Bruce Tuckman's Theory of Group Development - Research Paper Example

Tuckman's Theory of Group Development Bruce Tuckman introduced group theory in 1965, stating that every group goes through four processes – forming, in which the group is oriented and formed; storming, in which intragroup conflict emerges; norming, in which the group settles in to form a cohesive whole; and performing, in which the group works on and completes the task around which the group was formed (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977, p. 419). There are theories as to how best to accomplish the performing element. One is a concept of group awareness, which states that individual group members must have information about one another, about their goals and about the development of the group in order to achieve peak efficiency (Oemig et al.). Another states that the similarity between group members aids in task efficiency, mainly because, the more similar people are, the more they think alike and the less likely there will be conflict that will slow down the task (Civettini, 2007, p. 264). Since then, the theory has been tested by others. One question that could be asked is why there is intragroup conflict. The other elements seem self-explanatory, but the element of storming is one that needs some sort of explanation. One such explanation is offered by Rothwell (2008). According to Bion's theory of group emotions, there is a predictability to the emotions of groups, and these emotions form the basis for group cohesiveness and functioning (Rothwell et al., 2008, p. 114). The group cultures are divided into two distinct categories – work, which refers to the overt behaviours of the group that is associated with the group's official purpose; and emotional group culture, or basic assumption, which is based upon the individual's anxiety, fears and fantasies (Rothwell et al., 2008, p. 114). The basic assumption group is always a part of the work group, so that groups in general are viewed as emotional groups that subsumed within work groups (Rothwell et al., 2008, p. 114). Related to this theory is the theory put forth by Wright (2010), which states that there are phases that each group goes through, which marks how the members interact with one another through time. In the beginning, the group is marked by the individual's fears and anxiety about the group, which is related to Rothwell's emotional group culture. These fears and anxieties are based upon the fear of rejection from other group members, and it is up to the leaders to facilitate each individual members entrance into the group. Individual members may feel that perhaps the group will not accept them, or accept their views; that perhaps they are not good enough at the given activity, and that others will be better than they are; and that there may be unwanted competition. These fears may be allayed by making sure that each group member works at the same competency, and that competitiveness, skill demand and instruction complexity are minimized (Wright, 2010, p. 211). The middle phase of the group is where the group settles in and becomes more comfortable with one another, and they become emotionally invested in the group. The individuals settle into status and roles within the group. Each member has a better idea of his or her place within the group, and each individual member feels more confident to individualize him or herself – whereas at the beginning of the group, the members felt a need to be similar to one another, in the middle, differences are celebrated. The individual group members bond by sharing personal information that they would not have shared before. Opinions are given more freely (Wright, 2010, p. 214). The last stage of the group is marked by a return of insecurities and fears, only now these insecurities and fears are coalesced around the feeling that the group is ending, and the ambivalence that is felt when this is at hand. It is also marked by openness in communication, presumably because the group is coming to an end, so the members may feel able to speak more freely. This openness may result in tension, regression and fights (Wright, 2010, p. 207). The ending of the group may be made more harmonious by emphasizing the fact that the members are free to express their ambivalence about the group ending, and to talk about how the group changed them (Wright, 2010, p. 221). Group Leadership As far as group leadership goes, there are certain traits that leaders should possess. One type of leader is the servant leader, who puts aside his or her own self-interest in favor of the interests of those being led. These leaders are altruistic; are able to provide emotional healing to those who fail; are wise, in that they have a good grasp on any given situation that faces the group and knows how to handle these situations; have an excellent ability to persuade others; and understand how their organization impacts society, and are able to use their organization for positive societal means (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010, p. 5-7). Another type of leader is the transformational leader, who is able to “enhance their followers performance beyond the personal and leadership's expectations” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). This leader is able to identify each individuals' personal needs; is able to elicit creative and innovative thinking among the led; is able to assist the followers through task that they might have thought to be impossible; and is able to inspire a “charismatic admiration and emulation of the leader” (Thomas, 2010, p. 9). These leaders use a system of punishment, rewards and pre-emptive actions to solve group problems (Thomas, 2010, p. 10). Applications of the Theories The theories put forth by these group dynamic researchers can be applied in the real world, and some elements are more important than others. For instance, with a sports team, cohesiveness, which would correspond with Tuckman's “norming” or Wright's middle phase elements, is the most important issue as far as how successful the team is (Hall, 2002, p. 2). The cohesiveness may be either social or task, or both. Social cohesion implies that the group gets along well with one another, which might include socializing outside the group. Task cohesion means that the group is cohesive to accomplish the task at hand, but this does not necessarily mean that the individual members get along or even like one another. An example of