Effect of evolution of

group stages on project

communication and

performance

Under the Guidance of

Prof. Manish Singhal

Assisted By

Mr. Balram Bhushan

~ASTAZVA (Group B3)

Achal Kumar Garg H13065

Anajney Anjan H13069

Ayushi Rastogi H13074

Karan Kumar H13082

Margesh Wavhal H13085

Megha Bindal H13087

Rituparna Mallick H13097

Sreedipto Bhattacharyya H13111

Contents ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1 Introduction: ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Literature Review: ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Overview: ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Hypothesis Statements: ................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 Identification of the stage at which the group is currently in: ............................................. 5

2.2.2 Evaluation of different types of stages of group development on group communication: . 5

2.2.3 Evaluation of different types of stages of teams on group performance:............................ 5

2.2.4 Evaluating if team conflict reduces as and when team progresses towards performing

stage: 5

2.2.5 Evaluation of team conflict on group performance: ............................................................. 5

2.2.6 Evaluation of different types of stages of group development on group cohesion: ............ 6

2.2.7 Evaluation of team cohesion on group communication: ...................................................... 6

2.2.8 Evaluation of team cohesion on group performance: .......................................................... 6

2.2.9 Evaluation of networking among/ by the group members on group performance: ............ 7

3 Data Collection Methods: ..................................................................................................................... 7

4 Testing and Analysis of Hypothesis: ...................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Identification of the stage the group is in: .................................................................................... 7

4.2 Evaluation of different stages of group development on group communication: ....................... 8

4.3 Evaluation of different stages of teams on group performance: ................................................. 9

4.4 Evaluating if team conflict reduces as and when team progresses towards performing stage: 10

4.5 Evaluation of team conflict on group performance:................................................................... 10

4.6 Evaluation of different types of stages of group development on group cohesion: .................. 11

4.7 Evaluation of team cohesion on group communication: ............................................................ 11

4.8 Evaluation of team cohesion on group performance: ................................................................ 11

4.9 Evaluation of networking among/ by the group members on group performance: .................. 12

5 Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Strengths of our project: ............................................................................................................. 13

5.2 Limitations of our project: .......................................................................................................... 13

6 Appendix: ............................................................................................................................................ 14

6.1 Questionnaire: ............................................................................................................................ 14

6.2 References: ................................................................................................................................. 15

1 Introduction: “Teamwork is so important that it is virtually impossible for you to reach the heights of your capabilities or make the money that you want without becoming very good at it”

-Brian Tracy

The entire project revolves around a quest to find how different stages of group

development affect team performance and communication. But beneath the veneer of such a

quest the analysis was actually an enquiry into how teams work and how teams are affected by

the very nature of its evolution. Team conflicts and cohesion were also dealt into. Exploring the

five stages of group formation that was researched by Tuckman and Jenson (Tuckman, Bruce,

1965) was the initiation of the study. The field of study chosen was a B-school and nothing is a

better microcosm of a corporate life than this. The various teams and groups formed hereby

span for a maximum of two years and yet often get to manifest all the stages with quite a

distinction. The plan was to tap into this opportunity and try to find out which stage of

development reflects which particular characteristics with respect to communication and

overall performance. The instruments intended for collection of primary data were interviews

and questionnaires. Targeted sample population for this work was various committees of XLRI

Jamshedpur and their members, individuals who are working in such committees for the first

time and different study groups formed in the college.

Various hypotheses were formulated based on what exactly the target of the study was.

After hypotheses formulation questionnaires were floated across the campus targeting various

active committees and study groups. The responses obtained were used to test the hypothesis

statements and compare the results with the existing theoretical research and commonly

accepted findings from various articles, journals, books and websites. Thus the endeavour of

studying the evolution of different group stages will help to understand its impact on group

communication and its performance. It will also bring to light whether the teams grow up one

stage at a time and the importance of these group stages in the enhancement of the

productivity of the group. Different types of group behaviour in terms of organizational

behaviour could also be understood in sufficient depth.

