When reading our lesson there was one idea that stuck out to me a lot. This idea was Tuckman’s (1965) idea about group stages of development. This stuck out to me because I actually learned about this in a previous class which if I remember correctly was sports psychology. Tuckman’s idea involves four and sometimes five stages; forming, storming, norming, performing, and sometimes adjourning (PSU WC, L9, 2019).
I experienced these stages last spring when I played intramural soccer. My team consisted of me, my friends, and some friends of friends. Everyone didn’t know each other and so before our first game we entered the forming stage. This stage is when group members, or in my case team members, gather information about each other (PSU WC, L9, 2019). Before the start of the game we all got in a circle and introduced ourselves. After learning names, we then discussed our experience playing soccer and areas of our game that we excelled at and areas that we weren’t all that good.
The next stage my team entered was the storming stage. This is when a group or team may experience some conflict. It involves discussing how the task will be accomplished (PSU WC, L9, 2019). With my soccer team, we experienced this when discussing how we would win the game. Each of us offered ideas on different styles of play and different formations we could use to help us win the game.
Norming is the next stage and that is when a group leader emerges and group norms develop (PSU WC, L9, 2019). After playing a few games, a leader did arise on our team. Since most of us didn’t have much soccer experience, this leader happened to be our best player. He became the leader because he did the most for the team and also he knew the most so he was qualified to be telling us what to do and how to do things. Group norms also developed. We got into a groove of who would play and with who on the field. After a few games, we also found out what aspects of the game our team was good and bad at.
The performing stage is group members play functional, interdependent roles in an effort to reach a goal (PSU WC, L9, 2019). Our goal was winning games and after each of us learned each others playing styles we got better at knowing how to play functionally together. The fifth and final stage of Tuckman’s (1965) group stages is called adjourning. Adjourning is when the group splits up, either because the task is completed or through attrition, such as someone quitting (PSU WC, L9, 2019). This happened to our group when we played our final game. After our last game we all took off our cleats and went home and have yet to get everyone in that exact group back together again.
References:
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 9: Team leadership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules/items/27074716.
pdb5155 says
Going into another intramural sports season, how do you think your last experience would impact your future experience? Based on your description, it seems your team met the basic needs of Tuckman’s Four Stages, but do you think there were areas you could have expanded? In the Forming Stage, could a leader been established who could help facilitate decision-making and role designation? In the Storming Stage, could some of the conflict been prevented with a more outstanding leader(s)? In your Norming Stage, your leader emerged and it seems the group followed his lead as the most experienced member of the team. Do you think he should have been the leader in hindsight? Was there someone who could have done a better job based on their skillset? As is the case with most intramural teams, the connections break and very rarely reconnect. Is there any value in getting the team back together, or did this group run its course with the mutual understanding that their goals had been met?
mrp5540 says
Through a power and influence approach, it appears that the lack of expert knowledge of your team allowed for the team leader to exert power based on expert power. This refers to the power wielded by a leader who is seen as an expert in their field (PSU WC L07, 2019). As there were no formal roles or guidelines from which the leader could base their power, this was also the only power bases available to him. Referent power may also have developed over the course of several games as he was viewed as an inspirational leader who sought to give the best for his team. Considering that his leadership was largely based on expert power, it is likely that the major source of his influence tactics were based on rational persuasion, or arguments based on facts and rational persuasion (PSU WC L07, 2019). Although the rest of the team may have lacked expert power or knowledge, they may have also influenced the leader through coalition building, or the use of support tactics to exert influence (PSU WC L07, 2019).
In this situation, coercive power and influence tactics based on the threats and fear would not be effective as there is no formal leadership structure or resources that may be controlled in order to persuade the followers. For this very reason it was also not possible to exert power based on rewards, nor a legitimized power.
This is an example of how the followers and situation, in addition to the leader, affect leadership.
References
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 07: Power and Influence. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules/items/27074697