Group Development - Revision history

Jsarmi: /* Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:49:18 GMT

Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 19 October 2007
Line 68:		Line 68:
	\|-		\|-
	\|* '''Forming:'''		\|* '''Forming:'''
-	\|Group members learn about each other and the task at hand.	+	\|Group members learn about each other and the task at hand. Indicators of this stage might include: Unclear objectives, Uninvolvement, Uncommitted members, Confusion, Low morale, Hidden feelings, Poor listening, etc.
		+
	\|-		\|-
	\|* '''Storming:'''		\|* '''Storming:'''
-	\|As group members become more comfortable with each other, they will engage each other in arguments and vie for status in the group. These activities mark the storming phase.	+	\|As group members become more comfortable with each other, they will engage each other in arguments and vie for status in the group. These activities mark the storming phase: Lack of cohesion, Subjectivity, Hidden agendas, Conflicts, Confrontation, Volatility, Resentment, anger, Inconsistency, Failure.
		+
	\|-		\|-
	\|* '''Norming:'''		\|* '''Norming:'''
-	\|Group members establish implicit or explicit rules about how they will achieve their goal. They address the types of communication that will or will not help with the task.	+	\|Group members establish implicit or explicit rules about how they will achieve their goal. They address the types of communication that will or will not help with the task. Indicators include: Questioning performance, Reviewing/clarify objective, Changing/confirming roles, Opening risky issues, Assertiveness, Listening, Testing new ground, Identifying strengths and weaknesses.
		+
	\|-		\|-
	\|* '''Performing:'''		\|* '''Performing:'''
-	\|Groups reach a conclusion and implement the conclusion.	+	\|Groups reach a conclusion and implement the conclusion. Indicators include: Creativity, Initiative, Flexibility, Open relationships, Pride, Concern for people, Learning, Confidence, High morale, Success, etc.
		+
	\|-		\|-
	\|* '''Adjourning:'''		\|* '''Adjourning:'''

Jsarmi: /* Gersick's Punctuated Equilibrium Model */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:43:26 GMT

Gersick's Punctuated Equilibrium Model

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 19 October 2007
Line 191:		Line 191:
	{\| class='wikitable'		{\| class='wikitable'
	\|-		\|-
-	\|''''Phase I'':	+	\|'''Phase I''':
	\| According to the model, a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which a group approaches its project emerges in its first meeting, and the group stays with that framework through the first half of its life. Teams may show little visible progress during this time because members may be unable to perceive a use for the information they are generating until they revise the initial framework.		\| According to the model, a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which a group approaches its project emerges in its first meeting, and the group stays with that framework through the first half of its life. Teams may show little visible progress during this time because members may be unable to perceive a use for the information they are generating until they revise the initial framework.
	\|-		\|-

Jsarmi: /* McGrath's Four Modes of Activity */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:36:26 GMT

McGrath's Four Modes of Activity

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 19 October 2007
Line 162:		Line 162:
	To carry out a group task, McGrath (1991, pp. 152-153) identified four modes of activity,		To carry out a group task, McGrath (1991, pp. 152-153) identified four modes of activity,
	REPEAT?		REPEAT?
-	McGrath's (1991) work emphasized the notion that different teams might follow different developmental paths to reach the same outcome. He suggested that teams engage in four modes of group activity: ''goal choice, means choice, policy choice, and goal attainment'' (Hare uses the terms meaning, resources, integration, and goal attainment for these four modes). Groups addopt this modes with respect to each of three team functions: production, well-being, and member support. He further suggested that all team projects begin with Mode I (goal choice) and end with Mode IV (goal attainment) but that Modes 2 and 3 may or may not be needed depending on the task and the history of the group’s activities. McGrath contended that for each identified function, groups can follow a variety of alternative "time-activity paths" in order to move from the initiation to the completion of a given function.	+	McGrath's (1991) work emphasized the notion that different teams might follow different developmental paths to reach the same outcome. He also suggested that teams engage in four modes of group activity: ''goal choice, means choice, policy choice, and goal attainment'' (Hare uses the terms meaning, resources, integration, and goal attainment for these four modes). Groups addopt this modes with respect to each of three team functions: production, well-being, and member support. He further suggested that all team projects begin with Mode I (goal choice) and end with Mode IV (goal attainment) but that Modes 2 and 3 may or may not be needed depending on the task and the history of the group’s activities. McGrath contended that for each identified function, groups can follow a variety of alternative "time-activity paths" in order to move from the initiation to the completion of a given function.

