See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352815932

Group Development Stages. A Brief Comparative Analysis of Various Models

Article · June 2021

DOI: 10.24193/subbpsyped.2021.1.05

CITATION READS
1 13,473

2 authors:

Sebastian Vaida Dan Șerban

Babeş-Bolyai University Babeş-Bolyai University
30 PUBLICATIONS   76 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing social-emotional competences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sebastian Vaida on 29 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

STUDIA UBB PSYCHOL.-PAED., LXVI, 1, 2021, p. 91 - 110
(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbpsyped.2021.1.05

GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES.

A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF VARIOUS MODELS

SEBASTIAN VAIDA1*, DAN ERBAN1

ABSTRACT. Group Development is one of the most important cornerstones of

social life. It dictates how our work and social circles develop and influences
the relationships in our lives, and in turn, these relationships dictate the levels
of satisfaction we report in our lives. Teamwork is also important in our
experiences as it is strongly related to group development and is linked with
many aspects, such as professionalism and efficiency in teams. In this paper,
we discuss the importance of group development for any forming teams and
analyze the concept within nine models (Bass and Ryterband, Tubb, Cog’s Ladder,
Homan, Woodcock, Fisher, Jones, Tuckman and Wheelan), with a particular
accent on the last two (Tuckman and Wheelan).

Keywords: groups, teams, development, model, work, stages.

Introduction

Teams have existed for as long as humanity has. From the hunter-
gatherer communities who worked together to ensure their survival, to the
medieval condottieri who traded their military prowess for coins, and the
modern football players who entertained the masses with their coordinated
ball-kicking tactics, they have been, are and will continue to be our greatest tool.
Though we can greatly attribute our success to our ability to pool our resources
together, our odds of surviving the modern socio-political, environmental and
technology struggles of the 21st century require us to have a closer look at how
we work together and how we take on the challenges as a group.

1 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Babe -Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

However, we would not be the first to do so. In 1939, as the Second

World War was raging in Europe, a German American named Kurt Lewin coined
this concept in a Three Styles Model. Thus, highlighting a set of team leading
philosophies generally used in all types of organizations, according to their
focus. As a result, the Delegative, Authoritarian and Participative models were
established. The Authoritarian style best fits high-risk situations that develop
under a short time span and is marked by the order-like style of goal setting and
method choosing of the leader. The Delegative style is the opposite of the
former, centered around a laid-back perspective of work and allowing as much
as possible self-governing ability to the team. The middle ground is met by the
Participative model. However, all this only increasingly added stress on the
literature and pointed out the lack of a proper model and analysis of how teams
truly perceived work and their members.
One of the main authors of such an analysis has been Bruce Tuckman,
who in 1965 has proposed his famous team-development model. The model
highlighted four stages that all teams must go through, to function at their full
capacity.
The first stage, Forming, is marked by a lack of role clarity and a desire
of assessing the capacities and desires of fellow team-members. Within this
stage, most teams assign a leader and form an opinion about the others and the
tasks at hand.
The second stage, Storming, is characterized by an innate struggle for
leadership roles, compromises, uncertainties, and a risk of dismantling through
emotions and relational causes.
The third stage, Norming, is heavily marked by a movement towards
progressing the task through establishment of rules, roles, and processes, it is
usually the stage in which discontent drops and acceptance of the team’s style
prevails.
The fourth stage, Performing, is generally marked by peak efficiency and
coordination within the team as most of the processes go smoothly and
relationships between members flourish.
However, over the next decade, Tuckman added a fifth stage, Adjourning,
which is crucial to our understanding of how the model is anticipating the
separation of a group and processes that accompany it. As Natvig (2016, p 678)
carefully observed, “During the adjourning stage, the group performs a self-
evaluation and analysis and reviews the outcomes of the project. This stage may
include separation anxiety and mourning as the project team disbands, as well as
feelings of accomplishment that tasks were completed.”. Therefore, it seems that
in more recent years the concerns of the transitional periods and disbandment of
teams, as well as their consequences have been the focus of researchers.

92
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

In this analysis, we have looked at nine models that discuss and define
the concept of group development stages, and we present them in the main
body of the study, pointing out the characteristics, as well as the plusses and
weaknesses.

