zx BEYOND-PERSONALITY INVENTORY: - Southern ...home.snu.edu/~jsmith/library/MS_word/v25/p088-100.doc · Web viewAccording to Benne and Sheats (1948), group training frequently assumes

zx FIVE STAGES OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT

In 1965, Bruce W. Tuckman hypothesized that groups go through four stages of development during their formation, existence, and dispersal:

n Forming,n Storming,n Norming, andn Performing.

On reviewing studies of his hypothesis in 1977, Tuckman decided to add a fifth and final stage of group development: Adjourning.

Other researchers have labeled similar stages of group development. Charrier (1974) calls them Polite or Why We’re Here; Bid for Power; Constructive; and Esprit. Cooke and Widdis (1988) call them Polite or Purpose; Power; Positive; and Proficient. The figure that follows illustrates the relationships between some of these classifications.

Tuckman Charrier Cooke & Widdis

FormingStormingNorming

PerformingAdjourning

PoliteWhy We’re Here

Bid for PowerConstructive

Esprit

PolitePurposePower

PositiveProficient

Jones (1974) depicts the model to show the four typical stages in the evolution of a group in relation to two major dimensions of personal relations and task functions. The progress along these two paths is parallel and interrelated, as shown in the figure on the next page.

The personal-relations dimension of the model encompasses all the interrelationships that people develop and sustain in the group—their feelings, expectations, commitments, assumptions, and problems with one another. The stages of personal relations correlate with the development of the identity and functions of a group from the personal orientations of individual members. The stages of task functions correlate with the progress of a group in understanding and accomplishing its work. As a group moves through the personal-relations and task-functions stages simultaneously, the progress and setbacks in one dimension influence the behavior and progress in the other.

The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer zxñ88

Use Word 6.0c or later to

view Macintosh picture.

Task Functions

STAGES ARE SEQUENTIAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL

The stages of group development are sequential and developmental. A group will proceed through these five stages only as far as its members are willing to grow. Group cohesiveness seems to depend on how well group members can relate in the same phase at the same time. Each member must be prepared to give up something at each step in order to make the group move to the next stage. The timing of each will depend on the nature of the group, the members, and the leadership of the group. Issues and concerns must be resolved in each stage before the group can move on. If the group is not able to resolve such issues, the dominant behavior will become either apathy or conflict, and group disintegration will result.

STAGE 1: FORMING

In the Forming stage, personal relations are characterized by dependence. Group members rely on safe, patterned behavior and look to the group leader for guidance and direction. Group members have a desire for acceptance by the group and a need to be sure that the group is safe. They set about gathering impressions and data about the similarities and differences among them and forming preferences for future subgrouping. Rules of behavior seem to be to keep things simple and avoid controversy. Serious topics and feelings are avoided.

The major task functions also concern orientation. Members attempt to become oriented to the task as well as to one another. Discussion centers around defining the scope of the task, how to approach it, and similar concerns.

The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer89ñxz

To grow from this stage to the next, each member must relinquish the comfort of nonthreatening topics and risk the possibility of conflict.

STAGE 2: STORMINGThe next stage, which Tuckman calls Storming, is characterized by competition and conflict in the personal-relations dimension and organization in the task-functions dimension. As the group members attempt to organize for the task, conflict inevitably results in their personal relations. Individuals have to bend and mold their feelings, ideas, attitudes, and beliefs to suit the group organization. Because of fear of exposure or weakness or fear of failure at tasks, there will be an increased desire for structure or clarification and commitment to structure. Although conflicts may or may not surface as group issues, they do exist. Questions will arise about who is going to be responsible for what, what the rules are, what the reward system is, and what the criteria for evaluation are. These reflect conflicts over leadership, structure, power, and authority. There may be wide swings in members’ behavior based on emerging issues of competition and hostilities. Because of the discomfort generated during this stage, some members may remain completely silent while others attempt to dominate.

In order to progress to the next stage, group members must move from a “testing and proving” mentality to a problem-solving mentality. The most important trait in helping groups to move on to the next stage seems to be the ability to listen.

STAGE 3: NORMINGIn Tuckman’s Norming stage, interpersonal relations are characterized by cohesion. Group members are engaged in active acknowledgment of all members’ contributions, community building and maintenance, and solving of group issues. Members are willing to change their preconceived ideas or opinions on the basis of facts presented by other members, and they actively ask questions of one another. Leadership is shared, and cliques dissolve. When members begin to know—and identify with—one another, the level of trust in their personal relations contributes to the development of group cohesion. It is during this stage of development (assuming that the group gets this far) that people begin to experience a sense of groupness and a feeling of catharsis at having resolved interpersonal conflicts.