	{\| class='wikitable'		{\| class='wikitable'
Line 183:		Line 183:

	Not everyone agrees. Some observers of groups over time do not identify phases but evolution and maturation as group members learn to perform assigned tasks and to enhance the quality of their interpersonal interactions (Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Krayer, 1988; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Wekselberg, Goggin, & Collings, 1997). Others conclude that face-to-face groups reach a pattern of equilibrium, balancing task and social-emotional concerns, which is occasionally “punctuated” by a deadline (Seers & Woodruff, 1997)—including an awareness that the group is not immortal (Sokol, 1992)— or some other environmental cue (Arrow, 1997). However, I still go with the phase hypothesis originally suggested by Andrew Effrat, assuming that sequences of phases could be identified if one were to take a closer look at the data provided by those who describe continuous maturation or punctuating deadlines.		Not everyone agrees. Some observers of groups over time do not identify phases but evolution and maturation as group members learn to perform assigned tasks and to enhance the quality of their interpersonal interactions (Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Krayer, 1988; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Wekselberg, Goggin, & Collings, 1997). Others conclude that face-to-face groups reach a pattern of equilibrium, balancing task and social-emotional concerns, which is occasionally “punctuated” by a deadline (Seers & Woodruff, 1997)—including an awareness that the group is not immortal (Sokol, 1992)— or some other environmental cue (Arrow, 1997). However, I still go with the phase hypothesis originally suggested by Andrew Effrat, assuming that sequences of phases could be identified if one were to take a closer look at the data provided by those who describe continuous maturation or punctuating deadlines.
		+
		+	==Gersick's Punctuated Equilibrium Model==
		+
		+	Gersick study of naturally-occurring groups departs from the traditionally linear models of group development. Her punctuated equilibrium model suggests that groups develop through the sudden formation, maintenance, and sudden revision of
		+	a "framework for performance". This model describes the processes through which such frameworks are formed and revised and predicts both the timing of progress and when and how in their development groups are likely, or unlikely, to be influenced by their environments. The specific issues and activities that dominate groups' work are left unspecified in the model, since groups' historical paths are expected to vary.Her proposed model works in the following way.
		+
		+	{\| class='wikitable'
		+	\|-
		+	\|''''Phase I'':
		+	\| According to the model, a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which a group approaches its project emerges in its first meeting, and the group stays with that framework through the first half of its life. Teams may show little visible progress during this time because members may be unable to perceive a use for the information they are generating until they revise the initial framework.
		+	\|-
		+	\|'''Midpoint:'''
		+	\|At their calendar midpoints, groups experience transitions-paradigmatic shifts in their approaches to their work-enabling them to capitalize on the gradual learning they have done and make significant advances. The transition is a powerful opportunity for a group to alter the course of its life midstream. But the transition must be used well, for once it is past a team is unlikely to
		+	alter its basic plans again.
		+	\|-
		+	\|'''Phase 2'''
		+	\| A second period of inertial movement, takes its direction from plans crystallized during the transition. At completion,
		+	when a team makes a final effort to satisfy outside expectations, it experiences the positive and negative consequences of past choices.
		+	\|}

	==Morgan, Salas & Glickman's Team Evolution and Maturation (TEAM) model==		==Morgan, Salas & Glickman's Team Evolution and Maturation (TEAM) model==

Jsarmi: /* Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:06:30 GMT

Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 19 October 2007
Line 46:		Line 46:
	==Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis==		==Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis==

-	Studies pioneered by Bales since the early 50s (Bales, 1950, 1953, Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951) focused on discovering the sequences of activities through which groups empirically reach solutions (ideally or in practice) and have used various systems of categories to analyze results. By abstracting the rhetorical form of group members' talk from its content and recording percentages of statements made in categories like "agree" and "gives orientation," this type of research has created models of the structure of group discussion over time. The classic model proposed by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) ~~proposes~~ a unitary sequence of three phases in groups' movement toward goals: orientation, evaluation, and control.	+	Studies pioneered by Bales since the early 50s (Bales, 1950, 1953, Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951) focused on discovering the sequences of activities through which groups empirically reach solutions (ideally or in practice) and have used various systems of categories to analyze results. By abstracting the rhetorical form of group members' talk from its content and recording percentages of statements made in categories like "agree" and "gives orientation," this type of research has created models of the structure of group discussion over time. The classic model proposed by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) describes a unitary sequence of three phases in groups' movement toward goals: orientation, evaluation, and control.

