Academy of Management Journal 2003. Vol. 46, No. 1. 106-117.

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AND LINEAR PROGRESSION: TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT
ARTEMIS CHANG Queensland University of Technology PRASHANT BORDIA JULIE DUCK University of Queensland
This study proposes gaining a new understanding of group development by considering the integrative and the punctuated equilibrium models of group development as complementary rather than competing. We hypothesized that we would observe both punctuated equilibrium and linear progression in content-analyzed data from 25 simulated project teams, albeit on different dimensions. We predicted changes in time awareness and in task and pacing activity in line with the punctuated equilibrium model and changes in structure and process on task and socioemotional dimensions in line with the integrative model. Results partially supported predictions for both models.

Group researchers were forced to reconsider their understanding of group processes when Gersick (1988, 1989, 1991) pubUshed the punctuated equilibrium model. Gersick (1988, 1989) studied eight field and eight laboratory work groups with definite deadlines, referred to as project teams, and found that instead of developing gradually over time, project teams progressed through an alternation of stasis and sudden change. Drawing on the language of biological evolution, she labeled such a course of development "punctuated equilibrium." Reviewers (e.g., Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo & Shea, 1992) have concluded that this new understanding of change processes challenged the traditional linear models of group development, in which (1) change was conceptualized as a gradual and incremental process, (2) it was assumed that groups progress through a logical sequence of stages over time, and (3) groups were viewed as becoming more effective over time, at least until they move into a final stage of decline and termination (Gersick,

We would like to thank Andrew Wollin and Allie Perich for their help at various stages of this research. This research, conducted as part of the first author's doctoral studies at the University of Queensland, was supported by her Australian Postgraduate Award and by a Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Early Career Research Grant to the second author. An earlier version of this research note received the 2002 Best Dissertation Award from the American Psychological Association, Division 49.
106

1991; La Goursiere, 1980; Van de Ven, 1995; Wollin, 1999). We argue that one should not conclude that Gersick's findings discredit stage models of group development without systematically examining the relationship between the punctuated equilibrium model and linear (stage) models of group development. Only three studies (Arrow, 1997; Lim & Murnigham, 1994; Seers & Woodruff, 1997) have directly compared linear and nonsequential models of group development. However, two of the three studies appear to contain misinterpretations of some fundamental assumptions of linear group development models; both Arrow (1997) and Seers and Woodruff (1997) assumed that linear models describe a group's progression through "clearly defined" developmental stages. In fact, most linear theorists have defined developmental stages in terms of the proportion of time a group spends on issues that are characteristic of a particular stage and do not propose that clearly defined boundaries separate one developmental stage from the other (for example. Bales, 1953; Wheelan, 1994). This research note presents an empirical study designed to reconcile the punctuated equilibrium model (Gersick, 1988, 1989) and the integrative model (Wheelan, 1994) of group development. The integrative model was chosen to represent stage models because it is a recent integration of previous group development research, including Tuckman's (1965) classic model. We argue that the punctuated equilibrium model and the integrative model complement rather than contradict

2003

Chang, Bordia, and Duck

107

each other. The following discussion will clarify misunderstanding in the literature and integrate the two models to offer a comprehensive framework for understanding group development and group performance. The contribution of this study is in its attempt to clarify the literature and to convey a new understanding of group development that integrates the punctuated equilibrium model and the integrative model both theoretically and empirically. This contribution is valuable because empirical researcb comparing different theories of group development is largely lacking, given tbe extensive time and resources required to test just one group development model empirically (Weingart, 1997). THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The Punctuated Equilibrium Model Presenting her punctuated equilibrium model, Gersick (1988, 1989) argued that, instead of developing gradually over time, work groups experience long periods of inertia tbat are punctuated by concentrated revolutionary periods of quantum change. According to the punctuated equilibrium model, groups undergo a two-phase (ratber tban a two-stage) developmental pattern. Phase 1 is tbe first period of inertia, tbe direction of whicb is set by tbe end of a group's first meeting. Pbase 1 lasts for balf of tbe group's allotted time. At the midpoint of the allotted time, the group undergoes a transition tbat sets a revised direction for pbase 2, a second period of inertia. In addition, Gersick (1989) noted that a group's progress is triggered more by members' awareness of time and deadlines than by completion of an absolute amount of work in a specific developmental stage. Moreover, "halfway" emerges as the most likely moment at w^hicb groups will call attention to time or pacing. Tbe midpoint acts as a reminder of tbe approacbing deadline that interrupts tbe group's basic pbase 1 strategies and facilitates tbe midpoint transition and thus tbe onset of pbase 2. The Integrative Model In tbe integrative model, wbicb is based on an integration of group development researcb over tbe last four decades (e.g.. Bales, 1953; Bion, 1961; Tuckman, 1965), groups are viewed as progressing tbrougb five developmental stages, eacb described by a unique pattern of bebaviors. Stage 1 is "dependency and inclusion." According to tbe model, members often feel anxious and uncertain wben first entering a group, because tbe

