This paper argues that the Tuckman teambuilding model, commonly known as forming, storming, norming, and performing, is applicable in the legal setting.  Lawyers use the Tuckman model to build teams, whether they know it or not.  This paper supports this theory with the following case-studies: examining teamwork in the context of different cultures and issues involving teamwork in medium and large sized law firms and legal corporations.

In 1965, Bruce Tuckman published “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups” in the Psychological Bulletin.[1]  Tuckman surveyed numerous study regarding stages of small group development, mostly in the group therapy setting.[2]  Tuckman argued that the studies produced a four-stage group development model; forming, storming, norming, and performing.[3]

The first stage that Tuckman found necessary to build an effective team was forming.  “Forming” occurs when the group initially comes together or, alternatively, when new members join the group.[4]   At this point, the group members are figuring out how they fit into the group and whom in the group they can trust.[5]  The leader must outline the group’s mission and guides and directs the individual group members.

The second stage is “storming” which is “characterized by conflict and polarization around intrapersonal issues, with concomitant emotional responding in the task sphere.”[6]  Conflict may also occur when group members bid for power and seek to influence others over goals and decision-making.  The leader should facilitate discussion to resolves issues as they arise and ensure that there is a common understanding.

“Norming” is the third stage in group development and overcomes the conflicts that existed in the storming stage.  The group develops new roles and cohesiveness which allows the members to begin working positively together.[7]  The leader supports and coaches the group as a whole and may begin to celebrate successes as they arise.

In the last stage, “performing”, Tuckman argues that “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.”[8]  Unlike in the storming stage, the group is focused on achieving goals and conflict is handled positively.  The group now trusts and respects each other allowing the group to work interdependently.[9]  The leader encourages a high level of performance and, again, celebrates successes.

Tuckman found that the stages identified how groups developed within the group-therapy model, but stated the fit was not perfect.  “Some of the studies identify some but not all of the suggested stages.”[10]  Despite this caveat, the Tuckman model for team-building has been successful since its publication.  Here, we argue that the Tuckman model is not only applicable to the legal setting, but desirable in the following situations: working with teammates from differing cultures, and teams in medium and large law firms and corporations.  Additionally, we pay special attention to the process of teambuilding, not just the stages of team development.

Team-building and Different Cultures

As we reviewed above, team-building process is composed four stages: forming, storming, norming and performing.  When we observe a team works in different cultural settings, we can see different cognitive style and different communication style affect every step of team-building.

For example, according to my personal experience, when you have Korean teammates, you have to take extra care not to make competitive atmosphere between two teammates with a big age difference in the forming stage of team development.  It’s better for you to set them up as the older one is helping the younger one, even when the younger one has better skills and understanding about the work.

Under the influence of Confucianism, Korean people are educated to respect older people and there’s strong idea of the older leading and advising the younger.  If you make two people with a big age difference compete, the younger one would feel uncomfortable about showing his ability to the full in fear of looking too greedy and ostentatious.  The older one would feel stressed out because even he tries extremely hard and does better work, he only wins against a baby.

To be a good leader, it’s essential to understand the cultural background of your teammates as well as your teammates’ personality.  My young assistant was very ambitious and hard-working usually, but when he was asked to compete against the older colleague, he suddenly turned into a timid and overly self-conscious person.

As globalization goes on, we have more opportunity to work with people from different cultures.  Future leadership is not going to be complete without considering the globalization factor. In this section we are going to review some of the interesting studies about team-building and cultures to get insight of globalized leadership.

(1) The Social Context of Negotiations

According to Michele Joy Gelfand’s empirical study with Americans teams outperform individuals in negotiations.  The explanations are as follows. First, teams generally set higher economic goals and are more competitive than individuals.  In a negotiation context, this increased competitiveness can be an asset which can help to increase teams’ outcomes.  Second, team members challenge each other’s understanding of the situation thereby creating more complexity of thought regarding negotiation issues.  Third, teams, more than solos, engage in more across-the table information exchange and issue exploration as a way to increase their mutual understanding of the situation, as well as to reduce task ambiguity and uncertainty.  Finally, teams naturally have more accountability pressures as compared to their solo counterparts.  Solo negotiators, who must face the other side alone, have no other team members who can judge, either implicitly or explicitly, their attitudes and behavior.  By contrast, team members need to coordinate their behavior and face the judgment and evaluation of their team members.  Accordingly, self-presentational concerns are heightened to a greater extent in teams as compared to solos, and negotiators in teams have more pressure to comply with opinions and standards that are set by others.[11]

 

(2) Individual Culture and Collective Culture

Michele Joy Gelfand carried her experiment further and examined team versus solo negotiations in individualistic societies, such as the U.S., as compared to collective cultures, such as Taiwan.  In individualist cultures, the self is defined as an autonomous, bounded, self-sufficient entity that is independent from one’s social context.  Although relationships are important, they are secondary to the cultivation of one’s interests and goals.  Norms in individualistic cultures favor competition, and open conflict is generally acceptable.

By contrast, in collective cultures, the self is strongly interdependent with group, and although individuals certainly have internal attitudes, preferences, and beliefs, these attributes are not the defining characteristics of their identities.  Rather, relationships are a primary focus of attention, especially in situations of interdependence with others.  In collective cultures, norms favor cooperation and open confrontation is not acceptable in situations where one is cultivating and/or trying to maintain a relationship.[12]

(3)Overview of Study

In the first experiment, participants were asked to take the role of a chef or the role of an entrepreneur.  Participants were told that they would like to open a catering business together and would be negotiating over four issues.  These issues included each party’s capital investment, what space they would rent for the business, what van they would rent for the business, and what quality kitchen equipment they would lease.

At the second experiment, participants were asked to do the same negotiation, only in group of two people.  They prepared a joint planning document where they set their economic targets and limits before they meet the other party.  When negotiations involved the formation of a new business relationship, team-on-team negotiators set higher targets and limits and achieved greater joint outcomes than solo-on-solo negotiators in the U.S.

By contrast, this effect was reversed in Taiwan: Taiwanese team-on-team negotiators set lower targets and limits and achieved lower economic outcomes than solo-on-solo negotiators.   This study supports Gelfand’s general proposition that in a deal-making context, party configuration universally affects negotiation; however, it is structured through different cultural practices and meanings, creating different negotiation outcomes.  More generally, this study also expands the negotiation literature by illustrating that the team versus solo effect commonly found in the U.S. cannot necessarily be generalized to collective cultures such as Taiwan.  It the social context in which negotiators are embedded plays a critical role in negotiation dynamics in different cultures.[13]

The experiment mentioned above provides a meaningful insight about how cultural background works in norming and performing of teams.  When I worked for tax crime prosecution team in Korea, there were 6 tax crime teams in the building.  At first, my boss thought it was a good idea to open the record of all the teams in detail to make competitive atmosphere and encourage the team members to work harder.  But contrary to his expectations, the goal of each team was set lower than before there was record opening.  I heard some of the assistants and investigators made a pact not to make a big number, because that will make other teams look lazy and unproductive.  While I was having dinner with my team, one of my investigators said he felt disgraced because to him the record opening seemed like a sign that the boss did not believe he was doing his best.  He said he felt extremely uncomfortable because he was explicitly put in a position to compete against younger investigators in other teams.  He had to check the numbers frequently not to lose his face, and that wasted his time to work.

Due to the high level of stress, the morale of the whole tax crime department began to fall.  I had a meeting with other prosecutors to solve this problem.  We talked with our boss and explained the situation and suggested limiting the range of open record.  He accepted the offer and my investigators and assistant started working with peace of mind.

I think my boss was learning a leadership developed in the U.S., and overlooked the characteristic of Korean culture.  To Korean people, under the influence of collective culture, the relationship with their colleagues was much more important than personal achievement.  If they think their good record is making their colleagues feel bad, they will set lower goals than their actual capacity.

Going through the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages, it is important to understand and foresee your teammates’ thoughts and conducts.  Cultural point of view is helpful to enhance your team-building leadership to a global level.

Team Building in Large Law Firms

While team building can benefit organizations of all sizes, large law firms often face special considerations.  Large firms tend to employ more people in a wider array of positions, and as a result teams will often contain members from several different departments.  In addition to difficulties in managing larger groups, these diverse pairings can sometimes lead to conflict as different members have different agendas from their specific departments.  Also, issues such as multidisciplinary practices, alternative billing arrangements, and lawyer burnout are often more pronounced in larger firms.[14]  Managing these potentially difficult situations in an efficient, productive manner requires both skill and patience on the part of leaders.

Work Teams vs. Working Groups

Here, we address the process of building of an effective team, rather than merely the stages of development of the team itself.  “A conventional working group involves a single strongly identified leader, individual accountability and delegation of the work.”[15]  The focus in a working group is always on individual goals and accountabilities, such as with billable hours in a law firm; here, the performance of the group (the law firm) depends on what its individual members (attorneys, legal assistants, etc.) do.[16]

Conversely, a work team “involves coordinated activities by two or more individuals to accomplish a common goal.”[17]  This is different from the working group situation because work teams involve both individual and mutual accountability.[18]  To illustrate, a true partnership is a work team, while several individual attorneys sharing office space constitute a working group.[19]  Further, “[w]hile a working group has one leader, individual accountability and delegates the work among members of the group, members of a team share leadership responsibilities, have both individual and mutual accountability, and do real work together.”[20]

Another take on the issue of working groups as opposed to teams is found in a the points made by Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith in the article entitled “The Discipline of Teams” that appeared in the Harvard Business Review in July-August 2005 edition.  The authors point out that all groups that work together are not necessarily teams. Instead, a group of individuals working together may be a working group.  Here are some of the areas in which a team differs from a working group:

1. A team has shared leadership roles, whereas a working group has a strong clearly focused leader.

 

1. Team members have individual and mutual responsibilities, whereas a working group member has only individual accountability.

 

1. The purpose of the team is specific, whereas the purpose of the working group is the same as the boarder mission of the organization.

 

1. Team members have collective work products, whereas work group members have individual work products.

 

1. Teams have meetings that involve open ended discussions and active problem solving meetings. Working groups run efficient meetings.

 

1. Teams measure the effectiveness of the work indirectly by their influence on others, as opposed to direct results by individual working group members.

 

 

Each of these forms has advantages and disadvantages and can be effectively utilized in different situations.  However, work teams are often underutilized in large firms.  Sharing leadership responsibilities and holding individuals both personally and mutually accountable can drastically increase productivity and efficiency in an environment where individuals are predominantly concerned with their own accountability issues (e.g. billable hours).  When individuals care not only for their own incentives but also the well-being of the team as a whole, this ties their goals to those of the larger group and results in more closely aligned interests.

Two of the biggest benefits of effective team building in large firms are improved firm innovation and employee satisfaction.[21]  Studies have shown that teams comprised of members from different areas of the organization are more innovative than traditional, hierarchical groups.[22]  One reason for this could be that over time, individuals who work together might start to think like one another; this might be especially pronounced if the organizational unit has certain policies or ways of doing things that create habits.  By opening up a team to individuals from different parts of the larger organization, new ideas, processes, and ways of thinking can be infused from one group into another.  Large firms often might have more opportunities to create this cross-group innovation since they likely have a larger array of departments as well as a larger pool of employees.

Another major benefit of effective team building is increased employee satisfaction.  Employees today, perhaps more than ever, are craving the ability to influence policies and decision-making in their jobs.[23]  Quite simply, employees are seeking more meaningful work.  When individuals feel as if their interests and those of the group are tied together, they are more likely to feel passionate about what they are doing.

Firms need to “provide support from the top.”[24]  The individual members of each work team need to not only hear about the benefits of work teams, but also need to see firsthand that upper management supports this business model.  Because effective team building is not a given in many organizations, it likely will take some time and work for individuals to become comfortable and productive with the idea; as such, it is essential that these individuals recognize throughout the learning process that management is fully behind them.

Firms must also pay attention from the start; teams that get off on the wrong foot often will fail, while teams that get off to a good start often will succeed.[25]  In that regard, Katzenbach advises as follows:

1. Select members for skills and skill potential;

 

1. Pay particular attention to first meetings and actions;

 

1. Set clear rules of behavior—i.e. no cell phones, confidentiality, being constructive, sticking to the facts; and

 

1. Establish a sense of urgency

 

An effective work team should also develop specific policies and rules of behavior so that its members know exactly what is expected of them.[26]  Team leaders must be especially careful with their own behavior to not set bad precedents that individual members might later follow; for example, if during the first meeting the team leader interrupts the gathering to take a personal phone call, this likely will have a negative future effect on the other members of the team.

It is also important to set challenging but achievable goals.[27]  Setting challenging goals pushes a team to work harder and achieve more.  Conversely, setting goals too low can result in individuals thinking less is expected of them, which could lead to less caring and lower productivity.  There is a careful balance to strike, however.  Setting goals too high can have a demoralizing effect on the team if it fails to achieve those goals.  Perhaps the most important part of goal setting is to make sure that the team achieves whatever goals it has before it; as such, it is important to create goals that force the team to reach, but not so far that its members are setup for failure from the beginning.