task cohesion without social cohesion is exemplified by the New York Yankees 1978 team, that exhibited “extraordinary task cohesion,” but the teammates “hated each other” (Hall, 2002, p. 2). Cohesiveness is also one of the most important elements in team-based learning. Cohesiveness is especially important in this situation, as the cohesion of the group limits “social loafing,” which is where one or more members of the group do less work than what they would do on their own. Task cohesiveness appears to minimize this effect (Meeuwsen & Pederson). The 4-H Club emphasizes elements similar to Tuckman's approach in preparing their young people for leadership roles. The elements that are emphasized in the 4-h Club are belonging, in which the participants learn to be a part of the group, and corresponds with the norming element of Tuckman's theory; independence, in which the 4-H participants gain self-confidence, which corresponds with the performing element; mastery, in which basic skills and specific skills important to 4-H are mastered, and this also corresponds with the performing element; and generosity, in which compassion is developed and community service is emphasized (Anderson et al., 2010, pp. 41-43). Thus, the 4-H model encompasses many of Tuckman's positive elements, and none of the negative ones, such as the storming element. Dudka & Barnett (2007) applied Tuckman's theory to their study of adults in on-line education classes. They found that the apprehensiveness that denotes forming were present during the first three weeks of classes. During this period, members worried, felt intimidated and acclimated to the courses. The storming stage lasted the entire length of the course, 16 weeks, and was centered around work-family conflicts, the high cost of buying books, the feeling of being puzzled or confused by the coursework. Norming occurred during weeks 3-7, as members started to trust one another, become more comfortable with each other, and the coursework became more accessible and clear. The performing happened during weeks 4-16, as members started understanding the assignments better, finishing these assignments, and getting into the groove. Hingst et al. (2006) reviewed Tuckman's theory in the context of a call center, stating that one of the features of a group is the integration of new members. When new members join a group, there is a period of transitioning from being an outsider to a group member, and this requires learning about the interpersonal relationships between the existing group members and “acquiring an understanding of group culture, norms and tasks” (Hingst et al., 2006, p. 4). During this period of time the existing group members are similarly sizing up the new member, trying to learn about him and how he operates within the group's confines and figuring out how their interpersonal relationships will be affected by the new member. Hingst et al. theorized that, absent a challenge from a dominant new member who has the potential to exert a strong influence over the group, the interpersonal relationships between existing members will not change with the addition of the new person, and that the new person will not be able to challenge established practices within the group. The more likely scenario is that the new member will assimilate into the group in a gradual process and that, over time, he might be able to influence the group agenda (Hingst, et al., 2006). The researchers found that interpersonal bonds between existing members actually did weaken somewhat in groups that are constantly exposed to transient membership, while that group is facilitating the entrance of the new member. They also found that there is a period of mutual investigation, as the new member is uncertain about the group and the group is uncertain about the new member's competence and the existing members scrutinize the new member's personal and character attributes. They also found that there was not a re-examining of the interpersonal relationships between existing group members (Hingst et al., 2006). Conclusion Tuckman's theory has been widely used since its inception in 1965. Although not all groups adhere to the four stages, many of them do at least resemble the stages. Some theories skip different parts of Tuckman's stages, others put the steps out of sequence, such as Wright, who hypothesized that groups essentially go through forming and norming before storming, and that storming and performing often happen at the same time. Leadership theories are also helpful to understand group dynamics. These theories are applied to real-world situations, which helps us understand them better and apply them as well. Sources Used Anderson, J. (2010). 4-H made me a leader: a college-level alumni perspective of leadership life skill development. Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 35-46. Barbuto, J. & Gifford, G. (2010). Examining gender differences of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 4-16. Civettini, N. (2007). Similarity and group performance. Social Psychology Quarterly 70(3): 262-271. Glowacki-Dudka, M. & Barnett, N. (2007). Connecting critical reflection and group development in online education classes. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 19(1): 43-52. Hall, A. (2007). Sports psychology: building group cohesion, performance and trust in athletic teams. Retrieved from: http://www.arichall.com/academic/papers/psy8840-sport-psyc.pdf Hingst, R. (2006). Tuckman's theory of group development in a call centre context: does it still work? Fifth Global Conference on Business and Economics. Retrieved from: http://eprints.usq.edu.au/ 1910/ Meeuwsen, H. & Pederson, R.. (2006). Group cohesion in team-based learning. Mountain Rise, 3(1): 1-11. Oemig, C. & Gross, T. Shifts in significance: How group dynamics improves group awareness. Retrieved from; http://cml.medien.uni-weimar.de/~gross/publ/mc07 _oemig_gross_group_dynamics.pdf Rothwell, E.W. (2008). The emotional dynamics of a group during a challenge course exercise. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 8(2): 113-131. Thomas, J. (2010). Bet you never heard of this leadership trait. Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 1-3. Tuckman, B. & Jensen, M. (1976). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies: 419-430. Wright, W. (2010). The use of purpose in on-going activity groups: a framework for maximizing the therapeutic impact. Social Work With Groups 28(3): 205-227. Read More