Tuckman’s Model and the Nadler and Tushman Model

1168 Words3 Pages

Tuckman’s Model and the Nadler and Tushman Model
Bruce Tuckman first developed Tuckman’s forming, storming, norming and performing model in 1965. Later on in 1977, Tuckman and Mary Ann Jensen jointly added adjourning stage. Tuckman’s theory is a helpful and elegant illustration of team behavior and development. The model explains that as team abilities mature, relationships are forged and the leader changes the style of leadership. The leader starts with a straightforward style, moves on through coaching, then participation, finishes delegation and finally becomes almost detached. At this stage, the team can produce another leader and the previous leader can move on to create a new team. Tuckman maintains that the four phases are necessary and unavoidable for the team to grow, to plan work, to handle problems, to find solutions and to deliver results. This paper aims at discussing, comparing and contrasting Tuckman’s Model and the Nadler and Tushman Model.
The formation of the team is the first stage of the model. A person’s behavior is driven by the desire for acceptance, and to avoid conflict or controversy with other people (Judge & Bono, 2000). Grave feelings and issues are avoided, with people focusing on keeping themselves occupied with routines such as duty allocations, team organization and the venues of the meetings during this period. At this stage, individuals gather impressions and information about each other, and the aims of the group and how to advance towards them. This stage is comfortable, but the avoidance of conflict translates to little being done. The team learns about opportunities and challenges, reaches a consensus on goals and starts to handle the task. The team may be motivated, but usually, they are ...

... middle of paper ...

... the leaders of change, of the ripple effect that will result from any change in one part of the organization to the rest.
These models are appropriate for study because of various reasons. The main reason is that they provide a wide comprehensive range that covers issues experienced in both organizational and group levels. Another reason is that the materials required for their study are readily available and are well detailed. By comparing and contrasting these two models, one acquires a great deal of knowledge that is useful in understanding how similar models work since they form the basis other models.

References
Burke, W. W. (2003). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Judge, A., & Bono, E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.

Open Document