Talk:Managing Groups and Teams/Stages

This page is part of a larger chapter on teambuilding. Focusing on the stages of group development is reasonable, but this page still needs some work. In particular, there is no mention or linkage to the broader topic of teambuilding, so the reader has no way of knowing why group stages are important for teambuilding. In addition, the chapter does not have citations in the text, or links in the text to other places where the reader can go to deepen his or her understanding. Also, the page could use figures or images to break up the flow of the text. See, as an example: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Managing_Groups_and_Teams/Which_attributes_are_fundamental_to_team_cohesion%3F

--- This page is well written, but the content needs some help. The article provides a good explanation of the model, but it would be nice to see an evaluation of whether this model should be considered valid. The elements of each phase are mentioned, but what is the most important? This article has a lot of potential, but it needs to move beyond the explanations into an analysis of the model ---

--- Chapter 1: Stages of group development:  Four stage model? “Adjourning” as a fifth stage? There is no mention of this stage in the introduction. The way in which it is introduced in the Adjourning section is a little confusing as it is represented as an additional or new step in the model. There seem to be a lot of grammatical errors in the section on Norming. The conclusion introduces new information (concept of overlap between stages and the idea that change can cause teams to revert to earlier stages or cyles). This information would be better presented in a separate section not the conclusion.

This page has a solid layout, good use of lists in first two stages, but should continue to use the lists in the following two stages. Adjourning is the fifth stage so it should be included in the intro and conclusion. There are no links but one at the bottom of the page, and no references at all in the text. It's a good start, but it doesn't seem to be too in depth, it just covers the surface. New information is presented in the conclusion that should be in the body of the article and explained a little more.