tuckman's theory case study

The Five Stages of Team Development: A Case Study

Team Building | By Gina Abudi | Read time minutes

Every team goes through the five stages of team development. First, some background on team development. The first four stages of team growth were first developed by Bruce Wayne Tuckman and published in 1965.

His theory, called "Tuckman's Stages" was based on research he conducted on team dynamics. He believed (as is a common belief today) that these stages are inevitable in order for a team to grow to the point where they are functioning effectively together and delivering high quality results.

In 1977, Tuckman, jointly with Mary Ann Jensen, added a fifth stage to the 4 stages: "Adjourning." The adjourning stage is when the team is completing the current project. They will be joining other teams and moving on to other work in the near future. For a high performing team, the end of a project brings on feelings of sadness as the team members have effectively become as one and now are going their separate ways.

The five stages:

Stage 1: Forming

Stage 2: storming, stage 3: norming, stage 4: performing, stage 5: adjourning.

This article provides background on each stage and an example of a team going through all five stages.

The "forming" stage takes place when the team first meets each other. In this first meeting, team members are introduced to each. They share information about their backgrounds, interests and experience and form first impressions of each other. They learn about the project they will be working on, discuss the project's objectives/goals and start to think about what role they will play on the project team. They are not yet working on the project. They are, effectively, "feeling each other out" and finding their way around how they might work together.

During this initial stage of team growth, it is important for the team leader to be very clear about team goals and provide clear direction regarding the project. The team leader should ensure that all of the members are involved in determining team roles and responsibilities and should work with the team to help them establish how they will work together ("team norms"). The team is dependent on the team leader to guide them.

As the team begins to work together, they move into the "storming" stage. This stage is not avoidable; every team - most especially a new team who has never worked together before - goes through this part of developing as a team. In this stage, the team members compete with each other for status and for acceptance of their ideas. They have different opinions on what should be done and how it should be done - which causes conflict within the team. As they go progress through this stage, with the guidance of the team leader, they learn how to solve problems together, function both independently and together as a team, and settle into roles and responsibilities on the team. For team members who do not like conflict, this is a difficult stage to go through.

The team leader needs to be adept at facilitating the team through this stage - ensuring the team members learn to listen to each other and respect their differences and ideas. This includes not allowing any one team member to control all conversations and to facilitate contributions from all members of the team. The team leader will need to coach some team members to be more assertive and other team members on how to be more effective listeners.

This stage will come to a closure when the team becomes more accepting of each other and learns how to work together for the good of the project. At this point, the team leader should start transitioning some decision making to the team to allow them more independence, but still stay involved to resolve any conflicts as quickly as possible.

Some teams, however, do not move beyond this stage and the entire project is spent in conflict and low morale and motivation, making it difficult to get the project completed. Usually teams comprised of members who are professionally immature will have a difficult time getting past this stage.

When the team moves into the "norming" stage, they are beginning to work more effectively as a team. They are no longer focused on their individual goals, but rather are focused on developing a way of working together (processes and procedures). They respect each other's opinions and value their differences. They begin to see the value in those differences on the team. Working together as a team seems more natural. In this stage, the team has agreed on their team rules for working together, how they will share information and resolve team conflict, and what tools and processes they will use to get the job done. The team members begin to trust each other and actively seek each other out for assistance and input. Rather than compete against each other, they are now helping each other to work toward a common goal. The team members also start to make significant progress on the project as they begin working together more effectively.

In this stage, the team leader may not be as involved in decision making and problem solving since the team members are working better together and can take on more responsibility in these areas. The team has greater self-direction and is able to resolve issues and conflict as a group. On occasion, however, the team leader may step in to move things along if the team gets stuck. The team leader should always ensure that the team members are working collaboratively and may begin to function as a coach to the members of the team.

In the "performing" stage, teams are functioning at a very high level. The focus is on reaching the goal as a group. The team members have gotten to know each other, trust each other and rely on each other.

Not every team makes it to this level of team growth; some teams stop at Stage 3: Norming. The highly performing team functions without oversight and the members have become interdependent. The team is highly motivated to get the job done. They can make decisions and problem solve quickly and effectively. When they disagree, the team members can work through it and come to consensus without interrupting the project's progress. If there needs to be a change in team processes - the team will come to agreement on changing processes on their own without reliance on the team leader.

In this stage, the team leader is not involved in decision making, problem solving or other such activities involving the day-to-day work of the team. The team members work effectively as a group and do not need the oversight that is required at the other stages. The team leader will continue to monitor the progress of the team and celebrate milestone achievements with the team to continue to build team camaraderie. The team leader will also serve as the gateway when decisions need to be reached at a higher level within the organisation.

Even in this stage, there is a possibility that the team may revert back to another stage. For example, it is possible for the team to revert back to the "storming" stage if one of the members starts working independently. Or, the team could revert back to the "forming" stage if a new member joins the team. If there are significant changes that throw a wrench into the works, it is possible for the team to revert back to an earlier stage until they are able to manage through the change.

In the "adjourning" stage the project is coming to an end and the team members are moving off into different directions. This stage looks at the team from the perspective of the well-being of the team rather than from the perspective of managing a team through the original four stages of team growth.

The team leader should ensure that there is time for the team to celebrate the success of the project and capture best practices for future use. (Or, if it was not a successful project - to evaluate what happened and capture lessons learned for future projects). This also provides the team the opportunity to say good-bye to each other and wish each other luck as they pursue their next endeavour. It is likely that any group that reached Stage 4: Performing will keep in touch with each other as they have become a very close knit group and there will be sadness at separating and moving on to other projects independently.

Is the Team Effective or Not?

There are various indicators of whether a team is working effectively together as a group. The characteristics of effective, successful teams include:

• Clear communication among all members
• Regular brainstorming session with all members participating
• Consensus among team members
• Problem solving done by the group
• Commitment to the project and the other team members
• Regular team meetings are effective and inclusive
• Timely hand off from team members to others to ensure the project keeps moving in the right direction
• Positive, supportive working relationships among all team members

Teams that are not working effectively together will display the characteristics listed below. The team leader will need to be actively involved with such teams. The sooner the team leader addresses issues and helps the team move to a more effective way of working together, the more likely the project is to end successfully.

• Lack of communication among team members
• No clear roles and responsibilities for team members
• Team members "throw work over the wall" to other team members, with lack of concern for timelines or work quality
• Team members work alone, rarely sharing information and offering assistance
• Team members blame others for what goes wrong, no one accepts responsibility
• Team members do not support others on the team
• Team members are frequently absent thereby causing slippage in the timeline and additional work for their team members

Example of a Team Moving Through the Five Stages

Background and team members.

A team has been pulled together from various parts of a large service organisation to work on a new process improvement project that is needed to improve how the company manages and supports its client base. The team lead on this project is Sandra from the Chicago office who has 15 years experience as a project manager/team lead managing process improvement projects.

The other members of the team include:

• Peter: 10 years experience on various types of projects, expertise in scheduling and budget control (office location: San Diego)
• Sarah: 5 years experience as an individual contributor on projects, strong programming background, some experience developing databases (office location: Chicago)
• Mohammed: 8 years experience working on various projects, expertise in earned value management, stakeholder analysis and problem solving (office location: New York)
• Donna: 2 years experience as an individual contributor on projects (office location: New York)
• Ameya: 7 years experience on process improvement projects, background in developing databases, expertise in earned value management (office location: San Diego)

Sandra has worked on projects with Sarah and Mohammed, but has never worked with the others. Donna has worked with Mohammed. No one else has worked with other members of this team. Sandra has been given a very tight deadline to get this project completed.

Sandra has decided that it would be best if the team met face-to-face initially, even though they will be working virtually for the project. She has arranged a meeting at the New York office (company headquarters) for the entire team. They will spend 2 days getting introduced to each other and learning about the project.

The Initial Meeting (Stage 1: Forming)

The day of the face-to-face meeting in New York has arrived. All team members are present. The agenda includes:

• Personal introductions
• Team building exercises
• Information about the process improvement project
• Discussion around team roles and responsibilities
• Discussion around team norms for working together
• Introduction on how to use the SharePoint site that will be used for this project to share ideas, brainstorm, store project documentation, etc

The team members are very excited to meet each other. Each of them has heard of one another, although they have not worked together as a team before. They believe they each bring value to this project. The team building exercises have gone well; everyone participated and seemed to enjoy the exercises. While there was some discussion around roles and responsibilities - with team members vying for "key" positions on the team - overall there was agreement on what needed to get done and who was responsible for particular components of the project.

The onsite meeting is going well. The team members are getting to know each other and have been discussing their personal lives outside of work - hobbies, family, etc. Sandra is thinking that this is a great sign that they will get along well - they are engaged with each other and genuinely seem to like each other!

The Project Work Begins (Stage 2: Storming)

The team members have gone back to their home offices and are beginning work on their project. They are interacting via the SharePoint site and the project is off to a good start. And then the arguments begin.

Peter has put up the project schedule based on conversations with only Mohammed and Ameya on the team. Donna and Sarah feel as if their input to the schedule was not considered. They believe because they are more junior on the team, Peter has completely disregarded their concerns about the timeline for the project. They challenged Peter's schedule, stating that it was impossible to achieve and was setting up the team for failure. At the same time, Sarah was arguing with Ameya over who should lead the database design and development effort for this project. While Sarah acknowledges that Ameya has a few years more experience than she does in database development, she only agreed to be on this project in order to take a lead role and develop her skills further so she could advance at the company. If she knew Ameya was going to be the lead she wouldn't have bothered joining this project team. Additionally, Mohammed appears to be off and running on his own, not keeping the others apprised of progress nor keeping his information up to date on the SharePoint site. No one really knows what he has been working on or how much progress is being made.

Sandra had initially taken a side role during these exchanges, hoping that the team would work it out for themselves. However, she understands from past experience managing many project teams that it is important for her to take control and guide the team through this difficult time. She convenes all of the team members for a virtual meeting to reiterate their roles and responsibilities (which were agreed to in the kick-off meeting) and to ensure that they understand the goals and objectives of the project. She made some decisions since the team couldn't come to agreement. She determined that Ameya would lead the database development design component of the project, working closely with Sarah so she can develop further experience in this area. She reviewed the schedule that Peter created with the team, making adjustments where necessary to address the concerns of Donna and Sarah. She reminded Mohammed that this is a team effort and he needs to work closely with the others on the team.

During the virtual meeting session, Sandra referred back to the ground rules the team set in their face-to-face meeting and worked with the team to ensure that there was a plan in place for how decisions are made on the team and who has responsibility for making decisions.

Over the next few weeks, Sandra noticed that arguments/disagreements were at a minimum and when they did occur, they were worked out quickly, by the team, without her involvement being necessary. Still, she monitored how things were going and held regular virtual meetings to ensure the team was moving in the right direction. On a monthly basis, Sandra brings the team together for a face-to-face meeting. As the working relationships of the team members started improving, Sandra started seeing significant progress on the project.

All is Going Smoothly (Stage 3: Norming)

The team has now been working together for nearly 3 months. There is definitely a sense of teamwork among the group. There are few arguments and disagreements that can't be resolved among the team. They support each other on the project - problem solving issues, making decisions as a team, sharing information and ensuring that the ground rules put in place for the team are followed.

Additionally, the team members are helping each other to grow and develop their skills. For example, Ameya has worked closely with Sarah to teach her many of the skills he has learned in database design and development and she has been able to take the lead on accomplishing some of the components of their aspect of the project.

Overall, the team members are becoming friends. They enjoy each other's company - both while working on the project and after hours via communicating on email, via instant messaging, on Twitter, or over the telephone.

Significant Progress is Made! (Stage 4: Performing)

The team is now considered a "high performing team." It wasn't easy getting to this stage but they made it! They are working effectively as a group - supporting each other and relying on the group as a whole to make decisions on the project. They can brainstorm effectively to solve problems and are highly motivated to reach the end goal as a group. When there is conflict on the team - such as a disagreement on how to go about accomplishing a task - the group is able to work it out on their own without relying on the team leader to intervene and make decisions for them. The more junior members - Donna and Sarah - have really developed their skills with the support and help of the others. They have taken on leadership roles for some components of the project.

Sandra checks in with the team - praising them for their hard work and their progress. The team celebrates the milestones reached along the way. When necessary, Sandra provides a link from the team to the executives for decisions that need to come from higher up or when additional support is needed.

The project is on time and within budget. Milestones are being met - some are even ahead of schedule. The team is pleased with how well the project is going along, as is Sandra and the executives of the organisation.

Time to Wrap Up (Stage 5: Adjourning)

The project has ended. It was a huge success! The internal customer is pleased and there is definitely an improvement in how the company supports its clients. It has been a great 8 months working together…with some ups and downs of course. Each of the individuals on the project will be moving to other projects within the organisation, but no one is going to be on the same project. They will miss working with each other but have vowed to remain friends and keep in touch on a personal level - hopefully to work together again soon!

The team has gotten together in the New York office to discuss the project, including documenting best practices and discussing what worked effectively and what they would improve upon given the chance to do it again. Sandra has taken the team out to dinner. They are joined by the project sponsor and some other executives who are extremely pleased with the end result.

This is a simplistic view of a team working through the five stages of team development. I hope it provides some benefit to you.

Remember that at any time this team could revert back to a previous stage. Let's assume that another individual joins the team - the team will revert back to the "forming" stage as they learn how to work with the new team member; reestablishing team guidelines, finding their way again, and learning how to work cohesively as a team. Or, let's assume that Mohammed slips back into his old ways of keeping to himself and not sharing information with the team - this may cause the team to revert back to the "storming" stage.

It is important to remember that every team - regardless of what the team is working on - will follow these stages of team development. It is the job of the team leader to help see the team through these stages; to bring them to the point where they are working as effectively as possible toward a common goal.

• The Team Handbook, 3rd Edition (Scholtes, Joiner, Streibel), Publisher: Oriel
• Managing the Project Team (Vijay Verma), Publisher: PMI

Gina Abudi has over 15 years consulting experience in a variety of areas, including project management, process management, leadership development, succession planning, high potential programmes, talent optimisation and development of strategic learning and development programmes. She has been honoured by PMI as one of the Power 50 and has served as Chair of PMI's Global Corporate Council Leadership Team. She has presented at various conferences on topics ranging from general management and leadership topics to project management. Gina received her MBA from Simmons Graduate School of Management.

