This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds] On: 21 December 2011, At: 04:40 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal for Specialists in Group Work

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usgw20

Group development: Extending tuckman's theory

Mary F. Maples
a a

College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno

Available online: 31 Jan 2008

To cite this article: Mary F. Maples (1988): Group development: Extending tuckman's theory, The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13:1, 17-23 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933928808411771

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Group Development: Extending Tuckmans Theory

Mary F. Maples
Graduate students in group workJind Tuckmans theory of the stages of group development too limiting. In this article the author adds a second level to clarify the stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 04:40 21 December 2011

The development of theory about the smallgroup process is both challenging and complex. It is challenging because there are so many types of groups with equally varied purposes. It is complex because groups are composed of human beings who, by their very nature, are complex. Over several decades, however, various experts have developed theories in their research on small groups. For example, Bruce Tuckmans (1965) theory offers a useful model for helping graduate students to understand group dynamics. Other theories seem to have had an impact on Tuckmans work, either as predecessors or successors. They include, but are not limited to, Schutzs (1958, 1966) interpersonal composition model; the role function model of Parsons and Bales (1955); and the individual-group maturation model of Gibb (1961). These theories are similar in some respects to the fundamental theory that Tuckman called the model of developmental sequence in small groups (Tuckman, 1965, 1967;Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). These other theories are applicable to classroom and laboratory training groups. Tuckman, however, seems to have developed an appropriate approach for graduate students in counseling in explaining the stages of small-group development. For this reaMary F . Maples is A professor of counselor edf ucation in the College o Education, University of Nevada, Reno.

son, I attempted to clarify Tuckmans five stages to increase graduate students understanding of this valuable theory. Furthermore, this clarification should be useful to counselor educators in their efforts to help graduate students understand group development.

RATIONALE
This article is a response to a suggestion made by Tuckman when writing about his model in 1965:
The value of the proposed model is that it represents a framework of generic temporal change , . . which should lead to the derivation of many specific hypotheses relating independent variables to the sequence of temporal change. Such explorations will undoubtedly lead to refinements and perhaps major modifications of the model. (1965, p. 398)

In conducting laboratory-training groups as a major component of graduate courses in group processes and dynamics and using Tuckmans model, with its oversimplification of his theory, I often heard statements like: It doesnt go deep enough; It leaves me wondering what else to expect; I wonder if this is really storming, or is it part of performing? These observations prompted further examination of Tuckmans stages, with the objective of refining his theory or
17

JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / MARCH 1988 / VOL. 13

discovering additional characteristics that might enhance understanding of these stages. The project described below began in 1981 and was completed in the summer of 1986.

THE PROJECT
Although this project, an attempt to clarify Tuckmans theory to graduate students in group dynamics, extended over 5 years, it was not intended either at the outset or at the conclusion to be a scientific experiment. The project used the tools of observation and written surveys to determine characteristics that would constitute an extension of Tuckmans stages. Repetition over the 5-year period, with eight separate classes, yielded similar results.

TUCKMANS THEORY OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT

In explaining his model of developmental sequence in small groups, Tuckman deplored the lack of strict experimental control or manipulation of independent variables in laboratory studies of group development (1965, p. 384). He did, however, credit two authors, Bales (1950) and Schutz, (1958; 1960) with making major theoretical statements (Tuckman, 1965, p. 384). Forsyth (1983) used Table 1 to identify the stages, processes, and characteristics of Tuckmans theory. It should be noted that in Tuckmans original article (1969, the fifth stage was not discussed. It would seem from Tuckmans own statements, however, that the stage of adjourning had emerged in his mind by the time he conducted his 1977 research. Furthermore, in explaining the model generally, Tuckman stated, Although the model was largely induced, it would seem to withstand the test of common sense as well as being consistent with developmental theory and findings in other areas (1965, p. 396). The emergence of the adjourning stage seems to have been part of that induction.

Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 04:40 21 December 2011

METHOD
From 1981 through 1986, I taught eight sections (approximately 230 students) of a course titled Counseling and Personnel Services (CAPS) 660-Group Processes. This is the introductory group-work course for graduate students in counselor education at the University of Nevada, Reno. This course is followed, usually in the next semester, by CAPS 761-Group Counseling. Both are required courses leading to the masters degree in guidance and counseling. The students in CAPS 660 are assigned to small groups that are facilitated by advanced graduate students, who are usually doctoral candidates taking CAPS 772-Group Practicum. I conducted an intensive search of the literature available on observational research and laboratory-training groups (Cook, 198 1 , Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Kidder, 1981; Reynolds, 1979) in an attempt to seek an effective method of conducting the project. I found that the work of Glaser and Strauss (1967), which suggested that the group speak for itself without a significant amount of structure on the part of the researcher, was important to consider in observing group behavior. The work of Glasser and Zunin (1979), which incorporated the eight principles of reality therapy into group work, helped the students to develop various terms to describe their feelings or reactions at different stages. In the context of this project, the laboratory-training group is defined as follows by Corey and Corey (1982): In

