A third framework advanced by Andrew Van de Ven and Marshall Scott Poole (1995), differentiates theories based on four distinct "motors" for generating change.
[2] According to this framework, the following four types of group development models exist: Some theories allow for combinations and interactions among these four "motors".
For example, Poole (see below) found in his empirical research that seemingly complex patterns of behavior in group decision-making result from the interplay of life-cycle and teleological motors.
[3] On the one hand, some models treat the group as an entity and describe its stages of development as a functioning unit or "intact system" [3] (p. 101).
[5] His ideas about mutual, cross-level influence and quasi-stationary equilibria, although uncommon in the traditional empirical research on group development, have resurged recently.
[8] Each of the five stages in the Forming-storming-norming-performing-adjourning model proposed by Tuckman involves two aspects: interpersonal relationships and task behaviors.
Such a distinction is similar to Bales' (1950) [10] equilibrium model which states that a group continuously divides its attention between instrumental (task-related) and expressive (socioemotional) needs.
His method pays special attention to the "content" dimension of interactions by classifying statements in terms of how they respond to a decision proposal (e.g. agreement, disagreement, etc.).
Based on this categorization, Fisher created his "Decision Proposal Coding System" that identifies act-response pairs associated with each decision-making phase.
He also suggested that teams engage in four modes of group activity: inception, technical problem solving, conflict resolution, and execution.
This model also states that groups adopt these four modes with respect to each of three team functions: production, well-being, and member support.
This model describes the processes through which such frameworks are formed and revised and predicts both the timing of progress and when and how in their development groups are likely, or unlikely, to be influenced by their environments.
This model, although linear in a sense, takes the perspective that groups achieve maturity as they continue to work together rather than simply go through stages of activity.
The GDOS allows researchers to determine the developmental stage of a group by categorizing and counting each complete thought exhibited during a group session into one of eight categories: Dependency statements, Counterdependency, Fight, Flight, Pairing, Counterpairing, Work, or Unscorable statements (Wheelan, 1994).
Her results seem to indicate that there is a significant relationship between the length of time that a group had been meeting and the verbal behavior patterns of its members.
The seven central stages begin with the formation of the team during its first meeting (forming) and moves through the members' initial, and sometimes unstable, exploration of the situation (storming), initial efforts toward accommodation and the formation and acceptance of roles (norming), performance leading toward occasional inefficient patterns of performance (performing-I), reevaluation and transition (reforming), refocusing of efforts to produce effective performance (performing-11), and completion of team assignments (conforming).
Here, individuals exit from the group (separately or simultaneously) and the team loses its identity and ceases to exist.
These activities include interactions of the team members with tools and machines, the technical aspects of the job (e.g., procedures, policies, etc.
The other track of activities is devoted to enhancing the quality of the interactions, interdependencies, relationships, affects, cooperation, and coordination of teams.
It suggests that group development and success can be best understood by taking into account components found at all levels of analysis.
In truth, highly complex systems, such as groups, can have components that cannot be explained by looking at the properties of say, the individual.
The crews varied based on success, and the current barriers they were facing, which included things such as economic difficulty and other external stressors.
These results were quite contradictory to what had been expected, but fortunately, Hackman had also collected data on a number of individual and contextual factors, just in case.
A total of five key features were determinants of crew success: adequacy of material resources, clarity of performance objectives, recognition and reinforcement for excellent crew performance, availability of educational and technical assistance, and availability of informational resources.
It challenges models that postulate linear and sequential processes, and instead suggests that development is inherently unpredictable.
Further, the influence of leadership within a chaotic system has been examined to ascertain how turbulent processes can be managed or guided towards successful outcomes.