Happily Ever After

Abstract

This article develops a theory of late stage group performance based on the late stage group’s unique characteristics: a long shared history, an indefinite endpoint, a long member entry/exit history, and a long “parent” organization relationship. These characteristics are markedly different from those of earlier stage groups, suggesting that extant literature’s limited “maintenance” or “cyclical” prescriptions are insufficient for effective late stage group management. Six propositions are developed to model the relationship between late stage group characteristics and performance. Managerial implications are also discussed and a late stage group research agenda is proposed.

Group development model and Lean Six Sigma project team outcomes

“…Organizations form teams to enhance productivity, increase flexibility and speed of decision making, flatten organizational structure, increase workforce diversity, improve quality and increase customer satisfaction (Gilley et al, 2010). Furthermore, this study is consistent with research conducted in educational organizations (Allen and Burke, 2010;Betts and Healy, 2015;Colombini and McBride, 2012;Erez-Navot, 2014;Manata, 2016;Porter and Wimmer, 2012;Seck and Helton, 2014) and other disciplines such as IT, healthcare, manufacturing, human resources and government (Fidalgo-Blanco et al, 2015;Funk and Kulik, 2012;Haines, 2014;Jacobsson et al, 2014;Pugalis and Bentley, 2013;Raes et al, 2015).…”

“…Past researchers have found group development influences educational organizations (Allen and Burke, 2010;Betts and Healy, 2015;Colombini and McBride, 2012;Erez-Navot, 2014;Manata, 2016;Porter and Wimmer, 2012;Seck and Helton, 2014) and other disciplines such as IT, healthcare, manufacturing, human resources and government (Fidalgo-Blanco et al, 2015;Funk and Kulik, 2012;Haines, 2014;Jacobsson et al, 2014;Pugalis and Bentley, 2013;Raes et al, 2015). Group behavior dynamics have considerable influence on the success of teams (Carron and Brawley, 2012;Spiker and Lesser, 1995).…”

“…Many educational organizations use and study types of group development models (Allen and Burke, 2010;Betts and Healy, 2015;Colombini and McBride, 2012;Erez-Navot, 2014;Manata, 2016). Other areas of discipline using and studying the group development theory include information technology (IT), healthcare, manufacturing, human resources and government (Fidalgo-Blanco et al, 2015;Funk and Kulik, 2012;Haines, 2014;Jacobsson et al, 2014;Pugalis and Bentley, 2013;Raes et al, 2015). In addition to Tuckman andJensen, 2010 group development model, Necsoi (2015) defined teams as consisting of purpose, place, power, plan and people.…”

A Conceptual Review of Emergent State Measurement

“…Our review indicates a consensus that emergent states typically move toward agreement over time, meaning that emergent state changes at later phases should be relatively small. Funk and Kulik (2012) highlighted key characteristics of late-stage groups including behavioral stability and an aversion toward mental model changes; they argued that studying the social networks within these teams is essential to diagnosing their performance. And although these teams may be less likely to change, when they focus on addressing sources of low performance (Kozlowski et al, 2009; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977), emergent states may change as a result.…”