Stages of Group Development (Essay Sample)

Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
Name
Institution
Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc421292576 \h 3Theories of Small Group Development PAGEREF _Toc421292577 \h 3Tuckman's Stages of Group Development PAGEREF _Toc421292578 \h 5Forming PAGEREF _Toc421292579 \h 6Storming PAGEREF _Toc421292580 \h 6Norming PAGEREF _Toc421292581 \h 7Performing PAGEREF _Toc421292582 \h 7Adjourning PAGEREF _Toc421292583 \h 7Techniques and Application to Specific Populations PAGEREF _Toc421292584 \h 8Life cycle model PAGEREF _Toc421292585 \h 8Leadership PAGEREF _Toc421292586 \h 9Members PAGEREF _Toc421292587 \h 9Objectives PAGEREF _Toc421292588 \h 10Time-Frame PAGEREF _Toc421292589 \h 10Resources PAGEREF _Toc421292590 \h 10Group Leader Roles and Responsibilities PAGEREF _Toc421292591 \h 11Forming PAGEREF _Toc421292592 \h 11Storming PAGEREF _Toc421292593 \h 11Norming PAGEREF _Toc421292594 \h 11Performing PAGEREF _Toc421292595 \h 12Adjourning PAGEREF _Toc421292596 \h 12Summary PAGEREF _Toc421292597 \h 12References PAGEREF _Toc421292598 \h 14
Introduction
Small groups change over time under the influence of varying internal and external factors. These changes have been an area of major concern from many scholars because of the considerable roles of such groups in societal settings. Many theories have been proposed to define the evolution that small groups undergo. Much of the work has been theoretical because the nature of the topic, but this has allowed for the exposition of various views that have advanced the field considerably. Some of the most well established theories on small group development are a combination of many concepts that have been proposed by various scholars (Chang, 2006).
This work is intended at highlighting the Tuckman's stages of group development from a view of other theories. To have an informed stand on the theories that explain the developments of small groups, an overview of all these theories will be introduced. Tuckman's stages of group development will be derived from this cluster and its individual components will be discussed in detail. Personal views will be expressed throughout the text based on the understanding from the various theories that have been proposed to explain similar concepts. The techniques and application to specific demographics will be included. Another inclusion will be the roles and responsibilities of group leaders.
Theories of Small Group Development
The theories that have been proposed on group development have focused on why and how such groups change over time. Most of society is structured into small groups and this makes it even more imperative to understand the changes that such groups experience over time. Researchers have focused on the patterns of change and consistency within groups over time to acquire an informed stance on these changes. There are key aspects to a group that reveal major changes within a group. Some of these aspects include the variance in output, type and frequency of activities, prominence of group conflict, and cohesiveness within the group (Chang, 2006).
Scholars have merged ideas to come up with theoretical models that can best explain the changes experienced within groups over time. This work will focus Tuckman's theory on the stages of group development. However, there are many theories that take distinctive stands on the same. The different theories are existent because most take differing perspectives to the factors influencing the change. Some theories view small groups as changing consistently through "stages”, while other concepts view change as occurring through "phases" that a group may or may not undergo (Chang, 2006). These differences in views and basis through which change in small group is perceived is the key contributor to the existence of various theories on a common phenomenon (Hackman, 2003).
More than a hundred theories have been proposed to explain the changes within a group. However, most can fall into similar categories on the basis of their assumptions about the study groups. The wide-spread classification is made on the basis of whether the theory perceives change within groups to occur in a linear, in cycles, processes that combine both, or through non-phasic processes. There are other classifications such as the source of forces influencing change; either internal or external (Chang, 2006).
Another technique of classifying theories defining the change within groups differentiates concepts based on four distinct models for generating change; life cycle, dialectical, teleological, and evolutionary models. Life cycle models describe the process of change as the unfolding arranged sequence of stages adhering to a program preset before the commencement of the cycle. Dialectical models define change as a consequence of conflicting entities that later merge to another cycle of conflict. Teleological models view change as a result of the need to achieve a goal with adjustments being made based on the feedback acquired from the environment. Evolutionary models describe change within a population as a result of repeated cycles of variation, selection and retention (Dennis, 2013).
It is possible for some theories to consist of all these models particularly because many have been compressed from previous models. A consideration that is made in this context is that the different models might explain separate aspects of the history of a group. For instance, Kurt Lewin’s change model has three stage; unfreeze, change, freezing. There is lack of a specific starting point or history of the group undergoing the changes. Another consideration is that some of the models view the groups as having eternal existence in which case they should be independent of the specific details of the task is undertaking. Conversely, some models might describe the phases that groups go through in which case it is necessary to distinctively elaborate on the tasks that the groups engages in (Chang, 2006).
Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
Like in the case of many other theories, Tuckman’s Stages model is a combination of many models that have been proposed by various scholars. The initial model consisted of four linear stages; forming, storming, norming, and performing. A group was viewed to go through these stages during its development. A fifth stage (adjourning) was added in 1977 when further studies were performed (Tuckman, 1977).
It is possible to view the different aspects of the model that can fit into the initial classifications. The addition of adjournment is one of the considerations about change within a group highlighted. The view of a group without the inclusion of adjournment as part of change is that the group would be in existence for eternality. Adjournment makes the model more realistic (Tuckman, 1977).
There are more classifications of such theories that be used to describe Tuckman’s Stages model. The model can be viewed to be adhering to a liner process as opposed to cycles or a non-phasic process. Another key mode of classification is based on whether the change is influenced by internal or external forces. Most models can be viewed to be a merge of both internal and external forces for change (Forsyth, 2003). Tuckman’s theory can be viewed as largely influenced by internal forces but this are also likely to be as response of external factors. The model can also be described as a life cycle model; one that adheres to a prescribed linear sequence of stages.
There are five key stages within Tuckman’s model
Forming
This is the initial stage within the model. The group is highly dependent of the leader for guidance and direction. This is because there is little consensus on group objectives other than those emphasized by the leader. In addition, individual member roles and responsibilities are also unclear. The leader is hence the key member of the group and is constantly presented with questions that aim at reinforcing team goals and individual roles and responsibilities. The processes agreed upon are regularly overlooked at this stage. This model incorporates a history of the group by including this stage. Other models such as that of Lewin’s model of change excludes this stage (Tuckman, 1965).
Storming
Storming is the second stage of the model. Decisions are not easy to reach within a group. The members of the group attempt to assume various roles in relation to the other members. This at times may result in members challenging each other for the available positions. This is also a key part of effecting change and is evident in most models. It can be viewed as the unfreezing stage in Lewin’s model, conflict stage in Tubb’s systems model and Fishers theory, or technical problem solving in TIP theory. Although there is still a lot of uncertainty, clarity has improved as compared to the first stage. The team leader is required to keep the group aimed at its objectives and less distracted by the conflicts that may emerge (Tuckman, 1965).
Norming
Consensus and cohesiveness within the group are first exhibited in this stage. The leader has a lot of support from the members of the group. Less important decisions may be delegated to individuals or specific members within the group. There is commitment and unity among the members of the group, and all members are included in general decision making. The leader is well supported and some of the leadership is shared with the team members. One of the issues that may arise at this stage is that the members may be keen to avoid conflict that they avoid to share ideas. This stage can be compared to consensus in Tubb’s Systems model (Tuckman, 1965).
Performing
A group is very strategically aligned in this stage because roles and responsibilities are well defined. The members of the team have share...