| With the emergence of teams as a central organizational unit of science and engineering organizations, training development experts have begun to apply group development models, such as the Tuckman group development model, to teams without evidence that this is a valid application. Reviewing the literature indicates that nine studies have been conducted on the Tuckman model. However, the studies indicated mixed results due to their small sample sizes and did not include teams from the science and engineering sector. Hence, if the Tuckman group development model is to be used in science and engineering teams, a comprehensive study is needed to determine the ability of the model to explain team development.; An approach was outlined to obtain data from science and engineering teams from a large population of science and engineering organizations throughout the country. Data from 686 responses representing 122 teams were analyzed. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test, a three-stage model was discovered. The sequence of the Tuckman model stages was found to be forming, storming, norming/performing. Using stage median time of occurrence rank analysis, 29 out of 686 participants perceived their team to follow the Tuckman group development model. At the team level, using the same analysis, 16 of 112 teams that had at least one-half of its members complete the survey perceived their team to follow the Tuckman group development model.; The data were analyzed to determine whether any factor correlated with an individual or a team in perceiving their respective team's development to follow the Tuckman group development model. Results indicate that no factor could be found to correlate (alpha = 0.05). Alternative sequences of the Tuckman model were also investigated. According to the data, 72 of the 112 teams were found to have no distinct occurrence of Tuckman group development model behaviors. Thirty-three teams had two stages and seven teams had three stages, resembling the general conclusion. Factors were assessed to determine if any correlation could be made to the number of distinct stages perceived by the teams. Three factors were found to have a correlation: the task's customer, the length of the task, and the team's size. |