2 Literature Review:

2.1 Overview:

This is a study of group stages with regard to their effect on project communication and

performance. The mode of study included surveying the various groups at XLRI, which primarily

included academic, co-curricular and extra-curricular committees. There were total 7 groups

studied by questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaire comprised of 45 questions and

interviews gave us the chance for contextual observation of the members and their groups as

well. The questionnaires were designed to give us insights into specific areas, which have been

grouped under the following 9 hypotheses.

2.2 Hypothesis Statements:

2.2.1 Identification of the stage at which the group is currently in:

Tuckman’s enhanced model of five stages of group development has been used to

identify the current stage the group is in. Tuckman’s model states that a group/ team goes

through five stage model of development, namely forming, storming, norming, performing and

adjourning.

2.2.2 Evaluation of different types of stages of group development on group

communication:

Each team possesses varied set of emotional skills which directly influences team’s

internal communication and hence their performance (Troth, A. C., et. al., 2012).

2.2.3 Evaluation of different types of stages of teams on group performance:

A relationship can be established between team performance and the big five

personality traits of the group members in a team (Peeters, M. A., et. al., 2006).

2.2.4 Evaluating if team conflict reduces as and when team progresses towards performing

stage:

A group grows up one stage at a time but challenges in the previous stage affects the

further stages (Ito, J. K. and Brotheridge, C. M., 2008). According to Tuckman, members try to

resolve both interpersonal relationships and roles/activities as they progress through the four

stages. Right from the forming stage where intra-group conflict and hostility may arise due to

leadership struggles and members trying to assert autonomy. Individuals may feel

disconnected, thereby showing resistance to task demands. Moving onto a norming stage,

members tend to increase cohesiveness. Here task information is exchanged and there can be

conflicts in cases like- when expectations are not clear or not met, member’s goals and

organizational goals mismatch etc. Finally, during the performing stage, members work

together with a minimum of emotional interaction and attempt problem solving and task

completion. If there are unresolved issues, they will keep resurfacing in another form until

resolved. The analysis will prove if such conflicts reduce through the various group stages.

2.2.5 Evaluation of team conflict on group performance:

Team conflict, conflict management and team cohesion plays a crucial role in team

effectiveness and its performance. Conflicts in different stages also affect group cohesiveness

(Tekleab, A. G., et. al., 2009). A study of 105 work groups and management teams was done to

address the question of whether conflict can be beneficial or detrimental. Results show that

whether conflicts were beneficial or not depends on the type of conflict and the structure of

the group in terms of task type, task interdependence and group norms (Karen, A. Jehn, 1995).

2.2.6 Evaluation of different types of stages of group development on group cohesion:

Cohesion is seen to develop with time, following an almost predictable pattern. In fact

cohesion evolves along with the process of group development, beginning with group

formation till the group adjourns.

Defining levels of cohesion as per Tuckman's model of group development-

Orientation (forming) stage- Initially there is low level of interaction, exploration and

trust is beginning to develop. Hence it shows lowest levels of cohesiveness.

Conflict (storming) stageAs a negative consequence of competitive environment,

relationships can become strained and cohesiveness can suffer.

Structure development (norming) stage- In norming stage group tends to become

effective. Individuals try to enhance effectiveness by trying to find out ways to

collaborate more and more. This leads to increase in cohesion simultaneously.

Work (performing) stage- In simple words this is the stage with maximum harmony and

increase in productivity, and so the cohesion is also proportionately highest of all the

group stages.

2.2.7 Evaluation of team cohesion on group communication:

Team cohesion is a crucial factor when teams work under time pressure. Better team

cohesion will lead to an increase in the chance of communication and information exchange

thus affecting team performance (Chong, D. S., et. al., 2012). Back's study (1951) seemed to

predict that the more cohesive a group is, the more "friendly" its conversation will be which

would ensure greater cohesiveness in the future. However, Back's results were too simplistic. A

study by Pepitone and Reichling (1955) says that communication among members of cohesive

groups would be alternatively more friendly and more argumentative and unfriendly than that

in non-cohesive groups. Members of cohesive groups are believed to communicate with one

another in a more positive fashion than non-cohesive groups.

