PayDay Loans FAQ

The longer a group has been together and the greater the trust among its members, the faster it will return to the highest stage of development it had achieved before the interference. Groups that return to Norm and Perform levels despite changes and new challenges are invaluable human assets. Because of the time and effort needed to build good partnerships, keeping high-functioning groups together makes sense.

Now that you understand the theory behind the Stages of Relationship Development, I want to show you how to use them as a tool for developing partnerships. Although many people cognitively understand the stages, they promptly forget about them in a group setting. Yet this is when they are needed the most.

The relationship then moves into the Perform stage. In this stage, creative energies surface, increase, and flow abundantly as partners generate synergy. Now people perform at highly creative, efficient, and productive levels. The partnership achieves goals that often exceed expectations at the outset.

Partnerships, like most things in life, are not cut and dried. People move back and forth between stages as the dynamics of the relationship change in response to outside forces and influences. For instance, let’s say a group of people representing different departments in the same organization have joined together in a partnership to address the issue of quality. Currently in the Norm stage of development, they’ve functioned well for months. Then suddenly, the vice president of one department informs the group that the team’s objectives have changed. Some members object that the vice president is manipulating the group to focus efforts on improvements for his department at the expense of others. As conflicts arise about the team’s former objective versus the new objective, the group reverts temporarily to the Storm stage. If the team as a whole can clarify and agree on new objectives, the group will return to the Norm stage. Because members of the group have already established a level of trust among themselves, they should be able to move forward. Ideally, they will feel confident addressing issues and resolving them in an open manner and with group consensus. Rebounding from Norm to Storm and back is inherently easier than the initial evolution from the Storm stage.

The relationship then moves into the Storm stage. Now some of the initial politeness may begin to give way to more aggressive behavior as people begin to assert themselves and test the limits of the relationship. Conflicts begin to erupt between individuals or between individuals and the leadership, and trust begins to become an issue. Though most people dislike conflict, the Storm stage is a sign of growth in the development of the relationship. The better the relationship created in the Form stage, the easier it is to deal with conflict in the Storm stage. The group establishes boundaries; individuals express their needs; trust starts to develop; and, with luck, the relationship develops.

Members move into the Norm stage when they have identified their own needs and aligned those needs with the goals of the partnership; they are now able to contribute to the overall success of the endeavor. They begin to establish rules for acceptable behavior—both verbal and nonverbal. They start to know what is expected of them. They migrate in a normal and natural way to the roles that are established and defined. They begin to employ collaboration—rather than confrontation or avoidance—to resolve conflict. People feel comfortable with each other and begin to enjoy the personal relationships they’ve established in the partnership. They start to have fun. They experiment and try new and daring activities as they deepen the level of trust they feel with each other and begin to see their personal success tied to the success of the partnership. By the time the relationship reaches the end of the Norm stage, the values and norms of behavior have been integrated into the culture of the partnership.

When a relationship is in the Form stage, the members of the group are generally polite to one another. Most are reserved and allow a group leader or dominant individual to control activities. Others may not reveal much about themselves or disclose their reasons for being involved in the group. They sit back and take a wait-and-see attitude.

But the Form stage is optimal for members’ investing time and energy toward clarifying issues, objectives, and dynamics of the relationship and expressing their needs. During this stage of development, they need to address questions about roles, rules, procedures, and the partnership agenda. “What are we doing?” is a question frequently heard in the Form stage, and during this period people need to ask themselves how much they want to invest in the relationship.

They need to decide whether they are in or out—and, if they are in, what the price of admission is. Consequently, the Form stage needs a strong leader to give direction and set the tone of the partnership until trust is established and situational leadership can emerge in a natural way.

These matters, if not addressed up front, will resurface later and can sabotage the development of trust. Some partners are so eager to “do the deal” that they forget they’re interacting with other people who have their own needs and wants. Impatience at the Form stage is a signal of a potential “one-night stand” relationship.

Multinational companies will want to reduce costs and maximise resources within a single, integrated structure. Things to consider when determining the best structure include:

Political, economic and other factors affecting stability. If the operating environment is unstable, then the best solution may be to provide direct support.

Resources: human, financial and so on.

The purpose, size and complexity of the operation. Generally, the more sophisticated and complex the organisation, the more autonomy is required. But good communications between local operations and overseas headquarters are always important.