THE PROBLEM
As stated earlier, although many theories were introduced and studied in my graduate courses in group dynamics, Tuckmans theory has been examined and serves as a foundation for the laboratory aspects of these courses. Students tend to find, however, that his stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning are lacking in both descriptive depth and clear definition.
18

JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / MARCH 1988 / VOL. I3

Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 04:40 21 December 2011

TABLE 1 Five Stages of Group Development

Major processes Characteristics

Stage

0
Dissatisfaction with others, competition among members, disagreement over procedures, conflict Development of group structure, increased cohesiveness and harmony, and establishment of roles and relationships Focus on achievement, high task orientation, and emphasis on performance and productivity Termination of duties, reduction of dependency, and task completion

Forming Development of attraction bonds, exchange of information, and orientation toward others and the situation

Tenative interactions, polite discourse, concern over ambiguity, and silences Criticism of ideas, interruption of speakers, poor attendance, and hostility Agreement on rules, consensus-seeking, increased supportiveness, and we-feeling Decision making, problem solving, increased cooperation, and decreased emotionality Regret, increased emotionality, and disintegration

Storming

Norming

Performing

L .

Adjourning

(Sources: Forsyth, 1983; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977)

laboratory groups, the emphasis is on education through experience in an environment in which experimentation can occur, data can be analyzed, new ideas are encouraged, and decisions can be made or problems solved (p. 4). Tuckman (1965) described the laboratory task-setting as a group brought together for the purpose of studying group phenomena (p. 395). After explaining Tuckmans stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning to students and having various, related discussions with them and colleagues, I generated an extensive list of terms (more than 200 descriptors). The list was provided to students in each laboratory group. (There were usually three to four groups, each with six to seven students. We usually held 13 to 14 meetings, each lasting 1% hours.) Every student kept a log of the group meetings. For each journal entry, the students were to select f o the list and record rm whatever qualities or characteristicsthey believed were exhibited or displayed during that meeting in conjunction with one of Tuckmans stages that the group was experiencing. The students were also instructed to add any characteristics that might not have been provided in the list. Flexibility was valuable to the project. At the concluding meeting of the laboratory component, each small group was to attempt a consensus regarding the 5 to 10 characteristics that most closely fit each stage. In most cases, such a consensus was achieved. In the few instances in which the goal was not attained, however, students were encouraged to provide their individual conclusions.

Categories
These categories were arrived at by the consensus of more than 200 students of group dynamics. They also provided the definitions for each of the substages. An attempt to further clarify or edit these would dilute the meanings. Therefore, the following student definitions are left intact.
Stage 1: Forming-1 to 3 Meetings. Courtesy-The mature, polite attention accorded strangers upon meeting for the first time. Confusion-Having been instructed that the task is the process, group members must operate with little or no direction. Caution-Students have made a personal investment in the masters degree program and do not wish to say anything out of line. Commonality-As students begin to relax with one another, bonds of similarity begin to emerge.

Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 04:40 21 December 2011

Stage 2: Storming-2 to 3 meetings.

RESULTS
Figure 1 identifies the characteristics that appeared most often in students lists of the substages of Tuckmans stages. Although alliteration was not among the expectations at the beginning of the project, it proved to be a helpful by-product in that it aided the students in focusing more clearly on the model.
20

Concern-That no member of the group does harm to another or that each member may not be participating equally with other members. Conflict-As bonds of similarity occur, so do areas of dissimilarity arise. Confrontation-Taught as an act of grace (Blaker, Bates, dz Johnson, 1982), members carefully learn and practice this. Criticism-This can be of intrapersonal or interpersonal nature, often through perceived lack of progress of the group by individual members or the perception by one member of game playing by another.
Stage 3: Norming-1 to 2 meetings.

Cooperation-Members begin to discuss the value of the laboratory experience from a personal perspective and begin to agree, directly or indirectly, on rules.

JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK I MARCH 1988 / VOL. 13

COURTESY CONFUSION CAUTION COMMONALITY

COMPROMISE CO MMUNlCATlON CONSENSUS CLOSURE

FORM
ADJOURN

CONCERN CONFLICT STORM

CRITICISM

Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 04:40 21 December 2011

NORM

CHALLENGE CREATIVITY CONSCIOUSNESS CONSIDERATION

COOPERATION COLLABORATION COHESION COYY ITYE N f

FIGURE 1 Tuckmans Theory Extended

Collaboration-If rules are needed, time limits set, or new approaches to discussion are needed, agreement is sought on the process. Cohesion-Members seem to believe that they have reached entitativity, described by Campbell (1958) to mean togetherness or oneness, that is, they are an entity unto themselves. Commitment-As a unit, they permit themselves to go ahead, assuming that each member believes in the instructors direction that the process is the task.
Stage 4 : Performing--5 to 6 meetings. Challenge-In order to gain from the

Consciousness-With increased openness and trust, members are helped to recognize their roles and functions more clearly. Consideration-The concern of Stage 2 now becomes more personal, and each member tends to have a heightened awareness of both self and other mem bers .
Stage -5: Adjourning-I to 2 meetings. Compromise-Members recognizethat there may be some unresolved issues or concerns, and one or more students operate from this position by striving to achieve a sense of balance. Communication-A recognition that members have achieved an interaction level unexpected at the beginning of the laboratory group experience. Consensus-If compromise is not dealt with, or is unnecessary, issues on which
21

experience, each member feels an increased sense of responsibility for the ultimate success of the group. Creativity-New and yet untried (in the group) methods of communicating begin to occur.

JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / MARCH 1988 / VOL. 13

the group agrees provide some direction. Closure-Often a reluctant action; groups ordinarily leave their termination open-ended, because the members usually continue together in the graduate program.

DISCUSSION
This project extended over a 5-year period. Observation, discussion, and written surveys were the tools used. The study provided a valuable contribution to the teaching of group dynamics, in that I now teach Tuckmans theory of 5 stages to include 20 substages. In some classes, this new process has reduced and eliminated the question related to confusion about the simplicity of Tuckmans stages. In addition to the journals students used to record their views of the components as they were experiencing them, each student recorded his or her personal involvement in the group on a chart now listing the 20 components. Because of this chart, some students have observed: I seem to be too courteous all the time or I never realized how much I confront others or Why do I always need closure? As with most theories, this development of substages for Tuckmans stages is not in final form. It is, as indicated by Schutz (1958), overlapping and intertwining. When a group seems to be bogged down in one stage for a longer number of meetings than usual, the facilitator (ordinarily a doctoral graduate assistant) usually serves as a guide. Because there is a different facilitator with each group, the approach will be different and certainly not standardized, as might occur with a systematic plan for incorporating the substages.

Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 04:40 21 December 2011

for graduate students in counseling and college student development to examine as they study group dynamics in the classroom and in the laboratory-training experience. The model, as extended, will be used to provide a foundation for graduate students to build on while they develop their own theories or systems of group work. Smallgroup development and interaction are, indeed, simultaneously challenging and complex. Perhaps one of the most unexpected, but valuable results of this study was the reinforcing realization that, although people and their individual characteristics are vastly different in each laboratory-group setting, the stages through which the students progress, whether simple (Tuckmans) or more complex (the additional 20 components), remain fairly constant. In a laboratory-training group, at least, graduate students in counselor education reported quite similar results over a 5-year period.

REFERENCES
Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Blaker, K . , Bates, M., & Johnson, C. (1982). Group leadership: A manual for group leaders (2nd ed.). Denver: Love Publishing. Campbell, D. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25. Cook, S. (1981). Ethical implications. In L. Kidder (Ed.), Research methods in social relations (4th ed.) (pp. 246-249). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Corey, G . , & Corey, M. (1982). Groups: Process and practice. Monterey, CA: BrookslCole. Forsyth, D. (1983). An introduction to group dynamics. Monterey, CA: BrooksKole. Gibb, J . (1961). Defensive communications. Journal of Communication, I I , 14 1- 148. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Thediscovery of grounded theory: Strategies f o r qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Glasser, W., & Zunin, L. (1979). Reality therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current Psychotherapies (pp. 329-350). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

CONCLUSION
I attempted this project for two reasons: (a) to extend Tuckmans (1965) developmental sequence in small groups beyond the relatively simple five stages to clarify those stages and (b) to provide a theoretical orientation
22

JOURNAL FOR SPECIALlSTS IN GROUP WORK / MARCH 1988 I VOL. 13

Kidder, L. (1981). Research methods in social relations (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. (1955). Family socialization and imeraction process. New York: Free Press. Reynolds, P. (1979). Ethical dilemmas and social science research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmuck, R., & Schmuck, P. (1983). Groupprocesses in the classroom. Dubuque, IA: (William C.) Brown. Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A three dimensional theory o interpersonal behavior. New York: f Rinehart.

Schutz, W. ( 1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books. Tuckman, B. ( 1 965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin. 6.3, 384399. Tuckman, B. (1967). Group composition and group performance of structured and unstructured f tasks. Journal o Experimental Social Psyc h o l o ~3 , 25-40. , Tuckman, B . , & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2 , 4 19-427.

Downloaded by [University of Leeds] at 04:40 21 December 2011

JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / MARCH 1988 / VOL.13

23