Management Questions and Answers :: Team Work, Whistle-Blowing, Group Development

Question 1There are critics of the five full stop multitude development model. Their main point is that this presentation of a groups development is alike static. Do you obligate with this criticism? wherefore?Numerous critics of the five-stage model of group development contend the model is too static to accurately describe the circulateion of groups. In their review of the literature, prejudice and Trombley (2007) point out several deficiencies in the model. The model assumes that all groups make out linearly through five stages (forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning). Critics suggest the model fails to describe groups that do not follow a linear progression. The model also assumes that groups moldiness complete one stage before entering into the next stage, implying that tasks whitethorn not be completed. In addition, critical reviews of the model suggest that it ignores a more circular systems perspective. This systems perspective would allow the group to learn from mistakes and be more successful as a whole through the practice of inputs, outputs, throughputs, and a feedback loop (Hurt & Trombley, 2007, p. 3). The five-stage group development model does provide both(prenominal) understanding of the group process, but it seems too rigid to fully rationalise how groups with diverse individuals form and work together. In that respect, I would have to agree with some of the criticisms of this model. Human beings are by their nature dynamic, not static. Therefore, I question if it is realistic to portray group development in a completely linear, static manner. An individuals behavior whitethorn set forth depending on the groups particular goals and the behavior of the other individuals in the group. Groups have unique personalities depending upon how the all the members interact with to each one other. For example, it may be possible that some groups skip the storming stage characterized by arguing, conflict, debate, and experim enting with roles (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly & Konopaske, 2012) when some unregenerate individuals unilaterally take over the leadership roles. The models assurance that groups do not focus on goals until the performing stage may also be unrealistic. Individuals who are already passing motivated and highly focused on a particular goal from the start may come together and form a group. Group development may also vary based on how important the goal is sensed to be by individual members of the group. It is hard to predict exactly how each group of unique individuals will interact with each other and progress through group development stages.