Copyright © 2009-2010 Gina Abudi. All rights reserved.

What's Next?

You may also be interested in, is your project proposal ready.

• The mnemonic READY is useful when creating a project proposal. It will help you produce a project proposal that's difficult to ignore.

8 Common Reasons Software Projects Fail and How to Succeed

• Unsatisfactory project results have become an IT industry norm. It's time to address the critical reasons software projects fail.

17 Must Ask Questions for Planning Successful Projects

• Why do some projects proceed without a hitch, yet others flounder? One reason may be the type and quality of the questions people ask at the very start.

Undertaking a Successful Project Audit

• A project audit provides an opportunity to uncover issues, concerns and challenges encountered during the project lifecycle.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Workplace Health Group: A Case Study of 20 Years of Multidisciplinary Research

Nicholas j. haynes.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia

Robert J. Vandenberg

Department of Management, University of Georgia

David M. DeJoy

Department of Health Promotion & Behavior, University of Georgia

Mark G. Wilson

Heather m. padilla, heather s. zuercher, melissa m. robertson.

Owens Institute of Behavioral Research, University of Georgia

The Workplace Health Group (WHG) was established in 1998 to conduct research on worker health and safety and organizational effectiveness. This multidisciplinary team includes researchers with backgrounds in psychology, health promotion and behavior, and intervention design, implementation, and evaluation. The article begins with a brief history of the team, its guiding principles, and stages of team formation and development. This section provides examples of the roles team composition, structure, processes, cognition, leadership, and climate played in the various stages of team development, as well as how they influenced team effectiveness. The WHG formed with functional diversity—variety in knowledge, skills, and abilities—in mind and the impact of this diversity is discussed throughout the article. Illustrations of how the functional diversity of the WHG has led to real-world impact are provided. The article concludes with some lessons learned and recommendations for creating and sustaining multidisciplinary teams based on the WHG’s 20 years of experience and the team science literature.

Work plays a central role in most people’s lives—for the average individual, about half of all waking hours are spent at work. Work influences where we live, whom we associate with, our health, and our quality of life. However, the American workforce faces considerable challenges associated with poor health, safety concerns, and lack of productivity. For example, nearly 30% of American workers are obese ( Luckhaupt, Cohen, Li, & Calvert, 2014 ), incurring substantial indirect costs for organizations associated with absenteeism, reduced productivity at work, insurance claims, disability, and premature mortality ( Goettler, Gross, & Sonntag, 2017 ). From 2003–2010, over 42,000 U.S. workers were fatally injured at work, with associated costs exceeding $44 billion ( The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2017 ). In 2016, 2.9 million workplace injuries and illnesses were reported by private employers, nearly one-third of which resulted in days away from work ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017 ).

These figures indicate a pressing need to address the health, safety, and effectiveness of the nation’s workforce. Yet, addressing these issues is extremely complicated due to physical, behavioral, psychological, social, technological, and sociopolitical factors—internal and external to an organization—that impact the nature and experience of work. The complexity of these issues requires multidisciplinary teams to understand and provide solutions to the real-world problems of worker health, safety, and effectiveness. The Workplace Health Group (WHG) was formed to address these real-world problems.

The WHG is a multidisciplinary research group that conducts research on workplace health, safety, and organizational effectiveness. The core of the group’s work revolves around the vision that healthy people and healthy workplaces are key ingredients of individual and organizational effectiveness and is reflected in the WHG value statement: healthy people + healthy places = healthy organizations. Through its research, the WHG works to understand the many complex links between work, safety, and health and how these impact employees’ quality of life and organizations’ overall effectiveness (financial as well as operational). As an academic group, the WHG’s goals reflect its institution’s mission to conduct impactful research, train students, and provide local and national outreach services. The WHG includes faculty, research staff, and graduate students from a number of disciplines including public health, psychology, management, sociology, human resources, nutrition, and exercise science. It is the intersection of these disciplines that provide the WHG the best opportunity to impact worker health, safety, and effectiveness. By leveraging each member’s expertise, understanding and valuing differences, and focusing on its mission, this multidisciplinary research team has been able to address real-world problems including employee obesity and chronic disease, workplace safety, and the cost effectiveness of employee health and safety initiatives.

A Brief History of the Workplace Health Group: From Forming to Performing

The WHG was founded in 1998; however, the effective team processes characterizing the WHG today did not occur immediately—or automatically—20 years ago when the members first began working together. Rather, it was an evolutionary process fraught with the dysfunctions that new groups commonly face as they go through the small group developmental stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ). Similarly, the group did not scan the extant literature of the day regarding teams and team effectiveness before forming. However, reviewing this literature now, the successes and missteps of the group align with what team science has uncovered. Thus, this article can be viewed as a case study of an effective, long-lasting multidisciplinary team, including recommendations based on the WHG’s 20 years of experience and the team science literature.

Forming The WHG

The forming stage involves the collection of team members as fairly independent agents who have come together to work on some agreed upon goals ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ). The forming stage began in 1998 with the writing of a grant proposal by the second, third, and fourth authors. In terms of team processes, this marked the group’s first transition phase ( Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001 ). Transition phases are defined as, “periods of time when teams focus primarily on evaluation and/or planning activities to guide their accomplishment of a team goal or objective” ( Marks et al., 2001 , p. 360). During this phase, the WHG took part in mission formulation and planning, along with goal and role specification. However, the WHG did not truly begin to function as a team until the grant proposal was funded. This award meant that the group had to seriously consider team structure and processes to deliver on its promises.

The award launched the WHG into their first action phase, or period of completing tasks that contribute directly to goal accomplishment ( Marks et al., 2001 ). These first transition and action phases were characterized by the typical forming stage ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ). Specifically, it was an exciting time during which the WHG began to understand and accept respective roles, hired a grant director, and offered assistantships to PhD students. The WHG emerged structurally as a team during this period; however, the members within it acted more as independent agents than team members.

The WHG was formed with diversity in expertise in mind. Functional diversity refers to team members differing in knowledge, skills, ability, educational background, and the roles they play within the team ( Milliken, Bartel, & Kurtzberg, 2003 ). One of the predominant means to addressing the effects of functional diversity on team performance is the information and decision-making perspective ( van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007 ; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998 ). According to this perspective, the variety in group composition has a direct, positive impact on group performance ( Williams & O’Reilly, 1998 ). Functional diversity gives the team a rich pool of resources to draw upon that facilitates the accomplishment of tasks toward team goals ( van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007 ). In short, the positive impact on team performance is due to the team providing a range of knowledge to solving problems. Meta-analytic evidence provides support for this perspective, concluding that functional diversity is positively related to team performance ( Bell et al., 2011 ).

Despite the positive effects functional diversity can have on team performance, the WHG soon discovered why functional diversity can be a double-edged sword ( Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002 ). Challenges include differences in perspectives from diverse backgrounds in training and methodology ( National Research Council [NRC], 2015 ; Slatin, Galizzi, Melillo, & Mawn, 2004 ), knowledge integration ( Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009 ; NRC, 2015 ), social integration ( Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002 ), high task interdependence ( Mannix & Neale, 2005 ; NRC, 2015 ), role conflict ( Johnson, Nguyen, Groth, & White, 2018 ), task conflict ( Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999 ), and relationship conflict ( Mohammed & Angell, 2004 ). These challenges pushed the WHG into the next stage of small group development: storming.

Storming The WHG

The storming stage entails team members learning each other’s strengths and weaknesses. As such, interactions in this stage are commonly fraught with conflict due to personality and other individual differences, differences in how individuals approach tasks, negotiating what tasks are completed by whom, and power differences.

For the WHG, the most contentious interactions occurred around topics of what constituted sound scientific practices according to the members’ individual training and experience. Although the second and third authors completed PhD degrees emphasizing social psychology, they were quite dissimilar with respect to their approaches to data analysis. The second author’s research focus on business management was aligned with the I-O psychology tradition of proposing a set of conceptually-driven hypotheses and undertaking analyses to test only those hypotheses (i.e., a priori analyses). The third author’s research focused largely on factors in the workplace that either improved or impeded workplace safety. As such, his approach to data analysis was discovery. The fourth author, on the other hand, was much more qualitatively trained. Needless to say, there were many instances when these viewpoints clashed during meetings or when the analyses requested appeared unreasonable to one or more members. This has been shown to be a common obstacle for multidisciplinary teams ( NRC, 2015 ).

In addition to this primary difference, there were also differences in work styles, approaches to conducting meetings, and approaches to undertaking the tasks. Reflecting back on these early stages of the group, there were several attitudes and processes that exacerbated rather than ameliorated the severity of the storming stage. One challenging attitude during this stage was rigidity in the members’ functional perspectives. For example, the second author recalls that in the early years, he thought nothing of conducting analyses, drawing conclusions from them on his own, and then telling the other members about the outcomes.

The same was true of the other primary members when presenting through their specialized functional lenses. Moreover, there were team processes during this stage that detracted from team effectiveness and the transition into the next stage of group development. Examples of these ineffective processes include irrelevant tangents during meetings, disrespecting boundaries by going around members rather than through them, and bringing on non-core members who were necessary for the task, but did not share the team’s mission and values. That final ineffective process taught the WHG the importance of team member selection on multidisciplinary teams ( NRC, 2015 ). However, membership on academic, multidisciplinary teams is typically voluntary, so frustrated or dissatisfied members often simply withdraw from the team. This begs the question: What kept the WHG together?

Surviving the storm.

The fact that the group was funded to conduct the research and had externally-assigned deadlines provided a practical reason to move through the storming stage. Even if there was disagreement on a decision, the group made a commitment to follow through with the funded project. While practical, the “funding” strategy on its own would not work for 20 years of multidisciplinary research. In addition to this motivation, there were several aspects of team composition, structure, and processes that helped the WHG get through the storming stage.

Regarding the WHG team composition, deep-level composition variables consisting of psychological characteristics, such as personality, values, and attitudes of team members were beneficial during this stage. Each team member at that time had a moderate to high level of agreeableness, which is positively related to team performance ( Bell, 2007 ). The group recalls that, for the most part, everyone was willing to discuss issues objectively and professionally without letting egos get in the way (e.g., avoiding a “this is my idea; I have to defend it” attitude). Additionally, each member had a high level of openness to experience, which Bell’s (2007) meta-analysis also revealed as a strong predictor of team performance. Multidisciplinary teams likely have a relatively high level of openness to experience because joining a multidisciplinary team indicates an openness to other perspectives to solve a common problem.

While the general personality of the group and its members was helpful in surviving the storming stage, the ability to make it through this stage was driven most by the WHG’s shared mission, vision, and values. Harrison et al. (2002) discovered that functional diversity had a significant, negative influence on social integration. However, they also found that outcome importance was the only actual (vs. perceived) deep-level diversity variable that had a significant effect on social integration, which then influenced team performance. In other words, differences in how important the goal was to team members appeared to have the greatest impact on their inability to socially integrate. The WHG members had not only agreed on their mission and its potential value, they all placed a high level of importance on fulfilling that mission, which facilitated social integration.

The group collectively believed (and still believes) that work and health have a complex relationship and that understanding and improving this relationship through research is important. Furthermore, the group believed (and still believes) that conducting real-world, multi-site intervention research requires a multidisciplinary team approach—no single researcher has the time or set of skills necessary to execute a project with total control and independence. Consequently, the shared mission and vision of members of the WHG was a key factor in the group’s social integration and survival of the storming stage. Dose and Klimoski (1999) corroborate these views, proposing that work values affect team formation early on in the process, and similarity in these values leads to cohesiveness, trust, norm development, and effective communication. Finally, these shared values and mission brought satisfaction to the group members. Despite the moments of contention (i.e., storming), the members enjoyed working together; they valued their functional diversity.

Team structure was also important for buffering conflict during this stage. Each member played a specific role, so it was easy to delegate tasks to certain people. This reduced the potential for conflict because it enabled members to focus on their tasks. However, there is an important distinction to be made here between taskwork and teamwork. Taskwork processes are what teams are doing, whereas teamwork processes are how they are doing it with each other. The WHG learned during the storming phase that it is not only taskwork that matters, but how processes and tasks are completed is critical to team effectiveness.

Marks et al. (2001) developed a helpful framework for understanding team processes—validated through meta-analysis ( LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008 ). While the transition and action processes were mentioned previously, Marks and colleagues also describe a third type of process: interpersonal processes. Interpersonal processes are processes that are used to manage interpersonal relationships that occur during both transition and action phases. Reflecting on this stage in the WHG’s history, the group can identify processes in each of these three categories that were beneficial to moving the group past the storming stage.

During transition phases, the way in which the group conducted mission analysis, formulation, and planning was helpful for social integration. This process was conducted in an open and participatory manner, where decisions were made collectively, and all members openly shared their opinions. While this process could be viewed as a hindrance to team performance because of its inefficiency, the positive influence it had on social integration far outweighed its potential negative influence, especially during this time of storming. This process allowed all team members to remain informed and involved.

Regarding mission planning, Fisher (2014) distinguishes between taskwork planning and teamwork planning, where taskwork planning includes task-relevant discussion, the development of alternative courses of action for task completion, and goal specification. Teamwork planning encompasses the clarification of roles as well as the identification of member strengths and weaknesses and who knows what necessary information. The teamwork planning that occurred during the forming stage helped with interpersonal processes during the storming stage ( Fisher, 2014 ). These processes assisted the WHG in the beginning stages of team mental model and transactive memory system formation (see below). During the action phase, the action process of monitoring progress toward goals had a positive influence on team accountability during the storming stage. The group set specific deadlines for tasks and were (fairly) good about holding each other accountable to them.

Two interpersonal processes outlined by Marks et al. (2001) were beneficial to the survival of the storming stage: (a) motivation and confidence building, and (b) interpersonal conflict management. Team motivational states include team efficacy and team empowerment ( Chen & Kanfer, 2006 ). During the storming stage, team efficacy and empowerment grew out of continued success in obtaining funding. As the group continued to work together, the members’ confidence in each other’s expertise grew, which increased the team’s efficacy as a whole, and provided motivation to continue despite conflicting individual differences.

