Number 3 Spring 2001

Special Issue on Group Development

GROUP FACILITATION:
Editorial
A Superlative Task Introduction to the Special Issue on Group Development

A RESEARCH & APPLICATIONS JOURNAL

Sandor P. Schuman Sandor P. Schuman 1 2

Theory and Research

Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions A Critical View of Facilitating Labor-Management Collaboration Marie A. Cini George Smith 3 14

Grant T. Savage & Chadwick B. Hilton

46

Application and Practice

Facilitating Team Development: A View from the Field John E. Jones & William L. Bearley 56

Classics for Group Facilitators

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups Bruce W. Tuckman 66

Book Reviews
The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations by Peter Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, George Roth & Bryan Smith The Logic of Failure: Why Things Go Wrong and What We Can Do To Make Them Right by Dietrich Dorner Success with Soul by Doris Pozzi and Stephen Williams Patricia R. Tuecke 82

Nancy S. Hewison

86

Judy Robb

89

Group Facilitation
A Research & Applications Journal
Number 3 Spring 2001 International Association of Facilitators ISSN 1534-5653

The mission of the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) is to promote, support and advance the art and practice of professional group facilitation through methods exchange, professional growth, practical research, collegial networking and support services. Chair: Greg Brittingham Past Chair: Gary Austin Chair Elect: Jo Nelson Treasurer: Marieann Shovlin Secretary: Jean-Anne Kirk Vice Chair International: Gilbert Brenson-Lazan Executive Coordinator: Robin Bailey Association Coordinating Team Elsa Batica; Nadine Bell; Cecil Carter; Lenny Diamond; Francisco Fernandez; Beret Griffith; Mirja Hanson; Cheryl Kartes; Jean-Anne Kirk; Sue Laxdal; Jake MacDonald; Justine Marchant; Maria Begonia Rodas; Edward Ruete; Sandor Schuman; Barbara Smith; Jim Troxel; Cynthia Vance Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal is published annually by the:

Editor: Sandor Schuman, University at Associate Editors:

Albany s.schuman@albany.edu Lynda Lieberman Baker, MeetingSolutions Inc. Daniel Mittleman, Depaul University Edward (Ned) Ruete, Computer Sciences Corp. Michael Sabiers, SocioTech Solutions Inc. James Spee, University of Redlands Jean Watts, ICA New Orleans Beret Griffith Linda (Sunny) Walker, SunWalker Enterprises Mark Fuller (1997-2000) Mark Adkins; Michael Ayers; Pierre Balthazard; Lew Barsky; Stephen Bather; Bob Bostrom; Robert Briggs; Aileen Buslig; Sharon Cannon; Peg Carlson; Erran Carmel; Dutch Driver; Sari Fried; William Gardner; Joey George; Bill Harris; Dale Hunter; Michelle Jackson; Jon Jenkins; John E. Jones; Gigi Kelly; John Keltner; Stephen King; Sue Laxdal; Don McCormick; Richard Milter; Deborah Pulak; Patricia ReaganCirincione; Bruce Reinig; Susan Rimkus; Judith Robb; Renee Rogers; John Rohrbaugh; Nicholas Romano; Edward Ruete; Michael Sabiers; David Stein; Robert Tobias; Teri Tompkins; Raymond Vles; John Walker; Ken Walsh; Tom Webler; Lonnie Weiss; Julia Young

Book Review Editor: Copy Editor: Past Editor: Reviewers:

International Association of Facilitators

7630 West 145th St., Suite 202 St. Paul, MN 55124 Tel: 612-891-3541 Fax: 612-891-1800 office@iaf-world.org www.iaf-world.org
Copyright 2001 Printed in USA

No copying or excerpting of Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal or any of its contents is permitted, including copying for course readings, without the prior consent of the publisher. Individual articles are available at $5.00 per article from the IAF Office. Quantity orders discounted. Current and back issues may be purchased from the IAF Office. Individuals: $25; Institutions: $40 Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, International Association of Facilitators, 7630 West 145th St., Suite 202, St. Paul, MN 55124

Reprints Subscriptions & Back Issues Postmaster- Send address changes to:

A Superlative Task
Sandor P. Schuman

Editorial

One can hardly contemplate the passing scene of civilized society without a sense that the need of balanced minds is real and that a superlative task is how socially to make mind more effective. - Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, 1938, p. 322. While some might say that group facilitation is just an ordinary task, I believe that group facilitators tend to think of it as an important task, or even an extraordinary task. But who among us has the chutzpah the self-righteousness to assert that group facilitation is a superlative task? Better to turn to a venerated and impartial authority who can issue this bold proclamation! Chester Barnard is such a person, a preeminent mid-twentieth-century corporate executive often called the "father of organization theory." His classic The Functions of the Executive was required management school reading for many decades following its 1938 publication. Though still in print, Barnard's occasionally impenetrable prose has limited the use of his book to only the more rigorous graduate programs, replaced elsewhere by more recent and easily-read authors. Nonetheless, Barnard still challenges us with pertinent ideas that have retained, if not increased, their relevance. In the concluding paragraph of this renowned book, Barnard highlights four very salient points. Society is increasingly complex and organizations are more elaborate. Even more true than in 1938, the idea that society is increasingly complex now is accepted axiomatically. Organizations are greater in number, size and geographical scope. We are more dependent than ever before on elaborate technologies and the equally elaborate organizations that create and rely on them. We are interconnected and interdependent; yet distinct and diverse. The increasing specialization necessitated by such a society brings with it a diversity of methods and purposes that may be inconsistent and foster misunderstandings. To manage our complex, technological world people must be specialized in roles, expertise and skills. This makes effective communication, sharing of knowledge, and interpersonal understanding more difficult. This difficulty occurs not only at the level of substantive issues but also at the underlying levels of method (how people think about issues) and purpose (why they think about them). Misunderstandings occur between individuals, of course, and even more crucially between large groups of people. What is needed are balanced minds that integrate feeling with reasoning, sense the net balance, and perceive the parts as well as the whole. The difficulties brought on by the effects of complexity and specialization can be addressed. How? By incorporating the views of multiple stakeholders with diverse interests and perspectives; perceiving the specific parts of the system, as well as the system as a whole; and clarifying the expected results and desired ends. We need to integrate analysis and intuition, facts and values, objective and subjective, thinking and feeling. Meeting these challengeswhich will help groups to be more effective cognitively and sociallyis a superlative task. To meet these challenges we must be address the intellectual, analytical and cognitive demands of the situation. This is necessary but not sufficient. At the same time, we must help groups engage interpersonally, politically, emotionally and spiritually. As group facilitators we must, in Barnard's words, strive "socially to make mind more effective." Toward this accomplishment we devote ourselves as group facilitators and dedicate Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal . Working together, we aim to strengthen our understanding in organizations, communities and societies of group facilitation, a superlative task. -------------Barnard, Chester (1938). The Functions of the Executive Thirtieth Anniversary Edition (1968). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Here is the full quote: One can hardly contemplate the passing scene of civilized society without a sense that the need of balanced minds is real and that a superlative task is how socially to make mind more effective. That the increasing complexity of society and the elaboration of technique and organization now necessary will more and more require capacity for rigorous reasoning seems evident; but it is a super-structure necessitating a better use of the non-logical mind to support it. Brains without minds seem a futile unbalance. The inconsistencies of method and purpose and the misunderstandings between large groups which increasing specialization engenders need the corrective of the feeling mind that senses the end result, the net balance, the interest of all, and of the spirit that perceiving the concrete parts encompasses also the intangibles of the whole.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Introduction to the Special Issue on Group Development

Group development is a recurring topic of discussion among group facilitators. It has been the subject of research since the 1940s and continues to be an active area of inquiry. What have we learned about group development in the past 60 years? How can we apply that knowledge in our work as group facilitators? What questions remain unanswered? The articles in this Special Issue on Group Development help to answer these questions. Were we to conduct a survey to assess the present state of knowledge regarding group development I suspect that the response we would receive most often would include something about forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. We owe this memorable characterization of stages of group development to Bruce Tuckman who introduced this oft-cited naming scheme in 1965. With his permission, and that of the American Psychological Association, we are pleased to reprint his hallmark article, Developmental Sequence in Small Groups in our Classics for Group Facilitators section. The development of a group is often viewed as occurring in a step-by-step progression that takes a group from one stage to the next. Alternatively, group development can be viewed as shifting back-andforth from one phase to another and back again, or in a repeating cycle of development and redevelopment. Yet another view is that a group's development does not occur in any particular pattern, but is contingent at any point in time on contextual factors. In Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions George Smith reviews the literature on group development, highlighting the similarities and differences between various perspectives, summarizing the current status of thinking, and pointing to needs for future research. Complicating any view of group development is that group membership can change. How do changes in membership affect group development? Focusing specifically on new members, Marie Cini applies the accumulated research and provides interesting insights and specific suggestions for group facilitators in Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation. In Facilitating Team Development: A View from the Field John E. Jones and William L. Bearley show how they have come to terms with various views of group development and present their own framework. They provide numerous examples to illustrate how they facilitate team development. A Critical View of Facilitating Labor-Management Collaboration, by Grant T. Savage and Chadwick B. Hilton, calls our attention to external processes -- what happens between meetings and relations with parties outside the group -- as well as internal group processes. The authors' place the role of the facilitator in the context of Habermas' theory of communicative action and provide examples of facilitator interventions in labor-management collaboration. We hope you find these articles informative and helpful in your own practice, teaching, and research. The Editorial Board and staff are themselves experiencing some "group development." On their behalf I extend appreciation and thanks to five individuals who were instrumental in founding the journal and gave years of dedicated service during its long gestation period and early years of publication: Mark Fuller, Editor-in-Chief; Peggy Runchey, Managing Editor; Beret Griffith, Book Review Editor; Vicki Wharton, Design Editor; and Jean Watts, Associate Editor. As they move on to other priorities we acknowledge that our current success is a tribute to their early and prolonged efforts. We thank Eileen Ruete, Copy Editor, and wish her a complete and lasting recovery. Lynda Lieberman Baker, whose service as Associate Editor is much appreciated, will assume the post of Book Review Editor. To Michael Sabiers, who recently joined us as an Associate Editor, we extend our welcome and look forward to working with you. - Sandor Schuman, Editor

Special Issue on Group Development

Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation

Marie A. Cini One of the ways that groups change over time is through the introduction of newcomers. Until recently, group research has primarily focused on the attempts of the existing group to socialize the newcomer, whereas the effect of the newcomer on the group has been relatively less explored. However, research on newcomer influence suggests that newcomers can influence the group under certain conditions. Research on the power of the (numerical) minority in groups has also uncovered some intriguing findings regarding the positive effects a newcomer can have on a group. For groups seeking to be more innovative and effective, newcomers may be an overlooked source of innovation. Group facilitators can prepare the group and the newcomer to maximize the potential of newcomer contributions. Keywords Innovation; Majority Influence; Minority Influence; Newcomer Influence INTRODUCTION Groups rarely remain as static entities. They may change over time in structure, activities, and membership in order to adjust to internal changes or external demands (Worchel, Coutant-Sassic, & Grossman, 1992). For organizational groups in particular, changes in membership are frequent as current group members move to other organizational units or leave for other jobs. New members are added to work groups as new employees are hired, new skills become necessary to the groups functioning, or an employee is motivated to gain experience in a particular work group. The addition of a new group member is a common and often stressful occurrence because of the ways the group may be affected. Descriptive evidence of the changes that newcomers cause in groups is abundant. For example, a number of observers have commented on the regressive effects of newcomers to therapy groups. Goodman (1981) argued that the introduction of a newcomer into a therapy group is threatening to old-timers. Kaplan and Roman (1961) and Leopold (1961) found that newcomers to therapy groups elicit a variety of reactions from old-timers (e.g., restlessness, hostility, and resistance) until the group accepts the newcomer and rebalances itself. Yalom (1970) observed that newcomer socialization in therapy groups diverts members energy and inhibits therapeutic progress. Finally, Saravay (1978) argued that, because therapy groups have already developed a complex structure prior to the newcomers arrival, the group copes with the disruption by either rejecting the newcomer or regressing to an earlier stage. Observers of organizational life note that newcomers impact the organization and its employees in a variety of ways. Nicholson (1984) and Schein (1971) argued that newcomers to an organization often attempt to change work demands and goals, rather than adapt to the status quo. Sutton and Louis (1987) expanded this line of reasoning and argued that every recruitment or socialization activity (e.g., reading prospective employees resumes, training new employees) influences the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of current employees. Gadon (1988) argued that newcomers cause the group to recycle through the stages of group development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) as the group adapts to the newcomer. Finally, Levine and Russo (1985) argued that merely having newcomers present alters the composition of the group. For example, newcomers may divert some of the energy old-timers in the group devote to group activities. And, if newcomers are sufficiently motivated to change the group (perhaps because they feel deceived about what group membership meant), they can disrupt the groups activities. As a whole, this line of qualitative work suggests that newcomers can impact groups in a number of ways. They may elicit reactions from individual group members, disturb relationships between members, alter others expectations of them, or even cause the group to return to an earlier stage of group development (Wanous, Reichers, & Malik, 1984). However, these observational accounts tend to focus on the disruptive effects of newcomers on groups, perhaps because of the perceived negative consequences that disruption can cause (e.g., lowered productivity, interpersonal conflict). On the other hand, the potentially positive effects that newcomers can have on groups have largely been ignored in empirical research. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that most groups publicly state that they welcome 3

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation newcomers because they are looking for new blood and fresh ideas. Perhaps because of this ambivalence that groups feel about newcomersneeding new members but fearing the disruption they may bringgroups tend to default to exerting conformity pressures on the newcomer. Reflecting this reality, social psychologists have predominantly focused their research efforts on group attempts to change a newcomers thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to make the individual more similar to current members (i.e., assimilation). They have tended to ignore the changes that the individual may produce in the groups structure, dynamics, or performance (i.e., accommodation) (Moreland, 1985). As just one example of this line of research that ignores newcomer influence, Lofland and Lejeune (1960) conducted a study that examined how existing members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) socialized newcomers at meetings. Because of the researchers focus on the groups influence on newcomers, they did not examine how newcomers might affect old-timers in AA, although this would seem to be an important question for researchers and practitioners alike. THE HISTORICAL FOCUS ON THE POWER OF THE MAJORITY The preoccupation with assimilation rather than accommodation processes grew out of social psychologys historical focus on the power of the group to sway the individual, even when the majority is clearly incorrect (Asch, 1956). This body of research is referred to as majority influence, and researchers in this tradition have explored the major situational and individual variables that foster it. For example, classic work by Festinger (1950) uncovered strong pressures on group members to act in uniform ways. Festinger explained that group members (i.e., the majority) place pressure on other members to conform to group goals for two reasons: social reality and/or group locomotion. Social reality refers to the need of group members to validate their own opinions by having others agree with them. Group locomotion refers to the groups desire to move forward toward the completion of a goal. Thus, members of groups often experience strong pressure to agree with the rest of the group and to act in ways that will ensure movement toward the groups goal. Group members themselves respond to pressures from the majority with their own desires to fit in. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) posited that individuals adopt the views of majority group members for two reasons: to gain information about reality (informational influence) and/or to gain approval 4 (normative influence). Newcomers, who are struggling to make sense of their new environment (Louis, 1980), may be more susceptible to majority influence, especially if they are highly motivated to remain in the group. For example, Ziller and Behringer (1960) found that newcomers popularity ratings declined markedly shortly after the newness wore off. The newcomers popularity rose only after accepting the norms of the group and behaving more like the majority. Thus, newcomers who hope to gain the acceptance of the group are likely to behave in ways that conform to group norms in order to be viewed as potentially good group members.

members of groups often experience strong pressure to agree with the rest of the group and to act in ways that will ensure movement toward the groups goal.
However, majority influence on the newcomer is only a part of the reality of group life. Facilitators of groups whose members collaborate on projects or undergo significant experiences together know that newcomers are sometimes welcomed as individuals who can contribute to the success of the group. For example, if a group is failing at a task, newcomers may arrive expecting to offer input based on their prior experiences and expertise, and old-timers may welcome the newcomers input to improve the groups viability. In other cases, the group and the newcomer exert mutual influence over one another. For example, a newcomer to an ongoing work team may adopt some of the norms of the group while also contributing new ideas. Thus, newcomers may be a rich source of new ideas for a group seeking to become more creative or productive. THE VALUE OF NEWCOMER INNOVATION In todays rapidly changing economy, groups and the organizations in which they function are increasingly interested in becoming more innovative in order to stay competitive. West (1990) defined innovation as the introduction and application, within a group, organization or wider society, of processes, products, or procedures new to the relevant unit of adoption and intended to benefit the group, individual, or wider society (p. 9). This definition casts innovation as an intentional behavior intended to make a change for the better. However, some innovations also arise from unintentional behaviors. For example, a team leader may be absent on a given day, which proSpecial Issue on Group Development

Cini vides an unexpected opportunity for the team to practice shared leadership. In addition to noting that important innovations may be produced unintentionally, it is also important to understand how innovation is fostered. For example, an individuals level of creativity is a strong predictor of how innovative he or she will be on the job (Bunce & West, 1995). One implication of this finding is that the quality of innovative ideas in a team will be determined by its proportion of innovative members, and research supports this proposition (West & Anderson, 1996). One way to avoid the tendency toward complacency and isolation in groups is to seek input from newcomers. Newcomers are a particularly good source of innovationboth intentional and unintentionalbecause they can bring new perspectives from former experiences and may be knowledgeable of changes in the environment. For example, Ettlie (1980) found that major innovations are more likely to occur when individuals move to new groups and/or organizations. Without changes in membership work groups run the risk of becoming less innovative over time (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Jackson, 1996). NEWCOMERS: DISRUPTION OR INNOVATION? Group facilitators have a difficult role when new members arrive. They must simultaneously assist the group in maintaining equilibrium, while also helping to integrate the newcomer in ways that benefit both the group and the newcomer. Whether publicly acknowledged or privately felt, group members are usually fearful that the new member will disrupt the groups identity, interpersonal relationships, or ways of accomplishing tasks. However, strong conformity norms imposed by the majority actually militate against the newcomer acting in a disruptive manner. And, at the same time that old-timers in the group are attempting to rein in the newcomer, newcomers themselves are concerned about being accepted by the group (Heiss & Nash 1967; Nash & Wolfe, 1957) and are aware of the pressure to conform to group norms (Nemeth & Staw, 1989). For example, Feldbaum, Christenson, and ONeal (1980) found that newcomers to groups were hesitant and nonassertive in their initial interactions. A newcomer to a group does not know which behaviors are acceptable and will therefore tend to act tentatively until acceptable behaviors are learned either through observation or by trial and error. The evidence suggests that, for the most part, newcomers will behave in ways that are largely non-disruptive to the group. A skilled facilitator should be careful not to equate the natural changes that occur as a group and newcomer meld with disruption that will cause the group to falter. Although some newcomers in some groups may be a disruptive influence, a facilitator should be careful not to become overly concerned with protecting the groups interests at the expense of the potential contributions of the newcomer. In fact, given the need for innovation and creativity in most groups, the facilitator should try to help the newcomer contribute to the group in positive ways. In order to do that, the facilitator should be aware of

group members are usually fearful that the new member will disrupt the groups identity, interpersonal relationships, or ways of accomplishing tasks.
But creative individuals do not, by themselves, account for all of the innovation in a team or organization. In fact, there is a social dimension to creativity that is often overlooked. For example, Montouri and Purser (1995), in a study of research and development organizations, found that the most creative researchers viewed themselves as collaborative team players. Those researchers who viewed themselves as loners were actually less creative. Interacting with others may provide new ideas that a lone researcher might not consider alone (Brown, Tumeo, Larey, & Paulus, 1998). Indeed, West and Anderson (1996) concluded that creative ideas may come from individuals, but it is the group climate that determines if the innovation is encouraged or derogated. Innovation increases when it is rewarded (Amabile, 1983; Hackman, 1992) and when it is fostered by group and organizational leaders (Burpitt & Bigoness, 1997). However, given the forces toward conformity found in most groups, innovation often lags as the members become complacent and self-satisfied (Gadon, 1988). This complacency can lead to decreased performance and productivity because the group is focused more on maintaining relationships than on accomplishing the task (King & Anderson, 1990). Consequently, the group may fail to reexamine and improve how it conducts its work (Gadon, 1988). Katz (1982) also found the tendency toward complacency and isolation in his study of long-term work groups. He found that the longer groups work together, the less they communicate with key outsiders or scan their environment for changing conditions, resulting in decreased performance.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation when groups are most likely to allow a newcomer to make changes. WHEN NEWCOMERS CAN INNOVATE: THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE Only a small number of empirical studies have investigated newcomer innovation. These studies suggest that characteristics of the group and characteristics of the newcomer can each affect how much change the group will allow from a newcomer. Although some of the studies reviewed in this section were conducted recently, many of the studies were conducted in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Though somewhat dated, these early studies add to our knowledge base regarding when newcomers to groups can be influential. Given the sparse number of topics on newcomer influence, even these early studies will be included to provide as inclusive a review as possible. Group characteristics Several studies suggest that certain characteristics of the group can affect how much influence a newcomer can exert. These characteristics include the groups level of (a) openness, (b) staffing, (c) cohesion, (d) performance, and (e) development. Group openness. Ziller (1962) defined open groups as those that are fluid in their membership: Old-timers leave and newcomers arrive. In open groups, membership is in flux. Closed groups have a static membership: Old-timers stay and newcomers are rare. In closed groups, membership does not change. Ziller, Behringer, and Goodchilds (1960) and Ziller, Behringer, and Jansen (1961) found that open groups are more likely to allow newcomers to influence the group than are closed groups. Ziller explained that, in open groups, relationships among members are temporary, and group structure is kept simple in anticipation of personnel changes. Because they are prepared for changes in membership, open groups allow newcomers to innovate more readily than do closed groups. Group staffing level. Barker (1968) argued for the importance of studying staffing level in groups. Understaffed groups have too few members relative to task requirements, overstaffed groups have too many members relative to task requirements, and adequately staffed groups have a sufficient number of members relative to task requirements. Understaffed groups are presumably eager to recruit new members in order to ease the workload on existing members. In that case, understaffed groups may be more willing than overstaffed or adequately 6 staffed groups to allow newcomers to influence the group. As predicted, Petty and Wicker (1974) and Cini, Moreland, and Levine (1993) found that understaffed groups were more likely than adequately and overstaffed groups to allow newcomers to make changes in the group.

the facilitator should be aware of when groups are most likely to allow a newcomer to make changes.
Group cohesion. Cohesion is a groups sense of solidarity. Cohesion is high when members like one another, enjoy the groups activities, embrace the groups values, and believe that membership is important to achieve personal goals (Cartwright, 1968). Highly cohesive groups exhibit a greater tendency to reject members who deviate from group norms than do less cohesive groups (Festinger, 1950). The level of cohesion also affects how the group treats newcomers. Because old-timers in cohesive groups tend to find satisfaction in their membership and tend to view newcomers as threatening (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1988), they are reluctant to allow newcomers to make changes (Merei, 1949; Moreland & Levine, 1989). In contrast, lower levels of cohesion result in decreased conformity to group norms (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950), suggesting that newcomers may be allowed to be more influential in less cohesive groups. Indeed, research by Mills (1957) and Snyder (1958) found that newcomers in less cohesive groups were more influential than newcomers in more cohesive groups. Group performance. All groups presumably work toward achieving some goal. The process and outcome of members efforts to achieve that goal constitute group performance (Levine & Moreland, 1990). Whether a group has succeeded or failed at an important task may have a strong impact on how newcomers are subsequently treated. Members of successful groups may be reluctant to allow any changes because they fear that changes may harm their success. Members of failing groups may be eager to make changes in the hopes of becoming more successful. Therefore, failing groups may be more open to newcomer influence than are succeeding groups. Indeed, Cini (1994), Fromkin, Klimoski, and Flanagan (1972), and Ziller and Behringer (1960) found that groups that were failing on a task were more likely to allow newcomer influence than were successful groups.

Special Issue on Group Development

Cini

Newcomers who imitated the behaviors of the group leaders were more able to initiate and direct activities at later meetings than those newcomers who did not.
Group development. The goal of group development research is to discover how and why groups change over time (Levine & Moreland, 1990). Tuckman and Jensens (1977) five-stage model of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning has received wide acceptance (Moreland & Levine, 1988), possibly because it is broad enough to encompass the many other stage models that have appeared over the years (Kormanski, 1988). Several authors have speculated about when, in a groups development, newcomer influence is more or less possible. Moreland and Levine (1988) argued that newcomer influence can more likely occur during early stages of group development because the group is not structured enough to demand conformity from newcomers. And, in later stages of development, the group possesses a clear set of norms and a desire to enforce these norms. Therefore, Moreland and Levine suggest that newcomer influence will be resisted during later stages because of the potential disruption it represents. Cini (1994) explored the impact of group development on a newcomers ability to influence a group. In line with Moreland and Levines (1988) reasoning, the results indicated that groups in early stages of development asked for more input from the newcomer and held more positive attitudes toward a potential newcomer than did groups in later stages of development. Newcomer Characteristics Several studies suggest that newcomer characteristics may also affect how much a newcomer can influence the group. These characteristics include newcomer (a) dominance behaviors and (b) knowledge. Newcomer dominance behaviors. Particular behaviors of the newcomer may produce more or less influence in a group. In an early field study of the effect of dominant newcomers to playgroups, Merei (1949) observed groups of children, homogeneous in sex and age, who met daily for two weeks. A dominant child was introduced after three to six meetings, when the groups had established strong norms and interpersonal relationships. This new child was usually ineffective in changing the

groups activities. In some cases, however, the newcomer was able to make minor changes in the group by initially imitating the old-timers and later introducing a minor variation such as increasing the pace of the activity. This suggests that newcomers were able to produce some level of change only by first ingratiating themselves with the group. Similar results were also obtained by Phillips, Shenker, and Revitz (1951) who introduced nondominant newcomers into groups of children. Newcomers who imitated the behaviors of the group leaders were more able to initiate and direct activities at later meetings than those newcomers who did not. Newcomer knowledge. Newcomers presumably possess varying levels of knowledge pertaining to group activities. It is likely that groups value newcomers who possess higher levels of relevant knowledge. One study examined the effect of newcomer knowledge on ability to influence a group. Fromkin et al. (1972) found that in successful (allwhite) groups, competent newcomers, regardless of race, were preferred to incompetent newcomers. However, in failing (all-white) groups, incompetent African-Americans, competent African-Americans, and competent Caucasians were all preferred to incompetent Caucasians. It may be that in failing groups, any indication of being different from the existing group (e.g., greater competence, a different race) may be viewed as a cue that the newcomer can contribute to the future success of the group. Supporting this hypothesis that newcomers of a different race are perceived as potentially more knowledgeable or innovative, Craig (1996) found that African-American newcomers to predominantly Caucasian groups were judged as having more useful ideas than were Caucasian newcomers, Caucasian old-timers, and African-American old-timers. RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS Only a few studies have investigated the conditions under which newcomers are able to innovate within a group. Regarding group characteristics, the studies suggest that groups that are open (versus closed), understaffed (versus adequately or overstaffed), not cohesive (versus cohesive), failing (versus succeeding), and at an early (versus later) stage of development are more likely to allow newcomers to innovate. Regarding newcomer characteristics, newcomers who first ingratiate themselves with the group members (versus behaving dominantly immediately) and who appear competent or different (versus incompetent or similar to the group) are more likely to be able to innovate within a group. 7

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation Clearly, in these studies, certain conditions were created or uncovered in which groups were less likely to consider newcomer innovation to be disruptive. However, this line of research on newcomer innovation ended without culminating in a comprehensive understanding of when and how newcomers can innovate. This was primarily because the studies were designed and conducted atheoretically. That is, the researchers explored variables of interest rather than designing research that followed from a theoretical framework. Furthermore, they neglected to study the possible consequences that newcomer innovation can have on the groups performance. However, in the 1970s, a related research topic emerged that shed new light on the study of newcomer innovation and its potential effects on group members. THE POWER OF THE FEW: MINORITY INFLUENCE Minority influence research explores the ways in which an individual can influence and change a group (e.g., Moscovici 1976; 1985). Perhaps most importantly, this research had as its foundation a theory of minority influence which led to a more systematic program of study. Although this research is not focused specifically on newcomers, it does subsume the study of newcomer influence and provides a theoretical foundation for further research. An early and influential researcher in this area, Serge Moscovici, argued that influence, whether majority or minority, is directly related to the production and resolution of conflict. He argued that disagreement between numerical majorities and minorities produces both interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict. The way in which each side resolves these conflicts is the key to understanding the influence process of each. Moscovici views majority and minority influence as qualitatively different processes (1985). He argued that in the face of majority pressure, minorities focus on the social consequences of the disagreement. Because the minority views itself as the weaker faction and wants to be accepted by the majority, the minority exhibits public change toward the majoritys position. However, because the minority is anxious about being accepted, minority members do not turn their attention to the actual issue and fail to engage in active information processing. Therefore, the minority is unlikely to experience true internalized influence.

a different race) may be viewed as a cue that the newcomer can contribute to the future success of the group.
In contrast, Moscovici argued that in the face of minority pressure, majorities feel strong and are not anxious about being accepted. This lack of anxiety allows the majority to focus their attention on the issue and engage in active information processing, which, in turn, often produces private change toward the minoritys position. However, because the majority does not want to be viewed as weak or deviant, they are unlikely to admit their change of opinion publicly. In a meta-analysis of the minority influence literature, Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, and Blackstone (1994) found evidence to support this claim. Majority group members tend to avoid becoming aligned with a deviant minority and so are more willing to admit having been influenced by the minority privately than they are publicly. Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux (1969) found that behavioral style is particularly important to a minoritys ability to influence a majority. Minorities that exhibit consistency and commitment are most likely to be successful in exerting influence on a majority. Maass and Clark (1984), in a review of the minority influence literature, concluded that a consistent behavioral style causes the majority to attribute certainty and confidence to the minority, especially when subjected to a great deal of social pressure from the majority. According to Maass, West, and Cialdini (1987), the minoritys apparent courage and commitment in the face of majority pressure make them more persuasive than the majority. However, that persuasiveness functions at a private, rather than a public, level. Indeed, Wood et al. (1994), in their meta-analysis, found that minorities that were perceived as consistent advocates for their views were particularly influential. Nemeth has extended the line of research on the differential effects of majority and minority influence in some intriguing ways (1986). Nemeth and her colleagues have found that majorities and minorities produce different effects on attention, thought, and problem solving. According to Nemeth (1986), these differences in majority and minority influence lead to different consequences for thinking and problem solving. A numerical minority tends to produce divergent thinking, which in turn leads to more creative solutions to problems. In contrast, a majority produces convergent thinking, leading to noncreative solutions to problems. Interestingly, Nemeth (1992) found that Special Issue on Group Development

It may be that in failing groups, any indication of being different from the existing group (e.g., greater competence,
8

Cini exposure to minority influence leads to more divergent thinking even when the minority position is incorrect. Thus, it appears that the presence of a dissenting minority, whether correct or incorrect, can lead to more creative problem solving among all the members of a group. Furthermore, minorities who are members of the group tend to be treated more leniently than are minorities who are from outside groups (Alvaro & Crano, 1996, 1997). That is, majority members in a group resist real change when confronted by any minority position. However, if the minority is a member of the group, the majority is more likely to think about the minoritys message and is less likely to derogate the minority than if the minority is from another group. Crano and Alvaro (1998) and Wood et al. (1994) also found that exposure to minority influence may also lead to changes in majority beliefs even indirectly associated with the actual topic under consideration. Facilitating Newcomer Innovation The earlier discussion on innovation in work groups concluded that strong conformity pressures from the majority can lead to decreased group performance and decision making. One of the reasons for this may be that in groups with a strong conformity norm, initiative from newcomers is kept at low levels (Nemeth & Staw, 1989). This is unfortunate, because when a newcomer joins a group, it represents a rare opportunity for the group members to view themselves from a different perspective, to gain new ideas, and to think in more creative ways. This opportunity is lost once the newcomer is assimilated into the group. If the newcomer is quickly assimilated into the group before he or she is allowed to offer input, the group is deprived of an opportunity to gain important insights (Gadon, 1988). However, experienced group facilitators will recognize the stress on the group that a newcomer represents. Groups, having once established an equilibrium, do not change willingly in most cases. Therefore, a newcomer, even one who is experienced in the groups task and who behaves according to the norms of a good newcomer, will elicit ambivalent feelings from the group. The group facilitators role is to help each partythe extant group members and the newcomerto meld in ways that are positive and beneficial to both. When a newcomer joins a group, a facilitator would do well to observe two processes: the level of conformity pressures and the potential for newcomer innovation. First, the facilitator needs to understand and be aware of the strong pressures toward conformity at work in a group when a newcomer enters. The facilitator should realize that the group will naturally move toward assimilating the newcomer rather quickly unless the facilitator assists the group in behaving differently. The facilitator must also understand the potential value of the newcomer (e.g., increased divergent thinking, enhanced creativity) and should seek out ways that the group can capitalize on the newcomers contributions. Research on group characteristics reviewed earlier in this paper suggests that when groups are open, understaffed, less cohesive, failing, or early in their development, they are more likely to allow newcomer innovation. But allowing innovation does not mean that innovation will automatically occur in the group. To ease this process, the group facilitator can assess the groups level of these conditions. A group that is understaffed, for example, may be less resistant to accepting a newcomers innovation than is a group with too many 9

The facilitator should realize that the group will naturally move toward assimilating the newcomer rather quickly unless the facilitator assists the group in behaving differently.
As a whole, this research on minority influence suggests that if newcomers are provided with an entre into the group that encourages them to voice their ideas in a constructive manner, groups can benefit in some important ways. For example, group members exposed to a consistent and committed newcomer may be encouraged to think more creatively and this could potentially improve the groups performance. Furthermore, a consistent and committed newcomer may induce changes in group members thinking about topics even indirectly associated with the topic under discussion. For example, if a majority of group members is in favor of purchasing a new computer system, and then they listen to a persuasive newcomers alternate plan to upgrade the present system, they are likely to a) privately shift their opinion toward upgrading the present system and b) also shift their thinking on associated topics such as who should be provided with laptop computers. However, to maximize the potential of a newcomers contributions to a group, facilitators must prepare both the newcomer and the group so that fears of disruption are dampened and openness to innovation is maximized.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation members. Likewise, if a group is failing at a task, the members may be more open to a newcomers ideas to become more successful. However, this also means that groups that are closed, adequately or overstaffed, more cohesive, successful, or later in their development are less likely to allow newcomer innovation because of the fear of disruption. However, these groups may very well benefit from innovative ideas and increased creative thinking, nonetheless. Therefore, a facilitator in groups with these conditions may have to work harder to help the group view the newcomer as a source of innovation. Jones and Crandall (1985) suggested that a group leader introduce the idea of the newcomer to the group before the newcomer arrives, so that the group can deal with any negative reactions they may have and adopt an accepting attitude. Bach (1954) suggested that facilitators should prepare the group by holding a discussion for the current members to discuss how they felt when they were newcomers in the group. Such a discussion can help to remind the group of the anxieties inherent in the newcomer experience. This discussion can also serve as a time to educate the group about the importance of the newcomer to group performance. The group facilitator would also do well to create overall support for innovation in the group. Recall that the group climate for innovation was a key variable in predicting a groups innovation level. Thus, a climate where innovation is supported, welcomed, and rewarded is also most conducive to newcomer innovation. Research has also demonstrated that certain newcomer characteristics may allow the newcomer to be more influential in a group. For example, knowledgeable newcomers appear to be more influential than do less knowledgeable newcomers (Fromkin et al., 1972). In addition, newcomers who are consistent in their position also seem to produce more influence than those who are less consistent (Wood et al., 1994). Group facilitators should keep these characteristics in mind and actively search for knowledgeable and consistent newcomers because they stand the best chance of positively influencing the group. However, recall that dominant newcomers are actually less influential than those who first adopt the norms of the group and then introduce innovations at a later point (Merei, 1949; Phillips et al., 1951). Therefore, a facilitator should also prepare the newcomer in terms of how and when to introduce new ideas. Certainly, newcomers ought to be reminded that early dominant behaviors may actually work against them. However, research has 10 demonstrated that most newcomers tend to act in non-dominant ways, and so facilitators may actually need to help newcomers learn when and how to speak up. Newcomers who are fearful of stating their opinion may benefit from a group facilitator who provides support. For example, the facilitator can publicly ask the newcomer for input, thus modeling that the newcomers opinion is important. Even if the newcomer is wrong at times, the facilitator should make sure that the newcomer feels psychologically safe enough to take risks. Dissent or disagreement can lead to greater innovation in the entire group. As Nemeth (1992) found, even when a dissenter is wrong, that dissenting voice often leads to more divergent thinking among the entire group. And, it is divergent thinking that is the key to innovation in groups, particularly those that have become complacent in their thought processes.

