Week Four

1. There are critics of the five‐stage group development model. Their main point is that this presentation of a group’s development is too static. Do you agree with this criticism? Why?

I agree with the criticism of the five-stage group development model being too static. Although the five-steps of: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning seem to be a natural way groups could develop, it cannot necessarily outline a general “rule” because no two groups interact the same way. Some group dynamics will never adjourn no matter how much time is allowed for them to develop… while others have no need to storm. Because it is not clear what boundaries lay between each stage, it fails to be a good model to accurately describe an all-encompassing group development pattern that flows consistently. (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly & Konopaske, 2009, p. 236)

2. Why are some group and team members willing to socially loaf on work assignments?

According to the Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly & Konopaske (2009), “…when members “work together,” their outputs are pooled so that evaluation of individual output is not possible. Thus, they can receive neither credit or blame for their performances. In essence, they can hide within the group or team.” (p. 244) In turn, there are two major reasons individuals might choose to socially loaf. The first might be a result of a lack of credit for previous hard work. They might feel that in the past, they did more than their fair share and got nothing out of it… so why would they overwork themselves when the end result is the same? Another reason one might chose to socially loaf is because a lack of blame. They get the same treatment with less effort, so why do more than is necessary? As we learned from Ringelmann’s rope theory, the larger the group, the less responsibility and individual exertion.   

3. Why do you think many managers avoid confrontation with their employees? Is this a functional and effective way...