Punctuated equilibrium model of team development

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).

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral All groups have a starting point. Some, especially those in the workplace, never end. Compa- nies continually attract new hires, train them, help them fit in, and encourage them to grow with the organization. Socializing new group members can be difficult for both new and exist- ing members. As they work with new hires, existing employees may feel like they are reliving the stages of group development as they adjust to newcomers’ behaviors and beliefs and help them assimilate into the group, workplace environment, and organizational culture.

It can also be a struggle for new members to find their place in a group that already has estab- lished roles and norms. Newcomers have their own ideas on how things should be done, based on their previous experiences. They may hold attitudes or expectations formed by their expe- riences in other groups or conversely have no prior group experience and need to come to terms with their new role and identity. Existing members may forget that newcomers need time to assimilate to group norms and procedures and may thus view the socialization process as an unnecessary or annoying setback in their formerly smooth-running operation.

In ongoing groups in which membership fluctuates over time, each new member experiences a miniature spiral of forming, storming, norming, performing, and possibly adjourning. Tuck- man’s stages may seem to never stop. This is referred to as the Tuckman spiral. The average

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 44 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?

Practical Implications of Tuckman’s Theory Tuckman’s theory tends to view groups as composed of strangers coming together for a sin- gular purpose and dissolving after that objective is accomplished. Tuckman developed his theory based on a comprehensive synthesis of his own and 50 other empirical studies on group development, during a time when study groups tended to be either artificially com- posed or short term, chosen specifically so that they could be observed from beginning to end. While an organization that is establishing new groups and teams may do so from scratch, employees more typically join preexisting groups or form new groups in which some or all of the members have worked together before. In these situations, familiarity with other mem- bers and preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases. This does not mean that they skip these phases entirely, however.

When we enter a group, we bring with us our own personal scripts, or procedural and nor- mative templates for behavior and interaction within groups. Based on our past experiences and current expectations, scripts represent our view of how we and others should act in a given situation (Dennis, Garfield, & Reinicke, 2003). Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Within Tuckman’s model, script unification—the development or assimilation of shared scripts—occurs during the norm- ing phase. This is essentially what happens during the initial phase of socialization as well; however, once a new member becomes familiar with the group’s existing scripts, the person may compare them unfavorably to previously held scripts and attempt to insert these into the current group. This results in a renewed cycle of storming and norming. Although the storm- ing process can be eased in formal groups by preset organizational structure and guidelines, members may still chafe at unsatisfying or ill-fitting roles, and status balancing will occur as members establish informal hierarchies based on personal status within the group. While the

time from the start of socialization to full productivity of external new hires can range from 8 to 20 weeks for clerical positions and up to 26 weeks for executives (Williams, 2003). During this time, organizational group and team members must be prepared to support joining and adjourning members and the group’s evolving developmental needs.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Describe a time that you joined an existing group or were present in a group that took in

new members. Using your knowledge of Tuckman’s stages and theory, describe some of the socialization dynamics that occurred.

2. Did the group experience any of Tuckman’s stages with the incoming members? If so, which ones?

3. How did existing members treat the new members? In what ways did they address the competing needs for socialization and productivity?

4. Looking back on that situation with the knowledge you have now, what would you change if you could? What would you suggest group members in a similar situation do to help their group progress more effectively toward productive performance?

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral (continued)

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 45 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?

process areas represented by Tuckman’s sequential stages are all present within the social- ization process, they do not follow the rigid patterning envisioned in Tuckman’s theory.

Tuckman’s work thus has its limitations, but it remains a popular and useful developmental theory. Our modeling of the stages provides practical descriptors of the outcomes, activities, and dynamics inherent in the cohesion process and when group membership adjourns. Our exploration of these and related concepts also offer some useful takeaways:

• Incoming members bring procedural and normative scripts based on past experi- ences and current expectations (Dennis et al., 2003).

• Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhau- sen & Murnighan, 1985).