dominant newcomers are actually less influential than those who first adopt the norms of the group and then introduce innovations at a later point.
Too often, newcomers are viewed as individuals who must be subsumed into the current culture of the group. Instead, they should be viewed as consultants, whose fresh perspectives can enhance the groups effectiveness. If group facilitators hope to recruit and retain knowledgeable and committed newcomers, and if they hope to improve the performance of their groups, they would do well to create conditions that allow for newcomer input. Once the newcomer becomes an old-timer, he or she is no longer in a position to offer a similarly fresh perspective. Newcomers are time-limited resources; we should learn to capitalize on their ephemeral contributions to the group. References Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1996). Cognitive responses to minority- or majority-based communications: Factors that underlie minority influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 105-21. Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence of leniency in source evaluation and counterargumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949-964. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376. Special Issue on Group Development

Cini Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and submission to group pressure: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), (Whole No. 417). Bach, G. R. (1954). Intensive group psychotherapy. New York: Ronald Press. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford University. Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring the relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 199-213. Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(4), 495-526. Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1995). Self perceptions and perceptions of group climate as predictors of individual innovation at work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44(3), 199-215. Burpitt, W. J., & Bigoness, W. J. (1997). Leadership and innovation among teams: The impact of empowerment. Small Group Research, 28(30), 414-423. Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91-109). New York: Harper and Row. Cini, M. A. (1994). Innovation by newcomers: Effects of group performance and group development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Cini, M. A., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses to prospective and new members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 723-734. Craig, K. M., (1996). Are all newcomers judged similarly? Distinctiveness of entry in task-oriented groups. Small Group Research, 27(3), 383-397. Crano, W. D., & Alvaro, E. M. (1998). The context/comparison model of social influence: Mechanisms, structure, and linkages that underlie indirect attitude change. European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 175-202. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences on individual judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636. Ettlie, J. E. (1980). Manpower flows and the innovation process. Management Science, 26(11), 1086-1095. Feldbaum, C. L., Christenson, T. E., & ONeal, E. C. (1980). An observational study of the assimilation of the newcomer to the preschool. Child Development, 51, 497-507. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper. Fromkin, H. L., Klimoski, R. J., & Flanagan, M. F. (1972). Race and competence as determinants of acceptance of newcomers in success and failure work groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 25-42. Gadon, H. (1988). The newcomer and the ongoing work group. In H. Gadon & N. Josefowitz (Eds.), Fitting in: How to get a good start in your new job (pp. 161-175). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Goodman, M. (1981). Group phases and induced countertransference. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18, 478-486. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough, (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Heiss, J., & Nash, D. (1967). The stranger in laboratory culture revisited. Human Organization, 26, 47-51. Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1985). Preparing newcomers to enhance assimilation into groups: A group therapy example. Small Group Behavior, 16, 31-57. Kadis, A. A., Krasner, J. D., Winick, C., & Foulkes, S. H. (1965). A practicum of group psychotherapy. New York: Harper & Row. Kaplan, S. R., & Roman, M. (1961). Characteristic processes in adult therapy groups to the introduction of new members: A reflection on group processes. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 11, 372-381. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104. King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 81-100). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. Kormanski, C. (1988). Using group development theory in business and industry. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13, 30-43. Leopold, H. S. (1961). The new member in the group: Some specific aspects of the literature. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 11, 367-371. 11

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Newcomers: From Disruption to Innovation Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. In M. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 585-634). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Levine, J. M., & Russo, E. M. (1985). Majority and minority influence. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Group processes (Vol. 8: pp. 13-54). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lofland, J. F., & Lejeune, R. A. (1960). Initial interaction of newcomers in Alcoholics Anonymous: A field experiment in class symbols and socialization. Social Problems, 8, 102-111. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428450. Maass, A., West, S. G., & Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Minority influence and conversion. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 5579). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Merei, F. (1949). Group leadership and institutionalization. Human Relations, 2, 23-39. Mills, T. (1957). Group structure and the newcomer. Oslo: Oslo University. Montouri, A., & Purser, R. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69-112. Moreland, R. L. (1985). Social categorization and the assimilation of new group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1173-1190. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology oftime: New perspectives (pp. 151-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of Group Influence (pp. 143186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press. Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 347412). New York: Random House. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365-380. Nash, D., & Wolfe, A. W. (1957). The stranger in laboratory culture. American Sociological Review, 22, 400-405. Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32. Nemeth, C. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 95-111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 175-210). New York: Academic Press. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172-191. Petty, R. M., & Wicker, A. W. (1974). Degree of manning and degree of success of a group as determinants of members subjective experiences and their acceptance of a new group member. Psychological Documents, 4, 1-22. (Ms. No. 616). Phillips, E. L., Shenker, S., & Revitz, P. (1951). The assimilation of the new child into the group. Psychiatry, 14, 1-22. (Ms. No. 616). Saravay, S. M. (1978). A psychoanalytic theory of group development. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 28, 481-507. Schein, E. H. (1971). Occupational socialization in the professions: The case of role innovation. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 8, 521-530. Snyder, E. C. (1958). The Supreme Court as a small group. Social Forces, 36, 232-238. Sutton, R. I., & Louis, M. R. (1987). How selecting and socializing newcomers influences insiders. Human Resource Management, 26, 347-361. Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Malik, S. D. (1984). Organizational socialization and group development: Toward an integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9, 670683. West, M.A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309-333). Chichester, England: Wiley.

12

Special Issue on Group Development

Cini West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680-693. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 323-345. Worchel, S., Coutant-Sassic, D., & Grossman, M. (1992). A developmental approach to group dynamics: A model and illustrative research. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 181-202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Yalom, I. D. (1970). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books. Ziller, R. C. (1962). The newcomers acceptance in open and closed groups. Personnel Administration, 5, 24-31. Ziller, R. C., & Behringer, R. D. (1960). Assimilation of the knowledgeable newcomer under conditions of group success and failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 288-291. Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Goodchilds, J. D. (1960). The minority newcomer in open and closed groups. Journal of Psychology, 50, 7584. Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Jansen, M. J. (1961). The newcomer in open and closed groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 5558.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Marianne Leister and Boris Vilic for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Marie A. Cini is the Director of Academic Affairs at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland. She has published work on leadership development, on teaching leadership online, and on the psychological factors that draw individuals to groups and organizations. Her work has been published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, The Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, and The Journal of Leadership Studies. Dr. Cini earned her Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Pittsburgh in 1994, with emphases in group processes and research methodology. Contact at: James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership, 1111 Taliaferro Hall University of Maryland, College Park MD 20742-7715; Phone: 412-396-5839; mcini@academy.umd.edu Associate Editor: Sandor Schuman

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

13

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions
George Smith The use of groups, and more specifically teams, in organizations has been on the rise during the past decade. While many benefits have been attributed to these organizational arrangements, few researchers and practitioners have stepped back to look at the history and research underlying many of the models that are used to understand and anticipate group/team development. This paper takes a step in that direction as it reviews many of the developmental models, their roots and patterns. Keywords: Groups, Teams, Group Development, Models, Theories INTRODUCTION Todays organizational landscape is laden with small groups and teams. Organizations in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors are utilizing work groups, task forces, blue ribbon commissions and panels, and various types of teams and support groups to accomplish their missions and objectives. In addition, groups are being implemented at all hierarchical levels and have assumed many roles and responsibilities central to the functioning of these organizations. Team and group work has become so prevalent that Hackman (1990) has stated that Virtually everyone who has worked in an organization has been a member of a task-performing group at one time or another (p. 2). Despite the presence of groups in todays organizations, there are still questions that need to be addressed and dealt with. Central to such an examination is an understanding and evaluation of the existing group development literature. An understanding of this literature is important since one critical concern that has been raised by Bettenhausen (1991) and Nahavandi and Aranda (1994) is whether our current knowledge and understanding is sufficient to warrant the use of these organizational types and more specifically what are our limits in understanding group and team development. Therefore, it is important that we understand what we purport to know about this phenomenon prior to any speculation about what should be done to improve the field. This paper attempts to address this issue and others by reviewing and categorizing many of the existing group development models. In addition, the paper focuses on the commonalities across the models (especially within categories) and provides a discussion that raises issues for future research. If this paper serves no other purpose, its primary 14 intention is to act as a stimulus to reopen investigation into group development and to inject some additional doubt into the models, ideas and theories that are currently being implemented on the job, taught in the classroom and used in related research endeavors. GROUP DEVELOPMENT DEFINED As a point of entry into this work it is necessary to define the phrase group development. Finding an acceptable definition of this phrase is difficult because it has been defined in many ways and with varying degrees of depth and complexity. Berkowitz (1974), for example, has stated that group development refers to the fact that group process undergoes modification which enables the group to have more alternative ways to solve problems (p. 311), while Ridgeways (1983) and Bennis and Shepards (1956) definitions of group development focus on the groups need for improved communication patterns. The definition that best fits the models discussed in this paper was provided by Sarri and Galinsky (1974). In this definition these two authors have defined group development as changes through time in the internal structures, processes, and culture of the group (Sarri and Galinsky, 1974, p. 72). As outlined in this definition group development entails changes within three different dimensions. The first dimension, the social dimension, is concerned with the organization of the groups structure and the patterns of the participants roles and structures. The second dimension focuses on the groups activities, tasks and the operative processes of the group and is labeled the activity dimension. The final dimension, group culture, includes properties such as group norms, values and a shared group purpose.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Smith The definition is important to the present discussion as it outlines the types of activities and events that groups may deal with during their development. More specifically, the definition is significant in that it serves as a representation of the types of changes that occur in the various developmental models. As previously noted, the primary reason for including this definition is to establish an understanding of what is meant by the phrase group development. While the definition is relevant to the models discussed in this paper, the crux of the review deals with an examination of the similarities and differences between the existing models with the intent of raising questions and issues that relate not only to the models themselves but to various methodological issues used in gathering the data and developing the models. It should however be noted that the models in this paper do contain provisions for each of three dimensions outlined in the Sarri and Galinsky definition. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE GROUP DEVELOPMENT LITERATURE AND HISTORY While a large body of group development literature exists today, Hare (1973) has noted that concerted interest and attention to group developmental issues and trends really only began to grow following the publication of Bales and Strodtbecks (1951) work examining phases in group problem solving and Bions (1961) work and experiences with psycho-analytic groups of neurotic patients in England. Currently, groups, and more specifically, the use and development of work teams continue to be prominent issues in all types of organizations and at different hierarchical organizational levels. Because of the long history of interest and research in group development, only crude estimates can be made as to the number of group development theories that exist. In addressing this issue, Hill and Gruner (1973) discuss the fact that Hill was once an avid collector of group development theories. At one point, they report, he met up with another collector of group development theories and found that their combined collections yielded more than 100 distinct theories. Hills meeting occurred in 1959. Today, one can only speculate as to the total number of theories and models that exist. Therefore, the review presented here should by no means be considered an exhaustive review of the group development literature, since it would be nearly impossible to obtain, much less review all of the group development theories that exist. This paper has been written with two main goals in mind. The first goal is to provide a contemporary review of the group development literature, examining some of the more recent models and theories that have been proposed and presenting an overview of the preceding work. The second goal of this paper is to briefly critique and comment on the state of the overall body of group development literature. As will be seen, there is still much to learn about group development. Furthermore, there are many problems associated with how the current body of group development research has been conducted and how popular or currently accepted, taught and practiced models have gained their notoriety. Finally, there are still questions that have not been answered or addressed in the past and in some instances are only now beginning to be examined and researched. GROUP DEVELOPMENT MODEL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME In organizing this voluminous body of research, an effort was made to develop or find a method for classifying and placing the various models and theories into a simplified framework. This process was made difficult by the fact that while many researchers have stated that the theories share common ideas and, in some cases, stages of development, they also often display slight and subtle differences.

One critical concern that has been raised ... is ... what are our limits in understanding group and team development.
During the course of this literature review, five classification frameworks were encountered. The earliest of these frameworks was Gibbard, Hartman and Manns (1974) and the most recent was Mennecke, Hoffer and Wynnes (1992). The frameworks and classification categories can be seen in Table 1. The five frameworks share several common themes. One shared themes is that each of the frameworks presents a classification that depicts group development as a linear, step-by-step process. Gibbard, Hartman and Mann (1974), for example, apply the specific label of linear-progressive to this class of models while Mennecke et al. (1992) refer to the models as being progressive in

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

15 5

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions Table 1: Group Development Classification Frameworks Gibbard et al. (1974) Linear Progressive Life Cycle Pendular or Recurring Cycle Shambaugh (1989) Sequential Recurring Phase Changing Centrality Poole (1989) Unitary Phase Non Phasic Contingency McCollom (1990) Performance Emotional Revolt Mennecke et al. (1992) Progressive Cyclical Non-sequential

nature as they build step-by-step toward higher levels of productivity. In McColloms (1990) framework the argument could be made that two of his classes, performance and emotional, are linear progressive. The emotional model category contains models that build hierarchically and his performance model category describes models that are focused on improvements in performance over time. A second theme that emerges in three of the five models, Gibbard et al. (1974), Shambaugh (1989), and Mennecke (1992), is a class of group development models describing recurring, pendular or cyclical phases. The models in this category depict the group development as a continual process of cycling or swinging between phases. The cycling or recurrence of phases often results from additional knowledge or understanding of the groups task. Pooles non phasic models may also fit this category. In his description of these models, Poole notes that groups and their members go through periods where they are in and out of synch. Thus, group development could be viewed as a constant cycling between these two phases. Mennecke et al.s (1992) framework was used as a starting point for classifying the group development models reviewed in this paper. One reason for selecting this model was that it had a history in that it built upon and updated Gibbard et al.s (1974) work. A second reason for using this framework was that it included the two commonly reported models types, linear-progressive and cyclical or recurring cycle, found in the four other frameworks. The third reason for basing the framework used here on Mennecke et al.s work was that by virtue of it being the most recent, it recognized and classified several of the newer group development models.

Several modifications were made to Mennecke et al.s framework. One notable change was the moving of the life-cycle models from under the cyclical model category to the linear progressive category. This change was made based on the belief that life-cycles proceed in a linear fashion (birth-maturation-death). Even if an organism/ group was born and immediately died it would still have progressed in a linear fashion from birth to death. Insights from the four other frameworks were also applied in modifying Mennecke et al.s framework. For example, Mennecke et al.s category of non-sequential models was expanded to include hybrid models. Hybrid models come in two types. One type addresses the existence/affect that contingent factors may have on determining developmental patterns. This type was presented in Pooles category of contingency models. The second type of hybrid model emerges from the combining of development models or theories. An example of this type of model is Morgan, Salas and Glickmans (1993) TEAM model that merged ideas found in Tuckmans (1965) model with the ideas of the cyclical models. The revised framework is depicted in Table 2. The present framework divides group development models into three categories: linear progressive models, cyclical and pendular models, and non-sequential or hybrid models. Linear progressive models are models that imply that groups exhibit an increasing degree of maturity and performance over time (Mennecke et al., 1992, p. 526). Cyclical and pendular models are defined as models that imply a recurring sequence of events (Mennecke et al., 1992, p. 526). Non-sequential models are models that do not imply any specific sequence of events; rather, the events that occur are assumed to result from contingent factors that

16

Special Issue on Group Development

Smith Table 2: Categorization of Group Development Models Linear Progressive Models Bennis & Shepard (1956) Mills (1964) Tuckman (1965) Sarri & Galinsky (1974) Braaten (1974/1975) Heinen & Jacobson (1976) Tuckman & Jensen (1977) Caple (1978) Lacoursiere (1980) Kormanski & Mozenter (1987) Maples (1988) change the focus of the groups activities (Mennecke et al., 1992, p. 526-7).Hybrid models tend to be models that combine several different models to form a new model. The hybrid models are grouped with the non-sequential models because they also do not propose a specific, ordered pattern of group development. These three groupings and the specific theories that are classified into each category will be examined in greater detail in the following sections of the paper. LINEAR PROGRESSIVE MODELS The linear-progressive models are perhaps the best known and most widely cited type of developmental model. These models assume that groups develop in a definite linear fashion and that there is a definite order of progression from one phase or stage to another. Table 3 provides a list of the various linear progressive models reviewed in this paper, and also presents the sequential stages or phases as defined by the various researchers. According to these researchers, group development would proceed in exact accordance with the hierarchical lists located below each heading. For example, in Mills (1964) model a group would first experience the encounter, next test boundaries and model roles, then proceed to negotiate a normative system, followed by the production stage and finally arrive at a point in which group members would separate or exit the group. Gibbard, Hartman and Mann (1974) add that the models are also considered to be sequential in time because passage to succeeding stages or phases implies that a group is becoming more developed or mature. A good analogy to the mechanics of these theories would be a flight of stairs. In order to get to the top a group must walk up each individual step. In the case of group development, the group must deal with each successive stage or phase. Models that have been categorized as life-cycle models in prior reviews (Mennecke et al., 1992) are also included in this category. In previous work (Gibbard et al., 1974 and Mennecke et al., 1992), life-cycle models were grouped with the cyclical or pendular models. After reviewing these models, it was apparent that the developmental patterns discussed in the life-cycle models are more similar to the patterns described in the linear progressive models since these models have definite linear Cyclical & Pendular Models Bales & Strodtbeck (1951) Schutz (1958) Hare (1973) Napier & Gershenfeld (1973) Srivastva, Obert & Neilsen (1977) Bradford (1978) Drexler, Sibbet & Forrester (1991) Non-phasic/Hybrid Models McGrath (1986) Gersick (1988) Poole (1989) McCollom (1990) Morgan, Salas & Glickman (1993)

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

17 7

Table 3: Linear Progressive Model Theorists and Stages or Phases Bennis and Shepard (1956) Phase 1 Dependence Subphase 1: DependenceFlight Subphase 2: CounterdependenceFlight Subphase 3: ResolutionCatharsis Mills (1964) Encounter Tuckman (1965) Forming Sarri and Galinsky (1974) Origin Formative Braaten (1974/ 75) Pregroup Heinen and Jacobson (1976) Forming Tuckman and Jensen (1977) Forming Caple (1978) Lacoursiere Kormanski (1980) & Mozenter (1987) Awareness Maples (1988) Forming

Orientation Orientation

Testing Boundaries & Modeling Roles Negotiating an Indigenous Normative System Production

Storming

Intermediate 1

Initial Phase

Differentiation

Storming

Conflict

Dissatisfaction

Conflict

Storming

Norming

Revision

Early Phase Integration

Norming

Integration

Resolution Cooperation

Norming

Phase 2 Interdependence Subphase 4: EnchantmentFlight Subphase 5: DisenchantmentFlight Subphase 6: Consensual Validation

Performing

Intermediate 2

Mature Work Phase

Full Maturity

Performing

Achievement

Production Productivity Performing

Separation

Maturation Termination

Adjourning

Order

Termination

Adjourning

Termination

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions paths of development and progress sequentially from infancy to adulthood/ maturity and typically to death. One potential reason for the separation of these two models categories may be attributable to the fact that life cycle models explicitly include a termination phases whereas many linear progressive models assume that such actions, if they are to occur, will happen at some point in the final developmental period. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) note for example that the original Tuckman (1965) model included such actions in its original final stage, but later explicitly added the adjourning stage based on beliefs and publications of the lifecycle theorists. The Development of Linear-Progressive Models. The linear-progressive models operate under the assumption that group development is based on the completion of a definite and ordered set of stages, phases or periods. As previously noted, the models that are included in this specific category are some of the best known and tested of the group development models. These models also tend to be the models that are typically used in teaching group development and can be found in written materials ranging from academic textbooks to organizational handbooks to articles appearing in the popular press. Linear progressive models have been developed from a number of varied approaches to studying groups and their development. The predominant technique used appears to have been observation (e.g., Bennis and Shepard, 1956; Mills, 1964; Braaten, 1974/75; Lacoursiere, 1980; and Maples, 1988). The activities and settings in which groups were observed have been diverse. For example, one of the more prevalent types of groups used in these studies during the 1960s were undergraduate and graduate students (e.g., Bennis and Shepard, 1956; Mills, 1964; Maples, 1988). Another frequently used group was groups composed of various types of medical and psychiatric patients and individuals receiving counseling and/or training to deal with different addictions or special needs (e.g., Sarri & Galinsky, 1974; Lacoursiere, 1980). Many of these researchers coupled their observational techniques with their own personal experiences and insights from working with groups as either facilitators, participants or instructors (e.g., Braaten, 1974/75; Caple, 1978; Lacoursiere, 1980). Perhaps the next most common method of model development has been development from reviews of the existing body of group development literature. The best known example of this type of 19 model development would be Tuckmans (1965, Tuckman and Jensen, 1977) stages of small group development. Other examples of these types of models would include: Braaten (1974/75), Heinen and Jacobson (1976) and Kormanski and Mozenter (1987). Table 4 notes the basis of model development for each of the models included in this section. The developmental processes in the various linear progressive and life-cycle models exhibit many similarities in their depiction of group development. These similarities and some of the subtle differences will be discussed in the remainder of this section. Stage or Period of Forming. In virtually all of the linear progressive models, the first developmental stage or period of development is an unspecified length of time in which group members meet together in a physical space, become acquainted or familiar with each other and orient themselves to the task or work to be performed. Several different events and processes mark this stage. One specific and important ongoing process is a period of boundary testing (e.g., Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman and Jensen, 1977; Heinen and Jacobson, 1976; Caple, 1978). During boundary testing, individuals actively attempt to define the task, while at the same time work to establish an identity within the group (e.g., Bennis and Shepard, 1956; Tuckman, 1965; Braaten, 1974/75; Tuckman and Jensen, 1977; Kormanski & Mozenter, 1987). Often, each individuals identity is established upon the knowledge and skills (or lack of these qualities) that the individual brings to the group. Individual anxiety and disillusionment are two other related themes that exist in many of these models (e.g., Bennis and Shepard, 1956; Mills, 1964; Caple, 1978; Kormanski and Mozenter, 1987; Maples, 1988). In part, the anxiety results from meeting new individuals, being in a new physical setting, and having a cursory understanding that to succeed (perform the task) all group members must find some way to overcome prejudices and similar problems. At this point in the development process, group members often deal with their anxiety by reverting to socially acceptable norms of behavior that have been used in similar settings or situations (Bennis and Shepard, 1956). Thus, individual group members enact ideas and norms that they have used in their experiences with other groups and in dealing with unknown settings and people (Maples, 1988). Table 5 lists the various theorists and names for stages that relate to a period of group formation. Special Issue on Group Development

Smith Table 4: Theorists and Basis for Linear Progressive Model Development Theorist(s) Bennis and Shepard (1956) Basis of Theoretical Development Five years of observation of graduate students in a group dynamics course Observation of undergraduate students in training groups at Harvard Review of group development literature Appears to have been developed from teaching social group work methods and involvement directing this work Review of fourteen existing models to develop composite model. Direct observation of 25 to 30 Scandinavian groups over a ten year period to develop his model. Review of existing literature and in particular a review of the literature addressing the issue of task group development Review of group development literature applying Tuckman's 1965 model Personal experience facilitating groups, teaching group counseling and leading task groups Observation and experience with various types of groups including psychotherapy and training groups at a VA hospital Review of current theories of group development. Based on Tuckman (1965) because work is a summarization Extension of Tuckman (1965) using feedback from student journals conflict. The conflict(s) can arise for a number of reasons. One reason is that in the process of becoming acquainted (spending time with one another), people have discovered others in the group who are similar to them and with whom they most readily identify. When this occurs the group can be pulled into factions or cliques that may fight among themselves for power and leadership in the group. In other instances unrest becomes the predominant behavior as some of the subgroups identify with the appointed leader, while others stand in opposition to the leader (Braaten, 1974/75). Table 6 lists the various theorists and names for the corresponding stages that relate to this period of group development. Mills (1964) notes that if a formal leader is present in the group, group members may test that individuals role and related responsibilities. In Mills study, the leader was the instructor and the instructor had more of a passive, nurturing role than a directive, authoritarian role. Thus, in Mills

Mills (1964) Tuckman (1965) Sarri and Galinsky (1974)

Braaten (1974/75)

Heinen and Jacobson (1976)

Tuckman and Jensen (1977) Caple (1978)

Lacousiere (1980)

Kormanski and Mozenter (1987)

Maples (1988)

Another event that occurs in groups that have a formally appointed leader is an attempt at determining the leaders ability to lead the group and testing of his or her legitimacy in doing so. Since this a period of insecurity, group members are seen to be highly dependent on the appointed leader for direction (Bennis and Shepard, 1956; Mills, 1964). What often has been seen to occur is that the members test the leader in terms of his or her ability to assess the situation and provide sound judgment in dealing with the current group context. In sum, this period of a groups development is a time in which group members are actively seeking a direction for action and attempting to establish a sense of stability and purpose. Stage or Period of Conflict and Unrest The next general occurrence in these models is a transition to a period of unrest, disagreement and

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

20

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions Table 5: Stages of Formation in Linear Progressive Models Theorist(s) Bennis & Shepard (1956) Mills (1964 Tuckman (1965) Sarri & Galinsky (1974) Braaten (1974/75) Heinen & Jacobson (1976) Tuckman & Jensen (1977) Caple (1978) Lacoursiere (1980) Kormanski & Mozenter (1987) Maples (1988)
a

Corresponding Stage(s) Dependence-Flight The Encounter Forming Origin & Formative Initial Phase Forming Forming Orientation Orientation Awareness Form

Position of Stage(s) in Model First First First First and Second Firsta First First First First First First

In Braatens model, developed from his review of the literature, this would be the second stage. However, in the model that is his own, this stage is the first stage as he dropped his composite models preliminary stage based on the premise that many groups do not have the ability to determine membership. group rewards and recognition. Thus, some group model, individuals pass through a time when they members may increase their efforts to draw attenlook to the instructor to be directed to a time when tion to themselves and their accomplishments the participant has become highly independent of while neglecting the need for a combined integrathe instructor. In similar fashion, Bennis and tion of group member efforts. Shepard (1956) have noted that frustration may mount with a leaders apparent inability to provide Contention and unrest may also answers and direction to the groups problems. This inability is seen to divide the group into two arise from a polarization between warring subgroups. At the heart of the warring individuals in a group who are task subgroups concerns is disagreement over leadership and structure (Bennis and Shepard, 1956). oriented and members who have a Contention and unrest may also arise from a polarization between individuals in a group who are task oriented and members who have a tendency to be more people oriented (Caple, 1978). Essentially, what theorists adopting this position are saying is that groups must find a way to balance group task needs with individual emotional needs. A final reason for conflict in a group may be that individual members are fighting to maintain their own individuality, rather than be swallowed up by the group and its developing identity (Tuckman, 1965). A related problem that exists in general in implementing group structures (teams) in organizations is that many individuals are unwilling to forgo the individual recognition and rewards derived from their singular efforts for 21

tendency oriented

to

be

more

people

Stage of Group Identity and Norm Formation Linear progressive models indicate that following the period of unrest and contention, groups enter a stage in which they begin to display cohesion and group identity. Table 7 provides a listing of the corresponding stages of group identity and norm formation in the various models. This period of time is one in which group members have resolved many of their differences and more effort and energy is directed to engaging and accomplishing the groups assigned task. Tuckman Special Issue on Group Development

Smith Table 6: Stages of Unrest or Conflict in Linear Progressive Models Theorist(s) Bennis & Shepard (1956) Mills (1964) Tuckman (1965) Sarri & Galinsky (1974) Braaten (1974/75) Heinen & Jacobson (1976) Tuckman & Jensen (1977) Caple (1978) Lacoursiere (1980) Kormanski & Mozenter (1987) Maples (1988)
aThis

Corresponding Stage(s) CounterdependenceFlight Testing Boundaries and Modeling Roles Storming Revision Early Phase Differentiation Storming Conflict Dissatisfaction Conflict Storm

Position of Stage(s) in Model Second Second Second Fourth Seconda Second Second Second Second Second Second

stage would be later in Braaten's own model. See explanation for Braaten in Table 5. development, the group passes from a polarized group atmosphere into a period in which members evaluate the present needs of the group and the groups past performance. This evaluation results in the group better understanding why norms are needed and group members, in turn, work to build additional cohesion. The Sarri and Galinsky (1974) model differs slightly from the other models. In this model, the time period corresponding to the development of a group identity and norm formation can be interpreted as being composed of two stages that surround a conflictual period. What occurs in this model is that after groups form and develop simple operating procedures, they enter a stage designated as Intermediate 1 in which there is a level of cohesion and group behavior directed to completing the task. Following Intermediate 1, there is a developmental period in which the group lapses into a period of conflict that challenges the established simple operating procedures and the groups understanding of the task. The conflictual time period is then followed by Intermediate 2 in which high levels of integration and stability exist. Sarri and Galinsky note that the second intermediate stage may be very short and, in many instances, hardly noticeable. The observability of 22

(1965), for example, describes this period as a time in which a group is displaying cohesiveness and there has been the creation of ingroup feeling (p. 396). Mills (1964) notes that during this time the group seeks to define and legislate what it should be (p. 245). Bennis and Shepard (1956) state that this is the most crucial and fragile phase of the group to this point in its development since the group suddenly shifts its whole basis for action (p. 423). In fact, Bennis and Shepard note that in some groups this phase may not even occur since the group may have become so splintered and divided that it is unable to bridge existing differences and develop a group identity and normative system. Braatens (1974/75) model depicts this transition as being one in which groups pass from a period of unrest to a period of resolution and performing. It is interesting to note in his model that rather than have a set period of time to address and remedy some of the problems and conflicts that have occurred in the past, groups proceed directly to a stage in which the problems are resolved and in which the most productive task work occurs. Caples sequential stage model is also somewhat unique. During this third stage of a groups

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions Table 7: Stages of Group Identity and Norm Formation in Linear Progressive Models Theorist(s) Bennis and Shepard (1956) Corresponding Stage(s) Enchantment-Flight/ Resoution-Catharsis Negotiating an Indigenous Normative System Norming Intermediate 1 & 2 Mature Work Phase Integration Norming Integration Resolution Cooperation Norm Position of Stage(s) in Model Third and Fourth Third

Mills (1964)

Tuckman (1965) Sarri and Galinsky (1974) Braaten (1974/75) Heinen and Jacobson (1976) Tuckman and Jensen (1977) Caple (1978) Lacoursiere (1980) Kormanski and Mozenter (1987) Maples (1988)
aThis

Third Third & Fifth Thirda Third Third Third Third Third Third

stage would be later in Braaten's own model. See explanation for Braaten in Table 5 responses to the internal and external stresses placed on it. Caple (1978) also notes that, during this time period, groups eagerly and mutually explore and resolve problems. Stage of Adjournment or Termination The final stage that eight of the models include is a point where the group dies off, terminates, or is disbanded. Table 9 provides a listing of the corresponding stages of adjournment or termination in the linear progressive models reviewed. For Tuckman, a stage specifically identified with group breakup was a late addition. In his and Jensens 1977 article, they note that it was always assumed that the stage occurred at some point in the performing stage because a group, at some point, would complete its work and no longer be needed by the organization within which it was embedded. Sarri and Galinsky (1974) propose four reasons groups may terminate. The first reason is that groups have accomplished their work and thus are no longer needed. The second is that groups may Special Issue on Group Development

this stage is largely dependent on how good a job the group has done in defining the task and procedures early in its life. Stage or Period of Production Once group cohesion has been established and rules have been further clarified and defined, groups begin to actively produce or perform their assigned task(s). Several theorists have noted that this is a period in group life in which the previously established rules become more flexible, pliable, and functional (e.g., Tuckman, 1965; Braaten, 1974/75). The stages that correspond to this period of production in the various models can be seen in Table 8. Sarri and Galinsky (1974), in particular, describe this period as one in which the group has stabilized its structure and purpose, as well as its operating and governing procedures. They also note that the groups culture is expanding and that the group as a whole has developed effective

23

Smith Table 8: Stages of Production in Linear Progressive Models Theorist(s) Mills (1964) Tuckman (1965) Sarri & Galinsky (1974) Braaten (1974/75) Heinen & Jacobson (1976) Tuckman & Jensen (1977) Caple (1978) Lacoursiere (1980) Kormanski & Mozenter (1987) Maples (1988)
aThis

Corresponding Stage(s) Production Performing Maturation Mature Work Phase Full Maturity Performing Achievement Production Productivity Perform

Position of Stage(s) in Model Fourth Fourth Sixth Thirda Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth

stage would be later in Braaten's own model. See explanation for Braaten in Table 5. commitment, ultimately leading to disengagement from the group. Caples (1978) model, at this point, perhaps more closely resembles models that are associated with recurrent or cyclical stages. However, because of his position that the stages are sequential, it is grouped with the other models in this section. Still, Caple does note that, in later stages, groups work to maintain their structure and do not reward innovative actions and activities as they did earlier in their lives. Therefore, one must question if groups terminate in Caples model. If one returns to the groups he studies, it would seem fairly obvi ous that, for Caple, group life, at some point, must end. Furthermore, unless a group is in an environment that is stagnant (as opposed to dynamic), the likelihood of failure increases as more and more environmental fluctuations are heaped on a group that is not interested in innovative ideas as a means for dealing with these problems. As a result, one can envision such a group becoming trapped in its past and, to some extent, terminated by that same past. If, however, a group exists in a highly stable environment that does not require innovation, it is possible that the group could exist for an extended period of time, given appropriate conditions.

have been planned to exist only for a specific period of time. In this context, one can picture teams that are hired for seasonal work responsibilities or special projects. Third, groups could fail and thus die due to a lack of integration. In this condition, a group will fail if it is unable to achieve essential conditions for endurance (p. 78). These essential conditions are: a basic consensus among members about goals, a high level of interpersonal ties, a role system which permits sufficient personal satisfaction, and successful completion of major tasks or effective operating procedures. Finally, groups could disband because of maladaptation. Maladaptation results when groups cannot deal with internal changes and environmental fluxes. Maladaptation may occur when a group has not developed change mechanisms to cope with these events or when the groups mechanisms have become rigid and do not allow the group to respond appropriately. Braaten (1974/75) notes that the final period of group life does not really start in what he identifies as the final stage. Rather, events leading up to a groups termination often begin earlier in the groups developmental sequence and may include the withdrawal of group-member interest and

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

24

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions Table 9: Stage of Termination in Linear Progressive Models Theorist(s) Mills (1964) Tuckman (1965) Sarri and Galinsky (1974) Braaten (1974/75) Heinen and Jacobson (1976) Tuckman and Jensen (1977) Caple (1978) Lacoursiere (1980) Kormanski and Mozenter (1987) Maples (1988)
a

Stage(s) Separation Performing Termination Termination No Corresponding Stage Adjourning Order Termination Separation Adjourn

Position of Stage(s) in Model Fifth Fourtha Seventh Fourthb N/A Fifth Fifthc Fifth Fifth Fifth