In addition to this motivation and confidence building, the team’s interpersonal conflict management strategies were essential for successful transition out of the storming stage. Given that conflict is going to happen in teams, how a team manages that conflict becomes important. DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, and Doty (2013) state that, “the truth about team conflict: Conflict processes, that is, how teams interact regarding their differences, are at least as important as conflict states, that is, the source and intensity of their perceived incompatibilities” (p. 559).

Overall, the effective interpersonal conflict management strategies used by the WHG during this time were characteristic of collectivistic team conflict processes (e.g., processes emphasizing openness and collaboration when approaching conflict). Consistent with meta-analytic evidence ( DeChurch et al., 2013 ), the WHG’s experience was that these collectivistic team conflict processes had positive effects on the group’s affect and performance. Most importantly, members’ respect and trust for each other and their expertise was the foundation underlying these effective processes. The WHG had (and still has) a shared respect among group members, which allowed for an attitude of “agree to disagree” on certain points and the ability to set those issues aside and work together as a team ( de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 ).

The storming stage can be a make-or-break period for multidisciplinary, functionally diverse teams. Success at this stage involves recognizing and opening up to the fact that conflict will occur as interactions deepen and become more frequent over time. Success is also determined, in part, by how the team approaches and manages the imminent conflict. As illustrated by the examples in this section, aspects of team composition, structure, and processes can either help or hurt the team’s ability to survive the storm. Readers are encouraged to examine Table 1 for recommendations for getting through the storming stage—and all other stages—based on the WHG’s experiences and the team science literature.

Recommendations for Each Stage of Small Group Development

Norming The WHG

The norming stage is characterized by acceptance of the differences among team members and focus on accomplishing the team goals ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ). For the WHG, the key factor in ushering in the norming stage was the realization that the group was going to be a long-term entity. After successfully obtaining funding for additional projects over the years, the WHG took on a sense of permanency, which was an important psychological milestone because prior to this period, members sensed that the WHG would end with the completion of the next project. With continual funding came stability and a confidence that the values and goals of the WHG were resonating well with the funding sources.

Important to the norming of the WHG was solidifying the team leadership structure. The WHG leadership is an example of shared or collective leadership. Shared leadership can be defined as a “dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” ( Pearce & Conger, 2002 , p. 1). The WHG leadership structure at the beginning of this stage did incorporate a bit of hierarchy. For example, while everyone was encouraged to share their opinions on a topic, if a consensus could not be reached, the ultimate decision would be deferred to the member with expertise on that topic. The effectiveness of this deferment was rooted in the shared trust and respect discussed above. While the leadership style was and continues to be one of shared leadership, the addition of multiple, often overlapping, research grants and projects necessitated the expansion of the WHG team as well as an adjustment of the leadership structure.

With the expansion of team members and projects, it was no longer efficient to have all members of the WHG meet simultaneously, because projects would often have different principal investigators (PIs) and team members. To account for this change, the WHG formed sub-teams that were project specific and were led by the PI for that project. The expansion and the overlapping nature of the funded projects also led to the need to hire a research director. The research director position was instrumental in creating long-term standardized sets of operating procedures and processes across the projects. Standardizing the processes removed much ambiguity and provided a consistent set of norms under which all members would operate, in addition to further solidifying team member roles.

In terms of team processes, the research director role took the lead on most of the action processes described by Marks et al. (2001) ; namely, monitoring progress toward goals, systems monitoring, and coordination. In terms of the leadership and roles literature, the research director led most of the task leadership functions ( Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010 ). Specifically, the research director performed the leadership functions of structuring and planning, or coordinating when work should be done (e.g., timing, scheduling, work flow). The WHG leadership structure became necessarily more hierarchical over time with the formation of sub-teams; however, open sharing and collective decision-making characterized each sub-team along with the core team. Advantages of this leadership structure include creating a sense of value within the group and giving everyone a voice, while also taking advantage of the efficiency of sub-teams. Indeed, Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone (2007) found that a shared purpose, social support, and voice were positively related to shared leadership. However, some disadvantages of this type of structure can include creating an opportunity for team members to avoid ownership, and some confusion among new team members regarding who is the “boss” (see Table 2 for WHG role descriptions).

Descriptions of the Workplace Health Group Roles and Responsibilities

Another important process that occurred during the norming stage was the further development of team cognition (e.g., shared mental models and transactive memory systems). Shared mental models represent knowledge that is common among team members, whereas transactive memory systems represent knowledge that is distributed among team members ( DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010 ). As stated earlier, the WHG’s team cognition began to form in the first transition phase, during which the team explored strengths and weaknesses of each member. However, the team cognition at the forming stage was in its infancy and was very limited in scope. During the norming stage, the shared mental models and transactive memory systems expanded, which has been shown to have strong, positive relationships with team behavioral processes, motivational states, and team performance ( DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010 ).

How did the WHG develop their team cognition? In the words of one team member, “meetings…lots of meetings.” However, meetings alone do not guarantee the effective development of team cognition. Rather, what happened during the WHG meetings is what drove the team cognition development process. Specifically, in order to develop team cognition, team members had to share and integrate information (i.e., information sharing and elaboration, respectively). Although evidence suggests that functionally diverse teams are the least likely to share their unique information with each other ( Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009 ), the mutual respect and trust established in the storming stage was key to facilitating information sharing for the WHG by creating a team psychological safety climate.

Team psychological safety climate is defined as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking, and is characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect, which creates an environment where team members are comfortable being themselves ( Edmondson, 1999 ). Mannix and Neale (2005) observed that diverse teams must create an environment where members are comfortable sharing information to be effective and fully utilize the diversity of the team. During the storming stage, the WHG sought to create an environment of psychological safety where different views could be presented without fear of ridicule or retribution. Through this psychological safety climate, WHG team members were able to take full advantage of information sharing and its positive impact on team performance.

The regularly scheduled WHG meetings were (and are) characterized by relatively high levels of open and unique information sharing, high cooperation, and ample opportunities for each team member to share his or her opinion. These characteristics have all been shown to facilitate team cohesion and satisfaction ( Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009 ). However, to develop team cognition, information does not simply need to be shared, it must also be integrated. Information elaboration involves exchanging information and perspectives (i.e., information sharing), providing feedback to the group, and a discussion and integration of the shared information ( van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004 ). This information elaboration process enables functionally diverse teams to transform and fully utilize their knowledge, skills, and resources into actionable solutions to complex problems ( Resick, Murase, Randall, & DeChurch, 2014 ; van Knippenberg et al., 2004 ). The WHG has found these processes to be beneficial not only to team cognition, but also to team effectiveness.

Performing The WHG

The performing stage is characterized by a high degree of success along several different metrics, driven largely by a participative team culture ( Tuckman & Jensen, 1977 ). The WHG is currently in the performing stage in which its multidisciplinary composition is effectively utilized to not only solve problems on current projects, but also to develop innovative ideas for new grant opportunities. Since 1998, the WHG has achieved continuous external funding (approximately $13 million) from many sources, including NIH, CDC, NIOSH, and FEMA. The WHG successes are also apparent in its 66 peer-reviewed publications, 14 book chapters, and 74 presentations. Regarding application of the WHG’s research to real-world problems, the group has worked with large employers such as Home Depot, Union Pacific Railroad, and Dow Chemical, as well as with governmental employers, including city-country governments, state agencies, and municipal public safety departments in both urban and rural settings.

The diverse composition of the team in terms of function and personality allowed members to bring a collective group of strengths together. For example, one PI is very task-oriented, which helps keep the projects and proposals progressing. Another PI is more conceptual and thoughtful, which is very important in the proposal or project development and troubleshooting phases. Additionally, the WHG continues to improve team processes. The following example illustrates how the WHG currently solves problems and makes decisions through information sharing and elaboration and collective decision-making.

During a recent meeting devoted to the quantitative analyses of aims and hypotheses of the WHG’s current grant, the data analysis sub-team needed to determine whether any primary analyses would be biased by the presence of nesting issues. There were conceptual reasons not to expect the interdependency, but the sub-team wanted to present statistical evidence that this was the case. Most illustrative of the performing stage is the fact that the data analysis sub-team did not want to make this decision on its own. Rather, it wanted to present the conceptual and statistical evidence to all WHG members to get their feedback on the issue.

This differs dramatically from the example given in the storming stage of simply telling others what had been done and expect that the they accept it. Now the data analysis sub-team solicits input by communicating the conceptual and statistical evidence to members in a manner they understand ( Williams & O’Reilly, 1998 ). Therefore, while the sub-team leader couched the general problem to other members in a non-technical manner, most importantly, the PhD student organized and presented the statistical results in a manner such that the less statistically-oriented members could be part of the conversation and the decisions made. The WHG meetings have been conducted in this manner for many years now, regardless of the issues being addressed or decisions being made. While this meeting process makes it difficult to submit numerous proposals quickly, it allows for a fuller integration and extension of the disciplines involved.

A final area that has led to the WHG’s effectiveness is the strengthening of its psychological safety climate. Two points are worth noting about this increase in climate strength: the climate is now both easily recognizable and quickly beneficial to new team members. At the start of 2018, when writing and submitting a new grant proposal, in addition to the primary WHG members, there were two subject matter experts (SMEs) with their own functional knowledge added to the group for purposes of the grant. Both individuals sensed immediately the climate of the WHG and adjusted their conversations in a manner that fit within this climate. After the proposal was submitted, one of those individuals commented that it was the best grant writing experience he has had in over 20 years as a faculty member.

In addition to high satisfaction, the WHG team climate provides a sense of value, belonging, and support to new team members. For example, recently, the WHG had several full-time staff members serving as health coaches on a funded project. Throughout the project, the PIs and research director met with the coaches on a weekly basis to discuss progress and problems. These meetings were designed to facilitate group learning and problem-solving while also creating a supportive environment for the health coaches.

Although the WHG is in the performing stage, continued successful performance requires consistent and sustained effort on the part of all team members. Moreover, the WHG team must continue to actively manage changes in personnel (including changes in the experience and position of personnel) to maintain effectiveness (NRC, 2015). For example, the former research director (the fifth author) recently graduated with her PhD and joined the university as a faculty member; this required team members to adjust their views of her as a staff member who managed the day-to-day details to a co-investigator. Additionally, as PhD students enter, grow in competence, and exit the group, the team needs to adjust its expectations regarding the level of autonomy versus oversight. Ongoing performance is actively facilitated by a flexible and open-minded approach to changes in the various team members and their competencies.

Illustrations of Functional Diversity and Real-World Impact

The diverse knowledge, skills, abilities, educational and experiential backgrounds of the WHG members provide opportunities for each person’s unique experience and expertise to enhance the group’s projects. The group’s basic approach has involved a conscious merger of theories and principles from the behavioral sciences, predominately psychology, with strategies adapted from public health research and practice. Specifically, the WHG blends the methodological and measurement sophistication of the behavioral sciences with the field-based tactics of public health. The WHG has conducted research in several areas, including physical activity in the workplace (e.g., Dishman, DeJoy, Wilson, & Vandenberg, 2009 ), organizational health promotion (e.g., DeJoy & Wilson, 2003 ), firefighter safety (e.g., Smith, Eldridge, & DeJoy, 2016 ), and many others. However, the group’s innovation is perhaps most evident in three of the WHG’s areas of research: healthy work organizations, environmental approaches to weight management, and research translation.

Healthy Work Organization Research

The WHG’s focus on healthy work organization (HWO) coincided with the emergence of integrated programming (e.g., “Total Worker Health” [TWH]). TWH seeks to merge health protection and promotion into a single integrated endeavor to maximize the health, safety, and well-being of workers. In one of the first interventions to focus on changing work organization factors (e.g., work schedules) to improve worker health, safety, and effectiveness, the WHG collaborated with a large, national retailer to test a model of HWO. To successfully design, implement, and evaluate this HWO intervention required expertise in four areas: 1) how work organizations operate, 2) intervention design and implementation, 3) behavioral theory, and 4) advanced methods and statistics.

The second author provided expertise in individual worker adjustment to outline organizational antecedents, mediators, and outcomes associated with the intervention. Moreover, his expertise in high involvement work processes ( Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999 ) as a psychological climate variable provided a primary theoretical framework for the intervention. The third author added to this knowledge with his expertise in occupational health and safety, allowing him to theorize health and safety outcomes and antecedents, such as a safety climate (e.g., DeJoy, Schaffer, Wilson, Vandenberg, & Butts, 2004 ). His expertise in behavioral theories also enabled him to spearhead the application of psychological theories to the design of the intervention. The fourth author, with his expertise in public health intervention creation, implementation, and evaluation, was able to integrate this knowledge together into a cohesive program designed to modify underlying behaviors and environmental conditions, ultimately mitigating the outcomes. Finally, the WHG utilized the second author’s expertise of longitudinal data analysis (e.g., Lance, Vandenberg, & Self, 2000 ) and structural equation modeling (e.g., Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009 ) to properly analyze the effectiveness of the intervention. Together, the PIs were able to develop and implement a workplace intervention program that had positive effects on worker health, safety, and effectiveness.

Specifically, this research investigated the effects of the HWO intervention on employee health, financial performance, and organizational climate. The HWO intervention was a team-based, data-driven, problem-solving approach that expanded upon the process proposed by DeJoy and Wilson (2003) . Employee teams that included representatives from all departments and employee levels used work organization data specific to their worksite to create a plan to improve safety and health conditions within their worksite. Compared to control sites, worksites receiving the intervention fared better in terms of organizational climate, psychological work adjustment, perceived health and safety, employee turnover, and sales per hour ( DeJoy, Wilson, Vandenberg, McGrath, & Griffin-Blake, 2010 ).

Environmental Approaches to Weight Management Research

One project focusing on environmental approaches to weight management was conducted with the cooperation of the Dow Chemical Company, Cornell University, and National Business Group on Health ( Goetzel et al., 2010 ). Using the psychological principles of goal setting, reinforcement theory, and self-regulation, this multi-site randomized trial approached weight management by focusing on modifications to work and organizational environments rather than focusing exclusively on individual behavior change strategies. Two levels of environmental modifications were tested: straightforward environmental changes (e.g., altering onsite food and snack options, installing walking paths and/or other features supportive of physical activity, establishing an employee recognition program), and an additional set of interventions directed at building management and organizational support for healthy eating and physical activity. This was one of the first intervention studies to attempt to modify obesity in an entire work population by focusing on the work environment itself. Adding to contributions made by the PIs (similar to the example above), the fifth author provided her expertise as a registered dietitian nutritionist to include nutrition strategies to this and other intervention projects.

This project aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing environmental interventions for obesity prevention in worksites and test whether environmental interventions, relative to individual interventions, reduced the prevalence of obesity, decreased healthcare utilization, and improved employee productivity. This intervention trial also featured a detailed process evaluation component to assess intervention fidelity and the development of two new assessment tools: the Environmental Assessment Tool (EAT) and the Leading by Example Questionnaire (LBE; DeJoy et al., 2012 ; DeJoy et al., 2008 ; Della, DeJoy, Goetzel, Ozminkowski, & Wilson, 2008 ). The EAT is an audit tool for assessing workplace physical and social environmental supports for weight management. The LBE is a brief scale for assessing management support for positive health behaviors. Management support is considered a crucial component of successful workplace health promotion initiatives, but prior to this project, it had seldom been objectively assessed. Intervention sites showed consistent improvements in environmental supports for weight management and positive shifts in perceived health climate. However, intervention fidelity was less robust for the intensive treatment condition, revealing some of the challenges involved in sustaining leadership engagement. Overall, the environmental interventions were effective in preventing weight gain, but did not demonstrate effects on healthcare costs and employee productivity ( Goetzel et al., 2010 ).

Translation Research

A third area of research for the WHG has involved research translation. The WHG’s translation projects primarily represent what Schulte et al. (2017) referred to as Stage 2 (Testing) among the four stages of translation, where programs shown to be effective in clinical and other non-work setting are adapted for implementation in work settings. Thus far, the WHG has conducted three translation projects. The first project began in 2007 at which time there was little guidance on the process of research translation and few translation studies in worksites to draw upon. This required the WHG to rely on the team’s experience to inform the translation process.

The WHG’s first project on translation assessed whether the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was feasible and effective for weight loss in a worksite setting. DPP was translated into a simple, low cost intervention that could be used in a variety of work settings, including those with limited health and wellness resources. The intervention used a combination of occupational health nurses and peer health coaches to implement the translated DPP. Compared to control worksites, participants in the intervention sites maintained their weight ( Wilson, DeJoy, Vandenberg, Padilla, & Davis, 2016 ). Data from this project suggested that peer health coaches were underutilized, and employees were not comfortable talking with their peers about personal health issues.

Building on these findings, the WHG tested a second translation of DPP that included intensive health coaching facilitated by trained WHG staff. Worksites were randomized into one of three conditions: a) telephone health coaching, b) small groups facilitated by a health coach, and c) self-study (comparison condition). The phone condition lost significantly more weight than either the group condition or self-study condition ( Wilson et al., 2016 ). Translation and intervention implementation in worksites requires consideration of implementation costs, cost-effectiveness, and return-on-investment. To capture economic aspects of translation and implementation of programs in the worksite, the group recruited an SME with expertise in economic evaluation. A detailed costs analysis found that the phone condition was costlier than the group and self-study condition ( Ingels et al., 2016 ). Additionally, group coaching was not cost-effective relative to the self-study condition (Corso et al., 2018). In a more recent translation project, the WHG worked with the original developers of the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) at Stanford University. The research team created a workplace version of the program “wCDSMP” and preliminary findings (project is ongoing) show positive results for a number of relevant outcomes (fatigue, physical activity, etc.) compared to the traditional CDSMP ( Smith et al., 2018 ).

As others have reported, one of the largest challenges in translating programs from clinic and community settings to worksites is balancing program fidelity and adaptation ( Backer, 2001 ). Modifications to key intervention components (i.e., local adaptations) must be possible, but not so extensive as to dilute or destroy intervention efficacy ( Wilson, Brady, & Lesesne, 2011 ). The WHG has improved in this area over time. Whereas earlier projects weighted the fidelity-adaptation balance perhaps too far toward adaptation, the more recent translation efforts have increased the fidelity of the translation process. This change has resulted in more effective interventions in terms of expected outcomes ( Blakely et al., 1987 ).

These research translation projects have relied on the intervention expertise of the fourth author, the behavior theory expertise of the third author, the methodological expertise of the second author, the experience in coordination and intervention implementation of the fifth and sixth authors, data management and analysis by the first and last authors, and the contribution of SMEs. These projects would not be possible without the unique contributions of the entire team.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Multidisciplinary Teams

A number of lessons have been learned over the last 20 years. Unlike Table 1 , what follows are general recommendations that are not necessarily specific to any stage, but provide guidance to those starting up multidisciplinary, functionally diverse labs or workgroups.

• Develop a primary vision, mission, and goal. Key to the success of any multidisciplinary team is collective identification through a shared mission, vision, and goal ( Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005 ). The vision for the WHG has always been promoting better health and safety in the workplace. Practically, all decisions within the group return to asking, “how well is what we are deciding facilitating completing our vision?” For example, the WHG ignores calls for grant proposals that do not have a clear link to promoting better health, safety, and effectiveness in the workplace. Not only will a clear vision, mission, and goal provide a helpful decision-making anchor for the group, as outlined in the storming stage section, this common mission can help unite the team and buffer the negative effects of functional diversity on social integration and performance.
• Prepare for conflict via teamwork training and development. Conflict will arise on any team. However, as has been illustrated in the WHG experience and the teams research literature, multidisciplinary teams increase the probability of interpersonal conflict. A helpful way to prepare for conflict and challenges is through teamwork building and training. There are several types of effective team building and training interventions available and the choice depends on the team’s goal for the training. Two types of team building activities the authors would recommend to all new multidisciplinary teams are discipline-specific information sharing (e.g., foundational concepts, typical methodologies) and interpersonal conflict management training. The information sharing should be done on a consistent and systematic basis over time (see Slatin et al., 2004 ). Interpersonal conflict management is important in all teams, but particularly so in multidisciplinary teams (e.g., Johnson et al., 2018 ). Readers are encouraged to refer to Lacerenza, Marlow, Tannenbaum, and Salas (2018) and NRC (2015) for excellent resources on specific types of evidence-based team building and training.
• Embrace the power of multidisciplinary, functional diversity. Multidisciplinary, functionally diverse teams are essential to solve many complex, real-world problems. Supporting this statement, Uzzi, Mukherjee, Stringer, and Jones (2013) discovered that journal articles which combined the highly conventional (i.e., based on prior research) with the infusion of unusual combinations of disciplines have the highest impact. As such, the WHG recommends avoiding hiring or inviting someone to the team who duplicates the knowledge, skills, and abilities of another member—this includes staff, students, and SMEs. While some overlap is expected, the individual should bring an expertise to the team that is needed or required. As noted previously, one source of conflict for the WHG was differing views of what constituted “science” from members’ functional lenses. Part of embracing the power of multidisciplinary, functional diversity includes confronting this issue, perhaps through training mentioned in Recommendation #2. Moreover, these issues should be directly addressed with PhD students, who are in the process of being socialized to their respective fields and may come in to the multidisciplinary team with strong beliefs about “good science” that are inherited from faculty in their home departments.
• Invest in graduate students. Adding graduate students to the research team is a mutually beneficial experience for the student and the team. Graduate students—typically from I-O psychology—have always been an important part of the WHG. Graduate students provide up-to-date knowledge of their discipline’s research literature and contemporary research methods and statistical analyses, which allows the group to answer different questions in different ways than it would be able to without that perspective. From the student’s perspective, working with the WHG lets them participate first-hand in multidisciplinary research and gain competence in a number of statistical techniques and research designs—experiences that help prepare them for co-investigator roles on grant submissions. In addition to I-O psychology students, the WHG has worked with and trained students from other areas, including business management, health promotion and behavior, and epidemiology. All these students brought their own experiences and expertise and received valuable training from multiple disciplines.
• Plan for the long-term. Along with hiring “good” people (e.g., who share the team’s mission, enhance functional diversity, and are open-minded toward other perspectives), a successful multidisciplinary team should include and mentor junior faculty and research staff with a succession plan in mind. While still involved in nearly all of the projects, the third author is officially retired, and the second and fourth authors are likely within a few years of retiring. It would be disappointing to see the WHG “retire” with them. Successors should ideally join the multidisciplinary team prior to retirements, or other forms of team attrition, to form an institutional memory of the team’s history and an understanding of what it will take to adapt the team to changing circumstances and new opportunities. The WHG has incorporated a training model into its project director, research coordinator, and research director roles, where staff hired in one role were often promoted to project director or research director after gaining experience.

Conclusions

The WHG’s existence for 20 years has been due admittedly in part to good luck—meaning, the group did not form with an understanding of multidisciplinary team effectiveness or a long-term plan in mind. However, the group’s success is also largely due to addressing meaningful questions, informed by psychological principles, careful intervention designs, and rigorous quasi-experimental field methodology. The WHG’s commitment to addressing meaningful questions about health, safety, and effectiveness has guided the WHG through the inevitable conflicts and challenges over a 20-year period. While the WHG did not form with multidisciplinary team effectiveness knowledge, it did form with functional diversity as a core component. Reflecting on the group’s 20 years of existence, it is clear that the experiences and lessons learned by the WHG are consistent with the team science literature. It is the authors’ hope that this article proves to be a beneficial case study of an effective and long-lasting multidisciplinary team, providing an inside look at the triumphs, missteps, and lessons learned of the WHG, while also connecting these experiences to the scientific literature.

Contributor Information

Nicholas J. Haynes, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia.

Robert J. Vandenberg, Department of Management, University of Georgia.

David M. DeJoy, Department of Health Promotion & Behavior, University of Georgia.

Mark G. Wilson, Department of Health Promotion & Behavior, University of Georgia.

Heather M. Padilla, Department of Health Promotion & Behavior, University of Georgia.

Heather S. Zuercher, Department of Health Promotion & Behavior, University of Georgia.

Melissa M. Robertson, Owens Institute of Behavioral Research, University of Georgia.

• Backer TE (2001). Finding the balance: Program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention: A state-of-the-art review Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell ST (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 ( 3 ), 595–615. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L, & Briggs AL (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management , 37 ( 3 ), 709–743. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blakely CH, Mayer JP, Gottschalk RG, Schmitt N, Davidson WS, Roitman DB, & Emshoff JG (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology , 15 , 253–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bunderson JS, & Sutcliffe KM (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal , 45 ( 5 ), 875–893. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Employer-reported workplace injuries and illnesses – 2016 Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_11092017.pdf
• Carson JB, Tesluk PE, & Marrone JA (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal , 50 ( 5 ), 1217–1234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen G, & Kanfer R (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior , 27 , 223–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Wit FR, Greer LL, & Jehn KA (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 ( 2 ), 360–390. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeChurch LA, & Mesmer-Magnus JR (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 ( 1 ), 32–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR, & Doty D (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 98 ( 4 ), 559–578. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Della LJ, DeJoy DM, Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, & Wilson MG (2008). Assessing management support for worksite health promotion: Psychometric analysis of the Leading by Example instrument. American Journal of Health Promotion , 22 , 359–367. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJoy DM, Schaffer BS, Wilson MG, Vandenberg RJ, & Butts MM (2004). Creating safer workplaces: assessing the determinants and role of safety climate. Journal of Safety Research , 35 ( 1 ), 81–90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJoy DM, & Wilson MG (2003). Organizational health promotion: Broadening the horizon of workplace health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion , 17 ( 5 ), 337–341. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJoy DM, Wilson MG, Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, Wang S, Baker KM, … Tully KJ (2008). Development of the environmental assessment tool (EAT) to measure organizational physical and social support for worksite obesity prevention programs. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 50 , 126–137. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJoy DM, Wilson MG, Padilla HM, Goetzel RG, Parker KB, Della LJ, & Roemer EN (2012). Process evaluation results from an environmentally-focused worksite weight management study. Health Education and Behavior , 39 , 405–418. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeJoy DM, Wilson MG, Vandenberg RJ, McGrath-Higgins AL, Griffin-Blake CS (2010). Assessing the impact of healthy work organization intervention. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 83 , 139–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dishman RK, DeJoy DM, Wilson MG, & Vandenberg RJ (2009). Move to improve: A randomized trial to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine , 36 ( 2 ), 133–141. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dose JJ, & Klimoski RJ (1999). The diversity of diversity: Work values effects on formative team processes. Human Resource Management Review , 9 ( 1 ), 83–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly , 44 ( 2 ), 350–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher DM (2014). Distinguishing between taskwork and teamwork planning in teams: Relations with coordination and interpersonal processes. Journal of Applied Psychology , ( 3 ), 423–436. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goettler A, Grosse A, & Sonntag D (2017). Productivity loss due to overweight and obesity: A systematic review of indirect costs. BMJ Open , 7 ( 10 ), e014632. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetzel RZ, Gibson TB, Short ME, Chu B-C, Waddell J, Bowen J, … Wilson MG (2010). A multi-worksite analysis of the relationships among body mass index, medical utilization, and worker productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 52 ( Suppl 1 ), S52–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetzel RZ, Roemer EC, Pei X, Short ME, Tabrizi M, Wilson MG, … Baase C (2010). Second year results of an obesity prevention program at The Dow Chemical Company. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 52 , 291–302. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, & Florey AT (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal , 45 ( 5 ), 1029–1045. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingels JB, Walcott RL, Wilson MG, Corso PS, Padilla HM, Zuercher H, … Vandenberg RJ (2016). A prospective programmatic cost analysis of Fuel Your Life: A worksite translation of DPP. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 58 , 1106–1112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, & Neale MA (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly , 44 ( 4 ), 741–763. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson A, Nguyen H, Groth M, & White L (2018). Reaping the rewards of functional diversity in healthcare teams: Why team processes improve performance. Group & Organization Management , 1059601118769192.
• Lacerenza CN, Marlow SL, Tannenbaum SI, & Salas E (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist , 73 ( 4 ), 517–531. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lance CE, Vandenberg RJ, & Self RM (2000). Latent growth models of individual change: The case of newcomer adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 83 , 107–140. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, Mathieu JE, & Saul JR (2008). A meta‐analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology , 61 ( 2 ), 273–307. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luckhaupt SE, Cohen MA, Li J, & Calvert GM (2014). Prevalence of obesity among US workers and associations with occupational factors. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 46 ( 3 ), 237–248. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannix E, & Neale MA (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 6 ( 2 ), 31–55. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks MA, Mathieu JE, & Zaccaro SJ (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review , 26 ( 3 ), 356–376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mesmer-Magnus JR, & DeChurch LA (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 ( 2 ), 535. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milliken FJ, Bartel CA, & Kurtzberg TR (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In Paulus PB & Nijstad BA (Eds.), Group creativity (pp. 32–62). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.001.0001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammed S, & Angell LC (2004). Surface‐ and deep‐ level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25 ( 8 ), 1015–1039. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgeson FP, DeRue DS, & Karam EP (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management , 36 ( 1 ), 5–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearce CL, & Conger JA (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Resick CJ, Murase T, Randall KR, & DeChurch LA (2014). Information elaboration and team performance: Examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 124 ( 2 ), 165–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulte PA, Cunningham TR, Nickels L, Felknor S, Guerin R, Blosser F, … Flynn M (2017). Translation research in occupational safety and health: A proposed framework. American Journal of Industrial Medicine , 60 ( 12 ), 1011–1022. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons TL, & Peterson RS (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 ( 1 ), 102–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slatin C, Galizzi M, Melillo KD, & Mawn B (2004). Conducting interdisciplinary research to promote healthy and safe employment in health care: Promises and pitfalls. Public Health Reports , 119 ( 1 ), 60–72. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith ML, Wilson MG, Robertson MM, Padilla HM, Zuercher H, Vandenberg R, … DeJoy DM (2018). Impact of a translated disease self-management program on employee health and productivity: Six-month findings from a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 , 851. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TD, Eldridge F, & DeJoy DM (2016). Safety-specific transformational and passive leadership influences on firefighter safety climate perceptions and safety behavior outcomes. Safety Science , 86 , 92–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2017). Economic burden of occupational fatal injuries in the United States based on the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2003–2010 [Data set].
• Tuckman BW, & Jensen MAC (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies , 2 , 419–427. DOI: 10.1177/105960117700200404 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, & Jones B (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science , 342 ( 6157 ), 468–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Der Vegt GS, & Bunderson JS (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal , 48 ( 3 ), 532–547. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CK, & Homan AC (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 ( 6 ), 1008–1022. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Knippenberg D, & Schippers MC (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology , 58 , 515–541. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vandenberg RJ, Richardson H, & Eastman L (1999). High involvement organizations: Their antecedents and consequences Group & Organization Management, 24 , 300–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams KY, & O’Reilly CA (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior , 20 , 77–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams LJ, Vandenberg RJ, & Edwards JR (2009). Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals , 3 : 543–604. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson KM, Brady TJ, Lesesne C (2011). An organizing framework for translation in public health: The Knowledge to Action Framework. Preventing Chronic Disease , 8 , A46. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson MG, DeJoy DM, Vandenberg RJ, Corso PS, Padilla HM, & Zuercher H (2016). Effect of intensity and program delivery on the translation of DPP to worksites: A randomized controlled trial of Fuel Your Life. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 58 , 1113–1120. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson MG, DeJoy DM, Vandenberg RJ, Padilla HM, & Davis M (2016). FUEL Your Life: A translation of the Diabetes Prevention Program to Worksites. American Journal of Health Promotion , 30 , 188–197. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