2.2.8 Evaluation of team cohesion on group performance:

Group cohesion has been linked to improved group performance, especially when the

members of a group are committed to the group’s tasks. Generally, there tend to be more

studies supporting a positive relationship between group cohesion and performance {Chansler,

P. A., Swamidass, P. M., & Cammann, C. (2003) Self-Managing Work Teams}. A study by Carron,

Bray, & Eys established high level of correlation between task cohesiveness and team

success. Forsythe (1990) has observed that: "The implications of these findings are clear:

cohesive groups are often more enjoyable, but they aren't always more productive.” There is a

lot of contradiction on the relationship between team cohesion and performance.

2.2.9 Evaluation of networking among/ by the group members on group performance:

Interpersonal project communication, concepts of power relations, use of networks in

communication in an organization and the trends and perspectives in contemporary project

management are very important for the group performance (Ramsing, L., 2009). There is not

one ideal structure of knowledge flow, but many, and the network structure for knowledge

flows between the team members depends on the characteristics of the team task. Ideal

knowledge network structures are hierarchical for routine tasks, core peripheral for

development tasks and egocentric for idea generation tasks (Snedlund, A., 2008).

3 Data Collection Methods: Questionnaire with 40 questions was administered to selected committees along with two

study groups. Targeted sample population was five committees of the campus and their

members, individuals with substantial experience in working in the committee, individuals who

are experiencing working in such committees for the first time and different study groups

formed in college. Questionnaire is attached in the appendix for further reference. Committees

targeted: CRUX, MAXI, SAC, SPIC MACAY, SAPPHIRE, FHRM AND OB I (Both from first semester).

We also interviewed some of the committee members to get a deeper understanding of their

working. We have not included the interviews in analysis to reduce subjectivity.

4 Testing and Analysis of Hypothesis:

4.1 Identification of the stage the group is in:

One of the first target of the entire instrument that was floated as a part of the study

was to find out the stage of the different target groups. Based on these the data analysis

commenced. The correlation coefficient among the dependent and independent variables was

found out. If the correlation coefficient value was more than 0.7 it was considered to have a

significant/strong relation with the respective stage that the committee was in. Pearson’s

Correlation was used in the analysis and the following rule of thumb was used predominantly.

The scores spelt little surprise as most of the groups subjected to the study showed more or

less high Performing Scores. Forming scores were high in committees which had more new

members as respondents. Based on this however little can be gleaned further unless the

various hypotheses are tested against each stage and a possible correlation is observed.

Regression analysis would then have to be carried out to find a relationship between the stage

and characteristic to be measured.

Committee/ Study

Group

Forming

Score

Storming

Score

Norming

Score

Performing

Score

Adjourning

Score

Crux 12.22 7.67 11.67 11.67 11.33

FHR 11.25 7.25 11.50 12.25 11.25

Maxi 12.15 6.23 12.54 12.00 10.46

OB1 13.00 5.50 12.00 12.00 10.75

SAC 13.67 7.00 13.50 13.33 12.00

Sapphire 12.64 7.43 11.93 12.36 10.86

Spic Macay 11.60 10.10 11.60 11.40 10.60

4.2 Evaluation of different stages of group development on group

communication:

The correlation coefficient for norming and performing stages with communication came out to

be more than 0.7. A detailed regression analysis for between communication and norming

stage showed us that the relationship is positive: the larger the norming score, the higher the

communication between groups. The P-value is the probability of observing a test statistic more

extreme than what we observed (assuming that the null hypothesis is true). Thus p-value of

0.021 signifies 97.9% confidence interval. Rest all stages do not have strong correlation with

communication.

