Theories of Team Development

Theories of Team Development

The development of teams is an ongoing process because the composition of the team may keep on changing. The new members may join and the old members may leave the team. The team members pass through several stages for the development of the team and there has been a lot of research to identify these stages. In this article, we discuss the common theories of team development.

Team is formed as a result of interactions and influence of members who strive for the achievement of common goal. After the formation the teams take time to develop and usually follow some easily recognizable stages, as the team-members transition from being a group of strangers to becoming a unified integrated team chasing a common goal. In this process, the team members try to understand others behavior, realize the appropriateness of the behavior and the roles of the team members. A team is not formed merely by declaring some individuals as a team. A lot of research has been done on group formation and development, and different theories of group development have been suggested. Given below is a list of commonly known theories on team/group development:

  • Bennis & Shepard, 1956;
  • Bion, 1961;
  • Gibb, 1964;
  • Schutz, 1958, 1982;
  • Tuckman, 1965;
  • Tuckman & Jensen, 1977;
  • Yalom, 1970;
  • Tuckman, 1977;
  • Kormanski & Mozenter, 1987;

Now we will discuss some popular theories on team development in detail:

Tuckman’s Five Stage Team Development Model:

Psychologist Bruce Tuckman first came up with the memorable phrase "forming, storming, norming, and performing" back in 1965. The “Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing” model of group development maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. This model has become the basis for subsequent models. He used it to describe the path to high-performance that most teams follow. Later, he added a fifth stage that he called "adjourning." Let us learn the five stages briefly:

Forming: This is the first stage of team development. In this stage the members try to explore and understand the behavior of the team members. They make their efforts in understanding the expectations of the team members. At this stage they are polite and try to find out how to fit into the team.

Storming: In the second stage, members start competing for status, leadership and control in the group. Individuals understand others behavior and assert their role in the group. As a result inter-personal conflict starts. Members try to resolve the issues related to the task and working relations. They also resolve the issues related to the role of the individual in the group.

Norming: The members start moving in a cohesive manner. They establish a balance among various conflicting forces. They develop group norms and consensus for the achievement of the group goal. At this stage, cooperative feelings develop among the team members.

Performing: In this stage, the team makes effort for the performance of task and accomplishment of objectives. The established pattern of relationships improves coordination and helps in resolving conflicts. Members trust each other and extend their full cooperation for the achievement of the group goal.

Adjourning: As you must be aware that the team is formed for some purpose. When this purpose is fulfilled, the team may be adjourned. Thus, the breaking up of the team is referred to adjournment.

Kormanski & Mozenter (1987) Stages of Team Development:

Kormanski & Mozenter (1987) integrated the various theories and suggested the following stages of team development. These stages are sequential (each stage is followed by the next one). Each stage has a task outcome and a relationships outcome. Kormanski and Mozenter have identified following stages of team development :

  1. Awareness
  2. Conflict
  3. Cooperation
  4. Productivity, and
  5. Separation

1. Awareness: At this stage individuals get to know each other. By knowing the goals of the team they commit themselves to the goals. The members get to know and accept to work together for a goal about which they have enough knowledge.

2. Conflict: At the first stage (awareness) the members know the team goals and accept to work together; but this is at the surface level. At the second stage they search and begin to ask questions. As a result several matters are clarified. They also fight with each and in this process of interaction resolve any hostilities they may have, resulting in the feeling of belonging to the group.

3. Cooperation: In the third stage the members own the team goals and get involved in those goals. Having resolved feelings, they also support each other.

4. Productivity: This is the stage of real achievement of the goals/outcomes, and the team members achieving these objectives feel proud of their achievement.

5. Separation: Having accomplished the goals or the outcomes, some task-specific teams may decide to get dissolved, or a time-bound time comes to a close. The excellent work done by the members is recognized, and the team members have a high sense of satisfaction of working with each other. This is the stage of closure of the team, or closure of one task on which the team was working.