As noted in the text Tuckman (1965) did not originally have a specific end stage, but assumed at some point the group would complete its performance. Furthermore, Tuckman & Jensen (1977) note that they added "adjourning" largely in response to the life-cycle models of the day. b This stage would be later in Braaten's own model. See explanation for Braaten in Table 5. c Caple indicates that termination need not necessarily occur although it may to these models as was the case for the linear progressive models. The authors assume, however, that for a group to fully develop and mature, it must deal with the issues found in each of the developmental stages or phases. Thus, while the Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) model may appear to indicate that groups develop in an orderly fashion from the orientation stage through to the control stage, a group may swing freely back and forth between any of the stages until it finds a workable solution for achieving its objective(s). Seven specific theories or models are discussed in this section of the paper (see Table 11). One work that is conspicuously missing is Bions (1959) model. The decision to not include this particular model was based on several observations. The first was a reading and review of Bions classic work, Experiences in Groups. In reviewing this book, it became apparent that Bion did not write it with the intent that it would be used as a model of group development. Rather, the work was intended to share Bions observations and first-hand experiences in working with psycho-analytic groups. Furthermore, Hare (1973) states that Bions concern was with the various emotional states and Special Issue on Group Development

CYCLICAL AND PENDULAR MODELS The second type of developmental model reviewed here is the cyclical or pendular model. Models included in this category were developed based on observations and the notion that groups revisit stages and phases over and over or swing between issues again and again during the developmental process. According to the theorists and researchers proposing these models, groups must constantly address similar issues and problems at multiple time periods and settings, for reasons ranging from changes in the external environment, to changes in group membership, to changes in the nature of the group task. Each cycle or swing serves to strengthen the groups understanding of its present situation and its assigned task and to modify the groups approach to dealing with those issues. The models discussed in this section can be found in Table 10. Also included in this table are the various stages or phases that groups cycle and swing back and forth between as they develop. The specific ordering of these stages is not as important 25

Table 10: Cyclical or Pendular Model Theorist and Stages of Phases Bales & Strodtbeck (1951) Orientation Schutz (1958) Inclusion Hare (1973) Latent PatternMaintenance & Tension Management Adaptation Napier & Gershenfeld (1973) The Beginning Srivastva, Obert & Neilsen (1977) Inclusion Bradford (1978) Formation Drexler, Sibbet & Forrester (1991) Orientation

Evaluation

Affection

Movement Toward Confrontation Compromise & Harmony

Influence
Influence

Inclusion

Confrontation of a Difficult Problem Overcoming Problem through Cooperative Problem Solving Group Reorganization

Trust Building

Control

Control

Integration

Goal or Role Clarification Decision Making Implementation

Goal Attainment

Reassessment

Influence Intimacy Intimacy

Resolution & Recycling

High Performance Renewal

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions swings in these groups, rather than with developing a theory of group development. Gibbard, Hartman and Mann (1972) have also noted that Bion explicitly rejected placing his assumptions and observations into a group developmental context (p. 86). Finally, Srivastva and Barrett (1988) have stated that Bions scheme is not explicitly developmental in nature (p. 33). Thus, despite the existence of other reviews that have included Bions work as a cyclical model, the present review does not because its principal focus is not directly related to the issue of group development. As can be seen in Table 11, there does not appear to be a strong pattern of similarity in terms of how the models were developed. If any similarity does exist, it is that the models tend to be expanding upon or blending ideas from previous work and applying that knowledge to the creation of new group development models (e.g., Hare, 1973, Napier and Gershenfeld, 1973, Srivastva et al., 1977, Drexler et al., 1991). The remainder of this section will examine the similarities and differences that exist among these theories. In general, these model have much in common with the linear progressive models with respect to the terminology used to describe group development. However, there are differences not only between these two sets of models, but also among the theories within this section. Formative Stage This stage is similar to the first stage of the linear progressive models in that it is a stage or period in which the group is seen to physically come together or form (see Table 12). Apart from the importance of the group converging in one specific physical location, this stage also takes on importance at the end of a developmental sequence and will be discussed in more depth in the section that discusses the advent of the recurrence of developmental cycles or swings in the patterns of group development. In this early stage, groups are primarily concerned with two central activities. The first is that group members seek to define what type of group they are in and to define the task or problem that is being dealt with (e.g., Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951; Hare, 1973; Napier and Gershenfeld, 1973). In defining the nature of the group and its task, group members openly share information related to the problem or task (Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951). The shared information is then used to define group and task boundaries (Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951). The sharing of information increases the groups knowledge of the tasks requirements and demands. With this understanding, the group proceeds to establish goals and define work relationships and patterns that will allow it to begin work on its task (Hare, 1973; Bradford, 1978). It is also during this stage that members begin to familiarize themselves with each other and determine if they desire to be a part of the group (provided such a choice exists) (e.g., Schutz, 1958; Srivastva et al., 1977; Bradford, 1978; Drexler et al., 1991). Srivastva et al. (1977) note that during this time period the familiarity with one another may be kept at a superficial level (p. 99). Group members may only be interested in familiarizing themselves with issues such as names, places of origin, age, marital status, number of children and educational and professional backgrounds (Srivastva et al., 1977, p. 99). The familiarity that results from this second central activity is important in determining the working relationships that are necessary to accomplish the groups work and in building the trust necessary to carry out the task. This familiarity also helps to control the level of anxiety group members may be experiencing. Furthermore, the knowledge permits each individual an opportunity to find his or her unique place (identity) within the group. Information Gathering, Goal and Role Clarification As noted earlier, there tends to be some overlap of phases or stages depending on the specific number of stages authors have used to describe their models and observations. For example, there is some overlap in the activities included in the formative stage and subsequent activities involving information gathering and role clarification. The overlap can be attributed to the fact that there is a recurrence of events, whereby each recurrence theoretically enables the group to obtain a higher degree of development and understanding of the groups task, environment and composition. Bradford (1978), for example, has noted that each time a group meets, it essentially must reform and revisit the ideas and decisions that had been previously accepted and adjust them. This position is based on the idea that groups are open systems and individual group members live outside of the groups and can bring new ideas, possibilities, and problems to a group in each successive meeting.

27

Special Issue on Group Development

Smith Table 11: Theorists and Basis for Cyclical or Pendular Model Development Theorist Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) How Model Developed Observations of all male, leaderless groups solving human relations or construction problems at the Laboratory of Social Relations at Harvard University. Members had no prior knowledge of one another. Developed from study of therapy groups, encounter groups and Tgroups Model builds upon Parsons functional theory of groups Developed from a review of the existing literature Developed from a review of the literature and some insights and observations from personal experiences Work draws on concepts of a previous paper prepared by author and Thomas J. Mallinson for a summer session of the NTL in group development. Blends Jack R. Gibbs (Bradford, Gibb and Benne, 1964) research on group behavior with process theories of Arthur Young (1976a, b).

Schutz (1958)

Hare (1973) Napier and Gershenfeld (1973) Srivastva, Obert and Neilsen (1977)

Bradford (1978)

Drexler, Sibbet and Forrester (1991)

Table 12: Formative Stage(s) or Phases in the Cyclical or Pendular Models Theorist(s) Corresponding Stage or Phase Name Orientation Inclusion Latent Pattern-Maintenance & Tension Management The Beginning Inclusion (Safety vs. Anxiety) Formation Orientation &Trust Building Stage in Author's Presentation First First First First First First First & Second

Bales & Strodtbeck (1951) Schutz (1958) Hare (1973)

Napier & Gershenfeld (1973) Srivastva, Obert & Neilsen (1977) Bradford (1978) Drexler, Sibbet & Forrester (1991)

During this period of a groups life the group becomes more concerned with clarifying its purpose and understanding the skills and resources necessary to complete the task (see Table 13 for comparable stages). The central issue of group development is achieving a better understanding of the group's work.

Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) note that this is a period in group life where the group evaluates the available information that has been accumulated through search and solicitation of ideas and opinions on the task. Hare (1973) notes that in this stage, the group becomes more aware and knowledgeable about what skills are related to the 28

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Smith groups goal or purpose and group members begin to openly display these skills for other members. Srivastva et al. (1977) observe that group members during this stage begin to form dyadic relationships based on the similarities that have been shared and displayed by individual group members. Bradford (1978) notes that, among other things, this period is marked by a readjustment of structure which coincides with Srivastva et al.s idea that this time period provides the group members with an opportunity to test the groups boundaries and model specific roles. In reviewing the work of Drexler et al. (1991), Bradford (1978), and Hare (1973), it can be seen that this period marks a point in group life where the challenge of achieving a goal or overcoming a problem becomes more real to the group. As a result, the group alters its structural patterns, roles, and relationships in accordance with the increased understanding. For some groups, this stage may be more time consuming and difficult than for others; thus it may indeed represent Bradfords (1978) stage of Confrontation of a Difficult Problem or at least a major challenge to the groups initial understanding of its purpose and task. Schutzs theory is an exception in that it really does not appear to posit such a phase. The reason for this may be because his focus was more on social control in groups than on work or task groups. Thus, Schutzs model posits that some individuals have a need to control, some to be included (affection), and others to be controlled. Schutzs second stage, control, could have been placed with the other theories first stage because, in the formative stage, group members are attempting to establish who they are in relation to the other members and, in some cases, are looking for someone to lead them in completing the groups task. This stage could also be included here, however, since some members in the group will be more powerful in shaping the group's direction in pursuit of its goal, while others are more willing to be led and controlled, provided that the work is accomplished. Decision Making and Structural Stabilization Some of the issues relating to individual roles and group structure carry over into this next stage (see Table 14 for corresponding stages). Of central concern during this stage of group life is the crystallizing of work patterns and relationships and the specification of structural arrangements that allow for the completion of the group task or problem.

Table 13: Information Gathering/ Role Clarification Stage(s) or Phases in Cyclical or Pendular Models Theorist(s) Corresponding Stage or Phase Name Evaluation NAa Adaptation The Beginning/Movement Toward Confrontation Inclusion _ Influence (Similarity vs. Dissimilarity) Confrontation of a Difficult Problem Goal or Role Clarification Stage in Author's Presentation Second NA Second First and Second Second Second Third

Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) Schutz (1958) Hare (1973) Napier and Gershenfeld (1973)

Srivastva, Obert and Neilsen (1977)

Bradford (1978) Drexler, Sibbet and Forrester (1991)

a

This model does not posit a stage that would be related to information gathering or role clarification.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

29

Smith Table 14: Decision Making and Structural Stabilization Stage(s) or Phases in Cyclical or Pendular Models Theorist(s) Corresponding Stage or Phase Name Evaluation/Control NAa Integration Compromise and Harmony Influence (Support vs. Panic) & Influence _ Intimacy (Concern vs. Isolation) Overcoming a Problem through Cooperative Problem Solving Decision Making Stage in Author's Presentation Second/Third NA Third Third Third & Fourth

Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) Schutz (1958) Hare (1973) Napier and Gershenfeld (1973) Srivastva, Obert and Neilsen (1977)

Bradford (1978)

Third Fourth

Drexler, Sibbet and Forrester (1991)

a

This model does not posit a stage that would be related to decision making or the stabilization of group structure. Srivastva et al. (1977) note that during this stage of group life, the members have established a state of complex interdependency (p. 106). The interdependency is based on highly differentiated group members, tightly integrated around the issue of performing the group task well (Srivastva et al., 1977). The group thus becomes actively involved in its production function and to some extent conducts monitoring to determine its success or failure. The pendular swing or recurrence of previous cycles becomes very important at this point. The increased importance is derived from the fact that the group must produce something and meet expectations. If the group is not meeting those expectations the group must return to address the problems and restructure in order to meet the tasks demands and requirements more effectively. Table 15 shows the final stages that are related to this period of group life. When and How Recurrence of Cycles Fits into the Models. For the most part, the theories discussed in this section are very similar in terms of when a recurrence or swing may take place. Bradford (1978) notes that each successive group meeting provides the possibility of such a swing. Hare (1973) notes that his model presents four func

The primary group concern in this stage is to arrive at a decision on how to proceed in accomplishing the work. Hare (1973) specifically notes that at this time, group relationships are restructured and group and social structure evolve in a manner that enables the group to pursue its goals. In addition, Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) state that during this stage, group members push for a decision and, in doing so, the ideas of some members will be supported while those of others will be neglected and downplayed. Srivastva et al. (1977) have also noted that groups at this point in their existence begin to place value on the concepts of support, trust, affection, authority and influence. They note that this can be a conflictual time in a groups life as dyads and cliques fight for power and recognition. This conflict however can have positive results as it serves to facilitate the groups task accomplishment. Implementation and Production Once a group has passed through the preceding steps, it arrives at a point where the plans and strategies that have been developed to deal with the groups goal or task are implemented and acted out. Essentially, during this stage, the group works its plan.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

30

Smith Table 15: Implementation and Production Stage(s) or Phases in Cyclical or Pendular Models Theorist(s) Corresponding Stage or Phase Name Evaluation & Control NAa Integration & Goal Attainment Resolution and Recycling Influence _ Intimacy (Concern vs. Isolation) & Intimacy (Interdependence vs. Withdrawal) Group Reorganization & Formation Implementation & High Performance Stage in Author's Presentation Second &Third NA Third & Fourth Fifth Fourth & Fifth

Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) Schutz (1958) Hare (1973) Napier and Gershenfeld (1973) Srivastva, Obert and Neilsen (1977)

Bradford (1978)

Fourth & First Fifth & Sixth

Drexler, Sibbet and Forrester (1991)

aThis

model does not posit a stage that would be related to implementation or production. of Why continue? In addressing this question, the group assesses if there is still work that needs to be done, and, if so, whether it is still worthwhile. The members also specifically ask themselves if the work has some personal value or meaning. Perhaps the greatest contribution these models make to our understanding of groups and their developmental processes is that groups are adaptable and flexible in dealing with environmental demands and constraints. This is evidenced by the fact that these models portray groups able to assess their external and internal environments and make either subtle or dramatic changes that allow them to accommodate the changes they face. Thus, to some extent, these models appear to be more capable of explaining and predicting group development in the real world, especially a dynamic and changing world, than the rigid and hierarchical linear progressive models, as they specifically address a groups ability to assess new information and make adjustments at various points in its development. NONSEQUENTIAL/ HYBRID MODELS The models described in this section of the paper do not have a prescribed pattern of developmental events. These models can be viewed as 31

tional problems that groups must constantly deal with during their existence. Drexler et al. (1991) and Srivastva et al. (1977) note that all the problems that their models discuss are constantly in play and may need to be addressed at any time. Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) make it explicit that groups are constantly involved in a struggle to balance the demands of the task with the emotional demands of the group members. These models also appear to have a secondary cyclical nature to them. Specifically, Hare (1973), Napier and Gershenfeld (1973), and Drexler et al. (1991) note that groups arrive at an end stage, normally occurring after the production stage, and must determine if the group should continue or disband. In Hare's model, this decision is made following the goal attainment stage. At this time, the group returns to its latent-pattern maintenance stage and decides if the group should prepare to disband or start a new developmental sequence. Some events that can prompt the cycling to a new sequence are changes in the original goal or the group receiving a new goal. Drexler et al.s (1991) model is similar to Hares model in that when a group has implemented its plan and achieved high performance, it returns to the orientation stage and seeks to address the question

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions contingency models of group development in that the observed patterns of development are largely the result of environmental factors, such as time, that affect the development process. Five models will be examined in this section. Pooles Contingency Model Pooles model specifically examines how groups develop as they deal with the task of decision making. This model is based largely on the concept of structuration or the process of production and reproduction of social systems via the application of generative rules and resources (Poole et al., 1985, p. 76). Structure refers to the rules and resources people use in interaction. Systems result from the application of structures and lead to regularized relations of interdependence between individuals and groups (p. 76). In other words, systems result as group members agree on the rules and roles needed to be successful and then apply them to group work. Structure can thus be seen to have a dual nature. First, it is the set of rules people use as they interact with others. The rules that are used exist, however, only because they are acknowledged through their use in interaction. Therefore, structure only exists if group members acknowledge a similar (if not exact) set of rules to be used in the group. Further confounding this distinction is the fact that, since structure is a product of human actors and interactions, it is continuously open to change based on human understanding, interpretation, and creativity. Poole et al. (1985) reinforce this idea in the following quote: The meaning of any one act depends on its place in the whole, its relation to the whole ensemble of rules that define not a static game, but an on-going practice that continues to persist because of its use in the social system (p. 77). Given the nature of the assumptions of structuration, Poole and Roth (1989) suggest that, in studying groups, researchers need to alter their approach to studying group decision making from a series of phasic blocks to a process that views it as a series of intertwining threads of activity (p. 328). There are three specific threads that are intertwined: task process behavior, behaviors representing working relationships in the group, and topical focus (Poole and Roth, 1989). Task process behaviors are concerned with processes such as problem analysis and solution evaluation. Behaviors that represent working relationships are those that deal with conflict and integration. Finally, topical focus deals with the 32 substantive issues being dealt with in group activities (Poole and Roth, 1989, p. 328). Poole and Roth maintain that these are not the only issues with which a group may be concerned, but are the three principal threads with which groups must deal. In comparing this model to other existing models of group development, Poole and Roth explain that the orderly patterns that have been observed by others are the result of the threads developing in a coordinated fashion. This, they assume, probably happens most of the time (p. 328). The strength of the model, however, is that it can also explain why other interpretations of group development exist, in that groups did not deal with the three main threads in an orderly fashion and/or the development was also contingent upon other factors outside of the scope of the three main threads. To help researchers understand transitions in groups, Poole and Roth have also described three types of breakpoints (p. 328). The first type of breakpoint is the normal breakpoint. Normal breakpoints are breaks within the group that do not disrupt the group's activities. Two examples of normal breakpoints are first, shifts in the topics of group discussion and adjournments in group activity. The second type of breakpoint is delays. During delays, the group may cycle back, similar to recurring phase models, and repeat and rework issues that have become problems, making adjustments according to newly discovered contingency factors. The final type of breakpoint is disruptions. Disruptions occur when events such as a major conflict halt a groups progress or when failures cause the group to reconsider its work (p. 329). Poole and Roth also note that any sequence of group development or decision making is complicated by two sets of contingency factors: task characteristics and properties of group structure. Task characteristics are concerned with issues such as task difficulty and coordination requirements, while properties of group structure involve properties that determine working relationships such as involvement, leadership and consensual norms (p. 329). Poole notes that these factors influence three aspects of group development: the sequence or type of group activity and order of occurrence, the complexity which is related to the number of cycles and the type and frequency of breakpoints, and the degree of organization or coordination among the previously noted activity strands (p. 329).

Special Issue on Group Development

Smith Time, Interaction and Performance Model. The Time, Interaction and Performance (TIP) Model was developed from reviewing literature that examined group development and processes, time, communication, and prior work done by McGrath and colleagues. The model is established on the premise that groups are multi-functioned and that groups have relations with, and contribute to, systems at three levels: those systems in which the group is embedded, individual group members; and the group itself. In presenting these ideas, McGrath notes that while the functions are analytically distinguishable (p. 151), they are inseparably intertwined . The functions that the group serves in these relations are the production function, well-being function and member-support function. Each of these functions can be related to a mode of activity. A depiction of these relationships can be seen in Table 16. The TIP model assumes that groups will always be acting in one of the modes outlined for each function, but that they are not necessarily going to be engaged in the same mode for each function simultaneously. In other words, a group may be working in Mode I for the function of member support, but be in Mode II for the function of wellbeing and Mode III for the function of production. In charting the course of a groups developmental sequence, the path is largely dependent on the presence or absence of factors that either support or interfere with the groups ability to maintain each of the three functions of the group. Further complicating this model is the idea that while all of the modes are possible in group life, they are not required for a group to act and develop (McGrath, 1991). In explaining development using this model, McGrath notes that all groups must participate in Modes I and IV. These modes are the beginning and end stages of group development. McGrath assumes that groups will consistently attempt to use this least complex path (I to IV) (p. 158). In selecting any path, groups are seen to choose a phase sequence that is satisfying or least effort (p. 159). Groups will only choose more complex paths (those with more modes) if the conditions warrant their use (p. 159). Thus, it is possible for groups to participate in any combination of modes (so long as I and IV are present) and in any order, depending upon the conditions a group may encounter. It is even noted that groups may have to return to prior modes to resolve problems that develop in the course of a groups maturation process. Some of the possible phase sequences in which a group may be involved are illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 16: Functions and Modes of McGraths TIP Model Functions Production Mode I Inception (Goal Choices) Mode II Problem Solving (Means Choices) Mode III Conflict Resolution (Political Choices) Mode IV Execution (Goal Attainment) Production Demand/ Opportunity Technical Problem Solving Policy Conflict Resolution Well-Being Interaction Demand/ Opportunity Role Network Definition Power/Payoff Distribution Member Support Inclusion Demand/ Opportunity Position/Status Attainments Contribution/ Payoff Relationships Participation

Modes

Performance

Interaction

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Smith
D' D Mode I B B'

group production is really done by individuals or subgroups acting when the main group is not in session (McGrath, 1991). The Punctuated Equilibrium Model Of the six models reviewed in this section, Gersicks (1988) model appears to have received the most attention in the academic and popular literatures (texts, journals, etc.). At the heart of this model are the issues of time and deadlines and the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Gersick (1991) notes that one of the paradigms that has affected how we view groups and change is Darwins model of evolution. In this model Darwin describes change as occurring in the form of a slow stream of small mutations (Gersick, 1991). In contrast to the Darwinian model, Gersick cites work from natural historians Eldredge and Gould (1972) that provides an alternate theory of evolution. This alternate explanation is referred to as punctuated equilibrium. According to the Eldredge and Gould theory, lineages (species) exist in essentially static form (equilibrium) over most of their histories, and new species arise abruptly, through a sudden revolutionary punctuation of rapid change (Gersick, 1991, p. 11).

Mode III

A'

Mode II

E' E Mode IV F G

C' C

Figure 1: Potential Developmental Paths of McGraths TIP Model (reproduced from McGrath, 1991, p.158) One potential developmental sequence is that a group may follow path B which would require it to begin at Mode I, move to Mode II to resolve or address a specific issue confronting the group, return to Mode I via path B and complete its development by going from Mode I to Mode IV on path A. Each potential path a group may follow is noted by a letter and the various lettered paths can be chained together to describe a groups developmental pattern. An example of a longer developmental path would be a group proceeding from Mode I along path B, to Mode II, from Mode II to Mode III via path F, and finally from Mode III to Mode IV by way of path E. While the path may be longer, the group has met McGraths necessary conditions of participating in Modes I and IV, but done so in a more circuitous route because of the special conditions or situations in which the group has found itself. In the TIP model, group development must be considered in multiple dimensions. Thus, there is not a single, simple linear path to explain the process of group development. Mennecke et al. (1992) note that this model specifically argues that groups should be looked at and examined in terms of not only their task-related behaviors but also their socio-emotional behaviors. McGrath (1991) feels that the use of multiple levels of analysis is necessary since there may be underlying issues that drive the developmental process and determine its pattern. He also offers, however, the caveat that we can only approximate group activities because much of the work that is actually performed is done outside of the group context or arena in which researchers have traditionally studied groups (McGrath, 1991). Furthermore, he notes that much work performed under the guise of

...it is important that we understand what this we purport phenomenon about to know prior what to should about any be

speculation

done to improve the field.

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was applied in Gersicks (1988) study of eight naturally occurring teams. Three of the eight teams were student teams working on class projects, while the remaining teams were a community fundraising committee, a bank task force, hospital administrators, psychiatrists and social workers, and university faculty and administrators. Gersick collected her data through observation of each meeting and generated a complete transcript of each meeting from her hand written notes and tape recordings. In addition, she interviewed some members of the final four groups mentioned above to address aspects of each project's development (Gersick, 1988, p. 14) that she did not directly observe (i.e., projects history, member expectations, perceptions and evaluation of the project,

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

34

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions and other events that occurred outside the meeting setting). The model resulting from this research was based on the observation that teams alternated between periods of stasis and long periods of inertia that were punctuated by concentrated revolutionary periods of quantum change (p. 16). Ultimately, Gersick observed that the teams in her study passed through five phases or time periods in their lives. During the first time period, first meeting, the group members appeared to have an understanding of the groups situation and how the group would behave. Gersick specifically notes in her article that the groups she observed did not exhibit a period of storming as would be expected from models such as Tuckmans (1965). The first meeting is where the group develops the plan under which it operates through the first phase. During the first phase (second time period), teams concentrate on only a few potential factors that define the task at hand. In her commentary, the author notes that there may be a parallel between this observation and Simons (1976) observation of bounded and perfect rationality, in that people must make simplifying assumptions in order to take any action at all (p. 32). The third time period occurred at approximately the midpoint of the groups life. This time period marks a period of transition and great change for the group and its members. During this time, the groups studied abandoned their phase one agendas. Team members were also aware of and commented on the amount of time remaining to complete the teams task. In addition, these teams were seen to have reached or developed new agreements on the ultimate direction they would follow in completing their work. Overall, Gersick notes that changes in teams work tended to be dialectical (p. 28). She observed that teams that started out fast, paused in their work to evaluate what had been completed and addressed problems with the work and processes; alternatively, teams that had started slowly experienced exhilarating periods of structuring, making choices and pulling together (p. 28). Groups were also seen to be much more open to and receptive to the idea of using outside influences during this period of group life. Gersick sees the transition periods as the second chance for the group in that it is a time to rechart the course of its work (p. 35). The teams then proceeded to phase two. The events and outcomes of phase two were seen to be greatly affected by the activities and decisions of the transition period. Essentially, phase two is the 35 time period in which the team is operating under the decisions and guidelines that were made and established during the transition period. Gersick notes that a close parallel to the occurrences in this phase are those described by Tuckmans (1965) stage of performing. Finally, the teams complete their lives. For the most part, deadlines arrived in which the teams work had to be completed. Gersick describes three patterns that characterized the final meetings in this period of completion. The first pattern observed was that group task activity was less involved with generating new ideas and materials, and more concerned with honing and editing existing materials and ideas. The second pattern was that more attention was placed on the expectations and requirements of the outsiders who would examine and review the groups work. The final pattern was that groups expressed more positive or negative feelings about their work and other team members. Dynamic Contingency Model McCollom (1990) presents this model as an alternative to the other models that have been presented. He feels that a model of group development must be dynamic, because groups develop over time, and contingent, because the path to group development is contingent upon complex interactions with a number of variables (p. 150). McCollom indicates that many of his ideas come from open systems theory, as discussed by Miller and Rice (1975), and from models of individual development. There are three general factors that McCollom feels can affect group development. The first factor is the groups relationship with its environment. The second deals with internal group relations and the third examines the groups temporal boundaries. The groups environment is particularly important in light of the groups relationship with the larger institution or organization in which it is embedded. McCollom cites work that has shown that the larger organization can affect group process in terms of authority relations and in the defining of the groups task. Internal relations are also seen to potentially affect group development in a number of ways. Some of these ways include the composition and size of the group and the skills and personalities of the group members. McCollom also cites Bennis and Shepards (1956) work in support of the idea that leadership dynamics and subgroup relations

Special Issue on Group Development

Smith within the group are potential forces that could affect group development. Time is the final factor specifically discussed by McCollom that could affect group development. McCollom notes that groups are like other living systems and therefore their lives are finite. Another important time-related factor is what McCollom refers to as temporal context. "Temporal context refers to things such as seasonal cycles or historical events, presumably past, present, and future, that could affect how a group operates, develops, and perhaps even changes over time. From these factors McCollom suggests that groups that develop in similar environments could possibly show great similarity in their development processes. He also suggests that even if we cannot say how groups develop...we should at least be able to identify general categories of factors that will shape development (analogous to the biological, psychological and social factors at the individual level) (McCollom, 1990, p. 151). TEAM Model Morgan, Salas and Glickman (1993) have proposed the TEAM model based on a review of the existing literature and their work and research with Navy teams. The model is an amalgamation of several prior authors work and their own work with teams as can be seen in Figure 2. Despite the neat array of the nine stages in Figure 2, groups are not expected to proceed through them in a linear fashion. Rather, it is expected that groups will proceed through, and even start at, different points in the model based on the past history and experience of the group and its members, the nature of the task, and the demands and constraints placed on the group by its environment (Morgan et al., 1993). Thus, it is not likely that all groups will proceed to maturity following the same path. Another interesting idea proposed by this model is that groups develop along two separate paths. The first path at the top of the chart indicates that groups must learn to understand the task that they are being asked to perform. This path is specifically concerned with group or team members learning the skills, obtaining the knowledge, and possessing the ability to complete the task. For example, it may involve learning how to use a specific type of machinery or to follow a predetermined order of assembly. The second path is concerned with the specific interactions that occur among team members. These are labeled teamwork skills because they deal with issues relating to the interactions among team members and relationships that exist among the members. Morgan et al. felt that in some ways this is where much of the effort is spent in team building, as it is assumed that the people assigned to teams have already acquired the competency to complete the activities required to deal with the task (Morgan et al., 1992). Morgan et al.s model also indicates two other interesting possibilities for groups as they develop. The first has to do with the groups ability to recycle through various phases of its life. During the middle to later period of a groups life, the group and its members can return to issues that had previously been resolved and correct for errors in the groups original solution or make adjustments based on new knowledge. The other interesting point related to this model is that, as indicated by the two sets of circles, as the group members become more skilled in both task-related and team-related skills, the two sets of skills merge. The more the two sets of circles overlap, the more skilled and able is the group to effectively deal with and complete its task. The main reason that this model is included in this section is that the model was primarily derived from Tuckmans (1965) linear progressive model ideas and Gersicks (1988) punctuated equilibrium ideas. In addition, some of the ideas from Bales and Strodtbecks (1951) work, specifically dealing with the issue of group development being task related and socio-emotional, can also be seen in this model. Thus, this model is a hybrid as it represents one of the few attempts to combine existing theories and ideas into a new model of group development. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Several insights regarding this body of literature emerged during the course of this review. One of the primary insights is that many of the models exhibit strong similarities on a number of variables. Coupled with this insight is a rudimentary understanding of some of the potential reasons as to why there may be differences and discrepancies between the models. This section will include a discussion of some of the factors and reasons for model similarity and dissimilarity. This discussion is not intended to serve as an exhaustive listing of the possible explanations for the apparent similarities and dissimilarities between the reviewed models. Instead, this portion of the paper should be viewed as an attempt to understand some of the reasons for the noted and proposed differences and similarities in models derived from the information contained within the various journal articles and readings reviewed for this paper.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Smith
*First Meeting ** Pre-forming
Phase I Norming Transition Performing Reforming Phase II Performing II Completion

Forming

Storming

Conforming

De-forming

Recycle
Development of Task Assignments Orientation to Task Emotional Response to Open Task Exchange of Demands Relevant

Review of Accomplishments

Withdrawal Adjustment of Framework Drive to Completion Completion and Delivery of Task from Task

Taskwork Skills

Interpretations Emergence of Solutions

Teamwork Skills Investigation of Group Testing of Dependence

Development of Role Development Relatedness of Group Intragroup Cohesion Conflict

Refinement of Roles

Fulfillment of Roles

Adjustment to Environmental Demands

Exiting from Group

Remembering Group

* Adopted from Gersick (1988) **Adopted from Tuckman (1965)

(From Morgan et al. , 1993 p. 281)

Figure 2: Graphical Presentation of Morgan et al.s TEAM Model This section will conclude by addressing two recurrent, problematic issues: model generalizability and semantics. While it could be argued that such a presentation is not necessary, it is included here to stress the importance of noting and defining the limitations of this work and its application, and to encourage communication so that research may be conducted more as a community with a common interest. The final reason for including this section is that the two issues still require attention, despite a relatively long period of study. Plausible Explanations for Similarities among the Developmental Models As previously stated, many of the models, regardless of their classification scheme, exhibit similarities in terms of their form, patterns of progression, terminology, and even the nature of the phases or stages that are posited by the theorists. There are several plausible explanations that have emerged from this review that could be used to account for these similarities. Some of these explanations will be examined in the following paragraphs. One potential explanation involves the location in which the model was conceived and incubated. This explanation has multiple implications for the apparent similarities. At one level, several of the models were developed at the same academic institution (Harvard). Therefore, many of the theorists were contemporaries who were aware of each others work and built upon that work or injected portions of that work into their own models. In addition, as contemporaries, they were exposed to many of the same class lectures, informal discussions, and laboratory sessions and shared those common experiences and backgrounds. Student-professor mentoring may also have played some role. Ultimately, the mentoring professor would have the ability to interject ideas into the developmental process as that individual assisted the student in not only developing and resolving problematic issues in the study, but interpreting the resulting data. A second explanation revolves around theorists adopting certain schools of theoretical thought. While Bions work does not appear in this review for reasons that were previously explained, many 37

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions theorists in the field adopted his ideas and created research instruments that were strongly tied to those ideas. In a similar fashion, it could also be argued that many others have tied their work to the review conducted by Tuckman (1965). Thus, by adopting many of Tuckmans ideas, these theorists have adopted and grounded their theories in the ideas of those who preceded him, because Tuckmans model relies heavily on literature prior to 1965. The third explanation arises from the types of groups that have been observed and studied. Table 17 provides some information relevant to this issue. Specifically, Table 17 indicates that many of the groups that have been studied were similar in nature on a number of variables. For example, many groups existed in highly controlled environments that ranged from treatment for addiction and dependency to more serious psychological problems. It could also be argued that to some extent even the research laboratories that were used in these studies were highly controlled. In addition to gathering data in these controlled settings, many other studies were developed around data obtained from observing undergraduate and graduate students in group settings or reviewing student journal entries that were written during a semester long course. One final explanation for the observed similarities is that the theorists were responding to and in harmony with the popular organizational and theoretical trends and interests of the time period. Perhaps the most poignant example of this is Tuckman and Jensen (1977) who note that they added the final stage of adjourning largely in response to the work of the life-cycle theorists of the period. Thus, although these authors argue that a specific adjourning stage was not necessary since it existed in the performing stage, their work ultimately can be seen as being grounded in the research and theoretical interests of the time (per Tuckman and Jensen 1977). In a similar fashion, many of the more recent models that have been developed reflect the idea that groups are open systems that must deal with and respond to multiple environments, whereas much of the previous work modeled groups as closed systems. Why are the Models Different? Despite the many similarities among these models, there also differences. As with the similarities, some educated speculation as to the reasons for these differences can be conducted. Often, the differences can be explained by noting that the models are not similar based on one of the explanations for similarity discussed in the previous section. One explanation for reported differences can be addressed by examining Table 17 again and looking at the types of groups that were studied. The table shows that while many of the groups were of the same type, they were still different in terms of purpose, environment, and even the meaningfulness of the task to the group. For instance, student groups could be seen as very different from Lacoursieres treatment groups or Heinen and Jacobsens work groups. Furthermore, Braatens study introduces the possibility that different cultures (nationalities) may give rise to different trends in group development. Thus, while this particular model has strong ties to Tuckmans and other researchers work, its differences may be attributable to the fact that the people observed in developing the model have different values, beliefs and cultural heritages. A second explanation for the differences in the models is that, while many of the researchers in this field of research have psychology backgrounds, taken as a cohort, the researchers performing this work represent a very broad and diverse set of interests. For example, in the literature reviewed here, there are theorists with psychological, sociological, social work, communication, medical and educational backgrounds. These researchers, as expected, work in a divergent group of institutions and settings that range from academic institutions to VA hospitals to consultation practices. Given the breadth of interests and backgrounds represented by this body of researchers, the differences in model content, presentation, and form should really come as no surprise. Related to the issue of divergent interests and backgrounds is the explanation that the research methods and instruments used to study this phenomena are not always the same. While the preferred method for performing research has been observation, there are researchers who have used questionnaires and surveys as well as researchers who have reviewed group documents, interviewed individual group members, and even coded group member journals. In addition, while most of these methods have been used in isolation from one another, a few researchers have combined some of these methods to better understand, and attempt to gain greater insight into, the developmental process.