Tuckman’s Team Stages

Stage One: Forming

According to Bonebright (2010), the first prerequisite of a team is
establishing a set of relationships between the team members. One must always
keep in mind that there can be an infinite number of possibilities when
concerning pre-existing relationships between team members. The implications
of these pre-existing conditions may or may not greatly affect the experience of
the first stage of development.
The first stage is essentially the process of assembling an initial
structure for the team. For the average person this is marked by an elevated
degree of ambiguity and as our innate instincts dictate that we must be accepted
by the new group, by an extensive effort to avoid conflict-generating situations.
According to Tuckman’s works (1965; 1977), behaviors exhibited by individuals
can be politeness, assessment of peers’ personality and aligning to them,
discussions of problems unrelated to the scope of the team and an attempt to
define processes and tasks. The general feelings can be marked down as
optimism, anticipation, suspicion, fearfulness, and anxiety related to teamwork.
Personal relations are marked by dependency and group members follow safe
behavior patterns. In this stage, the preferences for the future subgroups are
formed and serious topics and feelings are avoided.
Considering the needs that the team requires, we can identify a need for
a team vision, an establishment of ground rules and a role assignment.
Therefore, a leader can be expected to give the team structure, guidance, create
an atmosphere of acceptance, actively involved in the processes associated with
meeting each other and offer the team some breathing room and time for
getting acquainted. For the team to advance to the next stage, it is required of it
to experience these situations.

Stage Two: Storming

According to Seck (2014), conflict is an inherent part of team progression
and inevitable in the normal development of a team. It cannot be avoided if we
expect a team to reach its full potential, as it warrants the strengthening of a

93
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

team’s processes. Seck (2014) further explains how this stage is the time for the
stating opinions, concerns, and suggestions. On top of this, the stage seems to
exist for the accommodation and acclimatization of those frustrated with the
current stratagems. Seck (2014) underlines the importance of communication
in this stage, as without it the team can only grow frustrated and may be at risk of
not resolving important conflicts. Personal relations in this stage are characterized
by competitiveness and conflicts, which inevitably appear when members try
to focus on tasks.
Tuckman (1965) himself notes how this stage is dominated by a power
struggle and a necessity to question the leadership and structure of a team.
Among observable behaviors, we can note arguments, a lack of role clarity and
generally lack task progress. Jones (2019) notes how this stage is noteworthy
for the incentive properties it has, as team members are challenged to engage
further in complex intellectual processes. As the group becomes more and more
hostile to itself, it expresses its members’ individuality and as a result, Jones (2019)
explains how strong emotions may arise during this stage.
Ito & Brotheridge (2008) note that this stage may occur several times
during a project, as team members will grow comfortable with one another over
time and may desire to make their opinions known later.
What is certain is that, according to Tuckman (1965), at the end of this
stage, the team is supposed to have already experienced a series of conflicts
from which to discern: a revision of past norms and hierarchies, an inclination
towards listening and offering feedback to your fellow team members and a
further development of inter and intra-relationships. The leaders are expected
to provide the strategies required to move on from unproductive conflict and
ease in the feedback processes.
To be able to advance to a next stage, the team members must change
their mindset from a “test and check” to a problem solving one and one of the
most important features in this stage is the ability to communicate and listen.

Stage Three: Norming

As teams weather the storms of the previous stage and settle in for a
more balanced state, it becomes clear that they are required to establish a
guideline and focus on working together rather than struggling for power or
arguing (Pugalis & Bentley, 2013).
According to Tuckman, norming is the stage in which we can observe a
transition from a singular leadership to a more open and shared style. Trust is
essential to an effective leadership and thus it is a requirement for the team at
this stage to avoid devolution. Bonebright (2010) specifically underlines the
nature of the transition in the mindset of team members from the perspective

94
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

of single work to one of assimilation to the group as a bigger entity. Thus, as

members are crafting an in-group affiliation, they obtain a type of loyalty to the
group and encourage the maintenance and improvement of the group itself.
Furthermore, it is notable that the degree of freedom of speech is
soaring during this stage. Therefore, it is expected that the group establishes a
set of guidelines and focus on establishing the protocols, plans and seek
perfecting the performance-related processes. An important part of this stage
is also the encouragement of creativity and harmony. Wheelan (1996) adds that
behaviors encouraging structure and discovery of roles within the limits of
helpfulness are accepted. Gren, Torkar & Feldt (2017) goes even further and
explains that the third stage is the backbone for the competence-related abilities
of the group. The leader takes a more consultative approach to the process, in a
bid to increase flexibility and allow the group to form its own directives. A
degree of labor division adjusted to maximize productivity is also noted. Conflicts
are still present, but greatly reduced in the degree of damage through more
effective management than in the second stage.
Sometimes, there is the fear that the group might dissolve; therefore,
there is a moderate resistance to any change.

Stage Four: Performing

This is the stage where most of the task work itself is accomplished.
Gren, Torkar & Feldt (2017) maintains that this is one of the longest stages and
marks the fulfilment of the group’s transition into a team in all its merit. As the
focus moves to the bulk of the work itself, team cohesion is maintained
diligently, and observers can note a degree of excitement in the team’s work.
Norms established in the prior stage are used to provide motivational support
and high performance. Also, this is a stage that not all teams will reach, which
explains why some teams will never have the expected results.
Seck (2014) notes that there are still conflicts, but the management is so
effective at this stage that negotiation and communication disarm the destructive
potential. In fact, Seck suggests that the relationships that have formed by this
stage between members have a positive impact on both conflict management
and the overall performance of the team. The work of an author named Brown
(1991) is brought into the conversation and according to their paper, this stage
can be condensed in two words: intimacy and maturity. Zhen (2017) notes that
there is a beneficial cultivation of self-management and discipline at this stage.
However, Ito & Brotheridge (2008) once again points out that there is a
risk of deterioration at this stage, too. This deterioration (which can appear
through a crisis type of event) can in fact, be used as a crutch to boost the team
into a positive state rather than lead to the dissolution of the group.

