Bruce W. Tuckman: Forming, Storming Norming, Performing, Adjourning

[changed]

Are there any mangers out there, or anyone who has studied group dynamics for fostering productive teams etc. etc.?  I thought it was interesting, and as all church groups are a "group" I thought I would post it - just something to contemplate for those who complain about the "Morg", or people being "sheeple", or otherwise criticizing group-think policies of church groups... Why are church groups criticized, while private sector corporate groups are complimented for utilizing the same strategies in creating a productive group? 

Here are Tuckman's 5 stages:

1. Forming
The "nice to meet you" stage - group members are shy & self-conscience, ice-breaking activities are needed etc.

 

2. Storming

Cliques form, dissention over who is responsible for what, criticism of leadership, frustration over tasks group is called to perform.

 

3. Norming

People start dressing, talking, and acting like one another - group converges to common perspective, accepts one another instead of complaining and competing - learn to criticize without damaging feelings - interdependence and unity emerge. 

 

 

4. Perfoming

Everyone working together - pride in team, shared clear vision, everyone has individual tasks they are responsible for, but everyone helps one another.  Leaders are indistinguishable from group members, everyone works together. 

 

 

5. Adjourning

The project is completed - if successful, there is celebration and feeling of accomplishment, if a failure (if the group did not achieve "norming" and "storming" there are ill feelings and disappointment on adjourning. 


Anyways, what do you think about the "norming" stage? of dressing/talking/acting alike in order to achieve group unity and cohesion?  Is "norming" a good thing to do?  The business world seems to think it is a good thing to do (dress codes at work, etc.)

In the business world a successful team has:
1) a common goal or purpose

2) Leadership

3) unique individual talents

4) effective communication

5) collaboration

6) harmonious relationships

7) effective planning and use of resources

good attendance and participation

etc. etc.  Anyways, the next time I hear someone criticize people at church for not being “individual” enough, or conforming a little too much – I think I might start up a discussion of how essential teams are within the business world – what makes a team effective, and that the ability to conform is a good thing.

Emergence - "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" etc. etc.

[changed]

the whole is greater than the sum of its parts....
 

 

A social group is defined as an entity, which has qualities that cannot be understood just by studying the individuals that make up the group.

Max Wertheimer "There are entities where the behavior of the whole cannot be derived from its individual elements nor from the way these elements fit together; rather the opposite is true: the properties of any of the parts are determined by the intrinsic structural laws of the whole"

It seems there is a point where the group takes over and the individual disappears... is this a good thing?  To become part of something bigger than yourself, to create more together than you could ever create separately - but to achieve this, the "part" or the individual is determined by the intrinsic laws of the whole... Is this the kind of unity that the scriptures teach?


"group mind" - created from interactions instead of individual thought.

Do we exist as individuals? or... "who we are is who we are with others" - we don't exist except through our interactions?  (if we are angry, we are angry at another, or if we are kind we are kind to another - everything we are stems from our interactions.  

sorry, afternoon ramblings.
 

Edited September 25, 2013 by changed

[Robert F. Smith]

Once upon a time there was a scrappy and entrepreneurial guy named H. Ross Perot who did things his own way, surrounded himself with original thinkers, and never dithered when faced with problems.  That showed itself when he sold his EDS company to General Motors, an organization dedicated to conformity and to telling each other what they wanted to hear rather than making a factual analysis.  Perot joined the Board of Directors and had a lot of good ideas for the long-term improvement of GM.  Perot and the boss at GM (Roger Smith) soon came to a parting of the ways, as GM continued to flounder for another quarter century.  It also showed itself in 1979, when several EDS employees were taken hostage in Iran.  Unlike incompetent President Carter, Perot immediately took action by hiring the best people to go into Iran and get his people out.  He was fully successful.

