Introduction
The formation of teams is an organizational development strategy meant to improve productivity and eliminate the silo mentality. However, developing a group into an effective and functional team requires significant time and resource investment (Ravi & Sumathi, 2016).
Various theories give a framework for understanding group formation dynamics and the development process to realize shared goals. Among the best-known models is the “team growth theory” proposed by Bruce Tuckman. This paper discusses the theorist, theoretical concepts, techniques, and the application of Tuckman’s model to specific populations, and group leadership roles and responsibilities.
The Theorist
Bruce Tuckman is a distinguished scholar in psychology whose 1965 seminal work laid the foundation for later models of group development. He started his career as a researcher exploring small-group behavior at the Naval Medical Research Institute. His conceptual model is based on a review of published studies on group development dynamics in different settings or conditions (Kiweewa, Gilbride, Luke, & Clingerman, 2018).
The first one was group therapy – a psychotherapist working with a number of clients to resolve specific problems. The second context was interpersonal relationship training that aimed at building collaborative skills, while the third one was a natural group setting that involved professional or social groups that focused on performance improvement at the department or organizational level. The fourth setting that Tuckman identified as the experimental/control group was the subject of behavior investigations under laboratory conditions.
Based on his research, Tuckman determined three issues that influence team performance. These interrelated factors include content, process, and “feelings” (Zoltan & Vancea, 2015). The three elements affect how well teams perform. Content affects group tasks while the process is linked to how individuals work to realize common goals. “Feelings” entail the relationships among members.
Tuckman noted that group development goes through the processes of testing and independence, intra-group conflict, team cohesion, and functional role-relatedness. From the analysis, he came up with a four-stage model that comprises “performing, norming, storming, and forming” stages that make up the lifecycle of a team (Haines, 2014, p. 219). Working with Jensen, Tuckman revised his original theory by introducing the fifth stage – adjourning – in 1977.
Theoretical Concepts
As mentioned earlier, Tuckman’s model comprises four basic stages (concepts). In this theory, group dynamics evolve from instances of reduced efficiency to a phase of optimal performance. The first theoretical concept in Tuckman’s model is forming, which is the initial stage in constructing and developing a group. It is characterized by confusion over roles and a low teamwork spirit that reduces the effectiveness of the team (McEwan, Ruissen, Eys, Zumbo, & Beuchamp, 2017). As such, a leader is needed to give guidance. The content, process, and “feelings” issues observed in this stage include efforts to delineate roles, seeking direction from outside and anxiety over tasks.
The second concept is storming or the conflict stage. In this phase, tensions emerge that lead to disputes and struggles for group control. Therefore, hostility is observed between individuals. During this phase, resistance to task demands, individuality, and concerns over the pecking order is seen. During the third stage (norming) of Tuckman’s model, friendships develop, and specific norms are established to guide behavior. The result is improved group cohesion and supportive relations.
In the performing step, group effectiveness is achieved. Greater interdependency and collaboration are observed and the members exhibit mutual trust that turns the team into one functional unit (Haines, 2014). Such synergy ensures high performance and achievement of group objectives. The final stage is adjourning, which encompasses the breaking up of a temporary entity after its goals have been attained (Haines, 2014). The conclusion of a team’s activities may also arise if some members quit the group.
Techniques
Tuckman’s model provides techniques for developing effective teams. In the forming stage, a formal appointment of a group leader by the organization can ensure members have direction and guidance. This approach would also give a person in charge the mandate to control others from the outset. Effective teamwork can be achieved by teaching members collaboration and managing affective states (Klug & Bagrow, 2016). Therefore, consideration of the appropriate leadership style and interpersonal skills is required when appointing the leader to shorten the forming phase. Conflict management techniques are important during the storming stage. Additionally, adopting an assertive communication style would shorten this segment of a team’s lifecycle.
An important feat accomplished during the norming stage is group cohesion. Jacobsson, Rydbo, and Börresen (2014) note that teams must first set rules to guide behavior. With time, the regulations will become norms or a part of organizational culture. Consensus building and negotiations are the other techniques for developing a united team. Optimal group performance is attained in the performing stage. As a leader, providing regular feedback to the team is critical at this point (Jacobsson et al., 2014). Formal mechanisms for collaboration to resolve problems or disputes are important for optimal interaction and support to realize group goals.