To function as an effective team, it also is important to mix the appropriate skills of the individual members.[28]  A team must have individuals with the relevant expertise to solve whatever problems are before it.  “The skills needed to enhance teamwork fall into three categories:  technical or functional expertise; problem-solving and decision-making skills; and interpersonal skills.”[29]  Sometimes certain individuals might possess skills in more than one of these categories, but however they are covered, it is important to have all three categories represented in the team.

A team must also have a good amount of time together.[30]  Brainstorming, coming together into a cohesive unit, and developing strong working relationships all take time.  It is a mistake to intentionally limit the amount of time that team members have together, as this could significantly impair their ability to develop into an effective team.  Lastly, it is also important to have fun.  Individuals who remember to keep a sense of humor and laugh also often have lower stress levels, which leads to a happier working environment and increased group productivity.

An attorney of nationwide prominence who has been the managing partner of a nationwide law firm and also a large public company states that “have [younger]attorneys work with you and not for you.  Spend time with them as a team.  Work as hard as they do, but let them know that your work includes generating business for the firm as well as the actual practice of law, and generating business is still work nevertheless.”[31]

Another attorney, formerly a partner with a nationwide law firm and now in a small partnership  states that :  “In order to be successful, the team must provide value that outweighs the loss of efficiencies through some duplication of efforts, the time involved in managing team members and the frequently competing goals and incentives of the team members that discourage productive teamwork (such as who gets “credit” for the project, who is allocated the “grunt work”, etc.[32]

He goes on to state that:  “Good teamwork will yield higher quality legal services at a fair cost to the client.  Good teamwork typically involves (a) a leader or leaders who organize and manage the team; (b) team members who have the necessary experience and expertise and appropriate billing rate to add value to the project; (c) appropriate incentives so that team members feel they are valued and are contributors; and (d) a willingness of the team members to put aside personal incentives for the good of the team and the project. If any of these elements break down, the quality of the legal services will decline and the costs to the client will increase.”[33]

A marketing consultant, who has spent many years advising law firms on client development matters, has a slightly different point of view about team work in the context of law firms.[34]  She states that the legal model of compensation works against teamwork.  She also states that with the majority of attorneys being introverts, they do not have the experience in earlier years in student government and leadership roles.[35]  She states there is a tendency on the part of lawyers to micromanage rather than engage in teamwork.[36]  But she goes on to say that those attorneys who do have the ability to be leaders and work in teams will be appreciated and rewarded if they stick with it long enough and be patient.[37]

A patent attorney who has worked at both law firms and as in house counsel at two corporations states that:  “I’ve worked with a variety of teams-and even some from the outside look completely dysfunctional.  However, the fact that we had a common goal—we recognized the various strengths of people and used them for their strengths—we actually worked quite well.  We had management that demanded we respect our coworkers/team members.  Having a designated point person/ leader (if you want to call the person) to make sure the team, goes through the process is important.  It’s also important to acknowledge that different people are better “leaders” in the various stages of the team, whether or not they are specifically designated the leader.”[38]  She goes on to state that: “Effective execution (performing) can only be accomplished if the team was set up/organized properly, but sometimes teams become bogged down in the process (forming, storming, and norming) and forget to execute.  I’ve seen great people that are afraid to perform/execute because they are afraid to “fail.”[39]

In the case of one of the authors of this paper, Janet Walworth, she has been both in law firms and in two different corporations, and has seen good teamwork and lack of teamwork, but when teams work well and long together, because they all have interlocking and necessary skills.  She says it results in a magical ability to get a lot done well.  She quotes from “What I Wish I Knew When I was 20” by Tina Seelig: “ I’ve been on teams in which everyone on the team feels as though he or she got the “easy” job. If you think about it, this is the perfect work environment. Each person is doing what he or she does best, and is extremely appreciative of what the other people on the team brings to the table. Everyone has a job perfectly tuned to his or her skills and interests. Everyone feels great about his or her contributions and celebrates the contributions of others. The saying ‘paint the target around the arrow’ summarizes this wonderfully. I first heard this from my colleague Forrest Glick. It had been a mantra in his group when he worked at Harvard University. The idea is that you should pick the most talented person you can—the arrow and then craft the job—the target– around what he or she does best.”

