a Academy of
Management Journal
2003, Vol. 46, No. 1, 106-117.
PUNCTUATEDEQUILIBRIUMAND LINEARPROGRESSION:
TOWARDA NEW UNDERSTANDINGOF GROUPDEVELOPMENT
ARTEMIS CHANG
Queensland University of Technology
PRASHANT BORDIA
JULIE DUCK
University of Queensland
This study proposes gaining a new understanding of group development by considering the integrative and the punctuated equilibrium models of group development as
complementary rather than competing. We hypothesized that we would observe both
punctuated equilibrium and linear progression in content-analyzed data from 25
simulated project teams, albeit on different dimensions. We predicted changes in time
awareness and in task and pacing activity in line with the punctuated equilibrium
model and changes in structure and process on task and socioemotional dimensions in
line with the integrative model. Results partially supported predictions for both
models.
1991; La Coursiere, 1980; Van de Ven, 1995;
Wollin, 1999).
We argue that one should not conclude that
Gersick's findings discredit stage models of
group development without systematically examining the relationship between the punctuated
equilibrium model and linear (stage) models of
group development. Only three studies (Arrow,
1997; Lim & Murnigham, 1994; Seers & Woodruff,
1997) have directly compared linear and nonsequential models of group development. However,
two of the three studies appear to contain misinterpretations of some fundamental assumptions of linear group development models; both
Arrow (1997) and Seers and Woodruff (1997) assumed that linear models describe a group's progression through "clearly defined" developmental stages. In fact, most linear theorists have
defined developmental stages in terms of the proportion of time a group spends on issues that are
characteristic of a particular stage and do not
propose that clearly defined boundaries separate
one developmental stage from the other (for example, Bales, 1953; Wheelan, 1994).
This research note presents an empirical study
designed to reconcile the punctuated equilibrium
model (Gersick, 1988, 1989) and the integrative
model (Wheelan, 1994) of group development.
The integrative model was chosen to represent
stage models because it is a recent integration of
previous group development research, including
Tuckman's (1965) classic model. We argue that
the punctuated equilibrium model and the integrative model complement rather than contradict
Group researchers were forced to reconsider
their understanding of group processes when
Gersick (1988, 1989, 1991) published the punctuated equilibrium model. Gersick (1988, 1989)
studied eight field and eight laboratory work
groups with definite deadlines, referred to as
project teams, and found that instead of developing gradually over time, project teams progressed
through an alternation of stasis and sudden
change. Drawing on the language of biological
evolution, she labeled such a course of development "punctuated equilibrium." Reviewers (e.g.,
Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo & Shea, 1992) have
concluded that this new understanding of change
processes challenged the traditional linear models of group development, in which (1) change
was conceptualized as a gradual and incremental
process, (2) it was assumed that groups progress
through a logical sequence of stages over time,
and (3) groups were viewed as becoming more
effective over time, at least until they move into a
final stage of decline and termination (Gersick,
We would like to thank Andrew Wollin and Allie
Perich for their help at various stages of this research.
This research, conducted as part of the first author's
doctoral studies at the University of Queensland, was
supported by her Australian PostgraduateAward and by
a Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Early Career Research Grant to the second author. An earlier
version of this research note received the 2002 Best Dissertation Award from the American Psychological Association, Division 49.
106
2003
Chang,Bordia, and Duck
each other. The following discussion will clarify
misunderstanding in the literature and integrate
the two models to offer a comprehensive framework for understanding group development and
group performance. The contribution of this
study is in its attempt to clarify the literature and
to convey a new understanding of group development that integrates the punctuated equilibrium model and the integrative model both theoretically and empirically. This contribution is
valuable because empirical research comparing
different theories of group development is largely
lacking, given the extensive time and resources
required to test just one group development
model empirically (Weingart, 1997).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The Punctuated Equilibrium Model
Presenting her punctuated equilibrium model,
Gersick (1988, 1989) argued that, instead of developing gradually over time, work groups experience
long periods of inertia that are punctuated by concentrated revolutionary periods of quantum
change. According to the punctuated equilibrium
model, groups undergo a two-phase (rather than a
two-stage) developmental pattern. Phase 1 is the
first period of inertia, the direction of which is set
by the end of a group's first meeting. Phase 1 lasts
for half of the group's allotted time. At the midpoint of the allotted time, the group undergoes a
transition that sets a revised direction for phase 2, a
second period of inertia. In addition, Gersick (1989)
noted that a group's progress is triggered more by
members' awareness of time and deadlines than by
completion of an absolute amount of work in a
specific developmental stage. Moreover, "halfway"
emerges as the most likely moment at which groups
will call attention to time or pacing. The midpoint
acts as a reminder of the approaching deadline that
interrupts the group's basic phase 1 strategies and
facilitates the midpoint transition and thus the onset of phase 2.
The Integrative Model
In the integrative model, which is based on an
integration of group development research over the
last four decades (e.g., Bales, 1953; Bion, 1961;
Tuckman, 1965), groups are viewed as progressing
through five developmental stages, each described
by a unique pattern of behaviors.
Stage 1 is "dependency and inclusion." According to the model, members often feel anxious and
uncertain when first entering a group, because the
107
situation is new and not clearly defined. Thus, they
are polite and tentative, leader-focused, and sometimes defensive.
Stage 2 is "counterdependency and fight." As the
group develops, members start to find the leaderfocused stage frustrating and confining. Individual
members seek to clarify their roles, and the group
seeks to assert independence from the leader (counterdependency). Coalitions start to form among
members with similar ideas and values. Fights and
conflicts between coalitions and members with different values start to emerge.
