Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 1 Running head: TUCKMANS GROUP DEVELOPMENT THEORY

Tuckmans Group Development Theory in Secondary-Postsecondary Partnerships Erin Moore University of the Pacific

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 2 Tuckmans Group Development Theory in Secondary-Postsecondary Partnerships The decision making process involves individuals within and sometimes among institutions. Whether in business, health care, politics, or education, multiple people are involved in working together, in a group, to arrive at making determinations, and decisions that can impact not only a group, but an entire institution. The process in developing groups within and between institutions is time-consuming and even challenging. The Tuckman Theory of Group Development breaks down stages of how groups work together to make progress toward a shared goal or objective. In 1965, Bruce Tuckman, formerly a professor of education and director of Bureau of Research and Development of the Rutgers University Graduate School of Education (Tuckman & Jensen, 2010), reviewed fifty-five articles that focused three different types of small groups: therapy groups, human relations training groups (T-groups), and task groups (natural and laboratory) (Cassidy, 2007; Hart & Trombley, 2007; Bonebright, 2010; Tuckman & Jensen,2010). The purpose of reviewing these articles was for Tuckman to isolate those concepts common to the various studies and produce a generalizable model of changes in group life over time (Tuckman & Jensen, 2010, p. 43). He divided the studies into two categories, interpersonal or group structure realm and the task activity realm and began to look for a developmental sequence that would fir the findings of a majority of the studies (Tuckman, 2001, p. 67). Through his analysis of the articles, Tuckman established four stages of group development theory: forming, storming, norming, and performing. In 1977, Mary Ann Conover Jensen, a doctoral candidate in counseling at Rutgers University Graduate School of Education, and Tuckman revisited the study and added a fifth stage, adjourning, to the group development

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 3 theory (Miller, 2003; Hart & Trombley, 2007; Tuckman & Jensen 2010). The addition of adjourning resulted from the review of an additional 22 studies focusing on group developmental stages (Hart & Trombley, 2007, n.p.). The fifth stage was added upon noting that no stage in the original four stages existed that allowed for any type of finalization (Jensen & Tuckman, 2010). Tuckman indicated that each stage involved both interpersonal and task oriented concepts (Tuckman, 2001; Miller, 2003). Miller (2003) further explains that members are concerned with resolving both interpersonal relationships and task activities, and the model describes these two types of activities as group members progress through the four stages (p. 122). Tuckman (2001) defines group structure and task activity while breaking down the stages of group development in figure1:

Figure 1. Stages of Group Development. Reprinted in Tuckman. (2001). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Group Facilitation: A Research and Application Journal. From 1965 Psychological Bulletin, Volume 63, Number 6, Pages 384-99.

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 4 These stages have made Tuckmans model the most predominantly referred to and most widely recognized in organizational literature (Miller, 2003, p. 121). Bonebright (2010) also discusses the applicability of Tuckmans Theory of Group Development. She recognizes Tuckmans work as important in a time when little research existed. Furthermore, Bonebright (2010) identifies the model as useful for practice by describing the new ways that people were working together, helping group members understand what was happening in the development process, and providing consultants a way to predict the stages of growth in groups (p. 111). As indicated by the terms forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning, the model also provides a common language (Bonebright, 2010) making these stages applicable in multiple settings and contexts. Figure 1 also illustrates one of the common criticisms about Tuckmans model. It follows a linear progression, and group development is not a linear process (Hart & Trombley 2007). Hart and Trombley (2007), and Knott and Gerard (2012) also point out that many criticize Tuckmans model as having too few or too many stages. Regardless of the number of stages, Gersick (1988; 1989; 1991), another expert in group development, indicates that Tuckmans stages do not allow for looking at how a group progresses over time (Hart & Trombley 2007). Tuckman himself also describes flaws in his own model. He points out the overrepresentation of the group therapy session and suggests that other small group settings that would be applicable to his model were neglected in his literature review (Tuckman, 2001; Bonebright, 2010). In addition, Bonebright (2010) explains the lack of quantitative data. Instead of completing his own study, Tuckman used literature from other studies to make his observations; therefore, he stated that no conclusions about specific effects of independent

