Stages of Team Development - A New & Improved View

Innovation Teams: Stages of Group Development

Human beings are predictable, and so are groups of people. While no one can know exactly at any given time what a person or group of people is going to do, even the casual observer can tease out common trends and themes in human interaction. So let's look into the crystal ball of group dynamics and see what it has to tell us about the process of development of innovation teams.

Probably the best known description of the stages of group development was put together by a guy known to his mother as Brucey. And to us as B.W.Tuckman. After looking at over 50 group development models, he put forth the following four stages: 1) Forming, then 2) Storming, then 3) Norming, then 4) Performing

Lesser known in the group dynamics world, but very well known in the Community (heart) Development world is M. Scott Peck's model: A) Pseudo Community, B) Chaos, C) Emptiness, and finally D) Community.

We think innovation teams fall somewhere between what we call a group and a community, and as we watch them develop, here's what we see.

PSEUDOTEAM:

Someone has called the group together and told them that they are to function as a team. Now, by the time you've graduated from the elementary education, you've got a pretty good idea of what a team is and how people are supposed to behave when they are on one. So that's what you do. You say nice things about the group. You make sure you don't rock the boat, even if you don't agree with something that others are saying or doing. You're very diplomatic as you put forth a proposal for thought or action. Why? Because you don't really trust these folks yet, and your "gator brain" is telling you “Be careful Brucey, or they'll all gang up on you and eat you alive! Every group needs a scapegoat; make sure you're not it!"

Correctly so, we are fearful of conflicting with the group. All of our nice statements about "what a great group of people this is" are really fostering a covert agenda. "Please, I promise not to say anything bad about you if you'll not say anything bad about me. Together, we can all live happily ever after. Okay?"

BLAMESTORMING:

We are so interested in making sure that we don't get attacked by our group-mates, that the team will typically focus on blaming outside people and dynamics for the problem they have been given to solve. In this stage, the group will focus on the "poor us" energy as a way of bonding together. The problem is that hand wringers and ?finger pointers don't get the job done and rarely get anything done. Additionally, it's not possible for humans working closely together to always avoid conflict with each other. Eventually, no amount of external blamestorming can cover up the fact that there will be tensions between members of the group. At this point, we typically see subgroups form within the team where the subgroup members blamestorm about how other individuals or subgroups within the team are the "problem." We're still trying to preserve our personal emotional safety here by finding at least a few allies within the team. Sadly, all too often, teams never progress beyond this point.

The vast majority of "teams" that we observe and with whom we consult, are operating from this stage of group development. If the group is to move beyond this stage in terms of its quality of performance it will occur in the following way: at some point in this storm, someone (or some critical mass of the group) will experience enough tension about the group's lack of effectiveness that they will begin to look for ways to take responsibility for moving the team forward on its agenda in a more effective way. This is a critical shift point in the formation since, as we'll later see, Innovation Teams are characterized by all of the team members taking responsibility, versus the more typical dynamic where only one or two people take up the task of leadership.

RESPONSE-ABILITY:

With innovation teams, (and this is critical) whether through training or very effective leadership or just the overall maturity of the group members, there is a shift for the entire group: from looking outwards to fix blame, to looking inwards to fix the problem. And not inward toward the team. inward toward themselves. The question being asked by most (if not all) the team members at this time is something like "Okay, while all of the circumstances that we've been singing 'poor me' about are true, the only thing I have power over is me. What can I do to contribute my best to the effort of the team? What can I do to inspire the other team members to do the same?" Team members remind themselves that they have the ability to respond to their challenge in any way they want to, and that how they respond to the challenge will ultimately determine their success. The humility we've spoken of earlier is present just enough that the energy the member has put into judging others decreases and the energy for personal responsibility taking increases.

There is a shift for the entire group: from looking outwards to fix blame, to looking inwards to fix the problem.

Now, the gator brain hasn't gone away here, it still lurks, and here's a place where it's good that we have it. If enough group members are moving into the stage of Response-Ability, those that are a little slow to get there will sense that they are on the verge of being left out, and the gator fear that resides in their brainstem & limbic area will often motivate them to shift up to a higher level of responsibility-taking. Being responsible becomes the norm of the group.

INTER-DEPEND-DANCE:

As the team members watch what they are doing in terms of group effectiveness (and they will because each is acting as if it is his or her job to grow the team. and it is every individual's job), a tremendous increase in trust of the team members appears. This trust sets up the group for two things:

• First, "I don't need to pay attention at such a high level to what you are doing, because I know you're taking responsibility for it and will handle your part. This allows me to focus on doing my part exceedingly well."
• Second, "when we're working together in a group and generating ideas to overcome various challenges, I know I won't be attacked for a less than perfect idea."

The group dynamic is now one of trying to get the best thinking on the table, and allowing for people's unpolished ideas to be a springboard for discussion of best possible ideas. It's a beautiful dance to watch and to be a part of. From a systems perspective, it's a lot easier to get to and maintain this level of productivity if there is some real mutual accountability for the delivery of some particular output from the group. Real accountability means that good output creates real positive consequences for all of the members, and that inadequate output creates real negative consequences for all of the group's members. In fact, a group can rarely be a team unless this system of pain/pleasure is in place.

INNOVATION TEAM:

Groups perform as an innovation team when in addition to the last two stages, they are also well trained in innovation skills. This is the difference between the typical high-performance team, and one that is a notch above: the Innovation Team. You'll hear us say this again and again. Innovative thinking is a skill that can be strengthened at both the individual and group level. Innovation Teams are people who have taken responsibility to do the Inter-Depend-Dance while at the same time working diligently to increase their personal and group creativity skills. This is what makes them such darn fun dance partners. A multi-dimensional doe-si-doe! Or a do-see-do again!

This article is a 'small taste excerpt" from "More Lightning, Less Thunder: How to Energize Innovation Teams" By Bob Eckert and Jonathan Vehar