Group Development: Are The Changes Coherent Enough To Be Phases, or Merely Activity Clusters?

Group Development
Dave Seibold Professor, Department of Communication, L&S Co-Director, Graduate

Program in Management Practice, Technology Management Program, CoE COMM 106:
Lecture 7
• Goals for Lecture Evaluate ‘popliterature’ on grp development
Learn about theories -- and theory building -- in the area Analyze own
groups in terms of these theoretical perspectives
• Fundamental Issues
Do groups “change” over time?
If so, do all groups change in same ways? (Unitary sequences)
Or do different groups change in different ways?

(Multiple sequences)
Or do different groups change in different ways? (Multiple
sequences)
Are the changes coherent enough to be phases, or

merely activity clusters?
Or do different groups change in different ways? (Multiple
sequences)
Are the changes coherent enough to be phases, or merely activity
clusters?
How can these changes be explained?
• “Phase” of Group Development

A qualitatively different subperiod of
interaction
within an overall period of time in which a
group proceeds
from initiation to completion
of a problem
• Elements of Group“Theories”
Scope Conditions: type of group and task(s) specified
Description: relationships among variables
Explanation: generative/causal mechanism(s)
Predictions: testable/falsifiable
Rooted in interaction
Account for permanence and change
• Elements of Group“Theories”
Capture imagination/innovative
Parsimonious/elegant
Heuristic value
• Overview of Theories/Models
Group Development
Task Self-Analytic
Bales & Strodtbeck Bennis & Shepard
Braden & Brandenberg Schutz
Fisher
Tuckman
• Bales Equilibrium Theory
Interdependence affects group
cooperation/competition
Task goals promote interdependence

Interdependence affects cooperation/competition
Task goals promote interdependence
Groups’ main function = task achievement
Focus on instrumental activity threatens group

stability
Interdependence
Task goals
Main function = task achievement
Instrumental activity threatens stability
Expressive activity to counteract tensions

and build solidarity to accomplish task

Interdependence
Task goals
Expressive activity counteracts task tensions
Groups have tendency toward equilibrium

Interdependence
Task goals
Expressive activity counteracts task tensions
Tendency toward equilibrium
Principle of homeostasis
• Bales’ Coding Scheme:

Interaction Process Analysis (IPA)
Gives Information Asks for Information
Gives Opinions Asks for Opinions
Gives Suggestions Asks for Suggestions
Agrees Disagrees
Releases Tension Creates Tension
Shows Solidarity Shows Antagonism
• Bales and Strodtbeck’s
Three Phases of Group Development
Stage 1: Orientation
Stage 2: Evaluation
Stage 3: Control
• Bales and Strodtbeck’s
Stage 1 Orientation
Group members may individually comprehend the
group's task orientation, but the focus of this phase
is reaching collective consensus regarding the
group's task.
• Bales and Strodbeck’s

Stage 2 Evaluation
Group members must reach consensus on what their
attitudes will be regarding the task and what value
judgments (evaluations) they will use to solve their
problem.
Stage 3 Control
Group members focus on deciding what to do about
the problem they face.
Near end of allotted time, members realize
decisions concerning solutions must be made.
They feel pressured to take control of the process
by completing the task.
Evidence for stages: in N=22 groups
47% of orientation acts occurred in Stage 1
36% of evaluation acts occurred in Stage 2
40% of control acts occurred in Stage 3
Focus of stage a function of most frequent act?

# of stages an artifact of sampling at 3 points only?
Heuristic value of IPA research:
Some members talk more consistently than others

Most talkative receive most attention
Discrepancy between most talkative and peers
increases with group size
Different members predominate in particular IPA
categories, suggesting role specialization
Heuristic value of IPA research: (con’t)
Interaction profile of typical group is stable:

2/3=task activity, 1/4= +socio-emotional acts,
and 1/12= -socio-emotional acts
Groups reveal different patterns: kids groups=more negoative
socio-emotional, therapy grps=75%task
Prob-Solv groups: % of info acts declines over time
and socio-emotional increase (esp during final stage)
• Braden and Brandenberg’s
Phase 1: Members self-centered w/own socio-
emotional needs. Atmosphere tense; frustration and
conflict evident; decision making difficult.
Phase 2:
Phase 3:
Phase 1: Members self-centered.
Phase 2: Members realize self-centeredness is

dysfunctional. React by becoming overly group-
centered.
Phase 3:
Phase 1: Members excessively self-centered.
Phase 2: Members overly group-centered.
Phase 3: Members balance self-centered needs and

group-centered needs. Goals internalized, task work
proceeding/accomplished.
• Fisher’s Coding Scheme
Dimension 1: A - Asserted
B – Seeking
Dimension 2: 1 – Interpretation
2 – Substantiation
3 – Clarification
4 – Modification
5 – Summary
6 – Agreement
• Fisher’s Coding Scheme

Dimension 3: f – favorable toward proposal
• u – unfavorable toward proposal
• a – ambiguous toward proposal
Other Codes:On – origin of a decision proposal

• Dn – reintroduction of a decision
proposal
• Example:
– A2fO3 = a favorable assertion substantiating the third decision
proposal introduced
• Fisher’s Model of
Decision Emergence
• Orientation Phase
• Conflict Phase
• Emergent Phase
• Reinforcement Phase
• Orientation Phase
A. Verbal acts reflect getting acquainted, clarifying,
tentatively expressing attitudes
B. Few assertions; opinions expressed ambiguously;
ambiguous statements reinforced
C. Agreement used to facilitate interaction, not to
reinforce ideas (flight from task)
D. Excessive primary tension
• Conflict Phase
• Verbal acts indicative of dissent,
polarized attitudes
B. Conflict over decision proposals;
direction of group now more important
C. Direction of group now important
(no flight from task)
D. Tentativeness, ambiguity end
• Emergent Phase
A. Fewer unfavorable acts
B. Favorable comments followed by favorable
comments; Unfavorable comments followed
by ambiguous ones (opinions being modified)
C. Dissent reduced
D. Interpretative acts repeated
• Reinforcement Phase
• Significantly more acts of
favorable interpretation and
favorable substantiation
B. Few ambiguous and unfavorable acts
(consensus emerges)
C. Dissent has almost vanished
D. Unity affirmed; members commit to decision
• Bennis & Shepard's

Theory of Group Development
I. Dependence Phases
II. Interdependence Phases

A. Dependence-Flight
B. Counterdependence-Fight

C. Resolution-Catharsis

A. Enchantment-Flight
B. Disenchantment-Fight

B. Disenchantment-Fight
C. Consensual Validation
• Schutz’s Theory
of Group Development
I. Theoretical Constructs (F.I.R.O.)
II. Postulates of Group Development - 2

A. Inclusion (I)
A. Inclusion (I)
B. Control (C)
A. Inclusion (I)
B. Control (C)
C. Affection (A)
A. Principle of Group Integration:

I, C, A, (may repeat) . . .

A. Principle of Group Integration:
I, C, A, (may repeat) . . . . .
B. Principle of Group Resolution:

. . . . . . . . . . A, C, I
• Task Development of Group: Tuckman’s Four

Phases
• Orientation
• Emotional Response to Task Demands
• Open Exchange of Relevant Interpretations
• Emergence of Solutions
Phases
Orientation:
Members implicitly or explicitly orient themselves
to answering questions such as "What is our task?"
"What is expected of us?" "How will we proceed?"
"What information is needed?"
Phases
Emotional Response to Task Demands:
Members must reconcile their own orientations to

the task with the group's emerging orientation.
Phases
Open Exchange of Relevant Interpretations:
Members focus their task activity on sharing opinions,

suggestions, solutions concerning whatever the
group is working on.
Phases
Emergence of Solutions:
Members adopt an alternative that seems acceptable
for solving their problem, and they complete their
task work.
• Social Development of Group: Tuckman’s Four
Phases
Forming: Testing-dependence
Storming: Intragroup conflict
Norming: Development of group cohesion
Performing: Functional role-relatedness
Phases
Testing-Dependence:
Group members appear to be “dependent” on the
leader. They also “test” each other to see what
types attitudes and behaviors will and will not be
permitted in the group.
(Forming)

Phases
Intragroup Conflict: Members display their
individuality and resist group structure. Conflicts
between members center around a key issue: To
what degree will individual members become
interpersonally involved in and committed to the
group and its work? (Storming)
Phases
Development of Group Cohesion: Because of the
discomfort associated with conflict in the previous
phase, group members seek harmony. Once
members accept the group, norms are established to
ensure its perpetuation (e.g., re: attendance, how
disagreements will be handled, etc.).
(Norming)

Phases
Functional Role-Relatedness:
Group members build on the cohesion of the previous
phase to develop stronger interpersonal relations.
They also adopt different group roles. Both of these
dynamic to facilitate group progress and task
accomplishment. (Performing)

Phases
A Fifth Phase?
Adjourning?
• Theories of Group-Induced Social Influence

Position 1: No influence
Position 2: Influence through preference display
Position 3: Influence through information
Position 4: Influence through preference display &
information
Position 5: Influence through interaction
• Overview of Theories/Models
Group Development
Social
Bales & Strodtbeck
Braden & Brandenberg
Fisher
Self-analytic
Bennis & Shepard
Schutz

Group Development: Are The Changes Coherent Enough To Be Phases, or Merely Activity Clusters?

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

Group Development: Are The Changes Coherent Enough To Be Phases, or Merely Activity Clusters?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group Development

Dave Seibold Professor, Department of Communication, L&S Co-Director, Graduate

Or do different groups change in different ways?

Are the changes coherent enough to be phases, or

How can these changes be explained?

• “Phase” of Group Development

Task goals promote interdependence

• Bales Equilibrium Theory

Groups’ main function = task achievement

Focus on instrumental activity threatens group

Expressive activity to counteract tensions

• Bales Equilibrium Theory

Groups have tendency toward equilibrium

• Bales Equilibrium Theory

• Bales’ Coding Scheme:

• Bales and Strodbeck’s

Focus of stage a function of most frequent act?

Some members talk more consistently than others

Interaction profile of typical group is stable:

Phase 2: Members realize self-centeredness is

Phase 2: Members overly group-centered.

Phase 3: Members balance self-centered needs and

• Fisher’s Coding Scheme

Other Codes:On – origin of a decision proposal

• Bennis & Shepard's

• Bennis & Shepard's

• Bennis & Shepard's

• Bennis & Shepard's

• Bennis & Shepard's

II. Postulates of Group Development - 2

II. Postulates of Group Development - 2

A. Principle of Group Integration:

II. Postulates of Group Development - 2

B. Principle of Group Resolution:

• Task Development of Group: Tuckman’s Four

Members must reconcile their own orientations to

Members focus their task activity on sharing opinions,

• Social Development of Group: Tuckman’s Four

• Social Development of Group: Tuckman’s Four

• Social Development of Group: Tuckman’s Four

• Theories of Group-Induced Social Influence

You might also like