95
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

Stage Five: Adjourning

As mentioned above, Tuckman let the international literature filter his
work and after over a decade of papers decided to add a stage that concerned the
dissolution of a team. Also called the “termination” stage, adjourning the stage in
which the team has fulfilled its purpose and must move on from its current
formula due to a variety of reasons. Tuckman’s 1977 model suggests that while
the group continues to perform, the task itself is no longer the focus of the team.
Instead, there is a cycle of emotions that must be handled. These emotions can be
strong, and expressions include, but are not limited to crying, termination of
interpersonal relationships, denial, and an overall feeling of sadness. This set of
behaviors is why Jones (2019) mentions that this stage can itself be surmised as
“mourning”. Additionally, he mentions that while in environments where education
is the product, we rarely see this development; it is widely used in organizational
environments due to its re-organizational capabilities.
At this stage, the team members have developed and accomplished their
task together and now celebrate their success. Jones (2019) continues to
remark how there is an ambiguity and uncertainty shadowing this celebration,
as a transition towards the unknown is possible. He recommends leaders to
prepare a transitional plan to soften this stage and reduce the negative feelings
associated with separation.
Notable for this stage is that it is not a terminus point for the entire group,
and some veterans from the old team will carry on towards the next project
and assist the formation of a new team with their accumulated experience. A
self-analysis occurs at this point, so that the team can better understand their
experiences. Several stages may even coexist at the same time during this step. It
is also worth considering that this stage can facilitate a leap forward, over the
usual timespan of the stages themselves (Zhen, 2017). A proper plan for this stage
will include acknowledging all team members’ involvement, as well as their
achievements and the change to say goodbye and get a closure.

Limitations and strengths of Tuckman’s Work

A simple Google Scholar search revealed that Tuckman’s 1965 paper

has been cited a remarkable 8766 times, while his later 1977 paper has been
cited 3722 times, proving that it has held up well to the test of time, especially
when compared to Bonebright’s 2010 similar report. Given the high number of
citations that has occurred over the decade (over 8000 combined citations), one
can consider Tuckman’s work has stood the test of time and remains relevant
to the modern literature.

96
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

However, Bonebright (2010) has underlined several limitations of both

papers. First and foremost, Tuckman himself acknowledged a lack of representation
for non-therapeutic environments due to his specialization as a psychologist.
Furthermore, Bonebright (2010) noted that Tuckman’s work has been generalized
well beyond its original framework and highlighted the work of Cassidy (2007),
who extensively described the lack of clarity in the second stage’s definition in
non-therapeutic groups. Bonebright (2010) continued to express concern regarding
the methodology of the studies that treated the subject of the model, which were
doubled by Tuckman’s own 1977 paper. There have also been some questions
raised by the rigidity of the model itself, as the stages may be more flexible than
iterated in the model and deeply dependent to the precise size of the group
(Sundstrom, De Meuse & Futrell, 1990)

Bass and Ryterband’s Model

A model proposed in 1979, Bass and Ryterband’s focuses much more on

group formation and control rather than a graduality in the group’s evolution
from end to end. The model is resource-centric and takes an extra step
compared to other literature examples to explain how they are used in various
development stages.

The Stage of Acceptance

The initial stage of this model is different from other equivalents
mentioned in this article due to its positioning in the timeframe of group
development. It is only occurring after the initial struggles are overcome and a
sense of collaboration and acceptance sediments. Bass and Ryterband (1979)
explain that it involves information distribution on both a task-related level and
an informal level, carefully patched by interpersonal bonds and tests on job-
related experiences and otherwise.

The Stage of Communication and Decisions Making

Based on the strides and advances of the previous step, the group
develops an open style of information sharing. This communication style is
necessary for quality decision making and can be viewed as a mix of uncovering
previously hidden attitudes and opinions related to work tasks, as well as an
evaluation of the processes and goals of the group.
The Stage of Group Solidarity
After the group invests more resources and commitment into the
project ensuring cooperation without underlying frustrations is achieved, the
overall performance of the group skyrockets. This process is characterized by

97
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

the advances the group undergoes and the heightened prosperity of the project.
Compared to equivalents in literature, this stage is like Tuckman’s stage of
Performing.
The Stage of Group Control
A stage that takes a dimension fairly ignored by other models, Group
Control is characterized by the equity of work and maximization of support
within the group. The members have developed enough that it is no longer
required to keep a formal relation and cooperation even with tasks not attributed
to individuals is noted (Zoltan & Vancea, 2016; Bass and Ryterband, 1979).