• There will always be some degree of storming and norming as members work to generate or assimilate shared scripts.

• Storming is essentially a competition of personal status and scripts; when status balancing is complete, the group moves toward script unification, and the norming process begins.

• New members joining established groups could be initially set back if their personal scripts are misaligned with the established shared script.

• Established members could resent the apparent process and performance loss that results from incorporating new group members.

• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases by speeding the evolution of shared scripts.

• Though not all groups dissolve after performance, adjourning remains a vital pro- cess, as even permanent groups lose established members and welcome new ones.

• The process of group socialization and resocialization can be continuous if the group outlasts its original membership.

What does this mean for group members and managers? Developing group cohesion is the core purpose behind the forming, storming, and norming stages, and script unification is their major outcome. Shared scripts become the primary tools by which group members effectively coordinate their performance toward a common purpose or goal. Support for group cohesion and script unification can include the following:

• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles • Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive conflict, knowledge sharing, and

member feedback • Encouragement of new and established members to view socialization and resocial-

ization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity to reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new KSAs

• Acknowledgment of the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire group is dissolving or individual members are moving on

The labels and concepts in Tuckman’s theory are practical and easy to remember, making it perhaps the most popular and widely taught group developmental theory to date. How- ever, not everyone subscribes to the idea of steady progression over time. Focusing on task- oriented development, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory suggests that group devel- opment occurs as a sort of growth spurt, a dramatic evolution tied to a specific time in the group’s performance schedule.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 46 8/19/16 9:36 AM

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

First Meeting

Objective Completion

Phase One

Crisis and Transition

Midpoint Phase Two

Performance Timeline

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that groups consistently experience two major phases in which working methods, interaction styles, and project direction remain relatively stable. These are separated by a crisis and transition at precisely the midpoint of the group’s official performance deadline (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory assigns critical value to key interactions at the group’s first meeting and midpoint transition.

Source: Based on Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.C. (2006). Project management (3rd ed., p. 346). New York: McGraw-Hill.

First Meeting

Objective Completion

Phase One

Crisis and Transition

Midpoint Phase Two

Performance Timeline

Phase one takes place during the first half of the performance timeline. Rather than experienc- ing the open-ended script comparison, testing, and unification suggested in the initial stages of most sequential theories, Gersick found that the group’s approach at their first meeting sets the script for group interaction and work through the timeline’s midpoint. Phase one work is not characterized by any particular process or even specific productive value; some groups work steadily toward a goal and on tasks determined in the first meeting, while others spend the entire first phase in an indecisive haze.

Midpoint transition occurs at the timeline’s midpoint. At this point, Gersick observed that groups consistently suffer a brief crisis in which members recognize time constraints and feel the urgency of approaching deadlines. During the midpoint transition, group members evalu- ate work completion and direction, reconnect with outside authorities or influences, reformu- late their shared scripts, and often abandon old patterns in favor of radical new perspectives.

Phase two occurs during the second half of the performance timeline. In this phase, groups undergo a period of productivity reminiscent of Tuckman’s performing stage, as they

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 47 8/19/16 9:37 AM

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

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

implement the decisions made at the midpoint transition. The radical shifts in perspectives or performance agenda at transition may result in a shuffling of roles or a universal change of group interaction. As shown in Figure 2.1, phase two culminates in completing the perfor- mance objective.

