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.

  • Continuum of leadership

    Continuum of leadership

    Continuum of leadership is a leadership theory based on the relationship between the level of freedom given to the team and the level of authority used by the manager. The chosen leadership style will depend on multiple factors, including the leader's personality.

  • Contingency Theories of Leadership

    Contingency Theories of Leadership

    Contingency theories of leadership focus on both the leader's persona as well as the situation/environment in which that leader operates. These theories consider the context of leadership which means whether or not the leadership style suits a particular situation and states that a leader can be effective in one circumstance and a failure in another one. A leader will be most effective when he applies the right leadership style to a given situation and environment around him. Contingent leaders are flexible and adaptable.

  • Normative Leadership Theory

    Normative Leadership Theory

    Normative leadership theories are built on moral principles and tell leaders how they ought to act. Victor Vroom formulated the normative model of leadership that specifically address leader behavior explicitly built on moral principles or norms. Normative leadership theories tell leaders how they should act to raise the moral performance inside the working group and manage their different responsibilities.

  • Path Goal Leadership Theory

    Path Goal Leadership Theory

    The Path-Goal theory defines the characteristics of followers and organizational context and the corresponding leadership style best suited to these factors. A leader should adapt to a behavior that is most relevant for a given employee and work environment mix to achieve a goal. The application of theory drives increased employees' motivation, empowerment, and satisfaction resulting in increased productivity.

  • Models of Communication

    Models of Communication

    In the field of communication studies, there are numerous models. No one model is suitable for all purposes and all levels of analysis. Some common models are known as Lasswell Model, George Gerbner Model, David Berlo Model, Shanon and Weaver Model, Osgoods Model, and Schramm Model. All these describe the four components of the communication process, namely, the source (communicator), the message, the channel, the receiver (audience).

  • Michigan Studies

    Michigan Studies

    Michigan Leadership Studies led to behavioral Leadership Theory as a result of a leadership study conducted at the University of Michigan. Michigan studies identified three important behaviors of leadership called task-oriented behavior, relationship-oriented behavior, and participative leadership. Two leadership styles associated with studies are employee orientation and production orientation.

  • Open Systems Model

    Open Systems Model

    The open systems model of leadership acknowledges the influence of the environment on organizations. An open system regularly exchanges feedback with its external environment. The environment also provides key resources that are necessary to sustain and lead to change and survival. Leadership in an open system should focus on influence, open communication, and patterns to control expanding the number of variables created by external dynamics.

  • Enviornment Approach

    Enviornment Approach

    According to Environmental theories of leadership, a leader needs to deal effectively with environmental complexities and lead in a certain style as a result of environmental responses. Environmental influenced leadership demand leaders to learn how to adjust environmental factors. Leaders also have the responsibility of creating the right kind of environment for their followers by focusing on environmental factors and pressures.

  • Vroom's Expectancy Theory

    Vroom's Expectancy Theory

    The Vroom-Yetton model is designed to optimize for the current situation the leadership style for best decision-making. Its a decision model formulated with contribution from Arthur Jago on how to make group decisions. The leader must gather information from the team prior to making the decision and involves more people in the decision process.

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

Subscribe to Our Newsletter


© 2023 TechnoFunc, All Rights Reserved