Although Tuckman’s model represents a linear view of group development, other scholars have argued that groups do not necessarily follow sequential “stages” of development. Gersick (1988), for example, argues instead that groups progress in a punctuated equilibrium process. This means that groups experience a period of inertia or inactivity until they become aware of time, pressure, and looming deadlines, which then compel group members to take action.

As a student, a pattern of procrastination followed by bursts of activity may sound familiar to you. Research confirms that it is common to procrastinate on class assignments, especially when working in groups when there is a perceived diffusion or share of responsibilities (Karau & Williams, 2001). Gersick (1988) suggests that groups often procrastinate (and, in reality, waste time) until the critical halfway point of a project. Then, when they hit this midpoint transition and realize that their original plan isn’t coming together, they focus their energy on completing the project and mobilizing their efforts. Gersick argues that groups go through this in a cyclical fashion, with long periods of inactivity followed by spurts of intense activity and change (Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1996), and that this pattern almost becomes a habit or routine (Gersick & Hackman, 1990).

We should point out, however, that not all groups experience the critical transition that gets them to mobilize and adapt their behavior successfully (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). Thus, it might be wise from the beginning of a group project to take note of the inactivity or procrastination your group is experiencing so that you can help spur action earlier and avoid a stressful rush or failure to finish the project by the deadline.