Morgan salas & glickman's team model

39

2Group Development

Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Discuss and evaluate Tuckman’s sequential stage theory.

• Contrast sequential stage theory with Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

• Assess the practical implications of the team evaluation and maturation model.

• Identify critical elements in setting the stage for effective teamwork.

• Correlate commitment, attachment, and trust with shared leadership, meaningful and measurable perfor- mance goals, and mutual accountability.

• Describe five major sources of objections to group work and teamwork, as well as strategies for overcoming them.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 39 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Introduction

Pretest

1. Performing is the final stage in a group’s development. T/F 2. Teams should be as large as possible to maximize skill potential. T/F 3. Teams require support from organizational systems in order to function effectively. T/F 4. Team building is complete once members have been selected and resources have been

acquired. T/F 5. Lack of positive group or team experience can be a major obstacle to team

development. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction As senior manager at a large marketing company, Tai has successfully overseen the development of several small groups into high-functioning teams. She was recently asked to form a new group that will create a marketing campaign for a struggling product line. Although past experience tells Tai that this will likely call for a team, she begins the team-building process by first confirming that a team best suits the project’s complexity. Once she does so, Tai determines that the structural parameters surrounding the team’s project, and the essential nature of what it is expected to do, call for a design team in which members with problem-solving experience and skills are particularly desirable. Tai meets with potential team leaders, both in-house and out-house, to discuss the resources they will need. They conclude that understanding and addressing the issues surrounding the product’s current market struggles will require the team to coordinate and exchange information with a knowledgeable individual or group within the client organization. They discuss potential team leader and member combinations that can skillfully accom- plish this.

The challenge is to keep the team small but represent enough KSA combinations so as to support an effective solution. Tai likes to keep teams as small as possible because she’s found that they work more quickly. Furthermore, her company is busy—wasting human resources is not an option. After a lively discussion on how various members might work together and complement each other’s KSAs, Tai selects a team leader—Maya—along with the other members. The discussion also helps clarify the major issues that need to be addressed to meet the team’s objective and which activities will support this. The process is helpful for Maya because she needs to explain the project to her new team.

Although Tai will continue to check in on Maya and the team’s progress, she knows her role in planning the team is, for the most part, over. Maya will take over ongoing resource planning and management and continue the process of team building. Tai knows that both Maya and her team members are experienced in this process and have worked together in many combinations before. In fact, some of the most difficult work of develop- ing the team is already done—the team has a sturdy foundation of commitment, attach- ment, and trust thanks to past work experiences, and their socioemotional interdepen- dencies are already strong. The team members trust Maya’s leadership and know the teamwork process well—she won’t be alone in developing her team.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 40 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

How Do Groups Form?

In Chapter 1 we explored the fundamental qualities of groups and teams, the reasons we form work groups and teams, and the practical differences between them. In Chap- ter 2, we examine group development and the concepts that support effective team building by addressing another set of fundamental questions: How do groups form? How do they develop over time? How can we build an effective team? And, why do some people avoid groups and teams?

Group development theorists have struggled to answer these questions ever since group dynamics emerged as a prominent field of study. We will seek to gain some understanding of these questions by exploring major theories of group development, methods for building effective groups and teams, and common obstacles to group development.

2.1 How Do Groups Form? We have looked at different types of groups and explored how their members can have varying degrees of relatedness, cohesiveness, and interdependence. We know that informal and for- mal groups have very different developmental contexts. Despite these differences, all groups have some significant elements in common. Groups are composed of people, and people relate and interact in specific ways. Group development theories seek to identify and describe recur- ring patterns of structural change and interactions throughout a group’s existence. Although the basic concepts may be loosely applied to any group, most developmental theories are cre- ated in reference to task groups and outline the group’s formation and progression through performance, goal attainment, and dissolution. Recall from Chapter 1 that task groups include most of the informal and formal groups found in the workplace, such as social clubs, interest groups, lunch buddies, boards, committees, work groups, and teams.

Task groups feature two synergistic elements that evolve over time (Seers & Woodruff, 1997):

1. The interpersonal dynamics between members as they develop into a cohesive group or team

2. The operational dynamics that describe the group’s progression toward its perfor- mance goals

Group development theories are numerous and varied. Some theorists choose to focus on the progression of interpersonal dynamics (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977); others on the operational dynamics (Gersick, 1988); and a growing number are coming to view the process as an integrated whole (Benefield & Utley, 2007; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993). The three theories presented in the following sections were selected because they represent each of these perspectives and because they are relevant to understanding and working in organizational groups and teams. The first of these, Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, is the most well known and represents a large body of accepted theories that outline group development as occurring in sequential stages. The second, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory, offers an alternate view of the developmental process as one that occurs in dramatic leaps at predictable intervals within the performance timeline. Finally, the team evaluation and maturation model integrates Tuckman’s and Gersick’s theories into a new and more com- prehensive whole. We will examine each of these theories in turn, beginning with the oldest and most influential.

Section 2.1

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 41 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequen- tial process in which group members enact a series of five developmental stages, known as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of conflict while adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to perfor- mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s five stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and primary interpersonal dynamic.

Mapping the Developmental Processes Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics between group members. The five-stage model represents a simplified outline of the develop- mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metapro- cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the activities within the stages of forming, norming, storming, and performing.

