W HEELAN – I NTEGRATED M ODEL OF G ROUP D EVELOPMENT (IMGD)

Susan Wheelans’ model takes the perspective that groups achieve maturity as they continue to work together rather than simply go through stages of activity. In her model, "early" stages of group development are associated with specific issues and patterns such as those related to dependency, counter-dependency, and trust which precede the actual work conducted during the "more mature” stages of a group's life. Wheelan’s research is based on more than 700 teams, and she suggests a number of key areas that team members should be aware about to succeed and perform at their best: goal setting, role distribution, interdependence, leadership, communication and feedback, discussion, decision making and planning, implementation and evaluation, norms and individual differences, team structure and cooperation and conflict management. Wheelan (2010) maintains that, a strong confidence in that teamwork is a productive way of working has grown in recent times and she argues that this has led to an explosive development of research theory about team development, or “what creates a high-performance team”. In new research, difficulties have been revealed which have had a significant impact on how team development work is being seen today (Wheelan, 2010).

Wheelan (2010) does not agree in only creating team development methods based on theory to improve performance within teams, as she means that the diversity of available theory has made it difficult to distinguish what actually makes teams high performers. The work of Wheelan, on group development research, facilitates defining the shared elements between group development models. The significance of this model, is believed to be in the proposition of a statistically validated instrument measuring the maturity of a given group at a given time, the name of this instrument is Group Development Questionnaire or GDQ. This instrument, developed by Wheelan in 1993, is based on her IMGD (Integrated Model of Group Development). GDQ is designed to support teams in developing and reaching their goals in an effective way. GDQ gives a representation of the team's effectivity compared to a large number of other teams. It clearly shows where the team puts its focus. Most importantly, it shows what issues the team needs to work with in order to develop and improve.

The results deal with the team as a whole, and not individual team members. The focus is on the team's common responsibility for their own development, on co-workership as well as leadership. In many studies, the IMGD is used as a theoretical framework to examine the effect of group maturity on the productivity of teams in different contexts. Wheelan (2010) finds the following five key characteristics to be considered important in developing a high-performance team, and in order to do so she proposes a phased approach in the IMGD:

Figure a: Wheelan IMGD stages.

1. Sense of belonging and sanctuary within the group

This first stage is characterized by significant member dependency on the designated leader, concerns about safety, and inclusion issues. In this stage, members rely on the leader and other powerful group members to provide direction. Team members may engage in so called pseudo work, such as exchanging stories about outside activities or other topics that are not relevant to group goals. Team members acts in ways that increase the likelihood of making others and themselves feel like they belong and are included. Authority and credibility of the leader is not questioned but supportive. As a leader at this stage, the leader should not stick out too much being too positive or too forceful. The members are asking themselves questions like, what type of group is this, what is expected of me, and who are the others. The members try hard to fit in and adapt to the surroundings. Common behavior is that the members speak too much or are excessively open to everything. All light is on the leader because the leader is the one who has the clearest role. Conflicts are avoided. As a group the members want to create an affiliation between group members. When they feel greater loyalty with the group, they are also more confident in bringing ideas and suggestions on how the group will work to achieve its goals.

Since the group members did not have time to organize themselves, the leader must provide the group with structure. The leadership is governing and clear and the leader should formulate the goals as clearly as possible. Assign members information, avoid allowing the group to divide into smaller groups. The group tries to reduce anxiety and insecurity and fear of being rejected.

The team and its leader create opportunities for open discussions about values, goals, tasks and leadership so that different perceptions come to the surface. The team should start setting up high performance standards as soon as team members begin to feel loyalty to the group.

2. Conflict management and a common work structure

In the second stage members disagree among themselves about group goals and procedures.

Conflict is an inevitable part of this process. The group's task is to develop a unified set of goals, values, and operational procedures, and this task often generates conflict. Conflict also is necessary for the establishment of trust and a climate in which members feel free to disagree with each other and the leader. Team members often do not feel safe in stage one to discuss things openly, in stage two, the group is iterating items or repeating topics that already have been discussed and resolved.

By many researchers, conflict resolution is debated to be the vital part of a successful team and its leader (Wheelan, 2010; Katzenbach and Smith, 2003;

Larson and LaFasto, 2001). In order to deliver, the leader is assumed to possess an awareness of different personality types within the team and how they influence overall team performance (Wheelan, 2010; Bradley and Hebert, 1997).

In the research of Ring and Van de Ven (1992) trust is defined as “confidence in another’s goodwill”. Trust is a commitment to cooperate before there is any certainty about how the trusted people will act (Coleman, 1990).

This stage is a norming stage where group development will be challenged. The group or team should examine the norms for their contributions to group effectiveness and productivity.