Tubb’s Model

A model proposed in 1978 and subsequently improved in later years,

Tubbs’ model, separates group evolution in four linear stages. The model treats
group development from a systemic perspective, treating it much more like a
process containing subprocesses than a straight developmental line for the
group. Thus, it offers an organic dimension, explaining how these processes form
the inputs, the outputs and the throughputs that can be extracted from the
experiences that people who form teams undergo. As one can assume, the model
(as explained by a synthesis in Tubbs’ book detailing it) includes three elements
that interact with one another: relevant background factors, internal influences,
and consequences. This approach ensures that the group is not frozen in the
rigidity of procedures set in stone, but that it can learn from the various hurdles
it may encounter and integrate feedback into its course of action.
There are four stages within Tubbs’ System Model:

Orientation
During Orientation, the group members interact with each other and try
to grasp an emerging strategy as set expectations about the work at hand. This
stage is highly like other established models’ initial steps, proposing that team
members are looking for diplomatic solutions to any conflict from within. As the
group gets to form connections and members start conjuring opinions on one
another, a snapshot forms of how the group will operate and the initial anxieties
and uncomfortable lack of social safety dissipate.

Conflicts
During Conflict, the group is comfortable enough in its internal relationships
and start focusing much more on the tasks rather than the social aspects of the
team. As individuals are committing more and more to the project, they are about to

98
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

reach a level of individuality that creates friction and conflicts. Tubbs ascertains
that conflict is central to human interaction, therefore they are necessary to answer
important questions within the group: who is the leader? what responsibilities
belong to whom? does the established structure of the group function effectively?
etc. It appears that during this phase the dominant members will inevitably go
out of the safety of their positions and explore more and more opportunities,
while the subservient ones will opt for a more silent approach.
Consensus
Consensus is the stage that occurs when Conflict ends and presumes that
the members understand their roles much better than priorly. During this stage,
Tubbs noted a fluid interactive model, with far less friction during team processes
and a heightened productivity. The input of each group member is valued and the
inner working of problem-solving are based less on strife and desire to ascertain
dominance and much more on finding impactful solutions through the best
strategies that the group can conjure. While frictions may occasionally occur, they
will not impact the group or the end products as heavily as the prior stage would
suggest. Members will develop on an individual scale, as well on a group scale.
Leadership can and will be passed in a distributed manner.
Closure
During closure, the group has already completed their objective and are
assessing the efficiency of processes they have undergone. A post-action phase,
this includes the departure to other projects and teams, which other models
would consider a different stage entirely. (Tubbs, 2012)

Cog’s Ladder

A model that came about in 1972, Cog’s Ladder of Group Development

is a five-stage group development linear model. George Charrier concluded that
there is an orientative “ladder” that all groups naturally follow with or without
direct leadership. At the end of this model lays a highly productive stage, with
low waste of resources and high performance. One should approach this model
with similar expectations as Tuckman’s model due to many common points.

The Polite Phase

This phase is highly like other models’ initial stages and surmises that
members will avoid having behaviors that are not socially acceptable while also
trying to assess their teammates. In a bid for approval, they will attempt to complete
a jigsaw of interpersonal connections rather than focus on the task at hand.

99
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

“Why are we here?” Stage

Following the completion of acquaintances, a group desire to discuss
the general objective of the team forms. Thus, the members start delegating
tasks and much like the rest of literature seems to suggest, cliques of common
goals, abilities and motivations will form. Performance starts improving and
communication becomes smoother.

The Power Phase

During the third stage, it becomes abundantly clear if there are any
internal struggles as a social hierarchy develops and individuals will be inclined
to claim various roles, creating conflict. As strife becomes the main occupation
of the group, very rarely can we obtain results from this stage with power plays
in the background. Even with moderators or incipient leaders assisting the
stage, Charrier makes it very clear that until the internal politics are taking a
more permanent form it should not be expected for the group to perform.

The Cooperation Phase

The fourth stage begins immediately after a social hierarchy is defined
and the struggles associated with political activity wind down. As leaders take
their roles seriously, the author emphasizes the need for a team-wide contribution
to decisions and warns against displacing the careful and brittle balance with
new members.

The Esprit de Corps Phase

“Esprit de Corps” comes from a military term which points out when a
group exudes cohesion and inspires the members to be proud of their belonging
to a group. Like the original expression, the fifth stage describes a team that has
established its base and built on top of it, creating a safe environment for
experimentation and productivity. The most important aspect, communication
is at its peak and the main concern the group has is maintaining this high-level
stage (Charrier, 1972).

