Group Dynamics Group Stages and Development Group 6 MSOD 613 January 2014
Transcript
Slide 1
Slide 2
Group Dynamics Group Stages and Development Group 6 MSOD 613
January 2014
Slide 3
Relevance to OD Why Knowledge of Group Stages and Development
Matters Establishes the group as its focus of study and analysis
Presents a lens for OD practitioners to raise awareness of hidden
processes Provides longstanding models of the stages of development
that integrate into current practices and interventions Contributes
studies on group formation, group communication, causes of group
commitment and individual influence within groups Mitigates issues
like getting stuck by providing reframe anchors for leaders Group
development principles ensure group discussions are productive by
recognizing normal versus abnormal (conflict, leadership, group
progressions, outside forces) Helps to understand human behaviour,
particularly in groups OD practice requires frequent and in-depth
group work Click Here
Slide 4
Contents 1.Group Stages and Development 2.Theoretical
Orientations 3.Integration of Theories 4.Examples 5.Application
6.Group 6 Reflections 7.Additional Resources
Slide 5
Group Stages and Development
Slide 6
Stages of Group Development Premises Shared by All Group
Development Models Groups are epigenetic. Each stage builds on the
success of the preceding one. It is then important to ensure that
each stage develops appropriately. Group development is likely to
regress under conditions threatening group integrity. Healthy
groups concentrate on the here and now. As the group develops,
there are changes in the group behaviour, which become more
interactive, more effective, and described in less intellectual
ways. Advice is replaced by exploration, the group becomes more
self directed and less leader centred. (Yalom, 2005)
Slide 7
Model 1: Most well-known model, developed by Bruce Tuckman in
1965 StageRelationshipsInteractionsTask Function
FormingDependenceSafe, patterned behavior, desire for acceptance
and safety. Reliance on group leader for guidance & direction.
Behavior is keeping things simple and avoiding controversy.
Orientation to tasks and to each other, discussion around scope of
task, how to approach it. To move to next stage must risk
possibility of conflict. StormingCompetition & Conflict
Personal relations in the group become conflicted as group members
organize for the task. Individuals have to adjust their own
feelings, attitudes, ideas and beliefs to suit the group
organization. There are questions about rules, who does what,
criteria for evaluation and conflicts over leadership, structure,
power. Group needs to move to problem-solving mentality to get to
the next stage. NormingCohesionThere is active acknowledgment of
all members contributions and a sense of community within the
group. Leadership is shared and trust in each other and the group
increases. Major task function is data flow among members. There is
a high level of sharing and collaboration, much creativity and
openness. PerformingTrue Interdependence This stage is not reached
by all groups. If reached, group members can work independently, in
subgroups or as a total unit with equal levels of ease. Group
members are both highly task oriented and people oriented. This is
the most productive stage. There are high levels of morale, group
identity and loyalty. AdjourningTermination of task behaviors &
disengagement from relationships Important to address the
apprehension some may feel as they give up inclusion in the group,
recognize participation and achievement, give members an
opportunity to say their goodbyes. The activities of the group are
winding down. Need to facilitate task termination and
disengagement. 7 Models of Group Stages
Slide 8
Tuckmans Model 7 Models of Group Stages Click Here
Slide 9
Model 2: Another model with elements similar to the Tuckman
model developed by Wheelan (1990, 1994a)
StageRelationshipsInteractionsTask Function Dependency and
Inclusion Concerns about safety (of the group) and inclusion
issues. Members are significantly dependent on the leader (as well
as powerful group members) for direction. Members may engage in
pseudo work and have discussions about outside topics not relevant
to the groups goals or functions. Counter- dependency and Flight
Conflict is an inevitable part of this process. Disagreements among
group members about group goals and procedures are characteristic
of this stage. Conflict is necessary for establishing trust and
creating an environment where members are empowered to disagree
with each other. The group is developing a unified set of goals,
values and operational procedures which inevitably generates
conflict. Trust and Structure Trust, commitment to the group,
willingness to cooperate Communication is more open and task-
oriented. Negotiations around roles, task, organization and
procedures have matured. Members focus on solidifying positive
working relationships with each other. Work StageIntense team
productivity and effectiveness Increased member trust, commitment
to the group and willingness to cooperate. Communication is open
and task-oriented. Members solidify positive working relationships
with each other. Group focuses its energy on goal achievement and
task accomplishment. Distinct Ending Point (or not) Team disbands
and members go their separate ways Impending termination may cause
disruption and conflict in some groups. Address separation issues
and allow members to appreciate each other and the group
experience. 7 Models of Group Stages
Slide 10
Model 3: Stages of group development are compared to the major
stages of life (birth, fulfillment, ascension, culmination,
closure) from Albert-Lorincz Eniko, Katalin Barna (2013)
StageRelationshipsInteractionsTask Function MeetingMutual
exploration and testing limits between group members Dependence on
group leader, group members demand safety, struggle to keep
identity, group makes efforts to solve problem situations. Activate
the need for safety. StructuringStruggle for role hierarchy,
compromises The groups values and norms are formed in this stage
and conflict resolution methods are worked out. Activate the need
for love and belonging. Work StageCollaborationMembers of the group
are task oriented. Intra- and interpersonal issues are worked out.
