BUSS2000 · Leading And Influencing In Business
Team & Group Processes
This is the chapter the exam's Q1 (your BUSS2000 team experience) leans on most: groups vs teams, the models of group development (Tuckman & Jensen's five stages, Gersick's punctuated equilibrium, and the Input-Process-Output model), and the positive and negative processes — roles, norms, cohesion, social loafing, groupthink, conflict and the 'bad apple' problem. It is examined by applying a stage model to your own team's trajectory and by correctly attributing a team failure to the right negative process so you can prescribe the matching remedy.
What this chapter covers
- 01Groups vs teams; process gains and team types (e.g. task force)
- 02Tuckman & Jensen (1977): Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning
- 03Gersick (1988) punctuated-equilibrium — inertia then a midpoint burst of change
- 04Input-Process-Output (IPO) model (Landy & Conte 2010)
- 05Roles, norms, conformity and cohesion
- 06Social loafing — diffused effort when contribution is invisible
- 07Groupthink — high cohesion + pressure for unanimity → poor decisions
- 08The 'bad apple' problem (Felps et al. 2006) — one toxic member can cut performance 30–40%
Diagnose social loafing vs the 'bad apple' effect — and prescribe the right fix
- +1Diagnosis A — social loafing: effort diffuses because individual contribution is invisible in the group, so several members quietly under-contribute. Tell-tale sign: no single villain, just diluted effort.
- +1Fix A: make contributions identifiable — named sections, peer assessment, visible task ownership — so effort can no longer hide.
- +2Diagnosis B — bad apple (Felps et al. 2006): one member's withholding, negativity or interpersonal deviance is contagious and can cut group performance by 30–40%. Tell-tale sign: the problem traces to one person whose behaviour drags others down.
- +1Fix B: address the individual early and protect the team's norms — the effect is disproportionate and spreads, so waiting makes it worse.
- +1Evaluate: the skill is telling the two apart — diffuse under-effort vs one contagious member — because the remedies differ; mis-diagnosing wastes the fix.
Key terms
- Tuckman & Jensen (1977) five-stage model
- Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning. Storming (role/norm conflict) is a normal, even necessary, stage before a team can perform — naming it helps members stop taking friction personally. The most-applied stage model for the BUSS2000 team essay. (A 'team' differs from a co-acting 'group' in that its combined efforts produce process gains beyond the sum of inputs.)
- Gersick (1988) punctuated-equilibrium
- Groups work in relatively inertial phases punctuated by a burst of change at the temporal midpoint of a project, when the deadline pressure triggers a sharp re-orientation. An alternative to Tuckman's smooth linear stages.
- Input-Process-Output (IPO) model (Landy & Conte 2010)
- A systems view of teams: Inputs (member knowledge/skills, resources) → Processes (interaction, norms, conflict, cohesion) → Outputs (performance, satisfaction). It locates social loafing, groupthink and the bad apple in the Process stage.
- Social loafing
- The reduction of individual effort when people work in a group and their contribution is not identifiable. The remedy is to make contributions visible — named sections, peer assessment — so effort can no longer hide.
- Groupthink
- When high cohesion plus pressure for unanimity suppresses dissent and produces poor decisions. The team values harmony over critical evaluation, so flawed plans go unchallenged; the remedy is to invite dissent and assign a devil's advocate.
- The 'bad apple' problem (Felps, Mitchell & Byington 2006)
- One toxic member — a withholder of effort, a source of affective negativity, or an interpersonal deviant — can reduce group performance by 30–40%. The effect is disproportionate and contagious, so the remedy is early intervention and norm protection. (A concept/metaphor, exam-usable.)
Team & Group Processes FAQ
Which team theory should I prepare for the Q1 team question?
Tuckman & Jensen's five stages is the most natural fit — almost every real team experience maps onto forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning, and naming the storming stage lets you reframe conflict as normal. Pair it with self-determination theory (to explain how you re-motivated the team) and one negative process (social loafing or bad apple) so you have a complete, layered answer ready.
How do Tuckman's stages and Gersick's punctuated equilibrium differ?
Tuckman & Jensen (1977) describes a smooth, linear sequence of stages every team passes through; Gersick (1988) argues teams instead sit in inertia and then change sharply at the project's temporal midpoint, driven by deadline awareness. They are complementary lenses — Tuckman for the relational arc, Gersick for the timing of a team's burst of progress.
How do I tell social loafing apart from groupthink and a bad apple?
Social loafing is diffuse under-effort because contribution is invisible (no single villain); groupthink is a decision pathology where cohesion suppresses dissent (the team agrees too easily); a bad apple is one contagious, toxic individual dragging performance down 30–40%. Each has a different remedy — identifiability, inviting dissent, and early individual intervention respectively — so correct attribution matters.
Is conflict in a team always bad?
No. Task conflict (about ideas and the work) can improve decisions, whereas relationship conflict (personal friction) and process conflict (about who does what) tend to harm performance. Tuckman's storming stage shows that some conflict is a normal, necessary part of becoming a high-performing team — the skill is channelling task conflict while defusing relationship conflict.
Exam move
This chapter is exam-critical because Q1 is about your team, so prepare a single rich team narrative you can tell through Tuckman's stages, with a self-determination-theory move for re-motivation and one named negative process you actually encountered. Memorise the three development models and what each adds, and drill the diagnostic skill of telling social loafing, groupthink and the bad apple apart with their matching remedies. Keep the IPO model as a structuring frame (inputs → processes → outputs) for any 'why did this team succeed/fail?' question. On the A4 sheet, note 'Tuckman 5 stages,' 'IPO,' and 'loafing vs groupthink vs bad apple (−30–40%) → fix each.'
