Many companies and organizations embody the four stages of Tuckman’s Developmental Stages of Groups. However, no organization is a better example of this than the United States Army. After I graduated from high school, I enlisted in the US Army. Army Basic training is the very definition of Developmental Stages of Groups. It encapsulates all four stages (Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing). I believe that the military has this system down to a science and gets people to perform at a high level very quickly.
Upon entering basic training, no one knows anybody. Many individuals are only concerned with their own goals and career aspirations. Soldiers are just starting to learn about their platoon’s mission and goals. So people are polite and are just trying to feel each other out. Many soldiers talk about their favorite sports teams and their favorite music artist. However, some soldiers are more charismatic than others and you can see people gravitate to them. This is a perfect example of the forming stage. In this stage, groups are just forming and people know little about each other (PSU Lesson 7, 2015). Everyone was getting along to get along.
As we went through basic training, some leaders emerged through their knowledge of the task at hand or their ability to get everyone to put the platoon’s goals before their own. Anyone who is not a team player is ostracized from the platoon until they get with the program. However, our platoon was not without internal conflict. Many times when there was ambiguity in our leadership it caused many conflicts. This is exactly the definition of the storming stage. For instance, a soldier who was an expert in marksmanship was in charge of our platoon at the shooting range and butted heads with our platoon leader about who had final authority. Our drill sergeant would tell us to figure it out. We concluded that our platoon leader was our leader. However, if someone had expertise in a specialized field the leadership role would be transferred within the confines of their expertise.
This led to the norming stage, where we learned to fully buy into our platoon’s goals. Not only could we recite the army values on command, we believed them with every fiber of our body. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage are the values we lived by. These values allowed us to tolerate perceived character flaws of our platoon members. For the good of our platoon and the mission, personality quirks that may have led to an argument in the past are now just water under the bridge. In this norming stage, everyone’s role and purpose is settled (PSU Lesson 7, 2015). Our leadership structure became clearly defined and everyone understood their role. Our platoon’s cohesion was starting to gel and everyone had complete trust that we were becoming a lean mean fighting machine.
After several weeks of working together, the platoon was performing at an optimal level. This is known as the performing stage. This is the stage were the group is performing at its highest efficiency. We were so in tune with each other at this point that if someone got injured the next man would just step right in. My platoon would not miss a beat. Our moral, cohesion and productivity were all operating at a high level. These factors are interrelated and fed off each other. Studies have shown that team cohesion has a positive effect on performance (Fullagar & Egleston, 2008).
In closing, the Army is an organization that embodies Tuckman’s Developmental Stages of Groups. It takes in young men and women from all walks of life. Within a very short period, these soldiers are working together in groups and teams with one common mission. They have put aside their person goals for the goals of their unit and of the Army. That goal is the defense of the United States.
Reference:
PSU World Campus, Angel Lesson 7, 2015
Fullagar, C. J., & Egleston, D. O. (2008). Norming and performing: Using microworlds to understand the relationship between team cohesiveness and performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2574-2593. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00404.x
This is a great personal example of Tuckman’s stages! I have no military background and found your personal insight very interesting. I do agree that there is a huge difference from the average person who has just graduated high school and is off to college and the graduate that is on their way to basic, both have different drives, one goes it alone and the other is learning how to work best as part of a team. Were there any struggles with clashing personalities in your group of soldiers besides fighting over who was the leader? I have looked into the communication issues in a working relationship on the corporate level, I would imagine the live in setup of the Army would only have the issues but on a much larger intense scale because there is no escape at the end of the day. Great example, thanks for sharing your experiences.