The following table provides a summary of task outcomes and relationships outcomes at each stage as defined in the model:

A Model of Team Building

Stage

Theme

Task Outcome

Relationship Outcome

One

Awareness

Commitment

Acceptance

Two

Conflict

Clarification

Belonging

Three

Cooperation

Involvement

Support

Four

Productivity

Achievement

Pride

Five

Separation

Recognition

Satisfaction

Related Links

You May Also Like

  • Leadership Substitute Theory

    Leadership Substitute Theory

    Substitutes for leadership theory is based on understanding the context within which leadership occurs. Different situational factors can enhance, neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors like under certain circumstances, situational factors may substitute for leadership. These substitutes are of two types - substitutes and neutralizers. Substitutes take away from the leader's power and help group members increase their performance. Neutralizers only remove influence from the leader.

  • Ohio State Studies

    Ohio State Studies

    Early studies on leadership were done at Ohio State University using the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire to identify the leader's observable behaviors. Ohio State study on leadership found two behavioral characteristics of leadership - people-oriented (consideration) and task-oriented (initiating structure) leadership style.

  • The Great Man Theory

    The Great Man Theory

    The great man theory of leadership is a 19th-century idea that states a person is either a natural-born leader or not. Some people are born with the necessary leadership attributes that help them create a great impact on society, politics, or the military. The theory focuses on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great men.

  • Cognitive Resource Theory

    Cognitive Resource Theory

    The cognitive resource theory states the influence of the leader's resources on his or her reaction to stress. The cognitive resources of a leader are experience, intelligence, competence, and task-relevant knowledge. Stress is common in resource managing situations, and this cognitive theory emphasizes how intelligence and experience are each best under different stress situations. This theory is the reconceptualization of the Fiedler model.

  • Leadership Participation Inventory (LPI)

    Leadership Participation Inventory (LPI)

    Kouzes and Posner introduced the Leadership Participation Inventory model of Transformational leadership. This model is also known as Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Challenge Model. They identified five practices of exemplary leadership - Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enabling Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart.

  • The Five Bases of Power

    The Five Bases of Power

    In this study of power, Raven identified five bases of power as coercive, reward, legitimate, referent, and expert. The 5 Types of Power can help you decide when it is appropriate to use a particular type of power in important situations. Leadership involves authority and it is very important for leaders to understand what type of power they're using.

  • Characteristics of Leadership

    Characteristics of Leadership

    There are four characteristics of leadership that help us to understand the character of leadership as a concept. 1. Leadership is a process, 2. Leadership involves influence, 3. Leadership always occurs in a group context and 4. Leadership involves goal attainment. These are the four components that make up the character of the 'leadership' term and help us to define the leadership concept. All of these components of leadership have common characteristics.

  • Katz’s Three-Skill Approach

    Katz’s Three-Skill Approach

    Robert Katz identified three leadership skills called - technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills as the basic personal skills essential for leadership. Leaders must possess these three skills that assist them in optimizing a leader's performance. Technical skills are related to the field, human skills are related to communicating with people and conceptual skills related to setting the vision.

  • Contingency Theories in Action

    Contingency Theories in Action

    Contingency theory suggests matching the best leader to a specific situation based on situational factors and the leadership style. The practical application of theory can be done in various ways. The workplace example is to determine the best candidate for a given set of requirements using the LPC score. Applying the model to determine a leader's ability to adapt in the scenario of a new project etc..

  • Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP) Leader Theory

    Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP) Leader Theory

    Pygmalion theory of Leadership is a model of SFP at work involving supervisory expectancy based on the pygmalion effect. This effect is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP) in which raising leader's expectations regarding subordinate performance boosts the group's performance. Managers who are led to demand more from their team, lead the team to better performance. There is some evidence that the SFP effect does exists.

Explore Our Free Training Articles or
Sign Up to Start With Our eLearning Courses

Subscribe to Our Newsletter


© 2023 TechnoFunc, All Rights Reserved