October 2005 // Volume 43 // Number 5 // Feature Articles // 5FEA4

Diamonds in the Rough: A Case Study of Team Development Across Disciplines, Distances, and Institutions

Abstract The ethnographic case study reported here analyzed the experiences of a team of faculty from different universities in a technology-intensive project. Team development mirrored Tuckman's model of small group development. Contrary to previous research, the leader did not have higher status than members, and approached the role with empathy rather than aggression. Motivation levels, timeline pressures, inadequate evaluation and rewards, leadership style, need for cohesion and interaction, and importance of trust are reported.

Susan Fritz Associate Professor [email protected]

Amy Boren Graduate Research Assistant [email protected]

Valerie Egger Staff Assistant [email protected]

Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, Nebraska

Introduction

For decades social scientists have examined how small groups and teams function (Deutsch, 1949; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993; Tuckman, 1965). Research explored team development (Tuckman, 1965), cohesion (Gammage, Carron, & Estabrooks, 2001), effectiveness (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997), team building (Hart & McLeod, 2003) and related topics. However, few studies have explored the development of teams from different organizations and different disciplines. Yet multi-disciplinary teams from different institutions are becoming the norm in higher education and Extension (Leholm, Hamm, Suvedi, Gray, & Poston, 1999). Competitive federal and state grant programs emphasize multi-disciplinary collaboration in research and Extension (Leholm et al., 1999).

As research and Extension shift toward collaborative efforts between different institutions and disciplines, a better understanding of the dynamics of such groups is critical for success. The purpose of the ethnographic case study reported here was to explore team-building strategies by describing faculty reactions to their participation in a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional team project conducted via distance.

To understand faculty perceptions toward multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional teamwork, ethnographic case study methods were employed (Merriam, 1988; Spradley, 1979). A case study is " chosen precisely because researchers are interested in insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing" (Merriam, 1988, p.10). Ethnographic case studies provide in-depth descriptions of the culture of the social group being studied (Wolcott, 1980) by collecting data that is not only extensive, but intensive.

Consistent with case study design, researchers identified 10 faculty members engaged in an Extension team project as sources of data (Merriam, 1988). The team members were from five different universities and had Extension appointments in diverse agricultural disciplines. Data were collected from interviews over a 2-year period at the beginning, middle, and end of the project. Interviews were conducted in person or over the phone, transcribed, verified, and analyzed for themes.

The team in this study came together to work on a grant-funded project to develop online educational resources. Figure 1 depicts this team's development by integrating team events with Tuckman's (1965) team development model.

Figure 1. Integration of Tuckman's (1965) Small Group Development Model into One Team's Experience

Motivation for Collaboration

Most team members were motivated by a desire to further their knowledge of Web-based instruction. One participant noted, "I think this gives you a chance to get involved in distance education. The process of developing a module and writing objectives is different when you're doing it online."

Other team members expressed utilitarian motives. As one commented, "This electronic library containing these modules will be valuable to me . . . a useful, tangible product that I can use in my program."

Though their reasons for collaboration varied, all team members were convinced that creating the lessons would be essential as Extension becomes more involved in distance delivery. One participant commented:

Do we really use the right tools or the right methods to teach these things on the Web? And these . . . non-traditional students, how well can they relate to these units? We are used to teaching in the classroom. We look at the students' eyes and can see whether they understand. When you put things on the Web . . . it really makes us think about whether we can modify it to make it better.

Though two team members were motivated to collaborate by the prospect of a useful end product, most were motivated to improve their methods of instructional delivery.

The goal of all team members was to produce a superior instructional Web site. However, as the project progressed and deadlines were frequently unmet, many members questioned that goal. One interviewee expressed her frustration, "I keep wondering if we're going to get our lessons done in time . . . if we're going to be finished before we run out of time and money."

Some team members began lowering their expectations. One team member shared, "Even if we only manage to do a good job completing 80% of our objectives, I think it will be a successful outcome."

Overall, each team member went through a period of questioning team objectives. The anxiety they expressed was consistent with the reactions of other, similar teams (Younglove-Webb, Gray, Abdalla, & Thurow, 1999).

Evaluation and Rewards

There was overwhelming concern about the lack of concrete evaluation methods for their participation (Frost & Gillespie, 1998; McKenzie & Lee, 1998; Wageman, 1995). Most team members felt their administrators encouraged collaboration, but were unprepared to evaluate and reward such endeavors. One participant observed:

I think the problem comes [in evaluating] your particular role . . . [Administrators] have difficulty determining whether you are a big player or just a bit player taking the credit for work other people did. So while they promote it on the one hand, they have difficulty rewarding participation.

An undertone of cynicism taints this participant's words about administrators:

We are in a crunch for funding so people get together in order to get certain things done . . . I'm going to say that the administration likes to see us deliver certain results and if the multi-disciplinary approach is the way to deliver the right results then I'm sure they're going to be favorable to it.

Additionally, though their peers were not unsupportive , they were generally unaware of their departmental colleagues' collaborations. One interviewee quipped, "I'm not sure that they know that I'm involved and I'm not sure that they would care."

Overall, team members felt little support from their colleagues and administrators.

Team Leader

Critical to the team's success was a facilitator who was the driving force behind the completion of the work (Burns, 1994; Gersick, 1989; Proehl, 2000; Schrage, 1995; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). Without the constant cajoling of the facilitator, team members agree the project would never have progressed. One participant admitted, "I think the person in charge has done an excellent job. She's got the right touch of encouragement and reminding you of the need to deliver."

Though the team leader was relentless in keeping the other team members on track, she still maintained a positive relationship with them. One participant expressed, "The leadership was awesome! Unfortunately, we're not all good followers; so I don't think we finished in a timely manner. [The team leader's] patience and the way she encourages were very positive."

By fostering open, trusting relationships with the team members, this team leader created a working environment conducive to collaboration (Schrage, 1995).

An initial face-to-face meeting in which team members became acquainted with one another; clarified and defined roles, objectives, and deadlines; and set ground rules for communication was critical in achieving team cohesion (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Scholtes, 1991; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). But many team members still missed the interaction of face-to-face meetings. According to one interviewee, "It would have been nice . . . to have gotten together more often as a group. I think it will be twice during . . . the whole process that we have ever been together as a group."

The distance separating team members added to difficulties in achieving the fusion necessary for successful collaboration (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Kiesler & Cummings, 2002). In the beginning, one team member expressed, "We want to make sure this set of modules doesn't look like a six room house built by six different contractors! We need to have enough interaction so that we have a common view."

In spite of the distance separating them, the team evolved from a mere work group into a synergistic entity. One interviewee noted at the project's end, "We talk as a group much more often now. Many of the modules reflect the thinking of the entire group . . . the lessons are better than they would have been if they were developed by an individual."

The team's transformation followed Tuckman's (1965) team development model. The forming and storming stages of this team were rife with doubts and uncertainty about how the project would be carried out. As the team reached the norming and performing stages of development, trust and camaraderie were prevalent.

Interaction

Communication problems are widespread in teams collaborating via distance and can be harmful to productivity and cohesion (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Kiesler & Cummings, 2002; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). One interviewee observed, "We're all so far away, I think it made it harder for us to put this project on our platter as a real goal."

Several team members believed that more face-to-face interaction would have produced more materials more quickly (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Spargo & Kelsey, 1996). One interviewee recounted, "I wish we had more time that we could spend as a group . . . it would be nice [to] talk to each other face-to-face."

These feelings of isolation and stilted productivity were evident at every stage of the team's development. However, the attitudes of the team members shifted from uncertainty to wistfulness about not spending more time together in person.

The team members felt comfortable enough with one another to be honest about their opinions and ideas. This dialogue was vital in bridging the space between team members (Tan, Wei, Huang, & Ng, 2000). One interviewee reflected, "If a team doesn't talk very often, they begin to disintegrate as a team, so [the facilitator] made sure that didn't happen and kept us in a dialogue . . . that also builds a sense of movement and progress in the group."

Most felt the initial face-to-face meeting helped to forge a bond that helped them to face project difficulties and achieve success (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). One interviewee expressed:

I think that the travel money we put in to bring people [together] has been very critical. I like that kind of time because it feels more like a team; you're not the lone rangers trying to conquer this project.

Each member noted how critical the leader's role was in promoting communication among all the team members. This encouragement to be candid led to a deeper project commitment.

Miscellaneous Findings

A curious dynamic that emerged was the respect all team members held for the leader. According to one team member:

She's been doing a great job pulling us all together! You have to keep in mind that in order to pull 10 or 15 scientists together, you're going to have to have a lot of nerve and a lot of patience.

Respect for a team leader is not an unusual phenomenon in most functional teams, particularly when that leader is considered to be of a higher status than the other team members (Meyers, Meyers, & Gelzheiser, 2001; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). Research indicates that team members with the most status typically dominate communication, are critical and aggressive, and expect deference from lower status members (Meyers, Meyers, & Gelzheiser, 2001; Younglove-Webb et al., 1999). The team leader in this study had the least amount of status in the group, yet held the respect and admiration of the other team members. This could be due to the technical expertise the team leader possessed. Team members depended on her expertise in creating the Web-based resources they designed.

In addition, though the team leader was the principal investigator for the project, she encouraged team members to participate in the formation of project roles and deadlines. This inclusiveness, coupled with empathy, endeared her to the team. One team member expressed:

I can't thank [the team leader] enough for her leadership . . . I can call her at any time and she'll help me through a glitch or any number of silly little things . . . she's just always receptive to helping us improve our capabilities.

The ability to empathize with others has been identified as a component of effective leadership (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2002). Empathy has also been shown to "not only contribute to leadership emergence, but may also strengthen team member participation and engagement . . ." in self-managing teams (Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002, p. 520). This leader's ability to empathize with team members may have assisted her in prodding the team members along without pushing them too far.

Implications

Universities as well as funding agencies are emphasizing multi-disciplinary collaboration (Komives, 2003). The study reported here explored the perceptions of faculty involved in a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional team project. As expected, the team's development followed the four stages of team development described by Tuckman (1965) (Figure 1).

Many of the obstacles to this team's success were due to pressures from their respective institutions. Strategies for evaluating and rewarding faculty participation in these projects must be developed. Systems for rewarding individual team members have been developed and used in industrial settings (Kerrin & Oliver, 2002; Sarin & Mahajan, 2001). Until a rewards framework is designed, faculty will remain torn between participating in collaborative projects for needed funding and the need to fulfill departmental requirements that reward individual efforts (Edwards, 1999; Frost & Gillespie, 1998; McKenzie & Lee, 1998).

The lack of recognition for collaborative efforts can be remedied. Departmental administrators can begin by acknowledging multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional projects as viable components of the faculty workload. They must recognize that although individual efforts are an important measure of faculty productivity, collective efforts are equally important. Allowing faculty release time to participate in collaborative endeavors could validate faculty involvement in joint efforts.

In addition, examining the characteristics of successful team leaders will be critical for future research. In this study, the team leader was pivotal in determining the team's successes. Profiling leadership skills in successful multi-disciplinary teams could encourage future collaborative successes.