Stage 3 is "trust and structure." Resolutions of
the conflicts of stage 2 clarify goals, increase cohesion and member satisfaction, and reduce individual fears of rejection; thus, trust among members
increases. At stage 3, communication becomes
more open and task-oriented, and more mature negotiations about goals, roles, organization and procedures start to take place. Members who have
accepted a role at stage 1 out of misunderstanding
the group's goal or mere fear of rejection can now
renegotiate their roles with the group.
Stage 4 is "work." Work commences immediately
after group formation but reaches an optimal state
at this stage. Once goals, structures, and norms are
established, a group can work more effectively.
Members share the group goals and conform to the
group norm of high productivity. Furthermore, as
Wheelan (1994) argued, people usually have some
awareness of time when they work. Groups that are
always working are probably not working effectively, and those that start late are definitely not
working effectively.
Stage 5 is "termination." Most work groups have
an ending point; even continuous groups have temporary endings such as completion of an assigned
project. At each ending point, the members of a
functional group tend to evaluate their work together, give feedback, and express feelings about
each other and the group.
Similarities and Differences between the
Two Models
The two models have the following similarities. First, in the integrative model, stage 1 groups
are characterized by leader dependency and concerns about safety and inclusion and, thus, a
group's members tend to follow the dominant
mood of the group at this stage. Consequently,
internal and external pressures to perform usually force groups to focus on work very early in
their development, despite their unreadiness to
do so. Thus, a group's members tend to embrace
whatever work processes are proposed at this
108
Academy of ManagementJournal
early stage. Furthermore, these work processes
tend to remain with the group until members are
ready to question or challenge prevailing views
within the group. This argument accords with
Gersick's (1988) assertion that the approach a
group undertakes at its first meeting will carry
through the first half of its life span, which is
phase 1 in the punctuated equilibrium model.
Second, it is possible that the integrative model
describes changes at a more micro level within
each phase of inertia described by Gersick. In the
integrative model, there is only a loose boundary
between stages 1 and 2 and stages 3 and 4. Stages 1
and 2 tend to co-occur to form a premature phase
(phase 1 of the punctuated equilibrium model) in
which group members struggle with issues such as
power, structure, and intimacy; and stages 3 and 4
tend to co-occur to form a mature phase (phase 2 of
the punctuated equilibrium model) in which issues
such as power, structure, and intimacy are mostly
resolved, and work is the main focus of a group.
Thus, it is possible that a transition marks the shift
of a group's behavioral pattern from a phase in
which stage 1 and 2 behaviors dominate to a phase
in which stage 3 and 4 behaviors dominate. This
conceptualization of multilevel change patterns
is similar to Wollin's (1999) recent approach to
and incremental
understanding
revolutionary
changes in social science. Wollin argued that systems have multilevel deep structures and that it is
at the level of deep structure that changes determine the observed incremental or revolutionary
pattern. In other words, changes at more surface
levels tend to be incremental; revolutionary
changes occur at a more fundamental level (Wollin,
1999).
Besides the similarities, there are also some differences between the punctuated equilibrium
model and the integrative model. First, in terms of
specificity, the punctuated equilibrium model describes changes in the way a group works on its
tasks over time, whereas the integrative model describes the overall developmental pattern of a
group over time. This difference in specificity is
reflected in the difference in the two coding systems. Gersick's observational system focused on
"ideas and decisions that gave the product its basic
shape or that would be the fundamental choices in
a decision tree if the finished product were to be
diagrammed... and points where milestone ideas
were first proposed, whether or not they were accepted at that time" (1988: 14). The integrative
model, on the other hand, was developed through
use of the Group Development Observation System
(GDOS; Wheelan, Verdi, & McKeage, 1993), which
captures temporal changes in groups' structures
February
and processes along both socioemotional and taskrelated dimensions. For example, the coded transcript on the right in Table 1 demonstrates the
integrative model's focus on group processes such
as work (coded with "W"), flight ("FL"; avoidance
of intimacy or work), and pairing ("P"), which refers to relationship building. In contrast, the left
side of Table 1 demonstrates how the same group
interaction would be coded under the punctuated
equilibrium model. Applying the latter, we abstracted themes from the group's discussion, coding the same group interaction as the group examining its resources. Because the punctuated
equilibrium model focuses a group's approach to
its work, statements that represent relationship
maintenance or avoidance of intimacy are less
relevant.
Second, in terms of generalizability, the punctuated equilibrium model describes developmental
patterns that apply only to "groups that have some
leeway to modify their work processes and must
orient themselves to a time limit" (Gersick, 1988:
36). The integrative model was designed to describe the developmental patterns of all types of
groups-for example, ICU nurse teams (Wheelan &
Burchill, 1999), executive teams (Buzaglo &
Wheelan, 1999), faculty member groups (Wheelan
& Tilin, 1999), and financial services and hotel
industry teams (Wheelan, Murphy, Tsumura, & Kyliene, 1998).
HYPOTHESES
Comparison of the two models described in the
preceding section led to our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Simulated project teams undergo both punctuated equilibrium and linear
progressive developmental patterns, albeit on
different dimensions. Over time, changes in a
group's time awareness, pacing activities, and
task activities will occur, consistent with the
punctuated equilibrium model, and changes in
task and socioemotional activities will occur,
consistent with the integrative model.
Furthermore, we argue that the presence of punctuated equilibrium does not preclude the presence
of linear progression (Wollin, 1999).
Hypothesis 2. The integrative model describes
changes at a more micro level within each
phase of inertia described by Gersick, with the
midpoint transition marking a group's moving
into the more productive developmental
stages.
