Groupwork Assignment

Introduction
This paper will examine the process and dynamics operating in a scenario involving a
group of advertising executives who have met five times without yet
achieving any productive outcomes. The analysis will loosely follow the
steps of the Mental Map proposed by Bundey et al. (1986, p.B30). In the
first section I will use elements of the Group Process Model to identify
problems in the group’s functioning relating to issues such as leadership,
role differentiation, stage of development, level of trust, decisionmaking
procedures, and task and maintenance needs. I will then use features of
the Group Dynamics Model to examine factors that might be contributing
to these problems, before suggesting some possible intervention strategies
that might help move the group towards desired outcomes.
Identifying Problems
The most obvious—and ultimately the most important—problem this group seems to
be struggling with is avoidance of its main task (Bradford, 1976, p.22),
which is to design an advertising campaign for a superannuation
company. It is reasonable to expect that a A properlyfunctioning group
with such a clearly circumscribed task as this should would have made
significant progress after five meetings. Their failure to do so is especially
surprising given that group members are all executives of their company,
and therefore have the financial, professional and personal incentives of
creating and pitching a winning advertising campaign, and saving
themselves the time and effort of holding unproductive meetings.
There are several other problems in the group that are closely related to their lack of
task focus. The first of these is that First, they do not seem to have
established a clear timeline for completing their task. Evidence for this is
members’ willingness For example, members have been willing to spend
Page 1
Jim Beattie Groupwork Skills Assignment 1:
Analysis of Scenario
five meetings going ‘round in circles with no logical and productive
outcomes’. Second, they spend much time discussing and joking about
matters that are only loosely related to their task, and their engagement in
these discussions appears to be quite superficial. In a healthy and
productive group, such informal discussion could be playing a valuable
maintenance role in the group’s formation and growth (Bradford, 1976,
ch.6). However, in this case, group members seem not to be are not
engaging in any significant selfdisclosure, in these conversations, and
there is no evidence that they are expressing support and acceptance of
fellow group members’ thoughts and feelings. Furthermore, their casual
discussions are not functioning as a way for group members are not using
their conversations to show their readiness to cooperate with each other
and accommodate each others’ points of view. As a result, members are
effectively insulating themselves from developing one of the most
significant characteristics of effective groups—namely, trust (Bundey et
al., 1986, p.B53; Gibb & Gibb, 1978, p.4).
A third problem that is contributing to the group’s lack of progress on its task is the
fact that they have allowed dysfunctional, unspoken group norms to
become established (Bradford, 1976, p.46). This involves both task and
maintenancerelated norms. I have already drawn attention to the practice
of allowing informal discussions to be superficial and free of trust
building elements, . This does not appear to be which is not operating as a
fruitful maintenancerelated norm. within the group. Similarly, the fact
that members are prepared to allow discussion of the advertising
campaign to go around in circles is a good example of an ineffective
taskrelated norm—as is their practice of not dealing with seeking to
explore and resolve the strong and conflicting opinions members express
about the campaign. The fact that taskrelated conflict is not being
Page 2
handled in a solutionfocused way is also an indication that the group has
not devoted sufficient time and thought towards establishing clear and
effective decisionmaking procedures—another crucial component of the
Group Process Model advocated by Bundey et al. (1986, pp.B40–B44;
see also Gibb & Gibb, 1978, p.7. Gitterman, 1989, p.14 also discusses the
importance of structured collective decisionmaking in the development
of interpersonal support and competence in groups).
A less obvious implicit norm that seems to be working against both the maintenance
and task needs of the group is the norm of not questioning the group’s
need of the group to develop explicit strategies for addressing their
problems. they are encountering. In fact, there is little evidence that
members of the group have even acknowledged to themselves—let alone
to each other—that they are encountering any problems. This is suggested
by the fact that For example, they have now met on five occasions five
times without any apparent change in their approach to meetings, . They
and they seem to be expecting the very act of coming together to facilitate
the achievement of their goal.
A fourth problem that appears to be plaguing the group is insufficient differentiation
and clarity of members’ roles (Bundey et al., 1986, pp.B44–B45; Garvin,
1981, p.96; Gitterman, 1989, p.13). For example, each of the two
copywriters has a prima facie claim to being responsible for writing the
copy for the campaign, and each of the art directors may be imagining
that it is her or his role (or right?) to come up with the art work.
Alternatively, each may be assuming this to be someone else’s
responsibility. However, there is no evidence that there has been any no
discussion of these expectations, and of the part they may be playing in
keeping the group ‘stuck’. Meanwhile, although it is clear that the
Account Manager’s role is to brief the creative teams and coordinate the
Page 3
pitch to the client, it is not clear from the information provided whether it
is also her1 role to facilitate the group’s creative work on the proposal.
Therefore, there may be some uncertainty among group members—
including the Account Manager—about what role she should be playing
in their meetings, as well as uncertainty about whether they need someone
to play the role of facilitator at all.
Probable Causes of Dysfunction

All of the problems identified above are closely intertwined, and it is very difficult to
establish with any certainty how they are related to each other causally.
Nevertheless, when we consider these problems in the context of the
Group Dynamics Model proposed by Bundey et al., the most likely cause
of the group’s inability to function productively is a lack of adequate and
appropriate leadership for a newlyformed group (Bundey et al., 1986; see
also Garvin, 1981, p.91).
This lack of leadership may be closely connected with the insufficient differentiation of
group members’ roles just discussed, in the sense that the Account
Manager may not even be conceiving of
The Group Dynamics Model suggests that the most likely cause of the group’s inability
to function productively is a lack of adequate leadership for a newly
formed group (Bundey et al., 1986; see also Garvin, 1981, p.91). This
may result from the Account Manager’s overidentification with the
group, if she is not confident of her ability to provide appropriate
leadership (Mink, Mink & Owen, 1987, pp.117–118). However, a more
likely explanation is that she does not even see herself as having a
leadership role to play in the creative process. This is closely connected
with the group’s insufficient differentiation of roles discussed earlier. All

1
For the sake of linguistic expediency I will assume that the Account Manager is female.
Page 4
group members work in the same company, and may have known each
other quite well professionally before the group was formed. They may
expect the group to function like a larger version of the creative teams
they are already familiar with, and may therefore assume that they will
achieve their goals without developing new norms, roles and decision
making procedures to suit this group.
If this is the case, how might it have come about? One possibility is that it stems from
the fact that all members of the group work in the same company. It is
therefore likely that they knew each other moderately well before the
group was formed—at least at a professional level. It is also likely that
some of the group members had worked together before this project.
Indeed, the fact that the group includes two creative teams, each
comprising a copywriter and an art director, suggests that members might
be expecting the group to function just like a larger version of the teams
they are already familiar with. These expectations, in turn, may be
encouraging them all—including the Account Manager—to assume that
they will be able to achieve their goals
just by getting together and tossing around a few ideas—hence the norm, discussed in
the previous section, of ignoring the task and maintenance needs of this
particular collection of people, and the failure of an effective leader to
emerge in the group.
If this is a correct diagnosis of the group’s stagnation, it is nevertheless arguably the
responsibility of the Account Manager to make it clear that she does not
see herself as having a leadership role to play in the creative process.
Granted that she has been identified as the Account Manager, members of the creative
teams could be forgiven for assuming that she would take responsibility
for steering proceedings.
Page 5
If this is correct, the Account Manager should nevertheless make it clear that she does
not see herself as having a leadership role to play in the creative process,
because the other group members are likely to be assuming that she will
play this role. If the group is to progress, she will therefore need to
facilitate the selection of a group leader. On the other hand, there seems
to be nothing preventing any one of the other group members from
assuming volunteering to play this role. responsibility for facilitating the
process, if they realised that this was needed. After all, they They are all
company executives; and it is the copywriters and art directors who are
likely to know best what needs to be done in developing the details of an
advertising campaign. This suggests that there is something of This
points to a ‘conspiracy of silence’ in relation to the group’s need for
leadership, and a concealment of members’ feelings and motivations
about each other and the group process (Gibb & Gibb, 1978, p.7).
—at least to the extent that members are able to conceive of themselves as having made
inadequate progress.
As a result of this lack of leadership, the advertising executives seem to be stuck in a
very early stage of group development. For example, in the PreGroup
Convening stage of Hartford’s model, a group is characterised by a lack
of structure and trust, and members have a high level of reliance on the
leader to help them begin the process of moving towards in the process
of group formation, and in identifying a common course of activity
(Bundey et al., 1986, p.B33). In the group under consideration here, no
one has taken on a leadership role to steer them through this critical
phase. As a result, they are However, this group is making no progress
towards establishing the sort of cohesive structure and trust necessary for
them to move into stage 2 of Hartford’s model—the Group Formation
Stage (p.B34).
Page 6
Similarly, in Schwartz’s model (Bundey et al., 1986, pp.B35–B36) the first stage
(tuning in) involves leader tasks that are not evident in our group (e.g.,
developing empathy and trust within the group). This suggests that the
The advertising executives have therefore not even begun the process of
group formation according to this model (Bundey et al., 1986, pp.B35–
B36; see Schulman, 1986, for further discussion of Schwartz’s work).
By contrast, according to Schutz’s model, our this group might initially appear to be
grappling with the stage 2 issue of control (pp.B36–B37), given that it is a
lack of leadership that seems to underpin their stagnation. However, the
group has not even addressed issues of inclusion adequately (stage 1)—
e.g., whether members can identify with the group’s goal, and whether
they feel they have enough in common to work effectively together. Thus,
they seem to be stuck at or before stage 1 of Schutz’s model. , and so it is
perhaps more useful to view them as being stuck at or before this stage.
Similar comments can be made about the group’s performance in relation
to several the other models of group development (see, e.g., Gibb &
Gibb, 1978).
discussed by Bundey et al., making it clear that this group is battling serious problems
in even getting the group formation process started.
What are some of the factors that might be sustaining the group in such a dysfunctional
pattern?
On the assumption that , in some sense, the Account Manager does see herself as the
group’s facilitator, having a potential facilitating role to play in these
meetings, it may simply be a lack of group leadership skills and
experience on her part that is keeping things stuck. A consequence of this
inexperience might be her inability to recognise that a leadership style
that is very laissezfaire (Bundey et al., 1986, p.B15–B17) and non
Page 7
directive (Jacobs, Masson & Harvill, 1998, pp.22–24) is inappropriate for
the sort of taskoriented group in question—or at least while they have
not yet developed a productive pattern of working together.
This would certainly explain why the Account Manager has not assumed a leadership
role in the group. However, it fails to explain why none of the other group
members has yet stepped in to fill this ‘leadership vacuum’. , and tried to
satisfy some of the group’s maintenance or task needs. The fact that
group Group members have strong and conflicting views on how to
approach the campaign, which means suggests that they may believe
their individual interests are best served by allowing the group to remain
immobilised. For example, group members may be operating with hidden
agendas (Bradford, 1976, p.34; Gibb & Gibb, 1978, p.7) based on such
factors as professional or personal rivalry, an ideological or other
objection to the client company, unwillingness to compromise their
personal vision for the campaign, or sheer creative burnout. Alternatively,
and for similar reasons, the two creative teams in the group may
effectively be operating as cliques (Garvin, 1981, p.96) or collusive sub
groups (Benson, 1987, p.196), each determined to get its own way by
exhausting the other team with both trivial and fruitlessly
uncompromising discussion.
Possible Interventions and Desired

Outcomes
Perhaps the
The most pressing need of the group is for one of its members to assume some
leadership responsibility. —at least for the purpose of dislodging the
unproductive pattern they seemed to be locked into. This could come
from any member of the group, but more naturally sits with the Account
Page 8
Manager. Among the various problems identified above, the The most
obvious obstacle to the group’s progress on its task is the absence of a
constructive approach to dealing with conflict. However, it is unlikely
that this will this will not change while the level of trust in the group
remains low, and while individual differences have not been recognised
and accepted (Mink et al., 1987, p.116). Therefore, the facilitator’s initial
focus might most profitably be directed at building trust.
