Tuckman’s Model in Understanding Team Effectiveness Free Essay Example

Tuckman’s group development model focuses on the distinct phases that small groups go through in order to achieve maximum effectiveness of team work. Initially, only four phases were identified (1965) before adding a fifth one, in conjunction with Mary Ann Jensen (1977).

Tuckman debates that being conscious of the phases of developments, groups can move to the final stage in a more swift process as compared to subconsciously going through the motions. This argument gives rise that the effectiveness of this model can be ascertained through educating the group – perhaps through a briefing prior to the group convening and working together on projects.

To study effectiveness, it is best to break down the model into its respective phases.

Phase 1: Forming

Getting acquainted with one another is not an unusual first meeting between individuals.

At this stage, getting to know one another works at a superficial level, whereby disclosure of personal information is limited. Serious issues that could give rise to controversy or conflict are avoided to maintain as much amicability as possible between individuals.

Hindrance to effectiveness – communication apprehension

At this point, members of the group may experience communication apprehension – a drawback to effective communication (Multimedia University, 2007).

This is probably due to tension and anxiety in the need to be accepted by the group. As insecurity normally relates to wanting to assimilate quickly into a new environment, the formation of a group will take place at a perfunctory level.

This is not a comfortable stage to be in as at this point in time, group members require the need for esteem – they are here to gain the respect and acceptance of others (Maslow, 1943).

By keeping arguments at bay, no work is accomplished at this stage of time.

Leadership spearheads group’s movement

Different personalities are also seen in this first stage. Since the formation of a group usually denotes that a leader has to be sought, initial qualms of leadership can be overcome by extroverts. Extroverts who feel they are natural leaders within their disposition, may assume the role subtly. Those who are inclined to shyness or general lack of initiative will relinquish their rights to request the role of a leader (Mallot, 2007).

Group direction within the first meeting – a different model

The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model on the other hand, argues that groups do not develop in a universal sequence of stages (Multimedia University, 2007). This theory argues that the first meeting sets the group’s direction and the first phase of a group activity is one of inertia. This stage awaits a transition that will initiate major changes.

Phase 2: Storming

Storming, as it suggests, brings along a wave of conflict. After the stage of formation where niceties are exchanged, more important issues need to be addressed. This may relate to the project or task at hand or plain clashes of personalities and ideas.

General arguments convey that in this stage, groups are more focused on working together. The initial stage of shyness has dissipated and teams look forward to becoming more pro-active. Since expectations about roles and responsibilities begin to surface, conflict, struggles and even competition will follow suit (Mallot, 2007).

Conflict can be detrimental to group effectiveness

Conflict is defined as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affects, something the first party cares about, (Multimedia University, 2007). For a conflict to exist, it must be perceived by those involved.

It is worthy to note that this definition of conflict covers disagreements to acts of violence.

Organisational culture, a determinant of effectiveness in second stage

Tuckman relays that the range of conflict is determined by the organisational culture and how strong it is in effective communication. In a strong culture where openness to ideas is adamant, many may perceive that conflicts cease to exist. This stage however, as in the Punctuated-Equilibrium Model suggests, will consist of at least an element of conflict, no matter how subtle it is. As the latter model describes, this is the transition where major developments occur (Multimedia University, 2007).

The whole process of conflict is lengthy. However, conflict is necessary for a group to progress to the next phase. The Storming phase therefore must end with an outcome of the conflicts at hand. Outcomes can be divided into two.

The first one would be functional outcomes. This is known as a positive outcome. A functional outcome increases group performance, usually resulting from low or moderate levels of conflict (Multimedia University, 2007). A group that can persevere to a functional outcome encourages interest and curiosity among group members. Arguments can be aired, discussed, understood and accepted in a professional manner. No offence is taken nor are arguments taken personally. Constructive groups like these stimulate creativity and innovation.

Secondly, a threat to a group’s continuous progress to the next stage would be a dysfunctional outcome. A group that comes to this type of outcome is running the risk of a decreased group performance. Strong opposition will breed discontent and destruction of the group. Groups like these normally operate at myopic level where low tolerance levels for differences in opinions exist (Multimedia University, 2007).