 

You have correctly noted that "group think" is present in the business world, and that is taken as a good thing by you.  The problem of conformity and group think is that it can be found in a wide array of endeavors in which it kills creativity through committee, finds the lowest common denominator, and sycophants find it helpful to their careers.  This takes place in the executive offices of governors, presidents, directors, and even scientific research organizations.  No one wants to rock the boat.  Every one is afraid to think outside the box, because that will be interpreted as disloyalty.  The guy with an odd idea is the odd man out -- even if it was the correct idea for that time and place.

 

In a world of cowards and hollow men, telling the truth can get you crucified.  Jesus rocked the boat and had to pay a heavy price.  Who are you going to follow?  The sycophants or the Savior?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Glenn101]

There is a time and place for (almost) everything. There are times when teamwork is more important than the individual, but to me, there is always time for original thinking. One does not have to give up original thinking in order to be part of a team. Perot's original thinkers had to be able to work cohesively in order for his organization to be successful. The main thing is that the group remains open to other original thinkers, and that those thinkers can recognize good and even superior ideas and each be willing to modify their own ideas "for the greater good".

 

That always creates some tension in any group. The church is open to original thinkers, up to a point. That point is pretty dogmatic where doctrine is concerned, if we actually know what is doctrine and what is policy.

 

Glenn

[Tacenda]

Once upon a time there was a scrappy and entrepreneurial guy named H. Ross Perot who did things his own way, surrounded himself with original thinkers, and never dithered when faced with problems. That showed itself when he sold his EDS company to General Motors, an organization dedicated to conformity and to telling each other what they wanted to hear rather than making a factual analysis. Perot joined the Board of Directors and had a lot of good ideas for the long-term improvement of GM. Perot and the boss at GM (Roger Smith) soon came to a parting of the ways, as GM continued to flounder for another quarter century. It also showed itself in 1979, when several EDS employees were taken hostage in Iran. Unlike incompetent President Carter, Perot immediately took action by hiring the best people to go into Iran and get his people out. He was fully successful.

You have correctly noted that "group think" is present in the business world, and that is taken as a good thing by you. The problem of conformity and group think is that it can be found in a wide array of endeavors in which it kills creativity through committee, finds the lowest common denominator, and sycophants find it helpful to their careers. This takes place in the executive offices of governors, presidents, directors, and even scientific research organizations. No one wants to rock the boat. Every one is afraid to think outside the box, because that will be interpreted as disloyalty. The guy with an odd idea is the odd man out -- even if it was the correct idea for that time and place.

In a world of cowards and hollow men, telling the truth can get you crucified. Jesus rocked the boat and had to pay a heavy price. Who are you going to follow? The sycophants or the Savior?

I hate to say this but in the last paragraph or two some would equate it to being members of the church, the groupthink and being afraid to rock the boat. Though I hardly think you had this in mind. There are many who believe it to be the case, especially of members in Utah. We seem to be just like those in the corporate world that want to accomplish a certain outcome, with commitees and meetings, certain ways of dress and mannerisms and following protocol. I think sometimes the corp side of the church may blend with the church side when reading the list given in the OP. It usually is a breath of fresh air to see some who think outside the box or people like Perot who should have been president!

[pmccombs1]

 Why are church groups criticized, while private sector corporate groups are complimented for utilizing the same strategies in creating a productive group? 

 

 

Because what is praiseworthy or of good report sometimes changes based on the context in which it is found.

 

A business is supposed to secure prosperity, so it needs things like efficiency and standardization and lots of rules that people are compelled to follow. The praiseworthy is found in statistics: in the numbers of people objectively enriched or secured, and so forth.

 

Churches are supposed to witness to the peaceable kingdom, however imperfectly they may do it. The intent is not to secure peace and prosperity, but to create an environment where vocation and the community of saints can work together for peace from the ground up. Reaching that goal is not the important thing, but struggling toward it is. So the praiseworthy is not to be found in statistics, but in long-suffering, patience, and love unfeigned. Productivity and efficiency are not the point of religion.