Application to Specific Populations
Tuckman’s model has been applied to collaborative learning among students. Betts and Healy (2015) examined the experiential learning of a group of student tennis players using this theory. The subjects went through the four stages (except for adjourning) of Tuckman’s model. The researchers found that an experiential learning exercise is quite effective in developing groups based on Tuckman’s model. Van der Haar, Koeslag-Kreunen, Euwe, and Segers (2017) established that Tuckman’s theory is relevant to leaders focused on comprehending employee team dynamics, and organizational leadership influences the duration spent in a phase. Additionally, a different management style is required in each phase.
Tuckman’s theory has also been applied to the development of faculty. Seck and Helton (2014) used the theory to examine how well teaching staff integrated its principles in a joint Master of Social Work (MSW) program. They found that the stages of Tuckman’s model enabled faculty members to develop proficiency in resolving problems, contributing to the success of the course. Webber and Webber (2015) applied Tuckman’s group development theory to collaborative teams comprised of employees.
They identified such elements of effective team management as member selection, developing a common vision, formation of a group, commitment from the organization, collaboration, building trust relationships, and monitoring progress (Webber & Webber, 2015). They established that a group has an adjourning (concluding) stage.
Group Leader Roles and Responsibilities
The model explains team development and behavior. Leaders can use this theory to steer groups through different stages to realize their goals and help the organization grow. The role of a leader/supervisor during the forming stage is directing the team, coaching, and controlling its members (Raes, Kyndt, Decuyper, Bossche, & Dochy, 2015). The supervisor acts as the nucleus of the group that leads members in a particular direction. This role evolves to dispute resolution in the storming stage. The leader’s responsibilities at this point include assertive communication and handling interpersonal conflicts. At the norming stage, he or she establishes rules to guide the behavior of the team. The leader provides feedback (performance evaluation) and assigns tasks during the performing phase.
Conclusion
Tuckman’s group development model provides a good framework for understanding the evolution of teams from simple units that struggle with conflicts and uncertainties to high-performing entities over time. It shows how skills and relationships built through different stages create efficiency. The model can be used to establish desirable behaviors and unity that are required to achieve a team’s goals.
References
Betts, S., & Healy, W. (2015). Having a ball catching on to teamwork: An experiential learning approach to teaching the phases of group development. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(2), 1-9. Web.
Haines, R. (2014). Group development in virtual teams: An experimental reexamination. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 213-222. Web.
Jacobsson, C., Rydbo, N., & Börresen, J. E. (2014). The links between group development and health in the manufacturing industry. Small Group Research, 45(4), 400. Web.
Kiweewa, J. M., Gilbride, D., Luke, M., & Clingerman, T. (2018). Tracking growth factors in experiential training groups through Tuckman’s conceptual model. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 43(3), 274-296.
Klug, M., & Bagrow, J. P. (2016). Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams. Royal Society of Open Science, 3(4), 121-129. Web.
McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beuchamp, M. R. (2017). The effectiveness of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance: A systematic review and meta-Analysis of controlled interventions. PLoS ONE 12(1), 1-12. Web.
Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Bossche, P., & Dochy, F. (2015). An exploratory study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1), 5-30. Web.
Ravi, B. S., & Sumathi, G. (2016). Study on theory of group development: Groups and teams. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 18(2), 58-61. Web.
Seck, M. M., & Helton, L. (2014). Faculty development of a joint MSW program utilizing Tuckman’s model of stages of group development. Social Work with Groups, 37(2), 158-168. Web.
Van der Haar, S., Koeslag-Kreunen, M., Euwe, E., & Segers, M. (2017). Team leader structuring and team learning in command-and-control teams. Small Group Research, 48(2), 215-248. Web.
Webber, S. S., & Webber, D. S. (2015). Launching and leading intense teams. Business Horizons, 58(4), 449-457. Web.
Zoltan, R., & Vancea, R., (2015). Organizational work groups and work teams – Approaches and differences. Ecoforum, 4(1), 94-98. Web.