Frustration with roles may surface and subgroups might occur. Yet, members should learn that subgroups are important to the success of groups. The members show more open competition between each other and tries to convince each other about what opinions are right. They use excuses if behavior is questioned. Members might try to reveal the hidden motives of others but are cautious to disclose themselves. Capability of the leader can be questioned. Team members may remain loyal to the leader or divided into two or several subgroups. In order for the group to develop, a certain relocation of the leaders’ power to the group members is required. Some groups dawdle in stage 2. Managers or group members are replaced - nothing changes. Other groups act stressed and reverse back to the first stage and become addicted to the leader or to engage in irrelevant activities. The leader in this stage need to address issues and challenges not feeling threatened if questioned. Effective leaders expect members to demand greater influence over the group's governance. They do not see the challenges as a threat but rather as a positive sign that the group is developing and is mature enough to take the next step in defining its structure.

Argued by Bradley and Hebert (1997), an important dimension of team performance is the one concerning individual differences. They say that a team

that function well together and perform should be skill wise highly differentiated in terms of team member contribution. Still keeping an open, and positive communication. Bradley and Hebert (1997) have also found that a highly productive team is strongly related to individual differences, so has also Wheelan (2010), Katzenbach and Smith (2003), and Larson and LaFasto (2001).

3. Negotiation, procedures and structure for work

Member trust, commitment to the group, and willingness to cooperate increases when the group manages to work through the inevitable conflicts of stage 2. Communication becomes more open and task-oriented. This third stage, also referred to as the ‘trust and structure stage’, is characterized by more mature negotiations about roles, organization, and procedures. It is also a time in which members work to set positive working relationships with each other. As members begin to take over some leadership functions, moments will occur when the group reverts to its previous ways of behaving. Leaders, at this stage, should notice what types of issues arise and ask for thoughts and ideas around the same. A clearly increased tolerance for subgroups is related to this stage and it is ok for other group members to take on parts of the leadership. The members are keener to work and are interested in being efficient and productive. The group has come to realize that they need each other. The goals become clearer and a consensus is reached on the goals. Roles and tasks are adapted to the task goals that the group has. Having a direction of intermediate goals where the team can refer to clear priorities can also facilitate the processing of attentive problems in the decision-making process and avoid them from developing into major conflicts. The members are pleased with their role in the group and the group's activities. Wheelan maintains the importance of work roles distribution on the basis of the individual skills team members have. Team members should not be assigned to work roles where they feel unconfident and lack the necessary skills. The consequence of a poor correlation between skills and responsibilities can be conflicts of interest or role ambiguity where uncertainty exists on how the individual should act and what it is expected to achieve, leading to difficulties in completing the work. There might also be a too big of a focus of the groups energy on maintaining good relationships.

On the other hand, in orientation to good relationships, hostile climates that does not endorse openness causes team members to become restrictive (Larson and LaFasto, 2001; Wheelan, 2010; Katzenbach and Smith, 2003).

An effective leadership style in this stage is delegation. The leader no longer needs to be as prominent as the goals and roles have become clearer. When the group is allowed to let group

members begin to take on parts of the leadership, the leader's role will be to encourage greater responsibility and can then become more consultative. Leadership is still important for coordination, nevertheless the function is shared between the leader and the group’s members.

4. Productivity - group cohesiveness

High performance teams complete their tasks faster, they produce services and generate higher returns. This is a time of powerful team productivity and effectiveness. The group may focus on goal achievement and task accomplishment. The work group becomes the team. Team members may execute certain items to continue performing at a high level by reminding each other of the norm for quality as well as high performance. Team members should be encouraged to be innovative, but teams need to also make sure their goals are not too ambitious. To maintain high performance, it is important to assess team processes frequently. With team progress, process loss is seen, routines might need task re-distribution or adding new goals or new aspects of the work. Communication is open, and feedback is given. Wheelan argues that an important factor that wedges all collaboration is communication. She says that to work efficiently, the team must exchange ideas about information freely.

Successful communication is one of the crucial factors conditional to the outcome of a high performing team (Stevens and Campion, 1994). Druskat and Wolf (2001) argues that without confrontation, disruptive behavior can fester and erode a sense of trust in a team. Emotionally competent teams don't wear blinders; they have the emotional capacity to face potentially difficult information and actively seek open communication and opinions on their task processes, progress, and performance from the outside (Barrick et al. 1998). The most effective teams have established norms that strengthen their ability to respond. Teams are most creative when their members collaborate unreservedly. People stop holding back when there is mutual trust, and communication rooted in emotionally intelligent interactions. They create resources for working with emotions, foster an affirmative environment, and encourage proactive problem solving (Druskat and Wolf, 2001).

Larson and LaFasto emphasizes that teams that are unaware of what limitations exist are often the teams that are the most engaged in a constant exchange of knowledge, with mutual understanding (Larson and LaFasto, 2001). Wheelan (2010) and Larson and LaFasto (2001) claim that abandonment is also evidence

of a deprived feedback climate. In a well-functioning communication environment, feedback is an important factor (Wheelan, 2010; Larson and LaFasto, 2001; Katzenbach and Smith,1992). Challenges are impossible to avoid but a team that is functioning well is required to challenge each other when focus of work is wrong (Wheelan, 2010; Larson and LaFasto, 2001; Katzenbach and Smith,1992). Wheelan (2010) and Katzenbach and Smith (2003), describes the risk that feedback develops into an expression of hidden agendas about specific individuals. They also mention that a large number of team members have difficulty communicating effectively as a team. Scarnati (2001) gave a good example of how important communication and conflict resolution is to/within team work. He tells his story, “around the area in Pennsylvania where I grew up there were two brothers who owned a small farm. Although not rich by any person's standards, they saved enough money to buy a workhorse. The brothers, being of disagreeable temperament, often did not work as a team, even though it would have been mutually beneficial. During an ensuing argument over whose turn it was to feed the horse, each accused the other of not taking his fair turn.

Therefore, because of their stubborn and uncooperative attitude, no one fed the horse, and the horse died. The moral is to use a little common horse sense and teamwork to feed your dreams, or you'll never be able to put them out to pasture.”

Wheelan explains that in teams where individual skills are not attended or valued, team members are often unable to contribute with useful input. Active contribution and support in exchanges of opinions also create better conditions for constructive handling of obstacles, thus helping to advance the work process into a productive force. In this stage the leader is even more less controlling and increased consultancy is evident. The leader's task is to pay attention to signs of regression.

5. Experiences and feelings about outcome

Groups that have a distinct end point experience the fifth stage. An evaluation of the work and process is taking place. Awaiting termination may cause disruption and conflict in certain groups. In other groups, separation issues are addressed, and members' appreciation of each other and the group joint experience can be expressed.

The five stages explained above can be compared to the steps a person goes through during their development from child to adult. Stage one: belonging and security - can be compared to the small child's need for safety and dependence on the parent leader. Stage two for groups reminds of teenager's behavior with conflict, independence and liberation from the family and parents group and leader. Stage three can be likened to the young adults who have not yet found the right one but try relationships and different jobs while finding an adult relationship with the parent. At stage four, the group can cease to focus on security-creating, mutual positioning and other things that steal energy and instead start focusing on the task.

Figure b: Comparison Group maturity towards Wheelan IMGD.

A group passes all stages but can also get stuck in any stage if the leadership or other factors limits its development. These stages can also be associated with one of the most commonly known team maturity models proposed by Bruce Tuckman (1965). Tuckman's model has similar stages as Wheelan’s. Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. Forming refers to when team members as individuals get to know each other. Resemblance may entice team members (Cartwright, 1968). Storming refers to the stage where team members reveal their true self and disagreement, or conflict may be raised to the surface. The norming refers to when a sense of cohesiveness is shown within the team and among team members. Lastly, performing is when the team as a whole has gotten into performing and being productive as a team.

However, looking at the empirical use of Wheelan’s model, the IMGD is founded on a metastudy based on the majority of group dynamic models that have been validated and summarized in her research. Her position is that the success of a group is a result of a number of elements that derive from dynamic factors as well as members' relations, communication patterns and other norms such as structural factors, for example, occurrence of goals, rules of play and policies. In Wheelan’s own observational support of her model (2003), she has also examined the connection between the period of time that a team has been working together and

the verbal behavior structures of its individuals and additionally the part's view of the condition of improvement of the work. She argues to show that there is a notable connection between the time portion that a team had been working together and the verbal behavior structures of its individuals. Furthermore, individuals from more established teams had a tendency to see their work, and venues together to have a greater amount of the qualities of stage 3 and stage 4 gatherings and to be more rewarding. For example, emergency care in the United States has observed patient survival and found that workgroups in stage 1 and 2 have more patients who die. Another example, in the American school system, there has been a correlation between how well the teachers' teams collaborate and how well the students are performing national tests. Genius lies within the collaborative efforts of an empowered team (Scarnati and Scarnati, 2002).

Scarnati (2001) as well as Wheelan (2010; 2005) believes that the key benefits originated from teamwork are the collectively intellectual capital, gained from the members. Effective team development must always evaluate the development stage of the team and interventions should be based on the current stage. Focus will be on the needs of the team as one unit, not with the team’s members as individuals (Wheelan, 2010; 2005; Katzenbach and Smith, 2003). Larson and LaFasto (2001), argues that within teams, having a clear view on how competitive forces and opinions about decisions are managed and prioritized by whom, creates an effective decision-making process for the team. However, Katzenbach and Smith (2003), stresses the importance of, in such situation, that team members being flexible and can make the necessary compromises to achieve success in shared decision making. Wheelan (2005) believes that the team needs to acquire a number of elements: a clear view of the current stage and efficiency level and

Scarnati (2001) as well as Wheelan (2010; 2005) believes that the key benefits originated from teamwork are the collectively intellectual capital, gained from the members. Effective team development must always evaluate the development stage of the team and interventions should be based on the current stage. Focus will be on the needs of the team as one unit, not with the team’s members as individuals (Wheelan, 2010; 2005; Katzenbach and Smith, 2003). Larson and LaFasto (2001), argues that within teams, having a clear view on how competitive forces and opinions about decisions are managed and prioritized by whom, creates an effective decision-making process for the team. However, Katzenbach and Smith (2003), stresses the importance of, in such situation, that team members being flexible and can make the necessary compromises to achieve success in shared decision making. Wheelan (2005) believes that the team needs to acquire a number of elements: a clear view of the current stage and efficiency level and