Another area begging further research is the role of empathy in the leadership of multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional teams. Participants in this study identified their team leader as a determinant in their success. The study of empathic leadership in multi-disciplinary teams has not been examined; this will be critical for future research.

The complexity and diversity of the problems facing today's Extension clients have heightened the need for Extension teams representing multiple disciplines, and in some cases, multiple institutions and multiple countries. To ensure the success of those teams, the results of this study and others must be used to form the basis for addressing obstacles to, and exploring the foundations of, team success.

Armstrong, D., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distance and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams . Washington, DC: APA.

Burns, C. (1994). Innovative team building: Synergistic human resource development. Administration and Policy in Mental Health , 22 (1), 39-48.

Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations , 11 , 199-231.

Edwards, R. (1999). The academic department: How does it fit into the university reform agenda? Change , 31 (5), 17-27.

Frost, S. H., & Gillespie, T. W. (1998). Organizations, culture and teams: Links toward genuine change. New Directions for Institutional Research , 100 , 5-15.

Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiability of individual effort. Small Group Research , 32 (1), 3-18.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal , 32 (2), 274-309.

Hart, R. K., & McLeod, P. L. (2003). Rethinking team building in geographically dispersed teams. Organizational Dynamics , 34 (1), 352-361.

Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology , 50 (4), 877-904.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5), 523-544.

Kerrin, M., & Oliver, N. (2002). Collective and individual improvement activities: The role of reward systems. Personnel Review , 31 (3), 320-337.

Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work , 57-80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Komives, S. (2003). The changing nature of work in higher education . Retrieved September 12, 2003, from http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorscholars/trends/trends6/htm

Leholm, A., Hamm, L., Suvedi, M., Gray, I., & Poston, F. (1999). Area of Expertise teams: The Michigan approach to applied research and Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/a3.html

McKenzie, R. B., & Lee, D. R. (1998). Managing through incentives: How to develop a more collaborative, productive and profitable organization . New York: Oxford University Press.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyers, B., Meyers, J., & Gelzheiser, L. (2001). Observing leadership roles in shared decision making: A preliminary analysis of three teams. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation , 12 (4), 277-312.

Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology , 120 (3), 277-291.

Proehl, R. (2000). Cross-functional teams: An innovation or just another committee? Higher Education Management, 11 (3), 55-71.

Sarin, S., & Mahajan, V. (2001). The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross functional product development teams. Journal of Marketing , 65 (2), 35-53.

Scholtes, P. R. (1991). The team handbook. Madison, WI: Joiner.

Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Spargo, L., & Kelsey, B. (1996). How two universities crossed the border. ISOC Proceedings. Retrieved October 29, 2003, from http://www.isoc.org/inet96/proceedings/c8/c8_1.htm

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Huang, W. W., & Ng, G. N. (2000). A dialogue technique to enhance electronic communication in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 43 (2), 153-165.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 (6), 384-399.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 , 145-180.

Wolcott, H. (1980). How to look like an anthropologist without actually being one. Practicing Anthropology . 3 (1), 6-7, 56-59.

Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. A. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. Leadership Quarterly , 13 , 505-522.

Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C. W., & Thurow, A. P. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. The Review of Higher Education, 22 (4), 425- 440.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office , [email protected] .

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support

© Copyright by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Copyright Policy

Maximizing team performance: Case study using the Tuckman Model of Group Development to examine the critical role of the nurse leader.

This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Manges, K., Scott-Cawiezell, J., Ward, M. (2016). Maximizing team performance: The critical role of the nurse leader. Nursing Forum, 52(1): 21-29, doi: 10.1111/nuf.12161

Note, this article has been published in final form at:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nuf.12161/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Term and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

This research was supported by grant number R18HS018396 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHRQ.

Usage metrics.

• Health care administration
• Health and community services
• Other health sciences not elsewhere classified
• Nursing not elsewhere classified

education, community-building and change

Bruce W. Tuckman – forming, storming norming and performing in groups

Bruce w. tuckman – forming, storming norming and performing in groups. bruce w. tuckman produced one of the most quoted models of group development in the 1960s. we consider his contribution and the model’s continuing use..

contents: introduction · storming, forming, norming and performing – developmental sequence in groups · a fifth stage – adjourning · assessment · conclusion · further reading and bibliography · links · how to cite this article

Bruce Wayne Tuckman (1938- ) is probably best known for a short article – ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’ first published in 1965. However, the vast bulk of his published work has been concerned more broadly with educational research and educational psychology. Tuckman’s book Conducting Educational Research (first published in 1972) has gone through five editions and his Theories and Applications of Educational Psychology (first published in 1996) is now in it’s third edition. Currently Bruce W. Tuckman directs the Academic Learning Lab at Ohio State University (from 1998). Previously he had been a Professor of Educational Psychology at Florida State University (1983-98). From 1965 to 1978 he held a variety of posts at Rutgers University before moving to the City University of New York. Currently Bruce W. Tuckman’s scholarly interest focuses on motivation: ‘its manifestation in the form of self-regulatory behavior , and its absence in the form of procrastination , particularly as applied to the behavior of studying’ (Tuckman 2003) . He is concerned with exploring the links between motivational factors and school achievement; and interventions that enhance the self-regulatory behaviour of students (such as goal setting, planning, and incentives). Bruce W. Tuckman gained his Bachelor of Science from Renesselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1960, his Masters in Psychology from Princeton in 1962 and his PhD in 1963. He has also written a novel The Long Road to Boston (1988).

Forming, storming, norming and performing – developmental sequence in groups

Even a quick glance at the literature of group development reveals a wide range of theoretical models concerning developmental processes. Most commentators assume that groups go through a number of phases or stages if they exist for an extended period. It is clear, for example, that people tend to want to know something about the other members; have to develop a degree of interdependence in order that the group or team may achieve its tasks and be satisfying to its members; and has to learn at some level to deal with conflict if it is to survive. The most influential model of the developmental process – certainly in terms of its impact upon texts aimed at practitioners – has been that of Bruce W. Tuckman (1965). While there are various differences concerning the number of stages and their names – many have adopted a version of Tuckman’s model – forming, storming, norming and performing. He was later to add a fifth stage – adjourning (Tuckman and Jensen 1977). To begin we will look at his original formulation.

The initial four-stage model evolved out of Bruce W. Tuckman’s observations of group behaviour in a variety of settings and his encounter with the literature. After completing his doctorate Tuckman had worked with the industrial psychology lab at Princeton and then went on to undertake research on small-group and organizational behaviour as a Research Psychologist (GS-12) at the Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda MD. (1963-65). At this point he argued that groups were likely to go through four distinct stages as they come to together and begin to function. These phases or stages might well be recognized in some way by participants – but there mat only be a limited consciousness of the changes and their implications. The obvious implication was that it people could develop a better appreciation of the processes surrounding group development then it would be possible to enhance group effectiveness and functioning. Bruce W. Tuckman describes the process as follows:

My first professional job was as part of a small group of social psychologists in a think tank setting studying small group behavior as the US Navy prepared for a future of small crew vessels and stations. Nine of us at the Naval Medical Research Institute were busy studying small groups from all perspectives and under all conditions. I was for­tunate to have an experienced and talented boss by the name of Irwin Altman, who had been collecting every article he could find on group development. He turned his collection over to me and suggested that I look it over and see if I could make anything out of it. The collection contained 50 articles, many of which were psychoanalytic studies of therapy or T-groups. The task of organizing and integrating them was challenging. After separating out two realms of group functioning, namely, the interpersonal or group structure realm and the task activity realm, I began to look for a developmental sequence that would fit the findings of a majority of the studies. I hit on four stages going from (1) orientation/testing/dependence, to (2) conflict, to (3) group cohesion, to (4) functional role-relatedness. For these I coined the terms: ‘forming,’ ‘storming,’ ‘norming,’ and ‘performing’ (Tuckman 1984)

This is how Tuckman described the stages in the original article:

Groups initially concern themselves with orientation accomplished primarily through testing. Such testing serves to identify the boundaries of both interpersonal and task behaviors. Coincident with testing in the interpersonal realm is the establishment of dependency relationships with leaders, other group members, or pre?existing standards. It may be said that orientation, testing and dependence constitute the group process of forming . The second point in the sequence is characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues, with concomitant emotional responding in the task sphere. These behaviors serve as resistance to group influence and task requirements and may be labeled as storming. Resistance is overcome in the third stage in which in-group feeling and cohesiveness develop, new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted. In the task realm, intimate, personal opinions are expressed. Thus, we have the stage of norming . Finally, the group attains the fourth and final stage in which interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task activities. Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into the task. Structural issues have been resolved, and structure can now become supportive of task performance. This stage can be labeled as performing . (Tuckman 1965 – page 78 in the 2001 reprint)

So it was that the influential model was formulated. As Bruce W. Tuckman has noted these terms would come to be commonly used to describe developing groups for the following 20 years and their character probably accounted for the paper’s popularity.

A fifth stage – adjourning

In 1977 Bruce W. Tuckman proposed an update of the model (in collaboration with Mary Ann Jensen). He has subsequently commented:

We reviewed 22 studies that had appeared since the original publication of the model and which we located by means of the Social Sciences Citation Index. These articles, one of which dubbed the stages the ‘Tuckman hypothesis’ tended to support the existence of the four stages but also suggested a fifth stage for which a perfect rhyme could not be found. We called it ‘adjourning’. (Tuckman 1984)

Adjourning involves dissolution. It entails the termination of roles, the completion of tasks and reduction of dependency (Forsyth 1990: 77). Some commentators have described this stage as ‘mourning’ given the loss that is sometimes felt by former participants. The process can be stressful – particularly where the dissolution is unplanned ( ibid .: 88). In many respects Tuckman and Jensen’s addition of ‘adjourning’ was less an extension of the model, more an after word. The original article was written from the perspective of the functioning group, the fifth ‘stage’ takes us beyond that.

Several things need saying about Bruce W. Tuckman’s model. First, it can be subjected to a more general critique of stage theory (which is discussed elsewhere with regard to  life span development ). The sheer scale of such theory – by seeking to present a universal or general picture can mean it over-reaches itself. While there may be some ‘universals of development’ when we come to examine, in this case, the individual group things are rarely that straightforward. Human processes are frequently characterised by variability and flux. Furthermore, our own experiences of groups are likely to show significant deviations from the path laid out by stage theories. ‘Stages’ may be missed out, other ways of naming a phase or experiences may be more appropriate.

Second, we need to explore the robustness of the actual categories. There is some overlap between the different stages in Bruce W. Tuckman’s model – the demarcation is not that clear-cut. For example, ‘when group conflict is waning… feelings of cohesion may be increasing, but these time-dependent changes do not occur in a discontinuous, steplike sequence’ (Forsyth 1990: 89). However, the take-up of the model isn’t simply a matter of some catchy titles. Many theorists and commentators have used the categories (often re-titled) with only marginal amendment.

Third, Bruce W. Tuckman’s model is linear (sometimes described as ‘successive-stage’). A number of other theorists have proposed cyclical models. An example of how this may occur comes from Bales (1965). He argued that group members tend to seek a balance between accomplishing the task and building interpersonal relationships in the group. At one point the focus will be on the former, at another on the latter. The result is, effectively, a movement between norming and performing . Below we have represented Tuckman’s initial model in a way that follows the same phases but allows for issues recurring at different points in a group’s life.

Fourth, there is a question of the extent to which the attractiveness of the labelling Bruce W. Tuckman adopted has contributed to unthinking application by trainers and a reading onto groups of the phases. This really isn’t an issue with the formulation – rather how a nice turn of phrase can lead to laziness on the part of practitioners and trainers. Bruce W. Tuckman’s model offers us a way of thinking about the groups we encounter and participate within in. It offers, in Donald Schön’s terms a metaphor or image that we can play with to make sense of the phenomenon before us.

Bruce W. Tuckman’s model of the developmental sequence in small groups has rightly been adopted as a helpful starting point about possible stages or phases within different small groups. When the original article was written it was an important summary of the existing literature – and its longevity reflects Tuckman’s ability to categorize and synthesize – and to get it right. While there may be all sorts of debates around such approaches to stage theory, and around the need for a model that reflects the flux of groups, there does seem to be some truth in the assertion that small groups tend to follow a fairly predictable path.

Further reading and bibliography

Bales, R. F. (1965) ‘The equilibrium problem in small groups’ in A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta and R. F. Bales (eds.) Small Groups: Studies in social interaction , New York: Knopf.

Brown, R. (1999) Group Processes 2e, Oxford: Blackwell.

Forsyth, D. R. (1990, 1998) Group Dynamics , Pacific Grove CA.: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner , London: Temple Smith.

Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965) ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological Bulletin , 63, 384-399. The article was reprinted in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal ? Number 3, Spring 2001 and is available as a Word document: http://dennislearningcenter.osu.edu/references/GROUP%20DEV%20ARTICLE.doc . Accessed January 14, 2005.

Tuckman, Bruce W. (1972) Conducting Educational Research , New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Fifth edition 1999 by Wadsworth.

Tuckman, Bruce W. (1979) Evaluating Instructional Programs , Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tuckman, Bruce W. (1984) ‘Citation classic – Developmental sequence in small groups’ Current Concerns . Available: as a pdf file: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1984/A1984TD25600001.pdf

Tuckman, Bruce W. (1988; 1998) The Long Road to Boston, Tallahassee , FL: Cedarwinds Publishing.

Tuckman, Bruce W. (1996) Theories and Applications of Educational Psychology , New York: McGraw Hill. Third edition with D. Moneth published 2001.

Tuckman, Bruce W. (2003) ‘Homepage’, Ohio State University , http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/btuckman/ , Accessed January 14, 2005.

Tuckman, Bruce W., & Jensen, Mary Ann C. (1977). ‘Stages of small group development revisited’, Group and Organizational Studies , 2, 419- 427.

Tuckman, Bruce W. and O’Brian, John. L. (1969) Preparing to Teach the Disadvantaged, New York: Free Press

How to cite this article : Smith, M. K. (2005). ‘Bruce W. Tuckman – forming, storming, norming and performing in groups, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education . [ https://infed.org/mobi/bruce-w-tuckman-forming-storming-norming-and-performing-in-groups/ . Retrieved: insert date ].

Acknowledgements : The picture, by FredArmitage/flickr is reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic licence.