situation is new and not clearly defined. Thus, tbey are polite and tentative, leader-focused, and sometimes defensive. Stage 2 is "counterdependency and figbt." As tbe group develops, members start to find tbe leaderfocused stage frustrating and confining. Individual members seek to clarify tbeir roles, and tbe group seeks to assert independence from tbe leader (counterdependency). Goalitions start to form among members witb similar ideas and values. Figbts and conflicts between coalitions and members with different values start to emerge. Stage 3 is "trust and structure." Resolutions of tbe conflicts of stage 2 clarify goals, increase cohesion and member satisfaction, and reduce individual fears of rejection; thus, trust among members increases. At stage 3, communication becomes more open and task-oriented, and more mature negotiations about goals, roles, organization and procedures start to take place. Members wbo bave accepted a role at stage 1 out of misunderstanding tbe group's goal or mere fear of rejection can now renegotiate tbeir roles witb tbe group. Stage 4 is "work." Work commences immediately after group formation but reaches an optimal state at tbis stage. Once goals, structures, and norms are established, a group can work more effectively. Members sbare the group goals and conform to tbe group norm of bigb productivity. Furtbermore, as Wbeelan (1994) argued, people usually bave some awareness of time wben tbey work. Groups tbat are always working are probably not working effectively, and those tbat start late are definitely not working effectively. Stage 5 is "termination." Most work groups bave an ending point; even continuous groups bave temporary endings sucb as completion of an assigned project. At each ending point, the members of a functional group tend to evaluate tbeir work togetber, give feedback, and express feelings about eacb otber and tbe group. Similarities and Differences between the Two Models The two models have tbe following similarities. First, in tbe integrative model, stage 1 groups are cbaracterized by leader dependency and concerns about safety and inclusion and, tbus, a group's members tend to follow tbe dominant mood of the group at tbis stage. Gonsequently, internal and external pressures to perform usually force groups to focus on work very early in tbeir development, despite tbeir unreadiness to do so. Tbus, a group's members tend to embrace wbatever work processes are proposed at tbis

108

Academy of Management Journal

February

early stage. Furtbermore, tbese work processes tend to remain witb tbe group until members are ready to question or challenge prevailing views witbin tbe group. Tbis argument accords witb Gersick's (1988) assertion tbat tbe approach a group undertakes at its first meeting will carry through the first half of its life span, wbicb is pbase 1 in tbe punctuated equilibrium model. Second, it is possible tbat tbe integrative model describes cbanges at a more micro level witbin eacb pbase of inertia described by Gersick. In the integrative model, tbere is only a loose boundary between stages 1 and 2 and stages 3 and 4. Stages 1 and 2 tend to co-occur to form a premature pbase (pbase 1 of tbe punctuated equilibrium model) in wbicb group members struggle witb issues such as power, structure, and intimacy; and stages 3 and 4 tend to co-occur to form a mature pbase (pbase 2 of tbe punctuated equilibrium model) in wbicb issues sucb as power, structure, and intimacy are mostly resolved, and work is tbe main focus of a group. Tbus, it is possible that a transition marks tbe sbift of a group's bebavioral pattern from a pbase in wbicb stage 1 and 2 bebaviors dominate to a pbase in wbicb stage 3 and 4 bebaviors dominate. Tbis conceptualization of multilevel change patterns is similar to Wollin's (1999) recent approacb to understanding revolutionary and incremental cbanges in social science. Wollin argued tbat systems bave multilevel deep structures and tbat it is at tbe level of deep structure tbat cbanges determine tbe observed incremental or revolutionary pattern. In other words; changes at more surface levels tend to be incremental; revolutionary cbanges occur at a more fundamental level (Wollin, 1999). Besides tbe similarities, tbere are also some differences between tbe punctuated equilibrium model and tbe integrative model. First, in terms of specificity, tbe punctuated equilibrium model describes cbanges in tbe way a group works on its tasks over time, wbereas the integrative model describes the overall developmental pattern of a group over time. Tbis difference in specificity is reflected in the difference in tbe two coding systems. Gersick's observational system focused on "ideas and decisions tbat gave tbe product its basic sbape or tbat would be the fundamental cboices in a decision tree if tbe finisbed product were to be diagrammed . . . and points wbere milestone ideas were first proposed, whether or not tbey were accepted at tbat time" (1988: 14). Tbe integrative model, on tbe otber band, was developed tbrougb use of tbe Group Development Observation System (GDOS; Wbeelan, Verdi, & McKeage, 1993), wbicb captures temporal cbanges in groups' structures

and processes along both socioemotional and taskrelated dimensions. For example, tbe coded transcript on tbe rigbt in Table 1 demonstrates tbe integrative model's focus on group processes sucb as work (coded witb "W"), fligbt ("FL"; avoidance of intimacy or work), and pairing ("P"), wbicb refers to relationsbip building. In contrast, tbe left side of Table 1 demonstrates bow tbe same group interaction would be coded under tbe punctuated equilibrium model. Applying tbe latter, we abstracted tbemes from the group's discussion, coding tbe same group interaction as tbe group examining its resources. Because tbe punctuated equilibrium model focuses a group's approacb to its work, statements tbat represent relationsbip maintenance or avoidance of intimacy are less relevant. Second, in terms of generalizability, tbe punctuated equilibrium model describes developmental patterns tbat apply only to "groups tbat bave some leeway to modify tbeir work processes and must orient tbemselves to a time limit" (Gersick, 1988: 36). Tbe integrative model was designed to describe tbe developmental patterns of all types of groupsfor example, IGU nurse teams (Wbeelan & Burcbill, 1999), executive teams (Buzaglo & Wbeelan, 1999), faculty member groups (Wbeelan & Tilin, 1999), and financial services and botel industry teams (Wbeelan, Murpby, Tsumura, & Kyliene, 1998).

