392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx

39
2Group Development
Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Discuss and evaluate Tuckman’s sequential stage theory.
• Contrast sequential stage theory with Gersick’s punctuated
equilibrium theory.
• Assess the practical implications of the team evaluation and
maturation model.
• Identify critical elements in setting the stage for effective
teamwork.
• Correlate commitment, attachment, and trust with shared
leadership, meaningful and measurable perfor-
mance goals, and mutual accountability.
• Describe five major sources of objections to group work and
teamwork, as well as strategies for overcoming
them.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 39 8/19/16 9:36 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.

Introduction
Pretest
1. Performing is the final stage in a group’s development. T/F
2. Teams should be as large as possible to maximize skill
potential. T/F
3. Teams require support from organizational systems in order
to function effectively. T/F
4. Team building is complete once members have been selected
and resources have been
acquired. T/F
5. Lack of positive group or team experience can be a major
obstacle to team
development. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
As senior manager at a large marketing company, Tai has
successfully overseen the
development of several small groups into high-functioning
teams. She was recently asked
to form a new group that will create a marketing campaign for a
struggling product
line. Although past experience tells Tai that this will likely call
for a team, she begins the
team-building process by first confirming that a team best suits
the project’s complexity.
Once she does so, Tai determines that the structural parameters
surrounding the team’s

project, and the essential nature of what it is expected to do,
call for a design team in
which members with problem-solving experience and skills are
particularly desirable. Tai
meets with potential team leaders, both in-house and out-house,
to discuss the resources
they will need. They conclude that understanding and
addressing the issues surrounding
the product’s current market struggles will require the team to
coordinate and exchange
information with a knowledgeable individual or group within
the client organization.
They discuss potential team leader and member combinations
that can skillfully accom-
plish this.
The challenge is to keep the team small but represent enough
KSA combinations so as to
support an effective solution. Tai likes to keep teams as small
as possible because she’s
found that they work more quickly. Furthermore, her company
is busy—wasting human
resources is not an option. After a lively discussion on how
various members might work
together and complement each other’s KSAs, Tai selects a team
leader—Maya—along
with the other members. The discussion also helps clarify the
major issues that need to be
addressed to meet the team’s objective and which activities will
support this. The process
is helpful for Maya because she needs to explain the project to
her new team.
Although Tai will continue to check in on Maya and the team’s
progress, she knows her
role in planning the team is, for the most part, over. Maya will

take over ongoing resource
planning and management and continue the process of team
building. Tai knows that
both Maya and her team members are experienced in this
process and have worked
together in many combinations before. In fact, some of the most
difficult work of develop-
ing the team is already done—the team has a sturdy foundation
of commitment, attach-
ment, and trust thanks to past work experiences, and their
socioemotional interdepen-
dencies are already strong. The team members trust Maya’s
leadership and know the
teamwork process well—she won’t be alone in developing her
team.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 40 8/19/16 9:36 AM
How Do Groups Form?
In Chapter 1 we explored the fundamental qualities of groups
and teams, the reasons
we form work groups and teams, and the practical differences
between them. In Chap-
ter 2, we examine group development and the concepts that
support effective team
building by addressing another set of fundamental questions:
How do groups form?
How do they develop over time? How can we build an effective
team? And, why do
some people avoid groups and teams?

Group development theorists have struggled to answer these
questions ever since
group dynamics emerged as a prominent field of study. We will
seek to gain some
understanding of these questions by exploring major theories of
group development,
methods for building effective groups and teams, and common
obstacles to group
development.
2.1 How Do Groups Form?
We have looked at different types of groups and explored how
their members can have varying
degrees of relatedness, cohesiveness, and interdependence. We
know that informal and for-
mal groups have very different developmental contexts. Despite
these differences, all groups
have some significant elements in common. Groups are
composed of people, and people relate
and interact in specific ways. Group development theories seek
to identify and describe recur-
ring patterns of structural change and interactions throughout a
group’s existence. Although
the basic concepts may be loosely applied to any group, most
developmental theories are cre-
ated in reference to task groups and outline the group’s
formation and progression through
performance, goal attainment, and dissolution. Recall from
Chapter 1 that task groups include
most of the informal and formal groups found in the workplace,
such as social clubs, interest
groups, lunch buddies, boards, committees, work groups, and
teams.
Task groups feature two synergistic elements that evolve over

time (Seers & Woodruff, 1997):
1. The interpersonal dynamics between members as they
develop into a cohesive
group or team
2. The operational dynamics that describe the group’s
progression toward its perfor-
mance goals
Group development theories are numerous and varied. Some
theorists choose to focus on the
progression of interpersonal dynamics (Tuckman, 1965;
Tuckman & Jensen, 1977); others
on the operational dynamics (Gersick, 1988); and a growing
number are coming to view the
process as an integrated whole (Benefield & Utley, 2007;
Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993).
The three theories presented in the following sections were
selected because they represent
each of these perspectives and because they are relevant to
understanding and working in
organizational groups and teams. The first of these, Tuckman’s
sequential stage theory, is
the most well known and represents a large body of accepted
theories that outline group
development as occurring in sequential stages. The second,
Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium
theory, offers an alternate view of the developmental process as
one that occurs in dramatic
leaps at predictable intervals within the performance timeline.
Finally, the team evaluation
and maturation model integrates Tuckman’s and Gersick’s
theories into a new and more com-
prehensive whole. We will examine each of these theories in
turn, beginning with the oldest

and most influential.
Section 2.1
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 41 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?
Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group
development follows a sequen-
tial process in which group members enact a series of five
developmental stages, known as
forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning
(Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen
1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a
period of conflict while
adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group
norms, proceed to perfor-
mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group.
Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s
five stages of development and describes them by their
outcome, associated activities, and
primary interpersonal dynamic.
Mapping the Developmental Processes
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of
interpersonal dynamics
between group members. The five-stage model represents a
simplified outline of the develop-
mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s

existence. By examining the essential
nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion
as the overarching metapro-
cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the
activities within the stages of
forming, norming, storming, and performing.
When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs
over a series of developmen-
tal processes encompassing member identification and the
emergence of group structure. In
relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:
• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the
forming stage, individ-
uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct
group.
• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification.
Represented by the storming
stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes,
status balancing, and role
adjustments also occur.
• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage,
members acknowledge
that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common
good and develops
procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.
• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing
stage, members engage in
cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal
attainment.
When new members join an existing group, they follow a

slightly different identification and
integration process, and group cohesion begins with
socialization. Broadly defined, social-
ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate
the attitudes, behaviors, and
knowledge required to successfully participate as a member
(Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal-
vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely
malleable and open to guidance; in
effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to
norming. However, as they emerge
from this initial period of observation and assimilation and
become more confident in their
ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their
identity and role within the
group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement
back into storming, followed by a
relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The
group as a whole can also expe-
rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift
roles (such as becoming team
Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development
Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic
Forming Individuals come
together and acknowl-
edge membership in a
distinct group.
Task-orienting behav-
iors: Identification of
the group’s objective,
structural parameters,
primary task type, and

method of interaction.
Uncertainty: Members
try to understand the
“ground rules” of belong-
ing to the group, how to
approach group process
and performance, and
what they need to do to
achieve group goals.
Storming Members shift from I
to we thinking; script
clashes, status balanc-
ing, and role adjustment
occur.
Boundary testing and
redefinition: There is con-
flict between members,
role emergence, and task
designation.
Resistance: Members
chafe against new
constraints associated
with the group context,
assigned roles, script dif-
ferences, and perceived
status within the group.
Norming Members acknowledge
that the group works
toward a coordinated
objective or common
good. They develop pro-

cedural and behavioral
norms that support this
outcome.
Script unification: Assimi-
lation and emergence of
group norms.
Task and socioemo-
tional interdependence
increase.
Cooperation: Members
accept the group and seek
acceptance via observa-
tion and open exchange
of information, feedback,
and norms.
Performing Members achieve positive
interdependence and
focus energies toward
goal accomplishment.
Participation in task-
oriented processes and
activities: Behaviors and
activities geared toward
productivity and goal
attainment.
Positive interdepen-
dence: Members engage
in cooperative action,
group energy is chan-
neled toward task work,

and the group becomes
a functional instrument
for accomplishing its
objective.
Adjourning Members physically and
emotionally disengage
from the group as mem-
bership ends.
Physical and emotional
closure: Task activi-
ties and behaviors are
terminated. Members
prepare to resume pre-
group duties and roles
and disengage from their
roles and relationships
within the group. Mem-
bers are recognized for
their participation and
achievement and achieve
emotional closure.
Evaluation and reflec-
tion: Members assess
personal development
within the group, group
process, and performance
outcome.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 42 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group
development follows a sequen-
tial process in which group members enact a series of five
developmental stages, known as
forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning
(Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen
1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a
period of conflict while
adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group
norms, proceed to perfor-
mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group.
Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s
five stages of development and describes them by their
outcome, associated activities, and
primary interpersonal dynamic.
Mapping the Developmental Processes
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of
interpersonal dynamics
between group members. The five-stage model represents a
simplified outline of the develop-
mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s
existence. By examining the essential
nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion
as the overarching metapro-
cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the
activities within the stages of
forming, norming, storming, and performing.
When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs

over a series of developmen-
tal processes encompassing member identification and the
emergence of group structure. In
relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:
• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the
forming stage, individ-
uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct
group.
• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification.
Represented by the storming
stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes,
status balancing, and role
adjustments also occur.
• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage,
members acknowledge
that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common
good and develops
procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.
• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing
stage, members engage in
cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal
attainment.
When new members join an existing group, they follow a
slightly different identification and
integration process, and group cohesion begins with
socialization. Broadly defined, social-
ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate
the attitudes, behaviors, and
knowledge required to successfully participate as a member
(Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal-
vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely

malleable and open to guidance; in
effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to
norming. However, as they emerge
from this initial period of observation and assimilation and
become more confident in their
ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their
identity and role within the
group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement
back into storming, followed by a
relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The
group as a whole can also expe-
rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift
roles (such as becoming team
Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development
Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic
Forming Individuals come
together and acknowl-
edge membership in a
distinct group.
Task-orienting behav-
iors: Identification of
the group’s objective,
structural parameters,
primary task type, and
method of interaction.
Uncertainty: Members
try to understand the
“ground rules” of belong-
ing to the group, how to
approach group process
and performance, and

what they need to do to
achieve group goals.
Storming Members shift from I
to we thinking; script
clashes, status balanc-
ing, and role adjustment
occur.
Boundary testing and
redefinition: There is con-
flict between members,
role emergence, and task
designation.
Resistance: Members
chafe against new
constraints associated
with the group context,
assigned roles, script dif-
ferences, and perceived
status within the group.
Norming Members acknowledge
that the group works
toward a coordinated
objective or common
good. They develop pro-
cedural and behavioral
norms that support this
outcome.
Script unification: Assimi-
lation and emergence of
group norms.

Task and socioemo-
tional interdependence
increase.
Cooperation: Members
accept the group and seek
acceptance via observa-
tion and open exchange
of information, feedback,
and norms.
Performing Members achieve positive
interdependence and
focus energies toward
goal accomplishment.
Participation in task-
oriented processes and
activities: Behaviors and
activities geared toward
productivity and goal
attainment.
Positive interdepen-
dence: Members engage
in cooperative action,
group energy is chan-
neled toward task work,
and the group becomes
a functional instrument
for accomplishing its
objective.
Adjourning Members physically and
emotionally disengage
from the group as mem-

bership ends.
Physical and emotional
closure: Task activi-
ties and behaviors are
terminated. Members
prepare to resume pre-
group duties and roles
and disengage from their
roles and relationships
within the group. Mem-
bers are recognized for
achievement and achieve
emotional closure.
Evaluation and reflec-
tion: Members assess
personal development
within the group, group
process, and performance
outcome.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 43 8/19/16 9:36 AM
leader or group facilitator) and everyone must resocialize to the
new conditions (Moreland &
Levine, 2002).

Examining Tuckman’s Fifth Stage
Tuckman’s theory suggests that a group will dissipate after
accomplishing its primary task or
objective; however, many collective goals are only temporarily
realized. Or, after achieving its
initial goals, a group may face new goals. A professional
baseball team’s ultimate goal is to win
the World Series, and this goal carries over from season to
season, regardless of whether they
win or lose in any given year. Winning simply confirms the
team’s existence. Although chronic
losses can affect the team’s value and popularity, failure is
more likely to cause changes in
membership or leadership (such as changes in players or
coaches) than total dissolution of
the group. Likewise, an executive team’s primary goal is to
enhance the productivity and via-
bility of the organization as a whole. Measurable by the
company’s quarterly and yearly bot-
tom line, this goal simply “reboots” as the team turns its focus
to supporting and enhancing
that growth over the next fiscal year.
Groups like these may never adjourn. A sports team may change
members, leadership, and
even affiliation without losing its identity as a team. Similarly,
top management, executive
teams, and advisory boards continue to exist as long as their
organization remains intact.
Many manufacturing work groups and teams may for all intents
and purposes do the same.
Members of groups that do not adjourn may instead face a
continuing sequence of group
socialization and resocialization as new members join and
assimilate and established mem-

bers adjust to changing personalities, roles, expectations, and
norms (Moreland & Levine,
1989; 2002).
Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral
All groups have a starting point. Some, especially those in the
workplace, never end. Compa-
nies continually attract new hires, train them, help them fit in,
and encourage them to grow
with the organization. Socializing new group members can be
difficult for both new and exist-
ing members. As they work with new hires, existing employees
may feel like they are reliving
the stages of group development as they adjust to newcomers’
behaviors and beliefs and help
them assimilate into the group, workplace environment, and
organizational culture.
It can also be a struggle for new members to find their place in
a group that already has estab-
lished roles and norms. Newcomers have their own ideas on
how things should be done, based
on their previous experiences. They may hold attitudes or
expectations formed by their expe-
riences in other groups or conversely have no prior group
experience and need to come to
terms with their new role and identity. Existing members may
forget that newcomers need
time to assimilate to group norms and procedures and may thus
view the socialization process
as an unnecessary or annoying setback in their formerly smooth-
running operation.
In ongoing groups in which membership fluctuates over time,
each new member experiences
a miniature spiral of forming, storming, norming, performing,

and possibly adjourning. Tuck-
man’s stages may seem to never stop. This is referred to as the
Tuckman spiral. The average
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 44 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Practical Implications of Tuckman’s Theory
Tuckman’s theory tends to view groups as composed of
strangers coming together for a sin-
gular purpose and dissolving after that objective is
accomplished. Tuckman developed his
theory based on a comprehensive synthesis of his own and 50
other empirical studies on
group development, during a time when study groups tended to
be either artificially com-
posed or short term, chosen specifically so that they could be
observed from beginning to
end. While an organization that is establishing new groups and
teams may do so from scratch,
employees more typically join preexisting groups or form new
groups in which some or all of
the members have worked together before. In these situations,
familiarity with other mem-
bers and preexisting organizational frameworks for group
hierarchy, procedure, and roles
can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming,
and norming phases. This
does not mean that they skip these phases entirely, however.

When we enter a group, we bring with us our own personal
scripts, or procedural and nor-
mative templates for behavior and interaction within groups.
Based on our past experiences
and current expectations, scripts represent our view of how we
and others should act in a
given situation (Dennis, Garfield, & Reinicke, 2003). Members
with similar or shared scripts
tend to progress easily through the initial developmental
processes and move quickly into
the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985).
Within Tuckman’s model, script
unification—the development or assimilation of shared scripts—
occurs during the norm-
ing phase. This is essentially what happens during the initial
phase of socialization as well;
however, once a new member becomes familiar with the group’s
existing scripts, the person
may compare them unfavorably to previously held scripts and
attempt to insert these into the
current group. This results in a renewed cycle of storming and
norming. Although the storm-
ing process can be eased in formal groups by preset
organizational structure and guidelines,
members may still chafe at unsatisfying or ill-fitting roles, and
status balancing will occur as
members establish informal hierarchies based on personal status
within the group. While the
time from the start of socialization to full productivity of
external new hires can range from 8
to 20 weeks for clerical positions and up to 26 weeks for
executives (Williams, 2003). During
this time, organizational group and team members must be
prepared to support joining and
adjourning members and the group’s evolving developmental

needs.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Describe a time that you joined an existing group or were
present in a group that took in
new members. Using your knowledge of Tuckman’s stages and
theory, describe some of
the socialization dynamics that occurred.
2. Did the group experience any of Tuckman’s stages with the
incoming members? If so,
which ones?
3. How did existing members treat the new members? In what
ways did they address the
competing needs for socialization and productivity?
4. Looking back on that situation with the knowledge you have
now, what would you
change if you could? What would you suggest group members in
a similar situation do
to help their group progress more effectively toward productive
performance?
Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral (continued)
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 45 8/19/16 9:36 AM

process areas represented by Tuckman’s sequential stages are
all present within the social-
ization process, they do not follow the rigid patterning
envisioned in Tuckman’s theory.
Tuckman’s work thus has its limitations, but it remains a
popular and useful developmental
theory. Our modeling of the stages provides practical
descriptors of the outcomes, activities,
and dynamics inherent in the cohesion process and when group
membership adjourns. Our
exploration of these and related concepts also offer some useful
takeaways:
• Incoming members bring procedural and normative scripts
based on past experi-
ences and current expectations (Dennis et al., 2003).
• Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily
through the initial
developmental processes and move quickly into the performing
phase (Bettenhau-
sen & Murnighan, 1985).
• There will always be some degree of storming and norming as
members work to
generate or assimilate shared scripts.
• Storming is essentially a competition of personal status and
scripts; when status
balancing is complete, the group moves toward script
unification, and the norming
process begins.
• New members joining established groups could be initially set
back if their personal