These are only crude estimates for interpreting strengths of correlations:

If r = +.70 or higher Strong positive relationship

+.30 to +.69 Moderate relationship

+.20 to +.29 weak positive relationship

+.01 to +.19 No or negligible relationship

-.01 to -.19 No or negligible relationship

-.20 to -.29 weak negative relationship

-.30 to -.69 Moderate negative relationship

-.70 or higher Very strong negative relationship

1. SOURCE: http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libarts/polsci/statistics.html

Group Stage Correlation Coefficient

Forming 0.59

Storming -0.44

Norming 0.92

Performing 0.83

Adjourning 0.50

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Coefficient of

correlation

R-squared

Value Slope Intercept p-value

Norming

Score Communication 0.92 0.84 2.50 2.26 0.003

Performing

Score Communication 0.83 0.69 1.98 4.35 0.021

The above result went well in accordance with our initial hypothesis about communication i.e.

in forming stage communication gap exists as group members are relatively unknown to each

other but norming and performing stages have a strong relation with communication. These

stages have developed the understanding among the group members and communication in

terms of both verbal and non-verbal ways improves manifold.

4.3 Evaluation of different stages of teams on group performance:

For the dependent variable of performance, strong correlation existed only for

performance stage. Higher the performing stage score higher is the performance score. This

does not come as a surprise as the fourth stage of the group formation brings along with it a

feeling of unity, group identity, and both independence and interdependence. Arguably this is

the most productive stage.

Group Stage Correlation Coefficient

Forming 0.52

Storming -0.53

Norming 0.64

Performing 0.94

Adjourning 0.57

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Coefficient of

correlation

R-squared

Value Slope Intercept p-value

Performing

Score Performance 0.94 0.88 3.55 -2.42 0.002

The other independent variables in the form of group stages’ score did not share any

strong relationship with performance. The closest that any other came to would be the norming

stage based on the following rule of thumb used for Pearson’s Correlation1:

4.4 Evaluating if team conflict reduces as and when team progresses towards

performing stage: During the performing stage, members work together with minimum emotional

interaction and attempt problem solving and task completion. If there are unresolved

issues, they will keep resurfacing in another form until resolved. This was precisely what

was expected prior to the analysis. The correlation proved just that. Conflicts reduce

through the various group stages and reach a low at the performing stage.

Group Stage Correlation Coefficient

Forming -0.30

Storming 0.30

Norming -0.50

Performing -0.76

Adjourning -0.27

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Coefficient of

correlation

R-squared

Value Slope Intercept p-value

Performing Score Conflict -0.76 0.58 -1.64 16.13 0.046

There is a strong negative correlation between performing stage score and conflict scores. Also

the analysis clearly reflected that there was a 4.6 significance between the independent and

dependent variable in this case (4.6 in 100 chance of seeing this behaviour, if one assumes

these two to be unrelated)2

2. SOURCE: http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/blog_articles/p_values.pdf

4.5 Evaluation of team conflict on group performance:

Team conflicts do not always translate into performance but the contrary may hold true at

times. Conflicts do help in generating ideas and deliberation for the better of the group but in

case of high conflict, the team would always underperform. The analysis proved a strong

negative correlation between the two. Also the data was found to be at a significant level of

2.6, which is quite significant according to statistics.

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Coefficient of

correlation

R-squared

Value Slope Intercept p-value

Conflict Performance -0.81 0.66 -1.42 8.27 0.026

There is a strong negative correlation between conflict scores and team performance scores.

4.6 Evaluation of different types of stages of group development on group

cohesion:

The performing and the norming stages were found to be highly correlated and this was again

along the lines of what we expected. In the forming stage the group tries to clarify its goals as a

unit. Cohesion has a negative correlation with a relatively high significance value of 4.3.

Similarly, although in the performing stage, the correlation is positive and at a quite high

significance level. This implies a team is highly cohesive during the performing stage and this

comes as a no surprise.

Group Stage Correlation Coefficient

Forming 0.68

Storming -0.77

Norming 0.68

Performing 0.83

Adjourning 0.33

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Coefficient of

correlation

R-squared

Value Slope Intercept p-value

Storming Score Cohesion -0.77 0.59 -0.16 4.92 0.043

Performing Score Cohesion 0.83 0.69 1.75 5.52 0.020

It is clear that a strong negative correlation exists between storming team score and cohesion.

Also a strong positive correlation exists between Performing team score and cohesion.