HYPOTHESES

Gomparison of tbe two models described in tbe preceding section led to our first bypotbesis: Hypothesis 1. Simulated project teams undergo both punctuated equilibrium and linear progressive developmental patterns, albeit on different dimensions. Over time, changes in a group's time awareness, pacing activities, and task activities will occur, consistent with the punctuated equilibrium model, and changes in task and socioemotional activities will occur, consistent with the integrative model. Furtbermore, we argue tbat tbe presence of punctuated equilibrium does not preclude tbe presence of linear progression (Wollin, 1999). Hypothesis 2. The integrative model describes changes at a more micro level within each phase of inertia described by Gersick, with the midpoint transition marking a group's moving into the more productive developmental stages.

2003

Chang, Bordia, and Duck

109

TABLE 1 Meeting Transcript Sample Coded by Two Methods

Gersick-Style Meeting Map" 0:00-3:00: examined resources, looking at the tapes available. Group Development Observational System Coding** B These are all the music tapes (W) A tapes (W) C I wonder what the music is? (W) B while you are sleeping (W), silk road of theme (W), pearl shells (W), which I never hear of (FL), while you are sleeping (W), is that the movie? (FL) A hm (FL) C yes (W) B we should use that one (W) D . . . (U) A I am not going to play it (W), I am just going to . . . (W) D ok (W) E has any one seen crazy people (FL) D pardon (U) E crazy people (FL), the movie (FL) B no (answering B) (FL), that's good (referring to the tape recorder) (W), C ok so (W), so we got to basically advertise (W) E they did this thing on the movie (W) where there like was this advertising guy (W), and you know like how they usually say those safety stuff (W) 1:00 E and he goes millions people got killed every year but we have the fewest number (W), like people get killed (W) D oh, really (P) E they just do all this crazy thing (FL) and people really like it (FL) cause he just like do all these crazy commercials (W) B that's good though (W) E but all these crazy people helps him to make up these ideas (FL), but it's not original (W), but its creative (W) C but they wouldn't know whether it's not original (W) unless they have seen it(W) D yeah (W), but they have the tape (W) E but...(U) oh yeah (W) E elevating music (playing music tape 1) (W) B it's like airplane music when you land (W) A oh. Yeah (W) D or when you are taking off (W) A yeah (P), it's true (W) E what's that (the music) (W) 2:00 B so we would have to like do the other ones . . .

0:30-1:30: proposed content. One person talked about the movie "Crazy People." Wanted to use the idea shown in the movie: "Millions of people get killed every year but we have the fewest number." The group then evaluated the proposed content"not original."

1:30-4:20: listened to all the music tapes, commented on the music, and proposed ideas that go with the music. "This is captain someone," "This is like an Asian music," "But that doesn't make Asian sound exciting, it just makes it sound relaxing." "We've also got to mention the country I guess."

" The left-hand column is a five minute-sample segment of the meeting map describing changes in the central theme of a group's discussion over time. This map was constructed following guidelines provided by Gersick (1989). The coding of the segments is in bold type. The numbers in the left column represent minutes elapsed since project inception. ^ The right-hand column shows a GDOS transcript for only two minutes of the group's interaction. The letters at the start of each line identify group members. The coding of each statement is in parentheses, in bold type. The coding reflects the purpose of the communications and the nonverbal behaviors accompanying them.

In tbis study, we aimed to test tbe bypotbeses by replicating Gersick's (1989) laboratory study on simulated work groups. Laboratory groups were studied because tbeir development could be observed from project inception to termination. More importantly, a laboratory study offered a controlled environment in wbicb similarities and differences between tbe two models could be tbe most effectively investigated. Furtbermore, Gersick demonstrated tbat laboratory groups display developmental patterns tbat are similar to tbose of field groups

and tbus tbat data derived from laboratory groups bave external validity. Tbe integrative model (Wbeelan, 1994), in contrast to tbe punctuated equilibrium model, was developed in tbe field and bas not been tested in a laboratory setting. However, given tbat tbe model is generalizable to a wide range of groups, we expected laboratory groups to display similar developmental patterns, witb tbe exception tbat tbe laboratory setting migbt lead to less socioemotional interaction and/or conflict as participants would

110

Academy of Management Journal

February

bave limited vested interest in tbe task and would only be interacting for 40 minutes. METHODS Participants and Procedures Twenty-five groups of first-year university psycbology students (8 groups of five and 17 groups of four) participated in tbe experiment for partial fulfillment of psycbology course requirements. Tbe sample consisted of 69 female and 38 male students tbat formed 2 all-male, 7 all-female, and 16 mixed groups. Groups' gender composition was not controlled in tbis experiment because previous researcb (Verdi & Wbeelan, 1992) bas suggested tbat it bas no influence on patterns of group development. However, observation of tbe groups' interaction sbowed tbat tbe all-male groups were less committed to tbe task tban were tbe otber groups. Tbe task in our study was modeled closely on tbat in Gersick's (1989) laboratory study. Participants were told to assume tbe role of professional advertising writers at a major urban radio station wbo were to design a pilot commercial for a wellknown airline. Eacb team received a folder tbat informed them about tbe client's special request and tbe costs of producing an advertisement. Eacb group also received an audio tape player, a tape recorder, and tbree different music tapes. Tbe budget allowed eacb group to use only one of tbe music tapes. Participants were asked to note tbe time tbeir group began on tbeir watcbes and to bave tbe radio commercial ready for collection wben tbe experimenter (one of tbe autbors) returned in exactly 40 minutes. Participants were told tbat several otber advertising agencies were interested in tbis project as well and tbat if tbeir team did not produce a pilot commercial tbat satisfied tbe client, tbeir agency would lose tbis contract. Tbe competition was intended to motivate tbe students to finisb on time and to attend to tbe requirements and evaluation criteria. At tbe end of tbe 40 minutes working time or upon completion of a group's first presentable product (wbicbever occurred first), tbe experimenter returned to tbe room and debriefed tbe participants. Meetings were videotaped for furtber analysis. Eacb group's interaction was transcribed word-for-word into a written script for coding and analysis; tbe average script contained 26.8 (s.d. = 5.48) pages of double-spaced, 12-point type and 1,113 (s.d. = 269.32) complete sentences. The Coding Systems Coding for the punctuated equilibrium model. Responses were coded as far as possible according

