Phase Models In Group Development Teach The Class To Reflect

Phase Models In Group Developmentteach The Class Reflect On A Time Th

Reflect on a time that you were part of a relatively small group, and with reference to this experience, explain Tuckman’s Model of Group Development stages to the class. Walk your classmates through the forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning stages of this model in relation to the group-development experience that is the basis of your reflection. If for some reason your group did not make it to the performing or adjourning stages (for example), then explain your hypotheses as to why the group did not make it this far. Be specific with the description of each stage. Include an additional relevant scholarly source to enhance your work and the learning of your peers in class.

Respond substantively to a minimum of two peers by Day 7 of Week 3. Compare and contrast your peers’ explanations and experiences and identify any cultural differences with nonverbal communication. Your main post should consist of approximately 350 words.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding the dynamics of group development is vital in both academic and professional settings. Tuckman’s Model of Group Development, first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, delineates the stages that groups typically navigate through as they mature and function effectively. This paper reflects on a personal experience I had as a member of a small project team during my university coursework, illustrating each of the five stages of Tuckman’s model: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

Forming Stage

The forming stage is characterized by initial contact and orientation among group members. In my experience, our group was composed of five students brought together to complete a research project. During the first session, we exchanged introductions, shared our backgrounds, and established preliminary goals. We were polite and eager but cautious, unsure of each other's work styles and commitment levels. According to Tuckman (1965), this stage involves uncertainty and dependence on leadership, which was evident as we sought guidance and clarification on our objectives.

Storming Stage

The storming phase is marked by conflicts and disagreements as group members assert their opinions and vie for influence. In our case, conflicts arose regarding task assignments and deadlines. One member advocated for a particular research approach, asserting their expertise, which led to disagreements and tension within the group. This stage is crucial for developing clarity and cohesion, though it often involves challenges that can hinder progress if not managed effectively (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Our group experienced frustration, yet these conflicts prompted us to communicate more openly and clarify expectations.

Norming Stage

During the norming phase, the group begins to establish norms and cohesive relationships. We developed agreements on roles, communication methods, and meeting schedules. Trust was built, and members started to respect each other’s contributions. According to McShane and Glinow (2010), this stage reflects a shift from conflict-driven interactions to collaborative problem-solving. Our group demonstrated increased cohesion and shared responsibility during this phase, which positively influenced our productivity.

Performing Stage

The performing stage involves effective task execution and focus on goals. However, our group faced challenges reaching this stage fully. While we managed to complete the research and compile findings, our progress was hindered by external commitments and time constraints. Consequently, we did not experience the full extent of high-performing teamwork. According to Tuckman, groups that reach this stage work independently, efficiently, and flexibly (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Our limited progress suggests we may not have fully achieved this stage, possibly due to limited experience or lack of leadership.

Adjourning Stage

The adjourning stage pertains to the disbandment of the group after project completion. Our group disbanded after submitting the project, but we did not formally reflect or evaluate our process. While Tuckman (1965) emphasizes the importance of this phase for learning and closure, our group missed this opportunity, which could have enhanced our understanding of team dynamics.

Conclusion

My experience exemplifies the progression through Tuckman’s stages, highlighting how conflicts and norming processes pave the way for effective performance. The challenges faced underscore that not all groups reach the performing or adjourning stages fully, often due to external factors or lack of experience. Incorporating additional scholarly insights by Cartwright and Zander (1968) emphasizes that understanding these stages can improve group effectiveness through intentional management of transition phases.

References

- Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. Row, Peterson.

- McShane, S. L., & Glinow, M. A. V. (2010). Organizational behavior: Strategies for success. McGraw-Hill.

- Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.

- Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.