Storming
This is the second stage in Tuckman’s developmemental model that is characterized by
hostility and criticism between subgroups. “Conflicts among people emerge due to
frustration or difficulties with the task and different personalities, styles of working and
idea” Knight & Willmott, 2006. There is great competition at this stage, as each team
member may rival for his/her own self interest. As a result relationship amongst team
members may be made or broken, if team is not monitored or activities co-ordinate, this
can result in delay in getting task underway. As a result it is important that team
members are tolerant of each other, differences in personality be understood and be
accepted. Another disadvantage is that a plan of action might be decided on that is not
effective for completing the task at hand.
Norming
As the team moves from the storming stage they enter into the norming stage. At this
stage teams are characterized by trust and cohesiveness. “Norms and patterns of
acceptable and recognized behavior of conduct, work objectives and style emerge”
Knight & Willmott, 2006. Individuals in the team become intimate, personal opinions
are expressed and new roles and patterns of behavior are adopted and a cohesive
environment evolved. At this stage members “disagree to agree” for the common goal of
the team. The risk with this stage is that team members can become complacent and
loose its cohesion.
Critique
Subsequent to Tuckman’s model a number of theories were developed which reinforced
the stages as described by Tuckman (Zurcher (1969), Smith (1966), Shambaugh and
Kanter (1969), Lacoursiere (1974, Braaten (1975) included an updated version of
Mann’s (1971))). As a result of this Tuckman in collaboration with Mary Ann Jensen
developed a fifth stage called “adjourning” (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Another major
criticism of Tuckman’s development stage was Gersick. According to Gersick “teams
progressed in a pattern of "punctuated equilibrium," through alternating inertia and
revolution in the behaviors and themes through which they approached their work.”
Punctuated equilibrium “is characterized by periods of relative stability (equilibrium)
which are suddenly interrupted and disrupted (punctuated) by a revolutionary period
where new forms emerge” (Gersick,1988 in Knight & Willmott, 2006). In addition
Gersick stated that “the outside context may playa particularly important role in a
group’s developmental path at three points” the design of thee group and awareness of
the time and deadlines (Gersick, 1988). This is demonstrative in the real word scenarios
as outlined in the subsequent paragraphs.
Demonstrative in my organization
I work in a small organization whereby staff members are 3-4 persons and internal
management is two persons. Job task are very small and as a result there is limited
opportunity to demonstrate the development of teams. However as the oldest staff in
the office (with the exception of management), I take the initiate to coordinate certain
activities with other group members. Since this is an audit organization, the typical first
step is planning. At this stage, team members will coordinate the preliminary matters
for the audit (Forming). Team members are aware of the goals and objectives; there
were moments of indecision as to our approach (storming), but after sharing and
weighing our views we decided what was best (norming) and individually we set out to
perform the task (performing). There are times when we believe we are at the
performing stage and realize that issues were not settled and so we would go back to
the storming stage.
Demonstrative in our MBA team
A group of scholars from different background, occupation and ethnicity came to
together for this project. Initially there was a bit of uncertainty about we are going to do
and how to use wiki. A team was pre-selected and a task was started which required
the input of everyone in the group- (Forming), ideas were shared and critiqued by other
team members (storming), eventually we decided on a plan of action (norming) and now
we are at the stage of performing specific task (performing). Even though these stages
are evident, they do not follow a particular order (Gersick, 1988). It was noted that even
in the norming stage, we went back to the storming stage to revise or revisit our initial
plans or forming stage. Likewise this is also evident in the performing stage.
REFERENCES
Gersick, Connie , 1988, “Time and transition in work teams: Towards a new model of
group development” Academy of management journal Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp.
9-41
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. “Introducing organizational behavior “ 2nd Edition. p.135
Tuckman, B.W. 1965, “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups'
Tuckman, B. W. and Jenson, M. A. (1977) ‘Stages of small group development
revisited’, Group and Organization Studies, 2: 419–427