scripts are misaligned with the established shared script.
• Established members could resent the apparent process and
performance loss that
results from incorporating new group members.
• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy,
procedure, and roles can
help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and
norming phases by
speeding the evolution of shared scripts.
• Though not all groups dissolve after performance, adjourning
remains a vital pro-
cess, as even permanent groups lose established members and
welcome new ones.
• The process of group socialization and resocialization can be
continuous if the group
outlasts its original membership.
What does this mean for group members and managers?
Developing group cohesion is the
core purpose behind the forming, storming, and norming stages,
and script unification is their
major outcome. Shared scripts become the primary tools by
which group members effectively
coordinate their performance toward a common purpose or goal.
Support for group cohesion
and script unification can include the following:
• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy,
procedure, and roles
• Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive conflict,
knowledge sharing, and

member feedback
• Encouragement of new and established members to view
socialization and resocial-
ization as an important part of the performance process and as
an opportunity to
reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group
with new KSAs
• Acknowledgment of the importance of adjourning activities
whether the entire
group is dissolving or individual members are moving on
The labels and concepts in Tuckman’s theory are practical and
easy to remember, making
it perhaps the most popular and widely taught group
developmental theory to date. How-
ever, not everyone subscribes to the idea of steady progression
over time. Focusing on task-
oriented development, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory
suggests that group devel-
opment occurs as a sort of growth spurt, a dramatic evolution
tied to a specific time in the
group’s performance schedule.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 46 8/19/16 9:36 AM
First
Meeting
Objective

Completion
Phase One
Crisis and
Transition
Midpoint Phase Two
Performance Timeline
Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory
Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that groups
consistently experience
two major phases in which working methods, interaction styles,
and project direction remain
relatively stable. These are separated by a crisis and transition
at precisely the midpoint of
the group’s official performance deadline (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory
Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory assigns critical value
to key interactions at the group’s first
meeting and midpoint transition.
Source: Based on Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.C. (2006). Project
management (3rd ed., p. 346). New York: McGraw-Hill.
First
Meeting
Objective
Completion

Phase One
Crisis and
Transition
Midpoint Phase Two
Performance Timeline
Phase one takes place during the first half of the performance
timeline. Rather than experienc-
ing the open-ended script comparison, testing, and unification
suggested in the initial stages
of most sequential theories, Gersick found that the group’s
approach at their first meeting
sets the script for group interaction and work through the
timeline’s midpoint. Phase one
work is not characterized by any particular process or even
specific productive value; some
groups work steadily toward a goal and on tasks determined in
the first meeting, while others
spend the entire first phase in an indecisive haze.
Midpoint transition occurs at the timeline’s midpoint. At this
point, Gersick observed that
groups consistently suffer a brief crisis in which members
recognize time constraints and feel
the urgency of approaching deadlines. During the midpoint
transition, group members evalu-
ate work completion and direction, reconnect with outside
authorities or influences, reformu-
late their shared scripts, and often abandon old patterns in favor
of radical new perspectives.
Phase two occurs during the second half of the performance

timeline. In this phase, groups
undergo a period of productivity reminiscent of Tuckman’s
performing stage, as they
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 47 8/19/16 9:37 AM
implement the decisions made at the midpoint transition. The
radical shifts in perspectives
or performance agenda at transition may result in a shuffling of
roles or a universal change
of group interaction. As shown in Figure 2.1, phase two
culminates in completing the perfor-
mance objective.
Critical Analysis of Punctuated Equilibrium
Whereas Tuckman’s theory represents group development as a
graduated, linear process,
Gersick’s theory assigns critical value to key interactions at two
concrete points in the group’s
timeline: first meeting and midpoint transition. Gersick
observed that by the end of the group’s
first meeting, members have naturally formed complete scripts
for phase one interactions
and group work. Rather than adopting a lengthy process of
script exploration, testing, and
unification, Gersick’s theory suggests that members quickly
throw together a unique tempo-
rary script that depends on unpredictable combinations of
existing individual and organiza-

tional scripts, situational conditions, and member dynamics. For
example, Gersick observed
that if one member tended to dominate and direct the discussion
during the initial meeting,
this pattern would continue throughout phase one interactions—
although the dominating
member was not always the same individual (Gersick, 1988).
Unlike the sequential models,
there is no proposed predictability for what member interactions
might entail during the
first meeting or the ensuing work phase. Some groups may
begin by mapping out the overall
work plan, spend the entire initial phase simply clarifying what
they are trying to achieve,
or jump right into task planning and assignation. Others may
experience a period similar to
storming in which they address perceived conflicts with project
scripts, member roles, or task
parameters.
The midpoint transition is characterized by a sudden spike in
concern for project deadlines, a
use-it-or-lose-it practicality with respect to work completed
thus far, and renewed awareness
and acceptance of external influences, authority figures, and
aid. At this point, the temporary
script the group initially adopted is confirmed or adapted and
made permanent or discarded
for a new version. According to Gersick’s model, regardless of
performance setting, project
type, or speed with which members move from planning to
implementation, groups consis-
tently experience a crisis at the midlife transition point and
thereafter follow modified tactics
or project direction. Subsequent studies have indicated that
while groups consistently experi-

ence a performance pause and reevaluation at the temporal
midpoint, radical revision is not
a given. This suggests that the midpoint transition represents an
opportunity for change but
does not guarantee one (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002;
Okhuysen & Waller, 2002).
Further testing of Gersick’s theory (Dennis et al., 2003; Seers &
Woodruff, 1997) suggests
that groups follow the punctuated equilibrium model when the
rapid development of shared
scripts is:
• facilitated (for example, in groups in which members have
worked together before
or that formed using preexisting organizational hierarchies,
procedures, and
norms); and
• required (for example, when groups are under a rigid and
urgent timeline that forces
immediate task orientation and action).
Groups in which members were neither under extreme
scheduling and time demands nor
aided by preexisting or previously shared scripts follow
developmental patterns more akin to
Tuckman’s stages (Dennis et al., 2003).
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 48 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Practical Implications of Gersick’s Theory
Gersick’s observations offer significant practical value in
understanding key points in a
group’s performance. Using the two critical interaction points in
Gersick’s timeline as guide-
posts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of
behavior, interaction dynam-
ics, and performance input.
1. The first meeting creates a template for phase one
interactions. Group members
and leaders should be prepared to set the tone for phase one
interactions at the
first meeting and to work on foundational tasks and issues that
will foster a strong
midpoint transition. This includes clarifying performance goals,
facilitating effec-
tive communication and conflict resolution among members,
and settling issues of
hierarchy and role differentiation within the group.
2. The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change.
Gersick’s (1988)
research suggests that the midpoint transition can be utilized as
a specific and pre-
dictable point in project performance when group members are
most open to exter-
nal influence and intervention. For this reason, she suggests that
the midpoint tran-
sition presents external leaders with a unique opportunity to
influence changes in
project direction or performance agenda and should be carefully
considered, as once
passed, the opportunity will not present itself again.

The main weakness in any practical application of the
punctuated equilibrium model is the
lack of clarity regarding what groups actually do during the two
phases. Gersick’s focus on
operational dynamics does not encompass the attention to detail
typically found in sequential
models. Tuckman’s sequential stage theory may not be a one-
size-fits-all template, but the
model remains popular in both education and management
circles mainly because the stages
provide a useful platform of practical knowledge about the
member activities and dynamics
that occur over the course of a group’s existence. Since Gersick
and Tuckman each address
an area the other leaves relatively untouched, the two theories
are not incompatible. In fact,
some contemporary schools of thought suggest that Gersick and
Tuckman work best when
we put them together.
Team Evaluation and Maturation Model
The diverse and subjective nature of group interactions has long
been an obstacle for
researchers trying to uncover some scientific order and practical
guidance for the group
development process. Mid- to late-20th-century studies fixated
on the sequential model,
while Gersick’s 1988 model addressed the issue from a new
perspective without truly con-
tradicting or offering a holistically useful replacement of the
older models. More recently,
theorists have proposed a new vision in which Tuckman and
Gersick’s theories combine to
create a symbiotic and practical whole. Morgan, Salas, and
Glickman’s (1993) team evaluation

and maturation model is a notable example of the current trend
in group development theory.
In an effort to develop a more holistic understanding of team
development, Morgan, Salas,
and Glickman developed a model that integrated Tuckman and
Gersick’s research and incor-
porated minor concepts from others (Davis, Gaddy, & Turney,
1985; McGrath, 1991; Bowers,
Morgan, & Salas, 1991). Using this new model, Morgan, Salas,
and Glickman undertook a com-
prehensive investigation into the development of Navy
Command Information Center tactical
decision-making teams during operational training. The results,
published in Analysis of Team
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 49 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Convergence
Differentiation
Task
Work
Activities
Team
Work
Activities