 

A church's impact on the world is not measured in numbers, so when they try to put a quantity on their value, or to PR their good works before men to be seen of them, they have their reward. They gain the reputation owed to franchises and corporations.

[changed]

 The problem of conformity and group think is that it can be found in a wide array of endeavors in which it kills creativity

I disagree - group think, when done correctly, enhances creativity.  "If I have seen farther than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" - when you can bounce ideas off of one another, "think tank" with one another, you end up creating more ideas than would have been generated if everyone went off into their own little isolated rooms by themselves. 

Here's another example - Rubbermaid - they produce around 400 new products every year, more than one new product per day.  At least a third of their ~2billion annual sales come from products that are less than 5 years old.  Creativity and innovation to produce new proucts are essential for a successful business.  And of coarse, all of these new products require far more than just one person to produce them - they need a team of people working together.

bike - 200 + parts

Car - tens of thousands of parts

Boeing 747 - made up of over 5 million different components, requires over ten thousand person years of deisgn time to create.  (Oakes, Leone, Gunn)

Synergy is real - there is an infinite creative potential through interactions, the whole really is greater than the sum of it's parts - interactions (rather than the individual) have infinite creative potential... parts are conserved, but interactions are infinite.

1 bird + 1 bird = 2 birds + singing + babies + flying formations + an infinite number of things beyond just 2 birds....  keep the bird all by itself, and you would never know it could fly in formation or communicate or make offspring.  Our greatest potentials are reached through interactions. 

Think about all the commandments in the scriptures, and what they all center around - don't lie, don't steal, don't kill one another, love your neighbor - they are all about interactions, about how to treat one another, and how to treat God.  The point of heaven is perfecting our interactions with one another, to mazimize synergy. 

[changed]

I hate to say this but in the last paragraph or two some would equate it to being members of the church, the groupthink and being afraid to rock the boat. Though I hardly think you had this in mind. There are many who believe it to be the case, especially of members in Utah. We seem to be just like those in the corporate world that want to accomplish a certain outcome, with commitees and meetings, certain ways of dress and mannerisms and following protocol. I think sometimes the corp side of the church may blend with the church side when reading the list given in the OP. It usually is a breath of fresh air to see some who think outside the box or people like Perot who should have been president!

I have experienced synergy within the church - I love it when I feel it.  I think far too often (especially us rebellious freedom loving Americans) are told to be unique individuals & think outside the box.... What about thinking inside the box? staying inside the lines? comforming to a group (the right group of coarse) and experiencing synergy and emergence?  It is not a bad thing to be a part of the group - to be "one of us" - to belong to something...

A heart sitting on an operating table isn't good for anything... it's only when it allows itself to be taken over by the body, when it pumps blood and follows directions from the brain, when it assimilates itself, that it's purpose is revealed. 

We need to learn how to connect to one another - to not be afraid to connect, and be in a group with one another. 

[ERayR]

Are there any mangers out there, or anyone who has studied group dynamics for fostering productive teams etc. etc.?  I thought it was interesting, and as all church groups are a "group" I thought I would post it - just something to contemplate for those who complain about the "Morg", or people being "sheeple", or otherwise criticizing group-think policies of church groups... Why are church groups criticized, while private sector corporate groups are complimented for utilizing the same strategies in creating a productive group? 

Here are Tuckman's 5 stages:

1. Forming

The "nice to meet you" stage - group members are shy & self-conscience, ice-breaking activities are needed etc.

 

2. Storming

Cliques form, dissention over who is responsible for what, criticism of leadership, frustration over tasks group is called to perform.

 

3. Norming

People start dressing, talking, and acting like one another - group converges to common perspective, accepts one another instead of complaining and competing - learn to criticize without damaging feelings - interdependence and unity emerge. 

 

 

4. Perfoming

Everyone working together - pride in team, shared clear vision, everyone has individual tasks they are responsible for, but everyone helps one another.  Leaders are indistinguishable from group members, everyone works together. 

 

 

5. Adjourning

The project is completed - if successful, there is celebration and feeling of accomplishment, if a failure (if the group did not achieve "norming" and "storming" there are ill feelings and disappointment on adjourning. 

Anyways, what do you think about the "norming" stage? of dressing/talking/acting alike in order to achieve group unity and cohesion?  Is "norming" a good thing to do?  The business world seems to think it is a good thing to do (dress codes at work, etc.)

In the business world a successful team has:

1) a common goal or purpose

2) Leadership

3) unique individual talents

4) effective communication

5) collaboration

6) harmonious relationships

7) effective planning and use of resources

good attendance and participation

etc. etc.  Anyways, the next time I hear someone criticize people at church for not being “individual” enough, or conforming a little too much – I think I might start up a discussion of how essential teams are within the business world – what makes a team effective, and that the ability to conform is a good thing.

Emergence - "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" etc. etc.

 

delete

Edited September 26, 2013 by ERayR

[Robert F. Smith]

There is a time and place for (almost) everything. There are times when teamwork is more important than the individual, but to me, there is always time for original thinking. One does not have to give up original thinking in order to be part of a team. Perot's original thinkers had to be able to work cohesively in order for his organization to be successful. The main thing is that the group remains open to other original thinkers, and that those thinkers can recognize good and even superior ideas and each be willing to modify their own ideas "for the greater good".

 

That always creates some tension in any group. The church is open to original thinkers, up to a point. That point is pretty dogmatic where doctrine is concerned, if we actually know what is doctrine and what is policy.

 

Glenn

I always like to think of B. H. Roberts, J. Golden Kimball, and Hugh Nibley when discussions like these come up.  All of them (in their own way) were prepared to tell the king that he had no clothes, yet all of them understood the value of teamwork.  

[Robert F. Smith]

I disagree - group think, when done correctly, enhances creativity.  "If I have seen farther than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" - when you can bounce ideas off of one another, "think tank" with one another, you end up creating more ideas than would have been generated if everyone went off into their own little isolated rooms by themselves. 

Isaac Newton acknowledged his debt to others in that quote, but he was the quintessential loner in his research, as was Einstein.  I realize full well that scientific research today must be done by committee, and it is O.K. to kick some ideas around for awhile, and to assign project elements in a hierarchical manner (after all, the professors usually lead their students in these matters), but it can all too quickly devolve into petty exercises in unrighteous dominion.  I have seen otherwise good men overwhelmed by their own egos, which can quickly lead to project failure.

 

Here's another example - Rubbermaid - they produce around 400 new products every year, more than one new product per day.  At least a third of their ~2billion annual sales come from products that are less than 5 years old.  Creativity and innovation to produce new proucts are essential for a successful business.  And of coarse, all of these new products require far more than just one person to produce them - they need a team of people working together.

bike - 200 + parts

Car - tens of thousands of parts

Boeing 747 - made up of over 5 million different components, requires over ten thousand person years of deisgn time to create.  (Oakes, Leone, Gunn)

Synergy is real - there is an infinite creative potential through interactions, the whole really is greater than the sum of it's parts - interactions (rather than the individual) have infinite creative potential... parts are conserved, but interactions are infinite.

1 bird + 1 bird = 2 birds + singing + babies + flying formations + an infinite number of things beyond just 2 birds....  keep the bird all by itself, and you would never know it could fly in formation or communicate or make offspring.  Our greatest potentials are reached through interactions. 

Think about all the commandments in the scriptures, and what they all center around - don't lie, don't steal, don't kill one another, love your neighbor - they are all about interactions, about how to treat one another, and how to treat God.  The point of heaven is perfecting our interactions with one another, to mazimize synergy. 