It would not seem be appropriate here to use the sort of exercises often recommended
for trustbuilding—such as selfdisclosure ‘rounds’, or a ‘blind trust
walk’ , etc. (Jacobs et al., 1998, pp.219–220). This is because a A
superficial level of familiarity already exists among members, which may
make a selfconscious attempt to build trust seem like a backward step to
some group members: ‘We already know each other. Why bother with all
this Mickey Mouse selfdisclosure nonsense?’ Besides, the ostensible
focus of the group is very task rather than maintenanceoriented, which
makes a more taskoriented approach to building trust appropriate.
With these factors in mind, at
At least three quite different interventions are possible. possibilities arise. First, the
Account Manager could make being stuck a communal problem (Benson,
1987, pp.196–197), and broach the subject of the group’s lack of progress
on its task in a quite direct way, perhaps along the following lines:
AM: Well, we’ve had five meetings now, and we don’t seem to be any closer to agreeing on a
proposal for this campaign. I think we need to spend a bit of time trying to work out what’s
stopping us from making progress, and maybe a brainstorming session will help us do that.
Because you’re used to working in your own creative teams I suggest that’s how we get started.
Then perhaps we can pair up the art directors and the copywriters from each team and see what
they come up with, before we open things up for general discussion. How does that sound?
Page 9
This intervention has several positive features. First, while it is aimed squarely at a
group maintenance problem, it is nevertheless linked in a very clear way
with the group’s task. Second, because there is no history of leadership in
the group, it is framed in a slightly tentative way (‘I think…’; ‘…
maybe…’; ‘I suggest…’; ‘…perhaps…’; ‘How does that sound?’).
However, its message is very direct: it would be difficult for group
members to object to it on any reasonable grounds. Third, the proposed
use of brainstorming dyads (Jacobs et al., 1998, p.188–196; Benson,
1987, p.197) varies the dysfunctional process the group has lapsed into. ,
and, while While this is not guaranteed to make things better, it stands a
good chance of doing so because it focuses the group’s attention squarely
on a key maintenance issue.
Fourth, members will have a chance to talk in a couple of different dyads. This creates
a better opportunity for any underlying dynamics that are helping to keep
them stuck to emerge. Thus, if a group member is unwilling to disclose
something to one person, they may be prepared to disclose it to another.
Finally, the Account Manager leaves herself out of the dyads, and could
even busy herself out of earshot while the others talk. This allows for a
freer discussion of members’ leadership expectations of her, which is
likely to be a key factor in their perceptions of the group’s problems.
However this has a potential disadvantage, in the disadvantage that the
Account Manager will miss out on learning about important concerns
members have that they are not prepared to share with when dyads report
back to the whole group. Ideally, then, the Account Manager could seek
ways of being part of the dyadic work—provided this does not make the
group’s process too laborious and drawnout.
Given the history of the group, it is hard to imagine an entirely appropriate moment at
which to make this intervention. A sudden ‘flash’ of leadership such as
Page 10
this could disorient and alienate other group members. Nevertheless, if it
marked the start of a consistent change in the Account Manager’s role, it
could sow the seeds of considerable progress.
A second possible intervention, again using the idea of dyads, would be to make a
much more direct approach to the group’s task, and to facilitate pairwise
discussions (followed by group sharing) that were aimed at (e.g.) setting a
timeline for completion; agreeing on conflict resolution and decision
making procedures in relation to rival proposals; and evaluating the
merits of specific proposals for aspects of the campaign. This strikes me
as a little This may be too taskfocused for a group with such serious
maintenance problems; and some of these goals may result from the
earlier, less direct intervention anyway. It as this group has. It might
therefore work better as a followup to that proposal. the intervention
suggested earlier, although there could well be more maintenance work to
be done before it was appropriate. Also, the aim of my earlier suggestion
Also, my aim was not to make dyads the group’s standard way of
functioning, but rather to help free up the process. I would expect that, if
this worked, members would gradually move towards being able to tackle
most of their task and maintenanceoriented activities as a group, with
dyads being used only to address specific issues that required this format.
