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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