Taboos are destroyed. Activate the need for esteem and acceptance.
Presentation of Results CohesionThe group works together in a
mature fashion to solve problems. They each practice the new roles
they have taken on during the previous stages. Activate the need
for self-realization. DetachmentExperience the lossGroup members
exhibit a state of independence and autonomy. There is a period of
reintegration and consolidation where they find an effective and
harmonious way of working. Activate the need for self-realization
(same as above). 7 Models of Group Stages
Slide 11
Group Stages Perspective from I.D. Yalom Development may be at
times linear, and times cyclical, and the boundaries between stages
are not clear. Groups do not graduate from one phase and move to
another. Consider group development as changing a tire one tightens
the bolts just enough one after another until the wheel is in
place, and then repeats the sequence again this is similar to what
happens in groups, revisiting the same stage from a different
perspective, but at a deeper level (e.g. high engagement, low
conflict follow by periods of lower engagement and higher
conflict). It is better to think about stages as group tasks.
Leaders / therapists must be aware of the anti-group forces
(individual and societal). o Fear of merging o Fear of loss of ones
sense of independence o Loss of ones fantasy of specialness o Fear
of seeking out being turned away Model 4: Developed by Yalom (2005)
uses Tuckmans model as a start point to present the stages of
development in psychotherapy groups. It is important to note the
nuances and comments he makes about those stages some of which can
extend to working groups. 7 Models of Group Stages
Slide 12
StageRelationshipsInteractionsTask Function The First Meeting
Concern with task and initial membership and affiliation Actions
that a therapist may take (leader) to decrease anxiety. Therapist
begins to shape the norms of the group. Activate the need for
safety. The Initial Stage Orientation, Hesitant Participation,
Search for Meaning, Dependency Group seeks understanding how to
achieve primary task or purpose of why they join. As well as attend
social relationships that will allow members to express their
individuality as well as enjoy the pleasures of being part of the
group. Activate the need for purpose, love and belonging. Concern
with: In or Out Second Stage / Storming Conflict, Dominance,
Rebellion Establish a social pecking order individuals ascertain
preferred amount of initiative and power. Sources of conflict:
reactions to leader, scapegoating, change & struggle for
control. Activate the need for dominance, power, control. Concern:
Top or Bottom. Third StageDevelopment of Cohesiveness There are two
phases: a.Mutual Support: low conflict but may plateau if group
suppresses negative feedback, in order to remain a united front.
b.Advance Stage able to work with the tension that emerges as
conflict and differentiation is permitted to emerge. Productive
Working Phase characterized by intimacy, engagement and genuine
cohesion. Concern: Near or Far TerminationExperience the lossTry if
at all possible to finish task at hand with as few regrets as
possible about work undone, emotions unexpressed or feelings not
shared. Feelings of loss and bereavement. Model 4: (Yalom),
continued 7 Models of Group Stages
Slide 13
Model 5: M.S. Poole views group development as phases versus
stages. Instead of developing in rigid stages, groups go through
continuously developing threads of activity which can be
intertwined. Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_development PhaseDescription
Task Track The task track concerns the process by which the group
accomplishes its goals, such as problem analysis, idea generation
and designing solutions. Relation Track The relation track deals
with the interpersonal relationships between the group members. At
times, the group may stop its work on the task and focus instead on
its relationships, share personal information or engage in joking.
Topic Track The topic track includes a series of issues or concerns
the group may have over time. Breakpoints Breakpoints occur when a
group switches from one track to another. Shifts in the
conversation, adjournment, or postponement are examples of
breakpoints. 7 Models of Group Stages
Slide 14
Model 6: Gersicks Punctuated Equilibrium model suggests that
groups experience periods of intense productivity punctuated by
periods of concentrated change. The model suggests the occurrence
of these period is influenced mainly by time. Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_development StageDefinition
Phase 1 A framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through
which a group approaches its project emerges in its first meeting,
and the group stays with that framework through the first half of
its life. Teams may show little visible progress during this time
because members may be unable to perceive a use for the information
they are generating until they revise the initial framework.
Midpoint At the calendar midpoint, groups experience
transitions-paradigmatic shifts in their approaches to their work,
enabling them to capitalize on the gradual learning they have done
and make significant advances. The transition is a powerful
opportunity for a group to alter the course of its life midstream.
If this transition is not used well, it is unlikely to alter its
basic plans again. Phase 2 A second period of inertial movement
takes its direction from plans crystallized during the transition.