to tbe coding scbeme described by Gersick (1989), altbougb sbe did not fully describe a unit of analysis for testing tbe punctuated equilibrium model. Her coding system contained two broad classes. Tbe first categorized tbe actions group members took to manage a work process. Tbere were tbree types of action statements: Process statements ("P") were members' suggestions about bow tbeir group sbould proceed witb tbe work (for instance, "Wby don't we just toss out some ideas tbat we could get into tbe commercial?"). Time-pacing statements ("T") were group members' direct references to timenoting wbat time it was or bow mucb time bad elapsed or was leftand members' attempts to pace tbeir group by saying wben, in terms of tbe allotted time, sometbing sbould be done (for example, "toward tbe end" and "before too long") or by mentioning bow long an action would take, or finisbing on time (for instance, "We bave got 20 minutes left!"). Resources-requirements ("R") statements were members' references to tbeir group's resources, requirements, or criteria for tbe task and explicit attempts to sbape tbe product in accordance witb tbe group's resources or requirements (for instance, "Tbat's $200 per thing, so we basically bave tbe cboice of one."). Tbe second class of categories included statements about tbe product: Content statements ("#c") were group members' mentions of selling points to be pusbed in tbe ad, ideas for content themes or story lines, tbe content of dialogue, or information to be presented. Detail statements ("#d") were ideas about small modifications or fine points of ad content (for instance, "Should the brakes slam or not?"). Format statements ("#f") were ideas for tbe basic format of tbe ad, the vehicle through whicb tbe information would be conveyed (for instance, "Wbat if we bad a conversation between two people?"). Procedure statements ("#p") were ideas about tbe process of acting out the ad and about wbo would do wbat for tbe recording session (sucb as "I'll do tbe second person."). Following procedures similar to tbose reported by Gersick (1989), we constructed a qualitative map for eacb group (see Table 1). Tbe map described cbanges in tbe central tbeme of a group's discussion over time. Group Development Observation System (GDOS) coding for the integrative model. Work statements ("W") were tbose that represented purposeful, goal-directed activity and task-oriented efforts (for example, "Why don't we start writing this down?"). All categories described by tbe punctuated equilibrium model were coded as work statements in tbe GDOS coding. Fight statements ("Fl") were tbose that implied argumentativeness, criticism, or aggression (such as "That is a stupid

2003

Chang, Bordia, and Duck

111

idea."). Flight statements ("FL") were those that indicated avoidance of the task and confrontation (such as "Did anyone watch the movie on SBS last night?"). Pairing statements ("P") were those that included expressions of warmth, friendship, support, or intimacy with others (for example, "Good work, John!"). Counterpairingstatements ("CP") indicated avoidance of intimacy and connection and a desire to keep the discussion distant and intellectual (for example, "Can we talk about the commercial instead?"). Dependency statements ("D") showed an inclination to conform with the dominant mood of the group or to follow suggestions made by the leader and, generally, demonstrated a desire for direction from others (for example, "What do you think we should do?"). Counterdependency statements ("CD") asserted independence from and rejection of leadership, authority, or other members' attempts to lead (such as "Why don't we try my idea first?"). It should be noted that all statements needed to be coded on the basis of their purpose, the group's history, the nonverbal cues given by the speaker, and the reaction of the recipient. For example, "Can we talk about the commercial instead?" was coded as a counterpairing statement when it was a reaction to a group's relationship-building conversation. In contrast, "Did any one watch the movie on SBS last night?" was coded as flight when it was stated to avoid working on the commercial, when the group found the task too difficult to proceed with. The first author coded all the transcripts twice, once with Gersick's coding system, and once with the GDOS. A research assistant coded a randomly selected 10 percent of the scripts. Coefficients for interrater reliability between the first author and the research assistant were calculated both for unitizing and for coding. For all of the integrative model codings and for the pacing and time awareness statements of the punctuated equilibrium model, a unit was defined as a simple sentence that presents a complete thought to another person or persons. A unit did not have to be a grammatical sentence as long as a communication provided enough information that it could be interpreted by others and could stimulate a reaction in them. Thus, "I agree" is a unit, and "Absolutely" is a unit if said in response to another statement (Wheelan et al., 1993: 44). Unitizing reliability was assessed using Guetzkow's U, and the global and categoryby-category reliability measures of the GDOS were calculated using Cohen's kappa (Folger, Hewes, & Poole, 1984). The unitizing reliability was calculated to be 0.99 for the integrative model. The global level of interrater reliability was 0.74 for the integrative model, and the category-by-category

reliability coefficients for work, flight, pairing, counterpairing, dependency, counterdependency, uncodable, and pacing and time statements were 0.99, 1.00, 0.94, 0.97, 0.81, 0.75, 1.00, and 1.00 respectively. Cohen's kappa was not calculated for the fight category because no fight statements were observed in this study (see below). For the punctuated equilibrium model, interrater reliability was only calculated on the percentage of agreement on the linear or honsequential pattern of development and for the time and pacing statements (as described above). We relied on these two measures because of the lack of detail in Gersick's (1989) paper on how to analyze the data from other coding categories. Another research assistant who had not been involved in the initial coding of the transcripts used GDOS to code 25 percent of the transcripts; the percentage of agreement between this research assistant and the first author on the linear/ nonsequential pattern of development was 100 percent. For all observed transitions, the two raters also agreed on the timing of the transitions and the events that constituted them.

RESULTS The Punctuated Equilibrium Model Support for the punctuated equilibrium model was assessed in two ways: First, via examination of the overall pattern of attention to time and pacing throughout a group's allotted time and second, through examination of qualitative shifts in the way the group performed its task. Figure 1 demonstrates the distribution of pacing and time statements across all 25 groups. The groups showed more awareness of pacing as time progressed. To examine whether this pattern of increase in time awareness might be interpreted as both linear and nonsequential, we performed two separate Friedman's chi-square analyses (Howell, 1990). In the first analysis, we compared time awareness in the two phases (20 minutes each) to replicate Gersick's finding. In the second, we examined time awareness across the four 10-minute time intervals to determine if there was evidence of a gradual increase in time awareness over time that is, a linear trend. A Bonferroni adjustment was made so that alpha was set to .025 for the two "main effect" analyses and to .004 for the four "pairwise" comparisons. Results of the two chi-square tests supported both a nonsequential and a linear increase in time awareness. Time awareness significantly increased between the phases: phase 2 contained 65 time references, as compared to 34 in phase 1 ix^^ =

112

Academy of Management Journal

February

FIGURE 1 Patterns of Time Statements Collapsed across the 15 Groups^ # # # # # # ,## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# #

# # ##

# # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

Time

" Each "#" represents the time statements of a different group.

9.71, p < .01). The four-stage chi-square test showed a significant difference in groups' time awareness over the four 10-minute intervals; there were 14, 20, 26 and 39 time references over these periods ix^^ = 13.85, p < .01). Furthermore, pairwise comparisons of the time awareness statements across the four 10-minute intervals showed that the only significant difference in time awareness was between intervals 1 and 4 [x^^ = 11.79, p < .001; X^i = 1.06, 0.78, and 2.60 for the comparisons between intervals 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4, respectively). Thus, both linear and nonsequential changes of time awareness were observed in this study. To understand if the published data from Gersick's (1989) study could also be interpreted as supportive of both linear and nonsequential patterns, we reanalyzed those data and found a similar pattern. When the group's allotted 60 minutes was divided into four 15-minute intervals, a significant difference in time awareness was found [x^^ = 9.57, p < .0025; 7, 12, 14, and 23 time references), and none of the pairwise comparisons were significant except for the comparison between intervals 1 and 4 (A'% = 8.53, p < .001; x^i = 1-32, 0.15, and 2.19 for the comparisons between intervals 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4, respectively). Thus, reanalysis of Gersick's data also indicated that the results could be interpreted as both linear and nonsequential, depending on the unit of analysis that is used (see Wollin, 1999). Midpoint Transition Using Gersick's coding system as a guideline, we constructed a time map describing the changes in the central theme of discussion over time for each group; Table 1 presents an example of a map. Nine of the 25 groups studied here showed some form of transition around the midpoint of their allotted time. A transition point was defined by Gersick as

"the moment when group members made fundamental changes in their conceptualization of their own work" (1989: 277). Gersick argued that this shift could occur in two ways: "One way consisted of summarizing previous work, declaring it complete, and picking up a next subtask. A second way was observed in groups whose phase 1 agendas appeared to be floundering. These groups just dropped stalled phase 1 approaches and reached out for a fresh source of inspiration, something around which to crystallize further efforts" (1989: 303). Like Gersick, we observed that transitions that occurred around the midpoint were most likely to focus on new content or a new format that would help a group to integrate the materials generated up to that point to create the basic structure of the commercial. For example, one group spent the first half of its time talking about possible content ideas for the commercial. After 19 minutes of discussion, one member said, "All I can think of is 'I Like Aeroplane Jelly'" (a reference to a jingle in an existing TV ad). Another group member responded, "We can change the words of 'I Like Aeroplane Jelly' to 'I Love Air Australia.'" This suggestion was not immediately taken up by the group, but 2 minutes later the group used this idea and started making up words for this song, which became a major part of the commercial. Gersick (1989) studied 8 groups in the field and 8 groups in the laboratory. In both cases, she found midpoint transitions in most groups. She concluded that the midpoint is the most likely, but not the only, transition point in project teams. However, in our study, with a larger sample of 25 groups, we found that only 9 groups underwent midpoint transitions. The other 16 groups fitted the description of linear progression more closely than that of a progression marked by a midpoint transition. Small and incremental changes occurred throughout these groups' life spans, without clear.

