the team has yet to go, to see what other teams this might apply to, and to flush out the theory-

 

 

 

A team that immediately comes to mind is the Patriots, especially how they (sometimes to a nauseating extent) comment publicly about this idea of the importance of team and their own roles within it.

 

BUT, I think that there are some very basic, but immensely important tenets are already in place with the team we have now which suggest we're close to achieving the next stage. They may have already reached the norming stage, but are nascent enough still that they're regressing as repeatedly as young teams evidently do.

 

Stage 4: Performing

 

 

 

It seems to me that in the game of football, having a wily, proven veteran at QB is one of the few components which makes the performing progression possible. Like the theory says, some teams achieve this stage.

 

I believe that up until this point in time, our players essentially lack the experience necessary to make it to this level, and insofar, the only teams I've observed playing with this high level efficiency are the ones led by guys with names like Manning or Brady. Hopefully someday we can add Edwards to that list. Here's to hoping!

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Like I already mentioned, I think the strife experienced by the team in 2008 can be attributed to the "growing pains" outlined in the storming phase. Collectively, our team is still very young, and I still believe we lack the key veterans at certain positions which can supplement for our team's lack of experience. Abandoning the philosophies and personnel which have been put together over the last three years would only begin the process anew. Sure, there are anomalies- like the 2008 one-and-out Dolphins and Falcons- but they're just that, anomalies. Probably the best example of a team emerging from the storming stage was the 2007 Giants. It practically falls lockstep with the theory. We can only hope to be so fortunate.

 

I'm really glad we didn't shake things up THIS year. And with Poz entering his (red-shirt) year two, Edwards and Lynch their third years, Hardy entering his all important second year, and hopefully with an influx of talent in the right places during the off-season, I'm really hopeful we'll see the dividends of continuity in 2009. It's a royal shame that we have such a difficult schedule coming up, and that we squandered the chance at such an easy one this year, but if we DO rise to the occasion, I think we have the potential pieces in place to play with and beat any team in the NFL.

 

Go Bills!

i took an organizational development course a few years ago, where we spent a lot of time studying this theory. the professor (dr. susan wheelan, who has also written extensively on this subject) had spent her career as a consultant to corporations trying to promote team development among their executives.

 

having been a coach for many years, i tried my best to apply what we were studying to the development of my teams. but there is one fundamental flaw that prevents it being applied to the bills...

 

at least insofar as dr. wheelan is concerned, the above only applies to work groups who have no changes in membership...i.e.:..the same people in the group from the beginning of the project to the end. therefore you couldn't apply this theory to a sports team from one year to the next...because every year there are several new players and the process must begin anew. this theory could only be applied to a given season. for it to be valid over the course of several years, the roster would have to say the same.

 

bottom line: jauron has had three chances to get us to "performing" and has failed each time.

[Pete]

First off, I can't think of one player from the Buffalo Bills other than Evans and McGee that would be a starter on the Giants.

Kawicka Mitchell was a starter of the Giants. Moorman would start. And I would start Whitner over either one of their safetys

[Sisyphean Bills]

4 or 5 words?

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning. 5 words to summarize states that a small group goes through.

This model is not oversimplified.

It's just 5 states to capture group dynamics. If we assume a worker has only 2 states on the job, then a small group of 3 people has more than 5 basic states. Thus, it is an oversimplification. People are not computers and they belong to many different groups concurrently and their various relationships can affect other relationships. For example, you may be in a very productive relationship with your co-workers working on some project. But, let's say the boss just lost his dog, his wife is divorcing him, his daughter is pregnant, his mom is sick, and he starts drinking heavily as a result. Is the team still performing? In the real world, groups change, people change, interests change, the job changes, the market changes, the goals change, profits change ... there are a lot of factors involved.

The point that teams don't just make an orderly progression through the four steps, and that many teams never reach the 4th, or even sometimes the 3rd step hints at the complexities here. Also, the fact that business theorists are still using it after 40 years shows that it is pretty close to a reasonable synthesis of an impossibly varied and complex process. If it obviously didn't fit what happened in the real world, we wouldn't still be talking about it in 2009.

People still use it because it captures the basic gist of what a group goes through. There is a honeymoon phase, then people realize that they really have to work with the people in the next office and they may not really know what is expected of them and what to do. If they are mature and interested they'll work to define responsibilities and build up competence within their environment. And, hopefully, the group starts humming like a well oiled machine. It's a good way of teaching a newbie manager that they have to react in different ways in different situations with different people.

If might be flawed or wrong, but oversimplified, no.

It is not flawed and wrong, because it is a simplified model of human nature to explain the stereotypical stages that most small groups must go through to achieve success.

 

Also, he clearly wasn't even pretending that nobody here had ever heard of this theory. He was doing something new by applying this theory to the specific case of the Buffalo Bills.

That's a problem right there, because it is a small group theory and applying to an organization is forced. The Bills organization is very dynamic with people coming and going all the time. It thus has 1 state: forming.

OP, nice job. Stimulates thought, at least. ... Still, interesting post. Thanks for putting it forward.

I was answering the OP's primary question at the top of his thesis post -- "I'm curious to see if anyone else here finds it applicable to the development of The Bills in the Jauron era." No, I don't think it has anything to do with it. It's being misapplied and, while it can be a good tool to understand small group dynamics in a broad sense, it can't be used to explain precise interpersonal relationships and where a small group is headed.

 

So there is no misunderstanding, Big Cat is obviously a big fan and spent a lot of time thinking about this and working on his application of the Tuckman theory. I don't agree, but I do acknowledge that he went to a lot of effort. Thanks for sharing your thought, Big Furball.

[BillsVet]

I wonder if Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll, Bill Parcells, Paul Brown, Bill Walsh, and Bill Belichick thought about Tuckman before each season? Most certainly they did not.

 

Applying these theories to football is completely ridiculous. Have a head coach who knows what they're doing, always play to win, and don't be afraid to take calculated risks. Oh, and have a GM who can find talented players. None of those characteristics or people are in Buffalo, so of course that's a problem.

[spartacus]

To my knowledge, it's an ongoing, non-progressive cycle. You can apply it to one practice, then apply a greater arc to one week's worth of practice, or to one game, and then to an entire season's worth of games. In terms of moving through the stages, I think team's continually go back in forth between the various levels, but rarely would I say they regress all the way back to 'forming.' But, since new players are added all the time, it's likely it's part of the ongoing process as well.

 

By saying the team exists in one stage is a generalization. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a problematic, it's just a less detailed observation. It's like saying the weather is warm and sunny in Florida. Well, yeah for the most part, but it rains, and gets cold sometimes too. But for the most part, you know what to expect during each of the four seasons.

 

It's also not based on "success," but rather on team cohesion, that's what the goal is, assuming team cohesion generally = success, thus the reason I included the definition of 'team.'

seems to be a perfect fit for Dick style, since it is not based on success.

 

Bills do have a cohesive team, just not a very successful one - all driven by Dick's failure to demand anything more.