When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmen- tal processes encompassing member identification and the emergence of group structure. In relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:

• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individ- uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.

• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification. Represented by the storming stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustments also occur.

• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.

When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identification and integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly defined, social- ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal- vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more confident in their ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also expe- rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team

Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Forming Individuals come together and acknowl- edge membership in a distinct group.

Task-orienting behav- iors: Identification of the group’s objective, structural parameters, primary task type, and method of interaction.

Uncertainty: Members try to understand the “ground rules” of belong- ing to the group, how to approach group process and performance, and what they need to do to achieve group goals.

Storming Members shift from I to we thinking; script clashes, status balanc- ing, and role adjustment occur.

Boundary testing and redefinition: There is con- flict between members, role emergence, and task designation.

Resistance: Members chafe against new constraints associated with the group context, assigned roles, script dif- ferences, and perceived status within the group.

Norming Members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good. They develop pro- cedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

Script unification: Assimi- lation and emergence of group norms.

Task and socioemo- tional interdependence increase.

Cooperation: Members accept the group and seek acceptance via observa- tion and open exchange of information, feedback, and norms.

Performing Members achieve positive interdependence and focus energies toward goal accomplishment.

Participation in task- oriented processes and activities: Behaviors and activities geared toward productivity and goal attainment.

Positive interdepen- dence: Members engage in cooperative action, group energy is chan- neled toward task work, and the group becomes a functional instrument for accomplishing its objective.

Adjourning Members physically and emotionally disengage from the group as mem- bership ends.

Physical and emotional closure: Task activi- ties and behaviors are terminated. Members prepare to resume pre- group duties and roles and disengage from their roles and relationships within the group. Mem- bers are recognized for their participation and achievement and achieve emotional closure.

Evaluation and reflec- tion: Members assess their participation and personal development within the group, group process, and performance outcome.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 42 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequen- tial process in which group members enact a series of five developmental stages, known as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of conflict while adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to perfor- mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s five stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and primary interpersonal dynamic.

Mapping the Developmental Processes Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics between group members. The five-stage model represents a simplified outline of the develop- mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metapro- cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the activities within the stages of forming, norming, storming, and performing.

When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmen- tal processes encompassing member identification and the emergence of group structure. In relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:

• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individ- uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.

• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification. Represented by the storming stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustments also occur.

• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.

When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identification and integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly defined, social- ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal- vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more confident in their ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also expe- rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team

Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Forming Individuals come together and acknowl- edge membership in a distinct group.

Task-orienting behav- iors: Identification of the group’s objective, structural parameters, primary task type, and method of interaction.

Uncertainty: Members try to understand the “ground rules” of belong- ing to the group, how to approach group process and performance, and what they need to do to achieve group goals.

Storming Members shift from I to we thinking; script clashes, status balanc- ing, and role adjustment occur.

Boundary testing and redefinition: There is con- flict between members, role emergence, and task designation.

Resistance: Members chafe against new constraints associated with the group context, assigned roles, script dif- ferences, and perceived status within the group.

Norming Members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good. They develop pro- cedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

Script unification: Assimi- lation and emergence of group norms.

Task and socioemo- tional interdependence increase.

Cooperation: Members accept the group and seek acceptance via observa- tion and open exchange of information, feedback, and norms.

Performing Members achieve positive interdependence and focus energies toward goal accomplishment.

Participation in task- oriented processes and activities: Behaviors and activities geared toward productivity and goal attainment.

Positive interdepen- dence: Members engage in cooperative action, group energy is chan- neled toward task work, and the group becomes a functional instrument for accomplishing its objective.

Adjourning Members physically and emotionally disengage from the group as mem- bership ends.

Physical and emotional closure: Task activi- ties and behaviors are terminated. Members prepare to resume pre- group duties and roles and disengage from their roles and relationships within the group. Mem- bers are recognized for their participation and achievement and achieve emotional closure.

Evaluation and reflec- tion: Members assess their participation and personal development within the group, group process, and performance outcome.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 43 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

leader or group facilitator) and everyone must resocialize to the new conditions (Moreland & Levine, 2002).

Examining Tuckman’s Fifth Stage Tuckman’s theory suggests that a group will dissipate after accomplishing its primary task or objective; however, many collective goals are only temporarily realized. Or, after achieving its initial goals, a group may face new goals. A professional baseball team’s ultimate goal is to win the World Series, and this goal carries over from season to season, regardless of whether they win or lose in any given year. Winning simply confirms the team’s existence. Although chronic losses can affect the team’s value and popularity, failure is more likely to cause changes in membership or leadership (such as changes in players or coaches) than total dissolution of the group. Likewise, an executive team’s primary goal is to enhance the productivity and via- bility of the organization as a whole. Measurable by the company’s quarterly and yearly bot- tom line, this goal simply “reboots” as the team turns its focus to supporting and enhancing that growth over the next fiscal year.

Groups like these may never adjourn. A sports team may change members, leadership, and even affiliation without losing its identity as a team. Similarly, top management, executive teams, and advisory boards continue to exist as long as their organization remains intact. Many manufacturing work groups and teams may for all intents and purposes do the same. Members of groups that do not adjourn may instead face a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization as new members join and assimilate and established mem- bers adjust to changing personalities, roles, expectations, and norms (Moreland & Levine, 1989; 2002).