Dysfunctional outcomes are actually products of dysfunctional behaviour within the group. This barrier is known as the weak behavioural barrier, where teams fail to find common grounds on the basis of conflicting perspectives (Rickards and Moger, 2000).

Behavioural barrier exists at this phase

In this case, Tuckman’s theory may be nullified if the group has to be dismantled for the betterment of the company. Confining discontented individuals within a realm of a working group may be detrimental to the firm in the long run.

However, Rickards and Moger (2000) argue that most teams do past the weak behavioural barrier and do move on to the norming stage. This does not suggest that such a barrier rarely exists in a group function or conflicts are to be perceived as elementary nuisances. The reason for this argument is that the behavioural barrier is deemed as weak as compared to the second barrier found in the performing phase (Rickards & Moger, 2000). This barrier is known as the strong performance barrier.

Phase 3: Norming

After “weathering the storm,” groups begin to reach the phase of a norm. Individuals have begun to gel together to work effectively as a group and come up with reasonably favourable results that will have positive effects on the firm.

Here is where, arguably, Tuckman’s theory falls flat. Norming will be able to happen if functional outcomes of their recent conflicts had taken place. It is most likely that a team would dissolve should a dysfunctional outcome overshadow any success in the forming phase.

Working teams are more effective than working groups

Here is where there may be a more effective alternative to having working groups. Teams are similar but different to the constituents of a group.

A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent who have come together to achieve particular objectives (Multimedia University, 2007). A team comprises of individuals who are able to generate positive synergy through coordinated efforts. We can assume that this means different individuals of work teams demonstrate different skills and abilities and do have the experience and education that be able to complement each other in working towards the given goal.

Teams are generally more structured than groups. They can either be problem-solving teams, self-managed teams, or cross-functional teams. Members are required to have technical expertise, problem-solving and decision-making skills and effective interpersonal skills. In a survey carried out in 1995, results indicated that 78% of companies in the USA had some employees working as teams, (Training Magazine, 1995).

There are plenty of advantages of forming teams as opposed to groups as the formality of work-teams rides complementary skills and mutual accountability (Multimedia University, 2007). Synergy also arises from teams, rather than groups.

Group effectiveness at the norming stage – a developmental milestone

Arguably though, it is not possible for all working groups to be transformed into teams. Some tasks and projects require only groups – especially those that are short-run in nature. It may be too costly to collate a team of people, especially if they are higher up in organisational hierarchy.

Having said that, it is also possible for a group to move through the storming stage and begin forming amiable relationships with each other. A benefit of successfully reaching the norming phase is a group of motivated employees. Motivation refers to the initiation, direction, intensity and persistence of human behaviour, (Geen, 1995).

Reaching the norming stage will also elude members of the group to deter from causing disruption within the working group in the future. Disruptions could cause the group falling back into the phase of the storm. This may dampen hope of further constructive improvements. However, it is more likely that group individuals would have mastered negotiation skills.

Negotiation skills – vital to sustaining norming status

There are various types of negotiation. What is important though is the outcome. Negotiations generally, should result in a win-win situation. However, when it comes to group work, the outcome of a negotiation should be most beneficial to the group rather than any particular member of the group.

There are five stages of negotiation. The convening, the opening, the communication, the negotiation and the closure stage (Krivis 2007). It is probably wise for a negotiation process to be facilitated by a neutral party in order to come up with an unbiased result.

Effective negotiation skills would allow the team to develop a consensus about task and behavioural expectations (Mallot, 2007). This would lead to a constructive work plan to attain goals of the group. Strong consensus leads to an effective identity formation of the team (Mallot, 2007).

Phase 4: Performing

In this phase, roles and responsibilities change according to need in a seamless way. A group identity has been strongly conceived. Individually, group members hold high morale, trust and loyalty towards each other. This work group has opportunities to reconvene in the future – with positive recommendations towards fellow colleagues, supervisors and subordinates.

At the point in time when the group reaches the performing phase, members are set to perform the task at hand. The group is now extremely task-oriented; they have resolved conflicts and look forward to coordinating their actions, (Mallot, 2007).

Another barrier to effectiveness – strong performance barrier

A serious barrier surfaces here. Rickards and Moger, 2000, identify their second barrier in the Tuckman and Jensen Model. Two questions arise here: (1) what mechanisms are at play when a team fails to exceed expected performance, and (2) what mechanisms lead to outstanding performance. This second barrier known as the strong performance barrier is a difficult one to surpass. Failure to do so may have teams regress into the storming phase, where conflicts and disagreements will reappear.

Working groups that do surge on past the strong performance barrier indicate exceptional creative performance (Rickards & Moger, 2000). The majority of teams only display moderate performance at this stage.

In a case study, teams of MBA students received creative training and were engaged in a business task supervised by a business executive. All tasks were realistic and simulated under experienced facilitators. Fourteen teams took part in this study. After a year of simulation, six teams were rated as dysfunctional; eight teams were able to produce acceptable quality results and none yielded any outstanding results (Rikards, 1987).

The following year, another test was carried out with improved decision making influences. Twenty-three teams took part. Eighteen teams produced standard quality results and five yielded outstanding results.

Over a period of several years, dysfunctional teams only appeared up to 15% of the time.

The question is how do groups overcome this barrier and avoid the risk of moving backwards into the stage of conflicts? Creativity in leadership and group development is a criterion for a working group to overcome this obstacle and dissolve in the last stage on amiable terms.

Creativity enhances group effectiveness

Firstly, effective leadership is a core ingredient for a group to persevere as a creative body through the performance stage. Observation indicates that leadership usually is attained at the earlier phases of this model – the forming and norming. Should a group overcome the weak behavioural barrier, as indicated by Rikards and Moger (2000), this should not surface as a problem during the performance stage.

The rationale of facilitative leadership is to provide creativity-enhancing structures (Gordon, 1961) as a means of challenging assumptions and mindsets (Parnes, 1993).

An effective work-group that is able to exceed performance expectations is based on seven creative leadership and team factors, (Rikards and Moger, 2000).

Firstly, would be a Platform of Understanding. This platform would actually act as an avenue for all creative ideas to be gathered. This would be initiated by the creative team leader. There is no dispute as to what ideas can be suggested. Shared knowledge, beliefs and assumptions can be thrashed out at this platform.

Secondly, is a having a Shared Vision. After ideas go through the gruelling process of debate and discussion, those that fall under a Shared Vision are those that are dominantly agreed upon.

Thirdly, is the Climate of the team. The creative leader has to creative a positive climate that surrounds the team. It does not only motivate the team to work together or to work effectively in achieving their goals, it accentuates the camaraderie within the team, creating a sense of belonging and openness at a personal level. However task oriented people are, the stems of personalities and characters have to be taken care of before work gets done.

Fourthly, Resilience is important for a team that is set to exceed expectations. It is not unusual for a team to fail (at their tasks) the first few times. It is important though, that teams are able to see their plans through, no matter how demoralised they feel. Keeping positive is important and there is nothing more recommended that taking to alternatives when performances do falter. At this stage of performing, finger-pointing or the blame-game must be avoided at all costs.

Group work is team effort and a closely-knit team that take responsibility collectively would have built up strong resilience against adversity.

An effectively performing team are Idea Owners, as factor number five indicates. If team members own the ideas they advocate, there is a higher chance of success. Parasites and copy-cats will never survive the performing stage.

Factor number six is Network Activators. Teams with stronger networks are more likely to succeed. Networking plays an important role in any business model since skills and ideas are interlinked from one individual to another. Importing knowledge into a team not only brings a breath of fresh air but can advance the team to the next level. This can be seen especially through the transfer of technology know-how.

Lastly, it is important that teams Learn from Experience. Experiential learning never goes to waste. Curbing mistakes and dealing with unwarranted circumstantional issues is easier when there are cases that take precedence to the problem at hand.

Total Quality Management – a catalyst of effectiveness

Another factor, besides creativity leadership and group work that can determine a successful performing stage is Total Quality Management.

