Group development

Abstract: As group facilitators we are often concerned about the development of the groups with which we work. Frequently we make reference to "the stages of group development" and the stages most frequently cited are forming, storming, norming and performing. These stages were proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 based on his examination of empirical research studies. In this classic article, Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, we find a rich description of these stages under a variety of settings as well as their applicability to both group structure and task activity. In a subsequent 1977 article, Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited, Tuckman and coauthor Mary Ann Jensen noted that subsequent empirical studies suggested a termination stage which they named adjourning. While Table 1 below summarizes the stages with a description of their associated group structures and task activities, the original article provides a much more complete understanding of their context, meaning, and limitations. Although other articles in this special issue suggest the limitations of "stage models" such as this, the memorability and popularity of Tuckman's model make this article required reading for every group facilitator. Author's Note My first professional job was as part of a small group of social psychologists in a think tank setting studying small group behavior as the US Navy prepared for a future of small crew vessels and stations. Nine of us at the Naval Medical Research Institute were busy studying small groups from all perspectives and under all conditions. I was fortunate to have an experienced and talented boss by the name of Irwin Altman, who had been collecting every article he could find on group development. He turned his collection over to me and suggested that I look it over and see if I could make anything out of it. The collection contained 50 articles, many of which were psychoanalytic studies of therapy or T-- groups. The task of organizing and integrating them was challenging. After separating out two realms of group functioning, namely, the interpersonal or group structure realm and the task activity realm, I began to look for a developmental sequence that would fit the findings of a majority of the studies. I hit on four stages going from (1) orientation/testing/dependence, to (2) conflict, to (3) group cohesion, to (4) functional role-relatedness. For these I coined the terms: forming, storming, norming, and performing-terms that would come to be used to describe developing groups for the next 20 years and which probably account for the paper's popularity. There still remained the task of getting the paper published and that was no mean feat. Lloyd Humphreys, then editor of the Psychological Bulletin, turned it down, offering me constructive editorial criticism, but concluding that the reviewed studies themselves were not of sufficient quality to merit publication. I was persistent, though, and rewrote the manuscript per his recommendations and sent it back to him, despite his initial outright rejection. I pointed out that I was not trying to justify the collected articles but to draw inferences from them. Humphreys did a complete about-face and accepted my argument and my manuscript and, in short order, it appeared in print. I ordered, thanks to the navy, 450 reprints and used them all to fill requests within the first three or four years after the article appeared. Requests came from all over the world and from a wide range of disciplines and I have saved some of the more exotic ones. Almost yearly, I receive a request from someone to use parts of the article or at least the terms forming, storming, norming, and performing in print. Again, quotability may be the key to success. In 1977, I published, by invitation, an update of the model in a journal called Group & Organization Studies-in collaboration with Mary Ann Jensen.' We reviewed 22 studies that had appeared since the original publication of the model and which we located by means of the Social Sciences Citation Index. …

Abstract: This paper explores the challenges of creating and maintaining trust in a global virtual team whose members transcend time, space, and culture. The challenges are highlighted by integrating recent literature on work teams, computer-mediated communication groups, cross-cultural communication, and interpersonal and organizational trust. To explore these challenges empirically, we report on a series of descriptive case studies on global virtual teams whose members were separated by location and culture, were challenged by a common collaborative project, and for whom the only economically and practically viable communication medium was asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication. The results suggest that global virtual teams may experience a form of "swift" trust, but such trust appears to be very fragile and temporal. The study raises a number of issues to be explored and debated by future research. Pragmatically, the study describes communication behaviors that might facilitate trust in global virtual teams.

Abstract: This study of the complete life-spans of eight naturally-ocurring teams began with the unexpected finding that several project groups, studied for another purpose, did not accomplish their work by progressing gradually through a universal series of stages, as traditional group development models would predict. Instead, teams progressed in a pattern of “punctuated equilibrium,” through alternating inertia and revolution in the behaviors and themes through which they approached their work. The findings also suggested that groups' progress was triggered more by members' awareness of time and deadlines than by completion of an absolute amount of work in a specific developmental stage. The paper proposes a new model of group development that encompasses the timing and mechanisms of change as well as groups' dynamic relations with their contexts. Implications for theory, research, and practice are drawn.