Transactional Analysis Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtaj20

Optimizing Team Effectiveness and Performance

by Using the Cycle of Team Development

Cor van Geffen

To cite this article: Cor van Geffen (2020) Optimizing Team Effectiveness and Performance
by Using the Cycle of Team Development, Transactional Analysis Journal, 50:4, 298-314, DOI:
10.1080/03621537.2020.1807110

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2020.1807110

Published online: 08 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 154

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtaj20
TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL
2020, VOL. 50, NO. 4, 298–314
https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2020.1807110

ARTICLE

Optimizing Team Effectiveness and Performance by Using

the Cycle of Team Development
Cor van Geffen

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Drawing on his experience as an organizational consultant, the Team development; cycle of
author presents a new model of team analysis and development development; group
for working with organizations. He describes the field of tension development; organizational
within which many organizations operate (e.g., product and ser- development; leadership;
case study teams; team
vice development must be done at high speed, the viability and effectiveness; team
life span of products and services is short, etc.) and some key the- performance; boundaries;
oretical developments from the science and study of organiza- transactional analysis
tions and the organizational field in transactional analysis.
Drawing from authors such as Tuckman, Bion, and Belbin as well
as several TA concepts, he describes the stages of human devel-
opment as articulated by Levin and how these can be adapted as
a useful tool focusing on the task of the group, the individual
team member, and the requirement for leadership in the organ-
izational setting. He provides a new TA model—the cycle of team
development—which offers clear, concrete guidelines for organi-
zations that are searching for new ways to increase team
effectiveness. Brief case studies demonstrate the use of interven-
tions at each stage.

Working in and with teams has been my area of interest for many years and is
an important part of my work as an organizational consultant. It seems to me that
effective team working is a crucial factor for success. In a team, the interests of the
company and its vision and policies intersect with the individual qualities of each
employee. I view organizations and teams as living organisms because they tend to
react to their circumstances by freezing, fleeing, or fighting (Bradford Cannon, 1932)
as a kind of script pattern. In this article, I focus on teams, although I see the same
possibilities for organizations and groups.
Striking a balance between my own autonomy and being able to work effectively
in a group or team has always been a personal challenge. There appears to be no sim-
ple answer to this, which intrigues me. For this reason, I have been searching for a
model that can enhance current developments in organizations, such as the transition
to self-organizing teams, a model that is currently popular in the Netherlands (Stafleu
van Loghum, 2016) as an approach for making teams more successful.
My proposal is that a more sophisticated developmental model can make a mean-
ingful contribution to working with established teams (groups) by optimizing the

CONTACT Cor van Geffen cor@artha-inspireert.nl Het Ambt 70, 8061 AN Hasselt (OV), The Netherlands
ß 2020 International Transactional Analysis Association
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 299

team processes and hence team results. Before discussing my proposed approach, I
will introduce a number of current theories of team development from the perspective
of both organizational consultancy and organizational transactional analysis (TA) as
well as Levin’s (1988) model of the stages of human development.

Theories About Groups and Team Development

There are many theories about groups and team development. I will focus on three
models that have been particularly influential in organizational consulting: those of
Tuckman, Bion, and Belbin.
Perhaps the best-known theory about group and team development is Tuckman’s
(1965). He differentiated five stages of team development:

 Forming
 Storming
 Norming
 Performing
 Mourning

Tuckman argued that passing through all of these stages consecutively is necessary
if the group is to develop into one that functions optimally. In recent years, my work
has shown that the process is less linear than Tuckman suggested and more cyclical. It
is also unclear when a team moves from one stage to another. In addition, it seems
that this model is mostly suited to relatively small groups (up to 12 people).
Another well-known theory of group development is Bion’s (1961). He discerned
two tendencies in groups: the tendency to work on the primary task (work group
mentality) and the more unconscious tendency to avoid working on the task and
working on the survival of the group (basic assumption mentality). He differentiated
three basic assumptions: dependency, pairing, and fight/flight.

1. In the basic assumption of dependency, the group members expect that the
leader will show concern for them, and, as a result, they become dependent on
him or her.
2. At the foundation of the basic assumption of pairing is a collective and uncon-
scious belief that a future event will rescue them. The group often functions on
the basis of changing subgroups and is dominated by feelings of hope, which do
not represent reality.
3. The basic assumption of fight/flight works from the premise that there is danger or
an enemy who must be escaped from or attacked. The members expect the leader
to point to an external enemy and tell them if this must be fought or fled from.

These assumptions are based on the needs of a group member to either belong to a
group or to be protected against anxiety.
Bion made a important contribution to understanding how people behave in
groups. His work reflects the importance of the collective and individual script
300 C. VAN GEFFEN

in relation to overall effectiveness. What I find missing in these ideas is insight about
the steps that can be taken to support a team in its development on the path toward
optimal performance.
Belbin (1993) presented another vision regarding the effectiveness of teams. He
argued that a team forms itself on the basis of its task and that, as a result, attention
must be given to the development of roles and an appropriate allocation of these
roles to those who can fulfill them. A validated test (Groen, 2017) has been developed
for these team roles, which are differentiated as: shaper, planter, specialist, monitor-
evaluator, completer-finisher, implementer, resource-investigator, coordinator, and
team worker. The power of this model is in the recognizability of the roles. However,
opponents often argue that they are not so easily identified and that people are cap-
able of taking up multiple roles.
Belbin’s insights can certainly be used for team development. Looking carefully at
the interpretation of the team roles offers useful ways, in terms of clarity of contract-
ing, to establish daily rapport and allocate team tasks. However, this model provides
little information about how to enable development of the team as a whole.

Transactional Analysis Models Concerning Team and Group Development

There are many transactional analysis models of groups and teams. I have been par-
ticularly inspired by the pragmatic contributions of Berne (as elaborated by Lee,
Clarkson, and Tudor), Weisfelt, and Krausz.
What Berne (1963) wrote about group structure in his now classic The Structure and
Dynamics of Organizations and Groups continues to be valuable as a resource for
change. He made an important distinction between public and private aspects of
groups. Berne described the public aspect as the structure of a group. He defined a
group as “any social assembly that has an external and at least one internal boundary”
(p. 72). He showed how important it is that the boundaries are not too rigid and are
able to provide sufficient permeability (but not too much permeability so as to protect
the group).
Lee (2014) developed Berne’s insights on boundaries further in her work regarding
the five important aspects for healthy team and group development (Figure 1).
Returning to Berne (1963), the private aspect of a group takes shape by the con-
cept of the group imago, which he defined as a “mental picture of what a group
should be” (p. 125). The group imago is shaped by the personal imago, which each
member has of the group and his or her position in it.
Berne (1963) discerned four stages of a group imago, to which I add a fifth from
Clarkson (1991):

1. Provisional group imago (the image that a future member has of the group, before
the group begins)
2. The adaptive group imago (the surface image in response to first impressions)
3. The operative group imago (the further adaptations whereby the member also
observes how he or she fits the image of the leader)
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 301

Figure 1. Five Aspects of Group Development (Lee, 2014, p. 44, as adapted from Berne, 1966,
p. 149).

4. The secondarily adapted group imago (whereby the member directs himself or
herself to doing what is necessary for the group’s cohesion)
5. The clarified image (added by Clarkson, 1991, p. 46) whereby the member contrib-
utes to the ending of the group)

Tudor (2013) proposed the addition of two further imagoes: the secondarily opera-
tive group imago, which involves the emergence of insight and resolutions, and the
historical group imago, in which each member understands the meaning of the group
and is able to invest in new relationships.
The insights of Berne, refined by Clarkson (1991) and Tudor (2013), provide many
ways of guiding and supporting groups and individuals within groups. What I suggest
is carrying these insights forward to achieve an integrated perspective on viewing
groups as living organisms.
Weisfelt (2005) further developed the thinking of Berne and Bion in his book De
Geheimen van de Groep [The Secrets of the Group]. Among other things, he described
the importance of being able to relate to the anxieties generated in a group. He rec-
ognized four fears/anxieties that threaten the group. First and foremost is a fear of the
leadership falling away, which feeds the fear of existential loneliness. Second is
the fear of osmosis, which feeds the fear of being subsumed by the group. Third is
the fear of being cast out and no longer belonging. Fourth is the fear of the task fall-
ing away, thus feeding the anxiety that the group will lose its right to exist. I believe
that working with the cycle of development, described later in this article, offers a
secure base for managing these anxieties.
302 C. VAN GEFFEN

