Tuckman's Group Formation Theory - Kolb Assignment - Essay Example

Tuckman’s Group Formation Theory: Kolb Assignment Submitted by [Client’s Name] Submitted to [Professor’s Name] Organizations are composed of individuals working with different sets of functions for common goals or objectives. The complexity of functions of individual components of an organization allows multi-level interaction of individuals within the organization as well as interaction with individuals that do not belong to the organization to occur. Human interactions are bound to result to conflict considering that individuals have different views, perceptions, cultures, ideologies, or goals and objectives. This is why understanding the interaction occurring between and among individuals within the organization is necessary in order for organizations to efficiently deal with issues on group cohesion that may affect the behaviour of the organization as a whole (Child, 1975). One of the most interesting areas in the study of group cohesion and workplace socialization is the process undergone by individuals in group formation. According to American Psychologist Bruce Tuckman, the formation of groups undergoes a series of stages which individuals within groups have to go through before the group can actually achieve its intended goals and functions (Tuckman 1965 cited in Rickards & Moger 2000). Tuckman’s model of group development includes the following stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Understanding the complexities associated with group achievement on certain tasks can be done by understanding the events that took place in each phase of group development. Forming Forming stage is not only the physical togetherness of individuals comprising the group (Tuckman & Jensen 1997). It is the stage where individuals comprising the group identify similarities and differences, establish commonalities of expectations, and agree on the same set of goals. This is also the stage where trust towards other members of the group is formed but not necessarily achieved. This stage allows individuals to focus on their abilities and their contributions to the group but this doesn’t mean that the individuals within the group see things from the same perspective. It is more likely that individuals are looking at the chance of using their group members for their own personal gain (Rickards & Moger, 2000). This phase is also the stage where individuals gather information about their group-mate’s abilities, capabilities, and potential contribution to the group’s goals and objectives. Concrete Experience In the particular experience discussed previously, the forming stage includes the first few interactions we have had as a group. Since I only know a person from the group I am assigned with, it was easier for me to discuss with him possibilities and options that could help us finish our group project. However, I could not say that I shared the same closeness with the other three members of the group. We just had our casual discussion and gave some casual comments on each other’s ideas but we really did not connect. I noticed that they have attempted to get through me by being too kind or helpful but since I am not really comfortable with any kind of group setting, I made an effort to fend every attempt they made to get close to me and gain my sympathy. I deliberately stayed with my friend since I know that it would be easy for me to interact with him considering that we came from the same country and with the same cultural background. Even though I kept the group from bridging the emotional barriers, we did well as a group during the formation stage. Reflective Observation I somehow understand why there is a gap between me and the rest of the individuals in the group. Although I am not naturally aloof, working with individuals I do not know or not really familiar with takes time to and effort for me. I am not always comfortable working in groups. As I go through the process of integrating them with my system, I realized that I was looking for something from the other three that would make communication and openness easier, like a common trait or a common interest. I realized that people in the group was thinking the same too. I noted them waiting for the opportunity to unravel their personalities and characteristics that the rest of us may not actually like. But since we are on the process of getting to know each other and outlining the responsibilities, all of us aimed to show our neutral and likeable selves. Abstract Conceptualization Group cohesion does not occur overnight. It takes a lot of process in order to form a stable group aiming at the same goal. According to Gosenpud (1986), the perfect group is the dyad where its composition is the minimum required number to form a group – two. If two individuals share the same goals and expectations and work together, then a group is formed. However, when misunderstanding occurs and individuals in a dyad could no longer work together, breaking the group is easy. The ease with which groups are formed and unformed in dyads becomes complicated when groups are composed of more than two individuals (Jarvis, 2000). Active Experimentation I realized that being open and direct during the forming stage of group development allows the group to mature very early and hence achieve goals and objectives more speedily than groups who go through the normal process of group development. Laying down expectations as well as showing the real characteristics of individuals comprising a group allows the group as a whole to see beyond the facade. The longer individuals hide their natural self in group setting, the more likely it is that conflict would arise because of the wrong perceptions created. Storming As the group moves towards maturity, some flaws and weaknesses are exposed. One by one, individuals revert to their original selves, destroying some of the expectations created during the forming phase of group formation. Storming is the phase of group development where individuals revert to their own self which may or may not create tension (Tuckman & Jensen 1997). This is