The major task function of stage three is the data flow between group members; they share feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another, and explore actions related to the task. Creativity is high. If this stage of data flow and cohesion is attained by the group members, their interactions are characterized by openness and sharing of information on both a personal and task level. They feel good about being part of an effective group.

The major drawback of the norming stage is that members may begin to fear the inevitable future breakup of the group; they may resist change of any sort.


STAGE 4: PERFORMINGThe Performing stage is not reached by all groups. If group members are able to evolve to stage four, their capacity, range, and depth of personal relations expand to true interdependence. In this stage, people can work singly, in subgroups, or as a total unit with equal facility. Their roles and authorities dynamically adjust to the changing needs of the group and individuals. Stage four is marked by interdependence in personal relations and problem solving in the realm of task functions. By now, the group should be most productive. Individual members have become self-assuring, and the need for group approval is past. Members are both highly task oriented and highly people oriented. There is unity: group identity is complete, group morale is high, and group loyalty is intense. The task function becomes genuine problem solving, leading toward optimal solutions and optimum group development. There is support for experimentation in solving problems and an emphasis on achievement. The overall goal is productivity through problem solving and work.

STAGE 5: ADJOURNINGTuckman’s final stage, Adjourning, involves the termination of task behaviors and disengagement from relationships. A planned conclusion usually includes recognition for participation and achievement and an opportunity for members to say personal goodbyes. Concluding a group can create some apprehension—in effect, a minor crisis. The termination of the group is a regressive movement from giving up control to giving up inclusion in the group. The most effective interventions in this stage are those that facilitate task termination and the disengagement process.

APPLICATIONS OF THE MODELFacilitators must be sensitive to the needs of group members in various stages of group development. By referring to this model, a facilitator can gain some insight into the inevitable stages through which a group must pass before attaining the benefits of stage four. This insight is useful both in planning group-learning situations and for monitoring a group’s progress while it is in session.

As a tool to facilitate group communication and development, the model is most effective at stage three of a group’s development. At this point, the members have experienced stages one and two and are in a receptive mode to internalize the implications of stage four. The model provides them with a goal they can visualize and work toward. Paying earnest attention to strategies for reaching stage four can facilitate the movement to that stage.

If the concepts of the model are presented when a group is in stage one, they may fall on deaf ears, receiving only polite attention. If presented in stage two, the concepts become food for conflicts or are ground into oblivion by the process of organization. At stage four, the model is unnecessary.


REFERENCESCharrier, G.O. (1974). Cog’s ladder: A model of group development. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), The

1974 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Cooke, P., & Widdis, W. (1988). Guidelines for interventions in groups. Unpublished manuscript.

Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977, December) Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.

SOURCESJones, J.E. (1973). A model of group development. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The l973 annual

handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Jones, J.E. (1974). Group development: A graphic analysis. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. II, rev.). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Pfeiffer, J.W., & Ballew, A.C. (1988). Presentation and evaluation skills in human resource development (UATT Series, Vol. 7). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.





zx GROUP FUNCTIONS

There are three basic functions that consume a group’s time and energy: task, interaction, and self-orientation. Boshear and Albrecht (1977) adapted the work of Bernard Bass (1962) to incorporate the concepts of direct and indirect activities that affect the group process. In any group, the time and energies of the members may be considered to be directed toward one of three basic functions:

1. Task-oriented behavior is aimed at accomplishing the objectives of the group. These objectives might be called “work”; they include things such as developing goals, requesting facts, offering information, clarifying issues, seeking consensus, or specific work such as writing, building, manufacturing, or repairing. Task objectives also could be called “play”; this would include things such as skiing, walking, fishing, camping, or participating in a sport.

2. Interaction-oriented activities relate to the group process—the operation of the group as a group. Behaviors that might indicate attention to interaction are encouraging, expressing feelings, attempting to reconcile disagreements, compromising for the benefit of the group, attempting to keep communication channels open, and setting or applying standards for group performance.