38

Special Issue on Group Development

Smith Table 17: Sources of Model/Theory Development Therapy & Treatment Groups Theory Blending & Combining Naturally Occurring Work Groups

Theorist(s) Bales & Strodtbeck (1951) Theodorsen (1953) Bennis & Shepard (1956) Schutz (1958) Mills (1964) Tuckman (1965) Napier & Gershenfeld (1973) Hare (1973) Sarri & Galinsky (1974) Braaten (1974/1975) Heinen & Jacobson (1976) Tuckman & Jensen (1977) Srivastva, Obert & Neilsen (1977) Bradford (1978) Caple (1978) Lacoursiere (1980) Poole (1985) Kormanski & Mozenter (1987) Gersick (1988) Maples (1988) McCollom (1990) McGrath (1990) Drexler, Sibbet & Forrester (1991) Morgan, Salas & Glickman (1993)

Student Groups X X X

Literature Reviews

Personal Experience

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X turn, have allowed for differences in the existing models. The prior sections raise concerns in two areas. The first area addresses the generalizability of the existing models, while the second addresses the problem of the semantics used in the group development models. X X X

The main point being argued here is that the various methods and instruments could be attributed to producing differences in the existing models simply because of their sensitivity to the phenomena being studied. Furthermore, individual researcher characteristics, such as differences in training and backgrounds, may also have played a role in the interpretation of the data that could, in

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

39

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions Model Generalizability One of the primary purposes of this review was to ascertain what types of groups had been studied and what were the settings in which these groups existed and developed. After reviewing the literature, it became apparent that the majority of the groups that have been studied are groups of students (graduate and undergraduate), patients in various types of hospitals (VA, mental institutions) and individuals involved in treatment or self-help groups (see Table 17). While some researchers, such as Bettenhausen (1991), have argued that the types of groups used in these studies share many features with the temporary, ad hoc task or decision-making groups (p. 351) of today, others, such as Tuckman (1965), have maintained the argument that the existing literature cannot be considered truly representative of small-group developmental processes, since certain settings have been overrepresented (p. 395). This argument, while important, has fallen largely on deaf ears over the last twenty-five years (see McCollom, 1990, for example). In addition to this issue, there are yet other questions and issues that affect our current ability to make generalizations across groups and settings. Among the questions are issues concerning the effect of group size on development and whether a group is a real group or a simulated group (laboratory). These issues could affect the group because the task may not be high on motivating potential, as discussed by Hackman (1990), or the increased communication needed to function as a group may impede the group's ability to clearly define its task and clearly understand the demands of either laboratory observers or higher level organizational actors. Cissna (1984), in a paper examining the evidence that refutes the existence of group development stages, has made the following statement about this topic: The convenient names training, laboratory, and natural groups obscure significant and potentially important differences among different groups within each of these categories. For example, training groups include 9-month-long self-analytic classroom groups of 25 members as well as 2week, 1-week, and even weekend T-groups of far fewer members, with different goals, degree of trainer directiveness, and so on (p. 9). Cissnas statement points to the fact that additional research needs to be conducted. Among the 40 issues that should be examined are differences in group tasks (single or multiple tasks? simple or complex tasks?), group composition (How are members assigned? Does membership remain stable during the groups life?) and organizational and group settings. Another emerging area of study that is in need of further attention addresses developmental issues relating to the history of not only the organization in which the group is embedded, but also the experiences and history of the group members themselves. McGrath (1991) notes that a flaw in previous research has been that the groups that have been used exist in a highly controlled environment, isolated from any other organization and exist for a limited period of time. Thus, the group and its members really have no past to reflect upon or future to look forward to. Semantics and Terminology The second general problem is the issue of semantics and terminology. There is a real need for some kind of agreement on terminology. This agreement is felt to be necessary to promote concerted study and research in the area of group development. There is yet a need to know and define what exactly a phase is, a stage is, and a trend is. In addition, some of the terminology used to describe these phases, trends or stages could be simplified and made more uniform since there is apparent general agreement that groups tend to develop in similar ways. This general developmental tendency is supported by the fact that the models can be grouped and described as a cohort based on the commonalities displayed in each models set of stages. (For example, the linear-progressive models tend to discuss formation, conflict, resolution, production, and termination or separation.) Sarri and Galinsky (1974) have also noted this problem. In particular, they have stated that the current state of the literature makes it difficult to make comparisons between the various studies that have been published. Of specific concern to these researchers is the need to develop a set of categories and concepts for use in developing and explaining these models. If a standard vernacular for labeling and describing these stages could be achieved, then more work like Maples (1988) could be performed to expose and expand the behaviors and processes that operate and exist within a given stage of development. Any immediate resolution to this problem is more likely wishful thinking and may prove to be problematic. Part of the problem underlying the current state of group developmental terminology Special Issue on Group Development

Smith stems from the many different disciplines and interested parties developing the models and conducting research. For example, as previously noted, theories and models of development have come from the fields of psychology, sociology, and education and from psychiatrists, trainers, educators, and combinations of the aforementioned groups serving in consulting capacities. These individuals also hail from diverse parts of the globe. The diversity of researchers backgrounds could prove to be problematic in that seemingly similar ideas and terminology may indeed be significantly different. Kraiger (1995) has commented on this general problem in terms of I/O psychologists importing constructs from outside the discipline. His position is that great care needs to be taken when using these constructs and in properly defining them. Another possible reason for the differences in terminology is that although the group types studied are not as diverse in nature as would be preferred, they are diverse enough to require researchers to learn new cultures and their related languages and symbols to understand them. SUGGESTED FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS While the prior section was concerned with lingering issues in the field, this section focuses on issues that have the potential to advance our understanding of the group development phenomena and strengthen the research that is presently being conducted. Specifically, this section will examine and discuss three areas in which additional work needs to be conducted to enhance our understanding of the small group developmental processes. The first two issues are concerned with increasing our understanding of the affect that prior history or experience with groups has on future group development and the multiple effects that time has, not only on the group, but also on the researchers ability to accurately portray and gain access to data related to the developmental phenomena. The final issue is a methodological issue that focuses on the virtues of conducting group development research using multi-method approaches. Affect of Member Histories and Experiences on Group Development Process One particularly interesting area for future research addresses the effect that mental models of group experience and other cognitive models of groups and teams (derived from past experiences) have on patterns of group development. Hinsz (1995) recently submitted the proposition that mental models are important to group development because our beliefs and expectations about systems and our interactions with those systems profoundly influence our actions with regard to the systems (p. 201). Because groups can be seen as social systems, it is important that we have some understanding of individual group members subjective perceptions of group reality. In other words, many of the models that have been developed to date appear to gloss over members prior group experiences and assume that all members enter groups with similar backgrounds and ideas pertaining to the group. What Hinsz is suggesting is very different in that he has adopted a stance that maintains that all members have different experiences with groups and those experiences may affect the developmental processes and patterns of any given group. Hinsz also notes that mental models are acquired through learning and experience. This learning need not be direct but can be indirect and, perhaps, obtained through observation, hearsay, or contact with individuals currently involved in groups. Furthermore, he states that initial mental models will be unstable for individuals with limited interaction with groups, but, over time, these models will develop and stabilize. If these statements are true, then prior experience with groups may indeed be a factor that is deserving of more attention, because prior experiences may prevent the emergence of traditionally recognized patterns of development and may also be used to explain why so many different models currently exist in the literature. Rentsch, Heffner and Duffy (1994) have completed some preliminary research on this topic and their findings appear to indicate that an individuals prior teamwork experience affects the approach an individual takes to working in a group. More specifically, the study indicates that those with prior team experience possess cognitive frameworks of viewing teamwork and team development that are different than individuals without such experiences (Rentsch et al., 1994). This study further reinforces the need to examine how prior experiences, teamwork schemas and mental models affect group development and the phases or paths groups follow in reaching maturity. In addition, more attention should be paid to the effect of culture, at the organizational, national and individual levels, that is being brought to groups and teams by the members. This issue is important since Gersick and Hackman (1991) have noted that a possible source of habitual routines in groups comes from patterns of behavior that are imported from outside the group.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

41

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions Time: A Multifaceted Variable in the Study of Group Development. Time is an interesting and problematic issue. It is interesting because we have much to learn regarding its affect on the developmental process. For example, Gersicks (1988) work provides some indication that groups are aware of the time limits that bind them and develop and react to them through periods of high activity and periods of low activity. This point is problematic because it suggests that groups may not be as rational as many of the models have depicted. McGrath, for example, notes that, in his model, groups will always strive to proceed from Mode I to Mode IV (see Figure 1) in the quickest manner and only deviate from this pattern when special issues or circumstances arise. Gersick, on the other hand, essentially states that groups are not that rational; rather, they wait and react based on the time remaining to produce something. Kuypers, Davies and Glaser (1986) raise another time-related issue in terms of developmental arrestations. At the crux of this issue is the seemingly accepted notion that all the groups used in developmental models have reached a point of maturity. What Kuypers, et al. argue is that perhaps one of the reasons that so many different models exist is that the groups that have been observed have become arrested in their development and researchers have only assumed that this lack of change signaled an end stage in group development. Essentially, the argument is that further observation could possibly lead to additional changes and present greater similarity among the existing models. This argument may have some validity since one of the problems of performing this type of research is to be on site at the specific moment a group is formed and to be in both the formal and informal meetings of the group as noted by McGrath (1991). The prior time issue is one that researchers must come to grips with and is, perhaps, more of an issue for researchers studying real, naturally occurring groups. In addition to this, all researchers efforts are to some extent affected by time and financial limitations and constraints. This is an important issue to keep in mind, as one of McGraths (1986) list of critical needs for small group theory and practice is to conduct research that is multi-occasion. The limitation placed on the researcher and his or her timeliness in studying group development could by itself possibly constrain his or her ability to observe a group beyond its period of arrestation. Coupled with this is the fact that, in real settings, groups cost money to the organization in which they are embedded and, therefore, come under pressure to perform. Obert (1983) builds on this point by noting that it is likely that if groups have natural developmental tendencies, then organizations have structures and processes which control, channel and even block these tendencies (p. 39). Some of the potential means organizations may have to control these tendencies include job technology, the level of the group in the hierarchy, opportunity for interaction among the group members, the nature of the reward system, the necessity for cooperative work relations, and the style of leadership used by management (Obert, 1983). Deadlines and time limits themselves may also be potential means of controlling and channeling group activity and development. As a result, it is conceivable that the studies and models that have been reported to date are nothing more than contrivances based upon organizational structuring and other related control mechanisms. Use of Multi-method Research in Developing and Testing Developmental Models. Many models have been developed and many more will probably be developed in the coming years. While it is conceded that the study of a phenomena must be undertaken using the method appropriate to the data that are needed to answer the research question(s), it was observed, during the course of this review, that many different research methods and strategies have already been applied in singular fashion to the study of this phenomena. For example, Maples (1988) has used group member journals to augment and extend Tuckmans model; Gersick (1988) has used interviews to assist her in interpreting her observations; and Drexler, et al. (1991), Morgan, et al. (1993) and Wheelan and Hochberger (1996) have used questionnaires to gather data pertaining to group development. In addition, it has also been suggested that insights could be gained from using documents generated by the group being studied. These evidences of prior use of various research methods raises the question of why researchers have not used more of the methods together in conducting their work. While anecdotal and experiential data have provided us with ideas and models, more rigorous procedures need to be employed to advance the field. One possibility is to combine observational techniques with data collected from group member self-reporting techniques (questionnaires, surveys, interviews). The self-report data may better enable researchers to interpret their observational data. Special Issue on Group Development

42

Smith Furthermore, these data may explain events and occurrences outside the observed group setting that have shaped the groups observed developmental pattern. A second data source largely neglected to date is the use of archival analysis. One benefit to using these data is that they may contain information that indicates how organizational policies and procedures may have influenced the groups development. At present, it is difficult to say what affect such a research agenda would have on model development and refinement because there are few studies that have attempted to approach the phenomena in this way. However, if Gersicks work is an indication of the benefits that can be gained from such an approach, there appears to be room for improvement. previous studies and models and expose new opportunities for future research directions. With regard to the overall use of multi-method, data-collection techniques in this body of literature, it is interesting to note that of the articles and studies reviewed here, only Gersicks study has employed the use of multiple methods. In this particular case, she combined observation with interviews to attempt to better understand the events that took place in group meetings and to obtain information about events and activities that occurred outside the formal group meeting setting. CONCLUSION On a positive note, the models that were reviewed are becoming more comprehensive and systems oriented. Researchers such as Poole (1985), McGrath (1986, 1991), and McCollom (1990) are beginning to recognize groups as open systems rather than closed systems. These researchers, and particularly those promoting contingency models of group development, are pointing out that groups do indeed find ways of dealing with not only internal group problems, but with the problem of obtaining resources from outside the group, thus, dealing with the environment not only within the organization in which they are embedded, but also the environment outside of that organizations boundaries. They are also beginning to examine how time and history affect group development. In the future, it is hoped that this trend will continue. In retrospect, the cyclical and pendular models are more flexible, adaptable and capable of dealing with a dynamic world than were the linear-progressive models, while many of the recent nonsequential/hybrid models are advancements over both these sets of models in that they emphasize, to an even greater extent, the fact that groups are open systems which are embedded in larger organizations and environments. In terms of future model development, it would appear that the path to pursue is one which uses the frameworks and models established by the linear-progressive models as guides, but focuses more energy and effort toward understanding the cyclical patterns and ideas proposed by the recurring cyclical and pendular models and the open systems ideas put forth by the nonsequential/hybrid models. In conclusion, this paper suggests that, while much has been written in the area of group development, relatively little advancement has been made in the past twenty to twenty-five years. This is disturbing because there are a preponderance of organizations currently employing teams and pro43

there

are

preponderance

of

organizations yet our

currently

employing is largely

teams and promoting teamwork and understanding limited to models that have never been empirically validated or studied in dynamic, uncontrollable settings.
Overall, what is being suggested here is the use of multiple methods to augment the findings of singular, solitary methods such as observation. By proceeding in such a manner, future researchers should be able to uncover deeper and hidden meanings that underlie group and individual behaviors. In addition, this approach can be used in either a manner in which the various models build upon one another or in such a way that the data gathered provide deeper meaning and insight into the developmental process. In general, it is hoped that, by pursuing a research agenda that uses multiple methods, there would be some refining, combining or discarding of the current set of developmental models. Specifically, the expectation is that the current models be refined or rejected. In particular, model refinement could include improvements in the various modelsability to deal with differences in group task, composition, membership stability, prior group experience, and the effect of time and deadlines on groups. Furthermore, the additional research and study may help to better define the limitations of

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions moting teamwork and yet our understanding is largely limited to models that have never been empirically validated or studied in dynamic, uncontrollable settings. Furthermore, as the prior section of observations has indicated, there is room for additional research on the effect of time and deadlines; organizational, group, and individual history and experience; culture; the nature of the group task; the type of group; and the groups contextual arrangements. While it is unlikely that a single, universal model of group development will ever exist, it is possible for us to do a better job of testing our present models and examining how the factors outlined in the preceding paragraph affect group development. When we, as a research community, have conducted more research in these directions, perhaps we will be better able to not only understand the process of group development, but to assist individuals, groups and organizations in implementing and using groups and teams. Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. Schopf (Ed.) Models in paleobiology (pp. 82-115). San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co. Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transitions in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41. Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274-309. Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36. Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1991). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 65-97. Gibbard, G. S., Hartman, J. J., & Mann, R. D. (1974). Analysis of groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. In H. P. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent sociology no. 2: Patterns of communicative behavior (pp. 115-148). New York: MacMillan Co. Habermas, J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics? In Communication and the evolution of society (pp. in process). (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1982). A reply to my critics. In J. B. Thompson & D. Held (Eds.), Habermas: Critical debates (pp. 219-283). (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that dont). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Hare, A. P. (1973). Theories of group development and categories for interaction analysis. Small Group Behavior, 4(3), 259-304.

References Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 485-495. Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations, 9, 415437. Berkowitz, B. (1974). Stages of group development in a mental health team. Psychiatric Quarterly, 48(3), 309-319. Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345-381. Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups: and other papers. New York: Basic Books. Braaten, L. J. (1974/75). Developmental phases of encounter groups and related intensive groups: A critical review of models and a new proposal. Interpersonal Development, 5, 112-129. Bradford, L. P, Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. (1964). T group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bradford, L. P. (1978). Group formation and development. In L. P. Bradford (Ed.) Group development (pp. 5-12). San Diego: University Associates. Caple, R. B. (1978). The sequential stages of group development. Small Group Behavior, 9(4), 470476. Chidambaram, L. (1989). An empirical investigation of the impact of computer support on group development and decision making performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Cissna, K. N. (1984). Phases in group development: The negative evidence. Small Group Behavior, 15(1), 3-32. Drexler, A. B., Sibbet, D., & Forrester, R. H. (1991). The team performance model. In W. B. Reddy (Ed.) Team building: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction (pp. 45-61). Alexandria, VA: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science.

44

Special Issue on Group Development

Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions Heinen, J. S., & Jacobson, E. (1976). A model of task group development in complex organizations and a strategy of implementation. Academy of Management Review, (October), 98111. Hill, W. F., & Gruner, L. (1973). A study of development in open and closed groups. Small Group Behavior, 4(3), 355-381. Hinsz, V. B. (1995). Mental models of groups as social systems. Small Group Research, 26(2), 200-233. Kraiger, K. (1995). Paradigms lost: Applications and misapplications of cognitive science to the study of training, Presentation at the 103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August 13, 1995, New York. Kuypers, B. C., Davies, D., & Glaser, K. H. (1986). Developmental arrestations in self-analytic groups. Small Group Behavior, 17(3), 269-302. Kormanski, C., & Mozenter, A. (1987). A new model of team building: A technology for today and tomorrow. The 1987 Annual: Developing Human Resources, 255-268. Komorita, S. S., & Hamilton, T. P. (1984). Power and equity in coalition bargaining. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Vol. 3. The social psychological processes (pp. 189-212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Lacoursiere, R. B. (1980). The life cycle of groups. New York: Human Sciences Press. Maples, M. F. (1988). Group development: Extending Tuckmans theory. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13(Mr), 17-23. McCollom, M. (1990). Reevaluating group development: A critique of the familiar models. In J. G. & M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in context, (pp.134-154). New York: Adison-Wesley Publishing. McGrath, J. E. (1986). Studying groups at work: Ten critical needs for theory and practice. In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Designing effective workgroups, (pp.362-391). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction and performance (TIP) a theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22(2), 147-174. 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), 524572. Miller, E., & Rice, A. K. (1975). Selections from systems of organization. In A. D. Colman and W. H. Bexton (Eds.), Group relations reader, Sausalito, CA: GREX. Mills, T. M. (1964). Group transformation: An analysis of a learning group. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. The Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277291. Nahavandi, A., & Aranda, E. (1994). Restructuring teams for the re-engineered organization. The Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), 58-68. Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (1973). The evolution of working groups: Understanding and prediction. In R. W. Napier & M. K. Gershenfeld, Groups theory and experience (pp. 243-267). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Obert, S. L. (1983). Developmental patterns of organizational task groups: A preliminary study. Human Relations, 36(1), 37-52. Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102. Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV. Human Communications Research, 15(3), 323-356. Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T., & Duffy, L. T. (1994). What you know is what you get from experience. Group & Organization Management, 19(4), 450-474. Ridgeway, C. L. (1983). The dynamics of small groups. New York: St. Martins Press. Sarri, R. C., & Galinsky, M. J. (1974). A conceptual framework for group development. In P. Glasser, R. Sarri, & R. Vinter, (Eds.), Individual change through small groups (pp. 71-88). New York: Free Press. Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart. Shambaugh, P. W. (1978). The development of the small group. Human Relations, 31(3), 283-295. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press. Srivastva, S., & Barrett, F. J. (1988). The transforming nature of metaphors in group development: A study in group theory. Human Relations, 41(1), 31-64. Srivastva, S., Obert, S. L., & Neilsen, E. H. (1977). Organizational analysis through group processes: A theoretical perspective for organization development. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Organizational development in the UK and USA: A joint evaluation (pp. 83-111). London: McMillan Press. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384399.

45

Special Issue on Group Development

Smith Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. Wheelan, S. A., & Hochberger, J. M. (1996). Validation studies of the group development questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27(1), 143170. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Dr. Sue R. Faerman and Dr. John W. Rohrbaugh for their time, encouragement, and contributions to this work. George Smith is a doctoral student at the University at Albanys (SUNY) Rockefeller College of Public Affairs. His current research interests focus on understanding the implications of individual mental models of group development for group/team development. Contact at: Rockefeller College of Public Affairs, University at Albany, State University of New York, 493 Kenwood Avenue, Delmar NY 12054; GES3@mail3.cs.state.ny.us Associate Editor: James Spee Young, A. (1976a). The geometry of meaning. New York: Delacourte Press. Young, A. (1976b). The reflexive universe. New York: Delacourte Press.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

46

A Critical View of Facilitating Labor-Management Collaboration

Grant T. Savage and Chadwick B. Hilton Labor-management group facilitation is a complex but increasingly necessary skill. Facilitators need both clear practice guidelines and an understanding of why those guidelines are legitimate. To meet these needs, this paper first provides a descriptive (structural-functional) framework for understanding the facilitators role and the communicative practices on which it is based. A critique of this framework is then proposed using Habermas theory of communicative action. From this theoretical critique, group decision making is viewed as both a negotiative and a dialogical process, entailing an expanded appreciation of the facilitators role. In congruence with this theoretical stance, a set of directives for facilitating consensual decision making is proposed. A combined case and discourse analysis of two labor-management groups decision-making processes illustrates the utility and implications of these directives. Key words Consensual Decision Making, Critical Theory, Facilitation To conduct a conversation means to allow oneself to be conducted by the object to which the partners in the conversation are directed. It requires that one does not try to out-argue the other person, but that one really considers the weight of the others opinion....It is not the art of arguing that is able to make a strong case out of a weak one, but the art of thinking that is able to strengthen what is said by referring to the object. - Hans-Georg Gadamer, 1975, p. 330 Introduction Much of the collaborative rhetoric in the management field focuses on the synergy that can occur through the building of cross-functional teamsthe creation of semiautonomous and autonomous work teams, and the participation of employee unions in management decisions via ownership or other power sharing arrangements. Each of these endeavors relies on some form of intra-organizational collaboration to coordinate the actions of employees. That coordination typically takes the form of meetings to the extent that organizational meetings represent a primary means of communication and coordination within and across work units (Niederman and Volkema, 1999, p 330). Team meetings, however, are fraught with potential problems: An asymmetrical distribution of power (teams consisting of a mix of organizationally powerful and less powerful individuals) that leads to the domination of the powerful over the powerless even under the guise of seeking input and consensus. Consensus is the uncoerced agreement of all parties involved in a group decisionmaking process, whether task/project related or conflict related. Consensus does not assume perfect accord from the outset nor is it expedient agreement to end the process of evaluating alternate decision options. Rather, consensus is the agreement that results from a groups free, rational, uninfluenced and thorough consideration of alternative propositions. Embedded hierarchical relations that impede the consensus processfor example, an organizational hierarchy that enables threatened middle managers to withhold or delay critical information or a decision process within the hierarchy so convoluted that joint initiatives are delayed or suppressed. False consensusa consensus based on intentionally or unintentionally distorted communication. Unfortunately, as a result of these conditions, the outcome of many intra-organizational collaborations is a false consensus that too often results in alienation, distrust, and conflict. Avoiding and surmounting this problem by engaging in a critical dialogue is the primary focus of this paper. Creating the opportunity for such a dialogue is one of the great challenges facing facilitators. Both the increasing demand for team-based decision making and the problems inherent in the team process have resulted in a need for group facilitators with highly developed skills. As important as skilled facilitators are, though, there Special Issue on Group Development

46

Savage and Hilton is relatively little research on the formal role of the organizational facilitator in preparing and executing meetings (Niederman and Volkema, p. 330). Particularly lacking is research that would lead to useful guidelines for working facilitators. Guidelines formulated specifically for facilitating consensual intra-organizational decision-making are hard to find. Perhaps one reason for this difficulty is because most of the research on consensual decision making (Destephen, 1983; Hill, 1976; Knutson, 1972; Knutson & Holdridge, 1975; Knutson & Kowitz, 1977) has relied on self-report measures of consensus gathered after a group has reached a decision. Moreover, even dynamic measures of consensus (Spillman, Bezdek, & Spillman, 1979) rely on self-report instruments administered while a group is making a decision. This line of research treats consensus as an important outcome of group discussion, but it does not directly examine how the process of discussion affects consensus. However, by applying a descriptive framework and a critical communication theory perspective to selected cases of labormanagement decision making, we derive and explicate a set of directives for facilitating consensual intra-organizational decision-making. A DESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING THE PROCESS OF FACILITATING First, we establish the definitions of some terms common to facilitation that will be used throughout this discussion. These terms assume that consensual decision making often involves conflicts over tasks, processes, and other matters. Second, we articulate a descriptive framework for intra-organizational facilitation that focuses on its functions and how it is embedded within an organizational structure, e.g., bureaucracy. Key Terms Facilitation. The least intrusive form of third party intervention, facilitation typically involves a neutral or mutually trusted third party who focuses upon ways to diffuse hostilities between the parties and to help them become more conciliative in their communication. Simultaneously, the facilitator attempts to help the conflicting parties discuss their differences through a problemsolving process. The facilitator may help the disputants explore various solutions, but the two parties in the conflict decide what, if anything, will be done to resolve or manage the dispute. Mediation. As a third party intervention, mediation often includes not only process intervention, but also content intervention. As such, mediation usually requires the neutral third party to meet separately with each disputant to discuss substantive issues and possible integrative solutions or compromises. As a result, the mediator helps the disputants to think through specific ways to resolve the conflict. Typically, the mediator also serves as a go-between, connecting the two or more conflicting parties, and thus helping to dampen the emotions that might erupt during face-to-face interactions. Again, however, the final decision rests with the conflicting parties. Persuasion. In day-to-day language, persuasion is the process of convincing others. As applied to group facilitation and decision making, this ordinarily means that a particular solution, predetermined by the persuader, should be adopted. This process is directional and assumes that the persuader is success oriented from the outset and that a variety of techniques, including entreaty, logic, reasoning, and threat may be used to ensure success. In contrast to ordinary language usage, we refer to persuasion, within the context of group facilitation, from a narrower and more dialogical perspective. Following Johannesens (1971) logic, persuasion may be viewed as a rhetoric that clarifies positions through the play of argumentation. Furthermore, we view the facilitator as using persuasion primarily to influence the process of group decision making. A Functional Model of Intra-Organizational Facilitation A facilitator can affect the orientation of a group (i.e., its internal process) and/or the groups relationship to organizational sub-systems and systems (i.e., its external process). At one time, much of the process-oriented research on decision making focused directly upon a groups internal process of communication (e.g., Fisher, 1970; see also Cragan & Wright, 1980), ignoring how external processes and even indirect internal processes might affect decision making. However, recent work in the fields of group decision making (Poole & Roth, 1989a, 1989b; Poole et. al, 1993; Poole & Holmes, 1995), mediation (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993), labor-management negotiations (Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Friedman, 1994), and conflict resolution (Wall & Blum, 1991; Wall & Callister, 1995) highlights the importance of backstage interactions, network linkages between stakeholders, and the effects of technology on the group decision-making process. Consequently, we see now that understanding group decision making and facilitation requires attention to the whole processboth internal and external.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

47

A Critical View of Facilitating Labor-Management Collaboration Facilitating internal processes includes two forms of intervention: (1) direct interventions during meetings and (2) indirect interventions after and/or before meetings. Direct interventions during meetings, by their very nature, affect group communication. Facilitators assess group interaction and, through their remarks, attempt either to guide or mediate the groups decision-making process. Indirect internal facilitation, on the other hand, may take many forms, from counseling individuals to mediating disputes between conflicting coalitions within a group. Even though this intervention takes place outside the meeting, it may still affect the decision-making process of the groups involved. decision making. Although volumes have been written on the theory of communicative action, the following discussion will serve our purposes. Using Habermas terms to describe the process, a facilitator, in the purest sense, is attempting to create an ideal speech situation. Habermas describes the ideal speech situation as one that, essentially, ensures fair play and dialogue. In an ideal speech situation, the participants must: Possess communicative competence be capable of using and understanding the required language. Understand the context of the discourse so as to relate to others appropriately. Be free from any form of dominance or coercion so that they may speak truthfully, freely, and participate fully. If a facilitator is able to establish an ideal speech situation, then he or she further attempts to bring about through that situation a dialogue of all the participants that will result in what Habermas terms communicative action. Habermas characterizes communicative action as whenever the actions of the agents involved are coordinated not through egocentric calculations of success but through acts of reaching understanding. In communicative action participants are not primarily oriented to their own individual successes . . . (Habermas, 1984, pp. 285-86). Communicative discourse, then, is that which has as its ultimate goal mutual understanding, or consensus. In contrast to communicative action, strategic action is that in which the actions of the agents involved are coordinated through egocentric calculations of success (Habermas, 1984, p.286). Strategic action has an explicit success orientation as opposed to the understanding orientation of communicative action. In essence, strategic discourse is concerned with influencing the decisions of a rational opponent (Habermas, 1984, p.285) while communicative discourse is concerned with understanding, harmony, and reaching consensus. It is clear, then, that from Habermas perspective, a facilitator tries to create an ideal speech situation and through the appropriate intervention strategies helps the participants to engage in a communicative dialogue that results in consensual decisionmaking. A COMMUNICATIVE AND STRATEGIC ACTION MODEL OF FACILITATION Habermas theory of communicative action suggests a number of modifications to the descripSpecial Issue on Group Development

from Habermas perspective, a facilitator tries to create an ideal speech situation and through the appropriate intervention strategies helps the participants to engage in a communicative dialogue that results in consensual decision making.
External process facilitation also encompasses two types of intervention: (1) inward interventions affecting groupstakeholder interactions and (2) outward interventions affecting grouporganization interaction. Inward interventions may range from suggesting how a group gathers information from its stakeholders to directly mediating a groups feedback sessions with its constituents. In other words, this form of intervention affects both the downward flow of communication from and the upward flow to the group. Outward interventions affect both the upward and/or lateral flow of communication from the group and the downward and/or lateral flow of communication to the group. For example, the facilitator may act as a liaisonlinking group A to group B in order to broaden group As information base on a specific issue. Or the facilitator may help a group negotiate the implementation of a new work schedule within the organization, thus actively affecting the groups (and the organizations) decision making. A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF FACILITATING The descriptive framework for examining facilitating may be supplemented with critical communication theory. Habermas theory of communicative action (1979, 1982, 1984) provides a useful theoretical basis for understanding and explaining the processes of facilitation and group 48

Savage and Hilton tive framework for facilitating consensual decisionmaking. Although a facilitator usually acts communicatively during interventions, some exigencies require strategic actionusing persuasion and mediationin order to effect a consensus decision. For Habermas, communicative action is desirable, while strategic action, because it is self- and/or success-oriented, is not. However, in a less than perfect world, we believe facilitators sometimes should act strategically in order to steer the groups decision-making process toward true consensus. Importantly, during these occasions the facilitators strategic actions should be oriented toward directing the decision process, not toward influencing the decision outcome. Under these conditions, strategic actions by facilitators not only are probable, but also desirable. Decision Making as Negotiation The model of facilitation so far elaborated is somewhat incomplete because, for analytical purposes, the social actions used to describe various interventions have been treated as discrete processes. This atomized view is only slightly embellished by considering the varying purposes of and contexts for persuasive and mediating interventions. To further complement the model of facilitation, decision making must be perceived as a negotiative as well as a dialogical process. Two types of exigencies illustrate decision making as negotiation. (1) Whenever a group is attempting to reach a consensual decision, it will necessarily employ what it believes are communicative actions. The facilitator can help this dialogical process along by ensuring that various exigencies (e.g., the internaldirect interventions mentioned previously) do not sidetrack this intent. Sometimes, however, the group will engage in unconscious selfdeceptionwhat Habermas calls systematically distorted communicationwhile making a decision. This disruption of the dialogical process of consensual decision making cannot, by definition, be facilitated solely by communicative actions. In such a case, the facilitator alone may believe that the group is acting irrationally (or, perhaps, arrives at this diagnosis after a decision has been made already). To intervene, the facilitator both must recognize the distorted communication and must be willing to reframe the process through which the group is making decisions. Such re-framing during a meeting will require the facilitator to act strategically in order to steer the group back toward communicative dialogue. In this intervention, the facilitator must achieve successact persuasivelyto change the decision making process (otherwise, of course, the intervention will be rejected). However, a re-framing intervention occurring during the meeting may not adequately change the groups self-understanding of its decision-making process. Follow-up actions after the initial intervention may be necessary to help various group members see how their actions during the prior meeting may have blocked open discussion, prematurely closed discussion, or been otherwise misunderstood. For these types of problems, the facilitator may use various communicative actions to surface submerged conflicts among the group members that systematically distort the groups understanding of its own actions. And, of course, the group must again decide the issue if the intervention is to succeed. Clearly, this intervention negotiates the groups decision via either (a) disrupting decision making or reopening the decision process, (b) showing different members within the group how their interests are not being harmonized by the groups actions, or (c) seeking to harmonize their interests in the future.

in a less than perfect world, we believe facilitators sometimes should act strategically in order to steer the groups decision-making process toward true consensus. Importantly, during these occasions, the facilitators strategic actions should be oriented toward directing the decision process, not toward influencing the decision outcome.
(2) Although such intervention portrays the facilitator as playing a major role in negotiating a decision, many times the varied power relations inherent in the decision-making context are the impetus for negotiation. For example, in a labormanagement context, if a work-site committee wishes to discuss alternative work schedules, it cannot make any viable decisions without at least consulting the general manager. Such consultation may quickly lead to the committee making a proposal that it then negotiates with the manager. In essence, the committee does not make a single decision, but rather it engages in a process or series of decisions that take into account the power and preferences of the general manager. This simple example illustrates a process which is often more intricate in practice. The general

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

49

A Critical View of Facilitating Labor-Management Collaboration manager seldom has complete autonomy, and other stakeholderssuch as a labor union, a particular division within the organization, or a faction within the committees constituencywill certainly attempt to influence the committees decision making. Under such circumstances, the facilitator may perform a variety of roles, from liaison to mediator. As a liaison, the facilitator can convey information to and from the committee, presenting the committees proposal to stakeholders and feeding their preferences back to the committee. If the conflicting interests of stakeholders cannot be satisfied by the committees decision, the facilitator may attempt to mediate the positions of the stakeholders vis--vis the committee. Seldom, however, are the roles of the facilitator well defined, and facilitators will often find themselves performing a unique blend of roles within a specific decision making context. In summary, relationships and negotiations with various stakeholder coalitions may influence a cross-functional teams decision making. These stakeholder coalitions within the organization might include: Members within the cross-functional team; Other employees at the organizations work site; Organizational members engaged in cross-functional programs such as continuous quality improvement; Divisions within the organization; and, possibly, The labor unions leadership and its rank-andfile members. While this example is drawn from a labor-management context, its variety of coalitions and the need to negotiate among them is typical of the group decision-making process in any organization. The specific coalitions will be different, but they will exist, and the facilitator must recognize not only their existence but also how their relationships and negotiation processes may affect his or her efforts to aid the groups to reach consensus. DIRECTIVES FOR FACILITATING CONSENSUAL DECISION MAKING The model of facilitation based on reaching consensual understandingscommunicative actionhas many implications for practitioners and researchers. To illustrate these directives, two cases of labor-management decision making are analyzed. These two cases examine the decision making that occurred in two Quality of Working Life (QWL) work-site committees, the DR committee and the O committee. Each committee existed as 50 part of a QWL program supported by a large midwestern city and a labor union local. The senior author served as a third-party facilitator for the program, and the DR and O committees were two of the five work-site committees that were visited on a regular basis (either every other week or monthly). The QWL program paralleled but inverted the organizational structure of the city. The work-site committees were empowered to make decisions that directly affected their working conditions, but they could not violate city-, departmental-, or division-wide rules and policies. However, a work-site committee could suggest experiments to the higher level QWL committees so that changes could be implemented on a trial basis. Unlike the city bureaucracy, however, the higher level QWL committees did not initiate changes unless pressed by the work-site committees. Work-site committees consisted of both fixed (for key management and union roles) and elected positions (for supervisory and non-supervisory employees). Generally, the work-site manager and assistant manager had fixed positions, as did the union steward and a designated union assistant. The elected positions were more variable in nature. Each committee set up guidelines for elections and determined what form of representation of the workforce should occur in the committee. DIRECTIVES FOR FACILITATING INTERNAL PROCESSES Four directives can help the process of facilitating internal processes: (1) avoiding multiple conversations, (2) clarifying frames of reference, (3) preventing premature closure of discussions, and (4) mediating differences of opinion before and after meetings. Avoiding Multiple Conversations As simple as it may sound, the committee should avoid multiple, simultaneous conversations. Although the role of regulating the committees conversation usually falls in the hands of the chair of the committee, the facilitator must ensure that the committees focus remains undivided. Such controlling actions remind the committee of the rules of procedure underlying the discussion; hence, these actions are oriented to reaching an understanding. If multiple conversations are allowed to continue, the committees consensus may be distorted. For example, during a meeting of the December DR committee that focused on flextime, the facilitator suggested that the committee table flextime disSpecial Issue on Group Development

