Groups and Teamwork - Pearson Canada

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 5 Groups and Teamwork 191 The Five-Stage Model From the mid-1960s, it was believed that groups passed through a standard sequence of five stages. 48 As shown in Exhibit 5-4, these five stages have been labelled forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Although we now know that not all groups pass through these stages in a linear fashion, the model can still help in addressing your anxieties about working in groups and teams. • Stage I: Forming. Think about the first time you met with a new team. Do you remember how some people seemed silent and others felt confused about the task you were to accomplish? Those feelings arise during the first stage of group development, know as forming. Forming is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty about the team’s purpose, structure, and leadership. Members are “testing the waters” to determine what types of behaviour are acceptable. This stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a team. • Stage II: Storming. Do you remember how some people in your team just didn’t seem to get along, and sometimes power struggles even emerged? These reactions are typical of the storming stage, which is one of intragroup conflict. Members accept the existence of the team, but resist the constraints that the team imposes on individuality. Furthermore, there is conflict over who will control the team. When this stage is complete, a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership will emerge within the team. forming The first stage in group development, characterized by much uncertainty. storming The second stage in group development, characterized by intragroup conflict. Some teams never really emerge from the storming stage, or they move back and forth through storming and the other stages. A team that remains forever planted in the storming stage may have less ability to complete the task because of all the interpersonal problems. • Stage III: Norming. Many teams resolve the interpersonal conflict and reach the third stage, in which close relationships develop and the team demonstrates cohesiveness. There is now a strong sense of team identity and camaraderie. This norming stage is complete when the team structure solidifies, and the team has assimilated a common set of expectations of what defines correct member behaviour. • Stage IV: Performing. Next, and you may have noticed this in some of your own team interactions, some teams just seem to come together well and start to do their work. This fourth stage, when significant task progress is being made, is called performing. The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted. Team energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other to norming The third stage in group development, characterized by close relationships and cohesiveness. performing The fourth stage in group development, when the group is fully functional. Exhibit 5-4 Stages of Group Development Prestage I Stage I Forming Stage II Storming Stage III Norming Stage IV Performing Stage V Adjourning
192 Part 2 Striving for Performance performing the task at hand. In our opening vignette, when Glenforest Secondary raced its robot in the annual competition, it was performing. adjourning The final stage in group development for temporary groups, characterized by concern with wrapping up activities rather than task performance. • Stage V: Adjourning. For permanent work groups and teams, performing is the last stage in their development. However, for temporary committees, teams, task forces, and similar groups that have a limited task to perform, there is an adjourning stage. In this stage, the group prepares for its disbandment. High task performance is no longer the group’s top priority. Instead, attention is directed toward wrapping up activities. Group members’ responses vary at this stage. Some members are upbeat, basking in the group’s accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships gained during the work group’s life. Putting the Five-Stage Model into Perspective Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed that a group becomes more effective as it progresses through the first four stages. This assumption may be generally true, but what makes a group effective is more complex than this model acknowledges. Under some conditions, high levels of conflict are conducive to high group performance, as long as the conflict is directed toward the task and not toward group members. So we might expect to find situations where groups in Stage II outperform those in Stages III or IV. Similarly, groups do not always proceed clearly from one stage to the next. Sometimes, in fact, several stages go on simultaneously, as when groups are storming and performing at the same time. Teams even occasionally regress to previous stages. Therefore, even the strongest proponents of this model do not assume that all groups follow the five-stage process precisely, or that Stage IV is always the most preferable. Another problem with the five-stage model is that it ignores organizational context. 49 For instance, a study of a cockpit crew in an airliner found that, within 10 minutes, three strangers assigned to fly together for the first time had become a high-performing team. How could a team come together so quickly? The answer lies in the strong organizational context surrounding the tasks of the cockpit crew. This context provided the rules, task definitions, information, and resources needed for the team to perform. They didn’t need to develop plans, assign roles, determine and allocate resources, resolve conflicts, and set norms the way the five-stage model predicts. Within the workplace, some group behaviour takes place within a strong organizational context, and it would appear that the five-stage development model has limited applicability for those groups. However, there are a variety of situations in the workplace where groups are assigned to tasks and the individuals do not know each other. They must therefore work out interpersonal differences at the same time that they work through the assigned tasks. The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model Studies of more than a dozen field and laboratory task force groups confirmed that not all groups develop in a universal sequence of stages. 50 In particular, temporary groups with deadlines have their own unique sequencing of action (or inaction): • The first meeting sets the group’s direction. • The first phase of group activity is one of inertia. Ever wonder what causes flurries of activity in groups? • A transition takes place at the end of the first phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time. • The transition initiates major changes.
Page 1 and 2: CHAPTER 5 Groups and Teamwork ROADM
Page 3 and 4: 176 Part 2 Striving for Performance
Page 17: 190 Part 2 Striving for Performance

Groups and Teamwork - Pearson Canada

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?