4.7 Evaluation of team cohesion on group communication: Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Coefficient of

correlation

R-squared

Value Slope Intercept p-value

Cohesion Communication 0.75 0.57 0.85 0.43 0.051

4.8 Evaluation of team cohesion on group performance: Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Coefficient of

correlation

R-squared

Value Slope Intercept p-value

Cohesion Performance 0.88 0.77 1.57 -2.66 0.010

For 4.7 and 4.8, our expectation matched the analysis. The independent variable of cohesion is

strongly correlated to communication and more so with performance of the group. Statistically

speaking, a significance value of ‘0.01’ is very low and very good.

As we can see strong Positive correlation exists between cohesion and communication.

Cohesion is directly related to performance as per the correlation coefficient.

4.9 Evaluation of networking among/ by the group members on group

performance: Independent Variable Dependent Variable Coefficient of correlation

Networking Performance 0.081

In the last hypothesis the study tried to pitch networking with performance and check whether

any relation exist (causal or otherwise). The result clearly showed that performance in strongly

correlated with networking. A team showing high performance will always have strong

networking skills compared to a team which is relatively low on performance.

Coefficient of correlation between networking and performance is nearly zero. This means that

if networking of group members is strong it doesn’t necessarily means that group will perform

well or vice-versa. Hence networking doesn’t have any direct effect on group performance. A

low networking group can also perform well and high networked can perform below par.

5 Conclusion: After collating all the responses, we used the data to test our hypothesis statements. We

compared our results with the existing theoretical research and commonly accepted

conclusions found in various articles, journals, books and websites. Thus our endeavor of

studying the evolution of different group stages helped us to understand its impact on group

communication and its performance. It also brought to light the importance of these group

stages on the enhancement of the productivity of the group. Different types of group behavior

in terms of organizational behavior were also understood in sufficient depth.

Norming stage had maximum effect on communication within group closely followed by the

performing stage. However statistics also showed a negative impact in storming stage which

may be attributed to the different views of members in the group. The group commitment

towards task performance increases and finally peaks in the performing stage, which is relevant

according to the theoretical studies. We can conclude that during the storming stage, most

groups have seen maximum conflicts, which may not necessarily be negative but maybe just

different perspectives of their members. By the time the group reaches the performing stage,

the goals and ideas become one and members align themselves accordingly. In keeping with

popular belief conflict seems to have an adverse effect on the group performance. As the group

is initially formed, the cohesion level remains high but goes down drastically in storming stage

due to the conflicts and builds up gradually from it to reach a maximum in the performing

stage. Communication in a group is directly proportional to the cohesion in the group. Though

communication as a variable leads to better performance, we find that the relation between

cohesion and performance is stronger than with communication. Networking does have a

positive consequence on the performance of the team but the magnitude of relation is not very

high.

5.1 Strengths of our project:

The project throws some light on the conclusions related to the hypotheses. There have

been varied opinions on the hypotheses we have used. The project could verify some of

these theoretical papers

Insights into the stages of group development will be made available to respondents

later, thus helping them in making proper decisions, listing down norms of group

behavior and making use of conflicts to group’s advantage

This project can be used as a reference in later life outside XLRI to project the conclusions

on some other groups and act accordingly in corporate life

5.2 Limitations of our project:

Qualitative methods have been used to measure the temporal shift in the group. Possible

bias mainly self-serving bias at the time of filling of questionnaire, incorrect information

reporting because of retrospective nature of information, non-factual nature of

some questions can result in incorrect data

We are not studying influence of external factors on the team processes. Team

processes are also dynamic in nature. Group processes and thus development of group is

considerably complex than can be captured by the hierarchical model such as Tuckman’s

model which we have used. Group development can also be dependent on the

leadership style and decision making authority within the group

Also it may so happen that group can skip one of the five stages as proposed by

Tuckman. Some theories such as McGrath model suggests that groups move through

modes similar to suggested by Tuckman but it predicts that the pathway through which

the team progresses or the number of modes through which it goes is a function of

whatever that is needed for the team to achieve its goal

We have a fairly restricted sample size mainly consisting of committees within the

campus and the same conclusions may not be applicable to other kind of groups other

than educational ones

6 Appendix:

6.1 Questionnaire:

Stages of Group Development:

Forming:

1. The team attempts to discover what is to be accomplished.

2. The team tries to determine the parameters of the task.

3. Individuals in the group tries to determine what was to be accomplished.

Storming:

4. There is conflict between group members.

5. Individuals demonstrate resistance towards the demands of the task.

6. Group members are hostile towards one another sometimes.

Norming:

7. Individuals identifies with the group.

8. The team feel like it has become a functioning unit.

9. Group norms are developed.

Performing:

10. A unified group approach is applied to the task.

11. Constructive attempts are made to resolve project issues.

12. Solutions are developed and selected.

Adjourning:

13. We are often confused, not because we don’t know how to do the work, but

because everything is changing.

14. Our group has accomplished quite a lot, especially in offering new services.

15. We all know that we have worked well together as a group. We will miss those that

are leaving soon.

Group Cohesion:

1. We all share the same commitment to our group's goals.

2. As a group, we are all on the same page.

3. Some of my best friends are on this group.

4. I like the way we work together as a group.

5. We hang out with one another whenever possible.

6. I contact my group members often (phone, text message, internet)

7. This group gives me enough opportunities to improve my own performance.

8. I spend time with my group members.

9. I am going to keep in contact with my group members after the group objectives are

met.

10. We stick together even when group work is not ongoing.

Group Communication:

1. When communicating with my group leader, I feel conversation is adding value.

2. The group leader always defines role responsibilities for each group member.

3. Group members often talk about things that I am interested in.

4. Members frequently say things that add value to the conversation.

5. Leader lets me know that I am communicating effectively.

6. I feel that I can talk about anything with the leader.

Group Performance:

1. The team uses an effective short and long term strategic planning process.

2. The team meets its (internal and/or external) customer requirements.

3. The team is productive.

4. Team functioning doesn't interfere with getting my own job done.

Group Networking:

1. Group members give business contacts or phone call to keep in contact.

2. Group member participated in college sponsored events to increase the networking

with corporates.

3. Contacted friends from college for committee work.

4. Group members attended professional seminars/ workshops/ conferences.

5. Group members give professional seminar or workshops to increase visibility of

committee.

Group Conflict:

1. How much conflict of ideas is there in your work group?

2. How often do people in your work group have conflicting opinions about the project

you are working on?

3. How often are there disagreements about who should do what in your work group?

4. How much conflict is there in your group about task responsibilities?

5. How often do you disagree about resource allocation in your work group?

6.2 References:

Journals

1. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological

bulletin, 63(6), 384.

Article identifies the stages of group development and 4 general stages are proposed. The

4 stages are forming, storming norming and performing. We can use these stages to

identify the stage the sample groups are currently in.

2. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development

revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.

Article is the review of the research of Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen on the

stages of small group development. It adds a fifth stage, adjourning, to initially proposed 4

stages. We can use this stage also in our survey.

3. Rickards, T., & Moger, S. (2000). Creative leadership processes in project team

development: an alternative to Tuckman's stage model. British Journal of Management,

11(4), 273-283.

Article speaks about the dynamics of the project team development. It also discusses the

Tuckman’s model of team development through different stages and offers an alternative

conceptual framework. It also describes the barriers to creative performance.

4. Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group

development. Academy of Management journal, 31(1), 9-41.

Article explores the complete life-spans of eight naturally-occurring teams. It was found

that several project groups did not accomplish their work by progressing gradually through

a universal series of stages, instead, teams progressed in a pattern of "punctuated

equilibrium," through alternating inertia and revolution in the behaviors and themes

through which they approached their work.

5. Troth, A. C., Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A., & Tse, H. M. (2012). A multilevel model of

emotional skills, communication performance, and task performance in teams. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 700-722. doi:10.1002/job.785

The paper uses a multilevel approach to identify the various emotion related skill sets of

individuals in teams to understand how it impacts the communication performance and

also the team task performance. We can use it to study our dependent variable

communication dependency on our indirect independent variable emotions.