 

Synergy is nice, and I like elements of all your examples.  What you seem to forget is just how quickly a company can lose its edge, and how much that has to do with great and not so great leadership.  Apple is a prime example of recent memory.  Another is Disney.  FARMS is another.  Synergy and megalomania don't always mix well.  Great leaders encourage and reward innovation.  Great leaders are not afraid to have other great men on the board.  They treat teammates as equals: respectfully.  They seek adversarial advocates in their presence.  This is rare, but essential.

[changed]

Isaac Newton acknowledged his debt to others in that quote, but he was the quintessential loner in his research, as was Einstein.  I realize full well that scientific research today must be done by committee, and it is O.K. to kick some ideas around for awhile, and to assign project elements in a hierarchical manner (after all, the professors usually lead their students in these matters), but it can all too quickly devolve into petty exercises in unrighteous dominion.  I have seen otherwise good men overwhelmed by their own egos, which can quickly lead to project failure.

 

I don't kow that Newton or Einstein were Islands - Einstein had help...http://blog.darkbuzz.com/2012/07/grossmanns-help-on-general-relativity.html

 Heisenberg, Bohr, Fermi, Pauli, and Schrodinger were all good friends with one another - they vacationed together etc. etc.

CS Lewis and Tolkien - two famous members of the "Inklings" club... 

Often, famous people come in groups - their fame stemming not from themselves, but from the synergy of group meetings.

I believe the reason that technology was essentially stagnant for so many years was due to a lack of communication and teamwork. Compare the incredible advancements of the last 200 years with the previous thousands of years... for thousands of years ~ 90% of the population did nothing but agriculture, planting seeds by hand, riding horses, cooking over a fire - for thousands of years this was how peple lived..... Why was technology stagnant for so long? Why has technology advanced to quickly in the last 200 years?  - the age of technology goes hand in hand with the information age... Tower of babble - if you want to stifle someone's ability to create something, kill their ability to communicate and work in a team. 

 

 

Synergy is nice, and I like elements of all your examples.  What you seem to forget is just how quickly a company can lose its edge, and how much that has to do with great and not so great leadership.  Apple is a prime example of recent memory.  Another is Disney.  FARMS is another.  Synergy and megalomania don't always mix well.  Great leaders encourage and reward innovation.  Great leaders are not afraid to have other great men on the board.  They treat teammates as equals: respectfully.  They seek adversarial advocates in their presence.  This is rare, but essential.

I agree that initially leadership is essential for the "forming" and "storming" stages above... by the "norming and performing stage" leadership roles all but disappear, as people are able to work with one another without being told what to do....  With the church too, the final goal is to act without being coerced - without leadership - Moses - would that everyone were a prophet" ... so yes, in the most productive stages everyone is treated as an equal.

Edited September 27, 2013 by changed

[changed]

The Power of Collaboration:
Great Groups are able to accomplish more than talented individuals acting alone.

"None of us is as smart as all of us." ~ Bennis and Biederman

 

This is a great picture - how many faces can you recognize?  Did you know that these people were all friends and acquainted with one another?  The below is a picture of what teamwork is supposed to be.
 

Front row from left to right:  Irving Langmuir, Max Planck, Marie Curie, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Paul Langevin, Charles Eugene Guye, Charles Wilson, Owen Richardson.
 
Second row:  Petrus Debye, Martin Knudsen, William Lawrence Bragg, Hendrik Kramers, Paul Dirac, Arthur H. Compton, Louis de Broglie, Max Born, Niels Bohr. 

 

Back row:  Auguste Piccard, E. Henriot, Paul Ehrenfest, Edouard Herzen, Theophile De Donder, Erwin Schrodinger, J.E. Verschaffelt, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Ralph Howard Fowler, Leon Brillouin."


"Both of us admit we couldn't have done it without the other.... our advantage was that we had evolved fruitful methods of collaboration." ~ Watson and Crick, winners of the Nobel prize for discovering the double helix structure of DNA

Edited September 27, 2013 by changed