Critical Analysis of Punctuated Equilibrium Whereas Tuckman’s theory represents group development as a graduated, linear process, Gersick’s theory assigns critical value to key interactions at two concrete points in the group’s timeline: first meeting and midpoint transition. Gersick observed that by the end of the group’s first meeting, members have naturally formed complete scripts for phase one interactions and group work. Rather than adopting a lengthy process of script exploration, testing, and unification, Gersick’s theory suggests that members quickly throw together a unique tempo- rary script that depends on unpredictable combinations of existing individual and organiza- tional scripts, situational conditions, and member dynamics. For example, Gersick observed that if one member tended to dominate and direct the discussion during the initial meeting, this pattern would continue throughout phase one interactions—although the dominating member was not always the same individual (Gersick, 1988). Unlike the sequential models, there is no proposed predictability for what member interactions might entail during the first meeting or the ensuing work phase. Some groups may begin by mapping out the overall work plan, spend the entire initial phase simply clarifying what they are trying to achieve, or jump right into task planning and assignation. Others may experience a period similar to storming in which they address perceived conflicts with project scripts, member roles, or task parameters.

The midpoint transition is characterized by a sudden spike in concern for project deadlines, a use-it-or-lose-it practicality with respect to work completed thus far, and renewed awareness and acceptance of external influences, authority figures, and aid. At this point, the temporary script the group initially adopted is confirmed or adapted and made permanent or discarded for a new version. According to Gersick’s model, regardless of performance setting, project type, or speed with which members move from planning to implementation, groups consis- tently experience a crisis at the midlife transition point and thereafter follow modified tactics or project direction. Subsequent studies have indicated that while groups consistently experi- ence a performance pause and reevaluation at the temporal midpoint, radical revision is not a given. This suggests that the midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change but does not guarantee one (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002).

Further testing of Gersick’s theory (Dennis et al., 2003; Seers & Woodruff, 1997) suggests that groups follow the punctuated equilibrium model when the rapid development of shared scripts is:

• facilitated (for example, in groups in which members have worked together before or that formed using preexisting organizational hierarchies, procedures, and norms); and

• required (for example, when groups are under a rigid and urgent timeline that forces immediate task orientation and action).

Groups in which members were neither under extreme scheduling and time demands nor aided by preexisting or previously shared scripts follow developmental patterns more akin to Tuckman’s stages (Dennis et al., 2003).

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 48 8/19/16 9:37 AM

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

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Practical Implications of Gersick’s Theory Gersick’s observations offer significant practical value in understanding key points in a group’s performance. Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guide- posts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynam- ics, and performance input.

1. The first meeting creates a template for phase one interactions. Group members and leaders should be prepared to set the tone for phase one interactions at the first meeting and to work on foundational tasks and issues that will foster a strong midpoint transition. This includes clarifying performance goals, facilitating effec- tive communication and conflict resolution among members, and settling issues of hierarchy and role differentiation within the group.

2. The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change. Gersick’s (1988) research suggests that the midpoint transition can be utilized as a specific and pre- dictable point in project performance when group members are most open to exter- nal influence and intervention. For this reason, she suggests that the midpoint tran- sition presents external leaders with a unique opportunity to influence changes in project direction or performance agenda and should be carefully considered, as once passed, the opportunity will not present itself again.

The main weakness in any practical application of the punctuated equilibrium model is the lack of clarity regarding what groups actually do during the two phases. Gersick’s focus on operational dynamics does not encompass the attention to detail typically found in sequential models. Tuckman’s sequential stage theory may not be a one-size-fits-all template, but the model remains popular in both education and management circles mainly because the stages provide a useful platform of practical knowledge about the member activities and dynamics that occur over the course of a group’s existence. Since Gersick and Tuckman each address an area the other leaves relatively untouched, the two theories are not incompatible. In fact, some contemporary schools of thought suggest that Gersick and Tuckman work best when we put them together.

Team Evaluation and Maturation Model The diverse and subjective nature of group interactions has long been an obstacle for researchers trying to uncover some scientific order and practical guidance for the group development process. Mid- to late-20th-century studies fixated on the sequential model, while Gersick’s 1988 model addressed the issue from a new perspective without truly con- tradicting or offering a holistically useful replacement of the older models. More recently, theorists have proposed a new vision in which Tuckman and Gersick’s theories combine to create a symbiotic and practical whole. Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) team evaluation and maturation model is a notable example of the current trend in group development theory.