6. Peeters, M. A., Van Tuijl, H. F., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. (2006). Personality and

team performance: a meta‐analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 377-396.

This paper examines the relationship between team performance and the big five

personality traits. We can use it to study our dependent variable team performance

dependency on personality traits of group members.

7. Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team

conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization

Management, 34(2), 170-205.

This study investigates the relationships among team conflict, conflict management,

cohesion, and team effectiveness. We can use this to how conflicts in different stages

affect group cohesiveness.

8. Benard, S. (2012). Cohesion from Conflict Does Intergroup Conflict Motivate Intragroup

Norm Enforcement and Support for Centralized Leadership? Social Psychology Quarterly,

75(2), 107- 130.

This research investigates how intergroup conflict shapes individuals’ tendencies to

sacrifice for their groups, enforce norms, and relinquish decision-making autonomy to a

leader. We can use this to find the effect of outside environment during different stages of

group.

9. Mizruchi, M. S. (1991). Urgency, Motivation, and Group Performance: The Effect of

Prior Success on Current Success among Professional Basketball Teams. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 54(2), 181-189.

This paper argues that in team competition, prior success breeds failure in current task

performance because it decreases the necessity of success and vice versa. We can use this

to find the effect of prior performance on future performance.

10. Akan, O. H. (2005). The role of concrescent conversation in the performing stage of

work groups. Team Performance Management, 11(1/2), 51-62. Chicago

Article provides an alternative to traditional group development model in understanding

how communication affects performance of a group in performing stage of the 5 stage

model of Tuckman.

11. Akrivou, K., Boyatzis, R. E., & McLeod, P. L. (2006). The evolving group: Towards a

prescriptive theory of intentional group development. Journal of Management

Development, 25(7), 689-706.

Article provides a us with a framework for understanding intentional change in a team. It

helps us to examine when the change is intentional, and has a desired direction.

12. den Otter, A., & Emmitt, S. (2007). Exploring effectiveness of team communication:

Balancing synchronous and asynchronous communication in design teams. Engineering,

Construction and Architectural Management, 14(5), 408-419. Chicago

Article states that the communication within group is dependent upon the communication

acts of the team member, and ability of manager. Team communication depends upon the

different information systems used by the team members.

13. Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2008). Do teams grow up one stage at a time?:

Exploring the complexity of group development models. Team Performance

Management, 14(5/6), 214-232.

Articles helps us to understand if the stages of group development, as defined by Tuckman,

are dependent on path or whether a stage can have a direct influence beyond an adjacent

stage. It also examines validity group stages development.

14. Ramsing, L. (2009). Project communication in a strategic internal perspective.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(3), 345-357.

Article discusses the concept of project communication. It studies the potential of

interpersonal project communication. The relation between interpersonal project

communication and concepts of power relations in an organisation, use of networks in

communication in an organisation.

15. Smedlund, A. (2008). Identification and management of high-potential professional

services. Management Decision, 46(6), 864-879.

The purpose of this article is to understand, assess and manage knowledge networks in

teams. It proposes that there is not one ideal structure of knowledge flow, but many, and

that the network structures of knowledge flows between employees in teams depends

upon the characteristics of team task.

16. Perry Jr, E. E., Karney, D. F., & Spencer, D. G. (2013). Team establishment of self-

managed work teams: a model from the field. Team Performance Management, 19(1/2),

87-108.

Article studies leader's influence on the speed of establishment during the establishment

phase. One aspect of study involved studying members who experienced in working

collaboratively.

17. Chong, D. S., Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Chai, K. H. (2012). Bringing employees closer:

the effect of proximity on communication when teams function under time pressure.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 205-215.

Article examines relationship between team communication and team proximity which

means increases in the chance of contact and information exchange. It studies effect of

time pressure on team proximity and team communication.

18. Chou, S. Y., & Garcia, D. C. (2011). Group Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the

Stages of Group Development. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10),

p3.

Article states that group organizational citizenship behavior has a impact on performance

of group. Article in turn studies the effect of evolution of group on group organizational

citizenship behavior.

