Group development

{{Groups]]

Group development The goal of most research on group development is to learn why and how small groups change over time. To do this, researchers examine patterns of change and continuity in groups over time. Aspects of a group that might be studied include the quality of the output produced by a group, the type and frequency of its activities, its cohesiveness, the existence of conflict, etc.

A number of theoretical models have been developed to explain how certain groups change over time. Listed below are some of the most common models. In some cases, the type of group being considered influenced the model of group development proposed as in the case of therapy groups. In general, some of these models view group change as regular movement through a series of "stages," while others view them as "phases" that groups may or may not go through and which might occur at different points of a group's history. Attention to group development over time has been one of the differentiating factors between the study of ad hoc groups and the study of teams such as those commonly used in the workplace, the military forces, sports or many other contexts.

= Theories and Models =

In the early seventies, Hill and Grunner (1973) reported that more than 100 theories of group development existed. Since then, other theories have emerged as well as attempts at contrasting and synthesizing them. As a result, a number of typologies of group change theories have been proposed. A typology advanced by George Smith (2001) based on the work of Mennecke and his colleages (1992) classifies theories based on whether they perceive change to occur in a linear fashion, through cycles of activities, or trough processes that combine both paths of change, or which are completely non-phasic. Other typologies group theories based on whether the primary forces promoting change and stability in a group are internal or external to the group. A third framework advanced by Andrew Van de Ven and Marshall Scott Poole (1995), differentiates theories based on four distinct "motors" for generating change. According to this framework, the following four types of group development models exist:

Some theories allow for combinations and interactions among these four "motors". For example, Poole (see below) found in his empirical research that seemingly complex patterns of behavior in group decision making result from the interplay of life-cycle and teleological motors.

An important observation made by McGrath and Tschan (2004) regarding the different models of group development found in the literature is that different models might explain different aspects of the history of a group. On the one hand, some models treat the group as an entity and describe its stages of development as a functioning unit or "intact system" (p. 101). In this case, the models should be independent of the specific details of the task that the group is performing. On the other hand, some models might describe phases of the group's task performance and, because of this, tend to be very sensitive to the type of task that the group is engaged in (the "acting system", p. 101).

Below are descriptions of the central elements of some of the most common models of group development (See Smith, 2001 and Van de Ven & Poole, 1996 for a more complete list of theories and models)

Kurt Lewin's Individual Change Process
The origins of the systematic study of group development have been linked as far back as the work of Kurt Lewin, who introduced the term group dynamics (Arrow et al., 2005). His ideas about mutual, cross-level influence and quasi-stationary equilibria, although not very common in the traditional empirical research on group development, have resurged recently. His early model of individual change, which has served as the basis of many models of group development, described change as a three-stage process: unfreezing, change, and freezing.

Robert Bales' Interaction Process Analysis
Studies pioneered by Bales since the early 50s (Bales, 1950, 1953, Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951) focused on discovering the sequences of activities through which groups reach solutions (ideally or in practice) and have used various systems of categories to analyze results. By abstracting the rhetorical form of group members' talk from its content and recording percentages of statements made in categories like "agree" and "gives orientation," this type of research has created models of the structure of group discussion over time. The classic model proposed by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) describes a unitary sequence of three phases in groups' movement toward goals: orientation, evaluation, and control.

Bales also proposed a principle of "equilibrium" which states that a group continuously divides its attention between instrumental (task-related) needs and expressive (socioemotional). It is to maintain balance between these two concerns that a group engages in the three distinct progressive phases of orientation (exploration), evaluation (seeking opinions), and control (norms that guide actions).

Tuckman's stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning
Bruce Tuckman reviewed about fifty studies of group development (including Bales' model) in the mid-sixties and synthesized their commonalities in one of the most frequently cited models of group development (Tuckman, 1965). The model describes four linear stages that a group will go through in its unitary sequence of decision making. A fifth stage was added in 1977 when a new set of studies were reviewed (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

Tubbs' Systems Model of Group Development
Stewart Tubbs "systems" approach to studying small group interaction led him to the creation of a four-phase model of group development:

==

=Further challenges=

Apart from the question of the validity of the research methods used and the generalizations that can be made based on the types of groups studied, there still remain some significant challenges in the study of group development. As some researchers have pointed out (e.g. Tuckman, 1965) group development models often provide only snapshots of groups at certain points of their history but do not fully describe the mechanisms of change, the "triggers" that lead to change or the amount of time that a group might remain in a stage. Furthermore, naturally-occurring groups tend to be highly sensitive to outside influences and environmental contingencies, but few models account for these influences.

Models of "small" group development are also related to those of organization development but operate at a different level of analysis. Despite their differences, both areas of work attempt to understand patterns and processes of collective change. Both fields should strive to develop "process-oriented" theories, which according to Poole and Van de Ven (2004):


 * Provide a deep understanding of how change comes about by describing the generative mechanism that drives the process;
 * Can account for path dependence and the role of critical events in change and innovation; and
 * Can incorporate the role of human agency in change without reducing it to causal terms.

A number of questions still remain unanswered in the study of group development over time. As McGrath and Tschan (2004) stated, some of these challenges include:


 * Do groups of all types change in the same way?
 * Are the temporal patterns in groups in fact developmental stages with the changes patterned so that the same kinds of structures and processes occur in the same fixed sequences for all groups?
 * If there is a fixed sequence of stages of development, are the stages of equal or different durations? Do all groups go through these stages at the same rate?
 * Is the pattern of stages immutable or subject to alteration by unique circunstances or events external to the group?
 * If a given group does not follow a fixed sequence of stages, is variation in the sequence indicative of malfunction in the group's development or maturation, or does it merely express normal variation arising from initial or contextual conditions? (p.102)

=References=
 * Arrow, H. (1997). Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 75-85.
 * Arrow, H., Henry, K. B., Poole, M. S., Wheelan, S. A., & Moreland, R. L. (2005). Traces, trajectories, and timing: The temporal perspective on groups.  In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 * Bales, R. F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-Wesley.
 * Bales, R. F. (1953), The equilibrium problem in small groups, in T. Parsons, R. F. Bales and E. A. Shils (eds.), Working Papers in the Theory of Action, Free Press, 111-61.
 * Bales, R. F., and Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951), Phases in group problem-solving, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485-95.
 * Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, Ney York, Basic Books.
 * Chang, A., Duck, J., & Bordia, P. (2006). Understanding the multidimensionality of group development. Small Group Research, 37 (4), 327-350.
 * Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53-66.
 * Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. The Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 9-41.
 * Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 32 (2), 274-309.
 * Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. The Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 10-36.
 * Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
 * Hare, P. (2003). Roles, relationships, and groups in organizations: Some conclusions and recommendations. Small Group Research, 34 (2), 123-154.
 * Hill, W. F., & Gruner, L. (1973). A study of development in open and closed groups. Small Group Behavior, 4(3), 355-381.
 * Lacoursiere, R. B. (1980). The life cycle of groups. New York: Human Sciences Press.
 * Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1 (1), 5-41.
 * McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
 * McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22 (2), 147-174.
 * McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Temporal matters in social psychology: Examining the role of time in the lives of groups and individuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 * Mennecke, B. E., Hoffer, J. A., & Wynee, B. E. (1992). The implications of group development and history for group support system theory and practice. Small Group Research, 23(4), 524-572.
 * Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1988) Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In J. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (pp. 151-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 * Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1994). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. The Journal of General Psychology, 120 (3), 277-291.
 * Poole, M. S. (1981). Decision development in small groupsI: A comparison of two models. Communication Monographs, 48, 1-24;
 * Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of mutiple sequences in decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 206-232
 * Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341
 * Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups V: Test of a contigency model. Human Communication Research, 15, 549-589.
 * Poole, M. S., & Holmes, M. E. (1995) Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making. Human Communication Research; 22(1) p. 90 -127
 * Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 3-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 * Smith, G. (2001) Group development: A review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions. Group Facilitation; 3, pp. 14-45
 * Tubbs, S. (1995). A systems approach to small group interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
 * Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
 * Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Org. Studies 2:419-27
 * Van de Ven, A., Poole, M.S. (1996). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 510-540
 * Wheelan, S., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group development across time: Reality or illusion? Small Group Research, 34 (2), 223-245.
 * Wheelan, S. A. (1990). Facilitating training groups: A guide to leadership and verbal intervention skills. New York: Praeger.
 * Wheelan, S. A. (1994a). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 * Wheelan, S. A. (1994b). The Group Development Questionnaire: A manual for professionals. Provincetown, MA: GDQ Associates.
 * Wheelan, S., & Hochberger, J. (1996). Validation studies of the group development questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27, 143-170.

=See Also=
 * Group dynamics
 * Group behaviour