At completion, when a team makes a final effort to satisfy outside
expectations, it experiences the positive and negative consequences
of past choices. 7 Models of Group Stages
Slide 15
Periods of Rapid Change Change Time Gersicks Model of
Punctuated Equilibrium 7 Models of Group Stages Periods of
Stability Chronological Midpoint Legend
Slide 16
Model 7: As an employee of Procter and Gamble, George Charrier
developed the Cogs Ladder: A Model of Group Growth (Charrier,
1972). The Cogs model is similar to the Tuckman model with more
modern language which might make the stages easier to understand
and relate to. StageRelationshipsInteractionsTask Function Polite
StagePeople connect with each other. Team is getting acquainted and
figuring out how the group will be structured. There may be cliques
at this point and hidden agendas stay hidden. Feedback and
disclosure are minimal. Use agendas during meetings. Share
information in an organized fashion. Ice breaking exercises are
helpful so people get to know each other and begin to participate.
Why Were Here Stage Groups purpose and goals are established. The
objectives and goals for the group are defined and elaborated at
this stage. While identity with the group is still low, there is
some increase in risk taking among members of the group. Share and
talk about what the expectations are for individuals and the group.
Formally define what the goals for the group are. Power StageGroup
members have different ideas and compete for power. There is an
attempts by group members to influence others and competition for
attention and recognition. Feedback can be harsh at this point.
Some groups never progress past this stage. Understand the dynamics
of the group and formulate distinct roles for group members. Share
relevant skills and experience, plan to utilize. Co-operation Stage
Group members start working as a team. At this stage, individual
defenses and barriers come down and the group functions more
cohesively. Openness and trust is established, resources are used
effectively, leadership is shared. Discuss and agree on a common
approach to solving problems. The decision making process should be
based on consensus, unanimity. Esprit StageMutual acceptance and
high cohesiveness. Members of the group accept each other and work
well together. Spirits are high, cliques are absent and there is a
high degree of loyalty to the group. If a new member joins the team
at this point there will be a regression to an earlier stage. Deal
with challenges, expand level of risk taking. The team should
review progress in order to evaluate their performance and
determine how to continue to improve it. 7 Models of Group
Stages
Slide 17
Polite Stage Why Were Here Stage Power Stage Cooperation Stage
Esprit Stage Cogs Ladder by Charrier 7 Models of Group Stages Click
Here
Slide 18
Theoretical Orientations
Slide 19
Overview of Theoretical Orientations Unit of AnalysisFocusRefer
When Curious About:Key Authors Field TheoryPatterns of interaction
between the individual/group and the total field (environment) The
influence behind group members actions. Understanding why group
members interact the way the way they do. Kurt Lewin Interaction
Theory Patterns of social interaction of groups with its activity
in relation to each other and other variables Groups balance two
fundamentals: task- related needs & socioemotional needs (field
and psychology themes) Problem solving, managerial processes,
group, assessment, group observation,team effectivness, group
design, task responsibility, feedback & rewards Robert Freed
Bales George C. Homans William F. Whyte Systems Theory Holistic
view of Individual, group & environmental factors as well as
group processes & outputs. Group members in relation to inputs,
process & outputs Groups are complex, adaptive, and dynamic
systems of individuals and their interactions-members->units
attached via relationships Talcott Parsons Niklas Luhmann
Psychoanalytic Theory Group acting a single entity Interactions at
a conscious and unconscious level Groups that may be struggling to
perform Task Structure breaks down Leader/member dynamics:
dependence, interdependence Positioning of members Groups split in
against or pro-task/leader. Groups gets stuck W. R. Bion Smith
& Berg General Psychology Individual and group interactions
from a psychological perspective Understanding the characteristics
of how groups operate Natural group emergence Group cohesion Social
communication Group conformity Leon Festinger Solomon Asch Five key
theoretical orientations or lenses can be used to view group stages
and development
Slide 20
Lewin Homans Asch Bion Field Theory Interaction Theory Systems
Theory Psychology Theory Psychoanalytic Theory Luhmann Key
Contributors Overview of Theoretical Orientations
Slide 21
Field Theory Field theory is a psychological theory developed
by Kurt Lewin which examines patterns of interaction between the
individual and the total field, or environment (Wikipedia)
Theoretical Orientations
Slide 22
Field Theory Key Concepts (Fairfield, 2004) Example The field
is a unitary whole or web of relationships where everything affects
everything else. When an event occurs such as a disagreement, one
should be suspicious of linear, one-way causality. One group member
verbally provokes the group to become more productive. This could
be because the person: Is accustomed to being in a leadership
position Was taught by his/her parents that groups of people are
inherently unproductive Is not actually provoking, but is from a
different culture Any number of other reasons Rather than merely
admitting a group is embedded in larger systems, field theory
studies the potentially infinite, interpenetrating and
interdependent forces that support the emergence of the figure of
group. What caused the need for this group? Who created it? Why is
each group member present? What groups really are in themselves
remains unknown to us, despite our propensity to classify their
properties. One assumes events can be translated into what is
observed sufficiently so that an outsider will grasp the phenomenon
in the same way; however, nobody can inhabit another persons
perspective exactly. A group leader reports that the group
acclimatized well. However, her perspective is influenced by forces
shes not even aware of, so she cant fully understand and
communicate what actually took place.