Savage and Hilton cussion until more information was gathered about the workforces interest in flextime. Immediately after this suggestion was made, VRG (the union steward) and BIL (an employee) began arguing over who held the chair position on the flextime subcommittee (neither one seemed to desire the position since a survey of employee opinion would be the subcommittees responsibility). While they were arguing, ALF (the manager) addressed the rest of the committee, questioning the practicability of a flextime program and concluding that the flextime discussion should be tabled until another work-site committee implemented a flextime schedule. Near the end of the meeting, the committee unanimously agreed to table discussion of flextime; as the facilitator learned at the next meeting, however, neither ALF nor VRG and BIL recognized that they agreed to table flextime discussion for different reasons. Clarifying Frames of Reference A well-accepted activity of the facilitator is to clarify frames of reference by engaging participants in a dialectical dialogue. Many misunderstandings are caused by people thinking they are talking either (a) about the same thing, when, in fact, they are discussing different things, or (b) about different things, when, in fact, they are conversing about the same thing. Although this seems to be a simple form of intervention, it is often difficult to detect discrepant frames of reference until a misunderstanding does arise, especially if participants interrupt each other or otherwise violate implicit rules for turn-taking. For example, during the same DR committee meeting mentioned previously, VRG and DIK (chair of the committee and VRGs immediate supervisor) argued about the virtues of various types of flextime schedules. The transcript of their conversation indicates that they both agreed that flextime schedules in which employees did not have to notify the supervisor of their starting times were not practicable at the DR work site. VRG and DIK, however, did not mutually recognize this agreement because they continually overlapped their talksimply put, they did not listen to each other. The facilitator should have intervened by summarizing their positions and asking if they agreed with those summaries; however, this was not done because it seemed apparent from the content of what they said that they were in agreement. This oversight suggests that facilitators should assess both the illocutionary force (what is done) and the content (what is said) in order to clarify frames of reference. Preventing Premature Closure of Discussions Perhaps the most important intervention that a facilitator can perform is to prevent premature closure of discussion. In short, the facilitator should rephrase decision proposals and test for consensus. This discourse should occur not only when a proposal is being considered positively, but also whenever a proposal is being discussed negatively by the group. The December DR committee meeting again provides an example of the consequences of failing to intervene in this manner. Following DIK and VRGs exchange, BIL made a number of concrete suggestions regarding how flextime could be implemented. Even though DIK and VRG responded positively to his proposals, BILs suggestions were ultimately discarded following ALFs remark that flextime was not working out at another work site. The facilitator intervened at that point by suggesting that the committee assess the employee desire for flextime. Although this intervention was innocuous per se, it served to undermine the support that had been expressed for BILs suggestions and to support ALFs negative implications. This same intervention might have been more effective if (a) it had been prefaced with a summary of BILs ideas, (b) BIL had been asked to validate the summary, and (c) the committee had been asked for an expression of support for or opposition to these redefined ideas. A dialectical intervention of that sort would possibly have kept BILs ideas salient within the committee, furthering the concrete, positive examination of flextime by the committee. Mediating Differences of Opinion Before and After Meetings Facilitating communicative action by intervening before and after meetings usually is a two-step process: (a) Clarify the positions of each party in dispute, and (b) explore different approaches that may mediate the dispute. Often individuals or coalitions within a group will oppose an issue without clearly articulating the basis for their opposition during a meeting. To reduce personal antagonism, the facilitator should approach each party separately after the meeting in order to clarify the positions on the issue. These encounters require the facilitator to engage in a dialectical dialogue, similar to the action used to clarify frames of reference. If the disputing parties appear to be fairly close in their positions, the facilitator may meet directly with both parties in order to establish a common ground before the next group meeting. Often, however, the parties are far apart in their views, and the facilitator may need to meet 51

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

A Critical View of Facilitating Labor-Management Collaboration a number of times with each party separately, laying the ground rules for future group discussions of the issue. Here, the facilitator engages in actions oriented to reaching an understanding. Such actions may be particularly needed when instrumental, issue-oriented conflicts have begun to produce expressive or procedural conflicts (or vice versa). For example, during both the August and September meetings of the DR committee, RPH and ARP (supervisors) heatedly objected to considering flextime at the work site. VRG and DEN (union representatives) countered these objections in an equally emotional fashion. To restore some calm to the committee, the facilitator suggested that the focus of the disputea flextime schedule in use at the MR Work-siteshould be examined more carefully by the committee. As a result, the DR committee asked the MR committee to discuss its flextime schedule. Although the MR committee refused to send a delegation to discuss flextime, it did invite the DR committee to visit the MR work site to collect information about the flextime schedule. should have the right to abolish flextime if he felt it was not working out. Because of construction work needing their attention, DIK and RPH were not able to accompany VRG and BIL during a planned visit of the MR work site. BIL and VRG interviewed about 15 of the 20 people affected by the flextime schedule during this visit and gathered a very favorable picture of its operation. In order to balance VRGs and BIL's survey results, DIK and RPH arranged another visit to the MR work site. As supervisors, DIK and RPH were particularly interested in how the upper management felt the MR flextime schedule was working, so they met with only the three top-ranking supervisory personnel. RPH made it very clear that he felt the crew he had worked fine, and he did not want to fix it if it was not broken. This approach led to the disclosure that the present flextime schedule did create some problems; for example, since most employees opted to come in early, only skeleton crews worked in the late afternoon. After this meeting, I spoke with both RPH and DIK about the feasibility of flextime at the DR work site. RPH stated that he would not participate in any type of flextime schedule, but that if a practicable scheduleone in which supervisors would know a week ahead of time when employees would be starting workcould be introduced, he would not oppose its implementation. The task force results were reported during the December committee meeting. As previously discussed, this meeting led to a fairly open and calm discussion of flextime, albeit a discussion that resulted in the tabling of flextime. Such a discussion would not have been possible without the clarification of positions and discussion of different possibilities that occurred outside of the committee meetings. DIRECTIVES FOR FACILITATING EXTERNAL PROCESSES The previous example illustrates the thin conceptual line between internal and external processes. The facilitative efforts concentrated on mediating the DR committees conflict over flextime, yet these efforts led to the involvement of the MR work site. Because the MR committee and the personnel at the MR work site did not overtly influence the DR committees decision making, it seems clear that the external process of negotiating a decision did not come into play. However, such negotiation processes usually do come into play whenever a group seeks input from its constitu-

Many misunderstandings are caused by people thinking they are talking either (a) about the same thing, when, in fact, they are discussing different things, or (b) about different things, when, in fact, they are conversing about the same thing.
During the October meeting, a four-member task force consisting of BIL, DIK, RPH, and VRG was appointed to visit the MR plant, and the facilitator was asked to accompany the task force as a neutral observer. After this meeting, the facilitator met separately with BIL and VRG in order to gather their views on flextime. They expressed the opinion that (a) the MR flextime schedule was practicable and (b) RPH and ARP were opposed to flextime because of past abuses at the MR work site that no longer occurred. The facilitator also met with DIK about two weeks after the committee meeting to obtain his view of flextime. Surprisingly, DIK was fairly supportive of the idea, but he felt the flextime schedule practiced at the MR work site would not succeed at the DR work site. Moreover, he thought that any practicable schedule should be adopted on a work-crew basis, according to the desires of the supervisor and his crew. Also, he added, the supervisor

52

Special Issue on Group Development

Savage and Hilton ency and approval from the organization through the labor-management program. or disposed toward flextime, did not produce any concrete proposals. Its recommendation, accepted by the O committee in early August, was to have a third party perform an extensive feasibility study. A new facilitator, JIM, agreed to take on the third-party role in April. JIM met with many of the committee members to gather their input before presenting a proposal for the feasibility study in May. As one of his preliminary recommendations, JIM suggested that the committee create a new subcommittee on flextime. This subcommittee was formed in June after JIM presented the results of the feasibility study. The subcommitteewith JIMs guidanceagain surveyed the O workforce during July and August. This second survey, moreover, included not only hourly employees but also salaried supervisors. The results of the survey showed that most supervisors and most employees favored a flextime schedule with a core time from 9 AM to 3 PM. Certainly, JIMs interventions not only helped the committee better understand its constituencys interests, but also provided the committee with a means to focus those interests upon a common goal. Because of the positive information conveyed by the workforce, the O committee charged the flextime subgroup with drafting plans to implement flextime. JIM again lent his expertise to this effort. The draft plan was presented to the committee in late November; one major objection surfaced from supervisors regarding the supervision of employees during non-core times. Rather than having the schedule of the supervisor determined through the formula specified by the subcommittee, the supervisors insisted that management should retain this prerogative. This change was accepted at the next meeting in December. At the following meeting later in December, another change was also made: participation of a work unit in the flextime schedule would be at the discretion of the supervisor. Even though this essentially unchanged version of the flextime schedule was not implemented until May, the committeewith JIMs helphad recognized and had begun to achieve an overarching interest of its constituency. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Although facilitators may spend much of their time in meetings, interventions also often occur either before or after meetings. These acts of facilitating may include both mediation and persuasion. In other words, facilitators may engage in communicative or strategic actions, depending upon the exigencies they encounter, their skill, and their moral judgment. From the stand point of seeking consensual agreement, strategic actions 53

Facilitating group/constituent communication involves a number of steps: (a) identify the interests of different stakeholders, (b) explore differences and similarities among these interests, and (c) seek an overarching interest that harmonizes these multiple interests. Each group member represents a set of constituents with certain needs and desires. Only if the member knows the interests of his or her constituents, can that member truly make informed decisions within the group. Moreover, the groups very survival may hinge on constituents believing that the group makes a difference. Providing feedback and gathering preferences and ideas are thus important activities of members on the group. These activities can be facilitated, both within the group and within the constituency. Beyond facilitating information flow, the facilitator may help the group establish more formal links with its constituency via subgroups and task forces. These subunits assure the group of firmer and more reliable links with its constituency. Yet, formal mechanisms for expressing and channeling the interests of its constituency do not, per se, ensure that a group will further those interests. Only if the group seeks an overarching interest that harmonizes seemingly competing interests will the groups constituency be fairly represented. Many of the techniques already discussed may be needed to effect such an overarching interest. The O committeewhich used brainstorming, employee surveys, subcommittee reports, and a consultants feasibility study to decide upon a flextime scheduleexemplifies how the externalinward processes of decision making may be facilitated. The O committee, with the interventions of ART (a facilitator), conducted a number of brainstorming sessions to identify issues of importance. Among those issues identified were tardiness, flextime, and cross-training. To gather more information on the flextime issue, ART encouraged the O committee to contact the MR committee which was working on a flextime experiment proposal at that time. This contact provided the impetus for the O committee to survey its hourly workforce constituency about flextime during June. Hence, ART's interventions helped the committee better realize its own interests. The survey results showed that a majority of the hourly workforce favored some form of flextime, and to address this interest, the O committee formed a subcommittee to investigate the feasibility of flextime. The subcommittee, though favorably

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

A Critical View of Facilitating Labor-Management Collaboration are the most problematic since they require the facilitator to pursue interests that may be opposed by at least some group members. Nevertheless, strategic actions may help if the group enters into negotiative relationships with organizational or labor union stakeholders; moreover, such actions may be necessary if the group engages in systematically distorted communication. In short, in an imperfect world, strategic action is sometimes a necessary tool to ensure that decision-making teams actually engage in a communicative action process and end up with a true consensus as opposed to a false consensus. Communicative actions, although grounded in the ideal speech situation, are also problematic in terms of their enactment, whether directed toward the internal or the external decision making processes of a group. To help the internal process, the facilitator may intervene so as to (1) avoid multiple, simultaneous conversations; (2) clarify frames of reference; (3) re-phrase decision proposals and test for consensus; and (4) clarify the positions of each References Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1980). Small group communication research of the 1970s: A synthesis and critique. Central States Speech Journal, 31(3), 197-213. Destephen, R. S. (1983). Group interaction differences between high and low consensus groups. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 340-363. Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision-making. Speech Monographs, 37 (1), 53-66. Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 28-47. Friedman, R. A. (1994). Front stage, backstage: The dramatic structure of labor negotiations. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Gadamer, H-G. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Seabury Press. Greenhalgh, L., Neslin, S. A., & Gilkey, R. W. (1985). The effects of negotiator preferences, situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 9-33. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. In H. P. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent sociology no. 2: Patterns of communicative behavior. pp.115-148. New York: MacMillan Co. party in dispute, and explore different approaches that may mediate the dispute. Similarly, the external process of decision making may be facilitated by (1) identifying the interests of different stakeholders, (2) exploring differences and similarities among these interests, and (3) seeking an overarching interest that harmonizes these multiple interests. While seemingly straightforward, each of the aforementioned interventions requires the facilitator to ground these actions in the ethic of seeking a consensual understanding. One implication of this examination of facilitation is to underscore the difficulties that even carefully conceived and implemented attempts toward collaboration face within organizations with deeply embedded hierarchical structures and asymmetrical power relations. Imagine the frustration (and steep learning curve) an organization faces that attempts to equalize power relations and displace the reliance on hierarchy with collaborationwithout the help of third-party facilitators! Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics? In Communication and the evolution of society. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1982). A reply to my critics. In J. B. Thompson & D. Held (Eds.), Habermas: Critical debates. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). pp. 219-283. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. T. McCarthy, Trans. Boston: Beacon Press. Herrick, N. (Ed.). (1983). Improving government: Experiments with quality of working life systems. New York: Praeger Publishers. Hill, T. A. (1976). An experimental study of the relationship between opinionated leadership and small group consensus. Communication Monographs, 43(3), 246-257. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Johannesen, R. L. (1971). The emerging concept of communication as dialogue. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57(4), 373-381. Knutson, T. J. (1972). An experimental study of the effects of orientation behavior on small group consensus. Speech Monographs, 39(3), 159-165.

54

Special Issue on Group Development

Savage and Hilton Knutson, T. J. and Holdridge, W. E. (1975). OriPoole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989a). Decision developentation behavior, leadership and consensus: A ment in small groups IV: A typology of group possible functional relationship. Speech decision paths. Human Communication Monographs, 42(2), 107-114. Research, 15(3), 323-356 . Knutson, T. J., & Kowitz, I. C. (1977). Effects of Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989b). Decision developinformation type and level of orientation on ment in small groups V: Test of a contingency consensus-achievement in substantive and model. Human Communication Research, 15(4), affective small group conflict. Central States 549-589. Speech Journal, 28(1), 54-63. Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). NegotiaKomorita, S. S., & Hamilton, T. P. (1984). Power tion in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: and equity in coalition bargaining. In S. B. Brooks/Cole Publishing. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social the sociology of organizations: Vol. 3. The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New psychological processes. pp. 189-212. York: Academic Press. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Spillman, B., Bezdek, J., & Spillman, R. (1979). Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The Development of an instrument for the dynamic effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence measurement of consensus. Communication on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Monographs, 46(1), 1-12. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34-49. Wall, J. A., Jr., & Blum, M. W. (1991). NegotiaNiederman, F., & Volkema, R. J. (1999). The effects tions. Journal of Management, 17(3), 273-303. of facilitator characteristics on meeting prepaWall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and ration, set up, and implementation. Small its management. Journal of Management, Group Research, 30(3), 330-360. 21(3), 515-58. Poole, M. S., & Holmes, M. E. (1995). Decision Young, O. R. (Ed.). (1975). Bargaining: Formal development in computer-assisted group decitheories of negotiation. Urbana, IL: University sion making. Human Communication Research, of Illinois Press. 22(1), 90- 127. Zager, R., & Rosow, M. P. (Eds.). (1982). The innoPoole, M. S., Holmes, M. E., Watson, R., & vative organization: Productivity programs in DeSanctis, G. (1993). Group decision support action. New York: Pergamon Press. systems and group communication. Communication Research, 20(2), 176 213. Acknowledgements: Our thanks to the anonymous reviewers who sharpened our thinking on facilitation and critical theory and to Donald J. Cegala, Joseph Pilotta, and Don Ronchi whoat its inceptionshared their wisdom in seeing this work to its fruition. Grant T. Savage is the Richard Scrushy/ HealthSouth Chair and Professor in Healthcare Management. Professor Savage has written extensively on conflict, healthcare, and stakeholder management issues in journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Executive, Health Care Management Review, and Hospital & Health Services Administration. He has co-authored five award winning papers, and published over 80 articles, chapters, and proceedings. He is a member of the Academy of Management, the International Association for Conflict Management, and the International Association for Business and Society. He has taught or conducted research on conflict, healthcare, and stakeholder management in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Grant received his B.A. from the University of Connecticut and an M.A. & Ph.D. from Ohio State University. Contact at: University of Alabama, College of Commerce and Business Administration, Management and Marketing Department, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225; Phone: 205-348-2926; Fax: 205-348-6695; E-mail: gsavage@cba.ua.edu Chadwick B. Hilton is the Director of International Business Programs and Associate Professor of Management in the College of Commerce and Business Administration. He has published extensively on reader-response to advertising copy, stylistics, and English language training in Japanese corporations in journals such as The Journal of Advertising Research, The International Journal of Advertising,The Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of Business Communication, and The Journal of Business and Technical Communication. His degrees include an A.B., UNC Chapel Hill; an M.A., N.C. State University; and a Ph.D., University of Tennessee. Contact at: University of Alabama, College of Commerce and Business Administration, Management and Marketing Department, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225; Phone: 205-3489432; Fax: 205-348-6695; Email: chilton@cba.ua.edu Associate Editor: Jean Watts Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001 55

Facilitating Team Development: A View from the Field

John E. Jones and William L. Bearley The purposes of this paper are to describe a guidance model for assisting groups of people to generate the conditions of teamwork and to describe the types of interventions that we have made in facilitating team development in a wide array of groups internationally. We will lay out the groundwork by commenting on differences between teams and groups and the appropriateness of team building. Keywords: Collaboration, Conflict, Group Development, Synergy, Team Building, Trust, Work Group INTRODUCTION In recent years there has been abundant attention to teamwork in the workplace. It is almost as though executives want teams by Monday. Many organizations have experimented with self-directed work teams, and the number and variety of teams has mushroomed. There has arisen considerable confusion regarding teams and the payoffs of creating them. We were recently facilitating a team-building session for a senior group within one of the largest corporations in the U.S. when it occurred to us that the concept of team had little or no meaning for the participants. Just before a break we asked them to write anonymously on pieces of paper the number of teams they either headed or were members of. During the break we tallied the results, which roughly described a normal curvebut with a mean of 16. When they returned to the session we showed a graph of the distribution, and no one was shocked. Its a way of life here, they agreed. WHAT IS A TEAM, AS DISTINCT FROM A WORK GROUP? This story illustrates that many people, and many organizations, are not critical in their thinking about the word "team." We find it useful to make a clear distinction between a group of people and a team. Most of what are called teams are, in our experience, not teams but groups. This is important because you can't get most of the advantages claimed for teams simply by hanging the label "team" on a group. The overarching goal of team building is to forge a group into a team. Having sharp definitions of these two terms helps guide us as we plan and facilitate our interventions. Here is the distinction that we work from. Group: a collection or aggregation of persons, places, or things that have at least one thing in common. We are in this room together. That makes us a group. Some of us are male. That makes us a group -- or subgroup, if there are also females in the group as a whole. Three of us support Option A. That makes us a group or subgroup, depending on whether remaining members support other options. Team: a functioning unit of people who meet the following criteria of teamness, paraphrased from Jones & Reilly (1974).
q

The team has a charter, or an official mandate form the organization; The members have work tasks that are interdependent; The members are committed to collaboration and coordination; The team is held accountable (and rewarded) by the organization as a single unit.

Team members are said to have spirit, or a sense of loyalty to and belief in each other. After all, they need each other to do their work. They organize to make work decisions, solve workrelated problems, make plans, and manage change. Work groups are imbedded within organizational systems that may either support or obviate teamwork. Some organizations are ineffective with regard to communicating clear expectations to work groups. Others have reward systems that focus on the contributions of individuals, with phony performance-appraisal procedures and practices. Unless the organization is ready, willing, and able to change its systems to emphasize teamwork, building teams is a futile activity. A group in the workplace may or may not be a teamor even need to be one, as we discuss below. Their work may be parallel or unrelated to each other. They may simply report to one boss as a Special Issue on Group Development

56

Jones and Bearley matter of convenience. They may never make collaborative decisions beyond those associated with the annual Christmas party. A note on size. It is probably not possible to sustain high levels of teamwork in groups of people with more than about fifteen members. Carrying out the normal functions of an interdependent team is made increasingly difficult with the addition of any members beyond that threshold. The smallest team consists of two persons in partnership to accomplish common goals. A three-person team is more complex dynamically. Adding more members dramatically increases the intricacy of interpersonal relations within the team. A fivemember team has ten two-person relationships within it, for example, but one of ten members has forty-five pairs of two-person relationships. U.S. football teams are not teams in the sense that we are using the term here. They are simply too big to function collectively or efficiently. In reality, they are several teams that operate more or less independently of each other: the offense; the defense; and special teams such as the punt team, the kickoff team, and the onside-kick team. Calling all of the leaders of an organization our management team, when it comprises several dozen or even hundreds of managers, is not what we mean by the term team. When are teams either desirable or necessary? When the work is organized in ways such that the people who do the work need to collaborate with each other, working as a team is not only desirable but also necessary. If the work is assigned to individual contributors that are given discrete tasks to perform, forming a team is probably unnecessary and may be undesirable. The story of the development of the transistor is a case in point. We have had considerable experience in consulting in research and development (R&D) components of various large organizations. Pure research is sometimes a solitary activity, headed by a person with a burning idea. That individual may assemble a staff of researchers and assistants to carry out various functions, but the head researcher controls decision making. In the case of the transistor, a researcher at Bell Laboratories had a general idea about how to solve the problems presented by the use of vacuum tubes. He recruited two other leading researchers to work with him. The three worked at the idea, but, along the way, the group broke up because the lead took credit for the contributions of the others. In this case, the unsuccessful and ultimately unnecessary attempt to form a team probably both slowed the work and permanently damaged important working relationships. A MATRIX MODEL OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT One of the prerequisites for working as a team is going through a process of becoming a team. This process is referred to in the literature as group development, and the process often applies to other groups besides those trying to become teams. The fact that there are so many models of group development may be due to the challenge of cutting through the complexity of interactions within groups of people. We published a comparative chart of group development models (Jones, Bearley, & Watsabaugh, 1996) reproduced in Table 1. What is interesting about this comparison is the relative sameness of the elements of the seemingly disparate models. The chart does not depict adequately the comprehensiveness of some of the models, of course, because their major elements have been reduced to a labeling of stages of group development. The comparisons are, in that sense, apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples. However, each of these models shows that groups, including groups seeking to become teams, go through a series of challenges. Each of these challenges, if successully met, strengthens their ability to work together. Each of these models is one dimensional. Our field experience has convinced us that groups actually progress along two dimensions: how they're working, or task behavior, and how they're working together, or relationship behavior. We find utility in thinking of groups as being on- or offtrack. The processes of group development that we observe are not necessarily linear. Sometimes teams sacrifice the task for internal calm, and sometimes teams sacrifice human relations in the service of getting the job done. Consequently, we wanted our model to assist groups to diagnose their status in order to get back or stay on track to developing the conditions that characterize effective teamwork. As shown in Figure 1, displaying the teams status at any given time on a twodimensional matrix permits us not only to look at the track but also to show the probable dynamics in a variety of group conflict.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

57

Facilitating Team Development: A View from the Field Table 1. Comparison of Group Development Models Model Builder(s) Shutz (1958) Bion (1961) Tuckman (1965) Francis & Young (1979) Woodcock & Francis (1980) Mossbruker (1988) Osburn, Moran, Musselwhite, Zenger (1990) Varney (1991) Inclusion Flight Forming Testing Ritual Sniffing Orientation to Group and to Task State of Confusion Formation Storming Infighting Infighting Conflict over Control Leader Centered Building Stages of Group Development Control Fight Norming Getting Organized Experimentation Group Formation and Solidarity Tightly Formed Working Openness Unite Performing Mature Closeness Effectiveness & Maturity Differentiation and Productivity Self Directed Maturity

Figure 1. Team Development Matrix

58

Special Issue on Group Development

Jones and Bearley This model guides our facilitation of team development. We see groups developing along two major dimensions, or axes. Organizations assemble work groups to get tasks done, not simply to have good human relations. Since the task is usually primary, groups often concentrate on it at the expense of, in spite of, without sensitivity to, or unaware of the effects of group-task interactions on the groups social system. Task Behavior This major dimension of group development incorporates four phases, or developmental tasks. Here are brief descriptions of the phases of Task Behaviors. Orientation. In the beginning, or when tasks change, members of the group need to learn what is required of them as a group, what they have to work with, and the organizations expectations of them with regard to quality, timelines, etc. Organization. When the group comes to a common understanding of the tasks requirements, it can then organize itself to achieve its goals. Unless the common goals are clear, however, the group can vacillate between Organization and Orientation, the first phase. Open Data Flow. After the group agrees on a work plan and processes, it is time to ensure that all available data within the group that are relevant to the task be available to all members. This means sharing facts, opinions, feelings, hunches, connections, networks, etc., with everyone. Problem Solving. This advanced phase of group development is the target for task completion. The group members all know what the task requirements and goals are, they are living out an agreed-upon work arrangement for accomplishing the groups objectives, they are exchanging data freely, and they are collectively managing the implementation of the decisions they have made. Unfortunately, groups are often composed of people with different agendas. Some members show high integrity, some leaders behave as hard taskmasters, some members are reluctant to speak up, and some are risk takers. The diversity of personalities, motives, interpersonal histories, and other complexities combine to generate both functional and dysfunctional interpersonal events. Note that in the case of Task Behaviors the four phases are cumulative. That is, in order to engage in effective Problem Solving groups must have Open Data Flow, and this is optimized by good Organization, which, in turn, requires adequate Orientation. Relationship Behavior This is the people side of the matrix. It also consists of four developmental tasks, or phases, of group development. Dependency. In the beginning, members are dependent on the leader, or convener, for direction. Here the leader must explain the task requirements and generate a common commitment to shared goals. Note that a reversion to this first phase of development can also occur if the organization changes its expectations of the group. Conflict. Almost all observers of group development have noted that for a group to become a team, it must go through a period of internal strife. Most often this is centered on a struggle for leadership or influence within the group. Unless the group faces this conflict, it will become stuck or go off-track. Cohesion. Surviving the difficulties of the Conflict phase usually results in feelings of relief, increased trust in each other, and a sense that were all in this together. Notice that this is not the optimal phase, however; it just feels better. Interdependence. In this phase of Relationship Behaviors, the groups trust level is so well established that it can organize and reorganize itself any way it wishes. It can operate in the absence of leading members. The work tasks can be knitted together because members are confident in each other. Up the Diagonal or On Track Our Team Development Matrix indicates that, when groups progress toward teamness, they go up the diagonal of the matrix, more or less. This is not a stage model, as almost all others are. It describes patterns and sets of behaviors. The diagonal of the matrix is not an ideal developmental sequence. It is simply the most efficient and effective behavioral manifestation of team development. Sometimes teams wobble, and the facilitator assists them in returning to a productive line of development. Square One. Here we usually see phenomena that emerge from coping with the newness of the group, new tasks, new members, a new leader, etc. This is not so much a stage of group development as a set of conditions in which there is a lack of common orientation to the groups task and dependency on the leader for direction. Fractionation. This condition is marked by negotiation on how to carry out the task and by interpersonal conflict, particularly with regard to 59

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Facilitating Team Development: A View from the Field leadership and influence. Again, this is not a group-development stage. It is a general status in which groups bounce around with their internal struggles. Sharing, Dialog, and Trust. This condition represents Open Data Flow regarding Task Behaviors and Cohesion regarding Relationship Behaviors. Members enjoy this condition because they have usually gone through conflict and stuck together and are exchanging task-relevant data freely. Collaboration. Our behavioral definition of a team, as opposed to a group, then, is a functioning human unit that knows what its task requirements are, agrees on how to accomplish its goals, exchanges data openly, and engages in productive problem solving (the Task Behaviors side of the matrix) and who have risen to such a high level of interpersonal trust that they can capitalize on their confidence in and interdependence with each other. It is in this condition that we observe both shared decision making and camaraderie. Becoming a true team is not a stopping place, however. Teams that are highly successful can become consistently synergistic, raising standards above expectations and achieving goals that are unexpected by the organization. Synergy. This level of group development is seldom achieved, in our experience. Organizations often make what appear to be arbitrary changes, and these can have serious negative impacts on highly functioning teams. When disruptive change occurs, some teams backslide, moving to a lower stage of development. If the team is truly optimal, however, it can go back through the necessary phases of development in Task and Relationship behaviors more quickly than originally. This can also occur when the teams membership (including leadership) changes. We have used the term off-track. By that we mean that groups can display combinations of Task and Relationship behaviors off the diagonal of the matrix. For example, if a group were in the Organization phase of Task Behaviors and the Dependency phase of Relationship Behaviors, we would probably observe inefficiency and would search for procedures. These off-diagonal conditions are important to know about as we plan team-building interventions. In fact, our most common observation is that groups do not grow in either a smoothly progressive manner or by leaps and bounds. They tend strongly to move both to the right and left of the diagonal of the matrix. Progressing up the diagonal is not a statement of ideal team development. It is descriptive of an efficient 60 use of group resources toward high levels of functioning, but one that even successful teams rarely accomplish. Note that the Team Development Matrix does not simply give new names for the popular Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing sequence that constitutes the Tuckman (1965) model. We consider it unfortunate that that model (built on a kind of meta-analysis of models existing at the time of its formulation) uses rhyming labels for its four stages. The Tuckman model, in our judgment, is an oversimplification. What is unfortunate about the rhyming is that it has become mnemonically powerful, to the point that a large proportion of facilitators consider it to be the truth. In our judgment, its only merits are that the model is easy to teach and Storming is legitimized as a subject for problem solving. The classical team-building intervention The usual sequence of activities that we carry out in facilitating group development is linear. There is a beginning, middle, end, and follow through. Here is the normal sequence. Contracting. We work with the leadership of the work group to establish common expectations and hoped-for outcomes. We generate an explicit agreement on fees and expenses, timing, etc. Assessment. To prepare members of a work group for a team-building session, we interview each individual, beginning and ending with the leadership. These interviews are anonymous but not confidential. We explain that we plan to publish trends and themes from the interviews to the whole group. We have each member complete our Group Development Assessment (GDA) (Jones & Bearley, 1986) instrument, which is based on an earlier expression of the Team Development Matrix. Data Analysis. First, we study our verbatim interview notes for common themes and prepare a presentation, often in PowerPoint, that is organized around themes and contains anonymous quotations from work-group members. Second, we score and profile the GDA and construct a group profile that arrays the pairs of highest scores on Task Behaviors and Process Behaviors. Design. We outline the design of the teambuilding session, including statements of the agenda and the desired outcomes of the session. The overarching theme of the design is almost always, How can we work together better in order to accomplish our goals more effectively. Often the agenda includes interpersonal sharing of feedback on the extent to which each member is being a Special Issue on Group Development

Jones and Bearley team player, according to our behavioral definitions. Guiding our design is our analysis of where the team, or potential team, falls on the Team Development Matrix and how to move them back to or along the diagonal. Facilitating the session. The leadership of the work group, ideally at least, opens the teambuilding session. We have usually coached these members regarding setting a positive tone. Typically, we then present the results of the Assessment phase and explain our role(s) in the session. Then the work group goes to work. We watch and listen, verbally reinforcing productive behaviors and making process suggestions for ways to attack chronic problems. We stay out of the content of what is being discussed. Sometimes we intervene to explain effective group processes that could move the particular group forward. What they talk about normally are the real problems that are facing the group right now. The structured interventions that we usually include are interpersonal exchange of feedback and brief instruction on various problem-solving techniques (Harvey, Bearley, & Corkrum,1997). Evaluation. We are not interested in gathering smile sheet data at the end of team-building sessions. (See Jones, 1990). We sponsor having the work group evaluate their own work during the session. A simple method that we use is to ask two questions: (1) On a ten-point scale, how well did we work together as a team during this time together? and (2) What would it take to make it a 10 in our next meeting? We then facilitate publishing these data, pushing for agreement on improved group behavior. Follow-through. Work groups do not grow in a saltatory manner. There are many small steps, some of them backward, and few real leaps. Because teams can revert to group-like behavior when their membership or the organization changes, it is important to have booster shots. The most dramatic outcome of quality-tools training, for example, is using them for a while and slowly abandoning them. They are overtaken by events. We attempt to include follow-through sessions in our contracts. In one large manufacturing plant, for example, we facilitated six senior-leader offsite sessions in three years. In a large researchand-development organization, we facilitated monthly team development sessions for the top leaders for three years, including three three-day retreats. Alternatives to the ideal intervention It is often difficult to get members away from the workplace for any significant length of time, so the facilitator needs to consider alternatives to the classical off-site session. There are numerous activities that can result in team development, and the facilitator needs to be creative in finding ways to access the work group and methods for fostering development. Staff Meetings. Some work groups have weekly staff meetings that can become the forum for facilitating group development or team building if the group will accept the role and function of the facilitator as adding value to their interactions. In this case we simply observe the group processes that underlie how the group does its business, making interventions as necessary. There is no design; we remain ready to intervene to promote interdependent problem solving competencies and processes. Startups. The best time to facilitate group development is at the beginning of the groups life. This practice can make going through the Conflict stage quicker and more thorough. The work group can mature more rapidly when it has the services of a disinterested interventionist. In this case, the use of Assessment and Data Analysis are somewhat different: instead of diagnosing where the group is, we are diagnosing the potential of the group to become a team and the ability of the environment to support true teamwork. We typically do this by engaging the group in SWOT analysis. Training Sessions. Sometimes it is advantageous to put a work group through a series of brief training modules that are designed to result in the maturation of the group. The facilitator then becomes the trainer, and group members become participants. Debriefing such sessions must be, in our opinion, directly tied to the groups work. This is not entertrainment. It is an alternative to team self-diagnosis and improvement planning. Using training activities that do not transfer to the groups Task and Relationship Behaviors can be a waste of resources. While such training can be fun, the goal is not so much recreation as it is serious, task-relevant learning by both individual members and the group as a functioning unit. A note: The term touchy-feely is used by many people to denigrate facilitator interventions without a standard of meaning. We suspect that for many who use it the term refers to anything that the user finds uncomfortable. Whether this is true is less significant than the reality that team building is both controversial and threatening to many work-group members. An easy way for them 61

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Facilitating Team Development: A View from the Field to deal with their discomfort is to put down the activities they dont like. As professional facilitators we must take this concern into account in all of our interactions with members of work groups, particularly before formal team-building sessions. We assure members that the work will focus on becoming increasingly effective in achieving the groups or teams task goals. We do not facilitate tree-hugging or other activities that are not directly related to the groups charter. All of our communications emphasize the serious nature of group development. We want members to show up ready to work, and perhaps also to enjoy the process. Facilitating group development is not fun and games. It is hardheaded attention to getting the results that the organization expects. Noises that team development facilitators make: The language of team building For each place that a group or team might find itself on the Team Development Matrix, there are appropriate interventions, usually in the form of one or more questions or statement-question pairs. In The New Fieldbook for Training (Jones, Bearley, & Watsabaugh, 1996) we catalog and briefly describe 86 facilitation interventions in team development. Many of the interventions are tied directly to the Team Development Matrix. Here is our generic process intervention (team self-diagnosis):
q q q

Hold it. We seem to be moving away from the process we agreed on at the beginning of the meeting. This intervention attempts to get the group to get back on track with regard to the Organization phase of Task Behavior. Lets see how people are reacting to whats going on right now. Relationship Behavior is often ignored in the service of getting tasks accomplished. This facilitator intervention prods the work group to open up this dimension for discussion and heightened sensitivity. I have a hunch that whats happening right now is... The facilitators role does not include diagnosing the groups development for them. Rather, we test our hunches by promoting group self-diagnosis, and we use the matrix as a map for the group to determine where they are. Let me test an observation about what Im seeing going on. Here the facilitator is testing not a hunch but an observation. Since many observers of group interaction tend to be judgmental in their observations, we use the matrix to denote the behavioral phenomena that we see. What we are after, however, is to get the group to engage in this type of analysis spontaneously, especially when members become uncomfortable with what they see is happening in the group. I want each of you to rate this session so far on a tenpoint scale, where 10 is high. Although this is a judgmental and simplistic assessment, it often causes the group to become more attentive to the Relationship Behavior side of the matrix. Then think about what it would take to make the meeting a ten or better. This is, in reality, an extension of the immediately previous intervention. It can make it easy to legitimize discussion and problem solving on Relationship Behaviors. Lets take time to share how were experiencing each other in this meeting before we pick up the next agenda item. This is another intervention that focuses the groups energies on its Relationship Behaviors. Lets review how well were using the six-step process. This intervention promotes discipline on Task Behaviors. Groups tend to become sloppy with the methods they have been taught for problem solvSpecial Issue on Group Development

Whats going on? How do you feel about it? What would be better?

