Tuckman's Stages Of Group Interaction

This essay is basically going to focus on the inherent stages a group usually go through when proceeding to become a team and how conflict arises in these groups and conclude by giving an overview on how these conflicts are settled. To begin with, a group is defined as two or more collaborating and attached individuals who come together to accomplish a specific target while work teams are groups whose associates work fiercely on a peculiar common aims using their actual alliance, associated accountability and complemental skills.
With Tuckman’s (1965) theory, he describes stages which a team goes through when becoming a group, these stages are Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning he begins by explaining the forming stage where
It generally begins as conflict arises due to different working styles. Others may examine the benefits of the goals and desist from acting on tasks. Those who associate with the task find it stressful mainly as there is no enacted course or strong affiliation. During the third phase, the group cultivates adherence ( Bonebright, 2010). This is this Norming phase; Group members admit each other’s distinctions and certain personal conceptions. Tasks and principles are set up. Neuman and Wright (1999) characterized this as a stage of developing shared ideological models and ascertaining the most persuasive forms to endeavor with each other. Tuckman (1965) stated that in this stage, the group becomes a body as members establish in-group feeling and look to maintain and sustain the group. Task rivalry is abstained in attempts to guarantee harmony. The team then arrives at the performing juncture when tough task without rivalry leads to the accomplishment of goals set by the team. Members who join or part ways at this stage won’t interfere with the team’s performance as it’s not very complex at this
These methods laid down by Thomas Kilmann are competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. He goes on further to explain that there are two dimensions to these methods of handling conflicts and this could be assertive or cooperative: assertiveness is the degree to which the individual endeavours to appease their own interest, and cooperativeness is the degree to which the individual endeavours in appeasing the other fellow’s interest.
It has been pointed out by Thomas and Kilmann (2010), that Competing is assertive but uncooperative. When competing, an individual follows their own responsibility at the other entities detriment, using whatever ability seems applicable to win their status. Competing could mean taking a stand for your rights, protecting a position you believe is correct, or trying to win simply. An effort made by an individual to conspire with his colleague in finding clarifications that wholly convinces both is termed collaborating. Analysing issues to detect basic duties of the two and to find a preferences that suits both duties. Individuals collaborating must explore a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights and finding away to resolve conditions that would not have them competing for resources, or confronting and trying to find a creative solution to an their