Objective
In the class forum on group work Mike mentioned “Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing.” Upon further research I found this to be a model of small group formation as described by Dr. Bruce W. Tuckman in 1965. He later added a fifth stage, “Adjourning.”
Reflective
This theory really struck a chord in me with its simplicity and memorable description of the stages.
The first step, Forming, describes the initial coming together of a group of individuals trying to figure out their purpose, boundaries, and resources. A leader figure directs the actions of the Group.
The second step, Storming, describes the early struggles to work together and figure everything out. A lot of discussion has to take place for everyone to get a handle on the members, desired approaches and outcomes of the group work. A leader figure will coach the group to work through the issues.
The Third Step, Norming, occurs as the group begins to figure things out and start working on the required tasks with a sense of common purpose in a defined way. The leader takes a step back as he gains confidence in the team and is more of a facilitator.
The Fourth Step, Performing, happens as the team becomes a well oiled machine moving forward together while doing their part to realize the desired outcomes. The leader is more of a hands off manager of the group working more on cementing the relationships and smoothing things along.
Interpretive
These Four steps really make sense to me. I can think of numerous situations where I had to work with people I didn’t know well, if at all. Everyone was a bit tentative at first. The instructor or supervisor really took a hands on approach in telling everyone what to do, how, and why. No matter how much direction was given, there was always a lot of discussion required to figure out how things were going to be done. As time passed, the issues were talked through. All the roles within the team were divided up, and people got to work. Eventually everyone got to work pretty well together, both individually and collaboratively.
It makes sense that, as the individuals begin to gain confidence and make progress, the team leader can step back and focus on things like keeping stakeholders in the loop and tracking progress.
The fifth step that was added later, Adjourning, also makes sense. As a group fulfills its purpose, either new goals must be established or the group is disbanded. If the work is ongoing, the leader may move on to other duties while someone else familiar with the workings of the group takes over and begins to integrate new members.
It makes sense that this is how successful groups work, and that unsuccessful teams fail to properly negotiate one of the steps. Either the people can’t figure out attainable goals, or they can’t work through issues, or they don’t integrate cohesively.
Decisional
I really like Tuckman’s theory because it really describes how groups function. This is something that I always thought was sort of an amorphous potpourri of events that somehow came together. When I evaluate groups I have been involved with through the rubric of the four steps, it really helps me figure out why some things worked and some did not.
As I transition into my new role at the end of the term as Instructional Coordinator for my department, this will really help me out. I can really deconstruct what works well with ongoing groups like our curriculum redesign and learning management system migration teams. Going forward I can put those best practices to help guide the development of any new groups I may become involved with.
In my research I found several similar theories regarding group dynamics and leadership. As I continue my learning journey I hope I can increase my group facilitation skills, which, up until now, I have not thought of as a skill matching my introverted inclinations.
References
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological bulletin, 63(6), 384.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.
Tuckman forming storming norming performing model from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm
http://blogs.uis.edu/colrs/2013/02/19/assigning-students-to-groups/
In the class forum on group work Mike mentioned “Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing.” Upon further research I found this to be a model of small group formation as described by Dr. Bruce W. Tuckman in 1965. He later added a fifth stage, “Adjourning.”
Reflective
This theory really struck a chord in me with its simplicity and memorable description of the stages.
The first step, Forming, describes the initial coming together of a group of individuals trying to figure out their purpose, boundaries, and resources. A leader figure directs the actions of the Group.
The second step, Storming, describes the early struggles to work together and figure everything out. A lot of discussion has to take place for everyone to get a handle on the members, desired approaches and outcomes of the group work. A leader figure will coach the group to work through the issues.
The Third Step, Norming, occurs as the group begins to figure things out and start working on the required tasks with a sense of common purpose in a defined way. The leader takes a step back as he gains confidence in the team and is more of a facilitator.
The Fourth Step, Performing, happens as the team becomes a well oiled machine moving forward together while doing their part to realize the desired outcomes. The leader is more of a hands off manager of the group working more on cementing the relationships and smoothing things along.
Interpretive
These Four steps really make sense to me. I can think of numerous situations where I had to work with people I didn’t know well, if at all. Everyone was a bit tentative at first. The instructor or supervisor really took a hands on approach in telling everyone what to do, how, and why. No matter how much direction was given, there was always a lot of discussion required to figure out how things were going to be done. As time passed, the issues were talked through. All the roles within the team were divided up, and people got to work. Eventually everyone got to work pretty well together, both individually and collaboratively.
It makes sense that, as the individuals begin to gain confidence and make progress, the team leader can step back and focus on things like keeping stakeholders in the loop and tracking progress.
The fifth step that was added later, Adjourning, also makes sense. As a group fulfills its purpose, either new goals must be established or the group is disbanded. If the work is ongoing, the leader may move on to other duties while someone else familiar with the workings of the group takes over and begins to integrate new members.
It makes sense that this is how successful groups work, and that unsuccessful teams fail to properly negotiate one of the steps. Either the people can’t figure out attainable goals, or they can’t work through issues, or they don’t integrate cohesively.
Decisional
I really like Tuckman’s theory because it really describes how groups function. This is something that I always thought was sort of an amorphous potpourri of events that somehow came together. When I evaluate groups I have been involved with through the rubric of the four steps, it really helps me figure out why some things worked and some did not.
As I transition into my new role at the end of the term as Instructional Coordinator for my department, this will really help me out. I can really deconstruct what works well with ongoing groups like our curriculum redesign and learning management system migration teams. Going forward I can put those best practices to help guide the development of any new groups I may become involved with.
In my research I found several similar theories regarding group dynamics and leadership. As I continue my learning journey I hope I can increase my group facilitation skills, which, up until now, I have not thought of as a skill matching my introverted inclinations.
References
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological bulletin, 63(6), 384.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.
Tuckman forming storming norming performing model from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm
http://blogs.uis.edu/colrs/2013/02/19/assigning-students-to-groups/