2003

Chang, Bordia, and Duck

113

sudden changes in direction. Nevertheless, of the 16 groups that did not display midpoint transitions, 12 did undergo some transitions, most of which occurred within the first 10 minutes of their life spans. The presence of both linear progressive and punctuated developmental patterns illustrated that groups can follow various developmental patternspunctuated equilibrium, linear progression, or a combination. This finding is not surprising, given that, even with a sample size of 8 groups, Gersick observed two ways of making the midpoint transition. More importantly, the first way of making a transition she observed (summarizing previous work, declaring it complete, and picking up a next subtask) describes elements of linear progression as well as elements of nonsequential transition. Variations in the "sizes" of transitions and the number of transitional points resulted in our observation of multiple developmental patterns. The results of this study accorded with those of Lim and Murnighan (1994), who found that changes in negotiation activities over time could be interpreted as forming either a nonsequential pattern in which a transition point occurred immediately before a deadline, or as forming a linear pattern in which gradual and incremental changes occurred throughout a group's life span; Lim and Murnighan suggested that their study did not necessarily discredit the punctuated equilibrium model; rather, they saw it as demonstrating that if a group does display nonsequential developmental patterns, the nature of the task has a dramatic impact on when in the group's life span a transition will take place. The fact that most of the groups in the present study did show some form of transition during their life spans supported the validity of the punctuated equilibrium model but, like Lim and Murnighan (1994), we found that transitions do not always occur at the midpoint.
The Integrative Model

To examine group developmental patterns from the perspective of the integrative model, we divided the groups' 40 minutes of allotted time into four 10-minute intervals. For each interval, the proportion of time allocated to each category was calculated by dividing the number of statements made in that particular category by the total number of statements made. Figures 2a-2e illustrate the developmental patterns of the groups over time. Visual inspections of the data were conducted as a starting point to the interpretation of the results.

Inferences based on the visual inspections are crucial to this study; given the low statistical power of the study, we did not expect many of the statistical tests to be significant. The figure does not contain counterpairing and fight graphs. With only one group yielding only two counterpairing statements, these were very rare, possibly because group members' personal involvement in the task was low. The standard deviations for all five categories were large, although this was more a result of the groups' displaying different baselines (for example, some groups spent 40 percent of their time on flight and others spent less than 10 percent of their time on flight) than a consequence of their displaying different developmental patterns. We inferred general developmental trends from the data aggregated for the 25 groups. Friedman's rank tests were performed on this aggregated data for each category as a means to determine if there was any significant difference in the amount of time allocated to the particular category over the four time intervals. No statistical adjustment was made because the categories are mutually exclusive. If a significant chi-square was obtained for the particular category, we conducted a series of pairwise comparisons using Friedman's rank test (with an alpha set to .008, after the Bonferroni adjustment) to determine whether the changes over time were linear or nonsequential. Work. As expected, work statements dominated the groups' interactions at all times. Roughly 70 to 80 percent of the statements were work statements. Visual inspection of Figure 2a and the Friedman's rank tests support the integrative model hypothesis that attention to work will increase gradually over time. There was a significant difference in the proportion of time allocated to work statements over the four time intervals (A-^ = 26.67, p < .0001). Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that differences in the amount of work in adjacent time segments were nonsignificant, whereas comparisons between nonconsecutive time segments were significant {x^j = 14.44, 11.56, and 10.67, p < .001 for times 1 and 4, 2 and 4, and 1 and 3; x^i ~ 1-5; 1.5 and 6.0, n.s., for times 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4, respectively). Flight In contrast, flight statements only occupied 6 to 7 percent of groups' interaction time. Most flight statements were made to avoid the task rather than to avoid confrontation in the group. Visual inspection of Figure 2b supports the integrative model prediction that flight statements will increase at time 2 and then decrease over time 3 and time 4. However, the difference in flight over time was not statistically significant (x^^ = 2.79, n.s.).

114

Academy of Management Journal

February

FIGURE 2 Developmental Patterns Averaged across the 15 Groups^

(2a) Work Statements 100% (2b) Flight Statements 30%

-5%

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 (2c) Pairing Statements 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 1 1

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 (2d) Dependency Statements

30%

Time 4

T
i

20% - -

10% - -

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

(2e) Counterdependency Statements 5%

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 * The five graphs describe the means and standard deviations of the work, pairing, dependency, counterdependency, and flight statements made over the four 10-minute intervals.

Pairing. Pairing statements occupied 10-16 percent of the groups' interaction. Most pairing statements were made to show reflective listening to other group members. Visual inspection of Figure 2c and the Friedman's tests led to the conclusion that the proportion of time allocated to pairing statements gradually decreased over time. There was a significant difference in the proportion of time allocated to pairing statements over the four time intervals (;^^3 = 20.75, p < .0001). Pairwise comparisons showed that pairing statements stayed relatively constant from time 1 to time 3 and decreased significantly at time 4 {x^.^ = 8.9, 13.5, and 8.17, p < .004 for times 3 and 4, 1 and 4, and 1 and

3; x^^i = 0.0,1.63, and 6.0 for times 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 2 and 4, respectively). According to the integrative model, the proportion of time allocated to pairing should increase gradually over time until groups reach the trust stage (stage 3), and then decrease slightly at the work stage (stage 4). Neither visual inspection of the graph nor the Friedman's rank tests supported this pattern of development. Instead, both suggested that pairing decreased slowly over time, especially at time 4. The lack of increase in pairing over time could be explained by the artificial group setting. Given that these simulated work groups were highly task-