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
Line 60:		Line 60:
	\| In the third and final phase the group is primarily concerned with problems of control, reflected in activities such as asking and providing suggestions for solutions to the task based on information gathered and evaluated in previous developmental periods.		\| In the third and final phase the group is primarily concerned with problems of control, reflected in activities such as asking and providing suggestions for solutions to the task based on information gathered and evaluated in previous developmental periods.
	\|}		\|}
		+
		+	==Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning==
		+
		+	Bruce Tuckman reviewed about 50 group development studies (including Bales') in the early sixties and synthesized their commonalities in one of the most frequently cited models of group development. The model describes four to five linear phases that a group will go through in its ''unitary sequence' of decision making:
		+
		+	{\| class='wikitable'
		+	\|-
		+	\|* '''Forming:'''
		+	\|Group members learn about each other and the task at hand.
		+	\|-
		+	\|* '''Storming:'''
		+	\|As group members become more comfortable with each other, they will engage each other in arguments and vie for status in the group. These activities mark the storming phase.
		+	\|-
		+	\|* '''Norming:'''
		+	\|Group members establish implicit or explicit rules about how they will achieve their goal. They address the types of communication that will or will not help with the task.
		+	\|-
		+	\|* '''Performing:'''
		+	\|Groups reach a conclusion and implement the conclusion.
		+	\|-
		+	\|* '''Adjourning:'''
		+	\|As the group project ends, the group disbands in the adjournment phase. This phase was added when Tuckman and Jensen's updated their original review of the literature in 1977.
		+	\|}
		+
		+	Each of the stages proposed by Tuckman involves two aspects: interpersonal relationships and task behaviors. Such a distinction is similar to Bales' (1950) equilibrium model which states that a group continuously divides its attention between instrumental (task-related) needs and expressive (socioemotional). To maintain balance between these two concerns a group engages in three distinct progressive phases: orientation (exploration), evaluation (seeking opinions), and control (norms that guide actions).
		+
		+	Some models offered subsequently have followed similar sequential patterns. Examples of similar sequences include: define the situation, develop new skills, develop appropriate roles, carry out the work (Hare, 1976); orientation,
		+	dissatisfaction, resolution, production, termination (LaCoursiere, 1980); and generate plans, ideas, and goals; choose&agree on alternatives, goals, and policies; resolve conflicts and develop norms; perform action tasks and maintain cohesion (McGrath, 1984).
		+
		+	It has also been suggested, most notably by Timothy Biggs, that an additional stage be added of ''Norming'' after forming and renaming the traditional ''Norming'' stage ''Re-Norming''. This addition is designed to reflect that there is a period after Forming where the performance of a team gradually improves and the interference of a leader content with that level of performance will prevent a team progressing through the Storming stage to true performance. Other authors have also suggested an additional stage labeled ''Transforming'' since a team that lasts beyond an issue or task may transcend into a new task thanks to a transforming phase. Transformational management can produce major changes in performance through synergy and is considered to be more far-reaching than transactional management.
		+
		+	Tuckman's stages of group development are also similar to those developed by M. Scott Peck for larger-scale groups. Peck describes the stages of a community as: Pseudo-community, Chaos, Emptiness, True Community. In his view, communities may be distinguished from other types of groups by the need for members to eliminate barriers to communication in order to be able to form true community. Examples of common barriers are: expectations and preconceptions; prejudices; ideology, counterproductive norms, theology and solutions; the need to heal, convert, fix or solve and the need to control. A community is born when its members reach a stage of "emptiness" or peace.

