Exploring Tuckman's Model of Group Development

716 Words2 Pages

Tuckman’s Model Revisited Summary Many everyday activities require people to collaborate with others, but there not the same type of group: school group, therapy group, business group, and many others. A study, Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited, written by Mary Ann C. Jensen shared the acknowledgment with Bruce W. Tuckman as coauthor. This article focuses on further study of Tuckman’s model through other literature with tested data. Tuckman’s studies “the task and interpersonal” connection between groups of different work environments associated to his model (Tuckman, Jensen 2010). His model did not originate from his own data; rather he used existing data to base his model on. This method had drawbacks that required his model …show more content…

Zurcher’s study did not try to “test any model of group development,” however; Zurcher’s results consisted of seven stages that could be altered to fit Tuckman’s four steps (Tuckman, Jensen 2010). Similar to Zurcher Smith’s observations reinforced Tuckman’s model and hypothesis. Other data that unintentionally supported Tuckman’s work held some problems, due to the addition of new members and the stage’s behavior were unclear. The group that consisted of six partners had four similar stages to “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and “performing,” which include the “initial experience, formation of the group, optimism and partial separation, and final stage” (Tuckman, Jensen 2010). Although, Tuckman lacked data to support his model and the model came from other people’s information he had a functional model that was supported with further …show more content…

A study by Lacoursiere done with nurses observed four stages, but it varied from Tuckman’s model in three points. The differences comprise of lack of conflict in the group, combined “norming” and “performing,” and added “termination” (Tuckman, Jensen 2010). Similar to the Lacoursiere study was Spitz and Sadock. Spitz and Sadock’s group classification consisted of three phases. While, stage one and two contain ideas similar to Tuckman’s “forming” and “norming” steps, “storming” did not apply to this group (Tuckman, Jensen 2010). The similarities between Lacoursiere and Spitz and Sadock involved the new stage of “termination” (Tuckman, Jensen 2010). Tuckman’s model did not include anything of the closure or separation of the added stage. Another important work reviewed 14 models and from this derived his own theories and model (Tuckman, Jensen 2010). Braaten composed his own model based on Tuckman’s with the exception of the additional stage. Other studies that differed from Tuckman’s model comprised their work with a specific group rather than try to vary the

Open Document