Bruce W. Tuckman's contributions to group dynamics theory

Organizational Theory of Bruce W. Tuckman

One of the more influential organizational theorists of the 20th century to remain active today is Dr. Bruce W. Tuckman. Although Dr. Tuckman's primary focus has been concerned with educational research and psychology, he is also well-known for his seminal work during the mid-1960s concerning organizational behavior. Tuckman's research built on the work of others to develop new ways of understanding how and why people behave the way they do in the workplace, and researchers continue to refer to his earlier work as a benchmark for their own studies. To determine what Dr. Tuckman developed and how it can be used by organizations today to inform group leader roles and responsibilities, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Born in 1938 (Smith, 2005), Bruce W. Tuckman is a prolific organizational theorist who served as dean of the College of Education at Florida State University for a number of years. Dr. Tuckman received his doctorate in psychology from Princeton University and he is a fellow of the American Psychological Association today (Tuckman & Johnson, 1987). According to Smith (2005), Tuckman is most likely best known today for his journal article, "Developmental sequence in small groups" published in 1965; the majority of Tuckman's subsequent research, though, has been focused on educational research and psychology.

In many ways, Tuckman draws on the existing body of organizational theory to expand and support his own views concerning how and why people behave the way they do in the workplace. For instance, Tuckman cites Bandura (1977, 1986) to make the point that, "An individual characteristic that has been found to relate to the incidence of self-regulated performance is perceived self-efficacy or one's belief in one's capability to attain a particular goal or execute a particular performance" (1990, p. 291). Likewise, drawing on Vroom and others to explain goal-setting and rewards in the workplace, Tuckman reports that "Incentives, or goal objects that individuals desire to attain or avoid, have figured prominently in a number of theories of motivation. In these theories, the degree to which the object is desired is referred to as its incentive or reward value" (1998, p. 142).

With respect to how these concepts can be applied to real-world situations, Tuckman advises that, "These incentive theories of motivation suggest that people will perform an act when its performance is likely to result in some outcome they desire. Behavior that is motivated or prompted by the desire to attain or avoid an incentive can be said to be the result of incentive motivation" (1998, p. 142). Although there is nothing particularly earth-shattering about these foregoing revelations, Tuckman was among the first to weave several disparate streams of organizational behavioral thought into a framework that can be used to improve the performance of groups. For example, the four fundamental developmental sequences that most groups tend to go through during their maturation process (i.e., the so-called forming, storming, norming and performing stages), were initially described by Tuckman in his 1965 study as follows:

1. Forming: 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.

2. Storming: 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.

3. Norming: 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.

4. Performing: 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, p. 384).

The relationship between these four stages is illustrated graphically in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Four stages of group development initially propounded by Tuckman (1965)

Source: Smith, 2005 at http://www.infed.org/images/illustrations/forming_storming.gif

Subsequently, based on their review of 22 studies that had been published since Tuckman's original study in 1965, Tuckman and Jensen (1977) elaborated an additional stage in the group maturation process, adjourning, as follows: "Adjourning involves dissolution. It entails the termination of roles, the completion of tasks and reduction of dependency. Some commentators have described this stage as 'mourning' given the loss that is sometimes felt by former participants" (p. 419). In reality, the group developmental stages described by Tuckman and his colleagues appear intuitive and the obvious group developmental stages have simply been assigned "cutesy" rhyming titles as a mnemonic. Given the vast body of organizational behavior theory that has emerged since they were first propounded, though, it is clear that Tuckman was among the first to formally codify these stages in ways that organizational managers could apply them to their own workplace settings. This point is made by Smith (2005) who enthuses, "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" (2005, para. 4).

One such organization that could readily apply these precepts to understanding their own group development is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), where hundreds of thousands of overworked employees are struggling to meet the growing demand for healthcare and educational services for the veterans returning from combat tours in the Middle East. In response to these increasing demands for services, the VA is constantly forming various task forces, advisory groups and professional communities. These groups are tasked with both short- and long-term goals and exist for varying durations of time. For example, among the current national special interest groups that have been created by the VA to address changing veteran needs are the following: