We have tried to explain our group journey through the tuckerman model.
Forming:
When the groups were initially allotted, four of the members were familiar with each other. On our first meeting everyone introduced themselves and it was encouraging that our group was diverse in terms of educational background and work experience. Initially everyone used to assemble for the group assignments and gave their inputs. It was evident that no one wanted to be left behind. Also it was evident that no one wanted to own the responsibility for the group assignments. Everyone initially wanted to establish for themselves that they were good enough to be a part of the group. Member C having extensive experience of working in teams took the lead and initiated interaction among the group members through social mediums like whatsapp and google groups. Meetings were organized and to the point. After everyone became comfortable with each other our group meeting became fun.
Storming:
Member C’s systematic and planning ahead of time was well received by the group. But since he took the lead everyone started expecting him to take care of things and contribution of members decreased. After first set of quizzes group realized that the members who didn’t contribute were lagging behind. There was a drastic change after that. Members concurred that group meetings for qualitative subjects were inefficient. Members attempted the assignments individually and understanding developed that successive assignments were not taken by the same member. Group operated in a very mechanical way. There was no group bonding. In slot 1 no one complained but after coming in slot 2, there were qualitative assignments where there was a need for discussion and concurring. In first week, two of the six members missed the group meetings and didn’t contribute at all. This led to frustration among the rest of the members.
Norming:
After the first week, Member C decided to challenge this status quo and confronted the non-performing group members. Those members gave excuses like having CV deadlines and which was not acceptable. All the group members met and conferred that all 6 members sitting together for every assignment was inefficient and led to wastage of time. It was concurred that sub teams will be formed for every assignment based on availability of members. This process called for entrusting the group members with the assignments. After agreeing to these norms one non-performing member started contributing but not up to the expectation.
Performing:
Once the norms were decided the group structure became more flexible, with group members mutually deciding to split the work between them into smaller sub-groups, with 2-3 members working on one project at a time. A lot of time was saved in this manner and the group became a lot more efficient. Certain subject’s required weekly submissions and these were handled by dividing the number of submissions equally among group members. After a few assignments group members had spent sufficient time around each other, and understood each other’s working styles and processes, leading to group decisions becoming more cohesive and group meetings more productive. To quote one such instance of enhanced performance was a marketing presentation which was well received by other peers in class.
The group also became a lot more considerate. When members fell sick, had to attend club meetings or had CV deadlines, the other members pitched in and completed the work.
Cooperation among the group increased majorly in Slot 2. When members had to attend PPTs of companies, other members of the group volunteered to complete the assignments/projects. Moreover, those who attended the PPTs shared the information and learning’s with the rest of the group.
Adjourning:
The group met primarily in the library to discuss the assignments and submissions. After the assignments were over, the team members dispersed for their individual learning and commitments. There were not many instances when the group met outside the assigned assignment-discussions for celebrating the initiation/completion of the assignments. It was not possible to share the learning from the group process with members because the group never met after the assignment was over i.e. we never discussed to reflect upon the learning from submissions. But once the task was complete, the team members who contributed to the task appreciated the contributions made by other members. For instance, in a course in which we had weekly submissions, members B and A took turns to complete the assignment and others applauded for their contributions. In another course, the course PPT was completed by Members B and C which was well received by the group members. The comfort level and the inter-personal understanding were enhanced after the 2-day T-Nite event after Slot-1 examinations. It helped the team move from being mechanical to being more open and friendly.

The challenges faced by the group during these three months were:
Clash of Ego States: During the forming and storming stage, group operated in a very mechanical way. Whenever group meetings happened everyone adopted in their adult state. As the members got comfortable with each other we realized that the members of our group were more of a Natural Child. Though now the group meetings were more fun, our productivity had taken a hit as the focus from the task at hand often strayed. Every member during the group meeting switched to adult state and tries to pull the group towards task at hand but rest of members being in child state overlook it. During group meetings, Member C switches between critical parent and nurturing parent. He encourages ideas and opinions from other members and at the same time keeps a check on the quality of the final work. Member B natural state is NC. She brings liveliness in the group but she is behaves very adult like when comes to her fulfilling her responsibility and commitments towards the group. Member E has more of a nurturing parent state. She guides in writing of the assignments and helps out in other subjects. Member A is more of an adapted child. He raises his opinions and concerns but gives in very easily. Member D is mostly practices his natural child state but also shows adapted child behavior when comes to taking decision. He is also unable to make decisions for himself. Member F is also more of an adapted child. With the dominance of adapted child state in our group, generating of new ideas and having healthy and intellectual discussions is a struggle.
Conflict Management: Small conflicts kept on happening regarding the allotment of assignments but they were instantly resolved through talking. However when the companies presentation started, the more vocal and active group members started picking the presentations they were interested in whereas the non-performing members didn’t get priority for companies they wanted to attend. This went on for some time as members did not communicate their complaints openly. A few other members noticed this and floated a google sheet to keep track of presentations and gauge the interest of the group members and tried to give opportunity to other members to pursue their interests.
Challenge we were not able to overcome:
One of the members of the group had a tendency to free ride. He was not present in the group meetings and did not communicate his availability to other members. The non-performing member was detached from the group. The group tried to confront him regarding his behavior and tried to assign assignments to him but due to lack of member interest group was skeptical to trust him with the responsibility. Due to the paucity of time group did not invest a lot of time and effort in getting this member to perform and chose to move on ahead without him. Morever , even the member did not make any efforts from his side to contribute to the group. Even though the member was kept in loop about all the group activities, he chose to remain mute and never expressed his opinions on assignments. Later the group also tried forcing things on the member which led to complaints from the member which he never expressed in the group. Currently our group officially has six members but effectively has five members. This was perhaps an area that could have been handled in a more effective manner.
We were aware of the shortcomings of our group but we were in a dilemma whether to confront the group members or not, or how to resolve these differences among us. IGP showed us light. The performing members of the group have decided to take action and resolve the problems through confrontation. Instead of ostracizing the non-performing members help them to perform and contribute to group. Also take feedback on the performing members as no one is perfect.