Research on the punctuated equilibrium model of group development confounded group life span with member tusk completion. We report two studies that separate task pacing, from life span development. In one, 50 students simultaneously performed group and individual projects. In the second, student groups worked on two tasks sequentially. Results indicate that the temporal pattern postulated in the punctuated equilibrium model reflects task pacing under u deadline, rather than the process of group development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I, A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9): Whole No. 416.
2.
Bales, R.F., & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46: 485-495.
3.
Bassett, G.A. (1979). A study of the effects of task goal and schedule choice on work performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24: 202-227.
4.
Bluedom. A.C. & Denhardt, R. B (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14: 299-320.
5.
Boudling, K. (1956), General systems theory: The skeleton of science. General Systems1: 11-17.
6.
Eulau H. (1969). Micro-macro political analysis: Accents of inquiry. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
7.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9-41.
8.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1989). Marketing time: predictable transitions in takes groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 274-309.
9.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review. 10-36.
10.
Heinen. J.S. & Jacobsen, J. (1976). A model of task group development in complex organizations and a strategy of implementation. Academy of Management Review.,. /(a): 98-111.
11.
Joyce. W.F. & Slocum. J.W. (1988). Comment: Organization do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13: 129-132.
12.
Latham. G.P.. & Locke. E.A. (1975). Increasing productivity with decreasing time limit: A field replication of Parkinson’s Law. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60: 524-526.
13.
Levinson. D.J. (1978). The seasons of a man S' life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
14.
Lewm. K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papersNew York: McGraw Hill.
15.
Lincoln. J.R. & Zeitz. G. (1980). Organizational properties from a pgregate data: Separating individual and structural effects. American Sociological Review, 15: 391-408.
16.
McGrath, J.E. & Rotchford, N.L. (l983). Time and behavior in organizational Pp. 57-101 in L.L. Curnmmgs & B.M. Staw (eds.). Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17.
McCollum, M. (1990). Reevaluating group development: A critique of the familiar models. Pp. 133-145 in J. Gillette & M. McCollum (eds.). Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading. MA: Addison Wesley.
18.
McGrath, J.E. & Kelly J. R. (1986). Time and human interaction: Toward a social psychology of time. New YorkGuilford Press.
19.
March. J.G.. & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
20.
Menzel. H. (1961). On the relation between individual and collective properties Pp. 422-440 In A. Etzioni (ed.), Complex organizations: A sociological reader. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.
21.
Miller, J.G. (195.5). Toward a general theory for the behavioral sciences. American Psychologist, 10: 513-531
22.
Moreland. R.L. & Levine, J.M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small group. Pp. 151-181 in J.E. McCrath (ed.). The Social psychology of time. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Parkinson. C.N. (1957). Parkinson S law and other studies in administration. Boston: Houghton Mtfflln.
24.
Peters. L.H.. O’Connor. E.J.. Pooyan. A.. & Quick. J.C. (1984). The relationship between time pressure and performance: A field test of Parkinson’s Law. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 293-299.
Rousseau. D.M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross level perspectives. Pp. 1-37 in L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (eds.), Krsetrrc, Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
27.
Seeger. J..A. (1983). No Innate phases in group problem solving. Academy of Management Review, 8: 683-689.
28.
Snedecor. G.W. & Cochrane. W.G. (1967). Statistical methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
29.
Tuckman. B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384-389.
30.
Tuckman. B. & Jenson, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2: 419-427.
31.
Tushman. M.L.. & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Pp. 171-222 in L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (eds.). Research in organizational behavior Vol. 7. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.
32.
von Bertalanffy. L. (1956). General system theory. General Systems, 1: 1-10.
33.
Werner. H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. Pp 125-148 in D. B. Harris (ed.), The concept of development: An issue in the study of human behavior, Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
Worchel. S.. Coutant-Sassic, D. & Grossman, M. (1992). A developmental approach to group dynamics: A model and illustrative research. Pp. 181-202 in S. Worchel.W. Wood & J.A. Simpson (eds.), Group process and productivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