Weisfelt also described the importance of a sense of trust in the sense of belong-
ing, in one’s own possibilities, in one’s own qualities, and in the system and its
meaning. He also explored the importance of the group’s dynamic development. He
argued that a group has meaning as a system of care and love and describes the
most important aspects: safety, experiment, boundaries, power, and synergy.
Although Weisfelt’s insights are helpful in elaborating ideas about team develop-
ment, I believe more focus on the team as a whole and as a living organism is
still required.
Before discussing how I address this in my own model of team development, I
want to review Krausz’s (2013) contribution, which examines the impact of group size.
She discerned three types of groups: primary, secondary, and tertiary. She described
the characteristics of primary groups as durable and stable; they function coopera-
tively, share a great deal, and members become strongly emotionally attached to the
group and its identity (e.g., a family). The characteristics of a secondary group are rela-
tive instability and temporariness; communication is limited, and knowledge about
individual members tends to be narrow (e.g., work establishments and schools). The
main characteristics of tertiary groups are fragmentation and transience; they are often
difficult to identify or classify (e.g., network organizations), and interactions are ran-
dom, casual, distant, and unpredictable.
On the basis of her typology, Krausz developed two interesting hypotheses: (1) the
smaller the group, the greater the chance of emotional connection, positive strokes,
and authentic transactions between the members, and (2) the larger the group, the
greater the chance of isolation and loneliness within it. These insights are certainly
useful with regard to supporting and guiding teams and interventions. What I miss,
however, is a further refinement of the different team stages.
From the models just described, it is possible to conclude that both the classical
models of team development, as well as the current TA models, do not appear to
describe sufficient mechanisms and insights for guiding and supporting established or
self-organizing teams. What is needed is a model that provides more insight into what
the leaders, team members, and their facilitators are required to do at different stages
of team development. It was during my search for a suitable model and as a result of
attending TA master classes that I discovered the possibilities provided by Levin’s
(1988) model. Krausz’s group theory provided a frame through which I began to trans-
late Levin’s work into a resource for working with groups in organizations.

Stages of Development
Levin (1988) described how during development, children pass through six stages. She
described the seventh state as the beginning of a new cycle of the six stages.

1. The power of being. Children in this stage (0–6 months) need nourishment and
strokes and a direct response to their crying. The corresponding permissions are
about being welcome and the recognition that the child can be here, that having
needs is OK, that the parents are happy to see the child, it is OK to feel, and it is
OK to be close.
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 303

2. The power of doing. In this stage (6–18 months) children develop their Little
Professor. The needs are to explore and do things. The corresponding permissions
are about giving permission to explore and experiment and having done so to
receive attention and appreciation. The child’s developmental task is to explore
the world and learn to differentiate feelings.
3. The power of thinking. In this stage (18 months–3 years) children develop their
Adult ego state through a conscious working out of boundaries, control, and
information. The child learns to say “No.”
4. The power of identity. In this stage (3–6 years) children continue to work out their
identity by searching out their boundaries, learning to recognize their own qual-
ities, and daring to engage with confrontation. Hay (2009) indicated that in this
stage we also make decisions about our own style.
5. The power of competence/skills. In this stage (6–12 years) children develop their
Parent ego state and thus search for structure and rules. They also have a need
for tension and incidents. Hay (2009) indicated that during this time, children
develop skills, which fit with their evolving identity and accommodate opinions
and values. These provide structure and a good foothold.
6. The power of integration. In this stage (12–19 years) children integrate and process
earlier issues, particularly in relation to themes such as intimacy and sexuality. Hay
(2009) stated that in this stage children once again pass through all of the previ-
ous stages but twice as quickly. They need permission in order to grow into their
maleness and femaleness.
7. The power of recycling. Thereafter, the cycle repeats itself. Levin calls this the
power of recycling (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Cycles of Development (adapted from a slideshare presentation by Manu Melwin Joy
after Levin-Landheer, 1982, p. 136).
304 C. VAN GEFFEN

On the Way to a New Model of Team Development

Levin’s (1988) model of developmental stages offers a good resource for teams and
organizations. The framework is accessible, has intuitive appeal, and conceptualizes
development as focused on the mastery of various competencies over time. As such,
it can be usefully applied in organizational settings and can easily be explained to
teams, the members of which can quickly grasp the concepts.
It is my view that Levin’s model, which was originally developed to analyze the
growth and development of humans, especially during childhood, can also be
adapted for analyzing the development of teams, especially given that I view organi-
zations as living entities that form and develop. As with children, with teams, each
stage involves a developmental task for the organization, the leadership, and the
team members.
Levin was clear about the time period for the different stages of human develop-
ment. For organizations and teams, it is not so clear. Even so, the construction and
sequence can be adapted for the analysis of (desired) organizational development and
corresponding interventions.
I will now apply the model to team development and describe the interventions
and facilitation possibilities at each stage as part of the process of organizational
change. I pay special attention to desired leadership at each stage as an important
key element for success.

The Cycle of Team Development

Hay (2009) saw the possibilities of Levin’s stages of development as an analysis and
developmental model for organizations and teams. I also made connections with Hay’s
(2009) competency curve and stages as well as Steiner’s (1987) seven sources of
power, with the latter concerning the further development and growth within an
organization or team. I discovered that these elements provide a useful guide for the
desired behavior in the different stages.
The description of each stage is an interpretation of Levin’s model using the
insights of Hay and Steiner and supplemented with insights encountered during
empirical research with my clients. In each section I also outline key tasks to be
attended to by both the organization and the team members.

Stage 1: Being
This stage describes the search by a team or organization at the level of “being.” Hay
(2009) stated that it is important for new members of a group to feel welcome and to
be able to be present without being immediately thrust into work. Bonding within
new teams and organizations occurs only when a shift has taken place from mistrust
and exclusion to trust.
Steiner’s (1987) assertion that the first source of power lies in “being grounded” fits
well with the task of the team and members of the organization during this stage. De
Graaf and Kunst (2009) indicated that being grounded is characterized by the
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 305

following elements: “Knowing what you stand for, having a sense of a secure base
and committing yourself to your organisation and the work you are required to do”
(p. 33).
Weisfelt (2005) argued that the group’s script originates in this stage and that it is
thus important to establish the team as strongly as possible. Furthermore, he indicated
that the personal script of every team member impacts the group’s functioning. I
believe this points to the need for good preselection of team members, which means
not only looking at a member’s possible competencies but also recognizing the indi-
vidual’s personal script so that it does not interfere with the desired team
development.

Tasks for Organization and Leadership

 Facilitating feelings of belonging and safety in members by means of a personal
welcome and attending to practical needs, such as providing equipment
 Showing unconditional recognition in the form of introductions to colleagues,
one’s own workspace, a telephone (number), and an official welcome
 Sketching out a global image of the possibilities of the team
 Inviting members to engage with the culture and values of the team
 Providing nourishment in the form of strokes, attention, and contact
 Being grounded in oneself

Tasks for Team Members, Especially New Ones

 Stating what they need in order to feel at home and welcome
 Being present in their new team/organization (therefore, having really said good-
bye to their previous workplace)
 Learning to be grounded in the new team
 Committing themselves to the new team
The following problems can occur when insufficient attention is given to the above
elements: team members feel superfluous and unrecognized, the team becomes only
loosely affiliated, there is a feeling of homesickness for the previous work/team, many
irritations surface, and there is a lack of pleasure. There is a tendency for management
to be too critical and apply too much structure when what is needed is real presence
and allowing people the time and space to adjust and get to know each other.

Case: A Management Team

An IT company had to change its way of working to comply with new legislation.
Even its right to exist was in danger. A new director made some substantial changes
and suggested replacing the management team (MT), which led to the introduction of
a new team with a substantial number of new MT members. This indicated the need
to work at the “being” stage. I was asked to facilitate the team in their development. I
taught the team members to work with strokes and let them share their life stories.
This approach provided safety and trust, which is much needed in the “being” stage.
306 C. VAN GEFFEN

Stage 2: Doing
This stage describes the orientation of an organization or a team: what it does, the
task it carries out, and what it stands for. An important task at this stage is to provide
space for discovery and experimentation. The emphasis is on providing opportunities
for growth and learning through doing and thus learning to engage with and discover
one’s passion (Steiner’s, 1987, second source of power). In organizations it is particu-
larly relevant to the sustained working out and shaping of vitality and the prevention
of indifference. In this stage, it is important to be patient, demonstrate trust, and work
a great deal with permissions.

Tasks for Organization and Leadership

 Giving members space to investigate and explore
 Ensuring sufficient stimuli
 Encouraging passion and enthusiasm
 Recognizing and stimulating individual qualities
 Providing a safe environment and protection for growth and learning. I especially
think of the application of Clarke’s (1996) five Ps: potential, protection, permission,
practice, and perception.
 Stating expectations and providing the secure base out of which to act

Tasks for Team Members, Especially New Ones

 Investigating and exploring
 Extending boundaries (Berne, 1963) and developing new activities
 Searching for new contexts and challenges
 Daring to act, even when there is a lack of clarity
The following problems regularly surface at this stage: passive behaviors, dysfunc-
tional symbiosis, and physical symptoms. Small accidents often occur, and many mis-
takes are made. The tendency of management can be to punish and coerce or to be
overprotective and take on responsibility.

Case: A Policy and Strategy Department

Following reorganization, some units from a large government organization merged
into one department. They worked quite well together, but after a while, the manager
discovered passive behavior and a low level of quality. The passive behavior, in par-
ticular, along with many mistakes, indicated that work was needed at the “doing”
stage. I worked with the manager on Clarke’s (1996) five Ps, introducing a way he
could use them with his team, as well as with the team on the miniscript (Kahler,
1974). Equipped with insights about their drivers and stoppers, they could transform
the passive behavior into good contracting and a better use of each other’s qualities.
This led to the wanted outcome at this stage: a greater search for new challenges,
higher quality, and more daring to act.
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 307

Stage 3: Thinking
This stage describes an organization’s or team’s need for underlying coherence as well
as to discover possibilities for independent thinking and making choices. This can be
related to control, Steiner’s third source of power. De Graaf and Kunst (2009) offered a
description of this in terms of self-control, which clearly explains what Covey (1989,
pp. 75–83) called “proactivity”: “a moment of self-reflection between impulse and
action.” This stage is also concerned with exploring boundaries and simultaneously
exceeding and testing them.

Tasks for Organization and Leadership

 Giving space to members to search for boundaries (Berne, 1963)
 Stimulating members to develop their thinking skills
 Providing space for diverging views
 Offering space for autonomy (Scilligo, 2011) with sufficient attention to the under-
lying relationship
 Possessing a sufficient degree of self-control

Tasks for Team Members, Especially New Ones

 Developing critical thinking capacity
 Increasing the capacity for logical thinking and problem solving
 Daring to mismatch and to give and/or receive negative strokes (Steiner, 1971)
 Daring to show one’s own opinion and identity
 Learning to work together and to adapt without giving up one’s identity
The following problems regularly surface at this stage: rebellion, stubbornness, and
struggles for power. Often problems arise in relation to adapting and working collab-
oratively together. Sometimes physical aggression or physical complaints appear. The
tendency of management may be to engage with the escalations or to try to sweep
away the struggles for power. It is important in this stage to stay focused on the work
with tolerance and humor and to work as much as possible with strokes (Steiner,
1971) and Crossman’s (1966) three Ps (protection, permission, and potency).

Case: MT of an IT Testing Company (Part 1)

This MT had a highly directive manager. His way of correcting and making decisions
led other MT members to stop making decisions for themselves. As a result, the
manager worked harder and harder. This led to several struggles for power and
hardly any collaboration in working together. This indicates the stage of “Thinking.” I
worked with them on Adult transactions, strokes, and stimulating each other with a
good deal of Natural Child and Nurturing Parent. This created sufficient safety for
open discussion, even with the manager, which led, in turn, to more successful deci-
sions and more autonomy for the other team members. This achieved the desired
outcome at this stage, namely, a greater use of their logical thinking and problem-
solving capabilities.
308 C. VAN GEFFEN

Stage 4: Identity
This stage describes the search for recognition and the development of one’s own
identity. The emphasis is on recognizing one’s qualities and powers. This involves
experiencing the impacts when the organization and team strongly delineate their
identity versus individual identity and combine this with the capacity to ask for and
receive help. This could relate to Steiner’s fourth source of power: love. According to
de Graaf and Kunst (2009), love can be seen in terms of empathy, which is concerned
with sympathy, respect, and connection. It is also important to share expectations
underlying aims and a vision of the future with each other and the team.

Tasks for the Organization and Leadership

 Being open to diverging views and visions
 Empowering the individual qualities of employees, thereby searching for possibil-
ities to connect out of a basis of respect
 Giving many positive strokes (Steiner, 1971), both conditional and unconditional
 Accepting and fostering differences within the organization
 Stimulating a collaborative working out of a basis of empathy, respect,
and connection

Tasks for Team Members, Especially New Ones

 Developing the team’s own identity
 Developing and shaping individual identity within the organization
 Developing individual identity and autonomy outside the organization by increas-
ing external contacts and relationships
The following problems regularly surface at this stage: too little agreement, with
everyone charting is or her own course. There are few initiatives, and team members
frequently become stuck in negative fantasies and/or illogical thinking. It is in this
stage that managers need to be able to respond from the Adult ego state and to
refrain from giving messages from the Structuring Parent (Berne, 1961) while giving
sufficient nurturing from the Nurturing Parent.

Case: Team Reintegration

Because of new legislation, the activities of a team changed completely and their spe-
cific knowledge was useless. They struggled with their personal as well as their team
identity. There was a good deal of negativity and withdrawal. I worked with them on
accepting differences, team boundaries, and team contracting. At the end we created
a team metaphor that was a sign of their new identity.

Stage 5: Structure
This stage describes the search for rules and structures, which are necessary for the
organization of the team members, for permissions, and for allowing norms and values
to be discussed and tested. Is it safe enough to make mistakes and learn from them?
Is there sufficient trust in each other and in each other’s choices? Is there permission
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 309

to think and/or to say no? Steiner’s corresponding source of power is communication.

De Graaf and Kunst (2009) indicated that communication is the connecting factor in
organizations, and hence a style of language that encourages and enriches
is essential.
It is important that the script messages of the organization and the individual script
messages of the team members are critically evaluated and that they translate into
individual autonomy and a coherent system of values and norms (Weisfelt, 2005).

Tasks for Organization and Leadership

 Offering security and clarity over structure, responsibilities, competencies, and rules
of the game (Berne, 1963)
 Respecting that within these, employees make their own choices
 Permitting mistakes and ensuring that the organization learns to elaborate rules
and structures
 Giving many positive strokes (Steiner, 1971)
 Communicating with respect and appreciation through the use of language that
affirms and encourages

Tasks for Team Members, Especially New Ones

 Learning and accepting the rules of the game and the structures within the
organization
 Daring to trust one’s own intuition and to make one’s own choices around struc-
tures and rules
 Daring to make mistakes and being willing to learn from them
 Communicating with respect and appreciation
The following problems regularly surface at this stage: The team may be occupied
with eliciting negative strokes because no or too few positive strokes are given (this
results, for example, in people being absent from meetings or frequently mislaying
things). Difficulties with authority may also surface as provocative or passive behavior.
Such situations may lead to successful employees leaving the company. It is also
important that managers are not too authoritarian or rigid but provide a good deal of
protection and permission (Crossman, 1966).

Case: A Government Department Management Team

The director of a government department asked me to work with his management
team because there was a bad atmosphere, including a good deal of unspoken criti-
cism toward each other and the director. There were also major discussions about
norms and values. All this indicated problems at the stage of “structure.” After a few
sessions with me, they discovered that agreements and responsibilities were not suffi-
ciently clear. They worked on good contracting, including mission and vision. After
that we worked on positive stroking, especially from the director. All this led to space
to learn as well as more communication with respect and appreciation, something
that is so needed in this stage.
310 C. VAN GEFFEN

Stage 6: Integration
This stage describes the search for independence and individual responsibility for
achieving results. The need to delineate one’s own identity by means of all the previous
aspects is stronger than ever. Steiner (1987) described “information” as the sixth source
of power. According to de Graaf and Kunst (2009), this involves not only being able to
deal carefully and well with information but also being able to make sufficient use of
intuition. There is a strong need for support and the safety of boundaries combined
with the longing to go on a voyage of discovery to other teams and organizations.

Tasks for Organization and Leadership

 Permitting members to develop their own interests, relationships, and work tasks
 Celebrating successes (Jaoui, 1988)
 Trusting in the individual responsibility and qualities of each team member
 Stimulating independence and the sharing of information and knowledge

Tasks for Team Members, Especially New Ones

 Further development of the team into an autonomous, self-organizing unit
 Developing individual interests, relationships, and work tasks
 Daring to trust in one’s own qualities and responsibilities
 Daring to ask for help when needed
 Sharing information and knowledge
The following problems regularly surface at this stage: a decrease in independence
and a flight from responsibility. The art of management is not to take on responsibility
or to chastize or blame but to continue to provide support, set boundaries, and point
to possible development opportunities.

Case: MT of an IT Testing Company (Part 2)

A few years later, the MT was working together at a high level and the organization
functioned well. However, the members of the MT were not happy. They subsequently
discovered that their autonomy as members was low and that they were not celebrat-
ing their successes. I worked with them to create more autonomy by attending to the
psychological level of the team contract. I also encouraged them to celebrate their
achievements by shouting out their successes and toasting them. This led to more
independence and support, which led to more integration.