Homan’s Model
One of the oldest models covered in this paper is proposed by George
Homans (part of the group that identified the Hawthorne effect) in 1950. The
proposed model is a dissection of groups in two overarching systems: the
external system and the internal system. The author makes a significant author
in identifying the complex contexts in which groups can be found - ranging from

100
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

explaining the physical surroundings to the technologies they use and the
overall state of the organization they are in. Thus, Homans covers three stages
that groups undergo, all while keeping in mind a constant pressure of contextual
factors. Furthermore, due to the age of the model the reader should also not forget
that the perspective is different from our modern understanding of groups and
the author describes groups as “set up” by a third party with its own agenda and
desired behaviors, rather than an organic process with high organizational
flexibility as it is the case in contemporary organizations.
The first stage concerns needed states and behaviors - actions and
activities, interactions, needed norms and emotional experiences that
are sought out for the group.
The second stage concerns emergent states and behaviors - emergent
actions, interactions, norms, and emotional experiences that result from
the group interacting in time.
The third stage concerns the results of collective actions - productivity,
group members’ satisfaction and personal development and evolution.
According to some authors (Curseu, 2007), there is a continuous
interactivity and cross-influence between behaviors, states and conditions which
come to influence the group and their effectiveness.

Woodcock’s Model

Woodcock’s 1979 model is a four-stage group development project. It

is highly like Tuckman's own proposition and thus there are many
overlapping aspects within it.
Infant team - this is the initial stage and is generally now that a team has
an avoidance of direct conversation on difficult topics, an unclear
objective, and a heavy reliance on team leadership.
Exploratory team - the second stage addresses a more direct approach on
issues and relies on active listening as well as group introspectiveness for
short periods.
Under Consolidation team - this stage addresses a developing team and
its communication and task clarification needs. During this stage,
objectives and procedures are experimented with.
Mature team - the stage is defined by the informal style of communication
and open information transmission. Many alternative plans are considered,
and a great degree of flexibility is indulged, as well as a clearer leadership
style with a greater degree of responsibility taken (Zoltan & Vancea, 2016;
Woodcock, 1979).

101
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

Fisher’s Model

B. Aubrey Fisher is one of the more recognizable names of the literature

and for good reason: they proposed a simple, yet efficient model of group
development that is used frequently decades after its debut. There are still
overlapping concepts and shared phases with other models presented, though
it departs slightly from the structure Tuckman presented and has a higher
degree of commonality with Tubb’s Model.

Orientation
The initial stage is once again about socializing rather than task
achievement. Due to the lack of familiarity within the group’s members, there
is a primary tension that can only be deflated via interaction and norm definition.
Fisher suggests that it is better to focus on interactivity rather than the usual
performance-seeking behaviors.

Conflict
The second stage is marked by a secondary tension, far more focused on
the task rather than the social aspect. Conflict is the namesake of this stage and
a degree of positivity is associated with it. Any discussion that turns into an
operational debate is encouraged and it helps assess the efficiency of group
processes as well as improve overall performance in later stages.

Emergence
The third stage is the one in which the group starts reinforcing the
structures and tasks debated during Conflict. It is now that changes begin to
appear in attitudes and a degree of ideatic flexibility seeps into the mentality of
group members.

Reinforcement
The fourth stage is extremely brief compared to the norm and yet it is
incredibly vital to the group. During this stage, a sense of calm and security
spreads within the team as commitment halts any damaging conflict and
decisions are easily accepted even by opposing team members. In Fisher’s view,
this stage is much more like a team that becomes something more than the sum
of its parts, everyone feels accomplished, and interpersonal relations soar (Ellis
and Fisher, 1994).

102
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

Jones’ Model

A model that details aspects less commonly discussed by its contemporaries,

Jones’ model has similarities with other models nonetheless, while being
independent enough to have its own unique structure. There are several aspects
unique to the model, including the final stage - team synergy, which make it
stand out as an extra phase where excellence is considered part of the normal
development a team should consider while experiencing its constituent processes.

Immature Group
The initial phase in the Jones Model is one represented by member
orientation and an establishment of social interactions with a shift
towards a socially acceptable pattern. Generally, the true or complete
opinions of members are hidden under the initial contact’s appearances.

Fragmented Group
During this phase conflicts between members have a halving effect on the
team, with a divisionary character across opinion lines. Therefore, the
group gains a fragmentation and cliques start to form where mutual idea
sharing sessions are encouraged and dissent skyrockets.

Sharing Group
During this phase, the team gains maturity and finds a middle ground
where high cohesion can be asserted and leadership becomes flexible and
attentive, as well as the group members.

Effective Team
During this phase, the team has consolidated its inner processes and is
performing at a heightened rate. Here, like in most theories presented
in the article, most of the team members find a balance and put a high
degree of effort and commitment into the group's tasks.

Team Synergy
Team Synergy is where the group becomes more than the sum of its
parts. Much like Esprit de Corps from other models, synergy aims for
excellence and a melding between leader and team member. (Jones,
1975)

103
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

Wheelan’s Integrated Model

Wheelan’s Integrated Model was created by Susan Wheelan and built

upon the work of Tuckman. Based upon the realization that Eastern cultures have
embraced the idea that groups as entities can be more than the sum of their
distinct parts and can themselves be distinct collectives, it attempts to shift the
general view on group intelligence from focusing on “I” and more on “We”.
As Briskin et al. (2009) note, the We perspective provides more engagement
and integration, through the cumulative collective wisdom that a group entail.
Studies in the field of neuroscience anchor this way of viewing groups as it has
been shown that humans possess a “social brain”, which responds and logs the
interactions we have with each other (Goleman, 2011). The result is that group
norms are essentially the pattern of interactions which have solidified into a
group’s collective psyche (Frederickson, 2003).
Wheelan (1996) validated her model using the Group Development
Questionnaire. Her model remained consistent with the previous theories,
particularly the chronology and staging aspects that are part of what we define
as a group. Moreover, Wheelan’s team discovered stage-specific patterns in the
behavior of the teams. Most importantly, they underlined the dependency and
trust-specific conversational patterns in the early stages of group development
that preceded the work behaviors in the later stages. Adding to that, they propose
that both the leaders and the members’ way of conduct are equally important
and that without a degree of group safety, no quality work can be achieved.
Due to the nature of Wheelan’s work, we can see further similarities in
the claims she makes compared to the work of Tuckman. As such, we see a level
of energy being constantly applied into the interactions of the team members
on a dependency and trust level regardless of their specific stages. Moreover,
there is a distinct reliance on the leader in the early stages and a degree of
developed group independence later. They advocate for a balance between on-
task conversation and social-emotional issues, while repeating that there will
always be unique development for each group (Wheelan, 2003).
The stages Wheelan (2003) proposes are as follows:
1. Dependency / Inclusion
2. Counter dependency / Conflict
3. Trust / Structure
4. Work / Productivity
The model involves a member-group-leader type of description for
every stage and each stage follows a unique set of traits which summed up will
describe the current state of the group.

104
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

Stage One: Dependency/Inclusion

In this stage, we can talk about the initial contact of the group’s
members with each other under the pretense of creating a team. Here, members
are tentative and polite, highly compliant and are afraid of being rejected. An
appropriate response to most issues is conflict avoidance and high conformity.
The entirety of the group assumes a consensus, roles are spread out according
to external social factors and while there is a centralized communication
pattern, there are no potent structural or organizational norms yet.
The leader is seen as a benevolent and competent member, who is
expected to provide security and guidance. As such, they are rarely challenged
and will be relied on to provide standards, mediate conversation, and provide
safety to the group.

Stage Two: Counter dependency / Conflict

As the group progresses, the second stage is marked by an upturn in
power towards the members. They will become increasingly participative into
the task, thus identifying possible issues with the tasks and disagree about goals
and tasks. Thus, they will challenge the leader and be encouraged by the
situation to dissent, as the team becomes marked by conflict.
The group is decreasing in conformity, as cliques form and a subsequent
intolerance for them is formed. While goals and clarifications are the main
elements of this stage, subgroups remain a poignant problem. As such, when
conflict resolution occurs, it naturally increases consensus and creates culture,
while increasing overall trust and cohesion.
On a leadership level, the trend is not of blind resilience, but much more
in favor of accepting changes and encouraging independence over fostering
dependence. Therefore, the focus of the leader should be on encouraging a level
of operational freedom.

Stage Three: Trust/Structure

On a member level, this stage is seen as a commitment spike point.
Groups reaching this stage are dominantly pleased and satisfied and as such are
working with elevated efficiency, but not peaking yet.
From the group’s standpoint once can observe an increase in clarity and
consensus. As this strengthens the bonds within the group, we can also mark
the ascent of communication flexibility and task focused topics.
Leadership is even further de-escalated to an advisory role, with the
guidance role taking a more pivotal status. Egalitarianism is the preferred
approach to decision-making at this stage.

105
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

Stage Four: Work/Productivity

This is perhaps the most coveted stage for most leaders. From a member
point of view, it is the most clearly defined stage as it defined by goal clarity,
agreement with goals, role sedimentation and voluntary conformity. All the
above can only be held together by a heightened cooperativity within the group.
From the perspective of the entire group, it can be described as the stage
where all the roles are assigned to those who fit them best. Communication is
structured to match demands from tasks and is encouraging feedback.
Leadership-wise, we can see an improvement in delegating responsibility,
and we can observe an increasing non-leadership model. While this occurs, one
must make note of the fact that due to the advanced staging there is a degree of
innate flexibility in the adopted style, and it will always strive to match the
overall developmental level of the group.

Table 1. Models and stages synopsis.

