@xahteiwi No recognizable state transition whatsoever! Misunderstandings seem to happen at a fairly even rate, and normally they are triggers for curiosity and exploration. Forging relationships. Cumulative.
In the rare cases I've experienced anything I'd recognize as "storming," it's never resolved through norming to performing, despite solid efforts. It's been "wait it out until a team composition change."
@elizayer I tend to not think of it as "conflict" either (and I'd have to go back to the original Tuckman to see if he ever emphasised that specific term), but rather as constructive friction.
@xahteiwi I'll admit I hadn't ever gone back to Tuckman's original paper, but here's what he says about Stage 2:
"The second phase in the development of group structure is labeled as intragroup conflict. Group members become hostile toward one another and toward a therapist or trainer as a means of expressing their individuality and resisting the formation of group structure."
@xahteiwi It reads as very much a product of its time (reviewing studies between 1949-1961).
I’m assuming its longevity comes from the permission it gives people to not get along? And comfort that feeling bad in a group is common and temporary?
@elizayer Possibly, though I know of at least one concept (Integrated Model of Group Development, IMGD) due to Susan Wheelan that is much more recent (1996) and is essentially a Tuckman second pour-over.
Add comment