We use this intervention most often, because it generates team self-diagnosis that responds to considerations of both Task Behavior and Relationship behavior simultaneously. In TEAMBOOK (Jones and Bearley, 1994), we list typical things that facilitators say while facilitating team development. Here is our list, along with links to the Team Development Matrix. Whats going on? This intervention asks the work group to diagnose itself. If members understand the Team Development Matrix, they can answer this question with precision. Lets pause for a moment to check our process. This as another way to sponsor work-group self-diagnosis, and the Team Development Matrix provides a convenient rubric for this analysis.

62

Jones and Bearley ing, decision making, and action planning. The facilitator needs to work with the group to use its agreed upon methodology or agree consciously to modify it. Where are we in the nine-step procedure? The comment directly above applies to this intervention also. When groups show a lack of commitment to discipline in Task Behaviors, it is time for the facilitator to sponsor self-corrective action. I want us to have a go-around: make a statement that begins with, Right now I... Maybe the roles in this session arent clear. We are not reluctant to put people on the spot in facilitating team development. Usually members are being paid to cooperate with each other. We promote accountability, including members taking personal responsibility to see that their task roles are clear. Using the matrix, we help members to clarify their roles according to the four phases of Task Behaviors. Lets test that. What would be better for you in this meeting today? This intervention is similar to one described earlier, but this one is spontaneous. The facilitator asks a member to come clean with preferences regarding how the groups meeting progresses. Often this intervention makes it easy to initiate a group discussion of Relationship Behavior within the group. What is your sense of how well the group is working toward its goal today? The Team Development Matrix provides an efficient model for focusing this team self-assessment. The facilitator is careful not to grade the group, but members do so continuously. The matrix gives them a way of becoming less evaluative and more descriptive. The facilitator can work with this result to get the group to look at its own functioning in a developmental way. Who feels like a winner or a loser right now? In group decision making, which is an integral part of all problem solving, sometimes individual members feelings and opinions are suppressed in a quest for consensus. This can lead to a condition of groupthink in which the group intimidates members. Using the matrix as a diagnostic framework can obviate this phenomenon by making it easy for members to describe how they are experiencing the groups processes before they become dysfunctional. What have we learned in this meeting that can make the next one better? The meta-goal of the facilitator is for the group to police and reward itself in the absence of a helper. Getting the group to commit to becoming a learning group can lead to a condition of continuous improvement in team functioning. The matrix provides a simple but powerful frame for this learning. Of course, facilitators may not talk exactly like that. We adapt our language to each group. The imperatives of facilitation There are some rules that we apply to facilitating group development. The guidelines that focus our wor arebased on our field experience with numerous work groups and teams at all levels, in both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Show up prepared. As Woody Allen once said, Showing up is eighty percent of life. We hold ourselves accountable for doing our homework in preparation for facilitating group development. That means gathering and analyzing information about the groups present development pattern. The Team Development Matrix is an effective model for such data gathering and analysis. If there is a formal group leader, we apply two rules: never surprise the boss, and never be surprised by the boss. Be responsive to the group. This means listening accurately to members, soliciting wants, needs, and expectations, and considering the appropriateness of the interventions with which we are familiar. Promote success. Organizations create work groups to get work done. The work is primary, and, as facilitators, we attempt to assist groups to identify their desired outputs and to produce them efficiently, consistent with the values that they espouse as a group. Use your expertise when appropriate. Group members often ask facilitators for their experience or opinions. What do you think? We are usually tempted to respond, I think you should ask better questions, but we fight the temptation. When our expertise is directly relevant to the concern that a work group is addressing, we ask permission to take off our facilitators hat for a moment in order to share what we know or think. Then we get back into role as quickly as possible.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

63

Facilitating Team Development: A View from the Field When in doubt, confront; when all else fails, try honesty. Group development is often uncomfortable. It is often up to us to point out that there is a moose on the table. When the group is not facing its internal conflicts squarely, we are prepared to open up the subject and facilitate its consideration. For youth, we call it growing pains. For adults, we want to assist work groups to find ways of managing conflict in the service of task and process effectiveness. Sponsor acceptance of interdependence. Independence is a value prized in our larger society, and many work-group members have to learn the benefits of accepting this condition. Lone Rangers have particular difficulties with this concept or value. In facilitating work-group development we ask members to analyze the dependencies within the group, such as customer-supplier relationships. CONCLUSION Businesses today recognize the need for the high-performance, collaborative efforts of teams but often do not recognize what it takes for a work group to actually achieve this level of performance. By working with these organizations and the potential teams that are formed within them, we can help them move through the development phases of task and relationship behavior to become a true, synergistic team. Mossbruker, J. (1988). Developing a productivity team: Making groups and work teams work. In W. B. Reddy & K. Jamison (Eds.), Team building: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction. Alexandria, VA: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences & San Francisco: JosseyBass Pfeiffer. Orsburn, S. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., & Zenger, J. (1990). Self-directed work teams: The new American challenge. Homewood: Business One Irwin. Reilly, A. J., and Jones. J. E. (1974). Team building. In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E. Jones (Eds.), The 1974 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. Schutz, W. C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. In Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-389. Varney, G. H. (1991). Building productive teams: An action guide and resource book. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Woodcock, M., & Francis, C. (1980). Team building: yes or no. In W. W. Burke (Ed.), Trends and issues in OD: Current theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. Assist in movement toward problem solving capacity. Since that interdependent problem solving defines effective team in our model, we consciously promote improvement in the groups ability to solve problems effectively. We often use quality tools to work in this direction. These are not hard-and-fast rules. They simply guide our behavior as facilitators. They are our standards for ourselves as professionals when we facilitate group development.

References Francis, D., & Young, D. (1979). Improving work groups: A practical manual for team building. San Diego, CA: University Associates. Harvey, T. R., Bearley, W. L., & Corkrum, S. M. (1997). The practical decision maker: A handbook for decision making and problem solving in organizations. Lancaster, PA: Technomics. Jones, J. E. (1999). Productive and counterproductive behaviors of team members. In the Freebies section of the Website http://ous.iex.net. Jones. J. E. (1990). Dont smile about smile sheets. Training & Development Journal, December, 1921. Aslo available at http://ous.iex.net. Jones, J. E., & Bearley, W. L. (1986). Group development assessment. King of Prussia, PA: HRDQ. Jones, J. E., & Bearley, W. L. (1994). Teambook: Twenty-seven exercises for enhancing work groups. King of Prussia, PA: HRDQ. Jones, J. E., Bearley, W. L., & Watsabaugh, D. C. (1996). The new fieldbook for training: Tips, tricks, tools, & techniques. Amherst, MA: HRD Press & Minneapolis, MN: Lakewood Publications.

64

Special Issue on Group Development

Jones and Bearley John E. Jones is President of Organizational Universe Systems. John co-edited numerous experience-based training and consulting handbooks and annuals. As an experienced trainer, presenter, counselor, professor, entrepreneur, and consultant, he effectively bridges the theoretical and the practical. He consults widely, with such clients as Air Canada, ARC International (U.S.A. & Japan), AT&T Bell Laboratories, AT&T Consumer Products, Coca-Cola, Coors Brewing Company, General Motors, Holiday Inns, Kaiser-Permanente, McKesson, Network Management, Inc., Psychological Associates, Public Service Electric & Gas, Rockwell Telecommunications, SAP Americas, ShearsonLehman Mortgage, Tonka, Turner Construction, Unisys, Wallace Computer Services, Xerox, and numerous not-for-profit organizations in education, government, and health care. Dr. Jones taught at the University of Iowa for eight years, in Counselor Education. He has lectured widely on a wide range of topics in education, training, organization behavior, and leadership. His special interests in development are training design and delivery, executive team building, intergroup problem solving, organizational survey feedback, and management development. He has collaborated with Dr. William L. Bearley on state-of-the-art management-training models and instruments. Contact at: Organizational Universe Systems, 5412 Barkla Street, San Diego CA 92122-4002; Phone: 858452-0844; Fax: 858-452-0544; jjones2@san.rr.com; http://ous.iex.net William L. Bearley is Vice President of Organizational Universe Systems. Bill has a variety of experiences as a teacher, professor, trainer, consultant and business person. He is unique in that he in thoroughly educated in both computer science and behavioral science. Thus, he brings considerable breadth of perspective to the practice of developing and improving management systems. He has pioneered the fusion of organization development with the introduction of management information systems in organizations. Bill consults with numerous clients, such as AT&T Communications, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Honeywell, Xerox, Loreal, McKesson, Kaiser-Permanente, Equifax, and many educational and health-care organizations. Dr. Bearley is a graduate of the UA laboratory-education intern program and currently serves as a professor in the Doctoral Program in Educational Management at the University of La Verne. Contact at: Organizational Universe Systems, P.O. Box 38, Valley Center CA 92082; Phone: 760-749-0737; Fax: 760-749-8041; wbearley@ix.netcom.com; http://ous.iex.net Associate Editor: Edward Ruete

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

65

Classics for Group Facilitators

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups *

Bruce W. Tuckman

Editors Note As group facilitators we are often concerned about the development of the groups with which we work. Frequently we make reference to the stages of group development and the stages most frequently cited are forming, storming, norming and performing. These stages were proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 based on his examination of empirical research studies. In this classic article, Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, we find a rich description of these stages under a variety of settings as well as their applicability to both group structure and task activity.

In a subsequent 1977 article, Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited, Tuckman and coauthor Mary Ann Jensen noted that subsequent empirical studies suggested a termination stage which they named adjourning. While Table 1 below summarizes the stages with a description of their associated group structures and task activities, the original article provides a much more complete understanding of their context, meaning, and limitations. Although other articles in this special issue suggest the limitations of stage models such as this, the memorability and popularity of Tuckmans model make this article required reading for every group facilitator. - Sandor P. Schuman, Editor

Table 1: Stages of Group Development Group Structure The pattern of interpersonal relationships; the way members act and relate to one another. Forming: orientation, testing and dependence Storming: resistance to group influence and task requirements Norming: openness to other group members Performing: constructive action Adjourning: disengagement Testing and dependence Task Activity The content of interaction as related to the task at hand.

Orientation to the task Emotional response to task demands Open exchange of relevant interpretations; intimate, personal opinions are expressed Interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task activities; group energy is channeled into the task; solutions can emerge Self-evaluation

Intragroup conflict Ingroup feeling and cohesiveness develop; new standards evolve and new roles are adopted Roles become flexible and functional; structural issues have been resolved; structure can support task performance Anxiety about separation and termination; sadness; feelings toward leader and group members

Copyright 1965 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission. This article appeared in Psychological Bulletin, Volume 63, Number 6, Pages 384-99. Special Issue on Group Development

66

Tuckman Authors Note My first professional job was as part of a small group of social psychologists in a think tank setting studying small group behavior as the US Navy prepared for a future of small crew vessels and stations. Nine of us at the Naval Medical Research Institute were busy studying small groups from all perspectives and under all conditions. I was fortunate to have an experienced and talented boss by the name of Irwin Altman, who had been collecting every article he could find on group development. He turned his collection over to me and suggested that I look it over and see if I could make anything out of it. The collection contained 50 articles, many of which were psychoanalytic studies of therapy or Tgroups. The task of organizing and integrating them was challenging. After separating out two realms of group functioning, namely, the interpersonal or group structure realm and the task activity realm, I began to look for a developmental sequence that would fit the findings of a majority of the studies. I hit on four stages going from (1) orientation/testing/dependence, to (2) conflict, to (3) group cohesion, to (4) functional role-relatedness. For these I coined the terms: forming, storming, norming, and performingterms that would come to be used to describe developing groups for the next 20 years and which probably account for the papers popularity. There still remained the task of getting the paper published and that was no mean feat. Lloyd Humphreys, then editor of the Psychological Bulletin, turned it down, offering me constructive editorial criticism, but concluding that the reviewed studies themselves were not of sufficient quality to merit publication. I was persistent, though, and rewrote the manuscript per his recommendations and sent it back to him, despite his initial outright rejection. I pointed out that I was not trying to justify the collected articles but to draw inferences from them. Humphreys did a complete about-face and accepted my argument and my manuscript and, in short order, it appeared in print. I ordered, thanks to the navy, 450 reprints and used them all to fill requests within the first three or four years after the article appeared. Requests came from all over the world and from a wide range of disciplines and I have saved some of the more exotic ones. Almost yearly, I receive a request from someone to use parts of the article or at least the terms forming, storming, norming, and performing in print. Again, quotability may be the key to success. In 1977, I published, by invitation, an update of the model in a journal called Group & Organization Studiesin collaboration with Mary Ann Jensen.1 We reviewed 22 studies that had appeared since the original publication of the model and which we located by means of the Social Sciences Citation Index. These articles, one of which dubbed the stages Tuckmans hypothesis, 2 tended to support the existence of the four stages, but also suggested a fifth stage for which a perfect rhyme could not be found. We called it adjourning. Abstract Fifty articles dealing with stages of group development over time are separated by group setting, as follows: therapy-group studies, T-group studies, and natural- and laboratory-group studies. The stages identified in these articles are separated into those descriptive of social or interpersonal group activities and those descriptive of group-task activities. Finally, 4 general stages of development are proposed, and the review consists of fitting the stages identified in the literature to those proposed. In the social realm, these stages in the developmental sequence are testing-dependence, conflict, cohesion, and functional roles. In the task realm, they are orientation, emotionality, relevant opinion exchange, and the emergence of solutions. There is a good fit between observed stages and the proposed model. Further study of temporal change as a dependent variable via the manipulation of specific independent variables is suggested. The purpose of this article is to review the literature dealing with the developmental sequence in small groups, to evaluate this literature as a body, to extrapolate general concepts about group development and to suggest fruitful areas for further research. While small-group processes have been given great attention in recent years by behavioral scientists, the question of change in process over time has been relatively neglected. Perhaps the major reason for this is the overwhelming tendency of the small-group researcher to run groups for short periods of time and thus avoid the 'problems' created by temporal change. Laboratory studies of developmental phenom1 2

Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Org. Studies 2:419-27, 1977. Runkel, P. J., Lawrence M., Oldfield S., Rider M. & Clark C. Stages of group development -- an empirical test of Tuckman's hypothesis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7:180-93, 1971. 67

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups ena are quite rare. The majority of articles dealing with sequential group development come from the group-therapy setting and human relations training-group setting, neither of which features strict experimental control nor manipulation of independent variables. Moreover, the only major theoretical statements of group development which have appeared are those of Bach (1954), Bales (1953) and Schutz (1958). In an attempt to bring the facts and the issues into sharper focus, existing research in the area of small-group development will be cited, and a framework within which this phenomenon can be better understood and further investigated will be presented. This framework will also serve to integrate the variety of studies cited in a meaningful way. trainer or leader, and endure from about three weeks to six months. The most striking differences between therapy- and training-group settings are in the areas of group composition, task, goal, and duration of group life. Such differences can account for different findings in the two settings. The most striking similarity is in the manner of data collection. Data in the training-group setting are highly anecdotal, subjective, collected by the trainer and his coworkers, and often based on the observations of a single group. Again, this serves to limit the generality of these findings. The natural-group setting is distinguished on the basis that the group exists to perform some social or professional function over which the researcher has no control. Members are not brought together for self-improvement; rather, they come together to do a job. Such groups may be characterized either by appointed or emergent leadership. Presidential advisory councils and industrial groups represent examples of natural groups. Similar limitations to generalization based on the manner of data collection and number of groups observed applies in this setting as in the previous settings. The laboratory-task setting features groups brought together for the purpose of studying group phenomena. Such groups are small (generally under ten members), have a short life, and may or may not have leaders. In this setting, groups are given a task or tasks which they are to complete. Quantitative data are collected and analyzed based on multiple-group performances. The last two settings have been combined due to the small number of studies in each (the dearth of group development studies in the industrial area is notable), and also because theoretical statements are reviewed which are generalized to cover both areas. All studies will be classified into one of the three setting categories according to best fit. Realm: interpersonal v. task Within the studies reviewed, an attempt will be made to distinguish between interpersonal stages of group development and task behaviors Special Issue on Group Development

CLASSIFICATION MODEL The classification approach adopted for distinguishing between and within developmental studies is a threefold one. The delineations are based on (a) the setting in which the group is found, (b) the realm into which the group behavior falls at any point in time, that is, task or interpersonal, and (c) the position of the group in a hypothetical developmental sequence (referred to as the stage of development). It is this last delineation that allows not only for the separation and ordering of observations within each setting, but for the development of additional hypotheses as well. Setting Classification according to setting allows for the clustering of studies based on their similarity of features, for example, group size, group problem area, group composition, duration of group life, etc. More similarity between observations made in the same setting than in different settings is expected. In the group-therapy setting the task is to help individuals better deal with their personal problems. The goal is individual adjustment. Such groups contain from five to fifteen members, each of whom has some debilitating personal problem, and a therapist, and the group exists for three months or more. The developmental data for such groups consist of the observations of the therapist and those professional observers that are present, usually as trainees. Such data are highly anecdotal in nature and reflect the clinical biases of the observers. Furthermore, such accounts are usually formulated after the fact and based on the observation of a single group. Since the bulk of the literature reviewed comes from this setting, its generality must be limited by the limitations of the setting and the mode of data collection. In the human relations training-group (T-group) setting, the task is to help individuals interact with one another in a more productive, less defensive manner, and to be aware of the dynamics underlying such interaction. The goal is interpersonal sensitivity. Such groups contain ordinarily from fifteen to thirty members, usually students or corporation executives, and one 68

Tuckman exhibited in the group. The contention is that any group, regardless of setting, must address itself to the successful completion of a task. At the same time, and often through the same behaviors, group members will be relating to one another interpersonally. The pattern of interpersonal relationships is referred to as group structure and is interpreted as the interpersonal configuration and interpersonal behaviors of the group at a point in time, that is, the way the members act and relate to one another as persons. The content of interaction as related to the task at hand is referred to as task activity. The proposed distinction between the group as a social entity and the group as a task entity is similar to the distinction between the task-oriented functions of groups and the social-emotional-integrative functions of groups, both of which occur as simultaneous aspects of group functioning (Bales, 1953; Coffey, 1952; Deutsch, 1949; Jennings, 1947). In therapy groups and T-groups, the task is a personal and interpersonal one in that the group exists to help the individuals deal with themselves and others. This makes the interpersonal-task distinction a fuzzy one. A further problem with this distinction occurs because the studies cited do not distinguish between the two realms and often talk about interpersonal development at one point in the sequence and task development at another point. The distinction will be maintained, however, because of the generic difference between the reaction to others as elements of the group task versus the reaction to others as social entities. Failing to separate stages by realm obscures the continuity of the developmental process. While the two realms differ in content, as will be seen, their underlying dynamics are similar. Proposed developmental sequence The following model is offered as a conceptualization of changes in group behavior, in both social and task realms, across all group settings, over time. It represents a set of hypotheses reflecting the authors biases (rather than those of the researchers) and the perception of trends in the studies reviewed which become considerably more apparent when these studies are viewed in the light of the model. The model of development stages presented below is not suggested for primary use as an organizational vehicle, although it serves that function here. Rather, it is a conceptual statement suggested by the data presented and subject to further test. In the realm of group structure the first hypothesized stage of the model is labeled as testing and dependence. The term testing refers to an attempt by group members to discover what interpersonal behaviors are acceptable in the group, based on the reactions of the therapist or trainer (where one is present) and on the reactions of the other group members. Coincident to discovering the boundaries of the situation by testing, one relates to the therapist, trainer, some powerful group member, or existing norms and structures in a dependent way. One looks to this person, persons, or standards for guidance and support in this new and unstructured situation. The first stage of task-activity development is labeled as orientation to the task, in which group members attempt to identify the task in terms of its relevant parameters and the manner in which the group experience will be used to accomplish the task. The group must decide upon the type of information they will need in dealing with the task and how this information is to be obtained. In orienting to the task, one is essentially defining it by discovering its ground rules. Thus, orientation, in general, characterizes behavior in both interpersonal and task realms during this stage. It is to be emphasized that orientation is a general class of behavior which cuts across settings; the specifics of orientation, that is, what one must orient to and how, will be setting-specific. The second phase in the development of group structure is labeled as intragroup conflict. Group members become hostile toward one another and toward a therapist or trainer as a means of expressing their individuality and resisting the formation of group structure. Interaction is uneven and infighting is common. The lack of unity is an outstanding feature of this phase. There are characteristic key issues that polarize the group and boil down to the conflict over progression into the unknown of interpersonal relations or regression to the security of earlier dependence. Emotional response to task demands is identified as the second stage of task-activity development. Group members react emotionally to the task as a form of resistance to the demands of the task on the individual, that is, the discrepancy between the individuals personal orientation and that demanded by the task. This task stage will be most evident when the task has as its goal self-understanding and self-change, namely, the therapy- and training-group tasks, and will be considerably less visible in groups working on impersonal, intellectual tasks. In both task and interpersonal realms, emotionality in response to a discrepancy characterizes this stage. However, the source of the discrepancy is different in the different realms. The third group structure phase is labeled as the development of group cohesion. Group members accept the group and accept the idiosyncrasies of fellow members. The group becomes an entity by virtue of its acceptance by the members, their desire to maintain and perpetuate it, and the 69

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups establishment of new group-generated norms to insure the groups existence. Harmony is of maximum importance, and task conflicts are avoided to insure harmony. The third stage of task activity development is labeled as the open exchange of relevant interpretations. In the therapy- and training-group context, this takes the form of discussing oneself and other group members, since self and other personal characteristics are the basic task inputs. In the laboratory-task context, exchanged interpretations take the form of opinions. In all cases one sees information being acted on so that alternative interpretations of the information can be arrived at. The openness to other group members is characteristic in both realms during this stage. The fourth and final developmental phase of group structure is labeled as functional role-relatedness. The group, which was established as an entity during the preceding phase, can now become a problem-solving instrument. It does this by directing itself to members as objects, since the subjective relationship between members has already been established. Members can now adopt and play roles that will enhance the task activities of the group, since they have learned to relate to one another as social entities in the preceding stage. Role structure is not an issue but an instrument which can now be directed at the task. The group becomes a sounding board off which the task is played. In task-activity development, the fourth and final stage is identified as the emergence of solutions. It is here that we observe constructive attempts at successful task completion. In the therapy- and training-group context, these solutions are more specifically insight into personal and interpersonal processes and constructive self-change, while in the laboratory-group context the solutions are more intellectual and impersonal. Here, as in the three preceding stages, there is an essential correspondence between group structural and task realms over time. In both realms, the emphasis is on constructive action, and the realms come together so that energy previously invested in the structural realm can be devoted to the task. The next section presents a review of relevant studies separated according to setting. The observations within each study are separated according to stage of development and realm. STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN THERAPY GROUPS Stage 1 Group structure: testing and dependence. Of the twenty-six studies of development in 70 therapy groups which were reviewed, eighteen identified a beginning stage as either testing or dependence or both. Bach (1954) speaks of initial situation testing to determine the nature of the therapy environment and discover the kinds of relationships the therapist will promote, followed closely by leader dependence where group members relate to the therapist dependently. Barton (1953), Beukenkamp (1952) and Mann and Semrad (1948) identify an initial stage in which the group tests to determine the limits of tolerance of the therapist and the group. Researchers emphasizing the more dependent aspects of this initial stage are Bion (1961) who describes groups operating with the basic assumption of dependency, Cholden (1953) who has observed dependency in therapy groups of blind individuals, and Stoute (1950) who observed dependency in larger classroom therapy groups. Others have observed this stage and have used a variety of names to label it. Corsini (1957), in an integration of other studies, identifies hesitant participation as an initial stage, in which members test the group and therapist to discover how they will respond to various statements. Grotjahn (1950) refers to an initial period of orientation and information, while King (1959) labels initial testing and orienting behavior in activity-group therapy as acclimatization. Abrahams (1949) and Powdermaker and Frank (1948) describe the initial period as one of orientation and testing where group members attempt to relate to the therapist and to discover the structure and limits of the therapy group. Schindler (1958), using bifocal-group therapy, labels the initial stage as attachment to the group, in which individuals discharge old ties and establish new ones. Taylor (1950) talks about qualifying for acceptance by the group at the start of therapy which implies both testing and conforming. Four of the studies reviewed describe a stage preceding the testing-dependence stage which will be referred to as pre-stage 1. Thorpe and Smith (1953) and Osberg and Berliner (1956), in therapy with hospitalized narcotic addicts, describe an initial stage of resistance, silence and hostility followed by a testing period where patients attempt to discover what behaviors the therapist deems acceptable. Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld (1958), who worked with institutionalized delinquents, described two such stages of resistance and hostility preceding the testing stage, while Martin and Hill (1957) theorized about a stage of isolation and unshared behavior preceding one of stereotypic responding to fellow group members and a dependent orientation toward the therapist. Three of the four studies identifying a pre-stage 1 were specifically based on observations of groups of antisocial individuals (drug addicts Special Issue on Group Development

Tuckman and delinquents) who probably must be won over to the situation and their initial extreme resistance overcome before the normal sequence of therapy-group development can begin. This would account for pre-stage 1. The remaining studies did not identify an initial stage of testing-dependence but dealt either with task development (to be discussed below), or offered an initial stage 1 which is postulated here as a second stage. Finally, a study by Parker (1958) described an initial stage of cohesive organization in which sub-groups are formed, rules followed, and harmony maintaineda description which is difficult to fit into the testing-dependence category. Task activity: orientation and testing. During the initial stage, task development is characterized by indirect attempts to discover the nature and boundaries of the task, i.e., what is to be accomplished and how much cooperation is demanded, expressed specifically through (a) the discussion of irrelevant and partially relevant issues (Bion, 1961; Coffey et al., 1950; Martin and Hill, 1957; Osberg and Berliner, 1956), (b) the discussion of peripheral problems (Stoute, 1950), (c) the discussion of immediate behavior problems (Abrahams, 1949), (d) the discussion of symptoms (Bach, 1954; Taylor, 1950), (e) griping about the institutional environment (Mann and Semrad, 1948; Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld, 1958; Thorpe and Smith, 1953), and (f) intellectualization (Clapham and Sclare, 1958; Wender, 1946). This stage is also characterized by more direct attempts at orientation toward the task as illustrated in (a) a search for the meaning of therapy (Cholden, 1953), (b) attempts to define the situation (Powdermaker and Frank, 1948), (c) attempts to establish a proper therapeutic relationship with the therapist through the development of rapport and confidence (Dreikurs, 1957; King, 1959; Wolf, 1949), (d) mutual exchange of information (Grotjahn, 1950), and (e) suspicious of and fearfulness toward the new situation which must be overcome (Corsini, 1957). Stage 2 Group structure: intragroup conflict. Thirteen of the twenty-six studies of group therapy reviewed identified a stage of intragroup conflict (in eleven cases as a second stage and in two as a first stage). Abrahams (1949) identifies an interaction stage typified by defensiveness, competition and jealousy. Bion (1961) discusses a fight-flight period in which members conflict with the therapist or attempt to psychologically withdraw from the situation. Grotjahn (1950) identifies a stage of increasing tension, while Parker (1958) talks about a crisis period where friction is increased, anxiety mounts, rules are broken, arguments ensue, and a general structural collapse occurs. Powdermaker and Frank (1948) discuss a second stage featuring sharp fluctuation of relationships, sharp reversals of feelings, and intense but brief and brittle linkages. Schindler (1958) talks about a stage of psychodramatic acting-out and localization of conflicts in the group, while Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld (1958) describe a stage characterized by ambivalence toward the therapist which is expressed through the formation of conflicting factions in the group. Stoute (1950) describes a second stage beginning with derogation and negativity, while Thorpe and Smith (1953) describe a stage beginning with disintegration, distance, defenses out of awareness and disrupted communication. King (1959), in activity-group therapy, describes a second stage of benign regression characterized by extreme acting-out and unacceptable behavior. Martin and Hill (1957) theorize about a stage of polarization featuring the emergence of sub-groups following a stage of interpersonal exploration. Coffey et al. (1950) identify an initial stage of defensiveness and resistance where members clash with one another. However, these authors also see pecking orders being established during this period; perhaps their initial stage includes stages 1 and 2 as postulated in this review. Mann (1953) describes an initial phase of working through of hostility, followed by a stage of working through of anxieties. The hostility phase is characterized by disruption and fragmentation which are reduced gradually in the anxiety phase. The remaining studies fail to identify this stage. Some of them jump from stage 1 directly to stage 3, while others deal with task development as concerns the first two stages of therapy-group development. Task activity: emotional response to task demands. The outstanding feature of this second task stage appears to be the expression of emotionality by the group members as a form of resisting the techniques of therapy which require that they expose themselves and of challenging the validity and usefulness of therapy (Bach, 1954; Barton, 1953; Cholden, 1953; Clapham and Sclare, 1958; Mann, 1953; Mann and Semrad, 1948; Martin and Hill, 1957; Stoute, 1950; Wender 1964). Furthermore, mention is made of the fact that this is a period of extreme resistance to examination and disclosure (Abrahams, 1949; Barton, 1953), and an attempt at analysis of this resistance is made (Wolf, 1949). Others emphasize ambivalence toward the therapist (Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld, 1958), the discussion of sensitive areas (Powdermaker and Frank, 1948), psychodrama (Schindler, 1958) and resistance via putting one on (Thorpe and Smith, 1953).

