Think about a group you have worked in that failed (by whatever standard of failure you like)? At what point did you know the group would fail? Early in the group process? Late? Was there a specific event that triggered your evaluation? Think about a group you have worked in that succeeded? When did you know it would succeed? Was there a specific event that triggered your evaluation?
Group Development
A common typology of stages of group development
Note that the first four are more commonly cited in the literature
Forming
"I" rather than "we" questions
Little trust and tentative involvement
Initial negotiation of role relationships
Other ways of viewing this stage
Orientation
Defining the situation
Generating ideas, plans, and goals
Storming
In general a period of conflict
Assertion of preferences
Conflicts over roles and goals
Competition and high involvement
Other ways of viewing this stage
Dissatisfaction
Develop new skills
Choose/agree on alternatives, goals, and policies
Evaluation
Norming
Development of trust and acceptance
Open negotiation of differences while maintaining positive social relationships
The group becomes a "we"
Long term patterns of behavior (norms) appear
Member roles in the group start to be assumed
Other ways of viewing this stage
Resolution
Develop appropriate roles
Resolve conflicts and develop norms
Evaluation
Performing
Tight integration of group members
A high degree of trust
Attributions are protective of other group members
Tasks are executed synergistically
In terms of problem solving, this phase is about control
Termination or Adjourning
Can be abrupt or gradual
Generally accompanied by a desire to maintain contact
Can be emotional. Often an occasion for some sort of celebration.
Its a good idea to take the time to do a postmortem
What did we do well and poorly
What would we do differently if we worked together again
An opportunity for personal growth, even if you never work with the same group again.
This is a simple but generally effective model of group development
But the real world is more complicated than the model suggests
Some groups never "storm"
Some groups "perform" almost immediately
Many groups never "perform" at all
What really happens:
every group member develops a relationship with the group in stages
inevitably, some go further than others
inevitably, there are points where some members relationship with the group is stronger than others
'this sets up Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model.
Some context: Stages of relational growth:
Preinteraction awareness
Impression formation, often through passive acquisition of knowledge
Initiation
Routine, often scripted interaction
Exploration
Initial self disclosure at social distances
Intensification
Initial interdependence
Riskier self-disclosure
Shared time, activities, space
Personal distance and contact
Define the relationship by naming it (friend, etc)
Personalized language and rules
Intimacy
Strong interdependence
Relationship at least partially defines who we are (self-concept)
Major source of confirmation and acceptance
Highly personalized language and relationship rules
Free sharing of information (high degree of self-disclosure)
Sophisticated understanding of behavior and disclosure
Intimate distances and substantial contact
These stages strongly parallel the group stages from the traditional model
Orientation to pre-interaction awareness and Initiation
Storming to Exploration
Norming to Intensification
Performing to Intimacy
But if group members vary in how far they "commit" to the group
How likely is it that conflict and misunderstanding will result.
We structure our group interaction to minimize these risks
Often by putting things off until time or other pressures force us to address them
Simon's "bounded rationality", which is central to Gersick's observations and ideas
Gersick's Punctuated Equilibrium
The first meeting
Generally establishes the groups parameters and norms
Rapid definition of parameters (norms) which are then assumed
As the group begins to focus on doing work
Patterns established here will likely persist through Phase 1
Phase 1: Orientation and research
The first three stages of the standard model, to the extent they occur, happen here
Marked by systematic but unhurried progress
Many options may be evaluated during this period
The group may also do very little effective work
In general a time for relationship building and collaborative decision making
If you don't take the time now, you probably won't
Transition:
A short task oriented move from research and decision making to creating deliverables
Occurs halfway through the group's timeline
Time pressures are acknowledge
Attention to gaining focus
Eliminating alternatives
Obtaining information
Fine tuning earlier decisions
Structuring the group towards the final deliverables
A dialectical change in a teams functioning
Phase 2: Focus on the deliverable
Generally corresponds to the "performing" stage
"Mechanics"
Execution of the plan for the deliverables
Visible changes in leadership may occur
Research leadership may have different requirements than Deliverables leadership
Unaddressed relational issues become more intense
Completion
The final meeting
Three activities:
Editing and preparation
Attention to outside requirements
Expression of positive and negative feelings
Generally longer than other meetings
Take questions about Exam 1.
Next time
Exam 1. Treat these lecture notes as a study guide. I will answer questions for a few minutes before handing out the exam on Tuesday.
Unless otherwise noted, the contents of this page
were written by participants on the Media Space Wiki, operated by Davis Foulger,
and should be cited accordingly. For example (APA): Foulger, D. and other
participants. (August 27, 2008). Small Group Spring2006 Session11. MediaSpaceWiki. Retrieved on from
http://evolutionarymedia.com/wiki.htm?SmallGroupSpring2006Session11.
MediaSpace Wiki