Effective comm
- 7. Accepts tender emotions Accepts strong emotions Displaces emotions with logic, precision, data, facts, knowledge Rejects strong emotions Rejects tender emotions Uncomfortable with all emotion The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer 8 8 xz 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
- 8. Forming, n Storming, n Norming, and n 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 Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning Polite Why We’re Here
- 9. Bid for Power Constructive Esprit Polite Purpose Power Positive Proficient 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 zx 89 Task Functions STAGES ARE SEQUENTIAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL
- 10. 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
- 11. 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/Pfeiffer 90 xz 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: STORMING The 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
- 12. 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: NORMING In 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
- 13. 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. The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 91 STAGE 4: PERFORMING The 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
- 14. 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: ADJOURNING Tuckman’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 MODEL Facilitators 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
- 15. 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. The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer 92 xz REFERENCES Charrier, 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. SOURCES Jones, 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.
- 16. 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. The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 93 Tuckman Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer 94 xz zx GROUP FUNCTIONS There are three basic functions that consume a group’s time and energy: task,
- 17. 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;
- 18. 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 ACTIVITIES The 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 Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 95 The members give direct attention to interaction-oriented functions only if they are
- 19. 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 CONCEPT This 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. REFERENCE Bass, B.M. (1962). Manual for orientation inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. SOURCE Boshear, W.C., & Albrecht, K.G. (1977). Understanding people: Models and concepts. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company. Direct and Indirect Individual Behavior in Group Functions Subtle attempts to push
- 20. personal projects or to sabotage group efforts Open participation in the work, play, etc., activities of the group Hidden agreements with other group members Suppression or avoidance of interpersonal issues Personal desires, needs, and objectives kept private Disruptive attempts to get attention Open confrontation of interpersonal issues Open disclosure of personal needs, desires, etc., for group attention Indirect Direct TASK INTER- ACTION SELF INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR GROUP FUNCTION The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 9 7
- 21. 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 ROLES Task 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-contributor n information seeker n opinion seeker n information giver n opinion giver n elaborator n coordinator n orienter n
- 22. evaluator-critic n energizer n procedural technician n recorder BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE ROLES Building and maintenance roles evidence concern about group process and how tasks are done. Building and maintenance roles include: n encourager n harmonizer The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer 98 xz n compromiser n gatekeeper and expediter n standard setter or ego ideal n group observer and commentator n follower INDIVIDUAL ROLES Individual 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 aggressor n blocker n recognition seeker
- 23. n self-confessor n playboy n dominator n help seeker n 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
- 24. 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 The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 99 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. REFERENCES Benne, 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. Task Roles Building and Maintenance Roles Individual Roles initiator-contributor information seeker opinion seeker information giver opinion giver
- 25. elaborator coordinator orienter evaluator-critic energizer procedural technician recorder encourager harmonizer compromiser gatekeeper and expediter standard setter or ego ideal group observer and commentator follower aggressor blocker recognition seeker self-confessor playboy dominator help seeker special-interest pleader
- 26. The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 101 zx GROUP STRUCTURE AND PROCESS Eric Berne (1963) developed the group structure and process model as a result of his studies of group dynamics. The model identifies the major internal relationships that exist within all groups. The figure at the end of this article depicts a simplified representation of Berne’s concepts. GROUP SPACE Berne uses the term group space to denote both the physical space that the group occupies and the abstract, psychological space that can be thought of as the group’s “identity.” Groups identify, at least subjectively, both their physical and psychological boundaries. The group’s physical space might be a conference room, a house, a club room, or any other area that is perceived as belonging to the group, either temporarily or permanently. Psychological boundaries are not as distinct, but some external psychological boundary is drawn between members and nonmembers of the group. Everything outside the group space is labeled the
- 27. external environment. Major internal boundaries exist within the group space to separate the group’s members from its leaders. Major internal boundaries may or may not be reflected in the group’s physical arrangement, but they do exist conceptually at all times. The membership region is made up of all the members of the group. The physical and conceptual differences that distinguish each member are known as the minor internal boundaries. Within the conceptual framework of the group space, Berne (1963) identifies three forces that may place demands on a group’s resources: 1. The major group process consists of the interactions between members and leaders. Support for or challenge to leaders is a part of the major group process. Support and challenge frequently occur simultaneously because some members support while others challenge leaders’ credibility, authority, or actions. 2. The minor group process consists of the interactions between group members. “Minor” refers to the importance of these interactions to the whole group; they may not seem minor to the people involved. Minor internal processes include all the interactions that take place between members as they establish and maintain the relationships that allow the group to continue to exist. 3. The external group process
- 28. consists of those areas in which the group interacts with its external environment. External processes may be routine or emergency, active or reactive. For example, a work group may give a routine progress report The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer 102 xz to a person who is not part of the group, or an existing group suddenly may be confronted with an external intrusion. Berne hypothesizes that group cohesion is a force that operates to maintain the orderly existence of a group. He believed that group cohesion can be measured by the group’s ability to work against opposition and successfully overcome external pressure and internal agitation. The separation of the leadership region and the membership region does not imply that specific people always can be fitted into one region or another. The group structure and process model is more like a group snapshot than a group documentation. The model simply depicts a group’s leader and members at a particular point in time. The leadership region also may be occupied by more than one person. In families, for example, the leadership region may be occupied by two parents. USE OF THE MODEL The group structure and process model presents abstract concepts yet has many direct
- 29. applications to everyday problems. For example, the model is an effective aid in problem solving because it points out how work groups’ effectiveness can be eroded by infighting and by interorganizational competition. The model also can provide insight into the dynamics of inclusion versus exclusion and of leaders versus members. REFERENCE Berne, E. (1963). The structure and dynamics of organizations and groups. New York: Grove Press. SOURCE Boshear, W.C., & Albrecht, K.G. (1977). Understanding people: Models and concepts. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company. The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 103 Group Structure and ProcessAdapted from Berne, 1963. The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer 104 xz zx HILL INTERACTION MATRIX (HIM) T he Hill Interaction Matrix (HIM) emerged as William Fawcett Hill (1965, 1973) was developing an instrument to measure group interaction styles. The HIM is a
- 30. comprehensive method for thinking about and discussing group characteristics. It describes and categorizes group interactions from two perspectives, content/style and work/style. CONTENT/STYLE In classifying the subjects of group interactions, Hill identifies four typical categories: topics, group, personal , and relationship . The first two categories are oriented toward nonmembers, and the second two are oriented toward members. The topics category refers to subjects of general interest that are external to the group or the members. The group content includes interactions that have the group and the group processes as subjects. An interaction with one of the members as the subject would be categorized as personal content. The relationship category covers interactions between group members. WORK/STYLE The work style of a group is divided into four categories: conventional, assertive, speculative, and confrontive . Hill considers conventional and assertive to be prework styles, and speculative and confrontive represent the work itself. The figure at the end of this article illustrates the two dimensions of group interaction—content and work
- 31. style—in matrix form. The workstyle dimension will be used to discuss the nature of the intersections. 1. Conventional. In the conventional mode, the group members hold fast to patterned and socially acceptable behaviors. Topical discussions are general, concerning subjects about which most members can agree or, at least, be objective. When the group is the subject, conversation may include operational information, such as meeting times and places, or social discussions about the group and its activities. If the members become personal, their talk is restricted to hobbies, likes, dislikes, general history, etc. The relationships discussed are very superficial, supportive, and flattering to the individuals. 2. Assertive. The assertive style is a pseudoconfrontation style. Although the group members may challenge one another, they do not do so for the purpose of seeking or giving help; they merely are acting out roles. Topical conversations involve gripes about the establishment, the government, the price of food, etc. Discussion about the group is critical and nonconstructive. When group members The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer zx 105 become personal in the assertive style, they brag, show off, complain, or otherwise attempt to set themselves apart from the other group members.
- 32. Relationships frequently are acted out or discussed in an exaggerated manner, either positively or negatively. 3. Speculative. The speculative style characterizes the cognitive work of the group members. It involves asking and answering questions and forming hypotheses. This style represents the intellectual processing of data and experiences. Topical discussions involve subjects relevant to group issues, such as behavioral theories. The group process is evaluated from a critical but constructive position, and the group seeks methods and strategies for improvement. Personal issues of members are examined for causation, consequences, alternatives, etc. Relationships are analyzed and evaluated for their importance or impact on the individual members. 4. Confrontive. Confrontation involves exposing oneself to personal risk, seeking and giving help in real problem areas, and making contact with others on vital issues. Topical issues in the confrontive mode are fully explored to understand all relevant meaning for the participants. In the confrontive style, group processes that have been consciously or unconsciously avoided are examined. Personal concerns of the group members are explored in depth to separate the real underlying issues from the surface distortions. The relationships between members are the subject of reality testing—looking behind assumptions and
- 33. expectations to discover actual relationship issues. Hill defines the first two styles, conventional and assertive, as “prework” because they represent the group’s avoidance or pseudoconfrontation of issues instead of its actual engagement of the issues cognitively in the speculative style or experientially in the confrontive mode. Over the duration of its existence, a group may engage in all the work styles and range over all the content areas. If a large proportion of the group time is devoted to one style or content area, it may be referred to as the group’s style. One version of the HIM includes an additional work style called responsive . It is characterized by reluctant group members whose primary interactions are to respond minimally to group leader interventions. It was not included in this discussion because it is usually not encountered in learning situations; it is observed primarily in therapy groups. USE OF THE HIM The HIM can be very beneficial to a group that is evaluating and monitoring its own behavior. It portrays a wide range of behaviors as possible options for the group, allowing members to conclude or adopt strategies that are most consistent with their objectives. The Pfeiffer Library Volume 25, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer 106 xz
- 34. Not only does the model focus on characteristic behavior for the total group, it also lends itself to analysis of individual behavior. Group members can use the vocabulary of the model in articulating their fears, concerns, or frustrations. Even a subjective positioning of individual-member behavior within the HIM framework can clarify the reasons for misunderstandings and conflict between members. Hill states that there is a deliberate value system in the arrangement of the content and work-style categories. The categories are arranged from left to right and from top to bottom in ascending order of their contribution to growth—as Hill sees it. When this value judgment is observed by group members in the presentation of the model, it is easily dealt with and does not seem to affect the utility of the model. REFERENCES Hill, W.F. (1965). Hill interaction matrix (HIM). Pomona, CA: California State Polytechnic University. Hill, W.F. (1973). Hill interaction matrix (HIM): Conceptual framework for understanding groups. ln J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1973 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company. SOURCE Boshear, W.C., & Albrecht, K.G. (1977). Understanding people: Models and concepts. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.