2003

Chang, Bordia, and Duck

115

oriented and that group members had no expectations of future interaction, they might not have felt the need to engage in the maintenance activities likely to occur in naturally occurring work groups. A lack of socioemotional activity is expected in laboratory groups; however, the proportion of time allocated to pairing statements (ranging from 16 to 10 percent) was much lower than that observed in other studies using similar groups (e.g., Bales, 1953). On the other hand, the decrease in pairing statements at time 4 is supportive of the model. Dependency. Dependency statements occupied only 3-5 percent of the interaction time. However, this category was expected to have low frequencies because the groups did not have designated leaders. Visual inspection of Figure 2d and the Friedman's tests support the integrative model argument that dependency will decrease gradually over time. There was a significant difference in the proportion of time allocated to dependency statements over the four time intervals (x^^ = 13.85, p < .003). Pairwise comparisons showed that only the difference between time 1 and time 4 was significant at the adjusted alpha level (A'^ = 9.78, p < .002; x^i = 0.18, 0, 0.65, 5.0, 3.85, n.s., for times 1 and 2, times 2 and 3, times 3 and 4, times 1 and 3, and times 2 and 4, respectively). Counterdependency. Counterdependency statements occupied only 1 percent of the groups' interaction time. This category was expected to be of very low frequency because of the groups' artificial settings and the group members' lack of vested interest in the task. Visual inspection of Figure 2e suggests that counterdependency statements were highest at time 2, and slightly lower at time 1, but much lower at time 3 and time 4, supporting the integrative model argument that counterdependency will be higher in the early stages of group development (stages 1 and 2) and lower in the later stages of group development (stage 3 and 4), with a peak occurring at the counterdependency/fight stage. However, this result needs to be interpreted with caution because, although there was a significant difference in the proportion of time allocated to counterdependency statements over the four time intervals ix^^ = 9.83, p < .02), no pairwise comparisons were significant at the adjusted alpha level of .008 ( / i = 2.0, 4.5,1.8,1.8,1.8, and 5.4 for times 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4,1 and 4,1 and 3, and 2 and 4, respectively).
DISGUSSION AND CONGLUSION

In summary, results of this study partially support developmental trends that are in line v^rith the integrative model. According to this model, in a group.

statements showing attention to work and pairing should increase over time, whereas those indicating dependency should decrease over time. Furthermore, the integrative model prediction is a peak in counterdependency, fight, and flight statements in phase 2 of a group's development and a decrease from there onward. Results of this study support the predicted pattern of change for work and dependency, but not for pairing. Visual inspections of changes in flight and counterdependency also support the predicted patterns, although corresponding statistical tests conducted at a conservative alpha level do not. Moreover, no fight or counterpairing statements were observed in the groups' interaction. On the other hand, results of this study also suggested some reservations concerning the use of the Group Development Observation System (Wheelan et al., 1993) vwth laboratory work groups. As expected, the ad hoc laboratory groups in this study were very task-focused, and it was difficult to study group development on the ' socioemotional level. Results of this study supported Hypothesis 1. Both punctuated equilibrium and linear progression were observed simultaneously in simulated project teams, with the dimension of observation and the unit of analysis accounting for the type of development that was observed. The punctuated equilibrium model describes changes in a group's,, time awareness and pacing activities over time as well as changes in its task activities over time. The integrative model, on the other hand, describes changes in a group's structure and process along both task and socioemotional dimensions. The different scales of changes described by the two models can be seen by comparing the coding of a sample transcript made using the GDOS with a meeting map of the same interaction constructed using Gersick's coding system (see Table 1). For example, in the first 30 seconds of the group's interaction, group members showed avoidance of the task by engaging in off-task discussion of whether the music provided by the experimenter was taken from a movie. This information would be coded by the GDOS as an indication of the group's flight away from the task. However, when one examines the central theme of the group's task-oriented discussion, this information would simply be coded as part of the group's listening to and commenting on the music tapes provided. Thus, the GDOS aids understanding of subtle changes in a group's processes and structure, whereas Gersick's coding system guides understanding of the overall changes in a group's approach to its task. The two models complement each other to provide rich information on the developmental patterns of project teams over time. Results of this study also demonstrate that