Stage 7: Recycling
The previous six stages tend to repeat themselves in a new cycle. According to Hay
(2009), during recycling a team’s development follows the same sequence as in the
first cycle but at a different level. Team members are more aware and move faster
through the stages. They use the elements they have already learned and so develop
other elements of each stage. As a result, this stage is concerned with extending and
using what was learned at more specific parts of the stages, each time with an
increase in autonomy. This could relate to Steiner’s (1987) seventh source of power:
transcendence. Steiner stated that this concerns the capacity to stand back and allow
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 311

things to take their course and not to cling too rigidly to (personal) convictions and
needs. In this stage, every team member makes a conscious choice to leave the team
or to continue.

Case: Team Interim Managers

A team of interim managers had known golden times together, but only two of them
remained, and their new colleagues did not bring enough coherence and focus. They
discovered that they had moved too quickly to a new “being” stage and had given
too little attention to mourning and saying good-bye. We worked on that with several
rituals, which provided peace and space so that the team could prepare themselves to
move on to the stage of “being.”

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model

The strength of the cycle of team development model is its focus on development.
Although Levin’s (Levin-Landheer, 1982) work was directed toward developmental
tasks and possibilities for children, applying her thinking to teams and groups offers
many possibilities, including concrete ways of steering and guiding a team within the
different stages.
The weakness of the model is that it can sometimes be difficult to determine the
stage of a team’s development. I hope in the near future, in collaboration with
Nyenrode Business University, to develop a questionnaire that will facilitate such
an evaluation.
What makes the model particularly applicable in practice is the ability it offers to
analyze the development of a team through all the stages. It provides concrete ways
of determining how well a team has moved through and assimilated the tasks of pre-
vious stages as well as identifying the tasks that remain.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, I have developed Table 1 to show the con-
nection between the needs in the different phases, the results when a team does or
does not function well, and the facilitator’s remedial role in the different stages.

Conclusion
The model described in this article offers a meaningful addition to the current team
development models used in transactional analysis and other organizational areas of
work. It offers teams and facilitators/managers additional possibilities for ensuring suc-
cessful teamwork through the use of clear analysis and interventions that are appro-
priate to developmental needs. For many organizations moving from self-steering to
self-organizing teams, there might be a potential trap in failing to provide sufficient
developmental support along the way. The model of the stages of development
makes an important contribution to such teams because it offers a broad perspective
with regard to analysis and intervention possibilities.
312 C. VAN GEFFEN

Table 1. Overview of the Cycle of Development Applied in Organizations.

PHASE NEED FUNCTIONING WELL INEFFECTIVE/HAZARDS FACILITATOR ROLE
1. BEING To be welcomed, able Every team member Loosely affiliated Welcoming, unconditional strokes,
to be present and feels welcome and team, many devotes much attention and
recognized. to be a able to be present. irritations and lack recognition to team members,
team member Every team of pleasure, team supports by means of the
member is members feel formulation of future vision, is
committed and surplus to well-grounded and
linked to the team. requirements fully present
or ignored
2. DOING Able to investigate The team members Passive behavior, Stimulates a safe environment for
and explore, being experience dysfunctional learning and development,
able to make sufficient safety symbiosis, and stimulates elements of passion
mistakes, a safe and protection to regular physical and enthusiasm, provides
environment for develop and learn. complaints; more challenging assignments
exploration They dare to set mistakes and exercises
out and look for than necessary
new challenges
and possibilities.
3. THINKING Space for autonomy, The team members Rebelliousness, Supports exploration and accepts
able to make use experience stubbornness, and different visions, encourages
of logic and autonomy. There is fighting for power; the capacity for problem
problem- space for different often problems in solving, gives space for
solving capacities viewpoints, and being able to exercises, which allow for
team members adapt to critical and positive feedback
dare to be at odds working together
with one another.
4. IDENTITY Development of The team is Little underlying Stimulates working together on
individual and recognized for its rapport, team the basis of difference, teaches
team identity, own team identity. members chart the acceptance of each other’s
development of Team leaders are their own course, identity and qualities, supports
team norms recognized for very few or no the development of the
and values their individual initiatives, often individual team identity, for
contribution negative ways example, through the
and identity. of thinking development and use of a
team metaphor
5. STRUCTURE Safety and clarity There is clarity Authoritarian Supports by means of good
concerning concerning problems, contracting with everyone at
structures, structure and provocative or all levels, gives many positive
responsibilities, responsibilities. passive behavior, strokes, allows for the
and competencies Mistakes are successful experience of making mistakes,
permitted and employees leave supports the development of a
many strokes the organization, system of values and norms
given. The team negative strokes
works from the are triggered via,
basis of an for example, not
accepted system of honoring
norms and values. appointments.
6. INTEGRATION Support and safety of Independence is Possible decline in Helps team members to maintain
boundaries stimulated. autonomy and a individual boundaries,
combined with the Information and flight from challenges members to go out
longing to set out knowledge is responsibility and explore, teaches team
on a voyage shared. There is a members how to work with
of discovery great deal of trust vagueness and uncertainty
in each other’s
qualities and sense
of responsibility.
7. RECYCLING Applying what has Team members make Insufficient attention Gives the team sufficient safety
been learned at a conscious choices: given to the team and support at the point of
higher level, an to stay or to go. phase, insufficient completion and during a
increased longing What is learned is farewell rituals and transition to a new phase,
for autonomy applied. New reflection on supports with (farewell) rituals
interpretations and the future
applications of
what is learned are
sought out.
 TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS JOURNAL 313

Disclosure statement
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes on Contributor
Cor van Geffen, MSc (organizational), PTSTA (organizational), international neurolinguistic pro-
gramming (NLP) trainer and trainer in family constellations, is director of the Dutch training and
coaching organization Artha. He has worked with organizations and teams for over 15 years
and is also one of the teachers at the Dutch TA Academy, which offers a variety of courses in
transactional analysis. Cor can be reached at Het Ambt 70, 8061 AN Hasselt (OV), The
Netherlands; email: cor@artha-inspireert.nl; website: www.artha-inspireert.nl; https://www.linke-
din.com/in/cor-van-geffen-a748231/

References
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy: A systematic individual and social psychi-
atry. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1963). The structure and dynamics of organizations and groups. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Berne, E. (1966). Group treatment. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. Abington, England: Taylor & Francis.
Bradford Cannon, W. (1932). Wisdom of the body. New York, NY: Norton.
Clarke, J. I. (1996). The synergistic use of five transactional analysis concepts by educators.
Transactional Analysis Journal, 26, 217–218. doi:10.1177/036215379602600304
Clarkson, P. (1991). Group imago and the stages of group development. Transactional Analysis
Journal, 21, 36–50. doi:10.1177/036215379102100106
Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Crossman, P. (1966). Permission and protection. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 5(19), 152–154.
de Graaf, A., & Kunst, K. (2009). Managen zonder macht [Managing without power]. Amsterdam:
SWPpoint
Groen, R. (2017). Interplace, the online Belbin test. Retrieved from https://www.belbin.nl/interplace
Hay, J. (2009). Working it out at work. Hertfort, England: Sherwood Publishing.
Jaoui, G. (1988). Stages for success. Transactional Analysis Journal, 18, 207–210. doi:10.1177/
036215378801800307
Kahler, T. (with Capers, H.). (1974). The miniscript. Transactional Analysis Journal, 4(1), 26–42. doi:
10.1177/036215377400400110
Krausz, R. R. (2013). Living in groups. Transactional Analysis Journal, 43, 366–374. doi:10.1177/
0362153713519414
Lee, A. (2014). The development of a process group. Transactional Analysis Journal, 44, 41–52.
doi:10.1177/0362153714527424
Levin, P. (1988). Cycles of power: A user’s guide to the seven seasons of life. Boca Raton, FL: Health
Communications.
Levin-Landheer, P. (1982). The cycle of development. Transactional Analysis Journal, 12, 129–139.
doi:10.1177/036215378201200207
314 C. VAN GEFFEN

Scilligo, P. (2011). Transference as a measurable social-cognitive process: An application of

Scilligo’s model of ego states. Transactional Analysis Journal, 41, 196–205. doi:10.1177/
036215371104100302
Stafleu van Loghum, B. (2016). Zelfsturende teams, de redding van de organisatie [Self-manag-
ing teams: The rescue of the organization]. HEADline, 33, 19. doi:10.1007/s40739-016-0059-1
Steiner, C. (1971). The stroke economy. Transactional Analysis Journal, 1(3), 9–15. doi:10.1177/
036215377100100305
Steiner, C. (1987). The seven sources of power: An alternative to authority. Transactional Analysis
Journal, 17, 102–104. doi:10.1177/036215378701700309
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100
Tudor, K. (2013). Group imago and group development: Two theoretical additions and some ensu-
ing adjustments. Transactional Analysis Journal, 43, 321–333. doi:10.1177/0362153713516297
Weisfelt, P. (2005). De geheimen van de groep, het proces van het systeem en de consequenties
voor individu, groep en organisatie [The secrets of the group, the process of the system and
the consequences for the individual, the group and the organization]. Soest, Netherlands:
Nelissen.