2003
Chang,Bordia, and Duck
109
TABLE 1
Meeting Transcript Sample Coded by Two Methods
Gersick-Style Meeting Mapa
Group Development Observational System Codingb
0:00-3:00: examined resources, looking at
the tapes available.
B These are all the music tapes (W)
A tapes (W)
C I wonder what the music is? (W)
B while you are sleeping (W), silk road of theme (W), pearl shells (W), which I
never hear of (FL),while you are sleeping (W), is that the movie? (FL)
A hm (FL)
C yes (W)
B we should use that one (W)
0:30-1:30: proposed content. One person
talked about the movie "CrazyPeople."
Wanted to use the idea shown in the
movie: "Millions of people get killed
every year but we have the fewest
number."The group then evaluated the
proposed content-"not original."
1:30-4:20: listened to all the music tapes,
commented on the music, and
proposed ideas that go with the music.
"This is captain someone," "This is like
an Asian music," "Butthat doesn't
make Asian sound exciting, it just
makes it sound relaxing.""We'vealso
got to mention the country I guess."
D ... (U)
A I am not going to play it (W), I am just going to... (W)
D ok (W)
E has any one seen crazy people (FL)
D pardon (U)
E crazy people (FL),the movie (FL)
B no (answeringB) (FL),that's good (referringto the tape recorder)(W),
C ok so (W), so we got to basically advertise (W)
E they did this thing on the movie (W) where there like was this advertising
guy (W), and you know like how they usually say those safety stuff (W)
1:00 E and he goes millions people got killed every year but we have the fewest
number (W), like people get killed (W)
D oh, really (P)
E they just do all this crazy thing (FL)and people really like it (FL)cause he
just like do all these crazy commercials (W)
B that's good though (W)
E but all these crazy people helps him to make up these ideas (FL),but it's not
original (W), but its creative (W)
C but they wouldn't know whether it's not original (W) unless they have seen
it (W)
D yeah (W), but they have the tape (W)
Ebut.. .(U)
oh yeah (W)
E elevating music (playing music tape 1) (W)
B it's like airplane music when you land (W)
A oh. Yeah (W)
D or when you are taking off (W)
A yeah (P), it's true (W)
E what's that (the music) (W)
2:00 B so we would have to like do the other ones...
a The left-hand column is a five minute-sample segment of the meeting map describing changes in the central theme of a group's
discussion over time. This map was constructed following guidelines provided by Gersick(1989). The coding of the segments is in bold
type. The numbers in the left column represent minutes elapsed since project inception.
b The right-handcolumn shows a GDOStranscriptfor only two minutes of the group's interaction. The letters at the start of each line
identify group members.The coding of each statement is in parentheses, in bold type. The coding reflects the purpose of the communications and the nonverbalbehaviors accompanying them.
In this study, we aimed to test the hypotheses by
replicating Gersick's (1989) laboratory study on
simulated work groups. Laboratory groups were
studied because their development could be observed from project inception to termination. More
importantly, a laboratory study offered a controlled
environment in which similarities and differences
between the two models could be the most effectively investigated. Furthermore, Gersick demonstrated that laboratory groups display developmental patterns that are similar to those of field groups
and thus that data derived from laboratory groups
have external validity.
The integrative model (Wheelan, 1994), in contrast to the punctuated equilibrium model, was developed in the field and has not been tested in a
laboratory setting. However, given that the model is
generalizable to a wide range of groups, we expected laboratory groups to display similar developmental patterns, with the exception that the laboratory setting might lead to less socioemotional
interaction and/or conflict as participants would
110
Academy of ManagementJournal
have limited vested interest in the task and would
only be interacting for 40 minutes.
METHODS
Participants and Procedures
Twenty-five groups of first-year university psychology students (8 groups of five and 17 groups of
four) participated in the experiment for partial fulfillment of psychology course requirements. The
sample consisted of 69 female and 38 male students
that formed 2 all-male, 7 all-female, and 16 mixed
groups. Groups' gender composition was not controlled in this experiment because previous research (Verdi & Wheelan, 1992) has suggested that
it has no influence on patterns of group development. However, observation of the groups' interaction showed that the all-male groups were less
committed to the task than were the other groups.
The task in our study was modeled closely on
that in Gersick's (1989) laboratory study. Participants were told to assume the role of professional
advertising writers at a major urban radio station
who were to design a pilot commercial for a wellknown airline. Each team received a folder that
informed them about the client's special request
and the costs of producing an advertisement. Each
group also received an audio tape player, a tape
recorder, and three different music tapes. The budget allowed each group to use only one of the music
tapes. Participants were asked to note the time their
group began on their watches and to have the radio
commercial ready for collection when the experimenter (one of the authors) returned in exactly 40
minutes. Participants were told that several other
advertising agencies were interested in this project
as well and that if their team did not produce a
pilot commercial that satisfied the client, their
agency would lose this contract. The competition
was intended to motivate the students to finish on
time and to attend to the requirements and evaluation criteria. At the end of the 40 minutes working
time or upon completion of a group's first presentable product (whichever occurred first), the experimenter returned to the room and debriefed the
participants. Meetings were videotaped for further
analysis. Each group's interaction was transcribed
word-for-word into a written script for coding and
analysis; the average script contained 26.8 (s.d. =
5.48) pages of double-spaced, 12-point type and
1,113 (s.d. = 269.32) complete sentences.
The Coding Systems
Coding for the punctuated equilibrium model.
Responses were coded as far as possible according
February
to the coding scheme described by Gersick (1989),
although she did not fully describe a unit of analysis for testing the punctuated equilibrium model.
Her coding system contained two broad classes.
The first categorized the actions group members
took to manage a work process. There were three
types of action statements: Process statements ("P")
were members' suggestions about how their group
should proceed with the work (for instance, "Why
don't we just toss out some ideas that we could get
into the commercial?"). Time-pacing statements
("T") were group members' direct references to
time-noting what time it was or how much time
had elapsed or was left-and members' attempts to
pace their group by saying when, in terms of the
allotted time, something should be done (for example, "toward the end" and "before too long") or by
mentioning how long an action would take, or finishing on time (for instance, "We have got 20 min-
utes left!"). Resources-requirements ("R") statements were members' references to their group's
resources, requirements, or criteria for the task and
explicit attempts to shape the product in accordance with the group's resources or requirements
(for instance, "That's $200 per thing, so we basically have the choice of one.").
The second class of categories included statements about the product: Content statements ("#c")
were group members' mentions of selling points to
be pushed in the ad, ideas for content themes or
story lines, the content of dialogue, or information
to be presented. Detail statements ("#d") were ideas
about small modifications or fine points of ad content (for instance, "Should the brakes slam or
not?"). Format statements ("#f") were ideas for the
basic format of the ad, the vehicle through which
the information would be conveyed (for instance,
"What if we had a conversation between two people?"). Procedure statements ("#p") were ideas
about the process of acting out the ad and about
who would do what for the recording session (such
as "I'll do the second person."). Following procedures similar to those reported by Gersick (1989),
we constructed a qualitative map for each group
(see Table 1). The map described changes in the
central theme of a group's discussion over time.
Observation
System
Group Development
(GDOS) coding for the integrative model. Work
statements ("W") were those that represented purposeful, goal-directed activity and task-oriented efforts (for example, "Why don't we start writing this
down?"). All categories described by the punctuated equilibrium model were coded as work statements in the GDOS coding. Fight statements ("FI")
were those that implied argumentativeness, criticism, or aggression (such as "That is a stupid
2003
Chang,Bordia, and Duck
idea."). Flight statements ("FL") were those that
indicated avoidance of the task and confrontation
(such as "Did anyone watch the movie on SBS last
night?"). Pairing statements ("P") were those that
included expressions of warmth, friendship, support, or intimacy with others (for example, "Good
work, John!"). Counterpairing statements ("CP") indicated avoidance of intimacy and connection and
a desire to keep the discussion distant and intellectual (for example, "Can we talk about the commercial instead?"). Dependency statements ("D")
showed an inclination to conform with the dominant mood of the group or to follow suggestions
made by the leader and, generally, demonstrated a
desire for direction from others (for example,
"What do you think we should do?"). Counterdependency statements ("CD") asserted independence from and rejection of leadership, authority,
or other members' attempts to lead (such as "Why
don't we try my idea first?"). It should be noted that
all statements needed to be coded on the basis of
their purpose, the group's history, the nonverbal
cues given by the speaker, and the reaction of the
recipient. For example, "Can we talk about the
commercial instead?" was coded as a counterpairing statement when it was a reaction to a group's
conversation. In contrast,
relationship-building
"Did any one watch the movie on SBS last night?"
was coded as flight when it was stated to avoid
working on the commercial, when the group found
the task too difficult to proceed with.
The first author coded all the transcripts twice,
once with Gersick's coding system, and once with
the GDOS. A research assistant coded a randomly
selected 10 percent of the scripts. Coefficients for
interrater reliability between the first author and
the research assistant were calculated both for unitizing and for coding. For all of the integrative
model codings and for the pacing and time awareness statements of the punctuated equilibrium
model, a unit was defined as a simple sentence that
presents a complete thought to another person or
persons. A unit did not have to be a grammatical
sentence as long as a communication provided
enough information that it could be interpreted by
others and could stimulate a reaction in them.
Thus, "I agree" is a unit, and "Absolutely" is a unit
if said in response to another statement (Wheelan et
al., 1993: 44). Unitizing reliability was assessed
using Guetzkow's U, and the global and categoryby-category reliability measures of the GDOS were
calculated using Cohen's kappa (Folger, Hewes, &
Poole, 1984). The unitizing reliability was calculated to be 0.99 for the integrative model. The
global level of interrater reliability was 0.74 for the
integrative model, and the category-by-category
111
reliability coefficients for work, flight, pairing,
counterpairing, dependency, counterdependency,
uncodable, and pacing and time statements were
0.99, 1.00, 0.94, 0.97, 0.81, 0.75, 1.00, and 1.00
respectively. Cohen's kappa was not calculated for
the fight category because no fight statements were
observed in this study (see below). For the punctuated equilibrium model, interrater reliability was
only calculated on the percentage of agreement on
the linear or nonsequential pattern of development
and for the time and pacing statements (as described above). We relied on these two measures
because of the lack of detail in Gersick's (1989)
paper on how to analyze the data from other coding
categories. Another research assistant who had not
been involved in the initial coding of the transcripts used GDOS to code 25 percent of the transcripts; the percentage of agreement between this
research assistant and the first author on the linear/
nonsequential pattern of development was 100 percent. For all observed transitions, the two raters
also agreed on the timing of the transitions and the
events that constituted them.
RESULTS
The Punctuated Equilibrium Model
Support for the punctuated equilibrium model
was assessed in two ways: First, via examination of
the overall pattern of attention to time and pacing
throughout a group's allotted time and second,
through examination of qualitative shifts in the
way the group performed its task.
Figure 1 demonstrates the distribution of pacing
and time statements across all 25 groups. The
groups showed more awareness of pacing as time
progressed. To examine whether this pattern of increase in time awareness might be interpreted as
both linear and nonsequential, we performed two
separate Friedman's chi-square analyses (Howell,
1990). In the first analysis, we compared time
awareness in the two phases (20 minutes each) to
replicate Gersick's finding. In the second, we examined time awareness across the four 10-minute
time intervals to determine if there was evidence of
a gradual increase in time awareness over timethat is, a linear trend. A Bonferroniadjustmentwas
made so that alpha was set to .025 for the two
"main effect" analyses and to .004 for the four
"pairwise" comparisons.
Results of the two chi-square tests supported
both a nonsequential and a linear increase in time
awareness. Time awareness significantly increased
between the phases: phase 2 contained 65 time
references, as compared to 34 in phase 1 (X21 =
112
Academy of ManagementJournal
February
FIGURE 1
Patterns of Time Statements Collapsed across the 15 Groupsa
#
#
#f
#
##
---5
#
##
#
####
##
##
#
####
#
###
###
#
#
###
#######
########
################
#
#########I#######################
----10
----
15----20----25----30----35----40
Time
a
Each "#" represents the time statements of a different group.
9.71, p < .01). The four-stage chi-square test
showed a significant difference in groups' time
awareness over the four 10-minute intervals; there
were 14, 20, 26 and 39 time references over these
periods (X23 = 13.85, p < .01). Furthermore, pairwise comparisons of the time awareness statements
across the four 10-minute intervals showed that the
only significant difference in time awareness was
= 11.79, p < .001;
between intervals 1 and 4
(X21
X21 = 1.06, 0.78, and 2.60 for the comparisons
between intervals 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4,
respectively). Thus, both linear and nonsequential
changes of time awareness were observed in this
study. To understand if the published data from
Gersick's (1989) study could also be interpreted as
supportive of both linear and nonsequential patterns, we reanalyzed those data and found a similar
pattern. When the group's allotted 60 minutes was
divided into four 15-minute intervals, a significant
difference in time awareness was found (X23= 9.57,
p < .0025; 7, 12, 14, and 23 time references), and
none of the pairwise comparisons were significant
except for the comparison between intervals 1 and
4 (X21 = 8.53, p < .001; X21 = 1.32, 0.15, and 2.19
for the comparisons between intervals 1 and 2, 2
and 3, and 3 and 4, respectively). Thus, reanalysis
of Gersick's data also indicated that the results
could be interpreted as both linear and nonsequential, depending on the unit of analysis that is used
(see Wollin, 1999).
Midpoint Transition
Using Gersick's coding system as a guideline, we
constructed a time map describing the changes in
the central theme of discussion over time for each
group; Table 1 presents an example of a map. Nine
of the 25 groups studied here showed some form of
transition around the midpoint of their allotted
time. A transition point was defined by Gersick as
"the moment when group members made fundamental changes in their conceptualization of their
own work" (1989: 277). Gersick argued that this
shift could occur in two ways: "One way consisted
of summarizing previous work, declaring it complete, and picking up a next subtask. A second way
was observed in groups whose phase 1 agendas
appeared to be floundering. These groups just
dropped stalled phase 1 approaches and reached
out for a fresh source of inspiration, something
around which to crystallize further efforts" (1989:
303). Like Gersick, we observed that transitions
that occurred around the midpoint were most
likely to focus on new content or a new format that
would help a group to integrate the materials generated up to that point to create the basic structure
of the commercial. For example, one group spent
the first half of its time talking about possible content ideas for the commercial. After 19 minutes of
discussion, one member said, "All I can think of is
'I Like Aeroplane Jelly'" (a reference to a jingle in
an existing TV ad). Another group member responded, "We can change the words of 'I Like Aeroplane Jelly' to 'I Love Air Australia."' This suggestion was not immediately taken up by the group,
but 2 minutes later the group used this idea and
started making up words for this song, which became a major part of the commercial.
Gersick (1989) studied 8 groups in the field and 8
groups in the laboratory. In both cases, she found
midpoint transitions in most groups. She concluded that the midpoint is the most likely, but not
the only, transition point in project teams. However, in our study, with a larger sample of 25
groups, we found that only 9 groups underwent
midpoint transitions. The other 16 groups fitted the
description of linear progression more closely than
that of a progression marked by a midpoint transition. Small and incremental changes occurred
throughout these groups' life spans, without clear,
2003
Chang,Bordia, and Duck
sudden changes in direction. Nevertheless, of the
16 groups that did not display midpoint transitions, 12 did undergo some transitions, most of
which occurred within the first 10 minutes of their
life spans.
The presence of both linear progressive and
patterns illustrated
punctuated developmental
that groups can follow various developmental
equilibrium, linear propatterns-punctuated
gression, or a combination. This finding is not
surprising, given that, even with a sample size of
8 groups, Gersick observed two ways of making
the midpoint transition. More importantly, the
first way of making a transition she observed
(summarizing previous work, declaring it complete, and picking up a next subtask) describes
elements of linear progression as well as elements of nonsequential transition. Variations in
the "sizes" of transitions and the number of transitional points resulted in our observation of
multiple developmental patterns.
The results of this study accorded with those of
Lim and Murnighan (1994), who found that
changes in negotiation activities over time could
be interpreted as forming either a nonsequential
pattern in which a transition point occurred immediately before a deadline, or as forming a linear pattern in which gradual and incremental
changes occurred throughout a group's life span.
Lim and Murnighan suggested that their study
did not necessarily discredit the punctuated
equilibrium model; rather, they saw it as demonstrating that if a group does display nonsequential developmental patterns, the nature of the task
has a dramatic impact on when in the group's life
span a transition will take place. The fact that
most of the groups in the present study did show
some form of transition during their life spans
supported the validity of the punctuated equilibrium model but, like Lim and Murnighan (1994),
we found that transitions do not always occur at
the midpoint.
The Integrative Model
To examine group developmental patterns from
the perspective of the integrative model, we divided the groups' 40 minutes of allotted time into
four 10-minute intervals. For each interval, the proportion of time allocated to each category was calculated by dividing the number of statements made
in that particular category by the total number of
statements made. Figures 2a-2e illustrate the developmental patterns of the groups over time.
Visual inspections of the data were conducted as
a starting point to the interpretation of the results.
113
Inferences based on the visual inspections are crucial to this study; given the low statistical power of
the study, we did not expect many of the statistical
tests to be significant. The figure does not contain
counterpairing and fight graphs. With only one
group yielding only two counterpairing statements,
these were very rare, possibly because group members' personal involvement in the task was low.
The standard deviations for all five categories were
large, although this was more a result of the groups'
displaying different baselines (for example, some
groups spent 40 percent of their time on flight and
others spent less than 10 percent of their time on
flight) than a consequence of their displaying different developmental patterns. We inferred general
developmental trends from the data aggregated for
the 25 groups.
Friedman's rank tests were performed on this
aggregated data for each category as a means to
determine if there was any significant difference in
the amount of time allocated to the particular category over the four time intervals. No statistical
adjustment was made because the categories are
mutually exclusive. If a significant chi-square was
obtained for the particular category, we conducted
a series of pairwise comparisons using Friedman's
rank test (with an alpha set to .008, after the Bonferroni adjustment) to determine whether the
changes over time were linear or nonsequential.
Work. As expected, work statements dominated
the groups' interactions at all times. Roughly 70 to
80 percent of the statements were work statements.
Visual inspection of Figure 2a and the Friedman's
rank tests support the integrative model hypothesis
that attention to work will increase gradually over
time. There was a significant difference in the proportion of time allocated to work statements over
the four time intervals (X23 = 26.67, p < .0001).
Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that differences in the amount of work in adjacent time
segments were nonsignificant, whereas comparisons between nonconsecutive time segments were
= 14.44, 11.56, and 10.67, p < .001
significant
= 1.5;
for times 1 (X21
and 4, 2 and 4, and 1 and 3;
1.5 and 6.0, n.s., for times 1 and 2, 2 andX21
3, and 3
and 4, respectively).
Flight. In contrast, flight statements only occupied 6 to 7 percent of groups' interaction time. Most
flight statements were made to avoid the task rather
than to avoid confrontation in the group. Visual
inspection of Figure 2b supports the integrative
model prediction that flight statements will increase at time 2 and then decrease over time 3 and
time 4. However, the difference in flight over time
was not statistically significant (x23 = 2.79, n.s.).
114
Academy of ManagementJournal
February
FIGURE 2
Developmental Patterns Averaged across the 15 Groupsa
(2a) Work Statements
100%
(2b) Flight Statements
30%
25%
80% -
20%
60% -
15%
40%
10%
5%
20%
0%
0%
-5%
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Time 1
Time 3
Time 4
(2d) Dependency Statements
(2c) Pairing Statements
30%
Time 2
-
30%
25%
20%
20%
15%
10%
10%
5%
0%
0%
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3 Time 4
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
(2e) CounterdependencyStatements
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
Time 1
a
Time 2
Time 3 Time 4
The five graphs describe the means and standard deviations of the work, pairing, dependency,
statements made over the four 10-minute intervals.
Pairing. Pairing statements occupied 10-16 percent of the groups' interaction. Most pairing statements were made to show reflective listening to
other group members. Visual inspection of Figure
2c and the Friedman's tests led to the conclusion
that the proportion of time allocated to pairing
statements gradually decreased over time. There
was a significant difference in the proportion of
time allocated to pairing statements over the four
time intervals (X23 = 20.75, p < .0001). Pairwise
comparisons showed that pairing statements stayed
relatively constant from time 1 to time 3 and decreased significantly
at time 4
(X,21
=
8.9, 13.5, and
8.17, p < .004 for times 3 and 4, 1 and 4, and 1 and
counterdependency,
and flight
3; X21 = 0.0, 1.63, and 6.0 for times 1 and 2, 2 and 3,
and 2 and 4, respectively).
According to the integrative model, the proportion of time allocated to pairing should increase
gradually over time until groups reach the trust
stage (stage 3), and then decrease slightly at the
work stage (stage 4). Neither visual inspection of
the graph nor the Friedman's rank tests supported
this pattern of development. Instead, both suggested that pairing decreased slowly over time, especially at time 4.
The lack of increase in pairing over time could be
explained by the artificial group setting. Given that
these simulated work groups were highly task-
2003
Chang,Bordia, and Duck
oriented and that group members had no expectations of future interaction, they might not have felt
the need to engage in the maintenance activities
likely to occur in naturally occurring work groups.
A lack of socioemotional activity is expected in
laboratory groups; however, the proportion of time
allocated to pairing statements (ranging from 16 to
10 percent) was much lower than that observed in
other studies using similar groups (e.g., Bales,
1953). On the other hand, the decrease in pairing
statements at time 4 is supportive of the model.
Dependency. Dependency statements occupied
only 3-5 percent of the interaction time. However,
this category was expected to have low frequencies
because the groups did not have designated leaders. Visual inspection of Figure 2d and the Friedman's tests support the integrative model argument
that dependency will decrease gradually over time.
There was a significant difference in the proportion
of time allocated to dependency statements over
the four time intervals (X23 = 13.85, p < .003).
Pairwise comparisons showed that only the difference between time 1 and time 4 was significant at
the adjusted alpha level (X2, = 9.78, p < .002; X21 =
0.18, 0, 0.65, 5.0, 3.85, n.s., for times 1 and 2, times
2 and 3, times 3 and 4, times 1 and 3, and times 2
and 4, respectively).
Counterdependency. Counterdependency statements occupied only 1 percent of the groups' interaction time. This category was expected to be of
very low frequency because of the groups' artificial
settings and the group members' lack of vested
interest in the task. Visual inspection of Figure 2e
suggests that counterdependency statements were
highest at time 2, and slightly lower at time 1, but
much lower at time 3 and time 4, supporting the
integrative model argument that counterdependency will be higher in the early stages of group
development (stages 1 and 2) and lower in the later
stages of group development (stage 3 and 4), with a
peak occurring at the counterdependency/fight
stage. However, this result needs to be interpreted
with caution because, although there was a significant difference in the proportion of time allocated
to counterdependency statements over the four
time intervals (X23 = 9.83, p < .02), no pairwise
comparisons were significant at the adjusted alpha
level of .008 (X21= 2.0, 4.5, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8, and 5.4 for
times 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 1 and 4, 1 and 3, and
2 and 4, respectively).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In summary, results of this study partially support
developmental trends that are in line with the integrative model. According to this model, in a group,
115
statements showing attention to work and pairing
should increase over time, whereas those indicating
dependency should decrease over time. Furthermore,
the integrative model prediction is a peak in counterdependency, fight, and flight statements in phase 2 of
a group's development and a decrease from there
onward. Results of this study support the predicted
pattern of change for work and dependency, but not
for pairing. Visual inspections of changes in flight
and counterdependency also support the predicted
patterns, although corresponding statistical tests conducted at a conservative alpha level do not. Moreover, no fight or counterpairing statements were observed in the groups' interaction. On the other hand,
results of this study also suggested some reservations
concerning the use of the Group Development Observation System (Wheelan et al., 1993) with laboratory work groups. As expected, the ad hoc laboratory groups in this study were very task-focused, and
it was difficult to study group development on the
socioemotional level.
Results of this study supported Hypothesis 1.
Both punctuated equilibrium and linear progression were observed simultaneously in simulated
project teams, with the dimension of observation
and the unit of analysis accounting for the type of
development that was observed. The punctuated
equilibrium model describes changes in a group's
time awareness and pacing activities over time as
well as changes in its task activities over time. The
integrative model, on the other hand, describes
changes in a group's structure and process along
both task and socioemotional dimensions. The different scales of changes described by the two models can be seen by comparing the coding of a sample transcript made using the GDOS with a meeting
map of the same interaction constructed using Gersick's coding system (see Table 1). For example, in
the first 30 seconds of the group's interaction,
group members showed avoidance of the task by
engaging in off-task discussion of whether the music provided by the experimenter was taken from a
movie. This information would be coded by the
GDOS as an indication of the group's flight away
from the task. However, when one examines the central theme of the group's task-oriented discussion,
this information would simply be coded as part of the
group's listening to and commenting on the music
tapes provided. Thus, the GDOS aids understanding
of subtle changes in a group's processes and structure, whereas Gersick's coding system guides understanding of the overall changes in a group's approach
to its task. The two models complement each other to
provide rich information on the developmental patterns of project teams over time.
Results of this study also demonstrate that
116
Academy of ManagementJournal
changes in pacing and time statements can be interpreted as both linear and nonsequential, depending on the unit of analysis used. This finding
highlights the significance of the unit of analysis in
determining the developmental patterns that are
observed in groups. The work conducted following
the punctuated equilibrium model used a larger
time frame (20 minutes) and demonstrated discontinuous change from phase 1 to phase 2, whereas
the integrative model work used a smaller time
frame (10 minutes) and demonstrated incremental
changes over times 1, 2, 3, and 4. With the exceptions of the absence of an increase in pairing statements and the nonsignificance of the change in
flight statements over time, the overall pattern of
changes in GDOS categories closely matched the
integrative model's predicted pattern, thus supporting the developmental sequence proposed in
the linear model. However, post hoc pairwise comparisons for the work and pairing statements also
suggested that the patterns of change could be described as an incremental step occurring between
times 1 and 2 combined and times 3 and 4 combined, rather than as linear increase over times 1, 2,
3, and 4. This pattern of results suggested that the
midpoint transition also marked the group's resolution of early developmental issues such as leadership and work structure and a move forward in
the production of the pilot commercial. This pattern-groups' moving toward more productive developmental stages (3 and 4) after a midpoint transition-was further supported by thematic changes
in the discussions: In most cases, midpoint transitions moved the groups from an earlier conversation on the content and process of the commercial
to later dialogue on procedure and on details of the
commercial. Furthermore, most groups displayed
more effective structuring (such as forming subgroups to work on different aspects of the task)
toward the ends of the their life spans. Thus, we
conclude that Hypothesis 2 is also supported. The
integrative model appears to describe changes at a
more micro level within two phases of inertia. This
finding accords with Wollin's proposition that
punctuated equilibrium should be viewed as "a
stepped continuum of change in an organizational
system, from revolutionary discontinuous change
to more incremental change, reflecting the different
levels of its deep structure" (1999: 365).
The results of our study clarify an apparent misunderstanding in the current group literature
whereby Gersick's (1988, 1989) work is typically
perceived as contradicting the linear developmental patterns proposed in traditional stage models
(e.g., Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Our
study demonstrates that both the integrative model
February
and the punctuated equilibrium model describe
valid developmental patterns of project teams. Furthermore, the two models complement each other
to better inform researchers and practitioners on
the development of different aspects of a group's
functioning.
Depending on the temporal dimension they are
interested in, researchers and practitioners working with organizational project teams can choose
either the integrative model or the punctuated
equilibrium model. For example, when planning
to implement significant change in a work group,
a change agent can use insights from both models
to prepare the group for the upcoming change.
First, the agent can work with the group on early
developmental issues to facilitate trust among
group members and effective work processes
(using the integrative model), and can thus enhance the group's ability to cope with interruptions to work flow. Second, the change agent can
then introduce small internal or external changes
to interrupt the group's current state of inertia
and create an environment of instability, which
will in turn increase the group's propensity for
larger changes (using the punctuated equilibrium
model). For example, replacing a group member
can facilitate the group's examination of current
structure and processes and thus provide opportunities for introducing changes to one or both
aspects (Arrow & McGrath, 1993). Once changes
have been introduced,
early developmental
issues might need to be revisited (the integrative
model) to facilitate effective work under the new
working conditions. By integrating the two models, change agents can help groups to make tranand in a preferred
sitions more successfully
direction.
The artificial laboratory setting and the small
sample here are the study's most important limitations. It was clear from the observational data that
these simulated work groups in a laboratory setting
did not display the same socioemotional development that naturally occurring work groups do, so
we could not test some specific predictions based
on the integrative model. However, the resource
intensity of group development observational re-
search makes it difficult to study field groups using
similar coding schemes. Thus, in the future, researchers should aim to both streamline the present
coding system so it can be used for field studies and
to conduct more laboratory studies in controlled
environments with creative interventions that promote the socioemotional development of the simulated work groups.
2003
Chang,Bordia, and Duck
REFERENCES
Arrow, H. 1997. Stability, bistability, and instability in
small group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 75-85.
Arrow, H., & McGrath,J. E. 1993. Membership matters:
How member change and continuity affects small
group structure, process, and performance. Small
Group Research, 24: 334-361.
Bales, R. F. 1953. The equilibrium problem in small
groups. In T. Parsons,R. F. Bales, &E. A. Shils (Eds.),
Working papers in the theory of action: 111-161.
New York:Free Press.
Bettenhausen, K. L. 1991. Five years of groups research:
What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17: 345-381.
Bion, W. R. 1961. Experiences in groups. New York:
Basic Books.
Buzaglo, G., & Wheelan, S. A. 1999. Facilitating work
team effectiveness: Case studies from central America. Small Group Research: 30: 108-129.
Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. 1984. Coding
social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.),
Progress in communication sciences, vol. 4: 115161. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Gersick, C. J. 1988. Time and transition in work teams:
Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 1-41.
117
forces: Group development or deadline pressure.
Journal of Management, 23(2): 169-187.
Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384-399.
Van de Ven, A. 1995. Explaining development and
change in organizations.Academy of Management
Review, 20: 510-540.
Verdi, A. F., &Wheelan, S. A. 1992. Developmental patterns in same-sex and mixed-sex groups. Small
Group Research, 23: 356-378.
Wheelan, S. A. 1994. Group processes: A developmental perspective. Sydney: Allyn & Bacon.
Wheelan, S. A., & Burchill, C. 1999. Take teamwork to
new heights. Nursing Management, April: 28-31.
Wheelan, S. A., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Kline, S. F.
1998. Memberperceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group Research, 29:
371-393.
Wheelan, S. A. & Tilin, F. 1999. The relationship between faculty group development and school productivity. Small Group Research, 30:59-81.
Wheelan, S., Verdi, R., & McKeage,R. 1993. The Group
Development Observation System: Origins and
applications. Philadelphia: PEP Press.
Wollin, A. 1999. Punctuatedequilibrium:Reconcilingtheory of revolutionaryand incrementalchange. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 16: 359-367.
Gersick,C. J. 1989. Markingtime: Predictabletransitions
in task groups. Academy of Management Journal,
32: 274-309.
Gersick, C. J. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A
multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm.Academy of Management Review,
16: 10-36.
Guzzo, R. A., &Shea, G. P. 1992. Groupperformanceand
intergrouprelations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (2nd ed.), vol. 3:
269-313. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Howell, D. C. 1990. Statistical methods for psychology.
Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
LaCoursiere,R. B. (Ed.). 1980. The life cycle of groups:
Group development stage theory. New York: Human Science Press.
Lim, S. G. S., &Murnighan,J.K. 1994. Phases, deadlines,
and the bargainingprocess. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 153-171.
Seers, A., & Woodruff, S. 1997. Temporal pacing in task
Artemis Chang (a2chang@qut.edu.au)is a lecturer in the
School of Management at Queensland University of
Technology. She received her doctoral degree from the
University of Queensland. Her research interests include
group processes and performance,time, change, human
resource information systems, and employee turnover in
the IT industry.
Prashant Bordia (Ph.D., Temple University) is a senior
lecturer in the School of Psychology, University of
Queensland. His research interests include group development, computer-mediated communication, and rumors in organizations.
Julie Duck (Ph.D.,University of New England)is a senior
lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of
Queensland. Her current research focuses on group and
intergroupprocesses, especially as they apply to organisational contexts and to the impact of mass communication on perceptions, attitudes, and behavior.