Part 1 : Comparative analysis – small group development theory (500 words)
In 1965, Bruce W. Tuckman developed a theory in which he sought to explain how a team develops over time through stages : forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning published in his study "Developmental sequence in small groups". Tuckman 's theory is based on a research he led analyzing over 50 articles that dealt with small groups development. The last stage was isadded in his follow up study in 1977 with Mary Ann C. Jensen. In this 1st part, I will critically analyse the work of Tuckman ; in the 2nd part, compare and contrast its findings with the follow-up.
Firslty, the groups Tuckman found which were as follows : group-therapy, training group, …show more content…
Tuckman 's hypothesis in 1965 was determined by littérature whereas this 1977 review is based on empirical test which makes it rational to amend the model "to reflect recent literature" (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). Finally, the model consists of 5 stages ;forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Part 2: Theory into practice
Reflect upon your experience of working in a small group during the DEO module. Use the ‘Stages of Small Group Development’ model presented by Tuckman and Jensen (1977) as a theoretical framework for this reflective analysis, drawing on the comparative analysis undertaken in part 1 of this essay. (1000 words) In this part, I will reflect upon my experience of working in a small group during the Developing Entrepreunrial Opportunity module. Indeed, our lecturer Francis Greene assigned us radomly to a small group of 4 other students with the assignement to create our own business idea followed by a crowdfunding page. Following the above analysis of Tuckaman and Jensen, I identified my experience as working in a small group to Tuckman 's laboratory …show more content…
However, there wasn 't any direct or indirect conflict, besides the unpleasant comments during the 1st meeting, wheresas "resistance to group influence and task requirements" (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977) form the stage of storming. In fact, the second meeting took place at the same place where we verbally brainstormed. Our meeting consisted in discussing, there wasn 't any conversation besides about our task. We had a business idea but nothing concrete. However, we weren 't alerted by the situation because we had time. At this point, we still didn 't have a
In 1965, Bruce W. Tuckman developed a theory in which he sought to explain how a team develops over time through stages : forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning published in his study "Developmental sequence in small groups". Tuckman 's theory is based on a research he led analyzing over 50 articles that dealt with small groups development. The last stage was isadded in his follow up study in 1977 with Mary Ann C. Jensen. In this 1st part, I will critically analyse the work of Tuckman ; in the 2nd part, compare and contrast its findings with the follow-up.
Firslty, the groups Tuckman found which were as follows : group-therapy, training group, …show more content…
Tuckman 's hypothesis in 1965 was determined by littérature whereas this 1977 review is based on empirical test which makes it rational to amend the model "to reflect recent literature" (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). Finally, the model consists of 5 stages ;forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Part 2: Theory into practice
Reflect upon your experience of working in a small group during the DEO module. Use the ‘Stages of Small Group Development’ model presented by Tuckman and Jensen (1977) as a theoretical framework for this reflective analysis, drawing on the comparative analysis undertaken in part 1 of this essay. (1000 words) In this part, I will reflect upon my experience of working in a small group during the Developing Entrepreunrial Opportunity module. Indeed, our lecturer Francis Greene assigned us radomly to a small group of 4 other students with the assignement to create our own business idea followed by a crowdfunding page. Following the above analysis of Tuckaman and Jensen, I identified my experience as working in a small group to Tuckman 's laboratory …show more content…
However, there wasn 't any direct or indirect conflict, besides the unpleasant comments during the 1st meeting, wheresas "resistance to group influence and task requirements" (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977) form the stage of storming. In fact, the second meeting took place at the same place where we verbally brainstormed. Our meeting consisted in discussing, there wasn 't any conversation besides about our task. We had a business idea but nothing concrete. However, we weren 't alerted by the situation because we had time. At this point, we still didn 't have a