19. Ratcheva, V., & Vyakarnam, S. (2001). Exploring team formation processes in virtual

partnerships. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12(7), 512-523. Chicago

Article considers virtual team as a area of research. It helps us to understand the process of

assembling and maintaining effective inter-organisational teams. It confirms through a

study that such teams form a typical development pattern.

20. Roy, M. H. (2001). Small group communication and performance: do cognitive

flexibility and context matter? Management Decision, 39(4), 323-330.

Article studies the relationship between cognitive flexibility of an individual, cooperative

context, communication and group performance. Study conducted shows that groups

comprising individuals with similar cognitive abilities outperform diverse thinking groups.

21. Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. (2004). Time,

change, and development the temporal perspective on groups. Small group research,

35(1), 73-105.

This discusses the following two aspects: i. Theories of change in groups address three key

concepts: change, stability, and continuity. ii. Two typologies of change theories provide

frameworks for distinguishing among the plethora of group development models.

22. Yoo Y, Alavi M. Media And Group Cohesion: Relative Influences On Social Pretense,

Task Participation, And Group Consensus. MIS Quarterly [serial online]. September 2001;

25(3):371- 390.

This article talks about the relative influences on social presence, task participation, and

group consensus. We can us this to find how team cohesion affects communication.

23. Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing Effectiveness on Virtual Teams Understanding Why

Traditional Team Skills Are Insufficient. Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 186-

206.

This article talks about the problems faced in virtual teams which are over and above real

teams. We can use this article to test the differences in group stages in virtual and real

teams.

24. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team

empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face

interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175-192.

This article talks about the impact of empowerment on virtual team. We can again this use

this to differentiate the levels of empowerment in virtual and real team in different stages

of group.

Books:

1. Scholtes, P. R., Joiner, B. L., & Streibel, B. J. (2003), pp. 1.3-1,6. The team handbook.

Oriel Incorporated.

Scholtes talks about the various types of teams, viz., project teams, functional work teams

and virtual teams; he further describes how different types of teams are linked to

organizations.

2. A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict:

Karen A. Jehn Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 256-282.

Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of

Management, Cornell University.

This study examines the structure of 105 work groups and management teams to address

the question of whether conflict can be beneficial. Multiple methods were used to examine

the effects of conflict on both individual- and group-level variables to provide a more

refined model of intragroup conflict.

3. Kanaga, K., & Browning, H. (2007). Maintaining team performance (Vol. 103). Center

for Creative Leadership. pp. 99-103

The forming of a team and delivering of results by the team are two different stages.

Managers need to measure the effectiveness of the teams on a constant basis.

4. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1992). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-

performance organization. Harvard Business Press. pp. 13-22

Katzenbach talks about the Team Performance curve. He explains with a figure that how

well any small group of people forms depends on what approach it takes and the team

goes about implementing the same.

5. Verma, V. K. (1997). Managing the project team. Project Management Institute. pp.

126- 132

Verma helps readers understand the stages of team development build strong project

teams by eliminating barriers to high performance select and organize the project team for

success by gaining commitment through participative decision-making, and develop a

matching skill and responsibility matrix.

6. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill

Development: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Cengage Learning. pp. 187-278

Lussier talks about Team Leadership; he uses a unique three-pronged approach—theory,

application, and skill development—to make key concepts immediately relevant to

tomorrow's leaders.

Web links:

1. http://www.pmhut.com/the-five-stages-of-project-team-development Synopsis – This

reference gives a brief overview and clarifies the concepts relevant to the various stages of

group development. Last Visited: 25.11.2013

2. http://aqabpsychology.co.uk/2010/07/team-cohesion/ Synopsis – This reference describes

the Carron’s Model and identifies 4 factors which contribute to the team cohesion. It also

elucidates a way of measuring team cohesion. Last Visited: 28.11.2013

3. http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/the-five-stages-of-team-development-a-case-study.html

Synopsis – This reference gives a brief overview and clarifies the concepts relevant to the

various stages of group development. Last Visited: 21.11.2013