TEAM Model Developmental Processes and Dynamics
PRE-FORMING
FIRST MEETING
PHASE ONE
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING I
MIDPOINT
TRANSITION
PHASE TWO
COMPLETION
DE-FORMING
PERFORMING II
REFORMING
CONFORMING
Causal forces and interactions; the decision
process leading to the commitment to form and
use a team.
Rapid formation of initial scripts

and performance agenda
Status determination, power
balancing, and role acceptance
Developing shared interaction
scripts; moving toward cohesion
Initial work period can be a time of a
project exploration, conflict, or steadfast
task work and implementation
Reevolution and potential
transition at temporal midpoint
Refocusing and recommiting
energies toward effective
performance
Checking completed performance
products or solutions for
confirmation to given parameters
Individual or group exit rituals and preparation to
resume preteam statuses, loyalty commitments, and
roles
Questioning:
What should we do?
How should we do it?
Divergence
Evolution and Maturation, suggest that while both Tuckman and
Gersick offer significant

frameworks for group developmental processes and dynamics,
the path taken throughout
group formation and development is more complex and variable
than any single sequence of
phases or developmental leaps (Morgan et al., 1993). Instead,
they offer the team evaluation
and maturation (TEAM) model, which postulates two phases, a
midpoint transition, and
nine sequential stages that can be repeated or recycled to
address interaction failures, changes
in environmental demands, or complex issues. The model is
outlined in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: TEAM model of group development
The TEAM model combines elements of Tuckman’s and
Gersick’s group development theories to
create a holistic model of team development.
Source: Based on Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S.
(1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal
of General
Psychology, 120(3), 277–291.
Convergence
Differentiation
Task
Work
Activities
Team
Work
Activities

TEAM Model Developmental Processes and Dynamics
PRE-FORMING
FIRST MEETING
PHASE ONE
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING I
MIDPOINT
TRANSITION
PHASE TWO
COMPLETION
DE-FORMING
PERFORMING II
REFORMING
CONFORMING
Causal forces and interactions; the decision
process leading to the commitment to form and
use a team.

Rapid formation of initial scripts
and performance agenda
Status determination, power
balancing, and role acceptance
Developing shared interaction
scripts; moving toward cohesion
Initial work period can be a time of a
project exploration, conflict, or steadfast
task work and implementation
Reevolution and potential
transition at temporal midpoint
Refocusing and recommiting
energies toward effective
performance
Checking completed performance
products or solutions for
confirmation to given parameters
Individual or group exit rituals and preparation to
resume preteam statuses, loyalty commitments, and
roles
Questioning:
What should we do?
How should we do it?
Divergence
As shown in Figure 2.2, the TEAM model directly addresses
both interpersonal and opera-
tional dynamics by proposing that group energies and

interactions work along two distinct
but simultaneous activity tracks that converge as performance
progresses (Morgan et al.,
1993):
1. Teamwork activities, or those that deal with the interpersonal
functioning of the
team (Davis et al., 1985). These include the interpersonal
dynamics of group devel-
opment and performance and consciously enacted person-to-
person activities that
support interpersonal communications, socioemotional
interdependence, and posi-
tive interaction patterns (Morgan et al., 1993).
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 50 8/19/16 9:37 AM
2. Task work activities, or those that deal with the technical
functioning of the team
(Davis et al., 1985). These include activities and exercises
pertaining to task require-
ments and interdependence, technical skills, work procedure, in-
task communication,
and collective performance efforts.
During the first meeting and forming stage of group
development, Morgan et al. (1993)
observed that members were unclear as to what constitutes
teamwork and task work, the

differences between them, and the comparative importance of
each. These tended to differ-
entiate into meaningful concepts and activities over the course
of phase one, as members
learned how and how not to work together, generating shared
scripts. The primary outcome
of the midpoint transition was a conscious integration of
teamwork and task work activi-
ties, as team members acknowledged that effective performance
is achieved when teamwork
and task work converge. These activity tracks diverge after the
completion stage, as members
detach from task work activities and prepare to exit the group.
This process is graphically
represented in Figure 2.2.
Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) study of the TEAM
model suggests that certain devel-
opmental qualities remain consistent regardless of team setting,
purpose, or operational
requirements:
• Team members’ perceptions of performance processes and
teamwork and task work
activities change as the group moves through the initial
developmental stages and
performance.
• To achieve optimal performance, teamwork and task work
activities must be differ-
entiated; the skills associated with each must be separately
enhanced and progres-
sively focused. Then the two activity tracks must converge and
integrate.
• Ultimately, effective performance depends on the convergence

of teamwork and task
work activities, so that these tracks work collaboratively in
support of team develop-
ment, viability, and performance.
The TEAM model represents a combination and extension of
previous theories. As such, its
practical implications can be combined with those in Tuckman’s
sequential stage theory and
Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.
• The first meeting represents the initial opportunity to
influence the group’s devel-
opment. It is an opportune time to call attention to the
significance of each of these
activity tracks; establish any preexisting organizational
frameworks for group
hierarchy, procedure, and roles; and initiate norms and scripts
to openly accept and
facilitate constructive conflict, effective communication,
knowledge sharing, and
feedback.
• Group members and managers can facilitate effective
performance by sequentially
guiding members’ ability to (a) differentiate between teamwork
and task work
activities, (b) enhance and focus their related skills, then (c)
work toward conver-
gence and integration of the two activity tracks.
• The midpoint transition represents the point of convergence
for teamwork and task
work activities. It also marks a specific and predictable point in
project performance
when group members are most open to external influence and

intervention.
• Fortunately, this second opportunity to influence group
development occurs just
when it may be needed most. Group members and managers
should keep abreast of
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 51 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Section 2.2 Team Building
group development, any issues impeding group progress, and
the need to converge
teamwork and task work activities. This will facilitate relevant
and supportive influ-
ence at the midpoint transition.
The practical implications of developmental theories touch on
concepts relevant to building
an effective team. Section 2.2 examines the process of team
building, outlining the steps for
planning a team and the concepts and strategies supporting the
team’s development.
2.2 Team Building
There are countless pop strategies and motivational tools that
advertise themselves as team-
building exercises. These are not what we are addressing here.
Team building—the practical
process of putting together an effective team—is enacted in two
major phases: planning and

development. In the planning phase, the stage is set for
effective teamwork: A team-
worthy objective is identified, a team type is selected,
membership is composed, and neces-
sary resources are acquired. Simply rounding up suitable
members, aiming them at an objec-
tive, and giving them access to resources does not guarantee
they will effectively collaborate
as a team. The development phase focuses on enabling the
transition from group to team and
maximizing the team’s potential for effectiveness.
Planning the Team
Planning a team is a multistep process that encompasses four
essential activities:
1. Confirming that a team is the best option
2. Clarifying the basic team type and primary task type
3. Identifying and acquiring necessary resources
4. Managing team composition
The first step in planning an effective team is to confirm that a
team is the best option for the
situation. The guidelines for this process are outlined in Chapter
1. While we will not repeat
them here, it is important to note that any team will have
difficulty realizing its full potential
if it is set up to work in a situation in which teams are not a
good fit.
The second step is to clarify the basic team type and primary
task type. This involves examin-
ing the team’s major task or objective and:
1. identifying any structural parameters that dictate the
fundamental nature of the

team or how it will work, and
2. narrowing down the primary task type required for the team
to realize its purpose.
For instance, a comprehensive study regarding an organization’s
potential expansion into a
foreign market (major objective) represents a unique one-time
output that is time-sensitive
but not urgent (team type—project team). It also requires
delivery of expert advice (task
type—advising others). Therefore, an advisory project team
would be well suited to this
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 52 8/19/16 9:37 AM
purpose. See Chapter 1 for a review of the basic team types,
primary task types, and how
they can be combined to describe the fundamental nature of a
specific team, how that team is
expected to work, and what it is expected to do.
Steps 3 and 4—identifying and acquiring necessary resources
and managing team composi-
tion—require more detailed explanation. The next two sections
address these in turn.
Identifying and Acquiring Necessary Resources
Team resources can be described as human, physical,