Teamwork Techniques

Brainstorming is one of the most effective, and most often underutilized, tools for problem solving in a team environment.[40]  In a large firm, attorneys from different practice groups could periodically meet in teams to brainstorm ideas for each others’ clients and cases.  In this way, team members could share their expertise, and a fresh perspective could very well lead to a breakthrough that an individual would not have accomplished alone.  In other words, as Linus Pauling said: “The best way to get a good idea is to get a lot of ideas”

A good discussion of brainstorming is to be found in a book entitled “the Art of Innovation” by Tom Kelley.  Tom Kelley is the general manager of IDEO, an award winning and extremely profitable company headquartered in Palo Alto that does innovative product design.  Although not specifically about the law, it nonetheless offers from interesting insights  about brainstorming and teamwork.  He puts it this way:  “Brainstorming is the idea engineer of IDEO’s culture.  It’s an opportunity for teams to ‘blue sky’ ideas early in a project or solve a tricky problem that’s cropped up later on.  The more productive the group, the more it brainstorms regularly and effectively.  We call the sessions ‘brainstormers’ which to us sounds like an active, engaging event.  The buzz of a good brainstormer can infect a team with optimism and a sense of opportunity that can carry it through the darkest and most pressure-tinged stages of a project.” (p 56).

The book provides seven secrets for better brainstorming.  These are:

1. Sharpen the Focus.

By this, Kelley means a statement of the problem.  He says the best questions focus outward.

 

1. Have Playful “Rules.”

At IDEO, stenciled on the walls are the phrases “Go for quantity”, “Encourage ideas” and “Be visual.”

 

1. Number Your Ideas.

Kelley states that this makes it easier to go back and discuss the items under discussion.

 

1. Build and Jump.

Kelley advised to “Follow the flow of energy.”  When conversation peters out on what topic, jump to a related topic to bring energy back.

 

1. The Space Remembers.

Kelley suggests covering every working area with writing and using giant Post-It pads on the wall.  He suggests that brainstormers should write down.

 

1. Stretch Your Mental Muscles.

Kelley suggests group warm-ups, especially when the group has not worked together before, when most of the members have not brainstormed a lot or when the group seems distracted.  He mentioned that as an experiment, when the company had a project to create toys, one group did reading on toy technologies, a second group went to a toy store and the third started cold.  The group that went to the toy store first outperformed the other two groups in terms of quantity and quality.

 

1. Get Physical.

He suggests having blocks, paper to write on, and objects to use as examples.

 

By contrast he also cites six ways to kill a brainstormer.  These are also enlightening.  They are:

1. The boss gets to speak first.

 

1. Everybody gets a turn.

 

1. Experts only can speak.

 

1. Do it off-site.

 

1. No silly stuff.

 

1. Write down every word.

 

This somewhat idyllic description of brainstorming as described above may not be able to be accomplished in a more staid law firm setting.  One attorney, a partner in the Palo Alto office of a national law firm headquartered in Boston, who specializes in intellectual property litigation, stated “[l]awyers are terrible team players.”  But she went on to state that litigation in particular requires teams because of the requirements of staffing cases.  She stated that “sharing perspectives or B.S.ing” which she states was in essence brainstorming, was a critical factor.   She said that being lawyers, the team members tend to brainstorm in an aggressive and competitive way, with the lesser players such as associates being frozen out to a certain degree from speaking freely.  She stated that oftentimes in male dominated teams, the brainstorming tends to be phrased in sports and war analogies.  She said that in her experience, in teams not dominated by men, the brainstorming tends to be of a more collaborative nature.

Another technique that can help teams to function efficiently is flowcharting.[41]  Using a graphical representation to show team members how different goals and elements of a plan fit together can lead to better understanding of the task at hand as well as innovative solutions to problems.  When used effectively, these techniques can both increase efficiency and help team members to be on the same page.

Similarly, the attorney discussed above who works for an IP litigation firm stated that it was critical to put in writing who was responsible for what and when it would occur.  She stated it was important not to have overlapping roles or miscues about who was responsible for a given portion of a project.

Conclusion 

Although Tuckman surveyed studies of stages of small group development in the group therapy setting, his forming, storming, norming, and performing model is applicable to lawyers in different work settings.  Lawyers work in teams and must learn how to be both effective team members and leaders.  Teams are essential because they engage and leverage the skills, abilities and collaboration of lawyers and staff to improve client service.  Law firms build teams around practice areas, specific cases, marketing initiatives and other projects.  Lawyers outside of the firm setting often work with staff, CEOs, and clients. As a result, many an attorney may find him/herself on a variety of teams and with a variety of positions in the teams.  Thus, learning effective teambuilding techniques and pitfalls to steer away from can increase the viability and productivity of the team the lawyer is on.

The Tuckman teambuilding model is but one way to understand the stages that a team may go through.  It is important to note that often the process will not occur each stage at a time, but several stages all at one time or starting over when new members are added or members leave the team.  To add perspective to the Tuckman model, as mention by the patent attorney, it is necessary that the team not get too caught up in which stage it is in or whether it has successfully completed each stage.  The Tuckman model is only a model and real life will bring additional problems and challenges.

Also we have addressed the process of building a productive team as opposed to just the model for stages that a team will typically go through.  Conceptually, the process of team building occurs within all of the stages of the Tuckman model.  But it is necessary to specifically address the process itself to ensure that the team achieves cohesiveness and performs at the highest levels possible.

As we have discussed, in the forming stage, picking the right team members based on each person’s strengths and weaknesses is a crucial step.  The team should all be focused on the same goal, committed to that goal, and set up guidelines to achieve that goal.[42]  The leader must be aware of the tensions that build and create an open environment for the storming phase.[43]  As we have seen, often cultural issues or unspoken norms are only the beginning of issues that the team faces.  The leader’s cognizance of these issues will assist the team effectively move out of the storming phase and into norming.

In the norming phase, the process of team building allows the team to build trust within the group by focusing on individual team members strengths.   As we presented, brainstorming is a highly effective tool to assist the team in achieving its goals.  Although, brainstorming can be used in any stage of team development, in the norming phase, when the team has built (and earned respect) amongst the members, brainstorming may be much more fruitful.

In the performing phase, it is necessary for the team leader to “provide opportunities for [the team members] to learn and develop additional skills.”[44]  This will allow the team members to grow individually while adding positive new dimensions for the team as a whole.  Again it is essential for the team leader to acknowledge and celebrate the team’s success as it move through each team development stage, becomes more cohesive and achieves its goals.

Teambuilding is a necessary element of efficient and productive teamwork.  The Tuckman model and the process of teambuilding are essential tools for every lawyer’s skill set.  A high performing team builds stronger attorneys, increases client service, and develops the firm, corporation, or non-profit into successful organization.

 

[1] Tuckman, Bruce, “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,” 63 Psychological Bulletin 384 (1965).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Cohen, Richard S. and Valorie E. Jennings, “Learning to Lead: Practical Steps for High-Performance Team Leadership,” 33 ABA: Law Practice Magazine 43 (July/August 2007).

[6] Tuckman, 63 Psychological Bulletin 384.

[7] Cohen, Richard S. and Valorie E. Jennings, 33 ABA: Law Practice Magazine 43.

[8] Tuckman, 63 Psychological Bulletin 384.

[9] Cohen, Richard S. and Valorie E. Jennings, 33 ABA: Law Practice Magazine 43.

[10] Tuckman, 63 Psychological Bulletin 384.

[11] Brodt, S.E. & Thompson, L. (2001). Negotiating teams: A levels of analysis approach. Group Dynamics,5, 208-219.

[12] Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. New York: Simon & Schuster.; Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

[13] Michele Joy Gelfand, Jeanne M. Brett, Lynn Imai, Hwa-Hwa Tsai and Dephne Huang, Team Negotiation across Cultures: When and Where Are Two Heads Better Than One?, IACM 18^th Annual Conference.

[14] Kevin Joyce, Teamwork in Law Offices Drives Success, 21 No. 4 Legal Mgmt. 69, 69 (2002).

[15] Id. at 70.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at 72.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[32] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[33] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[34] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[35] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[36] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[37] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[38] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[39] Interview on file with author Walworth.

[40] Tracy LaLonde, Collaboration Made Easy, 26 No. 2 Legal Mgmt. 66, 74 (2007).

[41] Id.

[42] Cohen, Richard S. and Valorie E. Jennings, “Learning to Lead: Practical Steps for High-Performance Team Leadership,” 33 ABA: Law Practice Magazine 43 (July/August 2007).

[43] Id.

[44] Id.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?