Four (Five) Stages of Team Development Bruce Tuckman Forming In the first stages of team building, the forming

g of the team occurs. The individual's behavior is driven by a desire to be accepted by the others, and avoid controversy or conflict. Serious issues and feelings are avoided, and people focus on being busy with routines such as team organization, who does what, when to meet, etc. Individuals are also gathering information and impressions about each other, and about the scope of the task and how to approach it. This is a comfortable stage, but the avoidance of conflict and threat means that not much actually gets done. The team meets and learns about the opportunities and challenges, and then agrees on goals and begins to tackle the tasks. Team members tend to behave uite

independently. They may be motivated but are usually relatively uninformed of the issues and ob!ectives of the team. Team members are usually on their best behavior but very focused on themselves. "ature team members begin to model appropriate behavior even at this early phase. Sharing the knowledge of the concept of #Teams $ %orming, Storming, &orming, 'erforming# is e(tremely helpful to the team. Supervisors of the team tend to need to be directive during this phase. The forming stage of any team is important because in this stage, the members of the team get to know one another, e(change some personal information, and make new friends. This is also a good opportunity to see how each member of the team works as an individual and how they respond to pressure. Storming )very group will ne(t enter the storming stage in which different ideas compete for consideration. The team addresses issues such as what problems they are really supposed to solve, how they will function independently and together and what leadership model they will accept. Team members open up to each other and confront each other's ideas and perspectives. In some cases, storming can be resolved uickly. In others, the team never leaves this stage. The maturity of some team members usually determines whether the team will ever move out of this stage. Some team members will focus on minutiae to evade real issues. The storming stage is necessary to the growth of the team. It can be contentious, unpleasant and even painful to members of the team who are averse to conflict. Tolerance of each team member and their differences should be ephasized. *ithout tolerance and patience, the team will fail.

This phase can become destructive to the team and will lower motivation if allowed to get out of control. Some teams will never develop past this stage. Supervisors of the team during this phase may be more accessible, but tend to remain directive in their guidance of decision$making and professional behavior. The team members will therefore resolve their differences and members will be able to participate with one another more comfortably. The ideal is that they will not feel that they are being !udged, and will therefore share their opinions and views. Norming The team manages to have one goal and come to a mutual plan for the team at this stage. Some may have to give up their own ideas and agree with others in order to make the team function. In this stage, all team members take the responsibility and have the ambition to work for the success of the team's goals. Performing It is possible for some teams to reach the performing stage. These high$performing teams are able to function as a unit as they find ways to get the !ob done smoothly and effectively without inappropriate conflict or the need for e(ternal supervision. +y this time, they are motivated and knowledgeable. The team members are now competent, autonomous and able to handle the decision$making process without supervision. ,issent is e(pected and allowed as long as it is channeled through means acceptable to the team. Supervisors of the team during this phase are almost always participative. The team will make most of the necessary decisions. -owever, even the most high$performing teams will revert to earlier stages in some circumstances. "any long$standing teams go through these cycles many times as they react to changing circumstances. %or e(ample, a change in leadership may cause the team to revert to storming as new people challenge the e(isting norms and dynamics of the team. Adjourning (and Transforming)

In 1977, Tuckman, jointly with Mary Ann Jensen, added a fifth stage to the 4 stages adjourning, that in!ol!es the "rocess of #unforming# the grou", letting go of the grou" structure and mo!ing on$ %ome authors descri&e this stage as '(eforming and Mourning), recogni*ing the sense of loss sometimes felt &y team mem&ers$ Adjourning in!ol!es dissolution$ It entails the termination of roles, the com"letion of tasks and reduction of de"endency$ The "rocess can &e stressful, "articularly when the dissolution is un"lanned$

Solomon Implication

The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other subjects unanimously choose the wrong line. !t is

clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.

Norms and status

In the field of organizational behavior it is actually the effect on individual behavior that is under study. The field intends to correlate the manner in which rules and expectations influence the decision making choices of each member within the organization. Group norms are specific parameters, or limitations, within which each member of a group is expected behave personally and towards others. This is done to set the tone of the group; if the group is going to be serious and goal oriented, discipline and rules are a must. If the tone of the group is casual and lively, then the norms are more lenient. In this manner, group norms affect by setting up the boundaries and the tone of the role of each individual within the group. !tatuses constitute the chain of command that enforces group norms and that sets and maintains the group tone. The upper ranking members of an organization evaluate performance, and confirm whether the organizational mission is being carried out or not. They also should serve as supporters and models to their peers and as examples to those below their own status in the group. In this way, statuses affect individual behavior because statuses represent leverage within the organization; the more leverage someone has, the more influential their control. Therefore, more evident boundaries are created from person to person once a role becomes delineated. These boundaries ultimately affect the dynamics and interaction within the group.

"n !mplication of the Stanford #rison $xperiment

%or this weeks blog i will be again evaluating the methods of an experiment in which i personally find fascinating with regards to its

findings and research area, the Stanford prison experiment. !n &'(& a team of researchers led by #hillip )imbardo carried out an experiment focusing on the effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. *ith regards to this blog i will start off by talking about the disadvantages of this study before moving on to discuss and outline the advantages of )imbardo+s study. The first implication to this study lies within it+s procedure. Obviously due to the fact the prison was constructed within the basement of Stanford ,niversities #sychology -epartment the student.participants therefore knew the study was all fake, as a result this could have caused a lot of problems. %or example, if the prison guards knew that the experiment was all role play they could have asked more ruthless and aggressive than they would have in real life. !n addition, the prisoners may have dramati/ed their reactions to certain conditions or actions carried out by the guards due to their knowledge of the nature of the experiment. This can affect the validity of the experiment in a negative way, this is because rather than measuring the effects of becoming a prisoner or guard in the real world it is rather measuring what happens when people take up these roles when they are in a fake dramati/ed world, and thus 0uestioning the experiments ability to generali/e its results to the real world. The second implication of this experiment focuses more on the ethics of the experiment, in particular the distress it caused the prisoners of the experiment. Throughout the experiment a number of prisoners experienced deterioration+s in their psychological health and as a result five of the prisoners were removed from the experiment as well as the experiment eventually being shut down. Obviously this carries implications with regards to ethical guidelines, for example the researcher has a duty to not cause any damage to the participants but as we can see this

experiment clearly caused psychological problems to its participants. %inally, i will now move on to talk about the !mplication of this study. The first advantage of this study is refers to the overall findings of the study and how it gave us a much more detailed look into obedience. !n particular how the participants acted as a cause of the situation and not due to there own personalities. %or example the prisoners, even though in real life they may have had strong characters with strong self1esteem when put into the role of a prisoner they acted just like they had had all their human rights removed and had no voice in what happened to them. "s a result this shows how people will naturally listen to people of an authority figure.