Group Development
From Jsarmi
Different theoretical models have been developed to explain how certain groups change over time. Listed below are some of the most common models. Some of these models view group change as regular movement through a series of "stages," while others view them as "phases" that groups may or may not go through and which might occur at different points of a group's history. Attention to time has been one of the differentiating factors between the study of groups and the study of teams.
Kurt Lewin's Individual Change Process
An early model of *individual* change described change as a three-stage process: unfreezing, change, freezing. "Unfreezing" involves overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing "mind set". Defense mechanisms have to be bypassed. In the second stage change occurs. This is typically a period of confusion and transition. One is aware that the old ways are being challenged but does not have a clear picture to replace them with yet. In the third stage called "freezing," the new mindset is crystallizing and one's comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as "refreezing" (see Lewin, 1947).
Stewart Tubbs: Orientation - Conflict - Consensus - Closure
- Orientation: In this stage, group members get to know each other, they start to talk about the problem, and they examine the limitations and opportunities of the project.
- Conflict: Conflict is a necessary part of a group's development. Conflict allows the group to evaluate ideas and it helps the group avoid conformity and groupthink
- Consensus: Conflict ends in the consensus stage, when group members compromise, select ideas, and agree on alternatives.
- Closure In this stage, the final result is announced and group members reaffirm their support of the decision.
Fisher: Orientation - Conflict - Emergence - Reinforcement
- Orientation: During the orientation phase, Fisher says group members get to know each other and they experience primary tension, the awkward feeling people have before communication rules and expectations are established. Groups should take time to learn about each other and feel comfortable communicating around new people.
- Conflict: The conflict phase is marked by secondary tension, or tension surrounding the task at hand. Group members will disagree with each other and debate ideas. Remember that conflict is good, because it helps the group achieve positive results.
- Emergence: In the emergence phase, says Fisher, the outcome of the group's task and its social structure become apparent.
- Reinforcement: In this stage, group members bolster their final decision by using supportive verbal and nonverbal communication.
Bruce Tuckman: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning
Tuckman's model states that the ideal group decision-making process should occur in four stages:
- Forming: Group members learn about each other and the task at hand.
- Storming: As group members become more comfortable with each other, they will engage each other in arguments and vie for status in the group. These activities mark the storming phase.
- Norming: Group members establish implicit or explicit rules about how they will achieve their goal. They address the types of communication that will or will not help with the task.
- Performing: Groups reach a conclusion and implement the conclusion.
- Adjourning: As the group project ends, the group disbands in the adjournment phase.
- Transforming: A team that lasts may transcend to a transforming phase of achievement. Transformational management can produce major changes in performance through synergy and is considered to be more far-reaching than transactional management.
It has also been suggested, most notably by Timothy Biggs, that an additional stage be added of Norming after Forming and renaming the traditional Norming stage Re-Norming. This addition is designed to reflect that there is a period after Forming where the performance of a team gradually improves and the interference of a leader content with that level of performance will prevent a team progressing through the Storming stage to true performance.
Tuckman's stages of group development are similar to those developed by M. Scott Peck for larger-scale groups. Peck describes the stages of a community as: Pseudo-community, Chaos, Emptiness, True Community. In his view, communities may be distinguished from other types of groups by the need for members to eliminate barriers to communication in order to be able to form true community. Examples of common barriers are: expectations and preconceptions; prejudices; ideology, counterproductive norms, theology and solutions; the need to heal, convert, fix or solve and the need to control. A community is born when its members reach a stage of "emptiness" or peace.
Marshall Scott Poole: Task Track - Topic Track - Relation Track
- Task track: Marshall Scott Poole and his colleagues have found that group development is often more complicated than the three previous models indicate. He has argued that groups jump back and forth between three tracks: task, topic, and relation. The three tracks can be compared to the intertwined strands of a rope. The task track concerns the process by which the group accomplishes its goals.
- Topic track: The topic track concerns the specific item the group is discussing at the time.
- Relation track: The relation track deals with the interpersonal relationships between the group members. At times, the group may stop its work on the task and work instead on its relationships. When the group reaches consensus on all three tracks at once, it can proceed in a more unified manner as the three previous models illustrate.
- Breakpoints: Breakpoints occur when a group switches from one track to another. Shifts in the conversation, adjournment, or postponement are examples of breakpoints.
Hare/McGrath Role formation/differentiation
Work in the field of small group research (SGR) has theorized a number of possible patterns of changes for groups over time. In particular, research that concentrates on the concept of roles states that the organization of a group may vary over time for at least three reasons: "One is that, in a newly formed group, it may take several periods of conflict before an informal “pecking order” can be established. A second reason is that newmembers may join the group or old members drop out, requiring a newdistribution of roles.Athird reason is that the activities required in each phase of the development of a group may call for a different constellation of roles and a different group structure." (Hare, 2003, p. 129)
To carry out a group task, McGrath (1991, pp. 152-153) identified four modes of activity, for which Hare uses the terms meaning, resources, integration, and goal attainment.
Mode 1: Inception and acceptance of a project (goal choice) [meaning]; Mode 2: Solution of technical issues (means choice) [resources]; Mode 3: Resolution of conflict, that is, of political issues (policy choice) [integration]; Mode 4: Execution of the performance requirements of the project (goal attainment) [goal attainment].
McGrath (1991) noted that all processes begin with Mode 1 and end with Mode 4, but that Modes 2 and 3may or may not be needed depending on the task and the history of the group’s activities. Modes within modes are also identified. McGrath offers a set of propositions about the ways in which time influences various aspects of group activity. Group members step up their activity as a deadline approaches or even change their pace when the allotted time is half gone (Gersick, 1989).
References
- Fisher, B. Aubrey. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53-66.
- Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1 (1), 5-41.
- Poole, Marshall Scott. (1981). Decision development in small groupsI: A comparison of two models. Communication Monographs, 48, 1-24;
- Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of mutiple sequences in decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 206-232
- Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341
- Poole, M. S., & Roth, Jonelle. (1989). Decision development in small groups V: Test of a contigency model. Human Communication Research, 15, 549-589.
- Poole, M. S., & Holmes, M. E. (1995) Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making. Human Communication Research; 22(1) p. 90 -127
- Tubbs, Stewart. (1995). A systems approach to small group interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
- Tuckman, Bruce. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