Total Quality Management (TQM) is mostly an organisational behavioural mindset that requires employees to become customer focused in their undertakings. TQM will allow generate a fair amount of consideration in a working group to concentrate on customers’ satisfaction rather than the short-term goal of the task at hand (Multimedia University, 2007).

TQM, founded by the Japanese, believes that “work is never done.” TQM can be perceived as a continuous cycle of seeking improvements. Implementing this into the mindset of a group can act as bolster for the working members to focus on continuously improving their work standards in order to finally attain the successful performing phase. It is not a surprise that TQM encourages group and team work as a basket of skills complementing one another would work more effectively than one employee working on his or her own.

Phase 5: Adjourning

Adjourning is the final disengagement of the team after a successful performing stage has been accomplished. Adjourning suggests that completion of the task at hand has been reached. Preferably, members of the groups would have enjoyed the journey as a family. In some papers, this stage can also be described as the “deforming and mourning” stage, since proximity between members throughout the process has been close and many groups that show strong behavioural and achievement patterns can be perceived as a close-knit family.

Management responsibility in creating and effective adjourning phase

Adjourning is part of an organisational change and like the other phases of this model has to be managed (Multimedia University, 2007). It is insufficient to assume that this phase does not require the attention that the other phases enjoy as a team that is disengaging from each other must leave on good terms in order to regroup for future projects.

If a group has spent a significant amount of time together, there may be elements of resistance to change. This is mainly due to the habit, security, economic factors, fear of the unknown and selective information processing, Multimedia University, 2007).

It is important for managers or leaders to facilitate the dismemberment of a project with sensitivity. Feedback from the group members also allow for closure that will end the relationships they conjured up together on a positive note.

A reward for a successful team can also be recommended in order to boost morale and reinforce the message that a successful task has been completed. At the same time, a creative leader would be able to assure group members that opportunities to work together in the future will also exist.

Conclusion

Tuckman’s model is rather general when relaying group effectiveness. The understanding of the model has to be synergised with other managerial concepts, such TQM, in order to be realistically implemented in a group’s ability to develop.

Group effectiveness is seen as low in the forming phase where communication apprehension exists. Alternative models suggest that this phase is insignificant and effectiveness can be initially commences during leadership selection.

Group effectiveness can break during the storming stage where conflict begins to arise – whether they be task or personality-oriented. A strong culture is able to weather the storm and allow effective functional results carry the group into the next phase.

Should a group never weather the storm, the norming stage will never be accomplished. Group effectiveness takes a backseat to team effectiveness whereby different constituents of a group may result in more amicable results at this stage. However, within a group, the norming stage would be effectively sustainable should the working members develop effective negotiation skills.

The performing phase has the stigma of a high performance barrier. Tuckman’s general model should be questioned as to the effectiveness of the group in overcoming this barrier. Scholars insinuate that creative leadership and group factors will allow groups to excel at this phase.

Group effectiveness, or even future group effectiveness, can be inseminated in the adjourning phase where a positive conclusion of the group is drawn. The more comfortable the team members are with the adjourning stage will allow space for regrouping in the future.

References

Boeree, C. George. Abraham Maslow, Personality Theories, www.webspace.ship.edu, (1998, 2006)

Distance Education. BOB2028 Organisational Behaviour, Multimedia University Malaysia (2007)

Gordon, W.J.J.. Synetics: The Development of Creative Capacity, Harper & Row, New York (1961).

Kirvis, Jeffrey. Can we Call a Truce? Ten Tips for Negotiating Workplace Conflicts , (2007).

Mallot, Mary. Tuckman’s Group Developmental Model, Computer Skills for Administrators , http://socrates.uhwo.hawaii.edu.

Parnes, S.J. (ed.). Sourcebook for Creative Problem-Solving, Creative Education Foundation Press , Bufallo, New York (1992).

Rikards, Tudor & Moger, Susan. Creative Leadership Processes in Project Teams Development: An Alternative to the Tuckman’s Stage Model , British Journal of Management Vol 11 (2000).

 

Training Magazine, October 1995 issue, Lakewood Publications, Minneapoliis, MN

http://www.chimaeraconsulting.com/

http://www.internetmediator.com/