the stage where the group tends to express their differences in views and opinions as well as develop power struggles and control issues. Unlike the forming stage where individuals attempt to be nice with each other, the storming phase is the stage of group development where individuals form subgroups based on commonalities. Attack to person is common occurrence in this stage. As individuals show their own colours, the rest of the group members may find themselves not liking what they see. As a result, individuals attack each other on a personal leader, or judge each other based on their compatibility, which often results to unwanted conflicts. Leadership strategies and way of thinking is commonly questioned by individuals within groups. Conflict is more likely to occur at this stage as individual differences are highlighted over the goals and objectives of the group (Ancona 2007). As a result, problem solving does not seem to work well and individuals suffer from difficulties forming bonds with other members of the group. In the event that this stage stretches too long, groups are in trouble of losing sight of their intended goals and functions (Hollway 1991). Concrete Experience When we elected a leader during the forming stage, we are not fully aware of the complexities involved in completing the project. It turned out that the leader we have chosen for the group does not have the right skills and capabilities to lead the group. The team selected this person because of his good management and leadership skills. One of the team members thinks that he can lead better (which I totally agree) and so he constantly rubs himself against our leader. This member is very technical and knows the ins and outs of the group’s objective. My friend and another member think that since the group selected a leader, we are bound to do our best to help our leader achieve the goals by dedicating our knowledge and opinions to him and let him weigh the possibilities. Because of this, a rift began to form in the group. Reflective Observation I realized that in the given situation, it is really difficult for us to choose the right leader during the forming stage because everyone puts their best foot forward and the goals and objectives of the group is not yet well comprehended. As the complexity of the project unfold, it became clearer to us who should become the leader. The difference in opinion held by the group members created a faction that, in hindsight, delayed our achievement of our goals and functions. Abstract Conceptualization Storming stage is characterized by changes. Groups that do not adjust well to the changes taking place in this stage are more likely to disintegrate than groups who can find their way out of the complexities apparent in this stage. The differences innate in individuals comprising groups triggers group conflict and factions (McShane & Von Glinow 2006). Individuals tend to hold on to their biases and perceptions as letting go of what they believe is too difficult a task to achieve. Hence, when confronted with new ideas, or new way of thinking and doing things, particularly those that are not covered by their experiences and knowledge, individuals tend to protect their belief systems by shunning all the elements that would shake the core of their beliefs (Lissack & Gunz 1999). As a result, the differences between and among individuals are highlighted and the commonalities are neglected to the point that they no longer become significant (Sawyer 2007). This is the natural course of action for any kind of social interactions. This is the reason why an effective group management would only exist if and only if the differences are patched up and individuals comprising the group have their minds open for all possible suggestions coming from each member of the group (Ancona 2007). Active Experimentation Openness and unbiased judgment is the key to a smooth transition from forming stage to storming stage. There is no way for the group to take into account everything that would happen in the forming stage which is why it is quite natural for the approach to the goals and objectives to change during the storming stage. This is the reason why I need to be able to flex my mind and my behavior depending on the situation. When such changes occur, it is expected that other changes would happen as well. Norming, Performing, and Adjourning When the group is able to resolve minor and major issues concerning their formation, the group began to take hold of its purpose and start working towards the achievement of its goals and functions (Tuckman & Jensen 1997). Norming stage offers a unique avenue for groups to see the objective and take hold of the objective for as long as the normalized group is in effect. The stage following after norming is performing. Because the group is able to make amends of the differences, it has to move forward and perform its intended functions. Performing stage is characterized by highly motivated individuals as well as the deference of individual goals to the needs of the team. In this stage, empathy, trust, and team pride is high. Individuals in a team look at each issues objectively at this stage, deciding whether issues should affect the performance of the team or should not. When the group is able to achieve its goals and objectives, the group has to dissolve, leaving the team’s individuals isolated again. Concrete Experience The group has decided to take corrective actions on the differing views of the individual members. The leader decided to have an open forum and instead of insisting that he lead the group, he proposed that leading the group will be done in routine. Individuals who are more capable of doing something must gain the leadership status and the rest of the group has to do everything within their knowledge to support the leadership of that person. Everyone agreed to this idea. The group became more close to each other and each one of us became very passionate with our new roles. The issues and conflicts we have had against each other are patched up as well, allowing us to move forward as one team. As a result, the best in every one of us is poured in our efforts resulting in a highly effective and highly efficient and productive endeavor. When the group was able to achieve the goals and objectives, we departed as friends and we were looking forward to working with each other sometime again. Reflective Observation The ability of our elected leader to see through the complications of our group decision has enabled the group to reach a compromise and hence achieve the norming phase much earlier than we should have had. If the storming stage has dragged on for a longer period than is necessary, it would be easy to predict what the outcome of the group will be. Most likely, the group will disintegrate because we as members could not find a common ground to base our working relationships on. With the smooth transition from storming to norming phase, the transition that followed (norming to performing) came smooth as well. Every one of us is motivated to work hard to achieve our goals now that our objectives are clear and our roles are defined with such precision. Because of what we have been through, we were able to go beyond the personal boundaries we have set for ourselves. The five of us became good friends and even though we differ in a lot of ways, we realized that we can work together as an efficient team. Abstract Conceptualization Organizational efficiency can only be achieved if there is harmony and efficiency on the smallest level of the organization (Mowday & Sutton 1997). Organizations that have internal conflicts are less likely to achieve their goals and objectives because workplace issues have their way of blowing out of proportion (McGrath 1997), leading to loss in productivity and inefficient workplace management (Salas, Stagl & Burke 2004). This is the primary reason why organizations need to avert situations and issues that may affect the norming and performing stage of group development. Active Experimentation Because the motivation of the group during the norming and performing stages are high, we were able to achieve our objectives in a very smooth fashion. In fact, we were able to do it efficiently because we have realized the importance of our roles and functions in the project’s success. Conclusion Groups more or less go through the five stages of group development proposed by Tuckman. Understanding each stages of group development allows group managers and individual members of the group to avert unwanted results that may stem from the inability of the group to be flexible in each stage. This does not mean, however, that the group should shun differences. It just means that individuals comprising the group must be able to identify each stage and carry on the appropriate steps that would negate the adverse effects of each process. With this, the group can easily and smoothly go through each phase and achieve its goals and objectives with few casualties and little inefficiency as well. The major strength of Tuckman’s group development model is its ability to represent the difficulties associated with each stage of group development. Knowing the difficulties associated with each stage allows preparation against the potential disaster in dealing with that stage. The role of Tuckman’s group development model is enormous in helping managers identify which stage of group development groups are. Understanding events would eventually lead to the understanding of the concepts and principles associated with the events, leading to the effective proposition of appropriate solutions. Managers dealing with group developments that pattern themselves with Tuckman’s model are more likely to solve easily issues related to group formation compared to managers who deals with the same problem but are unaware of such model. References Ancona, D. 2007, Into a downward spiral. X-Teams: How to build teams that lead, innovate and succeed. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. ISBN: 10-1-59139-692-1 p 21 Child, J. 1975 "Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance--part II: A contingency analysis." Journal of Management Studies, 12: 12-27. Gosenpud, J. 1986, Personality Variables in Group Cohesion, Team Participation, and Total Learning. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises. Volume 13.   Hollway, W. 1991, Work Psychology and Organizational Behavior: Managing Individual at Work. Sage Publications Ltd. Jarvis, M. 2000, Sports Psychology (Routledge Modular Psychology). Routledge. Jex, S. (2002). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist Practitioner Approach. Wiley. 1st Edition. Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on OB. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408. Kerr, S. 1975. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 4, 769-783. Lissack, M. R., & Gunz, H. (1999). Managing complexity in organizations: A view in many directions. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books. McGrath, J. E. 1997, Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics, 1(1), 7-27. McShane, S.L. and Von Glinow, M.A. Organizational Behavior, Third Edition Chinese (Traditional-Taiwan) Translation, Tapei, Taiwan, McGraw-Hill Education Taiwan (2006) Mowday, R.T. & Sutton, R.I. 1993, Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195-229  Nersessian, N. 2008, Creativity in Conceptual Change: A Cognitive Historical Approach. Creating Scientific Concepts. 1-13 Rickards, T., & Moger, S., (2000) ‘Creative leadership processes in project team development: An alternative to Tuckman’s stage model’, British Journal of Management, Part 4, pp273-283 Rumbaut, R. G.  & Portes, A.  (1997). Immigrant America: A portrait. Los Angeles: University of California, Press.   Salas, E., Stagl, K.C., and Burke, C.S. 2004, 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: research themes and emerging needs. In C.L. Cooper and Ivan T. Robertson (Eds.),International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 47-91. Sawyer, K. 2007, Group Flow. Group Genius. ISBN: 13:978-0-465-07192-0 p 39 Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. 1977, Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427. Read More