the questions on the team's purpose, objectives and external relationships. Processes are often ignored and the leader makes all the decision.
             At this point, some of the group members are evidently stressed due to a lack of focus and unclear goals for the group work task, which can be done more efficiently by individuals, and a lack of clearly defined roles for the group members (Homan and Poel 1999, p. 12).
             Through storming stage (Tuckman, 1965), members of the groups begin to challenge the leader's authority and to openly disagree with one another. Arguments arise on the viewpoint of tackling questions. Some group members are seen to withdraw themselves as their views are not taken into consideration. The leader is trying very hard to 'sell' or to coach his ideas to the team members as argue by Hersey's and Blanchard's (1982) Situational Leadership model. A lot of time was spent on the storming stage as team members are drawing to consensus. As a result group productivity was affected.
             Due to time constraint and closing of assessment due, team members are seen to forced into agreements at the norming stage (Tuckman, 1965). Team members begin to organize and plan ways to achieve their goals and objectives. Roles and responsibilities are clearer and accepted. Although there are signs of disagreements, decisions are made via group consensus. Commitment and unity is strong. Respect for the leader is obvious and some of leadership is more shared by the team.
             As the assessment due is getting closer, the team enters performing stage (Tuckman, 1965). Increased group cohesion and cooperation are prominent. However, the cohesions are not true cohesion as the members are forced into accepting the decisions due to time constraint. Disagreements still arises but are solved positively with the vision of achieving the same goal.
             Tuckman (1997) refined the team development model and added another stage called adjourning. Team members at thi...