3. Self-oriented activities relate to meeting individual needs rather than helping the group in its task. These behaviors might include emphasizing personal issues, concerns, desires, and needs; dominating the discussion; interrupting others; wasting time; not listening; and pouting. Self-oriented activities may or may not be helpful to the task-oriented or interaction-oriented functions of the group.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ACTIVITIESThe activities of the individual members in relation to the three basic functions may be direct or indirect. In direct behavior, there is agreement between the apparent reason for a member’s behavior and the real reason. Indirect behavior is motivated by a reason the member does not reveal to the group. Such covert motives often are called “hidden agendas” because they are not on the open, shared agenda of the group. For example, if group members support an idea simply because they think it is a good one, they are engaging in direct behavior. If, however, they support the idea as a way to gain favor with the person who introduced the idea, they are engaging in indirect behavior.

The figure at the end of this article shows the relationship of the concepts and the range of possibilities for group functioning.

Each group has its own characteristic way of performing the three basic functions. In a “closed” group, the primary direct activities are restricted to task-oriented functions.


The members give direct attention to interaction-oriented functions only if they are necessary to the task. For example, a certain amount of social behavior is allowed to enable members to get acquainted, provided that it does not go on too long. Personal issues or self-oriented behaviors are discouraged.

In contrast to closed groups, other groups have norms that are more tolerant of interaction-oriented and self-oriented behaviors. The self-orientation of the members is even the primary focus of some groups in which interaction issues are dealt with only to the extent that they do not interfere with the personal needs of the individual members. The group either has no task or is so enmeshed in personal issues that the task receives no direct attention.

USE OF THE CONCEPTThis conceptual framework is useful in a group’s effort to establish and maintain its norms and plan its expenditure of resources. It also can be used to facilitate a group’s ability to observe and monitor its own processes.

REFERENCEBass, B.M. (1962). Manual for orientation inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

SOURCEBoshear, W.C., & Albrecht, K.G. (1977). Understanding people: Models and concepts. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer

& Company.





zx GROUP MEMBER ROLES

According to Benne and Sheats (1948), group training frequently assumes that leaders are responsible for the success of a group. Consequently, training often focuses excessively on the role of the group leader. Benne and Sheats reason that if groups are composed of both leaders and members, then an over-emphasis on group leadership neglects the relative importance of the roles enacted by group members. Members and leaders jointly share responsibility for group success.

Benne and Sheats classify group member roles under three major headings: task roles, building and maintenance roles, and individual roles.

TASK ROLESTask roles center around getting the job done, the content of the group’s activities, and what the group accomplishes. Task roles enacted by group members include:

n initiator-contributorn information seekern opinion seekern information givern opinion givern elaboratorn coordinatorn orientern evaluator-criticn energizern procedural techniciann recorder

BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE ROLESBuilding and maintenance roles evidence concern about group process and how tasks are done. Building and maintenance roles include:

n encouragern harmonizer


n compromisern gatekeeper and expeditern standard setter or ego idealn group observer and commentatorn follower

INDIVIDUAL ROLESIndividual roles have to do with the ways in which group members satisfy their individual, personal needs; they do not necessarily relate to group accomplishment. Individual roles include:

n aggressorn blockern recognition seekern self-confessorn playboyn dominatorn help seekern special-interest pleader

Benne and Sheats maintain that all members’ roles are functional and all are necessary for group success. However, different roles are required at different stages of group development, and not all roles are required at all times. For example, the mixture and distribution of task-role requirements are functions of task progress; the distribution of building and maintenance roles are functions of group maturity; and individual roles are functions of individual maturity. For example, task roles that seek and give information probably would be more functional in early stages of task definition than would the evaluator-critic or procedural technician roles; the standard setter or ego ideal would likely be more functional as the group matured to levels more accepting of higher standards. The occurrence of individually focused roles will be significantly more noticeable as the group matures.

Each role contributes to group functioning and each hinders group functioning in some manner. An over-emphasis on task roles may require counterbalancing by building and maintenance activities; an over-emphasis on individual roles may require a shift to task and/or building and maintenance roles if the group is to function optimally.

Benne and Sheats suggest that it is no longer appropriate to look only to group leaders as the source of group quality and productivity. Members, as well as leaders, are ultimately responsible for group success. Thus, the development of diagnostic skills to


assess group role behavior as well as the group members’ ability to enact a variety of roles can significantly increase a group’s potential for quality and productivity.

REFERENCESBenne, K.D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49.

Benne, K.D., & Sheats, P. (1951). Functional roles of group members. Human Relations and Curriculum Change, pp. 98-104.





zx BEYOND-PERSONALITY INVENTORY: - Southern ...home.snu.edu/~jsmith/library/MS_word/v25/p088-100.doc · Web viewAccording to Benne and Sheats (1948), group training frequently assumes

Documents