Introduction

This paper explores the stages of the group formation and combining the leadership theory.

Moreover, the paper indicates the relationship between the leadership and the subordinate.

1. Tuckman’s Theory

a). Definition

Tuckman’s theory of group development is a model that describes the path that is followed by

most teams on their way to efficiency and high performance. According to Tuckman and

Jensen (2010), “groups develop by going through the stages of forming, storming, norming,

performing and adjourning”.

b). Explanation

Forming: At this level the individualistic relations are characterised by dependency. The

subordinate depends on the acts and behaviour of the leader, rely on the leader for guidance

and directions to follow.

Storming: The level is attributed by the opposition and wrangles accruing in the personal

relationship within the group.

Norming: At this level immense cohesion occurs among the interpersonal relations, and

acknowledgment among the members is clear.

Performing: This level is not attainable to all groups and in order to be successful at this

stage, all the members must focus on true independence and deeper relating.

Adjourning: Eventually, many teams get to this level as the task at hand is completed.

Members of the team who have established close working relationships may find it difficult

especially if they are not sure of the next step.

2. Leadership Theory

a). Definition
Authoritarian leadership, is a style that is characterised by the leader assuming overall control

over decisions without regard of contribution from followers (Bonebright, 2010). Democratic

leadership, is technique of leadership where the decision making process encompasses all the

members and the leaders (Woods, 2004). According to Skogstad et al. (2007), he states

Laissez Faire leadership is where the leader are hands off and accredit the member the

mandate to make the decision.

b). Explanation

Authoritarian leadership is characterised by neglecting input from followers whereby the

leader is the only one with the mandate to decide on issues (Bonebright, 2010). In the

democratic setting, the member’s input is considered and each member assumes a position in

the decision making (Woods, 2004).

3. Tuckman combination with leadership

In the forming stage, the authoritarian leader plays a dominant role since the roles and

responsibilities of individual team members are not clear (Bhatti et al., 2012).

In the storming stage, team members are likely to challenge the authority of the leader as

their roles are set out, hence a democratic leader engages the team in evaluating situations

and enhances collaborative decision making (Kiazad et al., 2010).

In the norming stage, sharing of information characterises the group and under a laissez-faire

leadership, members are able to resolve their differences, and make decisions, thus there is a

clear flow of information and a higher creativity level (Miller, 2003).

In the performing stage, focus is on working to achieve the set goals and an authoritative

leader delegates much of their work and also focus developing team members and

individually solving problematic situations (Kiazad et al., 2010).

Finally, in the adjourning stage a democratic leader helps the transition of group life by

encouraging the team to reflect on the task up to completion, and also in planning evaluation
methods (Miller, 2003).

Conclusion

Tuckman theory, adequately indicates the relation between the leadership and the members.

More so, the theory has stages that are aid in distinguishing the constrains that are under the

Authoritarian and Democratic leadership style.

References

Bonebright, D.A., 2010. 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman's model of

small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), pp.111-120.

Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G.M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M.A. and Shaikh, F.M., 2012. The impact of

authoritarian and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International Business

Research, 5(2), p.192.

Kiazad, K., Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, T.J., Kiewitz, C. and Tang, R.L., 2010. In pursuit

of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’

Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of

Research in Personality, 44(4), pp.512-519.

Miller, D.L., 2003. The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team

processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de

l'Administration, 20(2), pp.121-134.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M.S. and Hetland, H., 2007. The

destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of occupational health

psychology, 12(1), p.80.
Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M.A.C., 2010. Stages of small-group development

Revisited1. Group Facilitation, (10), p.43.

Woods, P.A., 2004. Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed

leadership. International journal of leadership in education, 7(1), pp.3-26.