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

71

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups Stage 3 Group structure: development of group cohesion. Twenty-two of the twenty-six studies reviewed identified a stage in which the group became a cohesive unit and developed a sense of being as a group. Bach (1954), Barton (1953) and Clapham and Sclare (1958) identify a stage during which in-group consciousness is developed and establishment and maintenance of group boundaries is emphasized. Bion (1961) discusses the basic assumption of pairing in which the emphasis is on cohesion, but the unit is the pair as opposed to the whole group. Coffey et al. (1950), and Taylor (1950) describe a stage following the stage of intragroup hostility in which the group becomes unified and is characterized by the existence of a common goal and group spirit. Parker (1958) and Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld (1958) see the stage of crisis and factions being followed by one featuring consensual group action, cooperation, and mutual support. Grotjahn (1950), Mann and Semrad (1948), and Powdermaker and Frank (1948) describe a third stage characterized by group integration and mutuality. Noyes (1953) describes a middle stage of group integration, while Stoute (1950) and Thorpe and Smith (1953) see the stage of intragroup hostility grading into a period of unity, support, and freedom of communication. Martin and Hill (1957) theorize about a stage featuring awareness that the group is an organism preceding the final stage of development. Abrahams (1949) describes the development of we-consciousness in the third stage, while Mann (1953) sees the third stage as one of personal mutual exploration and analysis during which the group attains unity. The notion that the group becomes a simulation of the family constellation (that is, through transference members react to one another as members of their family), with the unity and cohesion generally accepted in that structure, fits as a close parallel to the stage of development of group cohesion being postulated. Beukenkamp (1952) describes the middle stage of reliving the process of the family constellation where the group becomes a family-like structure, while King (1959) utilizes a similar description (that is, family unity in the group) for the final stage in activity-group therapy. Wender (1946) and Wolf (1949) both describe a stage preceding the final stage in which the group becomes the new family through the displacement of parent love. Studies that fail to identify this stage are those that deal primarily with task development or those that integrate it as part of the final stage. Task activity: discussing oneself and other group members. Many researchers observed probing and revealing by group members at a highly intimate level during this period and 72 labeled it as (a) confiding (Clapham and Sclare, 1958; Coffey et al., 1950; Thorpe and Smith, 1953), (b) discussing personal problems in depth (Corsini, 1957; Mann and Semrad, 1948; Osberg and Berliner, 1956; Taylor, 1950), (c) exploring the dynamics at work within the individual (Dreikurs, 1957; Noyes, 1953), and (d) exploring the dynamics at work within the group (Bach, 1954; Martin and Hill, 1957; Powdermaker and Frank, 1948). Beukenkamp (1952) observed that recalled material was related to the family; Abrahams (1949) observed the process of common ideation; and Shellow, Ward and Rubenfeld (1958) and Wolf (1949) emphasized patients discussion of topics related to transference to the therapist and to other group members which took place during this period. Stage 4 Group structure: functional role-relatedness. Only twelve of the therapy studies are at all explicit in their identification of this stage. Almost all of the therapists discuss the final stage of development of the therapy group in task terms as the therapeutic stage of understanding, analysis and insight. The group is seen as serving a therapeutic function, but the nature of this therapeutic function is not spelled out. This is a stage of mutual task interaction with a minimum of emotional interference made possible by the fact that the group as a social entity has developed to the point where it can support rather than hinder task processes through the use of function-oriented roles. Bach (1954) and Bion (1961) both refer to the group in its final stage as the work group. As such it serves a function supportive of therapy. Abrahams (1949) and Wender (1946) see the group as creating a therapeutic atmosphere in the final stage, while Corsini (1951), Stoute (1950) and Wolf (1949) describe this stage as one of freedom and friendliness supportive of insightful behavior and change. Both Coffey et al. (1950) and Dreikurs (1957) see the group as a therapeutic force producing encouragement and integrating problems with roles. Martin and Hill (1957) identify the group as an integrative-creative-social instrument in its final stage which facilitates problem solving, diagnosis, and decision making. Osberg and Berliner (1956) describe the self-starting stage where the group environment supports analysis, while Mann (1953) discusses a final stage of personal mutual synthesis. Other therapy researchers, failing to specifically delineate this final stage in social development, have tended to lump the third and fourth stages together and not make the distinction between the development of cohesion and the use of cohesion (via functional roles) as a Special Issue on Group Development

Tuckman therapeutic force. Such descriptions were included in the section on the third stage. The small number of investigators identifying this final stage is most likely due to the high visibility of task functions occurring during this time period which obscure and minimize social processes occurring simultaneously. Task activity: emergence of insight. There seems to be overwhelming agreement among the observers of therapy-group development that the final stage of task development is characterized by attainment of the desired goal, insight into ones own problems, an understanding of the cause of ones abnormal behavior and, in many cases, modification of oneself in the desired direction (Beukenkamp, 1952; Bion, 1961; Clapham and Sclare, 1958; Coffey et al., 1950; Corsini, 1957; Dreikurs, 1957; King, 1959; Noyes, 1953; Schindler, 1958; Stoute, 1950; Thorpe and Smith, 1953; Wender, 1946; Wolf, 1949). Others (Abrahams, 1949; Bach, 1954; Barton, 1953; Cholden, 1953; Grotjahn, 1950; Shellow, Ward, and Rubenfeld, 1958; Taylor, 1950) place more emphasis on the processes of attempting to develop insight and change during this last period as opposed to the development of such insight and change itself. Two additional therapy-group studies are worthy of inclusion, both of which utilized a technique for collecting and analyzing data which was highly dissimilar to the approach used in the other therapy-group studies, namely, interaction-process analysis (Bales, 1950). Psathas (1960) found that groups phase from orientation to evaluation to control, based on an analysis of early, middle and late sessions. Talland (1955) failed to observe this phase movement based on an analysis of the first eight sessions. STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN TRAINING GROUPS Stage 1 Group structure: testing and dependence. Nine of the eleven training-group studies reviewed that deal with the development of group structure identify an initial stage characterized at least in part by testing and dependence, with the emphasis on the dependent aspect of this stage. Herbert and Trist (1953), Bennis and Shepard (1956), Bradford, (1964a), and Bradford and Mallinson (1958) describe the initial group phase as one characterized by the strong expression of dependency needs by the members toward the trainer, and attempts at group structuring to work out authority problems by the quick acceptance of and dependence on such structure and arbitrary norms. Thelen and Dickerman (1949) discuss initial stage establishment of a leadership hierarchy catering to the dependency needs of the members. Hearn (1957) sees group members making an attempt to structure the unknown and to find their position in the group in the earliest group stage. Here again, structure reflects the expression of dependency needs. Miles (1953) describes a first stage characterized by establishment of the situation through interpersonal exploration and testing, while Semrad and Arsenian (1961) identify an initial phase during which group members test the central figure and test the situation. Whitman (1964) describes a beginning stage in which the chief vectors are dependency and hostility. It would appear that Whitman has identified a first stage which combines the first two stages proposed in this article. The two studies that do not yield an exact fit to the proposed scheme are those of Barron and Krulee (1948) and the Tulane Studies in Social Welfare (1957) which identify an initial period characterized by the emergence of leadership and orientation, respectively. In so far as these authors see the authority area as being of central concern and emphasize the orientation aspects of the first stage, there is overlap with the scheme proposed herein. Moreover, orientation as a first stage fits the hypothesized initial stage for task activities; perhaps the observation in the Tulane studies (1957) of a member orientation as an initial stage is better classified in the task-activity area. Task activity: orientation. Bradford (1964b) identifies an initial stage of learning how to learn which is characterized by acceptance of the groups goal and orientation to the techniques to be used. Herbert and Trist (1953) label their initial stage as discovery, in which the members orient themselves to the consultant or trainer who serves an interpretive and educational role. Stock and Thelen (1958) discuss an initial stage characterized by little work and a variable amount of emotionality, during which time the members are concerned with defining the directions the group will pursue. As can be seen, initially interpersonal problems are dealt with via dependence, while task problems are met with task-orienting behavior (i.e., what is to be accomplished and how). Stage 2 Group structure: intragroup conflict. Ten of the eleven studies identify intragroup conflict as a second stage, while the remaining study (Whitman, 1964) describes an initial stage encompassing both dependence and hostility, in that order.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

73

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups Barron and Krulee (1948) and Bradford (1964a) discuss a second stage characterized by group cleavage and conflict. Both studies identify the emergence of polarities during this stagemembers favoring a more active, less defensive approach versus those who are more passive and defensive and seek safety via structure. Thelen and Dickerman (1949), Hearn (1957), the Tulane studies (1957) and Bradford and Mallinson (1958), as well, identify a similar polarization and resultant conflict, frustration, and disruption during the second stage. Herbert and Trist (1953) describe a second stage characterized in part by resistance, while Miles (1953) identifies anarchic rebellion during this stage of anxiety, threat, and resistance. Semrad and Arsenian (1961) identify rivalry for the position of central figure and emotional struggles in this period, while Bennis and Shepard (1956) see a similar power struggle in which counterdependents seek to usurp the leader, resulting in a conflict between counterdependents and dependents. There appears to be general agreement that the dependency stage is followed by a stage of conflict between warring factions representing each side of the polarized issue: dependence versus independence, safe retreat into the familiar versus risky advance into the unfamiliar, defensiveness versus experimenting. Task activity: emotional response to task demands. Bradford (1964b) identifies a second stage in which individuals learn how to give help which requires that they remove blocks to learning about themselves, reduce anxiety, and express real reactions. Stock and Thelen (1958) see emotionality occurring in considerable excess of work during this period. The Tulane studies (1957) describe the second stage as one of experimental aggressiveness and hostility where individuals express themselves freely. Thus, self-change and self-denial necessitated by the learning task is reacted to emotionally, as is the imposition of the group on the individual. Often the two (representative of the two realms) are difficult to separate. Stage 3 Group structure: development of group cohesion. All of the relevant T-group development studies see the stage of conflict and polarization as being followed by a stage characterized by the reduction of the conflict, resolution of the polarized issues, and establishment of group harmony in the place of disruption. It is a patching-up phase in which group norms and values emerge. Hearn (1957), Miles (1953), and Thelen and Dickerman (1949) identify a third stage characterized by attempts to resolve conflict and the consequent development of group cohesion and mutual support. Semrad and Arsenian (1961) and the Tulane studies (1957) each describe two phases in their temporal sequences which would be included in stage 3. In the case of the former, their first cohesion phase is characterized by group cohesion processes and their second by the development of affection bonds; in the latter, the first cohesion stage features the emergence of structure, roles and we-feelings, while the second features increased group identification on a conscious level and vacillation in role acceptance. Whitman (1964) talks about a middle phase, following conflict, described as the development of a new group culture via the generation of norms and values peculiar to the group as an entity. Bradford and Mallinson (1958) describe stage 3 as one of reorganization, in which reforming and repair take place and a flexible organization emerges. Bradford (1964a) describes a third stage in which the group norm of openness emerges, and a fourth stage in which the group generates additional norms to deal with self-revelation and feedback. Furthermore, Bradford (1964b) identifies a third stage as one of developing a group climate of permissiveness, emotional support and cohesiveness in which learning can take place. This description would appear to subserve both interpersonal and task realms. Bennis and Shepard (1956) describe a third stage in which resolution of authority problems occurs, and a fourth stage characterized by smooth relations and enchantment as regards the interpersonal sphere of group functioning. Finally, Barron and Krulee (1948) identify the third stage as increasing member responsibility and changing faculty role in which a definite sense of structure and goal orientation emerge in the group. Task activity: discussing oneself and others. Herbert and Trist (1953) identify a second stage labeled as execution, in which the group settles down to the description of a single basic problem and learns to accept the examination of what was going on inside of itself as a regular part of the task .... Stock and Thelen (1958) describe a third task phase in which the group shows a new ability to express feelings constructively and creatively. While emotionality is still high, it now contributes to work. While the social function of the third stage is to cause a unique and cohesive group structure to emerge, the task function is to attempt to use this new structure as a vehicle for discovering personal relations and emotions by communicating heretofore private feelings. Special Issue on Group Development

74

Tuckman Stage 4 Group structure: functional role-relatedness. There is some tendency for T-groupers, as there was for the therapy groupers, to emphasize the task aspects of the final stage, namely, the emergence of insight into the interpersonal process. In doing this, it is made implicit that the group as a social entity characterized by task-oriented role-relatedness makes the emergence of such insight possible by providing support and an opportunity for experimentation and discovery. Bradford (1964a) sees the group becoming a work organization which provides member support, mutual acceptance, and has strong but flexible norms. Hearn (1957) discusses mutual acceptance and use of differences in the collaborative process during the fourth and fifth group stages, while Miles (1953) sees group structure as tending to be functional and not loved for itself alone as it was in the preceding stage. The support function is further emphasized by Miles when he says (p. 94), in groups where the interpersonal bonds are genuine and strong ... members give one another a great deal of mutual evaluative support, which seems to be a prime requisite for successful behavior change. Semrad and Arsenian (1961) describe a final phase of productive collaboration, while Thelen and Dickerman (1949) identify the group as an effective social instrument during this period. Barron and Krulee (1948) see, as one group function occurring during the final two meetings, the sharing and refining of feelings through the group process. Bennis and Shepard (1956) see the stage of group cohesion being followed by another period of conflict, in which the issue is intimate social relations versus aloofness. The final stage is then one of consensual validation in which group interpersonal problems are solved and the group is freed to function as a problem-solving instrument. The Tulane studies (1957) describe the stage following the emergence of cohesion as one in which behavior roles become dynamic, that is, behavior is changed as a function of the acceptance of group structure. An additional stage is also identified in this study in which structure is institutionalized by the group and thus becomes rigid. Perhaps this stage, not identified by other researchers, would most apply to groups with a long or indefinite group life. The remaining T-group studies describe task development exclusively during the final group phase. Task activity: insight. Bradford's (1964b) fourth phase is one in which members discover and utilize various methods of inquiry as ways of group development and individual growth while, in his fifth and final stage, members learn how to internalize, generalize and apply learnings to other situations. Herbert and Trist (1953) label their final stage as evaluation. Stock and Thelen (1958) describe the fourth and final stage as one characterized by a high degree of work in the absence of affect. The issues are dealt with in a less excited way. The over-all fit between stages of development postulated in this paper for application in all settings and those delineated by T-groupers is highlighted in the fourfold scheme presented by Golembiewski (1962), based on his examination of some T-group development studies already reviewed in this paper. Golembiewski describes his stages as: (a) establishing the hierarchy, (b) conflict and frustratio, (c) growth of group security and autonomy, (d) structuring in terms of problems facing the group rather than in terms of stereotypic role prescriptions. STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN NATURAL AND LABORATORY GROUPS Few studies or theoretical statements have concerned themselves with the developmental sequence in natural groups or laboratory groups. Stage 1 Group structure: testing and dependence. Modlin and Faris (1956), studying an interdisciplinary professional group, identify an initial stage of structuralization, in which members are dependent upon roles developed outside of the group, well-established traditions, and a fixed hierarchy of responsibility. Schroder and Harvey (1963) describe an initial stage of absolutistic dependency, featuring the emergence of a status hierarchy and rigid norms which reduce ambiguity and foster dependence and submission. Theodorson (1953) observed a tendency initially for only one leader to emerge and for group members to categorize one another so that they could define the situation and reduce ambiguity. Schutz (1958)1 sees the group dealing initially with problems of inclusionto join or not to join, to commit oneself or not. The group concern, thus, is boundary problems, and the behavior of members is individually centered. This description is somewhat suggestive of testing. Task activity: orientation. Bales (1953) and Bales and Strodtbeck (1951), using Bales (1950) 75

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups interaction-process categories, discovered that leaderless laboratory groups begin by placing major emphasis on problems of orientation (as reflected in Bales categories: asks for orientation and gives orientation). This orientation serves to define the boundaries of the task (i.e., what is to be done) and the approach that is to be used in dealing with the task (i.e., how it is to be accomplished). Stage 2 Group structure: intragroup hostility. Modlin and Faris (1956) describe unrest characterized by friction and disharmony as the second stage, while Schroder and Harvey (1963) identify a second stage of negative independence featuring rebellion, opposition and conflict. In this stage, the greater emphasis is on autonomy and individual rights. Theodorson (1953) observed more friction, disharmony, and animosity early in the group life than during later periods. Schutz (1958) postulates a second stage in which the group deals with problems of control. This entails a leadership struggle in which individual members compete to establish their place in the hierarchy culminating in resolution. In the task area, the stage of emotional response to task demands is not delineated, presumably due to the impersonal and nonthreatening nature of the task in these settings. When the task does not deal with the self at a penetrating level, extreme emotionality in the task area is not expected. Stage 3 Group structure: development of Group Cohesion. Modlin and Faris (1956) identify change as the third stage, characterized by the formation of the concept of the group as a functioning unit and the emergence of a team dialect. Schroder and Harvey (1963) refer to stage 3 as conditional dependence, featuring a group concern with integration and an emphasis on mutuality and the maintenance of interpersonal relationships. Theodorson (1953) observed the following group tendencies over time (i.e., tending to occur later as opposed to earlier in group development): (a) discovering what is common to the members and developing a within-group parochialism; (b) the growth of an interlocking network of friendship; (c) role interdependence; (d) mutual involvement and identification between members with a concomitant increase in harmony and solidarity; and (e) the establishment of group norms for dealing with such areas as discipline. Schutz (1958) postulated a third stage wherein problems of affectation are dealt with. Characteristic of this stage are emotional integration, pairing, and the resolution of intimacy problems. Task activity: expression of opinions. Bales (1953) and Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) observed that the orientation phase was followed by a period in which major emphasis was placed on problems of evaluation (as reflected by categories: asks for opinion and gives opinion). Evaluation as a descriptor of the exchange of opinions appears to be comparable to the third task stage in therapy- and training-group development which was heretofore labeled as discussing oneself and others. Because the therapy and training tasks are personal ones, task opinions must involve self and others. When the task is an impersonal one, the content of task opinions varies accordingly. Stage 4 Group structure: functional role-relatedness. Modlin and Faris (1956) identify integration as the fourth and final stage in which structure is internalized and the group philosophy becomes pragmatic, that is, the unified-group approach is applied to the task. Schroder and Harvey (1963) postulate a final stage of positive interdependence, characterized by simultaneous autonomy and mutuality (i.e., the members can operate in any combination, or as a unit), and an emphasis on task achievement which is superordinate to social structure. Theodorson (1953) sees the group as developing into a subculture over time, along with the development of member responsibility to the group. Schutz (1958) does not identify a fourth stage; rather, he sees his three postulated stages continually cycling over time. Task activity: emergence of solution. The third and final phase observed by Bales (1953) and Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) is one in which major emphasis is placed on problems of control (as reflected by categories: asks for suggestion and gives suggestion). The purpose of suggestions is to offer solutions to the task based on information gathered and evaluated in previous developmental periods. This then represents an analogue of final stages in therapy- and training-group task development where the emergence of insight yields solutions to personal problems. These authors do not identify a period of task development in laboratory groups comparable to the second task stage in therapy- and training-group development which features the expression of emotional material. Again, because therapy and training tasks are personal ones, this will be reflected in the content of discussion, specifically by the manifestation of resistance prior to dealing Special Issue on Group Development

76

Tuckman with the personal task at a level of confidence and honesty. This task stage does not appear to be quite relevant in laboratory discussion groups, and its existence has not been reported by Bales (1953) and Bales and Strodtbeck (1951). Philp and Dunphy (1959) have further substantiated the findings of Bales (1953) and Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) by observing the same phase-movement pattern in groups working on a different type of discussion problem.2 Furthermore, Philp and Dunphy (1959) present evidence which indicates that sex of the participants does not affect the pattern of phase movements. Finally, Smith (1960) has observed that experimental groups show early concentration on matters not related to the task, and, only later in the development sequence, concentrate on task-relevant activities. Again, this finding suggests a strong similarity between task development in laboratory groups and in therapy and training groups, since, in the latter settings, constructive task-relevant activity appears only late in the developmental sequence. DISCUSSION The literature that has been reviewed can be criticized on a number of grounds. First, it may be pointed out that this literature cannot be considered truly representative of small-group developmental processes, since certain settings have been over-represented, primarily the therapy-group setting, and others under-represented, primarily the natural-group and laboratory-group settings. This shortcoming cannot be rectified within the existing literature; rather, it must serve as a stimulus for further research in the latter group settings. Furthermore, the inequality of setting representation necessitates caution in generalizing from this literature. Generalization must, perforce, be limited to the fact that what has been presented is mainly research dealing with sequential development in therapy groups. A second source of criticism concerns the extent of experimental rigor characteristic of the majority of studies cited in this review. Most of the studies carried out in the therapy-group, training-group and natural-group settings are based on the observation of single groups. Furthermore, these observations are qualitative rather than quantitative, and as such are subject to the biases of the observer, ordinarily the therapist or trainer. This is not to suggest that the therapy-group setting is not appropriate for studying group processes, but that the study of such processes should be more subject to methodological considerations. A good instance of the application of such considerations is the study of Psathas (1960) conducted in the therapy-group setting. Psathas coded group protocols using Bales (1950) scheme of interaction-process analysis. After satisfactory reliabilities were obtained, the data could be considered as highly quantitative and objective, and could then be subjected to statistical analysis. Approaches of equal rigor are recommended for other studies conducted in the therapy-group setting and other settings as well. A final criticism concerns the description and control of independent variables. Since most of the studies in the therapy-, training- and natural-group settings used a single group, the control and systematic manipulation of independent variables was impossible. In the absence of the manipulation of independent variables and the consequent discovery of their differential effects within studies, these effects can only be approximately discerned by comparing studies. However, many independent variables are likely to vary from study to study, for example, group composition, duration, etc., and little light will be shed on the effects of these variables on the developmental process. Therefore, no conclusions about the specific effects of independent variables on developmental phenomena will be drawn, and further work along these lines is encouraged. In order to isolate those concepts common to the various studies reviewed (across settings), a developmental model was proposed. This model was aimed at serving a conceptual function as well as an integrative and organizational one. The model will be summarized here. Groups initially concern themselves with orientation accomplished primarily through testing. Such testing serves to identify the boundaries of both interpersonal and task behaviors. Coincident with testing in the interpersonal realm is the establishment of dependency relationships with leaders, other group members, or pre-existing standards. It may be said that orientation, testing and dependence constitute the group process of forming. The second point in the sequence is characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues, with concomitant emotional responding in the task sphere. These behaviors serve as resistance to group influence and task requirements and may be labeled as storming. Resistance is overcome in the third stage in which ingroup feeling and cohesiveness develop, new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted. In the task realm, intimate, personal opinions are expressed. Thus, we have the stage of norming. Finally, the group attains the fourth and final stage in which interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task activities. Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled 77

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups into the task. Structural issues have been resolved, and structure can now become supportive of task performance. This stage can be labeled as performing. Although the model was largely induced from the literature, it would seem to withstand the test of common sense as well as being consistent with developmental theory and findings in other areas. It is not unreasonable to expect newness of the group-to-be greeted by orienting behavior and resultant unsureness and insecurity overcome through dependence on an authority figure, as proposed in the model. Such orienting responses and dependence on authority are characteristic of the infant during the first year (Ilg and Ames, 1955), the young child when first apprehending rules (Piaget, 1932), and the patient when first entering psychotherapy (Rotter, 1954). After the newness of the group has worn off, the members react to both the imposition of the group and the task emotionally and negatively, and pose a threat to further development. This proposal is mirrored by the rebelliousness of the young child following his obedient stages (Ilg and Ames, 1955; Levy, 1955). Such emotionality, if overcome, is followed by a sense of pulling together in the group and being more sensitive to one another. This sensitivity to others is mirrored in the development of the child (Ilg and Ames, 1955; Piaget, 1932) and represents an essential aspect of the socialization process (Mead, 1934). Finally, the group becomes a functional instrument for dealing with the task. Interpersonal problems lie in the groups past, and its present can be devoted to realistic appraisal of and attempt at solutions to the task at hand. This interdependence and marriage to reality is characteristic of the mature human being (Erikson, 1950; Fromm, l941) and the mature nine-year-old child (Ilg and Ames, 1955).3 The suggested stages of group development are highly visible in the literature reviewed. The fit is not perfect, however. Some of the studies identify some, but not all, of the suggested stages. In some of these cases, two of the suggested stages have been welded into one by the observer. For instance, Barton (1953) describes three stages; the first and second fit the first two conceptual stages closely, while Barton's third stage is descriptive of the third and fourth conceptual stages in so far as it is characterized by both the emergence of cohesiveness and the working through of problems. In other cases, one or more of the hypothesized stages have been clearly missing, and thus not recognized in the group or groups being observed. For instance, Powdermaker and Frank (1948) identify three stages that fit the first three conceptual stages fairly closely, but they 78 do not identify any fourth stage. Perhaps cases like this can be accounted for on the basis of independent variables such as duration of group life. A few studies identify more than four stages. Some of these additional stages represent a greater degree of differentiation than that of the model and are of less generality (i.e., highly specific to the independent conditions of the study). For instance, therapy-group studies with delinquents and dope addicts identify a stage prior to conceptual stage 1 in which the antisocial group member must be won over to the point where they will take the therapy seriously. Some of the studies identify a stage that is clearly not in the model. Parker (1958) describes a first stage of cohesive organization. This divergence from the model may reflect a different way of describing much the same thing or may reflect an unusual set of independent conditions. Parker was observing a ward population of about 25, rather than a small weekly therapy group. It may be that the hypothesized first stage is somewhat inappropriate for larger, living-together groups. While the suggested sequence appeared to hold up under widely varied conditions of group composition, duration of group life and specific group task (i.e., the sequence held up across settings), it must be assumed that there is a finite range of conditions beyond which the sequence of development is altered, and that the studies reviewed did not exceed this assumed range to any great extent. Setting-specific differences and within-setting differences may affect temporal change as regards the specific content of the stages in the developmental sequence, the rate of progression through the sequence, or the order of the sequence itself. In the therapy-group setting, for instance, task information in the third stage is considerably more intimate than it is in the laboratory-group setting, and this stage may be attained at a later chronological time in therapy groups than in laboratory groups. Certainly duration of group life would be expected to influence amount and rate of development. The laboratory groups, such as those run for a few hours by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951), followed essentially the same course of development as did therapy groups run for a period of a year. The relatively short life of the laboratory group imposes the requirement that the problem-solving stage be reached quickly, while no such imposition exists for the long-lived therapy group. Consequently, the former groups are forced to develop at a rapid rate. The possibility of such rapid development is aided by the impersonal and concrete nature of the laboratory task. Orientation is still required due to the newness of Special Issue on Group Development

Tuckman the task but is minimized by task rules, players manuals and the like, that help to orient the group members. Emotionality and resistance are major features of therapy-group development and represent personal and interpersonal impediments to group development and solution attainment as a function of the highly emotionally-charged nature of the therapy-group task. The impersonal laboratory task features no such impediments and, consequently, the stage of emotionality is absent. The exchange of relevant information is as necessary to the laboratory task as it is to the therapy task, but the information to be exchanged is limited in the laboratory task by the nature of the task and time considerations. The behavior of norming is common to both settings, but not so salient in the laboratory where the situation is so task-oriented. Finally, the problem-solving or performing stage is an essential stage in both settings. One would expect the laboratory group to spend relatively more time in the fourth stage relative to the first three stages because of the task orientation in the laboratory setting. In the therapy task, with its unavoidable deep interpersonal penetration, we would expect relatively equal time to be spent in each stage. This, however, can undoubtedly be further modified by group composition as well as by the References Abrahams, J. (1949), Group psychotherapy: implications for direction and supervision of mentally ill patients, in Theresa Muller (ed.), Mental Health in Nursing, Catholic University Press, 77-83. Bach, G. R. (1954), Intensive Group Psychotherapy, Ronald Press, 268-93. 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. Barron, M. E., and Krulee, G. K. (1948), Case study of a basic skill training group, Journal of Social Issues, 4, 10-30. Barton, W. E. (1953), Group psychotherapy of the psychoses, Digest of Neurology and Psychiatry, 21, 148-9. Bennis, W. G., and Shepard, H. A. (1956), A theory of group development, Human Relations, 9, 415-37. Beukenkamp, C. (1952), Some observations made during group therapy, Psychiatric Quarterly. Supplement, 26, 22-26. Bion, W. R. (1961), Experience in Groups, Basic Books. duration of group life and specific nature of the laboratory task. Undoubtedly there is an interaction between setting and development such that the sequence proposed here will be altered. Unfortunately, the above hypotheses cannot be substantiated with available data, though certain of the studies are suggestive of the explanations offered. The articles reviewed do not deal with rate of temporal change nor do they give sufficiently complete and detailed time data associated with each stage to make calculations of rate possible. Furthermore, they do not systematically describe their independent variables nor relate them to the developmental phenomena through systematic variation and the observation of cause and effect. The major task of systematically studying the effects of a variety of appropriate independent variables on development still remains. The value of the proposed model is that it represents a framework of generic temporal change within which the above explorations can be tested and which should lead to the derivation of many specific hypotheses relating independent variables to the sequence of temporal change. Such quantitative explorations will undoubtedly lead to refinements and, perhaps, major modifications of such a model. Bradford, L. P. (1964a), Trainer-intervention: case episodes, in L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. D. Benne (eds.), T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method, Wiley, 136-67. Bradford, L. P. (1964b), Membership and the learning processes, in L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. D. Benne (eds.), T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method, Wiley, 190-215. Bradford, L. P., and Mallinson, T. (1958), Group formation and development, in Dynamics of Group Life, National Education Association, National Training Laboratories, Washington. Cholden, L. (1953), Group therapy with the blind, Group Psychotherapy, 6, 21-9. Clapham, H. I., and Sclare, A. B., (1958), Group psychotherapy with asthmatic patients, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 8, 44-54. Coffey, H. S. (1952), Socio and psyche group process: integrative concepts, Journal of Social Issues, 8, 65-74. Coffey, H., Freedman, M., Leary, T., and Ossorio, A. (1950), Community service and social research group psychotherapy in a church program, Journal of Social Issues, 6 (1), 14-61. Corsini, R. J. (195l), On the theory of changes resulting from group therapy, Group Psychotherapy, 4, 179-80. Corsini, R. J. (1957), Methods of Group Psychotherapy, McGraw-Hill, 119-20.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

79

Developmental Sequence in Small Groups Deutsch, M. A. (1949), A theory of cooperation and competition, Human Relations, 2, 129-52. Dreikurs, R. (1957), Group psychotherapy from the point of view of Adlerian psychology, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 7, 363-75. Erikson, E. H. (1950), Childhood and Society, Norton, 213-20. Fromm, E. (1941), Escape from Freedom, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Golembiewski, R.T. (1962), The Small Group, University of Chicago Press, 193-200. Grotjahn, M. (1950), The process of maturation in group psychotherapy and in the group therapist, Psychiatry, 13, 63-7. Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., and Schroder, H. M. (1961), Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization, Wiley. Hearn, G. (1957), The process of group development, Autonomous Groups Bulletin, 13, 1-7. Herbert, E. L., and Trist, E. L. (1953), The institution of an absent leader by a students discussion group, Human Relations, 6, 215-48. Ilg, F. L., and Ames, L. B. (1955), Child Behavior, Harper & Row. Jennings, H. H. (1947), Sociometric differentiation of the psychegroup and sociogroup, Sociometry, 10, 71-9. King, C. H. (1959), Activity group therapy with a schizophrenic boy follow-up two years later, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 9, 184-94. Levy, D. M. (1955), Oppositional syndromes and oppositional behavior, in P. H. Hoch and J. Zubin (eds.), Psychopathology of Childhood, Grune & Stratton, 204-26. Mann, J. (1953), Group therapy with adults, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 23, 332-7. Mann, J., and Semrad, E. V. (1948), The use of group therapy in psychoses, Journal of Social Casework, 29, 176-81. Martin, E. A., and Hill, W. F. (1957), Toward a theory of group development: six phases of therapy group development, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 7, 20-30. Mead, G. H. (1934), Self, Mind and Society, University of Chicago Press. Miles, M. B. (1953), Human relations training: how a group grows, Teachers College Record, 55, 90-96. Modlin, H. C., and Faris, M. (1956), Group adaptation and integration in psychiatric team practice, Psychiatry, 19, 97-103. Noyes, A. P. (1953), Modern Clinical Psychiatry, Saunders, 4th edition, 589-91. Osberg, J. W., and Berliner, A. K. (1956), The developmental stages in group psychotherapy with hospitalized narcotic addicts, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 6, 436-47. Parker, S. (1958), Leadership patterns in a psychiatric ward, Human Relations, 11, 287-301. Philp, H., and Dunphy, D. (1959), Developmental trends in small groups, Sociometry, 22, 162-74. Piaget, J. (1932), The Moral Judgment of the Child, Harcourt, Brace & World. Powdermaker, F., and Frank, J. D., (1948), Group psychotherapy with neurotics, American Journal of Psychiatry, 105, 449-55. Psathas, G. (1960), Phase movement and equilibrium tendencies in interaction process in psychotherapy groups, Sociometry, 23, 177-94. Rotter, J. B. (1954), Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, Prentice-Hall. Schindler, R. (1958), Bifocal group therapy, in J. Masserman and J. E. Moreno (eds.), Progress in Psychotherapy, 3, Grune & Stratton, 176-86. Schroder, H. M., and Harvey, O. J. (1963), Conceptual organization and group structure, in O.J. Harvey (ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction, Ronald Press, 134-66. Schutz, W. C. (1958), FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 168-88. Semrad, E. V., and Arsenian, J. (1961), The use of group processes in teaching group dynamics, in W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne and R. Chin (eds.), The Planning of Change, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 737-43. Shellow, R. S., Ward, J. L., and Rubenfeld, S. (1958), Group therapy and the institutionalized delinquent, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 8, 265-75. Smith, A. J. (1960), A developmental study of group processes, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 97, 29-39. Stock, D., and Thelen, H. A. (1958), Emotional Dynamics and Group Culture, National Education Association, National Training Laboratories, Washington. Stoute, A. (1950), Implementation of group interpersonal relationships through psychotherapy, Journal of Psychology, 30, 145-56. Talland, G. A. (1955),Task and interaction process: some characteristics of therapeutic group discussion, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 105-9. Taylor, F. K. (1950), The therapeutic factors of group-analytic treatment, Journal of Mental Science, 96, 976-97. Thelen, H., and Dickerman, W. (1949), Stereotypes and the growth of groups, Educational Leadership, 6, 309-16. Theodorson, G. A. (1953), Elements in the progressive development of small groups, Social Forces, 31, 311-320. Thorpe, J. J., and Smith, B. (1953), Phases in group development in treatment of drug addicts, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 3, 66-78. Tulane University, (1957), The Use of Group Methods in Social Welfare Settings, Tulane University School of Social Work. Special Issue on Group Development

80

Tuckman Wender, L. (1946), The dynamics of group psychotherapy and its application, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 84, 54-60. Whitman, R. M. (1964), Psychodynamic principles underlying T-group processes, in L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. Benne (eds.), T-Group Theory and Laboratory Methods, Wiley, 310-35. Wolf, A. (1949), The psychoanalysis of groups, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 3, 16-50.