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 5 variables on group development were drawn and encouraged further research along those lines (p. 115). Despite the criticisms over Tuckmans model, Hart and Trombley (2007) suggest it is still one of the most used models in education. Not only is this model used in formal and informal classroom studies involving the dynamics of group work, it is used as a tool for students to reflect on and assess their work in groups. Hart and Trombley (2007) assert that the Tuckman model is the model most frequently taught by educators of group development theories (n.p.). In fact, Kreitner and Kinicki (2013) have included a specific breakdown of Tuckmans model in a Chapter 10 of their textbook Organizational Behavior. The chapter, Group Dynamics introduces Tuckmans group development model, and also [extends] the Tuckman Model by breaking down the potential for group decay into the stages de-norming, de-storming, and de-forming. In addition to being a common theory introduced in classrooms, teachers have also used Tuckmans theory to assess the success of classroom teams, like in Knott and Gerards (2012) study. Their study looked at the importance of teaching team skills to students for further success in the classroom and in business. Part of their process for the study implemented Tuckmans group development model because of its wide use in education as well as in the business sector. Cassidys (2007) study claims that Tuckmans model may not be as applicable to groups outside of a therapeutic context (p. 416), but it is still one of the most popular models used among educators and corporations. When used within an educational context, the focus on this model has been on students, not on partnerships between institutions; however, this model is still applicable to developing partnerships, including those between community colleges and secondary schools. These types of partnerships involve administrators and faculty from both institutions who will work together

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 6 to develop a plan for aligning curriculum and serving students. Not only does Tuckmans model apply to the institutions as they come together, the model also applies to the groups that will form separately within each institution. While both institutions will meet, the groups within each institution will have to meet independently in order to prepare for further collaboration, as well as implement plans within their individual institutions. This follows the Tuckmans (2001) idea about the purpose of group. He asserts that the contention of any group, regardless of setting, must address itself to the successful completion of the task (69). Whether working together or independent of one another, secondary and post-secondary schools developing a partnership will be focused on a shared goal, or task activity as defined by Tuckman (2001), and Tuckman and Jensen (2010). One benefit of Tuckmans group development theory is the flexibility to many situations, circumstances, and groups. The research Tuckman collected involves multiple group settings (Cassidy, 2007; Tuckman & Jensen, 2010; Hart & Trombley, 2007). This flexibility allows for Tuckmans theory to be applicable in a secondary-postsecondary partnership. In this type of setting, each institution will form its own group; thus, group development needs to occur within individual institutions. Then, the group from each institution will come together to develop a partnership between institutions. Members within the individual institutional groups and from the joint group will experience Tuckmans stages of development as described by Wheelan and Conway (1991). They describe forming as dependence on authority figures, anxiety, lack of structure, and concern about inclusion (p. 61), storming as the potential for conflict, fear and flight from task, tension, avoidance, power struggles, and faction formation, norming as cooperation and development of an organizational structure, and performing as the work stage in which group members focus on the steps and resources necessary for achieving the goal

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 7 (p. 61-62). While the individual institutions may have already experienced the first two of Tuckmans stages prior to the partnerships, bringing groups from each institution together involves a pattern of uncertainty, with the potential for growth to achieve a goal. The uncertainty of the group along with the common goal makes Tuckmans model logical. Faculty and administration between the high school and community college will have little to no experience with one another. In fact, most group members from each institution will meet for the first time as a result of the partnership. Thus, in coming together, this group may experience stages similar to those set by Tuckman; however, as Cassidy (2007) points out, the conflict identified in the storming stage may not be a clearly defined stage for practitioners outside of therapeutic groups (416). According to Cassidy (2007), this particular stage may not occur as the second stage. Furthermore, this stage may be more aptly focused on determining the reason for the conflict. Even though the model may indicate some shifts in concept, it was a common model in startup training for quality improvement teams (Bonebright, 2010, p. 117). This partnership is similar to a quality improvement team since it seeks to improve the access and transition of students from one institution to the next. In addition, the partnership being explored is new to the two institutions and a recent concept in education. Tuckmans model may have some flaws; however, it is highly applicable in multiple settings. According to Bonebright (2010), other models, even those with similar structure, are too specified to be as flexible and generally applicable. Forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning are simple, clearly laid out concepts that continue to be applied and researched when looking at group and team development, regardless of the setting or purpose of the group.

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 8 References Bonebright, D. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckmans model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1). 111-120. Cassidy, K. (2007). Tuckman Revisited: Proposing a New Model of Group Development for Practitioners. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 413-417. Hurt, A.C., & Trombley, S.M. The Punctuated-Tuckman: Towards a New Group Development Model. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504567.pdf .
Knott, M.J., & Gerard, J.G. (2012). The Team Milestone Process: Integrated Team Activities to Track Team Development. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(4), 103-121). Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2013). Group Dynamics. Organizational Behavior (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D.L. (2003). The Stages of Group Development: A Retrospective Study of Dynamic Team Processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121-134. Tuckman, B.W. (2001). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, (3), 66-81. Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M.A.C. (2010). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 10, 43-48. Wheelan, S.A., & Conway, C. (1991). Group Development as a Framework to Understand and

Tuckmans Stages of Group Development 9 Promote School Readiness to Engage in an Organizational Development Project. Journal of Education & Psychological Consultation, 2(1), 59-71.