	==Tubbs' Systems Model of Group Development==		==Tubbs' Systems Model of Group Development==

Jsarmi: /* Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:05:32 GMT

Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 19 October 2007
Line 102:		Line 102:
	Based on this categorization, Fisher created his "Decision Proposal Coding System" that identifies act-response pairs associated with each decision-making phase. Interestingly, Fisher observed that the group decision making process tended to be more cyclical and, in some cases, almost erratic. He hypothesized that the interpersonal demands of discusion require "breaks" from task work. In particular, Fisher observed that there are a number of contingencies that might explain some of the decision paths taken by some groups. For instance, in modifying proposals, groups tend to follow one of two patterns. If conflict is low, the group will reintroduce proposals in less abstract, more specific language. When conflict is higher, the group might not attempt to make a proposal more specific but, instead, because disagreement lies on the basic idea, the group introduces substitute prooposal of the same level of abstraction as the original.		Based on this categorization, Fisher created his "Decision Proposal Coding System" that identifies act-response pairs associated with each decision-making phase. Interestingly, Fisher observed that the group decision making process tended to be more cyclical and, in some cases, almost erratic. He hypothesized that the interpersonal demands of discusion require "breaks" from task work. In particular, Fisher observed that there are a number of contingencies that might explain some of the decision paths taken by some groups. For instance, in modifying proposals, groups tend to follow one of two patterns. If conflict is low, the group will reintroduce proposals in less abstract, more specific language. When conflict is higher, the group might not attempt to make a proposal more specific but, instead, because disagreement lies on the basic idea, the group introduces substitute prooposal of the same level of abstraction as the original.

-	~~==Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning==~~

-	Bruce Tuckman reviewed about 50 group development studies (including Bales') in the early sixties and synthesized their commonalities in one of the most frequently cited models of group development. The model describes four to five linear phases that a group will go through in its ''unitary sequence' of decision making:
-
-	~~{\| class='wikitable'~~
-	\|-
-	~~\|* '''Forming:'''~~
-	~~\|Group members learn about each other and the task at hand.~~
-	\|-
-	~~\|* '''Storming:'''~~
-	~~\|As group members become more comfortable with each other, they will engage each other in arguments and vie for status in the group. These activities mark the storming phase.~~
-	\|-
-	~~\|* '''Norming:'''~~
-	~~\|Group members establish implicit or explicit rules about how they will achieve their goal. They address the types of communication that will or will not help with the task.~~
-	\|-
-	~~\|* '''Performing:'''~~
-	~~\|Groups reach a conclusion and implement the conclusion.~~
-	\|-
-	~~\|* '''Adjourning:'''~~
-	~~\|As the group project ends, the group disbands in the adjournment phase. This phase was added when Tuckman and Jensen's updated their original review of the literature in 1977.~~
-	\|}
-
-	Each of the stages proposed by Tuckman involves two aspects: interpersonal relationships and task behaviors. Such a distinction is similar to Bales' (1950) equilibrium model which states that a group continuously divides its attention between instrumental (task-related) needs and expressive (socioemotional). To maintain balance between these two concerns a group engages in three distinct progressive phases: orientation (exploration), evaluation (seeking opinions), and control (norms that guide actions).
-
-	Some models offered subsequently have followed similar sequential patterns. Examples of similar sequences include: define the situation, develop new skills, develop appropriate roles, carry out the work (Hare, 1976); orientation,
-	dissatisfaction, resolution, production, termination (LaCoursiere, 1980); and generate plans, ideas, and goals; choose&agree on alternatives, goals, and policies; resolve conflicts and develop norms; perform action tasks and maintain cohesion (McGrath, 1984).
-
-	It has also been suggested, most notably by Timothy Biggs, that an additional stage be added of ''Norming'' after forming and renaming the traditional ''Norming'' stage ''Re-Norming''. This addition is designed to reflect that there is a period after Forming where the performance of a team gradually improves and the interference of a leader content with that level of performance will prevent a team progressing through the Storming stage to true performance. Other authors have also suggested an additional stage labeled ''Transforming'' since a team that lasts beyond an issue or task may transcend into a new task thanks to a transforming phase. Transformational management can produce major changes in performance through synergy and is considered to be more far-reaching than transactional management.
-
-	Tuckman's stages of group development are also similar to those developed by M. Scott Peck for larger-scale groups. Peck describes the stages of a community as: Pseudo-community, Chaos, Emptiness, True Community. In his view, communities may be distinguished from other types of groups by the need for members to eliminate barriers to communication in order to be able to form true community. Examples of common barriers are: expectations and preconceptions; prejudices; ideology, counterproductive norms, theology and solutions; the need to heal, convert, fix or solve and the need to control. A community is born when its members reach a stage of "emptiness" or peace.