organizational, and psychosocial ele-
ments that satisfy four basic functions (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007):
1. Assist and support goal accomplishment.
2. Address specific performance demands.
3. Encourage cohesion and member well-being.
4. Support the team’s effective functioning.
Human resources meet the team’s compositional needs in terms
of the size, diversity, and
skill requirements suggested by its major objective, structural
parameters, and primary task
type. Skill and expertise pooling is foundational for a team’s
strength, flexibility, and effective-
ness as a unit of performance. Different projects or objectives
will require different combi-
nations of skilled personnel, and composing a team in which
member experience and KSAs
complement each other is a significant factor in supporting
effective team performance. Solv-
ing a complex design problem, for instance, often requires
cross-functional membership that
reflects a diverse range of expertise. Designing a vehicle like
the Tesla required collabora-
tion between members knowledgeable in the technical
engineering of the unusual engine
and battery components, auto body design and aerodynamics,
marketing research (regarding
aesthetics, style, and interior options), and so on.
Physical resources meet the team’s obvious material,
technological, and operational needs as
it acts within a given context and set of objectives. These can
vary by team and task type and
can change over the course of a team’s performance. For

instance, a marketing team may ini-
tially need only work space and access to data and basic
computer technology. Later on, how-
ever, marketing studies and product testing may require access
to customers and resources
with which to perform product trials and interviews. Effective
teams continuously reevaluate
their physical resource needs and make adjustments
accordingly. Physical resources might
include meeting and work spaces; computer hardware, software,
data, and Internet access;
office equipment and design tools; financial resources; raw
production materials; and manu-
facturing machinery.
Along with providing physical resources, all organizations
develop systems, strategies, and
norms within their infrastructure that support work processes
and facilitate management,
coordination, problem solving, and quality control (Mohrman,
Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995).
Aligning these organizational resources with team operation and
performance is a criti-
cal factor in organizational teams’ short- and long-term
effectiveness (Beyerlein, Hall, Harris,
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 53 8/19/16 9:37 AM
& Beyerlein, 1997; Mohrman & Tenkasi, 1997; Mohrman et al.,

1995). These might include
employee training, empowerment, and participation in
organizational decision-making pro-
cesses; organizational leadership philosophies; and managerial
strategies and norms regard-
ing communication, conflict, diversity, and performance errors
or failure. Chapter 10 further
explores the connection between organizational resources and
team effectiveness.
Finally, psychosocial resources support team members’
psychological well-being and the
team’s cohesiveness. At the most basic level, our psychological
well-being revolves around
three innate drives (Reeve, 2015): autonomy, or self-
determination; efficacy, or sense of self-
competence; and relatedness, or the strength of our associations
with others. A functioning
team supports each of these fundamental needs, as indicated in
Table 2.2.
In the workplace, psychosocial resources include structural
components and leadership strat-
egies that can be established during the planning phase, (e.g.,
establishing comuunication and
responsibility structures, adding a facilitator, or planning shared
leadership roles). Valuable
psychosocial resources also include the supportive interrelations
between colleagues and
organizational groups that can be initiated during the
development phase (e.g., establishing
norms for information and viewpoint sharing, goal-setting
activities) and continue to evolve
over time.
As a work model, an effective team balances human and

organizational needs, which in turn
generates an organizational effectiveness that both supports and
depends on employees’ psy-
chological well-being (Richter, Dawson, & West, 2011). While
human and physical resources
are obvious focal points for resource management, effective
team performance depends just
as heavily on organizational and psychosocial resources (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2007; Richter
et al., 2011). Teams require support from organizational
systems, and they must also develop
and maintain member relations and interdependencies that
support teamwork, member
well-being, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances
(Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).
Table 2.2: Supporting psychological well-being through
teamwork
Fundamental need Method of support in a team
Autonomy The collaborative nature of teamwork ensures that
members
have some degree of influence over their overriding purpose
and agenda, as well as in their decisions and actions. Collabora-
tive goal setting plays an important role in establishing member
participation, autonomy, and buy-in from the beginning of team
performance.
Efficacy Teamwork practices that support entitativity, value
skill and
knowledge diversity, and facilitate learning from errors boost
member confidence and esteem while maximizing the potential
for
success.

Relatedness Positive interdependencies and interrelations
develop between
members, which fosters cohesiveness and supports teamwork.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 54 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Managing Team Composition
The team’s major objective, structural parameters, and primary
task type help identify the
basic compositional requirements for team size, diversity, and
task-specific expertise. The
basic formula for selecting team members is short and sweet:
Minimize team size and maxi-
mize skill potential. To perform effectively, team members must
have or develop the KSAs
required to accomplish the team’s purpose and goals. Team
builders must therefore iden-
tify what expertise is required by a particular performance
challenge, as well as the degree
and type of diversity that best supports the desired outcome. A
final screening should assess
potential members’ capacity to develop further KSAs, based on
their willingness and ability
to learn. Though hard to measure, this potential can be assessed
on the basis of past perfor-
mance, personal interviews, recommendations by colleagues and
managers, and testing for
personality factors that indicate knowledge sharing, openness to
learning, cooperativeness,

and conscientiousness. Once the basic combination of expertise,
diversity, and potential for
development has been identified, it must then be squeezed into
the smallest team possible
(see Figure 2.3).
Why minimize team size? For several reasons:
• Smart use of human resources: Organizations have a limited
number of employees,
and most streamline their employee base to keep operation costs
low. Minimizing
team size makes the most of the available human resources
without wasting any by
tying them up in superfluous positions.
• Simplicity of coordination: Team members must coordinate
internally with each
other and externally with managers, other organizational
groups, and satellite
members and other teams (on complex problem-solving or
production processes).
The more people involved in a situation, the more complex and
comprehensive their
coordination needs become.
• Process effectiveness: Teams must be large enough that
members are not overbur-
dened by responsibilities or workloads, and they must possess
the diversity to sup-
port the team’s creative scope and adaptability. However,
having too many members
limits the team’s ability to effectively function within
performance and time con-
straints. Although there is no perfect size, teams typically
function best with 5 to 10

members.
Maximizing skill potential within a small team requires action
in both phases of team building:
• Planning: Select members on the basis of their relevant KSAs,
their potential for
expanding these, and their ability to complement other
members.
• Development: Balance the benefits of diversity with its
potentially negative issues,
and foster members’ development of useful KSAs.
As with team size, member skill and diversity requirements will
depend largely on
expected performance parameters, the type of team being
assembled, and what it is expected
to do. It is important to select members whose skills
specifically apply to expected perfor-
mance demands and whose combined skill set encompasses what
team-building experts call
the right mix. People are often good at many things but have
true expertise in only one or
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 55 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Skills
Diversity

Developmental
Potential
Team Composition
Figure 2.3: Best practices for team
composition
Teams should feature members who have
complementary KSAs and the ability to develop
more. This helps pack a wide range of expertise into
a team that is also small and functional.
Skills
Diversity
Developmental
Potential
Team Composition
two areas. The beauty of teamwork is that
no single member is required to have all
the skills necessary to get the job done.
By collaborating, members with comple-
mentary KSAs work together to achieve
more than they could alone. While project
and performance needs vary, team skills
generally fall into four basic categories:
hard, soft, critical thinking, and creative
problem solving. Table 2.3 outlines these
basic categories.

Developing the Team
Our group is gathered and the stage is set
for effective teamwork. But how do we
turn our group into a team? Group per-
formance represents a state of positive
interdependence in which members work
cooperatively toward a mutually benefi-
cial outcome. Positive interdependence
refers to the constructive interrelations
between members that support the
group’s existence and enable cooperative
action. In work groups, positive interde-
pendence is achieved through coordina-
tion of individual motivation, effort, and
accountability. Rather than engaging in
joint effort, work group members act alone, following the
direction of the group leader, and
it is only through the group leader that their efforts are
connected at all. In teams, positive
interdependence is reflected in the basic elements of
collaborative performance: high cohe-
siveness, common purpose, mutual accountability, shared fate,
and common reward. These
elements are irrevocably tied together; each supports the
existence of the others.
Team members go beyond simple cooperation or coordination of
efforts. They engage in a
continuous teamwork process. Even when members handle their
tasks alone, they are work-
ing toward a shared fate and common reward. Members are
accountable to each other, and
individual success or failure is tied to the team’s performance
as whole. The team’s success

becomes each member’s common purpose, and high
cohesiveness is simultaneously an out-
come of these other factors—the glue that binds them
together—and the means by which
team members support collaborative performance. Let’s take a
closer look at team cohesion.
Team Cohesion
Team cohesion can be divided into three dimensions (Mullen &
Copper, 1994): task cohesion,
interpersonal cohesion, and team pride. Task cohesion reflects
the team’s shared valuation
and commitment to tasks, task work activities, and goals
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Kozlowski
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 56 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Table 2.3: Basic team skill categories
Skill
category Description Examples
Hard sklls Also referred to as technical skills,
these encompass skills that enhance
one’s ability to perform specific tasks
or functions. In building a specific
team, there will be some hard skills
that all members should have to some
degree.

In all cases, teams will require that all members
have some base-level hard skills and that some
members have specific hard skill expertise. On a
team of architects, for example:
• All members should have a certain level
of proficiency with design and computer
aided-drafting, shared terminology, and both
physical and digital model making.
• Certain members may have particular areas
of expertise, such as LEED certification for
sustainable building design.
Soft skills Also referred to as teamwork skills,
these encompass the knowledge and
use of teamwork values, communication
and other interpersonal skills, and
leadership and management skills.
The most commonly desired soft skills fall into
several categories that deal with:
• Interaction, including communicating
effectively, working cooperatively, and other
interpersonal skills
• Facilitation, including coaching, mentoring,
teaching, and acting as a group facilitator
• Direction, including coordinating and
managing people and processes, leading,
self-directing, and sharing power
• Mediation, including negotiating,

compromising, and resolving conflict.
Critical-
thinking
skills
Encompass those processes that
facilitate logical problem solving and
decision making to help teams:
• Identify critical questions and
problems
• Gather, interpret, and assess
relevant information
• Clarify solution needs and
expectations
• Recognize biases, assumptions, and
logical fallacies
• Test the practical implications
and consequences of potential
solutions against thoughtfully
determined standards and criteria
Also known as critical analysis, critical thinking
includes a wide range of investigative and evalu-
ative skills generally associated with convergent
thinking, including:
• Researching and gathering information
• Analyzing and defining problems
• Identifying and testing assumptions and

fallacies
• Identifying and assessing idea or solution
viability, including pros and cons
• Being able to acknowledge and accept
personal ignorance or fallibility
• Interpreting and correlating informative data
• Comparing and contrasting processes
• Identifying root causes of problems or errors
Creative
problem-
solving
skills
Encompass those processes that
facilitate solutions that require more
than logic, where innovation and inven-
tion are key determinants in effective
performance.
Also known as creative solutioning, creative
problem solving includes a wide range of skills
generally associated with creativity and conver-
gent thinking, including:
• Framing and reframing problems
• Associating normally unrelated concepts
• Using specific group ideation activities,
such as brainstorming, paradigm shift, and
180-degree thinking
• Improvising new procedures or processes
• Thinking outside the box

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 57 8/19/16 9:37 AM
& Bell, 2003). Interpersonal cohesion refers to the level of
attachment and camaraderie
between team members (Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Beal, Cohen,
Burke, & McLendon, 2003).
Finally, team pride represents a combination of team potency,
efficacy, and morale that syner-
gistically combine to describe the general sense of usefulness
and value attached to the group
and to holding membership in it. The elements of team pride
represent different dimensions
of trust within the team.
Team potency reflects a collective trust in the team’s power to
exist as a relatively stable and
cohesive entity and to perform collaboratively until it
succeeds—or fails—as a whole. Where
potency is, in effect, the team’s collective sense of self,
efficacy centers on the sense of self-
competence. Team efficacy represents members’ collective
belief in their ability to accom-
plish tasks and goals, overcome obstacles, resolve conflicts, and
perform effectively (Alper,
Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002).
Team morale is more than just
an average of individual morale levels within the group. It
represents a shared sense of well-

being, satisfaction, and trust that the general quality and tone of
group interactions will main-
tain these conditions (Peterson, Park, & Sweeney, 2008).
To support the development of team cohesion, team builders
must foster its three founda-
tional elements: commitment, attachment, and trust. Let’s
examine these elements and their
integral value within team development.
Commitment, Attachment, and Trust
Chapter 1 described identification as a process that involves
both our thoughts and emotions.
In an organizational setting, social identification is imposed on
team members when they are
assigned to a team. While this takes care of the intellectual side
of things, our emotions are
not so easily ordered into place. We can be told to approach
group work with an all for one and
one for all mentality, but developing the commitment,
attachment, and trust that inspires us
to truly believe and follow through on this sentiment is a bit
more complex.
In the context of teamwork, commitment represents the extent to
which team members
acknowledge the significance of the team’s purpose and accept
the proposed agenda and
approach for accomplishing it. It also represents how strongly
they intend to cooperate
throughout the performance process (Korsgaard, Schweiger, &
Sapienza, 1995). Commit-
ment to a common purpose motivates and focuses team
performance. It provides a support-
ive framework and rallying point for strategic planning and for
setting tasks, agendas, and

goals. It also helps guide member decisions and actions during
performance. By collectively
maintaining the standard that every decision and action should
support the common pur-
pose, team members can police the balance of individual and
collective interests, trusting
each other to make choices and contributions that support the
success of the team.
Attachment is an integral component of group cohesiveness. It
represents members’ socio-
emotional identification with the team and their feelings about
other members. It encom-
passes the extent to which members feel they are part of the
team, included in team activities
and processes, and look forward to working with other
members. Attachment is a significant
factor in a team’s ability to cooperate and perform effectively
over the long term. When mem-
bers feel detached, ignored, or excluded from team activities
and processes, they sense their
contributions are not valued, have little impact, or lack meaning
(Korsgaard, Brodt, & Sapi-
enza, 2003). We all have a basic desire to be valued as
individuals and to feel that our efforts
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 58 8/19/16 9:37 AM
are meaningful (Kelly Global Workforce Index, 2013;

Wrzesniewski, 2003). Although the
premise of teams is that no one individual is a “star,” the flip
side of this is that each member is
considered a valuable and meaningful contributor to team
outcomes. This helps inspire and
maintain member commitment and trust. Therefore, when
attachment is high, team mem-
bers work more cooperatively and diligently toward team goals
(Korsgaard et al., 1995).
Trust reflects team members’ intention and ability to be
vulnerable to each other and to the
group. It is founded on the expectation without guarantee that
all members will act in support
of the team and treat each other considerately and benevolently
(Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, &
Camerer, 1998; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998;
Williams, 2001; Korsgaard et al.,
2003). In a sense, trust represents a buy-in to the team, from
which cooperative attitudes and
behaviors naturally follow. Team members work
collaboratively, which means that member
interdependence is high across all dimensions of interaction.
Such interdependence requires
trust in other members’ capacity to support the team through
their contributions and in their
willingness to work cooperatively and take responsibility for
both their own actions and those
of the team as a whole. But where does this trust come from?
Like most good things, trust is developed over time. However,
commitment, attachment, and
trust are initiated by specific elements of team interaction:
• Owning team actions
• Unifying team purpose

• Upholding mutual accountability
• Building team efficacy
Let’s examine the interplay between these factors and their role
in developing and maintain-
ing commitment, attachment, and trust within the team.
Owning Team Actions
All teams engage in some degree of shared leadership. Owning
team actions through partici-
pation in team strategy and decision making is integral to
developing attachment, trust, and
commitment to a common purpose (Korsgaard et al., 2003).
Team members play an active
role in shaping and directing their team when they work
cooperatively across a range of task
work and teamwork processes. Collaborative agenda and goal
setting are key activities in
developing a sense of:
• working toward a mutually beneficial common purpose,
• trusting that everyone on the team is aware of and supports
team activities and
goals,
• being included and valued in team process, and
• owning team decisions, actions, and purpose.
Setting specific and meaningful performance goals also works
to guide and unify team mem-
bers’ motivations and expectations for performance.
Unifying Team Purpose
To activate and sustain commitment, team members must feel
their efforts are meaning-
ful and that they are making measurable progress toward a clear

and common purpose.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 59 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Performance goals provide a shared vision to unify member
motivations and expectations.
They offer rallying points around which members can develop
commitment and enthusiasm,
and they act as tangible milestones that mark team progress and
setbacks. Locke and Latham’s
(1990, 2002, 2006) goal-setting studies suggest that the best
performance outcomes evolve
from teams that are committed to goals that members perceive
as:
• clear and nonconflicting,
• specific and challenging, and
• achievable along a given agenda.
Agreeing on specific performance goals puts everybody on the
same page, unifying team pur-
pose so that team members can effectively work together. By
helping create such goals, team
members accept ownership over them. They also acknowledge
understanding of their role in
accomplishing the team’s purpose and become independently
accountable for their own con-
tributions and collectively accountable for the team’s
performance as a whole. In Chapter 1

this was identified as mutual accountability.
Upholding Mutual Accountability
The need for mutual accountability is most easily observed in a
team sport. In football, a
quarterback throws the ball to a halfback, who runs it down the
field under the protection
of blocking fullbacks. Each player depends on the others to
carry out their role-related tasks
to the best of their ability. When one falters, the ball comes to
stop or is lost to the opposing
team. For any team to succeed, all members must make
significant contributions, carry out
their individual and collective responsibilities, and support each
other’s ability to do so.
Procedural justice theory asserts that members attach most
strongly to groups in which
individual worth and status are validated by fair treatment
(Korsgaard et al., 2003). This sug-
gests that in regard to social exchanges within our groups, we
primarily fear rejection and
lack of reciprocity (Lind, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Our
desire to be perceived as valuable
and to avoid rejection can strongly motivate us to make positive
contributions to the group
via proactive, voluntary teamwork (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
However, we need to believe that
teammates will accept and reciprocate our efforts; otherwise, we
may not see any compelling
reason to cooperate (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996). In
practice, mutual accountability rep-
resents being committed to having a fair exchange, contributing
and valuing other’s contribu-
tions, and fostering a supportive climate within which team
members can engage (Korsgaard

et al., 2003). Fostering a climate of cooperation among team
members means encouraging
members to:
• share knowledge and viewpoints, including contrary opinions
or concerns;
• engage in collaborative problem solving and conflict
resolution;
• offer constructive feedback and discuss mistakes and failures;
and
• view failure and mistakes as opportunities to learn and
improve.
Building Team Efficacy
A climate of cooperation generates a working environment in
which team members are sup-
portive of and supported by each other, and the success of one
is felt as success for all. Coop-
eration enhances team members’ sense of individual and team
efficacy. Team efficacy levels
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 60 8/19/16 9:37 AM
influence motivation and performance across the board,
significantly impacting individual
members’ output and effort on collective endeavors and whether
to persevere or give up
when faced with adversity, opposition, or a failure to garner
“quick results” (Bandura, 1997).

