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 ‘pop literature’ 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?
Fundamental Issues
Do groups “change” over time?
If so, do all groups change in same
ways? (Unitary sequences)
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)
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)
Are the changes coherent enough to be
phases, or merely activity clusters?
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)
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
Hueristic value
Overview of Theories/Models
Group Development
Task
Bales & Strodtbeck
Braden & Brandenberg
Fisher
Tuckman
Self-Analytic
Bennis & Shepard
Schutz
Bales Equilibrium Theory
Interdependence affects group
cooperation/competition
Task goals promote interdependence
Bales Equilibrium Theory
Interdependence affects cooperation/competition
Task goals promote interdependence
Groups’ main function = task achievement
Focus on instrumental activity threatens
group stability
Bales Equilibrium Theory
Interdependence
Task goals
Main function = task achievement
Instrumental activity threatens stability
Expressive activity to counteract tensions
and build solidarity to accomplish task
Bales Equilibrium Theory
Interdependence
Task goals
Main function = task achievement
Instrumental activity threatens stability
Expressive activity counteracts task tensions
Groups have tendency toward equilibrium
Bales Equilibrium Theory
Interdependence
Task goals
Main function = task achievement
Instrumental activity threatens stability
Expressive activity counteracts task tensions
Tendency toward equilibrium
Principle of homeostasis
Bales’ Coding Scheme:
Interaction Process Analysis (IPA)
Gives Information
Gives Opinions
Gives Suggestions
Asks for Information
Asks for Opinions
Asks for Suggestions
Agrees
Releases Tension
Shows Solidarity
Disagrees
Creates Tension
Shows Antagonism
Bales and Strodtbeck’s
Three Phases of Group Development
Stage 1: Orientation
Stage 2: Evaluation
Stage 3: Control
Bales and Strodtbeck’s
Three Phases of Group Development
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
Three Phases of Group Development
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.
Bales and Strodbeck’s
Three Phases of Group Development
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.
Braden and Brandenberg’s
Three Phases of Group Development
Phase 1: Members self-centered w/own socioemotional needs. Atmosphere tense; frustration
and conflict evident; decision making difficult.
Phase 2:
Phase 3:
Braden and Brandenberg’s
Three Phases of Group Development
Phase 1: Members self-centered.
Phase 2: Members realize self-centeredness is
dysfunctional. React by becoming overly groupcentered.
Phase 3:
Braden and Brandenberg’s
Three Phases of Group Development
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
A. 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
A. 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
Bennis & Shepard's
Theory of Group Development
I. Dependence Phases
A. Dependence-Flight
Bennis & Shepard's
Theory of Group Development
I. Dependence Phases
A. Dependence-Flight
B. Counterdependence-Fight
Bennis & Shepard's
Theory of Group Development
I. Dependence Phases
A. Dependence-Flight
B. Counterdependence-Fight
C. Resolution-Catharsis
Bennis & Shepard's
Theory of Group Development
I. Dependence Phases
A. Dependence-Flight
B. Counterdependence-Fight
C. Resolution-Catharsis
II. Interdependence Phases
A. Enchantment-Flight
Bennis & Shepard's
Theory of Group Development
I. Dependence Phases
A. Dependence-Flight
B. Counterdependence-Fight
C. Resolution-Catharsis
II. Interdependence Phases
A. Enchantment-Flight
B. Disenchantment-Fight
Bennis & Shepard's
Theory of Group Development
I. Dependence Phases
A. Dependence-Flight
B. Counterdependence-Fight
C. Resolution-Catharsis
II. Interdependence Phases
A. Enchantment-Flight
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
Schutz’s Theory of Group
Development
I. Theoretical Constructs (F.I.R.O.)
A. Inclusion (I)
B. Control (C)
C. Affection (A)
Schutz’s Theory of Group
Development
II. Postulates of Group Development
A. Principle of Group Integration:
I, C, A, (may repeat) . . .
Schutz’s Theory of Group
Development
II. Postulates of Group Development
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
Task Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four 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?"
Task Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four Phases
Emotional Response to Task Demands:
Members must reconcile their own
orientations to the task with the group's
emerging orientation.
Task Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four Phases
Open Exchange of Relevant Interpretations:
Members focus their task activity on sharing
opinions, suggestions, solutions concerning
whatever the group is working on.
Task Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four 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
Social Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four 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)
Social Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four 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)
Social Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four 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)
Social Development of Group
Tuckman’s Four 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)
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
Tuckman