Phase 2
At some point, the group moves out of the inertia stage and recognizes that work needs
to get completed. One of the more interesting discoveries made in these studies was that
each group experienced its transition at the same point in its calendar—precisely halfway
between its first meeting and its official deadline. The similarity occurred despite the
fact that some groups spent as little as an hour on their project while others spent six
months. It was as if the groups universally experienced a mid-life crisis at this point. The
midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ awareness that
their time is limited and that they need to “get moving.” When you work on your next
group project, you might want to examine when your group starts to “get moving.”
This transition ends Phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes,
dropping of old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised
direction for Phase 2, which is a new equilibrium or period of inertia. In this phase,
the group executes plans created during the transition period. The group’s last meet-
ing is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish its work. There have been a num-
ber of studies that support the basic premise of punctuated equilibrium, though not
all of them found that the transition in the group occurred exactly at the midpoint.^11
Applying the Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
Let’s use this model to describe some of your experiences with student teams created for
doing group term projects. At the first meeting, a basic timetable is established. Members
size up one another. They agree they have nine weeks to complete their projects. The
instructor’s requirements are discussed and debated. From that point, the group meets
regularly to carry out its activities. About four or five weeks into the project, however,
problems are confronted. Criticism begins to be taken seriously. Discussion becomes
more open. The group reassesses where it has been and aggressively moves to make
necessary changes. If the right changes are made, the next four or five weeks find the group
developing a first-rate project. The group’s last meeting, which will probably occur just
before the project is due, lasts longer than the others. In it, all final issues are discussed
and details resolved.
In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes deadline-oriented
groups and teams as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolu-
tionary changes triggered primarily by members’ awareness of time and deadlines. To use
the terminology of the five-stage model, the group begins by combining the forming
and normingstages, then goes through a period of low performing,followed by storming,
then a period of high performing,and, finally, adjourning.
Several researchers have suggested that the five-stage and punctuated-equilibrium
models are at odds with each other.^12 However, it makes more sense to view the mod-
els as complementary: The five-stage model considers the interpersonal process of the
group, while the punctuated-equilibrium model considers the time challenges that the
group faces.^13 Group members and managers may want to use the implications of the
punctuated-equilibrium model to either shorten the deadlines for tasks (so that less
time is wasted getting to the midpoint of the time period) or to build in more goals
and rewards for the first half of the time period (to help overcome the inertia that occurs
during that phase).
CREATING EFFECTIVE TEAMS
Beatrice Sze, Glenforest Secondary School’s robotics team co-captain, gave her teammates a
sense of responsibility and ownership over their work. For example, when a team member
came to her with questions about what to do next, she would say encouragingly, “Use your
brain. You can figure this out. You know how to do this.”Chapter 5Working in Teams 157