The initial framework on which team efficacy rests—self-
confidence within the team setting,
respect for each other’s abilities, trust in our ability to work
collaboratively—is built when
the team first develops its agenda of tasks and goals and its
approach for accomplishing them.
This brings us full circle to participating in team strategy and
decision making.
Practical Implications for Team Builders, Managers, and
Leaders
Translating the team’s purpose into specific and meaningful
performance goals is often the
first team effort in which members engage. Collaborative goal
setting provides the basic
foundation for team efficacy and ownership of team purpose,
agenda, and activities. It also
provides clear and tangible progress markers the team can rally
around. The shared scripts
generated in this process help unify performance motivation and
expectations, including
expectations of fairness and mutual accountability. Meanwhile,
clarifying the team’s pur-
pose—which stems from collaborative decision making and
“making sure everyone’s on the
same page”—fosters the development of a shared mental model
that encompasses the team’s
primary purpose and how to achieve it. A mental model is an
internally held conceptual
model that allows people to describe, understand, and explain
phenomena; recognize compo-
nent relationships; draw inferences; and predict behavior and
events (Rouse & Morris, 1986;
Johnson-Laird, 1989. Developing a shared mental model
dramatically enhances a team’s abil-
ity to coordinate performance, discuss task-related issues,

problem solve, and make decisions
that support its effectiveness.
So how do we facilitate collaborative goal setting? Peter
Drucker (1954) first addressed this
question in his now classic book, The Practice of Management.
In 1981 George Doran built
on Drucker’s “management by objectives” system to introduce
the concept of SMART goals,
which stands for goals that are specific, measurable, assignable,
realistic, and time related.
Doran’s SMART goals inspired various interpretations and
expansions on the idea, includ-
ing the START model (Johnson & Johnson, 2013, which
suggests that goals should be spe-
cific, trackable, achievable, relevant, and transferrable; and
Yemm’s (2013) SMARTER model,
which replaces Doran’s assignable with achievable/attainable
and adds evaluate and review/
revise. All are useful guides for developing effective
performance goals, and the specific terms
are typically adjusted to best fit given performance needs. Here,
we discuss Yemm’s SMARTER
goal setting guidelines and how they help create the sense of
common purpose that is crucial
to a team.
Specific
Goals should be specific so all members clearly understand
them. An effective manager knows
that poorly understood goals are less likely to be achieved.
Breaking down the team’s overall
purpose and performance challenge into specific performance
goals serves several purposes:
• It provides an immediate framework for the initial norming,

role-selection,
information-processing, and problem-solving phases.
• It helps develop meaningful common purpose and cohesion by
opening communica-
tion and constructive conflict, as members collectively
determine clear and specific
goals and reexamine these as per the team purpose.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 61 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• It establishes an accessible jumping-off point to develop team
goals, strategies, and
agendas that are related to yet distinct from the organizational
directives that origi-
nally led to the team’s initiation.
Measurable
Goals that are measurable, or trackable, provide tangible
evidence of progress. Quantifying or
measuring goals also helps maintain focus by allowing the
group to see what has been accom-
plished and what remains to be done. A clear gauge of progress
is critical to avoid ambiguity
over whether the team has achieved its objectives. It also
reminds members that they are
both individually and mutually accountable for the team’s
performance outcome.

Achievable
Goals should be challenging, but achievable. The group’s level
of aspiration constantly adjusts
to prior successes or failures. If a group continually aspires to
an unattainably high stan-
dard, they will lose morale and become disillusioned. However,
if the goal is not challeng-
ing enough, members will become bored or dissatisfied, engage
in side conversations, or put
forth little effort. Group members must be aware of these
constraints to ensure they avoid
either extreme.
Interestingly, initially failing to achieve a challenging, specific
objective does not necessarily
hurt performance. Collectively overcoming performance
obstacles is one of the best ways to
encourage collaborative teamwork and further develop the
group as a team. Collective chal-
lenges also tend to level members’ perceptions of each other’s
external characteristics (for
example, their gender, ethnicity, pay grade, or extraneous
titles), allowing teammates to focus
on each other’s real strengths and weaknesses. Characteristics
that do not immediately affect
the activities at hand become less relevant—and therefore less
detrimental to team cohesion
and performance.
Relevant
The group must recognize that its goals and the work related to
achieving them are relevant
and aligned with the organization’s strategy. Specific
performance goals must be directly
related to the team’s performance challenge and its common
purpose. Most people lose inter-

est if they do not see a reason for doing something; this directly
opposes the need to feel like
one’s efforts are meaningful. Irrelevant goals and busywork will
decrease group focus and
commitment and, consequently, its effectiveness and
productivity. The most effective teams
periodically check in with their purpose throughout their work.
This is an ongoing purposing
activity that helps members gauge and adjust the direction of
their performance, the efficacy
of their roles and tasks, and the strategic implications of their
actions.
Time Related
Goals should be time related. Setting a specific timeline and
limit in which to achieve goals
keeps team members focused on attaining them. It also acts as a
checkpoint for progress and
mitigates team members’ tendency to overthink or overprocess a
problem or solution.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 62 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams
Evaluate
Teams should be able to evaluate their progress toward goals.
Effective teams do not sim-
ply set an initial agenda and approach and then follow these no
matter what. Goals that are
measurable provide a clear gauge of progress toward the team’s

purpose. Likewise, periodic
assessments of member contributions and process dynamics, and
the degree to which perfor-
mance products or solutions satisfy the team’s purpose, are
critical for maintaining growth
and adaptability.
Review/Revise
Teams should review and revise their processes and goals when
necessary. Once the team has
evaluated its progress, process, and performance outcomes, it
may (or may not) be necessary
to review and revise its overall agenda, expectations, strategies,
and proposed goals. Keeping
this process alive throughout the team’s performance increases
the quality and effectiveness
of its final outcome.
Team building is not a finite process. Although individual
steps—such as selecting a team
type and choosing members—may come up just once, certain
areas require ongoing moni-
toring and management. For example, a team’s resource needs
can continue to evolve over
the course of its work; likewise, developing the team is a
continuous process. The different
phases and steps of team building are not necessarily handled
by one person or even by one
group. A manager or management group may engage in the
initial planning phase but hand off
the development phase and ongoing resource management to a
team leader or empower the
team to manage these duties internally. Regardless of who or
how many people are involved,
both the planning and development phases must be executed to
build a working team, and

ongoing processes must be continuously managed to make sure
the team stays effective. Next,
we’ll look at apprehension toward groups and teams that can
affect our ability to effectively
work together and even cause some people to avidly avoid
group and team situations.
2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams
Whether we acknowledge them or not, groups and teams touch
nearly every facet of our lives.
We see evidence of successful groups and teams in business,
sports, politics, technology, and
science. Yet some people simply do not buy into the idea that
groups and teams really work;
in particular, they doubt that teams can be more effective than
any other group or individual.
Working as a team means depending on others. We relinquish
sole control over our own suc-
cess or failure and take responsibility for these qualities in our
teammates. The potential
benefits of group work and teamwork are compelling, but it can
be equally daunting to feel
a loss of individual autonomy; trust others; and learn new
methods of coordinating informa-
tion, people, tasks, and activities. Intellectually, we may see the
value of working together, but
when it comes to actually joining a group or team, several
objections are frequently raised:
• “I’m not comfortable in groups, so I end up just being quiet
and going along.” Or, “I
guess I’m just a loner—I work better alone.”
• “Nobody in a group knows what they are doing, so I have to
take control.” Or, “I end
up doing all the work—I might as well have worked alone.”