They are, This is, after all, a very small group.
A third, less structured option for intervention would be to focus on the group’s
unproductive use of informal discussion, and try to shift its focus towards
a higher level of selfdisclosure. The Account Manager has several
important leadership roles to play here, such as identifying group themes
(Gitterman, 1989, pp.14–15), perceiving maladaptive patterns (pp.16–17)
searching for common definitions and perceptions (p.18) and modelling
expressions of feelings that can build trust in the early stages of group
Page 11
development (Benson, 1987, pp.175–176). The following intervention is a
succinct illustration of all these roles. This need It does not involve
disclosure of deeply personal material, and is framed to suit the strong
task focus of this group:
would probably be most effective in this group if it was at least loosely taskrelated—
for example:
AM: You know, I’m really starting to get frustrated and bored with these meetings. I don’t know what
anyone else thinks, but I get the feeling we’re just going around in circles and not making any
progress. Is anyone else getting that feeling?
If there are serious hidden agendas or entrenched cliques at work, this intervention
might fall on deaf ears, because there may not yet be a sufficient level of
trust for group members to share such feelings in the full group.
Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile at least trying this approach as a
more informal way of leading into the first dyadic intervention proposed
above. In any case, the Account Manager should aim at reining in the
group’s unproductive conversation or, preferably, trying to harness it in
the interests of building greater trust along the lines just indicated. —most
obviously by modelling the sort of disclosure of feelings just suggested,
and encouraging it from others.
Ultimately, the
The most important desired outcome of all these possible strategies is that the group
reach agreement on the details of the advertising campaign within a
timeframe they all accept as reasonable, and that all group members feel
as if they have made an appropriate , valuable and valued contribution to
that outcome. If the group is to work together on future projects, it is also
desirable that their arrival at this point is not accidental. That is, their
Their later functioning as a group would depend on the extent to which
Page 12
they had established robust yet flexible role differentiation and group
norms that met the group’s maintenance and task needs; had developed a
group process marked by a consistently high level of mutual trust,
openness, support and cooperative intentions (Bundey et al., 1986,
p.B53); and were able to deal constructively with hidden agendas and any
other dynamics that might impede their progress.
Conclusion
This discussion has loosely followed the steps of the Mental Map advocated by Bundey
et al. (1986) to identify problems in the group’s process, distinguish
factors in the group’s dynamics that may be contributing to these
problems, and propose some possible interventions aimed at freeing the
group from its current impasse in order to bring about desired task and
maintenance outcomes. It has only been possible to examine a small
sample of possible interventions. Moreover, the likely success of such
interventions would depend greatly on the skill with which they were
deployed, the personal and professional profiles of group members, and
many other factors that are not specified in the description of the scenario
under discussion.
Page 13
References
Benson, J. (1987). The skills of creative groupwork. In Working more creatively
with groups (pp.174–200). London: Tavistock.
Bradford, L.P. (1976). Making meetings work: A guide for leaders and group
members. La Jolla, CA: University Associates, Inc.
Bundey, C., Cullen, J., Denshire, L., Grant, J., Norfor, J., & Nove, T. (1986). Group
leadership. North Parramatta, NSW: Western Sydney Area Health Promotion
Centre.
Garvin, C.O. (1981). Contemporary group work. New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
Gibb, J.R., & Gibb, L.M. (1978). The group as a growing organism. In Group
development (2nd ed.) (pp.1–13 in Readings). California: Bradford Associates.
Gitterman, A. (1989). Building mutual support in groups. Social Work with
Groups, 12(2), 5–21.
Jacobs, E.E., Masson, R.L., & Harvill, R.L. (1998). Group counseling: Strategies and
skills (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Mink, O., Mink, B., & Owen, K. (1987). Recognizing and utilizing individual
differences. In Groups at work (pp.114–158). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Schulman, L. (1986). The dynamics of mutual aid. In The skills of helping
individuals and groups (pp.51–60). Illinois: Haworth Press.
Page 14

Groupwork Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Groupwork Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Probable Causes of Dysfunction

Possible Interventions and Desired

You might also like