© Mark K. Smith 2005

Last Updated on October 19, 2019 by infed.org

BUS605: Strategic Project Management

Five Models for Understanding Team Dynamics

This chapter introduces five different models of team dynamics, including the popular Tuckerman Team Model, which describes the stages a team typically experiences while working together. The DISC personality model can help identify differences in the individuals that work within the teams, while the GRIP Model suggests that four interrelated components make up a team. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Model can help manage team conflict, and the Lencioni Model discusses the five dysfunctions of a team.

The Tuckman Team Model

"Tuckman's Stages of Group Development," proposed by psychologist Bruce Tuckman in 1965, is one of the most famous theories of team development. It describes four stages that teams may progress through: forming, storming, norming , and performing (a 5th stage was added later:  adjourning ).  According to McCahan et al ., the stages move from organizing to producing, and although the stages appear linear, in fact teams may move backwards depending on events that may influence the team and the communications strategies that they use. Some teams can also stall in a stage and never fully realize their potential. Figure 4.2.1 outlines these stages. Please refer to the McCahan et al . text for a more complete discussion.

Figure 4.2.1 The Stages of the Tuckman Model

Note that at each stage, communication is a critical component of successfully moving to the next stage. The forming stage, when everyone is getting to know each other and are trying to make a good impression, is a good time to create a set of shared expectations, guidelines, or a Team Charter. A team forming activity is also a good idea to help build trust and get to know the various strengths and weaknesses of the team members. This is an orientation stage, on both an interpersonal and professional level, where preliminary boundaries and expectations are established.

The storming stage is the one most often characterized by group conflict and dysfunction. It is often where the preliminary expectations and boundaries are challenged as individuals learn more about each other's motivations. This coincides with the "brainstorming" stage of the design process, in which each member contributes ideas that could potentially become the focus of the project. It is also the stage where teammates learn about each others' strengths and weaknesses, and try to determine what their roles will be in the project.  Learning to harness the constructive potential of conflict and compromise in this stage is important to progressing to the next stage.

During the norming stage, if conflicts have been resolved and team mates have proved flexible, all is going well, each team member knows their role and works on their part of the project. Sometimes, people work independently in this stage, but check in with team mates frequently to make sure work flow is efficient and effective. Group cohesion ensures that everyone is responsible to the task and to each other.  Problems might arise at this stage if teammates do not fully understand their role, the team expectations, or the overall goal; revisiting the forming or storming stage may be required.

Few first-time teams reach the performing stage, as this happens when teams have worked together well on several projects, have established a synergy, and have developed systems that make projects go smoothly and efficiently. Less time is needed to form, storm and learn to norm; performing teams can move quickly and interdependently to tackling the task at hand. Adjourning and going their separate ways can often be somewhat emotional for these teams. Figure 4.2.2  depicts the trajectory of each team member during each stage.

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing

Tuckman's model for nurturing a team to high performance.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

You can't just switch on teamwork. It takes time for a new team to "gel" and work to its full potential. What's more, team members go through stages as they move from strangers to co-workers.

Bruce Tuckman's Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing model describes these stages. When you understand Tuckman's model, you'll know how to help your new team to become effective – faster. Let's look at how.

Where Does Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing Come From?

Psychologist Bruce Tuckman came up with the memorable phrase "forming, storming, norming, and performing" in his 1965 paper, "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups." [1] It describes the path that teams follow on their way to high performance. Later, he added a fifth stage, "adjourning" (also known as "mourning") to mark the end of a team's journey.

What Happens at Tuckman's Forming Stage?

In the beginning, when a new team forms, individuals will be unsure of the team's purpose, how they fit in, and whether they'll work well with one another. They may be anxious, curious, or excited to get going. However they feel, they'll be looking to the team leader for direction.

This may take some time, as people get to know their new colleagues and one another's ways of working.

What Did Tuckman Mean by Storming?

In the storming stage, people start to push against the established boundaries. Conflict or friction can also arise between team members as their true characters – and their preferred ways of working – surface and clash with other people's.

At this stage team members may challenge your authority or management style, or even the team's mission. Left unchecked, this can lead to face-to-face confrontations or simmering online tensions.

If roles and responsibilities aren't yet clear, individuals might begin to feel overwhelmed by their workload or frustrated at a lack of progress.

How Do I Recognize the Norming Stage?

Gradually, the team moves into the norming stage. People start to resolve their differences, appreciate one another's strengths, and respect your authority as a leader.

Now that they know one another better, your team members will feel more comfortable asking for help and offering constructive feedback. They'll share a stronger commitment to the team's goals, and they should make good progress toward it.

What Does the Performing Stage Look Like?

Now your team is in flow and performing to its full potential. With hard work and structured processes, the team is likely to achieve its goals efficiently.

Judith Stein, from MIT's HR department, says of this stage, "Roles on the team may have become more fluid, with members taking on various roles and responsibilities as needed. Differences among members are appreciated and used to enhance the team's performance." [2]

What About Tuckman's Adjourning (or Mourning) Stage?

Many teams reach this stage naturally. For example, projects come to an end, or permanent teams are disbanded and people redeployed.

People who like routine, or who have developed close working relationships with colleagues, may find this time difficult.

Using the Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing Tool

Follow the steps below to ensure that you're doing the right thing at the right time:

• Identify the stage that your team is at from the descriptions above.
• Consider what you need to do to move on to the next stage.
• Schedule regular reviews of where your team is at, and adjust your behavior and leadership approach accordingly.

Tuckman's model isn't a one-way street – teams may go back and forth between stages. When you hit the performing stage, keep observing your team's progress in case it slips back. For example, a new team member can disrupt the group dynamic, or a new business direction might mean you have to reevaluate your team roles and goals.

Leading Through the Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing Stages

Forming to storming.

To establish clear objectives for the group at this first stage, create a team charter . And help team members to set personal goals so that they can see how their work will fit with the bigger picture.

The forming stage is also about people getting to know one another. If you're working remotely, try virtual onboarding exercises to forge a group bond and establish buy-in to your vision.

Storming to Norming

Storming can make or break a team, so it's essential that you establish processes to track the progress and success of tasks.

The group must also feel safe putting forward ideas. To build team trust , try asking for help on tasks. That way you'll encourage people to reflect on what they can offer and what they need from other team members.

Don't leave team conflict unchecked, but remember that a little friction can be a good thing – it might reveal inefficiencies for the group to fix together and, ultimately, lead to innovation.

But you may have to help quieter team members to have their say. To avoid louder individuals dominating face-to-face or virtual team meetings , ask for, and hear, everyone's point of view.

Norming to Performing

Get your team to bond further with face-to-face or virtual team-building exercises . These social connections are especially important right now, as more of us work from home. So, keep them up through the norming period and beyond.

Use your regular one-on-ones to encourage individuals to step back, review their goals, and take responsibility for them.

Performing to Adjourning

When the team has settled into the performing stage, you can focus on other goals and new areas to benefit the business. Free up more time for yourself – and boost team engagement – by delegating tasks and projects.

You should also make time for the group's personal development. Discuss with your team what opportunities and resources are available to them.

Adjourning (or Mourning)

Take the time to celebrate the team's achievements – having positive shared experiences will make it easier if you work with some of the same people again in the future.

If any team members feel uncertain about what's ahead, boost their confidence and career prospects by praising them at company meetings. And offer to provide LinkedIn recommendations and references if they're moving on.

You can also ask the group for 360-degree feedback to reflect, learn, and better manage future teams.

Psychologist Bruce Tuckman described how teams move through stages known as forming, storming, norming, and performing, and adjourning (or mourning).

You can use Tuckman's model to help your team to perform better. First, identify the stage your team is at, then use our tips to move them through the stages.

Remember, teams can slip back a stage, too. Use Tuckman's model to continually review where you team is at – and make any necessary changes to get back on course.

[1] Tuckman, B.W. (1965). 'Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,' Psychological Bulletin , 63(6). Available here .

[2] Stein, J. Using the Stages of Team Development  [online]. Available here . [Accessed 30 October 2020]

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Distributive bargaining.

Negotiating When You Can't Both Win

Finding a Mentor

Getting Support From the Right "Someone" Who's Been There Before

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Get 20% off your first year of Mind Tools

Our on-demand e-learning resources let you learn at your own pace, fitting seamlessly into your busy workday. Join today and save with our limited time offer!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Pain Points Podcast - Balancing Work And Kids

Pain Points Podcast - Improving Culture

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - what is ai.

Exploring Artificial Intelligence

Pain Points Podcast - How Do I Get Organized?

It's Time to Get Yourself Sorted!

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Abcd learning objectives model.

Outlining Learning Essentials

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Use Our Resources and Tools to Get Started With Your Preparation!

The tuckman model, the tuckman model: the secret to high-performing teams.

At the core of comprehending team dynamics is the ingenious creation of Bruce Tuckman, the Tuckman Model. Bruce Tuckman, an eminent psychologist and researcher, introduced this model in 1965, and it has since been a fundamental framework for understanding team behavior and guiding team development .

Tuckman, with his deep-rooted interest in group dynamics, recognized the evolution teams go through in their journey towards high performance. His model offered a lucid, linear path for this evolution, making it easily understandable and implementable in varied team environments .

His ground-breaking work has led to profound shifts in how organizations manage their teams, promoting a more empathetic and result-oriented approach . Tuckman's model stands out as an insightful roadmap that helps navigate the complex maze of team development , and its utility spans multiple disciplines and industries.

In a consultancy environment, the model is especially relevant due to the constant team reshuffling and the high value placed on effective teamwork . With consultants often stepping into pre-established teams, understanding the team's current developmental stage - whether it's forming, storming, norming, performing, or adjourning—is invaluable.

By using Tuckman's model as a reference, consultants can quickly assess team dynamics, identify issues, and devise strategies to move the team towards the next stage. In essence, Tuckman's model provides a clear framework that can be used to maximize team effectiveness , making it a critical tool in the consultant's toolkit .

Tuckman's five Stages of Group Development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning

Tuckman's model outlines five fundamental stages of group development, namely: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning . Each stage has its own unique characteristics, contributing towards the overall progress of the team.

Forming: Laying the Groundwork for Team Development

The forming stage marks the inception of the team's journey. It's when individuals, each with their own unique skills and perspectives, come together with a common goal . At this juncture, team members are often polite and professional, trying to get a feel for the environment and the people they will be working with. This stage is much like the "honeymoon phase" of a team's lifecycle.

In this initial period, a great deal of exploration occurs. Team members spend time learning about each other - their strengths, weaknesses, working styles, and how they fit into the larger group dynamic . They familiarize themselves with the task at hand, the project's objectives, and their individual roles and responsibilities.

Despite being part of a team, during the forming stage, individual tasks often take precedence over collective efforts. Members are more focused on understanding their specific roles, navigating the project landscape, and acclimating to the team dynamic . Collaboration at this point is typically minimal, as team members operate in their comfort zones, often sticking to what they know best.

Yet, it's essential to view this stage not as a lack of team synergy, but as a necessary phase for setting the baseline for future growth . It's during the forming stage that the foundations for the team's norms, structures, and processes are laid, all of which play a pivotal role in shaping the team's trajectory.

Moreover, this stage serves as an opportunity for team leaders to step in and provide clear direction . It is when roles and expectations need to be defined and communicated clearly. The seeds for a positive and open communication culture are sown at this stage, enabling team members to feel comfortable voicing their opinions, doubts, and suggestions.

Ultimately, while the forming stage may lack the intense collaboration of later stages, it sets the stage for the team's development. It establishes the groundwork upon which the ensuing stages – storming, norming, performing, and adjourning – will build.

Storming: Navigating the Turbulent Waters Towards Team Cohesion

As the team progresses beyond the initial introductions and familiarities of the forming stage, they transition into tasks requiring increased collaboration. This transition marks the beginning of the storming phase in Tuckman's stages of group development, a stage often marked by friction, disagreements, and conflict .

The storming stage may initially appear tumultuous and counterproductive. Differences in working styles, perspectives, and opinions come to the forefront, leading to clashes and confrontations. This is when the reality of working together sets in and the "honeymoon phase" ends. As team members begin to voice their opinions, challenge each other, and vie for recognition and position, the team can seem more like a battlefield than a collaborative platform.

The crux of the storming stage lies in the negotiation of roles and responsibilities and the creation of a shared understanding . As the team starts to grapple with the project at hand, questions arise about who is responsible for what, how decisions should be made, and what the team's working norms should be. Lack of clarity on these aspects can fuel misunderstandings and create a sense of frustration among team members.

However, it's crucial to reframe the storming phase not as a stumbling block but as an opportunity —a critical stepping stone towards building a more cohesive and effective team. While this stage may be filled with challenges, it serves as an avenue for addressing and resolving issues that might otherwise hinder team performance.

This stage encourages open dialogue and conflict resolution, thereby fostering an environment that values diverse opinions and constructive criticism . It pushes team members out of their comfort zones, prompting them to question, argue, and negotiate—essential skills for personal and team growth.

Moreover, the storming phase highlights areas requiring attention and action from team leaders. It provides leaders with an opportunity to facilitate healthy conflict resolution , reinforce shared goals, and promote a culture of open communication and mutual respect.

Just as storms in nature bring rain to nurture growth, the storming stage in a team's development can nurture maturity and understanding among team members. It's a necessary passage that leads to the next stages of norming and performing, ultimately paving the way to a high-performing team in the Tuckman model's journey .

Thus, the storming stage, despite its challenges, is a testament to the team's evolution—a sign of progression, of moving from a group of individuals to a cohesive team working towards a shared goal. It's in navigating this stage that the team begins to shape its identity , building the resilience needed to face future challenges.

Norming: Setting the Stage for Collaborative Success

The journey through the challenging storming phase eventually leads to the norming stage of the Tuckman model, a pivotal point in the group's development. This phase marks a shift in team dynamics where the dust of initial conflicts settles and team members begin to resolve their differences , paving the way for the establishment of norms and shared understandings.

At the core of the norming stage lies a critical transition: from a group of individuals seeking their personal objectives to a unified team aligning their efforts towards a collective goal . The rough edges of individual differences that surfaced during the storming phase begin to smooth out as team members start appreciating each other's strengths, working styles, and viewpoints.