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 63 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• “Working in groups and teams is too much work, and the
interactions are a waste of
time.” Or, “I am more efficient and effective on my own.”
• “Teams are just a motivational concept; they are no different
from any other group.”
Or, “I’ve been in groups and teams—call it what you want,
they’re the same thing.”
Statements like these are typically connected to several core
conditions that affect our per-
ception of and experience with group work and teamwork. In
this section, we explore four
root causes for apprehension and avoidance of groups and
teams: (a) member attachment
styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team
experience, and (d) underdevel-
oped soft skills. As we address each of these in turn, we will
also discuss how they can be
mitigated or overcome.
Member Attachment Styles
As social beings, people have an innate need for a certain
degree of relatedness. From birth,
we are instinctually driven to establish and maintain
attachments to the people around us

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building on seminal works by
psychiatrist John Bowlby (1973,
1980, 1982), adult attachment theory proposes that individuals
have inherently different
attachment styles that are founded on behavioral expectations
and scripts generated by early
attachment experiences (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Attachment styles vary along two
significant dimensions (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Smith,
Murphy, & Coats, 1999): attachment
anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals can be tracked on
a sliding scale in each of
these dimensions, from high to low.
• Anxiety: High attachment anxiety is characterized by a sense
of unworthiness as a
group member, excessive worry over acceptance, and fear of
rejection. On the flip
side, low attachment anxiety is characterized by the expectation
of acceptance and
approval from the group.
• Avoidance: High attachment avoidance is characterized by a
tendency to view group
relationships, intimacy, and dependence on others as
unnecessary or undesirable.
On the other hand, low attachment avoidance is characterized by
the view that
group relationships, intimacy, and interdependence are positive.
Our personal attachment style, or characteristic behavioral,
cognitive, and affective orienta-
tion towards social interactions, can be found by correlating our
high/low levels of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance on a double-axis graph (see Figure
2.4).

Figure 2.4: Group member attachment styles
Attachment styles contribute to the extent to which an
individual is willing to participate in a group
or team.
Conformist:
Tends to prioritize pleasing other
group members and fitting in over
expressing own thoughts, needs,
and desires.
Socially Anxious:
Feels unable to make valuable or
effective contributions; characterized
by low participation and engagement.
Secure:
Feels capable and worthy of group
membership, and perceives groups as
generally valuable and accepting.
Loner:
Tends to prioritize extreme
independance, reject others, and
engage in aloof or standoffish behavior.
High Attachment Anxiety
Low Attachment Anxiety
High Attachment AvoidanceLow Attachment Avoidance
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 64 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Conformist:
and desires.
Socially Anxious:
Secure:
Loner:
• “Working in groups and teams is too much work, and the
interactions are a waste of

time.” Or, “I am more efficient and effective on my own.”
• “Teams are just a motivational concept; they are no different
from any other group.”
Or, “I’ve been in groups and teams—call it what you want,
they’re the same thing.”
Statements like these are typically connected to several core
conditions that affect our per-
ception of and experience with group work and teamwork. In
this section, we explore four
root causes for apprehension and avoidance of groups and
teams: (a) member attachment
styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team
experience, and (d) underdevel-
oped soft skills. As we address each of these in turn, we will
also discuss how they can be
mitigated or overcome.
Member Attachment Styles
As social beings, people have an innate need for a certain
degree of relatedness. From birth,
we are instinctually driven to establish and maintain
attachments to the people around us
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building on seminal works by
psychiatrist John Bowlby (1973,
1980, 1982), adult attachment theory proposes that individuals
have inherently different
attachment styles that are founded on behavioral expectations
and scripts generated by early
attachment experiences (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Attachment styles vary along two
significant dimensions (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Smith,
Murphy, & Coats, 1999): attachment
anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals can be tracked on
a sliding scale in each of

these dimensions, from high to low.
• Anxiety: High attachment anxiety is characterized by a sense
of unworthiness as a
group member, excessive worry over acceptance, and fear of
rejection. On the flip
side, low attachment anxiety is characterized by the expectation
of acceptance and
approval from the group.
• Avoidance: High attachment avoidance is characterized by a
tendency to view group
relationships, intimacy, and dependence on others as
unnecessary or undesirable.
On the other hand, low attachment avoidance is characterized by
the view that
group relationships, intimacy, and interdependence are positive.
Our personal attachment style, or characteristic behavioral,
cognitive, and affective orienta-
tion towards social interactions, can be found by correlating our
high/low levels of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance on a double-axis graph (see Figure
2.4).
Figure 2.4: Group member attachment styles
Attachment styles contribute to the extent to which an
individual is willing to participate in a group
or team.
Conformist:
and desires.

Socially Anxious:
Secure:
Loner:
As shown in Figure 2.4, individuals may be classified into four
personal attachment style cat-
egories—conformist, socially anxious, secure, or loner—
depending on where they fall along
the two corresponding scales.
• Loners (high attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety)
tend to refuse collabo-
ration and work individually, undermining efforts to include
them in group and team
work.
• Socially anxious (high attachment avoidance/high attachment
anxiety) members

tend to avoid participation and engagement, assuming that their
contributions are
neither valuable nor necessary.
• Conformists (low attachment avoidance/high attachment
anxiety) attempt to fit in
and please others by parroting or supporting popular thoughts
and opinions within
the group or team.
• Secure (low attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety)
members assume that
their participation and contributions are valuable to the group or
team—and they
are right.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 65 8/19/16 9:37 AM
True loners are rare, but if an individual sincerely refuses to
work with others, it may be best
to simply leave him or her alone. True loners are typically not
an issue, as most are attracted
to jobs or fields in which they can work alone. More often,
individuals develop loner tenden-
cies based on previous bad experiences working in pairs,
groups, or teams. If these individu-
als have more positive experiences, over time, more positive
attachment styles may emerge.

Members with either conformist or socially anxious styles tend
to undermine teamwork by
not offering their own thoughts and opinions or by not
participating in a truly collaborative
way. In effect, they cut their own KSAs out of the collective
pool, becoming nothing more than
another pair of hands. These members need to be motivated to
see their own contributions
as uniquely valuable. Ideally, effective group and team members
should be secure, as this style
has the optimal potential for developing commitment,
attachment, and trust between mem-
bers and for motivating real and valuable contributions to group
and team efforts.
Understanding the basic attachment styles can help project
managers or team leaders select
their team members, and identify and mitigate potential
problems during performance. Being
aware of member attachment styles—either through observation
or personality testing—is
critical for adopting strategies to deal with less desirable styles
when composing groups or
teams, or when managing those that already exist.
When composing groups or teams, use knowledge of member
attachment styles to:
• screen out individuals who exhibit loner tendencies,
conformists, or the socially
anxious; and
• support loner, conformist, or socially anxious members with
others who are aware
of their tendencies and willing to foster their inclusion within
the group or team.

For existing groups and teams, use knowledge of member
attachment styles to:
• build awareness of individual attachment styles and how these
can affect our per-
ception of and participation in group or team interactions;
• notice when and how members are not fully contributing; and
• encourage undercontributing members to improve by
facilitating and rewarding
desired behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses.
Next we examine social value orientation, another area in which
the way we think about and
perceive interactions can affect our intentions within (and
attraction to) group and team
work.
Social Value Orientation
How people prioritize individual accomplishment and
accountability at home or in the work-
place plays a role in how they feel about group and team work.
Individuals’ national and fam-
ily culture, worldview, and experience interacting both
cooperatively and competitively with
others over time generates their social value orientation toward
either an individualistic
or a prosocial mindset (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000).
Someone with an individualis-
tic mindset values personal recognition and gain. In a sports
team, this is the player who is
always showboating, or passing up opportunities to work
cooperatively in favor of personally
making the score. On the other hand, someone with a prosocial

mindset values working
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 66 8/19/16 9:37 AM
cooperatively, offering concern and support for others’ well-
being, and maximizing positive
outcomes for all (De Dreu et al., 2000). Even Michael Jordan,
recognized by the NBA as “the
greatest basketball player of all time” (“Michael Jordan,” 2016,
para. 1), noted that when play-
ers are unwilling to prioritize the team’s success over their own,
it only makes individual
goals and accolades more difficult to achieve (Favale, 2013).
However, transitioning from I to we in perspective, expectation,
and goal setting is not easy
when someone is used to working alone. While the fields of
social psychology, organizational
behavior, and business have long recognized the value of work
groups and teams, most people
have very little practical experience with collective
coordination, group process, and mutual
accountability until well into college or when they start their
career. Coordinating group effort
can require detailed organization of time and effort, as well as
the ability to understand other
people’s values and needs. When we focus only on our own
accomplishment and account-
ability, there is no need for comprehensive script unification.

392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx

392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx

Similar to 392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx (20)

More from lorainedeserre

More from lorainedeserre (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx