Group Formation

Group Formation Theories & Models

Below is a quick snapshot of relevant group formation theories and models that were explored when developing the proposed Group Formation Stages:

• Tuckman’s Model: A five-stage model that identified stages that needed to achieved to reach a high-functioning, effective team (Bonebright, 2010).
• Social Exchange Theory: Describes human behavior as an exchange between two entities, where the cost and benefits of an exchange are weighed in an effort to maximize the return (Zafirovski, 2005).
• Propinquity Theory: Individuals or entities that are geographically close to one another in proximity have a likelihood of being grouped together or forming relationships (Rafida, 2018).
• Homan’s Interaction Theory: Examines the relationships between activities, interactions, and sentiments (Olofu et al., 2020). The more shared sentiments and/or activities the greater the interaction, which impacts task performance. (Olofu et al., 2020).

Group Formation Stages

Needs Identification

• The initial rationale and stage one of group formation was noted as needs identification and aligned heavily with social exchange theory. Thus, an underlying need cannot be met without engagement with another entity. Through that relationship, a desired end state or outcome (reward) can be achieved. This can be a tangible outcome, such as a contract, or an intangible outcome, such as friendship.

Shaping

•  After the identification of a specific need, a group starts to take shape. This can be a result of factors such as individual competencies, who is available at the required period in time, direct tasking, as well as who is geographically accessible. The last factor noted ties into propinquity theory.

Learning

• During the learning stage, individuals start to learn and identify the necessary requirements to carry out the need and what competencies each individual on the team possesses to help achieve that requirement. This starts to align with Tuckman’s first stage of forming (Bonebright, 2010). However, the current model breaks out Tuckman’s first stage of forming and second stage of storming, and third stage of norming into a 3-stage cycle in the middle of the proposed model.

Understanding

• Based on what was established in the learning stage, group members start to understand how each person’s skill set can be accounted for via overall organizational structure, roles, norms, and rules.

Adjusting

• During the adjusting stage, the group makes modifications that are required to achieve the desired end state. Intergroup conflict may occur at any point throughout the aforementioned stages. If intergroup conflict is preventing the ability to carry out the tasks or the group needs to make further adjustments to the existing structure, the group may go back through either or both the learning and/or understanding stage. If the group works independently and is able to complete the task without having or wanting interdependency, the group may complete the task and then move into the adjourning stage. If the group makes adjustments and engages in a fashion that starts to build interdependencies, then they may transition into the synergizing stage.

Synergizing

• This stage could be thought of as the point in time when the group transitions to a team. They have moved past the foundational components necessary to achieve the task and have established interdependency and a desire to work together to reach their goal(s). Tuckman doesn’t differentiate between group and team in his model; however, I believe this stage aligns with his fourth stage of performing. Further, Homan’s interaction theory is postulated within this stage, as individuals at this point are likely to have greater sentiment and activities together generating higher, more productive interactions (Olofu et al., 2020).

Growing

• Some teams may continue to evolve over time due to a desire to modify or expand upon their identified original needs. Additionally, in any relationship that continues to persist, there are periods of growth where members have to make the necessary pivots to stay aligned and function effectively.

Adjourning

• Adjourning may occur at any point throughout the model. Adjourning is based on Tuckman’s model and seeks to note that dismantling the group or team is a necessary stage to conclude group formation (Bonebright, 2010).

Application

The use of group formation models, offers the ability for employers, employees, and practitioners to better understand group dynamics. This level of group-awareness can help provide a framework to move through when initially forming a group. Additionally, it can generate discussions surrounding social dimensions and expectations. All groups will have different nuances due to the identified needs, membership, and time available. Consequently, impacting how the model is applied. Overall, the goal of this model is to be a resource that drives conversation and aids groups to reach the desired outcomes the group would like to achieve.

References

Bonebright, D. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development.

Olofu, P.A., Kanu, N.O., Ugochigborogu, K.M. (2020). Understanding the dynamics of group formation and its application in educational administration in Nigeria: The perspective of interaction and balance theories. BSUJEM, 2(1).

Rafida, T. (2018). The effect of physical working environment, group dynamics, and coping strategies on English lecturer’s occupational stress at three universities of North Sumatera. Dinamika Ilmu, 18(1), 137-150.

Zafirovski, M. (2005). Social exchange theory under scrutiny: A positive critique of its economic behaviorist formulations. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 1-40.