The Four Stages of Tuckman’s Model

The following assignment is based on the different types of the group development process. The project has used and implemented the Tuckman’s model of group development and has explained and highlighted the different types of the elements related to the following.

The following model was developed in the year 1965 and is widely known as the basis for an effective team building. The theory mainly focuses on the way in which a particular team tackles a task from the initial formation of the team through to the completion of the following project. There are four different phases to this particular theory that was developed by Tuckman. This includes the likes of;

• Forming-The initial stage of team development involves the time when the team of individuals selected for a particular task have not gelled together and each and every of the team members have been busy finding their place in the team and has the tendency to generally figure out about the exact reason behind their presence (Bush, LePine & Newton, 2017). In this particular stage the persons involved in the group are not ready to trust each other easily.
• Storming-Storming phase is the second phase where the people begin to think and believe each other to be a part of the team (Raes et al. 2015). Each and everybody in the team generally try to understand each other and conflicts rise in this particular stage as because the team members present their opinions in this stage.
• Norming-The following stage generally involves the coming together of the team members and the development process in the task as well as the group. The following phase involves the particular task as well as assigns and divides the task of each of the team members accordingly.
• Performing- Performing is the last process in the particular model where the team members increase dedication and focus towards the completion of the task in a successful manner.

My own experience in this regards is mostly based on my own team. My own team has undergone the changes in the development process and implementing the framework it can be said that my team presently is in the norming stage where the members are accustomed with each other and have been pushing together to achieve a common goal.

Tuckman’s Model is hierarchical and is designed in such a way that the following step cannot be reached without the total completion of the previous one. According to, Betts & Healy (2015) groups and systems have the tendency to often change in the social process and context in a developmental and dynamic nature. The particular theory is considered to be one of the most important and diffused in the group development process. However according to, Bush, LePine & Newton (2017) the context and the experimental approach present a lot of different limitations in the implementation of the following model.

As mentioned earlier the four stages of the model can easily be applied in the group development process. The formation of a successful group will involve the fulfillment of the different tasks in each and every step. The Forming, Storming, norming and performing process are thus directly linked to the following process.

The presence of a group of different individuals is surely to raise different conflicts. Firstly mistrust or uneven communication and personality clashes will be quite common in the presence of different individuals. Secondly the presence of different people as members will surely present a sense of superiority and inferiority amongst them as each of them will try to establish their supremacy in the team or the group. My own working team has experienced a number of conflicts which was solved with extreme precision and accuracy. A number of meetings and joint sessions helped to solve the conflict situation.

Pros and Cons of Group Decision Making

There are a number of different pros and cons of group decision making. The pros of group decision making are as follows;

1. It brings more diversity in the decision making process- The involvement of different people bring together lot of strength to the decision making process. The unique experiences of these people help the organization to create a better analysis of different situations. The positive quality of each group member can be utilized in the following process.
2. More potential alternatives can be assessed-The presence of different types of people will see a large number of alternative thinking among the group. The unique ideas can be utilized and a number of different solutions will come up. This helps to easily overcome different crisis and challenging situations. The better the experiences, the better is the idea.
3. Changes become much easier to implement-The presence of different experienced people in the group will help to evolve the organization or the group in one way or the other. The transformation of the group will help the organization to be the very best in the group.

The cons of the group decision making are as follows;

1. Time Consumption- The presence of different people in a group will take more time for arriving at a particular conclusion as because each and every members of the group generally wants to have their feedback or opinion heard to the people (Fiore  & Georganta, 2017). The members of the group want their own ideas to be taken into consideration and thus the final conclusion and decision making generally gets delayed in the following process.
2. People always feel pressurized to arrive to a certain decision-The minority positioning of a number of members in the group decision process will lead to the creation of pressurized situations (Natvig & Stark, 2016). This kind of pressurized situations will help the majority or the superior members to express and implement their views and totally neglect the viewpoint of the others. Such activities are not at all a proper and efficient manner of group decision making.
3. Not every possible solution can be evaluated on merit-The absence of efficient group decision making and the oppression of the inferior decision makers in the following process may lead to wrong and miscalculated decisions (Fiore  & Georganta, 2017).

The pros and cons of the decision making process in a particular group is very much important for my own team. It would be best for me to ensure that every member in my team has equal power and equal responsibility which will help in the bonding of the team members and will also help in a better and efficient decision making process.

The work group can turn into work teams by following a number of different steps. This includes;

1. Meeting with the group and explaining the members of the group how team can benefit and motivate them to perform in a much better way
2. Deciding on how the group can accomplish the goals set by the members of the group
3. Explaining the groups benefit for the company
4. Encouraging the team members to work together as a team

The work group thus varies from the teams as because teams are dedicated people and work for achieving a common goal. The team ensures a common bonding between each member while the group ensures a cohesive willingness of the members to carry out a focused action (Seck & Helton, 2014). The team comprises of a certain group of accomplished persons to meet certain goals. Thus these differences make both of these terms unique in nature. In these regard I would personally prefer to have a team of individuals as because the presence of experienced people will help me to achieve the goal more easily.

Conclusion

The following essay has provided a detailed and clear analysis of the Tuckman’s model along with the different elements and a critical analysis of the model. the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages along with the transformation of a group to a team has increased the scope of the following project. The project will serve as a key source of information for research work in the following area in the future.

References

Betts, S., & Healy, W. (2015). Having a ball catching on to teamwork: an experiential learning approach to teaching the phases of group development. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(2), 1.

Bush, J. T., LePine, J. A., & Newton, D. W. (2017). Teams in transition: An integrative review and synthesis of research on team task transitions and propositions for future research. Human Resource Management Review.

Fiore, S. M., & Georganta, E. (2017). Collaborative Problem-Solving and Team Development: Extending the Macrocognition in Teams Model through Considerations of the Team Life Cycle. In Team Dynamics Over Time (pp. 189-208). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Kiweewa, J. M., Gilbride, D., Luke, M., & Clingerman, T. (2018). Tracking Growth Factors in Experiential Training Groups Through Tuckman’s Conceptual Model. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 43(3), 274-296.

Kiweewa, J. M., Gilbride, D., Luke, M., & Clingerman, T. (2018). Tracking Growth Factors in Experiential Training Groups Through Tuckman’s Conceptual Model. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 43(3), 274-296.

Natvig, D., & Stark, N. L. (2016). A Project Team Analysis Using Tuckman’s Model of Small-Group Development. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(12), 675-681.

Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Dochy, F. (2015). An exploratory study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1), 5-30.

Seck, M. M., & Helton, L. (2014). Faculty development of a joint MSW program utilizing Tuckman’s model of stages of group development. Social Work with Groups, 37(2), 158-168.

Zoogah, D. B., Noe, R. A., & Shenkar, O. (2015). Shared mental model, team communication and collective self-efficacy: an investigation of strategic alliance team effectiveness. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 4(4), 244-270.