Tuckman's Eight Stages Of Group Development

Individuals have joined an eight-week psycho-educational group to learn and develop strategies and skills to manage their lives. During the first few weeks the group had been quiet, however, in the beginning of the third week a member of the group raised concern stating that they (the group) were not happy being lectured to each week. John, the group leader continued on without much acknowledgement, which resulted in another member becoming disgruntled. The member stated that perhaps if John did not listen to them, they would not listen to him. It appears that there are dysfunctions in the group’s functioning, which could hinder the group’s and leader’s ability to work together if issues are not resolved. It is hypothesized that there are
Virginia et al. (2004) suggest that looking at the developmental stages of a group helps leaders and facilitators understand particular behaviours and choose appropriate responses to group behaviour. In this particular type of group, is it quite normal for the group to be quiet during the first few weeks. Tuckman (1965) referred to the first stage of group development as forming, which involves uncertainty in which members are unsure of their place in the group and trying to establish the rules of the group. Hesitant participation is common during this stage (Ephross & Vassil, 2005). It is likely that members hesitated to participate during the early stages because they were unsure of how and when they could participate; this uncertainty was never resolved and became established by the third week, which lead to conflict. Ephross & Vassil (2005) suggest that a summary of necessary tasks and group observations prove valuable during the last ten or fifteen minutes of the session. It appears that John did not allow for feedback for himself and the group to discuss any concerns or queries regarding the group, nor did he summarise what the group had accomplished so far and reflect on the group’s experience. As a result of this, the group has moved into the third week without resolving any issues there
It appears that partly the reason the group had been quiet in the first few weeks was because group norms had not been established; Harris & Sherblom (2008) indicate that “norms define the nature of the group by telling us what we can and cannot do” (p. 47). This refers to behaviour that is acceptable and unacceptable within the group; what may be acceptable outside the group may not necessarily be accepted within the group. As newcomers, members were uncertain about how they could contribute to the group and assumed the role of attentive members being lectured to, rather than members participating and working together to achieve group