Model Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Name/ (Bonus
Stage Phase)
Bass & Acceptance Communication Group Group Control -
Ryterband and Decisions Solidarity
Making
Tubb Orientation Conflicts Consensus Closure -
Cog The Polite “Why are we The Power Cooperation The Esprit
Phase here?” Phase Phase Phase de Corps
Phase
Homan Needed states Emergent states Results of - -
and behaviors and behaviors collective
actions
Woodcock Infant Team Exploratory Team Under Mature Team -
Consoli-
dation
Team
Fisher Orientation Conflict Emergence Reinforcement -
Jones Immature Fragmented Sharing Effective Team Team
Group Group Group Synergy
Tuckman Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning
Wheelan Dependency/ Counter Trust / Work / -
Inclusion dependency / Structure Productivity
Conflict

106
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

Conclusions

Group development is essential for every aspect of our personal and

professional life. Understanding the theoretical models that describe this concept
is as important as applying them in real life situations. In this article, we
analyzed nine models of group development, to provide a better comprehension
of the concept.
The first model we analyzed was the one developed by Bass and
Ryterband (1979), which is a four-stage model (Acceptance, Communication
and Decision Making, Group Solidarity, Group Control) that takes a different
approach from the traditional linear stages, and only begins after the initial
contacts have formed. The main plus of this model is that it focuses more on the
fluidity of the team and on the interpersonal connections between team members
than on the task-only processes. It also attempts and succeeds to explain a well-
developed team as one that maximizes support and equity over raw performance
scores. The second model in our analysis was Tubbs’ (1978), which is a four-
stage linear model (Orientation, Conflicts, Consensus and Closure) that takes a
well-versed approach to group development. The stages focus on assessing the
flexibility of leadership and team members, as well as keeping track of the
detailed context of the team. Ranging from the organizational context to the
technologies used and several system-related variables, Tubb’s Model attempts
to emphasize a need for intragroup flexibility and a need for closure and feedback,
as opposed to measuring performance separate from the social aspects of the
group. The third is called Cog’s Ladder (Charrier, 1972) and is a five-stage linear
model (The Polite Phase, “Why are we here?” Phase, The Power Phase, The
Cooperation Phase and The Esprit de Corps Phase) inspired from a results-
oriented background. Thus, while it includes social-centric phases, it is far more
concerned with the performance impact of various processes and phases that lead
to the end-product. It is also one of the few models that includes an “excellence
stage”, concluding that if a group fully develops it can reach a high-performance
stage where an idyllic closure can be reached. The fourth was developed by
Homan (1950) and is a three-stage model (needed, states, and behaviors; emergent
states and behaviors; results of collective actions) which takes a systemic approach
to group development. Due to its pioneering status, it reinforces a reliance on
contextual factors and internal and external systems, rather than a full overall
view of the team development. It is a model heavily reliant on stability and clear
developmental stages and tries to explain the evolution of teams via cross-
influences between contextual variables. The fifth is proposed by Woodcock
(1979) and is a four-stage development model (Infant team, exploratory team,
under consolidation team, mature team) which shares a high similarity with

107
 SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

Tuckman’s Model in its first iteration. It tries to observe the stages as a more
social affair than other models and combines social and operational flexibility with
performance as a way of assessing the current stage of a group. The sixth is Fisher’s,
a four-stage model (Orientation, Conflict, Emergence, Reinforcement), which uses
a mixed approach that can be considered a middle ground between the Tubb
and Tuckman models. It proposes a social dimension to all stages and a clear
distinction between stages that are performance-centric and social-centric, as well
as a brief reinforcement stage that surmises the culmination of efforts committed
by groups. The seventh is Jones’ model that uses five stages, including a bonus one
that is centered on excellence (Immature Group, Fragmented Group, Sharing Group,
Effective Team and Team Synergy). This model is heavily focused on interpersonal
and social relations, declaring three stages focused on finding balance within the
team and a latter one for measuring commitment and performance. The bonus
stage is an exemplification of how a group can be more than the sum of its parts
and in fact reach a level of informality when it excels. Tuckman’s Model is the
eight in our analysis and is one of the most widely known four/five stage model
(Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and the later added Adjourning). It
involves clearly defined stages, which note both a performance and a social
assessment of teams and a cyclical nature of teams, highly organic and close to
organizational realities. Finally, the ninth model is Wheelan’s, a four-stage
model (Dependency/Inclusion, Counter dependency/Conflict, Trust/Structure,
Work/Productivity) that combines leadership styles and a more traditional
Tuckman-like structure to assess the cohesion and development of a group.
Although it would be interesting and useful to make a ranking of those
models, they cannot be presented as such. Instead, depending on the several
factors, one might choose to use one model over another.
If you and your team have already formed the initial contacts and if your
leadership style is based on the relations and interpersonal connections
between team members, and less on tasks, then a good approach is to use the
model developed by Bass and Ryterband (1979). This is a more fluid model that
allows you to work on diagnosing and developing concepts such as self and
other acceptance, improving intra group communication, taking the right
decisions for the group and overall improving the group solidarity. If you realize
that your team needs constant feedback and closure, then Tubbs’ model (1978)
is recommended, as it emphasizes the intragroup flexibility, and monitoring the
context of the team development. If you are in a high moving industry, where
performance is a must, then you might want to have a look at Cog’s Ladder
(Charrier, 1972), which is the only one in our analysis that has an “excellence
stage”, for groups that manage to fully develop and reach high performance. If
you want to work on a more classic perspective on group development, the two

108
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT STAGES. A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS MODELS

models proposed by Woodcock (1979) and Tuckman (1965) are best suited, as
they follow a four, respectively five stages approach. This allows for a proper
assessment of the stage that each group is or advances to. If you want to take
the focus of your team and team members from individuality to group thinking
and prioritizing, then Wheelan’s approach is recommended, as it is a mix
between Tuckman’s traditional model and diverse leadership styles.
To conclude, no model is superior nor is it better than others are.
Depending on the needs of your team, the experience and expertise you have as
a leader, and the resources at hand (either financial or time bound), one model
can be preferred over the other. What we ultimately recommend is to test these
models in real situations and adapt them to the requirements of each specific
team and situation.

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M., & Ryterband, E. C. (1979). Organizational psychology. Allyn and Bacon.
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),
111-120. doi:10.1080/13678861003589099
Briskin, A., Erickson, S., Ott, J. and Callanan, T. (2009), The Power of Collective Wisdom
and the Trap of Collective Folly, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Brown, L. N. (1991). Groups for growth and change. Longman.
Cassidy, K. 2007. Tuckman revisited: Proposing a new model of group development for
practitioners. Journal of Experiential Education 29, no. 3: 413–7.
Charrier, G. O. (1972). Cog’s ladder: A model of group growth. SAM Advanced Management
Journal (00360805), 37(1), 30.
Cur eu Petru Lucian. (2007). Grupurile în organiza ii. Polirom.
Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision making: communication and the
group process. McGraw-Hill.
Frederickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91,
330 335.
Goleman, D. (2011). Leadership: The power of emotional intelligence. More Than Sound
LLC., 82-84
Gren, L., Torkar, R., & Feldt, R. (2017). Group development and group maturity when
building agile teams: A qualitative and quantitative investigation at eight large
companies. Journal of Systems and Software, 124, 104-119.
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.11.024
Homans, George C. (1950) The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Ito, J.K., Brotheridge, C.M., Do teams grow up one stage at a time? Exploring the
complexity of group development models, Team Performance Management, Vol.
14, No. 5/6, 2008, pp. 214-232

109
View publication stats

SEBASTIAN VAIDA, DAN ERBAN

Jones, A. (2019). The Tuckman’S Model Implementation, Effect, And Analysis & The New
Development of Jones Lsi Model On a Small Group. Journal of Management, 6(4).
doi:10.34218/jom.6.4.2019.005
Jones, J. E., & Pfeiffer, J. W. (1975). The 1975 annual handbook for group facilitators.
University Associates.
Natvig, D., & Stark, N. L. (2016). A Project Team Analysis Using Tuckman's Model of
Small-Group Development. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(12), 675-681.
doi:10.3928/01484834-20161114-03
Pugalis, L., & Bentley, G. (2013). Storming or performing? Local Enterprise Partnerships
two years on. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 28(7-
8), 863-874. doi:10.1177/0269094213503066
Seck, M. M., & Helton, L. (2014). Faculty Development of a Joint MSW Program Utilizing
Tuckman's Model of Stages of Group Development. Social Work with Groups,
37(2), 158-168. doi:10.1080/01609513.2013.828908
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120
Tubbs, S. L. (1978). A systems approach to small group interaction. New York: Random
House.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,
63(6), 384-399. doi:10.1037/h0022100
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited.
Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. doi:10.1177/105960117700200404
Wheelan, S. (2003). An initial exploration of the internal dynamics of leadership teams.
Consulting Psychology Journal, 55 (3), 179-188.
Wheelan, S. A., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group Development Across Time. Small
Group Research, 34(2), 223-245. doi:10.1177/1046496403251608
Wheelan, S. A., & Hochberger, J. M. (1996). Validation studies of the group development
questionnaire. Small group research, 27(1), 143-170.
Woodcock, M., (1979), Team development manual, Gower Publishing, London.
Zhen, J. (2017). Application of Tuckman's Model in the Community Folk Team Management
in Community Education. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Conference
on Social Science and Contemporary Humanity Development.
doi:10.2991/sschd-17.2017.34
Zoltan, R., & Vancea, R. (2016). Work group development models–the evolution from
simple group to effective team. Ecoforum Journal, 5(1).

110