Communicating. When building an international business, all those with a stake in the company, especially shareholders, providers of finance and employees, should be informed of what is happening, what the advantages are and what it means for them. Without an explanation, people often fear the worst. Without a convincing explanation, they worry that the management has not thought things through and may be making a strategic error.

Analysing the available options will highlight the best approach and inform the way in which it is executed. A strategy to expand internationally requires a champion, someone with dynamism and commitment, and ideally with local expertise or expertise in setting up a similar expansion elsewhere. Such a champion must be flexible enough to make adjustments as necessary to make the new strategy succeed, and must have (or have a subordinate who has) good project management skills in order to provide focus and prioritise actions and aims.

Structuring international operations. It can be unproductive and a waste of resources to make a new international firm fit existing systems and procedures. But core management issues such as communications, structure and leadership are best resolved early. Managers must ensure that information and expertise flow freely throughout the organisation.

In particular, best-practice information should be widely disseminated and available for everyone in the organisation. Deciding the degree of autonomy given to international business units is fundamental. Reporting structures, responsibilities and authority levels need to be clear. An organisation benefits from being integrated and cohesive and should be fair and consistent in its practices and with its employees. Local factors should be taken into account, but an organisation should be true to its values. Co-ordination and control are important; if left to drift, international operations become disconnected from the rest of the organisation, even in conflict with it.

Leading and motivating people, setting direction and making decisions are all made more difficult across borders. Empowerment often provides a solution, enabling people to work within clearly defined areas of responsibility. Mentoring schemes can provide individuals with support and coaching, helping to integrate international business units into the organisation as a whole.

There are many areas where an overseas expansion can run into difficulty. Are employees prepared, motivated, trained and equipped to do business internationally? What practical difficulties and barriers to expansion are there in the short and medium term? Another area requiring consideration is the communication of the decision. How will existing customers, employees and shareholders react to the decision to expand overseas? Are there opportunities to raise the profile of the organisation and facilitate its entry into the new market? To better understand such organisational issues, it makes sense to use external advisers with experience of the market. Government agencies and trade associations can also provide help and so, too, can other, non-competing businesses. Local personnel with expertise in the market can be recruited to advise on the best way of succeeding in a new market.

Many firms think that they understand a foreign market when they do not. There are a number of examples of British firms (Marks & Spencer and emap are two) going into the United States and getting it badly wrong. You need to understand how progress is made, how things are done and what the principal issues, including cultural ones, are. How will the organisation be perceived? Is everyone involved prepared for doing business in an environment that may be different? As discussed in previous posts cultural issues are particularly significant in cross-border mergers or acquisitions. One lesson from successful mergers is that it is often best to recognise cultural differences, show flexibility and compromise, and work hard at developing a unitary set of values. Common systems and integrated objectives can help achieve this.

The first priority is to be clear about what your international strategy can and cannot achieve. There should also be clearly defined success criteria: many firms stage the implementation of their international expansion, only committing additional resources when initial objectives have been achieved. A helpful question to ask might be: “What level of achievement would be acceptable to the business, regardless of how the market is perceived?” Other questions include the following:

• How does the international strategy help to achieve the overall aims of the organisation?
• What are the priorities (cross-selling or improving service for existing customers, attracting new clients, attacking current or potential competitors, reducing costs, gaining information and experience, or something else)?
• What are the options? For example, should the firm set up an overseas office or subsidiary, or would acquisition, a joint venture, franchising or licensing be better approaches?
• Where are the potential pitfalls and how will the risk be managed?
• Does the organisational structure need to be altered to take full advantage of the international operations? If so, how?

Some firms expand abroad because their market as a whole is an international one, as it is for such industries as entertainment, publishing, pharmaceuticals and telecoms. Or it may be because the domestic market is too small, as it is for such industries as aerospace, shipbuilding and automotive manufacturing.

However, decisions to expand internationally are probably driven by less rational factors or by conjecture. International expansion may result from a desire to exploit a much larger market, which can then be justified with spurious interpretations of data. There is prima facie evidence of this from two sources. The first is the dotcom explosion that occurred during the 1990s, when many entrepreneurs and their backers believed that a global market existed for whatever was being sold. The key was simply to get online, drive traffic to the site and gain market share. The internet came to be seen as a fast track to securing a strong global position. The second is the keenness of firms to expand into China during the 1980s and 1990s. Many saw China as the most promising market in the world, and many have so far been sorely disappointed.

Pursuing foreign markets is invariably much more complex than it may appear at first sight. It can also be largely untried.