	==Poole's multiple-sequences model==		==Poole's multiple-sequences model==

Jsarmi: /* Bales Interaction Process Analysis */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:04:59 GMT

Bales Interaction Process Analysis

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 19 October 2007
Line 44:		Line 44:
	\|}		\|}

-	==Bales Interaction Process Analysis==	+	==Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis==

	Studies pioneered by Bales since the early 50s (Bales, 1950, 1953, Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951) focused on discovering the sequences of activities through which groups empirically reach solutions (ideally or in practice) and have used various systems of categories to analyze results. By abstracting the rhetorical form of group members' talk from its content and recording percentages of statements made in categories like "agree" and "gives orientation," this type of research has created models of the structure of group discussion over time. The classic model proposed by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) proposes a unitary sequence of three phases in groups' movement toward goals: orientation, evaluation, and control.		Studies pioneered by Bales since the early 50s (Bales, 1950, 1953, Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951) focused on discovering the sequences of activities through which groups empirically reach solutions (ideally or in practice) and have used various systems of categories to analyze results. By abstracting the rhetorical form of group members' talk from its content and recording percentages of statements made in categories like "agree" and "gives orientation," this type of research has created models of the structure of group discussion over time. The classic model proposed by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) proposes a unitary sequence of three phases in groups' movement toward goals: orientation, evaluation, and control.

Jsarmi: /* Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:02:58 GMT

Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 19 October 2007
Line 104:		Line 104:
	==Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning==		==Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning==

-	Bruce Tuckman reviewed about 50 group development studies in the early sixties and synthesized their commonalities in one of the most frequently cited models of group development. The model describes four to five linear phases that a group will go through in its ''unitary sequence' of decision making:	+	Bruce Tuckman reviewed about 50 group development studies (including Bales') in the early sixties and synthesized their commonalities in one of the most frequently cited models of group development. The model describes four to five linear phases that a group will go through in its ''unitary sequence' of decision making:

	{\| class='wikitable'		{\| class='wikitable'

Jsarmi: /* Kurt Lewin's Individual Change Process */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:02:21 GMT

Kurt Lewin's Individual Change Process

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 19 October 2007
Line 42:		Line 42:
	\|'''Freezing'''		\|'''Freezing'''
	\| In the third stage the new mindset is crystallizing and one's comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as "refreezing" (see Lewin, 1947).		\| In the third stage the new mindset is crystallizing and one's comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as "refreezing" (see Lewin, 1947).
		+	\|}
		+
		+	==Bales Interaction Process Analysis==
		+
		+	Studies pioneered by Bales since the early 50s (Bales, 1950, 1953, Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951) focused on discovering the sequences of activities through which groups empirically reach solutions (ideally or in practice) and have used various systems of categories to analyze results. By abstracting the rhetorical form of group members' talk from its content and recording percentages of statements made in categories like "agree" and "gives orientation," this type of research has created models of the structure of group discussion over time. The classic model proposed by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) proposes a unitary sequence of three phases in groups' movement toward goals: orientation, evaluation, and control.
		+
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''Orientation:'''
		+	\| Leaderless laboratory groups begin by placing major emphasis in activities such as asking for and providing orientation. This
		+	orientation serves to define the boundaries of the task (i.e., what is to be done) and the approach that is to be used in dealing with the task (i.e., how it is to be accomplished).
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''Evaluation'''
		+	\| The orientation phase is followed by a period in which major emphasis is placed on problems of evaluation, for example asking for members opinions or giving one's opinion about the task to be accomplished by the group.
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''Control'''
		+	\| In the third and final phase the group is primarily concerned with problems of control, reflected in activities such as asking and providing suggestions for solutions to the task based on information gathered and evaluated in previous developmental periods.
	\|}		\|}

Jsarmi: /* Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:42:15 GMT

Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 19 October 2007
Line 87:		Line 87:
	==Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning==		==Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning==

-	Bruce Tuckman reviewed about 50 group development studies in the early sixties and synthesized their commonalities in a model that ~~describe the states of the~~ '''~~ideal group~~ decision-making ~~process'''~~:	+	Bruce Tuckman reviewed about 50 group development studies in the early sixties and synthesized their commonalities in one of the most frequently cited models of group development. The model describes four to five linear phases that a group will go through in its ''unitary sequence' of decision making:

	{\| class='wikitable'		{\| class='wikitable'
Line 102:		Line 102:
	\|* '''Performing:'''		\|* '''Performing:'''
	\|Groups reach a conclusion and implement the conclusion.		\|Groups reach a conclusion and implement the conclusion.
-
	\|-		\|-
	\|* '''Adjourning:'''		\|* '''Adjourning:'''
-	\|As the group project ends, the group disbands in the adjournment phase.	+	\|As the group project ends, the group disbands in the adjournment phase. This phase was added when Tuckman and Jensen's updated their original review of the literature in 1977.
	\|}		\|}
-
-	It has also been suggested, most notably by Timothy Biggs, that an additional stage be added of Norming after Forming and renaming the traditional Norming stage Re-Norming. This addition is designed to reflect that there is a period after Forming where the performance of a team gradually improves and the interference of a leader content with that level of performance will prevent a team progressing through the Storming stage to true performance. Other authors have also suggested an additional stage labeled ''Transforming'' since a team that lasts beyond an issue or task may transcend into a new task thanks to a transforming phase. Transformational management can produce major changes in performance through synergy and is considered to be more far-reaching than transactional management.

	Each of the stages proposed by Tuckman involves two aspects: interpersonal relationships and task behaviors. Such a distinction is similar to Bales' (1950) equilibrium model which states that a group continuously divides its attention between instrumental (task-related) needs and expressive (socioemotional). To maintain balance between these two concerns a group engages in three distinct progressive phases: orientation (exploration), evaluation (seeking opinions), and control (norms that guide actions).		Each of the stages proposed by Tuckman involves two aspects: interpersonal relationships and task behaviors. Such a distinction is similar to Bales' (1950) equilibrium model which states that a group continuously divides its attention between instrumental (task-related) needs and expressive (socioemotional). To maintain balance between these two concerns a group engages in three distinct progressive phases: orientation (exploration), evaluation (seeking opinions), and control (norms that guide actions).

-	Tuckman's stages of group development are similar to those developed by M. Scott Peck for larger-scale groups. Peck describes the stages of a community as: Pseudo-community, Chaos, Emptiness, True Community. In his view, communities may be distinguished from other types of groups by the need for members to eliminate barriers to communication in order to be able to form true community. Examples of common barriers are: expectations and preconceptions; prejudices; ideology, counterproductive norms, theology and solutions; the need to heal, convert, fix or solve and the need to control. A community is born when its members reach a stage of "emptiness" or peace.	+	Some models offered subsequently have followed similar sequential patterns. Examples of similar sequences include: define the situation, develop new skills, develop appropriate roles, carry out the work (Hare, 1976); orientation,
		+	dissatisfaction, resolution, production, termination (LaCoursiere, 1980); and generate plans, ideas, and goals; choose&agree on alternatives, goals, and policies; resolve conflicts and develop norms; perform action tasks and maintain cohesion (McGrath, 1984).
		+
		+	It has also been suggested, most notably by Timothy Biggs, that an additional stage be added of ''Norming'' after forming and renaming the traditional ''Norming'' stage ''Re-Norming''. This addition is designed to reflect that there is a period after Forming where the performance of a team gradually improves and the interference of a leader content with that level of performance will prevent a team progressing through the Storming stage to true performance. Other authors have also suggested an additional stage labeled ''Transforming'' since a team that lasts beyond an issue or task may transcend into a new task thanks to a transforming phase. Transformational management can produce major changes in performance through synergy and is considered to be more far-reaching than transactional management.
		+
		+	Tuckman's stages of group development are also similar to those developed by M. Scott Peck for larger-scale groups. Peck describes the stages of a community as: Pseudo-community, Chaos, Emptiness, True Community. In his view, communities may be distinguished from other types of groups by the need for members to eliminate barriers to communication in order to be able to form true community. Examples of common barriers are: expectations and preconceptions; prejudices; ideology, counterproductive norms, theology and solutions; the need to heal, convert, fix or solve and the need to control. A community is born when its members reach a stage of "emptiness" or peace.