Notes 1. The classification of Schutzs theory as one primarily descriptive of natural and laboratory groups is arbitrary. Some would argue that Schutz is working in the T-group tradition. 2. As mentioned earlier, Psathas (1960), working with therapy groups, observed the same phase movement, namely, orientation to evaluation to control. However, Talland (1955) failed to get this phase movement in therapy groups. 3. A more detailed model of individual development (similar to the group model proposed here), along with many citations of supporting literature, may be found in Harvey, Hunt and Schroder (1961). Bruce Tuckman is Professor of Education at the Ohio State University College of Education. His current research focuses on motivation and educational achievement. He has served on the education faculties at Rutgers University, the City University of New York, and Florida State University. His major books include Conducting Educational Research, Theories and Applications of Educational Psychology, and Evaluating Instructional Programs. Professor Tuckman was kind enough to provide us with his personal comments about this oft-cited article nearly thirty-five years since its original publication.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

81

Book Reviews

The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations

by Peter Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, George Roth and Bryan Smith Doubleday, New York, 1999, 596 pages. ISBN 0-385-49322-3, US $35.00. Book Review by Patricia R. Tuecke Why is it so difficult to sustain change? Over the past two decades, organizations have embarked upon change journeys to meet the challenges of increased global competition, new markets, and pace of the technological development. In their attempts to respond quickly to external changes in the environment, most have failed, even after some initial success. Ten years ago, Peter Senge wrote The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, a seminal book in the field of organizational change and systems theory. In 1994 Senge and five other authors wrote a follow-up book, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. This book was filled with practical ways to initiate new ways of thinking in organizations. After its publication, as they met and talked with people, the six authors became increasingly aware of the difficulties people were having in sustaining organizational change. The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations is the authors response to these difficulties. A basic premise of this book is that organizations are products of the ways that people in them think and act. Organizational learning results from individuals participating in activities that embody new ways of thinking and acting and relating together, leading to an increasing and enduring organizational capacity for change. The book grew out of conversations at the MIT Center for Organizational Learning among leaders involved in change efforts. They were responding to the question: What forces seemed to propel organizational learning efforts forward or to slow them down? This book is written for those involved in change initiatives, managers, organization executives, directors, consultants, and facilitators, to help them make sense of the organizations response to change. It is written from a systems perspective. In the sense that to facilitate is to make easier, then understanding the authors framework, and utilizing their models and suggestions to meet the challenges of change would help facilitate a change effort. Facilitators working with organizations going through profound change will find this book a major resource. Anyone reading it will gain theoretical understanding of the systemic 82 dynamics at work in change initiatives, and surely recognize some of the challenges in their own experiences. The thought provoking questions and exercises can be utilized in many group situations. Like its predecessor, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, this book is written as a collection of notes from the field. The book is structured around the three major phases of change: 1) initiating change, 2) sustaining momentum, and 3) redesigning or redirecting the organization. The myriad personal stories it contains illustrate what often happens in a system undergoing change, and in meeting challenges of sustaining change inherent in each phase. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the book is the stories, gleaned from conversations and interviews, relating experiences of change efforts. The stories are written in a first-person style. The leaders openly share their vulnerabilities and the mistakes they made. They relate the excitement, the frustration, the confusion, the surprise, and the satisfaction of their experiences. They tell of their struggle to understand what was going on, of the organizational resistance they met, the tactics they used, and the creativity catalyzed in meeting the challenges of leading their organizational change efforts. The Dance of Change is the authors attempt to make sense of change efforts, both the failures and the successes, and to create a framework that holds the dynamics of the change journey. They bring into a coherent whole the fragments of experience from these stories recounted by organizational change leaders. The Dance of Change is seen by its authors as an atlas of organizational change. They tell how early mapmakers drew maps based on the tales told by early explorers, descriptions of the terrain and the coastlines, the dangers experienced, the discoveries made. Later, early atlas makers gathered the rough-drawn charts, notes, and experiences of early explorers into bound collections. Later still, Geradus Mercator, with longitudinal and latitudinal grid lines created a framework of the earth as a whole, an image that is very familiar to us. In a similar way, the six authors of this book describe the terrain, the dangers and discoveries for change agents to follow. They offer their framework as a simple grid that allows the reader to put into Special Issue on Group Development

Book Reviews perspective the diverse organizational change. experiences of growth processes of organizational change, and strategically deal with the limiting processes that can impede or stop that growth. Leaders of Profound Change: Senge views leadership as the capacity of a human community to shape its future, and specifically to sustain the significant processes of change required to do so. The book focuses on leadership communities rather than hero-leaders. Organizations that rely on a hero-leader will never achieve the profound change the Dance of Change describes. Three levels of leadership must help generate and sustain a kind of creative tension between the vision and current reality of the organization. They are 1) imaginative, committed local line leaders, 2) enthusiastic mid-level community builders or network leaders, and 3) executive leaders who, in addition to their accountability for organizational performance, must create an environment of innovation and knowledge generation. The book explores these roles with emphasis given to the actions the leaders take, not their personal style characteristics. Critical Learning Capacities: The underlying cause of failure in most change initiatives is that the organization has not developed the learning capabilities necessary to reflect on, inquire about, and talk openly together about impeding structures, practices, and mindsets that are blocking change. People cant raise the serious issues that need to be addressed without invoking defensiveness. The authors still see that the five disciplines described in The Fifth Discipline (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking) support the crucial learning capabilities of aspiration, reflective conversation, and understanding complexity. To change, organizations must develop their learning capabilities, the skills and proficiencies that among individuals, teams, and larger communities, enable people to consistently enhance their capacity to produce results that are truly important to them. Three PhasesTen Challenges As changes in ways of working and thinking become evident, challenges arise predictably in each of three phases in the life cycle of change. They are manifestations of how the system itself is pushing back, the natural process of moving toward homeostasis. Most change initiatives focus only on the growth processes and not the limiting processes. The ten challenges described in the book are initially phrased, not in systems jargon, but in everyday language heard in most change situations: Initiating Change 1. We dont have time for this stuff! 2. We have no help! 3. This stuff isnt relevant! 83

The Dance of Change is not just a collection of intriguing stories. Equally compelling are the images, frameworks, models, and definitions of aspects of the change journey that the stories illustrate. Here are a few of these key concepts. Profound Change: The authors consciously chose the phrase profound change to describe the scope and quality of the change this book deals with. They rejected the more ubiquitous label of transformation because they fear it has come to mean really big change, which is much less than the change they are attempting to describe. The authors describe a fundamental, profound change incorporating both an internal shift in peoples values, aspirations, and behaviors, and external changes in the fundamental thinking patterns of organizations that underlie organizational choices of strategy, structures, and systems. Think Like Biologists: A major premise of the authors is that more expert advice or more committed managers cant solve the problems that face organizations today. These problems have become the targets of flavor of the month change programs. Senge urges us to think less like managers and more like biologists! All growth in nature arises out of interplay between reinforcing growth processes and limiting processes. He illustrates this with the scenario of a seed which holds the possibility of a tree, and through a natural reinforcing growth process, begins to realize that possibility. Initial feelers take in water and nutrients, then small roots develop, then larger roots and more growth. How successful the seed is in becoming a tree, or what progress it makes depends on natural limits, the amount of water, nutrients, sunshine, space for expansion, and insects. Growth that doesnt reach full potential has encountered some constraint that is a natural balancing process in living systems. Senge likens most change leaders to gardeners standing over their plants shouting Grow! Try harder! You can do it! What can we learn from this analogy? That sustaining change requires understanding the reinforcing growth processes and what is needed to catalyze them, and simultaneously addressing the limits that keep change from occurring. This interplay between the two processes is the dance of change referred to in the books title. Most leaders deal only with the growth processes and dont pay attention to the limiting processes. Those involved in change or considering how to change must learn to work with natures way and give attention to both the growth processes and the limiting processes. Drawing on the insights of practitioners, the book shows how leaders at many levels of an organization can nurture both the reinforcing

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Book Reviews 4. Theyre not walking the talk! brief intriguing introductions to the authors of each illustrating story. My advice to readers: begin anywhere your interest or need takes you and go forward or backward from there. Read it in chunks and give yourself some time in between to soak up the ideas. Look through the Orientation section that briefly reviews the five disciplines of The Fifth Discipline and how to read a systems diagram. This section also describes the margin icons found throughout the book that will help you navigate through to sections that are of particular interest to the reader. The Dance of Change is resource rich. It makes quite an interactive read, with links identifying related topics in other sections of the book, and in other books. Reading it and following the suggested resource topic threads is rather like clicking on links on the Internet. In fact, the authors encourage readers feedback and comments via their website address, www.fieldbook.com. Sometimes I found it hard to put down the book, as the intriguing titles were seductive. Some of my favorites: Barking and Nonbarking Dogs, Climbing Out of the Muck, The Pinecone Strategy, As One Of The First Black Engineers In South Africa, Heretical Tactics, and The Perils of Shared Ideals. The first-person style and crisp writing of the illustrating stories also drew me in. I experienced it not unlike passing by a TV set and getting sucked into the program on my way to doing something else. This book is a valuable addition to the library of any facilitator working on a systems level with client organizations. The review of systems dynamics was very helpful. Perhaps you, like myself, find it difficult to read systems diagrams, or to remember them without a visual picture. After going through the diagrams that accompanied each of the ten challenges, I felt much more comfortable in interpreting them. It was informative to read about how the challenges show up in each phase of change; I was reminded of several instances in past work situations. The resources that are includedboth exercises to do with teams and books written by other authors on the topic of each challengeare likely to be greatly appreciated; facilitators will find some favorites here and some new ones to explore. I had immediate use for two sections of the book, and recommend them highly. One is an extensive discussion on coaching and mentoring, one of todays hot topics. The other has very helpful information about assessment and measurement of change, along with suggested ways to help a group devise assessment criteria that is appropriate for them. In the final section of the book Senge reiterates the dynamics of the dance of change, Special Issue on Group Development

Sustaining Momentum 5. This stuff is ___! [fill in the blank] 6. This stuff isnt working! 7. We have the right way/They dont understand us! Redesigning the Organization 8. Whos in charge of this stuff? 9. We keep reinventing the wheel! 10. Where are we going? What are we here for? The thickness of the book (570 pages) may be off-putting to some, but it was not written to be read front to back. Initially, I scanned the book, stopping at particularly intriguing spots, jumping from one section to another. Later I went through the book from front to back for the purpose of this review. I confess it was overwhelming. There is so much here, it is impossible to hold it all in your head at once. Some sections can be confusing to those unfamiliar with systems thinking. To their credit, the authors try to clarify each diagram with an explanation. The structure of the book facilitates remembering the three major categories of initiating, sustaining, and redesigning. The substructure of each challenge section gives a map with increasingly familiar landmarks (the challenge description, the system diagram for that challenge, strategies that have worked in dealing with the challenge, stories the illustrate those strategies, and, exercises to do as a team or individually) that makes it easy to navigate through the very rich landscape. Particularly helpful features are: margin icons, small graphic symbols, identifying different types of material, such as suggestions for the three leadership roles, or an exercise for a group or one that you do alone a solo exercise, practical techniques, or guiding ideas the authors found meaningful. systems diagrams for each of the ten challenges to change, and an initial tutorial in how to read them a lexicon that gives the roots of words in current use, especially the jargon of organizational change, and a thoughtful description of the authors meaning and use of the wordwords like assessment, governance, time, and tacit knowledge. sets of reflective questions to consider using to help groups think systemically together about their situation or their experience, a virtual treasure chest of dialogue questions. It was gratifying to me to see the continual emphasis on profound communication and to find the practical help to enable this to happen. well-written paragraph-long descriptions on recommended books on related topics 84

Book Reviews the interplay between the reinforcing factors and the limiting factors to growth. The challenges of change are dynamic, non-linear, and interdependent. He illustrates the balancing process and compensating feedback that is a natural aspect of the growth process, an illustration of how a living system works to maintain its internal balances, conserving the status quo. Organizational leaders should pay attention to what the balancing process is conserving. In this summary, Senge again speaks of change leaders as constituents of a leadership ecology which includes, but is not limited to, the local line leaders, the executive leaders, and the network leaders described earlier. He concludes with the point that in learning to initiate and sustain change, and in developing the capabilities that support organizational learning, we build a foundation to begin addressing core issues of society. These are the deep problems facing our planet that wont be fixed by a few great leaders. As more people become capable of thinking systemically about problems and learn to talk openly about the deep, underlying issues that face us, we will gain confidence in our ability to search for ways to address complex issues together. Hopefully, he writes, this capability and confidence will begin to spill over into other aspects of society. In this endeavor, we will be guided by a few core images of the world we want to create, based on how the natural world operates rather than those of industrial society that has given rise to these problems. Perhaps the guiding image may be that of the Earth itself, the living system that is our home. In summary, reading this book was like opening a treasure chest of resources, ideas, models, and provocative, reflective questions for helping groups journey through profound change. The metaphor the authors suggest, an atlas of change, is definitely appropriate. With this book in hand, a change leader, whether facilitator or manager, will be able to navigate the journey with awareness and confidence. Advance warning of inherent challenges along the way and suggestions of ways of addressing them alleviate some of the anxiety of embarking on such a journey. References Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Senge, P. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday

Patricia R. Tuecke is the president of Sierra Circle Consulting in Reno, Nevada. She is a facilitation consultant in organizational development and assists organizations in creating and implementing effective strategies for initiating important changes. Mrs. Tuecke has consulted to public, private, and volunteer organizations for over twenty years in the US, Europe and Asia. She helped develop the Technology of Participation (ToP) and trains facilitators in those methods. A major focus of her work is designing and facilitating group processes to help management teams plan systemically for the future of their organizations, including developing a shared vision and strategic resolution of critical issues that may impede success. She designs interactive training programs, delivers presentations and seminars on management topics, coaches managers, and does shadow consulting with practitioners using ToP methods and other large group processes. She is a founding member of the International Association of Facilitators. Contact at: Sierra Circle Consulting, 514 Island Avenue, Reno, NV 89501; Phone: 775-333-6998; Fax: 775-333-1088; ptglobal@winning.com

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

85

Book Reviews

The Logic of Failure: Why Things Go Wrong and What We Can Do To Make Them Right
by Dietrich Dorner Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1996, translated by Rita and Robert Kimber, ISBN: 0805041605, $25.00. Paperback edition: The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations, Perseus Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997, 222 pages, ISBN: 0201479486, $16.00. Book Review by Nancy S. Hewison Lots of things go wrong in Dietrich Dorners The Logic of Failure. Nuclear reactors fail, communities break down and entire societies crash. Complex situations go awry despite, or because of, the planning and subsequent actions of intelligent and well-intentioned people. Dorner would have much to talk about with Peter Senge (1990) and others working in the area of systems thinking. The Logic of Failure is packed with illustrations of the ways humans approach complex situations and fail to solve them because of an inability to think systemically. Dorner, a professor of psychology at the University of Bamberg, Germany, utilizes computer simulation exercises to study problem solving, decision making, human information processing, and the psychological aspects of planning, and to elucidate the cognitive behaviors that lead to failure in these arenas. Rather than burden the reader with tedious detail about the computer simulations, however, he interweaves learnings from them with numerous real life examples which enhance the readers comprehension, contribute to readability, and provide illustrations of potential use to facilitators. The first chapter presents a number of scenarios that capture the readers attention. In one example, each participant in a computer simulation experiment was given dictatorial powers to increase the well being of the occupants of Tanaland, a fictitious region in West Africa. Over the course of ten computer-simulated years, a participant had six opportunities to intervene in the regions agricultural practices, medical care, and access to water, electricity, and motorized equipment. At each intervention point, information could be gathered to feed into planning. Of twelve participants, only one succeeded in stabilizing population growth while creating overall improvement in the standard of living. The decisions of the average participant, on the other hand, initially improved life in the region and then led to one or another catastrophe. In one case, a vigorous campaign to eradicate the rodents and monkeys who were eating the crops deprived the local leopards of their normal food supply. They then turned to feeding on the farmers cattle. In another case, crop yield increased due to motorized plows and artificial fertilizer, with the result that the population grew until it exceeded the capacity of the food supply. Why did one participant succeed while all the others failed? None of them had any particular expertise and the experiments problems did not require any specialized knowledge. The answers, according to Dorner, lie in the way humans think and in the fact that, when dealing with complex systems, ...we cannot do just one thing. Whether we like it or not, whatever we do has multiple effects. In discussing a real life example, the 1986 catastrophe at the atomic energy plant in Chernobyl, Dorner suggests, We cannot find a single example of [human] failure. No one who should have stayed awake fell asleep...overlooked a signal...[or] accidentally flipped a wrong switch. The plant operators, however, exhibited many of the characteristics of participants in the Tanaland experiment. They thought in terms of linear networks of causation rather than considering potential side effects of their decisions and actions, and they did not understand that exponentially developing processes move extremely rapidly. Furthermore, under time pressures, they applied overdoses of established measures. Having stripped away any hope the reader may have harbored that the cognitive pitfalls of decision making reside only in such simulated situations as Tanaland, Dorner sets out, in chapter two, to demystify the demands of complexity, dynamics, and intransparency which planners and decision makers regularly face. That is, there are many interrelated variables which together form a system that moves on its own, whether or not we act (or even acknowledge the movement), and in which it may be impossible to discern the information we most need. Because the setting of goals is critical in planning and problem solving, the author spends some time in the third chapter delineating various types of goals (positive/negative, general/specific, clear/ unclear, simple/multiple, and implicit/ explicit) and the kinds of interdependencies between goals. Practical steps are suggested, as in an approach to tackling the multiple problems that may be uncovered in the process of turning an Special Issue on Group Development

86

Book Reviews unclear goal into a clear one: make a list of the problems, determine the interdependencies among them, rank them regarding importance and urgency, and consider delegating any that are sufficiently independent to be worked on apart from the rest. In the process of examining goal setting, Dorner holds up a mirror in which facilitators may recognize some of our clients or even, painfully, ourselves. An example is repair service behavior, which occurs when, faced with an unclear complex goal (such as a user-friendly library), we set about finding whatever seems to be malfunctioning, and then make its repair our immediate goal. Sometimes we select problems to work on based on the ones that seem most obvious or the ones we have the expertise to solve. It is also possible to fall prey to flow situations in which the fascination exerted by work that constantly poses new challenges of moderate difficulty leads a problem solver away from a major goal that has been inadequately defined and understood. The information we collect and the models of reality we construct based on it form another vital part of planning and action. If the garden pool stinks, he suggests, its all too common to spend the weekend removing the fish and plants, draining the water, peeling back and discarding the liner, and starting over with fresh ingredients. After all this work, we relax, thinking weve solved the problem, only to find weeks later that the pool stinks again. Of course, weve failed to take into account the complex interrelationships between the organisms, oxygen, temperature, and organic and inorganic substances in the pool. Had we taken the systemic view, and collected key bits of information, we might have determined an effective solution to the underlying problem, rather than jumping to treat the symptom. By this point in The Logic Failure, a reader with some background in Peter Senges work on systems thinking will be expecting his appearance in this book with the turning of every page. It appears, however, that the two wrote in ignorance of one anothers work, perhaps because Dorners book first appeared in print (in German, published in Germany) in 1989, almost simultaneously with the 1990 publication (in English, in the USA) of Senges The Fifth Discipline. Be that as it may, for facilitators seeking a better understanding of systems thinking, or looking for examples and analogies to use in explaining this approach to others, Dorners book is a gold mine. The chapter on time sequences is particularly rich with illustrations of systems thinking, or its lack. The author describes an experiment in which participants are asked to assume (in a computer simulation) manual control of temperature regulation in a refrigerated food storage area. This scenario nicely illustrates the problems in dealing with developments that show changes of direction (oscillations, sudden reversals) due to a delay in the systems response to human intervention. Dorner then eases into an explanation of exponential growth and the pitfalls in failing to understand it. He tells the tale of the inventor of chess who, upon presenting the game to his king and being promised a reward in a condescending fashion, asks only for one grain of rice for the first square on the chess board, two for the second, four for the third, eight for square four, etc. The smug king discovers to his dismay that, through the power of exponential growth, the reward he owes for the last square alone amounts to 153 billion tons of rice. The penultimate chapter deals with planning and presents some ways to avoid failure in complex situations. In Dorners view, planning consists of examining the consequences of individual actions, then of stringing individual actions together into sequences and examining the possible consequences of these sequences of action. The resulting plan may branch in a variety of directions depending on circumstances. However, because most problems exist in a vast and complicated reality, we often must narrow the problem sector. The author offers guidance on which of a number of alternative planning approaches to select for a particular situation. When goals are clear, he suggests reverse planning: beginning with the goal and working backwards through the action needed to achieve that goal, then the conditions necessary to support that action, then what will create those supporting actions. When there appears to be no direct path to the goal, planning may involve identifying decisions which will lead to situations from which one can efficiently proceed in a variety of directions, as in the game of chess. In addition to reverse planning and the efficiency diversity method, the chapter on planning presents the hill climbing approach, with its attendant danger that we may be climbing the wrong peak as we seek to shorten the distance between desired goal and present reality. An approach suggested when one is at a total loss is to act on the basis of whats proven successful in the past, but without succumbing to methodism. Because, to Dorner, the planning process is largely one of narrowing and expanding the problem sector through a variety of carefully selected approaches, he also offers ways to expand a problem sector when a lengthy period of effort has proven unsuccessful, thinking has become circular, or possibilities seem exhausted. In the latter case, he suggests thinking by analogy, and the many examples in The Logic of Failure provide a rich stock of possibilities for analogous thinking. 87

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Book Reviews The books final chapter begins by identifying the psychological reasons for what Dorner calls the many inadequacies of human thought in dealing with complex situations. First, because conscious thought takes time, and it is difficult to process multiple and varying information simultaneously, we take shortcuts to economize. For example, we leap ahead to action planning without stopping to set goals, or we operate on the basis of a single principle rather than thinking strategically. A second psychological process that can doom our endeavors (and one that is rather chilling for any professional, including a facilitator, to contemplate) is the unconscious attempt to preserve a positive view of our own competence. Behaviors that may arise from this self-protection can include developing an overly simple hypothesis; too readily labeling a problem as an old friend, and therefore applying a tried and true solution that may not really fit; or selecting only those problems we feel confident about solving. Dorner further suggests that, while the human memory can store a great deal, it takes in new material at a relatively slow rate. This creates a storehouse of past events that lack the clarity and richness of detail with which we perceived them at the time they occurred. One result of this is our difficulty, explored earlier in the book, in dealing with temporal configurations. Finally, we typically dont think about problems we dont have, leading us to overlook potential undesirable side effects of planned actions. What, then, does Dorner suggest that we do, now that we are aware of the cognitive behaviors leading to failure in complex situations? His advice is to draw upon operative intelligence" by being aware of the ways we think and deliberately choosing among them. We should, the author asserts, reflect on our own thinking, but with some guidance, an idea that certainly recommends itself to facilitators. Talking about complex problems and how to approach them is not enough, however, in Dorners view. He believes strongly in the value of computer simulations, followed by discussion of behavior and mistakes, as an excellent way of learning the essentials of systems thinking. While some readers may feel that the final chapter fails to deliver on its title (So Now What Do We Do?), the entire book is, in essence, the answer to that question. Whether or not facilitators take Dorners advice regarding computer simulations, a reflective reading of his book should provide the insights afforded by holding up a mirror to our own practice. That is, the author may help us consider that in facilitation, as in other arenas of action, whatever we do has multiple effects. Additionally, we may see some of the dangers of failing to ask ourselves whether our selection of a particular course of facilitation might be 88 Special Issue on Group Development influenced by the lure of fixing the obvious, or the comfort in applying a familiar approach that is not really a good fit for the clients situation. Another benefit of the book for facilitators is the expanded treatment of systems thinking, which sheds light on the challenges of problem identification, situation analysis, planning, and decision making encountered in complex organizations. The books rich collection of examples, presented to promote understanding of concepts, can also provide the facilitator with illustrations and analogies for use with clients. In my case, I was not content to rely solely on the books index for future reference, and I covered the blank pages at the back of my copy with lists of concepts and the examples which Dorner uses to illustrate them: grains of rice on a chessboard representing exponential growth, the pitfalls of methodism as seen in failed battle strategies, the experience of driving a car in a busy city as an example of attending to super signals instead of every detail. It is difficult to isolate must read portions of The Logic of Failure. However, any abbreviated reading should begin with some of the books many examples (Tanaland, Chernobyl, predator and prey relationships, etc.) because they provide eye-opening illustrations of the challenges involved in acting or intervening in complex systems. Finally, a few words of praise are in order for the felicitous combination of Dorners writing and the work of the translators, Rita and Robert Kimber. The result is so readable that I was well into the book before I realized just how densely packed it is with concepts. Many of these merit further exploration and, fortunately, Dorners chapter-by-chapter notes include many references, some in English and some in German, for additional reading. On several levels, therefore, The Logic of Failure is well worth reading for practicing facilitators and those teaching facilitation, for leaders of complex organizations, and for individuals leading their own complex lives.

Book Reviews Dietrich Dorners book, The Logic of Failure was originally published by Rowohlt Verlag in Germany in 1989, under the title Die Logic des Misslingens, and has been issued in English by a number of publishers, with various subtitles. References Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday

Nancy S. Hewison is Professor of Library Science and Director of Administrative Services for the Purdue University Libraries. Her work in the Libraries over the past ten years has included the facilitation of strategic and action planning. She has written about the Purdue University Libraries organizational transformation in the journal Library Administration and Management, and, with Donald O. Bushman, in a chapter in Government Works: Profiles of People Making a Difference (edited by James P. Troxel; Miles River Press, 1995). Nancy holds an M.S. in Library Science from Simmons College, Boston, and a B.S. in Sociology from the University of New Hampshire. Contact at: Purdue University Libraries, 1530 Stewart Center, West Lafayette IN 47907-1530; Phone: 765-494-2900; Fax: 765-494-0156; nhewison@purdue.edu

Success with Soul

By Doris Pozzi and Stephen Williams Dorian Welles Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia, 1997, 282 pages, ISBN 0646286927 Book Review by Judy Robb Success with Soul contains many key ingredients to help a person facilitate changepersonally, organizationally, and universally. The authors, Doris Pozzi and Stephen Williams, begin the book with the assumption that integrating the successful side of our lives with the side concerned with meaningthe soulfulis one of the key issues we struggle with today. Many of us have worked long and hard at careers that have provided many good thingsrecognition, money and comfortable lifestylesbut for some reason we still feel unsatisfied. We have come to a point where we know we could go further, but don't know how. Somehow our lives are lacking. We ask ourselves, could this be all that life has to offer? (Pozzi & Williams, 1997, Introduction xii) Whether or not this theme rings true for you, Success with Soul contains information and activities with which to examine professional success in a deeply personal way. If you are looking for a way to examine your personal and professional success, you may enjoy the book. The books structure may create a challenge for those who are application-oriented in their thinking. The authors examine both theoretical and concrete considerations, sequentially rather than together. Readers with a predominantly theoretical orientation may not find this a burden in reading the book and may be able to effectively glean helpful information from the very start. Only after finishing the book did I completely understand its message and see it as a book to help work through a process of personal reflection. In the introduction, the authors ask readers to be content to say that, for our purposes, the soul is that part of our non-physical being that is the home of real personal meaning. (Introduction xiv) I found this definition helpful because my mind kept jumping to the various meanings that experience and society have given to the word soul. Pozzi and Williams have used theory and application to aid readers in integrating their views of success with soul. To see how they have accomplished this, we will take a closer look at the structure and content of the book. It is divided into three sections: Knowing, Doing and Being. The authors tell us early on that much of the book is a synthesis drawn from their own professional and personal experiences. The book is a situational study of various concepts, not a critical analysis of them. I found that in reading the book the most effective mind set for me was to use their premises and assertions as hypothetical starting points. Knowing (approximately 100 pages) provides readers with theoretical explanations, historical references, research results and examples. Initially, the authors discuss their perceptions of how, up to now, people have thought about the relationship between success and soul. Readers have the opportunity to explore traditional and modern definitions of success. Pozzi and Williams touch on early writings on soul, including the relationship of soul to culture, religion, philosophy, 89

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

Book Reviews psychology, and art. They describe their views concerning the progression of soulwhen it went missing (in Western thought), when soul returned, and their perception of the real need for a new way of talking about success. Pozzi and Williams say this new way of understanding success must begin from withinthat personal growth requires personal change. They take this concept a little further. First, they draw on new research about the way in which our personal values shape our attitudes and actions. Secondly, they consider how our commitments and actions can, in turn, shape our attitudes and ultimately change our values. (p. 27) They discuss the following topics: personality is not the answer; that the soul exists; where the mind goes the body will follow; mental models underlie our thinking; and chaos is part of our lives. The chapter concludes with a discussion of whole systems thinking and what can be drawn from Eastern and Western cultures as we strive to know what we already know. Next, the authors present the premise that to advance, any effective strategy must begin with an understanding of the underlying dynamics. (p. 47) Pozzi and Williams indicate that the underlying dynamics shape our experiences, beliefs and actions. As readers, we are shown the impact of our tendency to focus outward. We sometimes let others define what is important. As a result, the authors indicate that today many of us are out of touch with our personal values and are unclear as to our purpose. Are we simply to accept the values and purpose placed on us from outside by others, or the world around us? Sometimes we do this consciously; at other times we are not even aware that we have done so.(p. 52) Leading a balanced lifestyle is examined next. The reader is presented with an argument illustrating why a balanced lifestyle (for example, balancing competing commitments) is not the solution to achieving personal success with real meaning (soul). Pozzi and Williams pose and explore two main notions. First, that a balanced lifestyle does not directly address the underlying dynamics at work in our lives. It ignores what is really going on. Secondly, that it creates new problems that then need to be solved. (p. 61) After Pozzi and Williams describe the problems with the integration of success and soul, they proceed to describe how success with soul cannot be achieved without talking about meaning in a new waythat meaning which provides our own unique and personal answer to life. They discuss two types of meaningthe big picture and purpose, Why are we all here? and our particular role, Why am I here? In this chapter, they also delve into another important aspect of meaning, that two different people may ostensibly be doing 90 the same thingin psychological terms, their actions may be the samebut the two people will place different meanings on their actions. (p. 78) The consistent factor in these different views on meaning is relationships. We now learn about the authors relationship model of success. This model emerges from systems thinking which considers not only the individual components of a system, but also what occurs between themthe energies or relationships. (p. 82) The model focuses on the system of individual, social and environmental relationships. In this chapter, readers see that system survival is not about balance or equilibrium, but about change, renewal and transformation. The authors propose that when you operate out of the relationship model of success, you will live a responsible and meaningful life. (p. 89) The last consideration of the Knowing section of the book focuses on competing priorities and how the tension they create impacts personal success, business matters and social issues. As the authors state, "Ultimately, each of us needs to understand our own personal creativity-sustainability tension and manage it to achieve creativity while remaining aware of the potential costs."(p. 100) Through the nine chapters of approximately 150 pages in section two, Doing, the authors provide readers with practical activities and experiential descriptions to integrate success and meaning into their lives. For the authors, identifying personal values provides the foundation for the integration of success and meaning into our lives. The authors set the stage by discussing and defining the relationship between beliefs, attitudes, values and actions. They describe an examination of values by a group of international researchers. The researchers identified fifty-seven personal values clustered into ten motivational domains. This was validated with inputs from hundreds of people across forty-four countries. To the researchers, these domains represent the universal human goals that shape our behavior. (p.108) Using a manageable categorization of actual values, the authors provide readers with key steps to begin identifying their own personal values. The easy-to-follow instructions focus on how to chart personal values, create a personal-journey timeline, and build a values pyramid. This is where the book changed for me. I clustered the researchers values into the temperament-oriented frame of reference that I use in my work (see Understanding Yourself and Others, An Introduction to Temperament, Linda V. Berens,). Therefore, with pen in hand and starting from my point of reference, I began using the authors process of identification. I quickly noted my personal Special Issue on Group Development

Book Reviews values (freedom and action) and began developing my personal-journey timeline. It provided a framework to link the changes in my life to major events, my moods and values. When I completed the values pyramid, I had established a visual image of the importance of my actual values. I was excited. I could see the possible application of exercises in facilitating individuals and groups that are searching for meaning in their work. With values as the foundation, Pozzi and Williams move to defining and discussing the need to identify the important and meaningful areas of ones life. Using the helpful guidelines and examples provided, readers can begin creating their life circlea diagram that contains all the identified key content areas of ones life. The authors show how the life circle tool can be used to create a complex network of linked and interconnected life circles for the various dimensions of life-a network with a central life circle and a series of satellite circles projecting out and perhaps linking together. (p. 135) As the authors indicate, life circles are perceptual maps. They allow us to create a picture of our lives, which is both orderly and chaoticrepresenting our life system. (p. 135) Life cycles are also an important systems thinking tool. They show the components, connections and relationships that are important to us. (p. 135) Next, the authors provide a process to develop statements of purposewhy we exist. Activities include examining our response to life and lifes response to us. As the authors indicate, Getting out there and doing something is more likely to result in some answers than being and knowing alone. (p. 143) With a picture of the present, the authors show readers how to apply the personal strategic planning method to create a vision or future view. Once established, readers repeat the process to create personal medium-term plans (five years out) and tangible plans (one year out). Next, the authors take readers through activities to turn personal plans into reality. Pozzi and Williams provide an in-depth examination of effective decision making, a personal decision making checklist and activities to build better habits from effective decisions. As the authors say, Our values, lifes purpose, decisions, plans, actions and personal reflection become key components of the dynamic system which is our mind, body and soul. Alignment and integration of these components provide depth to everything we do. Meaning is created through the active structured dialogue of these components and through the establishment of relationships with other people and the world as a whole. (p. 198) With a foundation to make better choices and build better habits, the authors revisit systems thinking. They introduce, discuss and apply the five methods of systems thinking: integration, elimination, redefinition, substitution and acceptance, in ways that take readers beyond balance to resolve competing priorities in our lives. (p. 200) Continuing to build on the knowledge and application presented, the authors provide activities to help readers incorporate feedback, monitoring, and reflection into the key relationships we have with others, our environment and ourselves. The section on Doing includes the authors personal view. They explain what creative change means to them, why they initiated it in their lives, and how they went about applying the process. They describe their personally developed four-stage creative-change process of disruption, incubation, transformation and action. The authors note that during the implementation or action stage in the creative process, your mood changes completely; discouragement and fear turn to optimism and hopesmiles and energy reappear. You feel centered and focused. Often at this stage, people experience a return of purpose and meaning into their lives. (p. 240) The authors close the section on Doing with techniques they have found effective and that will help readers achieve personal success with soul. The last section, Being (approximately 25 pages), provides readers with points of reference to facilitate the integration of success and meaning into their lives. The authors explain that rediscovering soul is not about finding an object, like a lost set of keys. Rediscovering soul is about engaging in thoughts and activities that are meaningful to us or add meaning to our life. (p. 252) Readers are given ideas on how to create and enhance their own personal process of soul rediscovery. As Pozzi and Williams express, In many ways, we feel that at the heart of this book is a very simple concept, that we can integrate personal success and soul by improving the quality of our relationships. However, like most simple ideas, the test is in the doingthis is where the challenge lies. (p. 270) In conclusion, Success with Soul has several worthwhile aspects. It offers a methodology to assist individuals in the search for success with meaning in their lives. Secondly, Success with Soul contains tools and exercises a facilitator might use with clients who are involved in creating change. The authors present useful exercises and applications to aid in achieving positive results. Noteworthy, from my point of view, is the authors commitment to provide methods designed to help you, as an individual, work through the process of initiating and obtaining lasting creative changes in your life through personal reflection.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001

91

Book Reviews References Berens, L. V. (2000). Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Temperament. Huntington Beach, CA: Telos Publications, www.trinetwork.com Judy Robb established her own performance consulting practice, the Robb Group of San Francisco, California in 1994. Her services: performance consulting, training and facilitation range from coaching clients, conducting performance assessments, developing performance models, and facilitating performance improvement processes and projects. She was a founding member of the organization that won the 1997 American Society for Training and Development Best Practice Award for Performance Consulting. She is the author of The Job of Performance Consultant in Moving From Training to Performance: A Practical Guide Book, edited by Dana Gaines Robinson and James C. Robinson. She is the co-author of Temperament and Type Dynamics: The Facilitator's Guide. Judy has a B.S. from the University of San Francisco and is an M.B.A. candidate from St Mary's College. Contact at: Robb Group, 1 Sansome Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco CA 94104; Phone: 415-921-2466; Robbgroup@aol.com Book Review Editor: Beret Griffith

92

Special Issue on Group Development

Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal Aim and Scope

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal is a multi-disciplinary publication focused on the art and science of group facilitation. The aim of Group Facilitation is to advance our knowledge of group facilitation and its implications for individuals, groups, organizations, and communities. It is published semi-annually. The Group Facilitation Journal is intended for facilitators, mediators, organizational development and training specialists, managers, researchers, and others who seek to use facilitation skills in their practice. Articles represent diverse perspectives, including organizational learning and development, group and system dynamics, collaborative technology, negotiation, mediation, leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution, cross-cultural contexts, and education. Possible topics include, but are not limited to, facilitator roles within the group, interventions for conflict management, descriptions of specific facilitation methods, approaches to facilitating specific tasks such as idea generation or priority setting, using computer technology to support facilitation, increasing participation in organizations, exploring the underlying values, beliefs and models of facilitation, and applying facilitation skills and concepts to various settings. The journal is comprised of the following sections, which are described below in more detail: Application and Practice; Theory and Research; Edge Thinking; Book Reviews. Application and Practice is devoted to articles that reflect on facilitator experience. Articles appropriate for this section include reports on experiences gained and lessons learned presented in a reflective case study, and discussion of facilitator roles, problems encountered by facilitators or their clients, and intervention methods and techniques. Studies should be both descriptive and evaluative and should draw on existing literature appropriately. Theory and Research is devoted to articles that explore, propose, or test practices, principles, or other aspects of facilitation models. Such studies are typically based on survey, experimental, ethnographic, or other research methods. Edge Thinking is intended to stimulate thinking on new concepts and issues. Contributions may be less formal than the other sections, and might include dialogues, essays, editorials, and proposals for new areas of inquiry. Book Reviews presents critical and comparative reviews of recent and classic books related to group facilitation. Submission Guidelines Submission guidelines and other information about the journal may be obtained on the journal website www.iaf-world.org/Journal or from the Editor (see below). Original manuscripts should be submitted via electronic mail (preferred) to: Sandor P. Schuman, Editor s.schuman@albany.edu 518-442-5889 Paper submissions may be sent to: Sandor P. Schuman, Editor Group Facilitation Journal Center for Policy Research University at Albany, SUNY Albany NY 12222

Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal Book Review Guidelines

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal presents critical and comparative reviews of recent and classic books related to group facilitation. These guidelines include recommendations for writing and submitting a review, information about the review cycle and reviewer qualifications. Writing the Review When writing a review, please include: - overall impression of the book - the highlights and structure of the book - for whom the book would be appropriate - what you found particularly helpful, unclear, weak - your personal learning, if any - particular benefits to you in your facilitation, if any - value of the book for facilitators, if any - significant contribution of the book, if any, to the field of facilitation - your recommendation of "must read" portions of the book, if any - a summary or wrap-up of your reading experience. In addition: - provide definitions of terms, acronyms, references, and background summary statements where appropriate. - where necessary, be sure to include complete citations and attributions. - identify specific texts (usually a sentence or phrase) for possible use in pull quotes. - publisher; ISBN designation; price ($US); where to purchase (i.e. all major bookstores or telephone number for direct ordering if the book is not widely available commercially). - background about the book author: facilitation experience and/or other writings. What we are looking for: - people familiar with the conceptual and practical sides of facilitation and who are willing to spend the time required to write interesting and thought provoking reviews. - reviews of books that address facilitation and related issues, such as consensus decision making, participatory problem solving and group decision-making. - in-depth and critical reviews that help readers decide whether or not the books reviewed are ones that they should consider reading. - comparative reviews of two or more books that differentiate, compare and contrast the books and thoroughly examine the strengths and weaknesses. - reviews that place the book in the context of other literature. Submitting a Review Reviews are typically between 1,000 and 3,000 words. Submissions should be made electronically (via email or on IBM compatible diskette) in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or Rich Text (RTF) format. If you are interested reviewing a book for the Journal, please contact: Lynda Lieberman Baker Book Review Editor Group Facilitation Journal MeetingSolutions, Inc. Box 4062 Austin, Texas 78765 Voice: 512-323-0583 Fax: 512-323-9016 Email: lbaker@meetingsolutions.com