Slide 23
Interactive Theory The idea that social interaction is studied
by looking first at the group and its activities then the
personality roles within the group. The foundation of the theory
rests in Field Theory and Psychology. Theoretical Orientations
Slide 24
Interactive Theory Key ContributorsContributions George Homans
Father of Behavioral Sociology & the Exchange Theory Major
contribution to the field was his work titled The Human Group
(1950) where he set an understanding of social behavior and
interaction theory by looking at 3 levels: social events, customs
and hypotheses to test the stability of groups. SourceSource Main
approach: The Exchange Theory economic and psychological foundation
because individuals and behaviors are key to understanding society.
The theory works on the notion of the person or firm and dealing
with the market system. Social Exchange Theory looks at the
relations between people Practiced under the Conceptual Scheme
notion by looking at a set of variables that must be taken into
account when observing groups, describe data under certain
behaviors and external, internal systems, and how the variables
relate to one another. Source Source Robert Bales Influenced by
Field Theory, specifically Kurt Lewin Integrate psychological &
sociological Practiced under the notion that task-oriented groups
go thru the same stages that Tuckman & Lewin studied
Identifying task-oriented or relationship-oriented individuals in
groups is key focus of work SourceSource SYMLOG (Systematic
MultiLevel Observation of Groups): application for assessment &
training for team effectiveness, individual leadership. Four Key
Steps: 1) Observation & Data Collection 2) Data Processing
& Feedback Prep 3) Feedback 4) Learning & Changing Through
Interaction SourceSource Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) or
Equilibrium Model: Three distinct stages: 1)
Socioemotional/interpersonal stage 2) task 3) control. Task
oriented or relationship oriented within a group Source Source
William Whyte Pioneer in participant observation Practice point of
view was from an ethnology lens which resulted in his most well
known piece of work: Street Corner Society (1943) SourceSource
Street Corner Society (1943): Whyte lived in a Boston slum district
for three years where he observed the Italian population (suspected
of danger & crime) tracing back to Mussolini. In Street Corner
Society Whyte documented groups within that district, how gangs
were organized and formed, the difference between a corner boy and
college boy and the dynamic of politics and social structure
related to that district. SourceSource
Slide 25
Examines groups in terms of the interplay between deep
psychological or sociological dynamics (Poole et al., 2004). Main
focus is the affective and emotional side of groups. Psychodynamic
Theory Theoretical Orientations
Slide 26
Psychodynamic Theory W. R Bion (1961)How These Assumptions May
Show Up Describes two types of cultures: 1.Work Groups: engaged in
collaboration, sophisticated (emotionally intelligent), rational
work 2.Basic Assumption: Groups displaying the basic assumptions
are not longer using organisation and structure and cooperation as
weapons of work group(Bion, 1961) Work Groups are conscious, Basic
Assumption (BA) groups are unconscious (McLeod, Kettner-Polley,
2004) Characteristics Looks at unconscious group reactions that
come to the surface when task structure breaks down Leaders-Member
relations--perceptions of how a leader may be viewed when things
are not going well Introduction of notion of valency. Bion defined
it as: ..the individual readiness to enter into combination with
the group in making and acting on basic assumptions; if his
capacity for combination is great, I shall speak of high valency,
if small, of low valency; he can have in my view, no valency only
by ceasing to be human. (Bion, 1961 p.116) The consultant does not
act as a leader, organiser or facilitator of the grouprole
ambiguity central to technique. Contribution to Tavistock Method
treatment of whole group Fight or Flight Group Group unites against
vaguely perceived external enemies Flight group protects group from
infighting Opposition by some members of the group to the
ideology/stream of thought cannot be tolerated Main group easily
splits in sub-groups which fight each other Frequently one
sub-group becomes subservient to the idealised leader. The
Dependency Group (Heavily reliant on leader) Group display
desperate efforts to extract knowledge, power or goodness from
leader, in a forever dissatisfied way Perceived failure of the
leader to line up with such an ideal of perfection met with denial,
then rapid complete devaluation of him and a search for a
substitute leadership Members feel united by a sense of
needfulness, helplessness and fear. Pairing Assumptions (Primal
Scene) Group focus on 2 members a couple, frequently but not
necessarily heterosexual The couple symbolises a magical union that
will save the group from the conflicts related to the dependency
& fight & flight assumptions.Based on Schermer (2000)
Curious Questions Are these Basic Assumptions states always latent
in all groups? Or Do they Surface only when the group is not
working?
Slide 27
Psychodynamic Theory Smith & Berg 1987How These Paradoxes
Show Up: Provides new framework to understand perceived within
group conflict and contradictions. Once understood, these paradoxes
are released without need resolution. They are seen as part of
group life. Smith & Berg said the actual domain of conflict may
be in the system of thinking about an event rather than in the
actual eventthe process of transforming conflict demands therefore
a shift in our modes of thinking.(pg. 649) Based on normal group
behaviour Paradox of Belonging : Involves issues of the trade offs
of group membership Paradox of Engagement/Commitment: involves
trade offs of how much to share of oneself. Paradox of Speaking
(dynamics of influence) Nugget Encourages group to reflect on its
own experience of understanding reality. Paradox of Belonging:
Identity: process through which both identity and individual
identity is formed. Individuals struggle over what to give up to
belong, and group what to invest of itself in its individual
members Paradox of Engagement/Commitment Disclosure: Members must
self disclose..as the group sorts out what is going to be like
members can determine what they need to disclose. Helps with
assessment of strengths and weaknesses matching aspirations with
capacity. Trust: Willingness of the group to trust different voices
within the group specially those that may be providing negative
feedback. Individuality: Group grows and is strengthen by the
individuality of its members. At the same time the group requires
connections, conformity and similarity for its existence. Paradox
of Speaking Authority: Members subordinate their autonomy to the
group for the group to become stronger and represent their
collective interest. By doing this the individual diminishes
herself, and thus the group becomes weaker. Linked to concept of
Self Empowerment. Regression: Willingness of the person to be part
of an integrated entity and in the process experience a temporary
lost sense of wholeness. Creativity: Acknowledging tension of
growth processes i.e. making of new, giving up the old. Tension of
loath and love towards members with alternative (creative) points
of view. Focuses on maintaining the co- existence of both processes
and embracing twin forces of stability and novelty.
Slide 28
Psychodynamic Theory Ringer 2002How To Create A Reflective
Space: Based in psychodynamic view of experiential learning groups
Effective group leaders work with conscious and unconscious
processes Leaders to assist in creating a reflective space to hold
group consciousness. This is a mental construction and not a
physical space. This is an individual and collective space., it
changes overtime as the group develops. Goal is to promote
initiation, development and voicing of ideas and emotions. Group
members develop a mental representation of groups as a whole
creating a durable representation of the group, i.e. self, the
group, and the relationship with the group. Ensure that group
understand that the Reflective Space supports not only talking
about ideas and feelings but also supports, having ideas and
experiencing those feelings. Keep in mind that different group
members will have varying degrees of ability to contribute to and
support the reflective space. Guard against attacks or rejections
of group members thoughts and feelings It is important that you and
other group members acts as if I this reflective space exists
Slide 29
DependencyPairingFight & Flight InstinctsPleasure Seeking
Paradox feeling of feeling taken care of by leading whilst loading
dependency on leader. Expectation & Hope Rescue from all their
problems Pain Avoidancecant face the enemy or are ready to battle
Predominant Dynamic Mechanism Introjection Idealization Devaluation
Denial Repression Splitting Projecting Object
RelationsLeadercontainer breast Object hunger/object loss
Condensation of oedipal & pre-oedipal object relations via the
primal sense Bad, externalized object is pervasive Internal world
is objectless Narcissistic FeaturesOver-idealization of leaders Is
defence against narcissistic injury Narcissistic Self Object merger
with the pair Primary Narcissism Narcissistic Rage Mythic
FeaturesThe leaders is anti-hero, prophet and deity Messianic
myths, myth of the birth of the hero, creation mythologies Struggle
between good an evil Paradise Lost RolesThe duel of the leader
depends and counter-depends Mary & Joseph Over-personal &
Impersonal Flight Leader Fight Leader Biogenetic CareChild rearing
& bondingReproduction & ProductionProtection of Group from
Danger Bions Basic Assumptions (Schermer 2000; McLeod and
Kettner-Polley 2004) Psychodynamic Theory
Slide 30
The idea that one can apply key findings in the field of
general psychology to understand how groups are formed and how
individuals within that group will behave. General Psychology
Theoretical Orientations
Slide 31
General Psychology Key ContributorsContributions Leon Festinger
Studied under Kurt Lewin Best known for theory of cognitive
dissonance (discomfort from holding two conflicting beliefs) Also
known for social comparison theory (people come to know themselves
by comparing self to attitudes, beliefs and abilities of others)
Major Contributions: PROXIMITY EFFECT (group formation can be
predicted by propinquity which is a closer physical and functional
distance between people). INFORMAL SOCIAL COMMUNICATION (one of
major pressures to communicate in a group comes from social reality
(the attitudes and opinions of the reference group). People use
social reality to determine the validity of their own attitudes and
opinions an opinion or attitude is valid to the extent that it is
similar to that of the reference group). GROUP COHESION (cohesion
is the willingness of group members to stick together, the degree
to which they are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in
the group. This is thought to be one of the most important
characteristics of a group and linked to group performance,
intergroup conflict and therapeutic change. As group cohesiveness
increases, member participation and member retention also
increase).
Slide 32
General Psychology Key ContributorsContribution Solomon Asch
American Gestalt psychologist & social psych pioneer Studied
impression formation, prestige suggestion, conformity and other
topics Became famous in 1950s for experiments on the effects of
social pressures on conformity in groups Conformity is an
individuals tendency to follow unspoken rules or behaviors of a
social group, can also be defined as yielding to group pressure
Aschs Findings: Group members would give an incorrect answer (i.e.
conform) in a group setting one third of the time even though
individually they had the correct answer 98% of the time (due to
desire not to face ridicule from the rest of the group) Conformity
increases as size of group increases up to a group size of 4 -5
(therefore four is considered to be the optimal group size) When
even one other person goes against the majority, conformity
decreased by up to 80% (suggests that people conform due to concern
about what others think of them) The more difficult the task, the
greater the conformity (seems to indicate that when we are
uncertain, we look to others for confirmation) Conformity decreases
when participants are allowed to answer in private (due to reduced
group pressure and lowered fear of rejection) People will conform
more to opinions of someone who is influential and/or of high
status
Slide 33
Groups are complex, adaptive, and dynamic systems of
individuals and their interactions- members->units attached via
relationships Systems Theory Theoretical Orientations
Slide 34
Systems Theory Key ContributorsContributions Talcott Parsons In
1951 Parsons published two major theoretical works, The Social
System and Toward a General Theory of Action The Social system
attempted to present a general social system theory build
systematically from it most basic premises and hence, it featured
the idea of an interaction situation based on need-dispositions and
facilitated through the basic concepts of cognitive, cathectic and
evaluative orientation. Source Wikipedia Niklas Luhmann Luhmann's
systems theory focuses on three topics, which are interconnected in
his entire work. Systems theory as societal theory Communication
theory and Evolution theory Source Wikipedia The core element of
Luhmann's theory is communication. Social systems are systems of
communication, and society is the most encompassing social system.
Being the social system that comprises all (and only)
communication, today's society is a world society. A system is
defined by a boundary between itself and its environment, dividing
it from an infinitely complex, or (colloquially) chaotic, exterior.
The interior of the system is thus a zone of reduced complexity:
Communication within a system operates by selecting only a limited
amount of all information available outside. Source Wikipedia
Slide 35
Theoretical Orientations Systems Approach 2-MTSU.edu Group
Process Click Here
Slide 36
Theoretical Orientations Task Field Theory Individual Group
Psychology Psychodynami c Narrow Focus Broad Focus Interactive
Theory Systems Theory Relationship Environment Illustration of the
connection between the theories based on the key units of analysis
and how the environment, group and individual impact the theory
Source: MSOD 613 Group 6 Click Here
Slide 37
Examples
Slide 38
Examples Larry has an angry outburst during the storming
stage... #&%$!!
Slide 39
Examples Why did this happen to poor Larry? What are all past
and present influences on Larry, including his morning coffee, the
office layout and his neighbors dogs tendency to use his yard? What
happened so far in this meeting today is all you need to explain
it. Simply an expected symptom of Stage 2: Storming Larry was not
hugged enough as a child. Thats Larrys fight response. No one can
have another point of view Field Systems Psychology Interaction
Psychoanalysis
Slide 40
Examples Get your popcorn, take a seat, and get ready to
sharpen your group dynamics knowledge by watching a movie clip
Slide 41
Examples Thin Slicing Technique (Waller, Sohrab and Ma 2013)
Goal: Learn to recognize merging group behavior on a real time
basis Technique: 1.Choose 3 to 5 video-clips 2.Ask participants to
keep in mind the group dynamic themes while they watch the clips
3.Show a clip and ask them to describe the behaviors they saw (no
discussion while watching the clips) 4.Show the clips once more
5.Again, ask participants to identify the behaviors they saw
6.Engage in full discussion regarding behaviors observed: Matching
the theory or research to clip Evaluating which answers are most
suitable Predicting what may happen next, based on what the
behaviors that were observed Discuss the most appropriate actions
for the leader of the team depicted This is a fast paced visual and
oral exercise!
Slide 42
Thin Slicing Technique: Recognizing Emerging Behavior Film
TitleSuggested Behaviors for DiscussionStarting Time Length 21
(Spacey, Ratner, Brunetti, DeLuca & Luketic, 2008) Link to
Movie Socializing new member Explaining task interdependence
00:30:2400:59 Task Conflict, New Team Formation, Cohesion,
Conformity, Loss of Leader, Leadership 01:27:2801:17 Apollo 13
(Grazer & Howard, 1995) Link to the Movie) Relationship
Conflict, Task Interdependence, Trust/Blame 01:25:1102:00 Heat
(Mann, Linson & Mann, 1995) Movie Trailer Power/Status;
Factional Teams, Team Composition, Affect, Emotion & Mood
01:10:1500:47 Little Miss Sunshine (Berger, Friendly, Saraf,
Turtleataub, Yerxa, Dayton & Faris, 2006) Link to Movie Task
Interdependence, Conformity, Escalation of Commitment, Affect,
Emotion, and mood. Task Conflict 00:56:2503:00 Thin Slicing Film
Clips Collection (Waller, Mary J et al. 2013) Examples
Slide 43
Application
Slide 44
Applications Elements that May Influence Group Stages and
Development As leader or facilitator of the group you will need to
keep an eye and understand the following elements that may work for
and against group dynamics Size of group : ideal size of 5 to 7
people. Number of participants needs to be in direct relation to
the size and complexity of the task to avoid natural splits of
sub-groups. Established leader and his/her influence: Leaders
experience in leading teams, Past history of interactions of leader
with group; the commitment/willingness to have a leaderless group.
Time: how long will the group be working together. More care and
time should be taken in building teams that will work together for
extended period of time. Physical proximity to others: Geography
Emerging Behaviour: How does the Group validate one another? Is
there a sense of cohesion? Are participant willing to collaborate?
During the Performing stage is there a tacit agreement toward the
majority to maintain peace? Is this a block to further growth? What
kinds of behaviours are being observed as a Group or individuals?
When are those behaviours triggered? System/organization around
them (Is the environment supportive of team work?) Relationship
between/among members Individual past history (link to expectations
and ideas about groups) Level of individual internal psychological
integration re behaviours such as splitting, projecting, and
development of co-dependency on other group members.
Slide 45
Applications How can Group Stages and Development Work for You?
Useful It gives the practitioner/leader an idea how generally
groups may evolve. Tries to predict human behaviour for both
individual and groups The different theories provide us with data
of how different dynamics may surfaces and what do they mean, for
example when a group verbally attacks the leader. Theories provide
us with a framework to understand/recognise behaviour that may be
hidden to the individual. Helps member(s) grow by assisting with
their own internal integration, i.e. facilitator/leader calling out
those behaviours and dynamics. Harmful Generalizing behaviour by
falling into the trap that one size- fits all. Not all groups
evolve the same way, this may be due to individual past history, or
antecedents of prior work among group members. Justification of an
unproductive event by naming it a stage, not leading to change or
progress Models dont fully describe the mechanisms of change, the
triggers or the time groups may stay in a particular stages. Some
groups may be working at two stage levels at any one time. Models
dont consider group sensitivity to outside influence and
environmental contingencies Either Socio-emotional relationships
within groups relating to leadership, task effecivness,
completion
Slide 46
The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO )
instruments help people understand their interpersonal needs and
how those needs influence their communication style and behaviorand
in the process improve their personal relationships and
professional performance.
Slide 47
The FIRO assessments are based on social need theory: all
living things seek equilibrium between their basic needs and
getting those needs met. They address, gather, and present critical
insights around these fundamental areas: How you tend to behave
toward others. How you want others to behave toward you. What it
does: Helps you in understanding your behavior and its effect on
others. Increases your awareness of your natural strengths and
weaknesses. Provides suggestion for improving the way in which you
relate to others. Its an instrument for emotional intelligence
awareness Self Awareness Communication Building Relationships
Conflict Management Click Here
Slide 48
Psychodynamic Tools
Slide 49
Slide 50
IN THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE TOTAL EXPRESSED AND WANTED IS LOW
Examples Include: Low Expressed Inclusion: I form relationships
based on common interests and skills. Id rather play it safe than
let other know that I want to be included. Low Wanted Inclusion:
May feel invitations are obligations. May not want to be singled
out. OVERALL IS LOW Examples Include: Low Expressed Affection: I
believe that too much self-disclosure is unprofessional. I know
more about colleagues than they know about me. Low Wanted
Affection: May find reassurances as superficial. May become
offended by personal questions. Examples Include: Low Expressed
Control: I accept control from those in authority. I am not
interested in gaining influence. Low Wanted Control: May not want
any control. May find competitive behavior annoying. INCLUSION
CONTROL AFFECTION
Slide 51
So How Does FIRO Fit into Group Dynamics? In the above example,
as a leader if you know someone is LOW Expressive and Wanted, you
may approach them differently to get them to participate. If you
know someone is High Expressive or High Wanted, you may curtail
them from participating too often. It can help your group get
unstuck. GROUP DEVELOPMENT THEORY Affection Issues Control Issues
Inclusion issues Source: Consulting Psychologists Press
Slide 52
GROUP DEVELOPMENT THEORY What is my relationship to others on
the boat? Who is running the motor? Should I go for a boat ride?
Source: Consulting Psychologists Press So How Does FIRO Fit into
Group Dynamics?
Slide 53
Group 6 Reflection
Slide 54
Group Reflection Through The Teams Lens As we were forming, we
started with the preconceived idea that the task at hand was quite
straight forward. However this was not to be the case as just the
title in itself presented its difficulties: groups stages and
development which we initially read as Stages of Group Development.
Some of the developmental theories we were reading did not have
such a thing as stages; this pushed us to question what we were
doing and how we were interpreting the task and Creating Meaning
for Ourselves. The creation of meaning also required that each of
us made up our own minds around releasing and dealing with our
Paradox of Belonging especially the one around individuality as we
all had competing commitments, personal lives especially in the
holiday season, other assignments to read for, other papers, and
just having a small but significant break. Until then, it was all
about a group of individuals researching particular facets of the
assignment and then collating it all together. This moved us to
experience the many facets of Interactive theory i.e. goal/ task,
our relationships with one another and the group activity. There
were also significant challenges around logistics i.e. location of
the group members some were travelling and in different time zones.
These logistical challenges and the experience of understanding and
accommodating each others working styles moved us into the storming
stage. The Dynamics at Play
Slide 55
Through The Teams Lens However, through all this we managed to
stay connected and focused. As a team we embraced what was new
technology for some such as Acrobat Workspaces, which we used to
update new versions of docs that we were working on. Overall our
group had/s a fairly positive outlook - and we did not see any of
the Base Assumptions come to the fore. All voices were heard when
in attendance, and decisions were made around plausibility, time
constraints, skill set, risk and time management (e.g. how much
more to research, how much to debate etc., and when to get on and
execute.) This level of cooperation denoted the norming stage.
Paradox of Commitment we managed that by having minutes for
meetings to remind each other what we have said, what to do and by
whenfor some members the deadlines meant a way to challenge
themselves (Myer-Brigs Ps) while for others it meant delivering at
all costs (Js). During this project our Js came to the foreand felt
rather anxious and fighting not to do more (research/reading) to
cover perceived gaps. As a group we managed our collective angst by
accepting feedback, pursuing leads that were provided by other
group members, and by being extremely open to suggestions while
still remaining task focused. Group Reflection The Dynamics at
Play
Slide 56
Through The Teams Lens As we grew more comfortable with one
another, as well as with the fact that we had most of our basis
covered we were able to release the Paradox of Creativity that is
embrace making up new such as incorporating new research and
interpretation as well new ways of presenting our material i.e.
website. We managed collectively to create a Reflective Space for
all. Towards the end of our project we moved to a stage where we
were both task and people oriented (performing)., with high levels
of morale and contribution by all members of the team. Laugh
Barometer: We did chat for about a good 10 to 12 hours all up. What
became apparent was that the laugh barometer got louder in spite of
the deadline getting closer. Rework as with any human interaction
there was a spanner thrown for good measure (feedback from our
Professor) and some healthy debate we finally experienced what is
called Advanced Group Development that is continue to express our
POVs, felt that one is heard, and after agreement continue to move
on with fear of any repercussion in a virtual environment that was
psychologically safe. Group Reflection The Dynamics at Play
Slide 57
Additional Resources
Slide 58
Sources for Additional Information on Each Orientation
Interactive Theory Bales Robert (2005): Interaction Process
Analysis: A Method for the Stufy of Small Groups (link)link Bales
Robert (1999): Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement
(link)link Homans GC (1991): The Human Group: Classics in
Organization and Management (link)link Homans GC (1977): Behavioral
Theory in Sociology: Essays in Honor of George C. Homans (link)link
Whyte WF (1991): Social Theory for Action: How Individuals and
Organizations Learn to Change (link)link Whyte WF (!993):
Sociological Forum, Vol.8, No.2: Revisiting Street Corner Society
(link)link Field Theory Fairfield M.A. (2004). Gestalt Groups
Revisited: A Phenomenological Approach. Gestalt Review, 8(3):
336-357. (link)link Forsyth D.R. (2006) Group Dynamics,
Introduction to Group Dynamics. Chapter 1. Thompson Learning Inc.
(link)link Yalom, I. D. and Leszcz, M.(2005) The Theory and
Practice of Group Psychotherapy. 5 th Edition. Perseus Books Group,
Cambridge. General Psychology Kurt W. Back, Stanly Schachter Leon
Festinger: Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human
Factors in Housing, (link)link Perceived Cohesion: A Conceptual and
Empirical Examination (link)link Group Processes (link)link
Overviews of Leon Festinger and his work (link)link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Asch
http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm
http://psychology.about.com/od/socialinfluence/f/conformity.htm
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Asch Experiment. Retrieved from:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.htmlhttp://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/13/asch-elevator-experiment/
http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Aschs-Conformity-Study.pdf
http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/socialpsychology/section8.rhtml
Slide 59
Additional Resources Sources for Additional Information on Each
Orientation Systems Theory Systems Theory: (link)link Talcott
Parsons: (link)link Niklas Luhmann: (link)link Psychodynamic Theory
Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in Groups and other Papers.
Routledge, London, Great Britain. Eniko, A and Barna, K. The
Evolution of a Psychodrama Training Group From the Perspective of
the Group Process. Journal of Psychological and Educational
Research, 2013, 21 (1) May, 91-104. Mcleod, P. L and
Kettner-Polley, R. B. (2004) Contributions of Psychodynamic
Theories to Understanding Small Groups. Small Group Research (35)
pp 333-361. On-line version:
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/35/3/333 Poole, M. S. and
Holligshead, A. B. et al. (2004) Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Small Groups. Small Group Research (35) 3-16. On-line version:
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/35/13http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/35/13
Ringer, T. M (2002) Group Action-The Dynamics of Groups in
Therapeutic, Educational and Corporate Settings. Jessica Kingsley
Publishers, London. Schermer, V. L (2000). Beyond Bion: The Basic
Assumptions States Revisited in Bion and Group Psychotherapy,
Malcolm Pines, ed. London, Jessica Kingsley. pp139-149. Smith, K.
K. And Berg, D N. (1987) A Paradoxical Conception of Group
Dynamics. Human Relations, (40), pp 633-658. On-line version
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/40/10/633. Smith, K. K. And Berg,
David N. (1987) Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict,
Paralysis and Movement in Group Dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.