116

Academy of Management Journal

February

changes in pacing and time statements can be interpreted as both linear and nonsequential, depending on the unit of analysis used. This finding highlights the significance of the unit of analysis in determining the developmental patterns that are observed in groups. The work conducted following the punctuated equilibrium model used a larger timefi:ame(20 minutes) and demonstrated discontinuous change from phase 1 to phase 2, whereas the integrative model work used a smaller time fi-ame (10 minutes) and demonstrated incremental changes over times 1, 2, 3, and 4. With the exceptions of the absence of an increase in pairing statements and the nonsignificance of the change in flight statements over time, the overall pattern of changes in GDOS categories closely matched the integrative model's predicted pattern, thus supporting the developmental sequence proposed in the linear model. However, post hoc pairwise comparisons for the work and pairing statements also suggested that the patterns of change could be described as an incremental step occurring between times 1 and 2 combined and times 3 and 4 combined, rather than as linear increase over times 1, 2, 3, and 4. This pattern of results suggested that the midpoint transition also marked the group's resolution of early developmental issues such as leado ership and work structure and a move forward in the production of the pilot commercial. This patterngroups' moving toward more productive developmental stages (3 and 4) after a midpoint transitionwas further supported by thematic changes in the discussions: In most cases, midpoint transitions moved the groups from an earlier conversation on the content and process of the commercial to later dialogue on procedure and on details of the commercial. Furthermore, most groups displayed more effective structuring (such as forming subgroups to work on different aspects of the task) toward the ends of the their life spans. Thus, we conclude that Hypothesis 2 is also supported. The integrative model appears to describe changes at a more micro level within two phases of inertia. This finding accords with Wollin's proposition that punctuated equilibrium should be viewed as "a stepped continuum of change in an organizational system, from revolutionary discontinuous change to more incremental change, reflecting the different levels of its deep structure" (1999: 365). The results of our study clarify an apparent misunderstanding in the current group literature whereby Gersick's (1988, 1989) work is typically perceived as contradicting the linear developmental patterns proposed in traditional stage models (e.g., Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Our study demonstrates that both the integrative model

and the punctuated equilibrium model describe valid developmental patterns of project teams. Furthermore, the two models complement each other to better inform researchers and practitioners on the development of different aspects of a group's functioning. Depending on the temporal dimension they are interested in, researchers and practitioners working with organizational project teams can choose either the integrative model or the punctuated equilibrium model. For example, when planning to implement significant change in a work group, a change agent can use insights from both models to prepare the group for the upcoming change. First, the agent can work with the group on early developmental issues to facilitate trust among group members and effective work processes (using the integrative model), and can thus enhance the group's ability to cope with interruptions to work flow. Second, the change agent can then introduce small internal or external changes to interrupt the group's current state of inertia and create an environment of instability, which will in turn increase the group's propensity for larger changes (using the punctuated equilibrium model). For example, replacing a group member can facilitate the group's examination of current structure and processes and thus provide opportunities for introducing changes to one or both aspects (Arrow & McGrath, 1993). Once changes have been introduced, early developmental issues might need to be revisited (the integrative model) to facilitate effective work under the new working conditions. By integrating the two models, change agents can help groups to make transitions more successfully and in a preferred direction. The artificial laboratory setting and the small sample here are the study's most important limitations. It was clear from the observational data that these simulated work groups in a laboratory setting did not display the same socioemotional development that naturally occurring work groups do, so we could not test some specific predictions based on the integrative model. However, the resource intensity of group development observational research makes it difficult to study field groups using similar coding schemes. Thus, in the future, researchers should aim to both streamline the present coding system so it can be used for field studies and to conduct more laboratory studies in controlled environments with creative interventions that promote the socioemotional development of the simulated work groups.

2003

Chang, Bordia, and Duck

117

REFERENCES Arrow, H. 1997. Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 75-85. Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. 1993. Membership matters: How member change and continuity affects small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24: 334-361. Bales, R. F. 1953. The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action: 111-161. New York: Free Press. Bettenhausen, K. L. 1991. Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17: 345-381. Bion, W. R. 1961. Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books. Buzaglo, G., & Wheelan, S. A. 1999, Facilitating work team effectiveness: Case studies from central America. Small Group Research: 30: 108-129. Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. 1984. Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences, vol. 4: 115161. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gersick, C. J. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 1-41. Gersick, C. }. 1989. Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 274-309. Gersick, C. }. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10-36. Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. 1992. Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.), vol. 3: 269-313. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Howell, D. C. 1990. Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press. LaCoursiere, R. B. (Ed.). 1980. The life cycle of groups: Group development stage theory. New York: Human Science Press. Lim, S. G. S., & Murnighan, J. K. 1994. Phases, deadlines, and the bargaining process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 153-171. Seers, A., & Woodruff, S. 1997. Temporal pacing in task

forces: Group development or deadline pressure. Journal of Management, 23(2): 169-187. Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384-399. Van de Ven, A. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 510-540. Verdi, A. F., & Wheelan, S. A. 1992. Developmental patterns in same-sex and mixed-sex groups. Small Group Research, 23: 356-378. Wheelan, S. A. 1994. Group processes: A developmental perspective. Sydney: Allyn & Bacon. Wheelan, S. A., & Burchill, C. 1999. Take teamwork to new heights. Nursing Management, April: 28-31. Wheelan, S. A., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Kline, S. F. 1998. Member perceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group Research, 29: 371-393. Wheelan, S. A. & Tilin, F. 1999. The relationship between faculty group development and school productivity. Small Group Research, 30:59-81. Wheelan, S., Verdi, R., & McKeage, R. 1993. The Group Development Ohservation System: Origins and applications. Philadelphia: PEP Press. Wollin, A. 1999. Punctuated equilibrium: Reconciling theory of revolutionary and incremental change. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16: 359-367.

Artemis Chang (a2chang@qut.edu.au) is a lecturer in the School of Management at Queensland University of Technology. She received her doctoral degree from the University of Queensland. Her research interests include group processes and performance, time, change, human resource information systems, and employee turnover in the IT industry. Prashant Bordia (Ph.D., Temple University) is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology, University of Queensland. His research interests include group development, computer-mediated communication, and rumors in organizations. Julie Duck (Ph.D., University of New England) is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland. Her ciurrent research focuses on group and intergroup processes, especially as they apply to organisational contexts and to the impact of mass communication on perceptions, attitudes, and behavior.