The team gradually learns to communicate more effectively, negotiating the rules for the group's behavior and work processes . This includes clarifying roles, setting expectations, and defining responsibilities. Team members consciously work towards a shared understanding and mutual agreement on 'how things are done here.'

Leaders play a significant role during the norming phase . It's their responsibility to facilitate open and transparent communication, guide the team in setting norms, and ensure that every team member feels heard and valued. They also reinforce the team's shared goals and purpose, helping to align individual efforts towards these common objectives.

The norming stage is not merely about creating a harmonious work environment. It is about forging a shared commitment to team goals, fostering mutual respect, and nurturing a sense of belonging among team members . It's during this stage that team members start to trust each other, cooperate more, and work collectively, which boosts team morale and increases motivation.

Furthermore, it's essential to note, however, that achieving norming doesn't mean the team will not experience any further conflicts. Disagreements might still arise , but the difference lies in how the team now handles them—with a greater degree of understanding, respect, and a common set of rules to guide them.

In essence, the norming phase is a bridge between the initial chaos of forming and storming and the high productivity of the performing stage . It is the consolidation phase in the Tuckman model's stages of team development, preparing the team to transition into the high-functioning, performing stage where their collective potential truly comes to life. Thus, norming serves as a solid foundation, a springboard that propels the team into the realm of exceptional performance.

Performing: The Symphony of Peak Productivity

The final stage of Bruce Tuckman's stages of group development, the performing phase, is where the true magic unfolds. This is the point where the team, having successfully navigated the trials and tribulations of forming, storming, and norming, reaches a state of harmony and high productivity.

It's the equivalent of a perfectly tuned orchestra , with each team member a skilled musician. They play in harmony, producing a symphony of efficiency that is greater than the sum of its individual parts. Like a well-oiled machine, every cog, every wheel is synchronized with the others, contributing to the seamless execution of tasks and the achievement of common goals.

In the performing stage, the team is not merely a collection of individuals working side by side. It has evolved into a unified entity with shared values, collective ambition, and mutual trust. The team has reached a level of maturity where members understand their roles and responsibilities clearly . This knowledge and understanding enable them to work independently yet remain coordinated with their peers, creating a seamless, efficient workflow.

Collaboration is at its peak during this phase. Everyone is aligned, working towards the same goal, contributing their best while appreciating the strengths and contributions of others . The atmosphere is one of mutual respect and trust, underpinned by a strong sense of accountability. Disagreements, if any, are handled constructively and with a solutions-oriented approach.

In this stage, leadership becomes more decentralized. The team is highly competent, empowered, and motivated, taking initiative and making decisions collaboratively . Leaders might adopt a facilitative role, providing guidance only when needed and trusting the team's judgment.

This is the "one plus one is much greater than two" phenomenon in action. The synergy achieved at this stage allows the team to produce results that far exceed their individual capabilities . It's a testament to the power of effective team development and a crowning achievement in the five stages of group development.

However, it's important to remember that maintaining high performance requires continuous effort. Teams must consistently nurture their group dynamics, keep communication lines open, and address potential issues proactively to sustain this level of productivity and efficiency .

In essence, the performing stage is a culmination of the team's journey through the Tuckman model, representing the pinnacle of team growth and achievement . It's a testament to the transformative power of the stages of team development, from initial uncertainty to the exhilarating heights of collaborative success.

Adjourning: An Opportunity for Reinvention

The adjourning stage, although often overlooked, holds critical importance in Bruce Tuckman's five stages of group development. It is the curtain call, the end of the journey, when a team, having reached its performance zenith, is eventually disbanded as the project or objective is completed . This phase is akin to the closing chapter of a book, marking both an end and a new beginning.

The adjourning stage typically stirs up a whirlpool of emotions. Team members may experience a sense of accomplishment for having successfully navigated the challenging path from forming to performing . Yet, there's also a tinge of sadness as they prepare to part ways with individuals with whom they've forged strong bonds, navigated challenges, and achieved significant milestones.

However, it's crucial to remember that the adjourning stage is not just an end; it's also an opportunity for reflection and learning. It's a time to celebrate the team's accomplishments , to share individual experiences, to learn from each other, and to carry those lessons into future team experiences. It's also a time for individuals to prepare for the transition and to support each other during this phase.

Furthermore, the adjourning stage is a pivotal point for reevaluating traditional notions about team formation and team effectiveness. The journey through Tuckman's model reveals that building trust, fostering shared understanding, and cultivating interpersonal relationships — the "soft skills"—are not just critical, but also take time. Often, these elements are more critical to a team's success than hard skills or technical expertise alone.

Consequently, this observation poses a challenge to the traditional approach of assembling teams based on hard skills and moving people to projects . Instead, it provides a compelling argument for a paradigm shift— creating durable, high-performing teams and assigning projects to these teams . In such a setting, teams can maintain the hard-earned synergy and shared understanding while adapting their technical skills to meet new project demands.

In essence, the adjourning stage of group development, while representing the conclusion of one team's journey, also opens up exciting possibilities for a fresh approach to team formation and development . By understanding and acknowledging the insights offered by the Tuckman model, it's possible to pave the way for more effective, resilient, and high-performing teams.

Enhancing Consulting Practices with the Tuckman Model

When consultants enter existing teams, the Tuckman Model provides a reliable roadmap to understanding the team's dynamics and stages of development . This practical tool helps in pinpointing exactly where a team stands in their journey, be it forming, storming, norming, performing, or adjourning.

The Tuckman model's structure allows consultants to adopt a tailored approach to their interactions with team members and leadership. By understanding the stage of the team's development, a consultant can offer insights and strategies that resonate with the team's current situation and pave the way for growth .

For instance, if a team is in the storming phase, a consultant can provide conflict resolution strategies and encourage open communication, thereby facilitating the transition towards norming. Conversely, if a team is in the performing stage, the consultant can focus more on maintaining high performance and preparing the team for the inevitable adjourning phase.

One of the most valuable assets in consulting is communication, and the shared terminology provided by the Tuckman model enhances this asset considerably . This common language allows for clear, concise conversations about the team's development, fostering understanding and cooperation between the consultant and the team.

Moreover, the model's emphasis on a systematic approach aligns perfectly with the world of consulting . I t advocates for a progressive and strategic method for team development, something that consulting professionals can incorporate into their work ethic . It also sets the expectations right – making it clear that high performance is not an overnight achievement, but the result of a gradual, step-by-step process.

Lastly, the Tuckman model encourages an environment of continuous learning and high performance. It underlines the fact that the journey doesn't end at performing - adjourning is a part of the process, and it should be handled with care . This understanding is vital for consultants, who can prepare the team for this eventuality and plan strategies for maintaining team morale and productivity. The Tuckman model's universality and systematic approach make it a potent tool in a consultant's arsena l, enabling them to foster a culture of high performance and continuous learning within teams. Therefore, it truly proves to be an invaluable companion in the exciting journey of consulting.

Related Cases

EY-Parthenon Case: Nachhaltiges Geschäftsmodell

MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education

Daily journal.

McKinsey Digital / BCG Platinion: Oil & Gas Upstream Technology

Bain 1st round case – blissottica.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Review of tuckman's model

Related Papers

Ande Rijnhart

Qurat-ul-ain Omer

This project aims to incorporate the Tuckman and Jensen (1977) model of group development, by using a case study (Phil Jones's case) about team development and work. The first section is devoted to the introduction of the Tuckman and Jensen (1977) model, and the identification of the stage at which Phil Jones's team is currently trapped in. The second segment proposes some solutions to the current problems in the team; to put the team on the accurate track, and to proceed to the next stage. The third part focuses on the issues associated with leading a virtual project team, which is where the teams do not work physically together but are connected virtually. The last section is dedicated to the personal experiences of the group members, and the identified strengths and weaknesses of the team projects.

monica Garfield

Group development research has proposed various models to explain how new groups form, work together, and disband. Most of these models fall into one of two categories: stage models, often exemplified by Tuckman, (1965); and the punctuated equilibrium model of Gersick (1988). In this paper we develop an integrated model of group development that combines these two types of models into one model. We studied six newly-formed medical groups that worked on similar projects over a seven week period. Three groups worked "normally", while three used a Group Support System (GSS) that was new to them. The behavior of the three “normal” groups followed the punctuated equilibrium model while the group behavior for the groups that used a GSS more closely resembled the stage model. We use scripts (behavioral templates that guide a person in thinking about how to behave in commonly encountered situations) as the foundation of our integrated model of group development. We argue that ...

Advances in Developing Human Resources

Lane Morris

The purpose of this article is to construct an integrated theoretical model for building effective teams based on a literature review guided by several research questions on all aspects of teams, team building, team member selection, team development, and theoretical constructs that affect the development of effective teams. The principal outcome of this article is a relationship model that is grounded in the teams, teamwork, and team building literature and based on several theoretical frameworks. This rigorous model may be applied consistently among human resource development (HRD) practitioners and scholars to assist them in building effective teams.

Lisete Mónico

The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Raquel Asencio

Ben Kuipers , M. Witte

The most popular model of team development in Dutch socio-technical literature is a linear approach, which states that teams develop in four successive phases. A method for defining the particular phase a team is in was developed a number of years ago and was recently used in a large-scale survey at Volvo’s cab manufacturing plant in Umea ̊ (northern Sweden). Thirty-seven semi-autonomous teams were studied at this plant during a seven-month period. This paper examines the development of the teams and addresses the effects of team development on overall team performance. The aspect of team development was correlated to both performance in terms of quality of working life (QWL) and business performance (BP), which is an empirically unexplored field within team literature. The linear phase approach of team development could not be proved. Nevertheless, teams were found to develop in four important areas, with each aspect significantly affecting team performance.

monica Garfield , Alan Dennis

RELATED PAPERS

먹튀검증업체〃〃GCN333。COM〃〃무료슬롯머신게임

fweejwh klsdfjkl

Animal Behaviour

Bryan Watts

Oktay Keskin

Sungryul Park

Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms

Yishay Mansour

Southern African Field Archaeology

Justin Bradfield , Matt Lotter

THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2018

G. Pennelli

Patar Ronaldo Lubis

Yurii Kornilev

Medical Image Analysis

rahele kafieh

European Journal of Pharmacology

Allen Levine

Ciência Florestal

Felipe Patrício

Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira

Edson Patto Pacheco

Biological Control

John Jairo Henao Mira

Phytochemistry

Mohamed Sharaf

antonia clarkeson

Hamza Salah

Susan Mallery

Zeitschrift Fur Physik C-Particles and Fields

Rick Van Kooten

Humbolt Kolleg: Geografia e storia: antico e moderno- Geographie und Geschichte: Antike und Modern, Atti Convegno internazionale Perugia 2013, Geographia Antiqua xxiii-xxiv, 63-75.

Serena Bianchetti

Daniel S Kirschbaum

Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publications

Angela Handlovicova

Physical Review B

Miren Isasa

La noción del buen gobierno en las Partidas de Alfonso X El Sabio

Fabian Nieves

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Case Studies

Chapter 4: Case Study

Tokyo 2020 summer olympics case study.

This case study and case problems that follow were adapted from the publicly available volunteer strategy for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

Japan hosted the 2020 Summer Olympics from July 24 to August 9 in Tokyo. The event, commonly known as Tokyo 2020, was the second hosting by the country after the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. Most games will be played at venues within the prefecture of Tokyo or areas nearby. Twenty-eight of 32 competition venues are clustered around Tokyo within a 5-mile radius of the Olympic village, the residence facilities for athletes and staff. Eleven new venues are currently under construction. The Tokyo Metropolis is the largest metropolitan city in Japan. In fact, the Greater Tokyo area and its surrounding cities represent the most populous city in the world. Tokyo has a population of 39 million residents, with an economy equivalent in size to the eighth largest economy in the world.

Volunteer Program

The Tokyo 2020 Olympics has a vision statement, “Unity in Diversity.” The 2020 Olympics Committee promotes this vision in the volunteer program by encouraging volunteer participation from people with diverse backgrounds. One of the program’s goals is that through the volunteering experience, people will continue to remain active in their volunteering roles in their communities after the games.

The committee has implemented the volunteer program of the London 2012 Games as its template for running its volunteer program. The program has volunteers organized into two groups with different roles for the games: game volunteers and city volunteers.

• Game Volunteers aid in the operation at the competition venues, media centers, and Olympic villages. The tasks involve providing support in the following areas: operation of games at the venues, security checks at the Olympics facilities, operation of the Olympics village, registration and issuance of IDs for the Olympic athletes and staff, and equipment checks and distribution of them to the venues. They are active prior to and for the duration of the games. Table 1 depicts a sample of the job descriptions and specifications for “games volunteers” for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics (TMG & TOCOPG, 2016).
• City Volunteers guide those visitors with tourism and transportation information and, provide them with directions to game venues. City volunteers are deployed for athletes, staff members, and visitors at major transportation points, such as airports, major train stations, and popular tourist attractions. Special booths are set up at those locations to welcome athletes, staff personnel, and spectators to Japan.

Volunteer leaders of either group are responsible for checking attendance of team members and acting as liaisons in the event of emergencies.

Job Descriptions and Specifications for “Games Volunteers” for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

Note. The table content of job descriptions and specifications came from the publicly available volunteer strategy provided by Tokyo Metropolitan Government and Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2020.

Case Problems 

The Olympic Committee has approached your group as an event volunteer/team program team to develop a plan for recruiting team of volunteers in accord with the Olympic vision of “Unity in Diversity.” You are the Human Resources Specialist on the team. The committee is interested in how to encourage people with diverse backgrounds to volunteer for the games. Particularly, they aim to achieve two specific goals: 1) enlist first-time volunteers and 2) reach out to groups, such as seniors or new immigrants, who have been largely neglected as potential volunteers.

• Discuss the role of trust in building this team of volunteers.
• How would you plan motivation for this team?
• According to the literature on volunteers for a major sport game, seven benefit categories were identified that volunteers experienced from participating in a major sport event (Doherty, 2009; Kim et al., 2018).

Match each benefit category on the left with corresponding items (two items per benefit) on the right.

Below are some constraints that keep people from volunteering for the games. Match the constraints with solutions that the committee recommends.

Attribution

“ Volunteer Management: The Case of Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games ” by Heeyle (Jason) Park and Eric Olson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Chapter 4: Case Study Copyright © 2022 by Debra Patterson. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book