	==Poole's multiple-sequences model==		==Poole's multiple-sequences model==

Jsarmi: /* McGrath's Four Modes of Activity */

Jsarmi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:08:32 GMT

McGrath's Four Modes of Activity

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 19 October 2007
Line 162:		Line 162:

	Not everyone agrees. Some observers of groups over time do not identify phases but evolution and maturation as group members learn to perform assigned tasks and to enhance the quality of their interpersonal interactions (Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Krayer, 1988; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Wekselberg, Goggin, & Collings, 1997). Others conclude that face-to-face groups reach a pattern of equilibrium, balancing task and social-emotional concerns, which is occasionally “punctuated” by a deadline (Seers & Woodruff, 1997)—including an awareness that the group is not immortal (Sokol, 1992)— or some other environmental cue (Arrow, 1997). However, I still go with the phase hypothesis originally suggested by Andrew Effrat, assuming that sequences of phases could be identified if one were to take a closer look at the data provided by those who describe continuous maturation or punctuating deadlines.		Not everyone agrees. Some observers of groups over time do not identify phases but evolution and maturation as group members learn to perform assigned tasks and to enhance the quality of their interpersonal interactions (Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Krayer, 1988; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Wekselberg, Goggin, & Collings, 1997). Others conclude that face-to-face groups reach a pattern of equilibrium, balancing task and social-emotional concerns, which is occasionally “punctuated” by a deadline (Seers & Woodruff, 1997)—including an awareness that the group is not immortal (Sokol, 1992)— or some other environmental cue (Arrow, 1997). However, I still go with the phase hypothesis originally suggested by Andrew Effrat, assuming that sequences of phases could be identified if one were to take a closer look at the data provided by those who describe continuous maturation or punctuating deadlines.
		+
		+	==Morgan, Salas & Glickman's Team Evolution and Maturation (TEAM) model==
		+
		+	Combining multiple theories and the development models of Tuckman and Gersick, Morgan, Salas and Glickman created the TEAM model to describe a series of nine developmental stages through which newly formed, task-oriented teams are hypothesized to evolve. The periods of development are labeled "stages" and conceived to be "relatively informal, indistinct, and overlapping", because "sharp demarcations are not often characteristic of the dynamic situations in which operational teams work and develop". According to this model, teams might begin a given period of development at different stages and spend different amounts of time in the various stages. Teams are not always expected to progress in a linear fashion through all of the stages. A team's beginning point and pattern of progression through the stages depend on factors such as the characteristics of the team and team members, their past histories and experience, the nature of their tasks,
		+	and the environmental demands and constraints (cf. McGrath, 1991).
		+
		+	The TEAM model identities a total of nine stages, seven central ones supplemented by two additional ones. The seven central stages of begin with the formation of the team during its first meeting (forming) and moves through the members' initial, and sometimes unstable, exploration of the situation (storming), initial efforts toward accommodation and the formation and acceptance of roles
		+	(norming), performance leading toward occasional inefficient patterns of performance (performing-I), reevaluation and transition (reforming), refocusing of efforts to produce effective performance (performing-11), and completion of team assignments (conforming). The development of a team might be recycled from any of the final stages to an earlier stage if necessitated by a failure to achieve
		+	satisfactory performance or if adjustments to environmental demands are required or if problematic team interactions develop.
		+
		+	The core stages of the model are preceded by a pre-forming stage that recognizes the forces from the environment (environmental demands and constraints) that call for, and contribute to, the establishment of the team; that is, forces external
		+	to the team (before it comes into existence) that cause the team to be formed. The last stage indicates that after the team has served its purpose, it will eventually be disbanded or de-formed. Here. individuals exit from the group (separately or
		+	simultaneously) and the team loses its identity and ceases to exist.
		+
		+	The TEAM model also postulates the existence of two distinguishable activity tracks that pass through the stages of the model. The first of these track involves activities that are tied to the specific task(s) being performed. These activities include interactions of the team members with tools and machines, the technical aspects of the job (e.g., procedures, policies, etc.), and other task-related activities. The other track of activities is devoted to enhancing the quality of the interactions, interdependencies, relationships, affects, cooperation, and coordination of teams.
		+
		+	The proponents of the model did not test its components or sequence of stages empirically but did confirm that the perceptions of team members concerning the performance processes of the team are perceived to include both team-centered and task-centered activities and that these perceptions seem to change over time as a result of team training.

	==REVIEW GenPlore, Creation/Evaluation Divergent/Convergent==		==REVIEW GenPlore, Creation/Evaluation Divergent/Convergent==