In some cases, conflicts are resolved by the group but just as often they are merely dealt with superficially and persist at various levels below the surface. In addition to the expression of honest opinions and individual differences, the storming stage also represents the transition to operational tasks normally suspended during the formation stage (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2003; Blair 2003). The third stage of group evolution described by Tuckman is norming, which he characterizes as the resolution of conflicts and the normalization of operational issues identified in the storming stage of group evolution. This stage includes the establishment of rules of engagement or standard operating procedures that incorporate the compromises and other mechanisms necessitated to resolve the conflicts that arise among individual group members in the storming stage (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2003; Blair 2003). The final stage described by Tuckman in his original formulation of the dynamics of group evolution is performing, during which the group begins to function smoothly and effectively after having successfully resolved all of the issues during the norming stage. Whereas all groups generally progress through the first three stages, not all groups successfully reach the performing stage, primarily because they fail to resolve the conflicts originating in the storming stage during the norming stage (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2003; Blair 2003). The fifth and final stage of group evolution contributed by Jensen in the Tuckman-Jensen model of group dynamics is the adjournment stage during which the group completes and evaluates its performance tasks and ultimately begins the disengagement process. The adjournment stage can be distinctly positive, such as where the group achieved sufficient harmony and efficiency to accomplish its tasks, or distinctly negative, such as where the group failed to reach the performance stage and failed to achieve major elements of its objectives (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert 2003; Blair 2003).. Motivation Patterns in Group Dynamics and Competition in the Workplace:

In 1960, Douglass McGregor introduced a new concept of business management and employee...

Therefore, management must emphasize control and motivation through negative consequences (Blair 2003; Myers & Spencer 2004). McGregor's Theory Y rejects those assumptions and suggests that management that emphasizes meaningful rewards, competition, appreciation, and the opportunity to use their full intellectual and creative potential is far more conducive to group success than the traditional Theory X (Myers & Spencer 2004).
At almost the same time that McGregor proposed the Theory X/Theory Y model of vocational motivation, Frederick Herzberg introduced a similar model for understanding employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Specifically, Herzberg characterized negative factors whose absence correspond to low employee motivation.

Those factors include insufficient supervision, interpersonal relations, communication, and salary, which he described as hygiene factors (Myers & Spencer 2004). Herzberg characterized positive motivational factors whose presence corresponds to high employee motivation. Those factors include the opportunity for achievement, recognition, healthy competition, increased responsibility, and opportunity for advancement (Myers & (Spencer 2004). The most significant observation offered by Herzberg from the perspective of business management is that hygienic factors only relate to the causes of low motivation and motivational factors only relate to the cause of high motivation (Blair 2003). In principle, Herzberg's definitions actually correspond very closely to Maslow's hierarchical needs and further illustrate the connection between individual psychological needs and industrial psychology.