Group Dynamics Group Stages and Development Group 6 MSOD 613 - PowerPoint Presentation

Group Dynamics Group Stages and Development Group 6 MSOD 613 January 2014

Relevance to OD Why Knowledge of Group Stages and Development Matters Establishes the group as its focus of study and analysis Presents a lens for OD practitioners to raise awareness of hidden processes Provides longstanding models of the stages of development that integrate into current practices and interventions Contributes studies on group formation, group communication, causes of group commitment and individual influence within groupsMitigates issues like “getting stuck” by providing reframe anchors for leadersGroup development principles ensure group discussions are productive by recognizing normal versus abnormal (conflict, leadership, group progressions, outside forces)Helps to understand human behaviour, particularly in groupsOD practice requires frequent and in-depth group work Click Here

Contents Group Stages and Development Theoretical Orientations Integration of Theories Examples Application Group 6 ReflectionsAdditional Resources

Group Stages and Development

Stages of Group Development Premises Shared by All Group Development Models Groups are “epigenetic”. Each stage builds on the success of the preceding one. It is then important to ensure that each stage develops appropriately. Group development is likely to regress under conditions threatening group integrity. Healthy groups concentrate on the “here and now”. As the group develops, there are changes in the group behaviour, which become more interactive, more effective, and described in less intellectual ways. Advice is replaced by exploration, the group becomes more self directed and less leader centred. (Yalom, 2005)

Model 1: Most well-known model, developed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 Stage Relationships Interactions Task Function FormingDependenceSafe, patterned behavior, desire for acceptance and safety. Reliance on group leader for guidance & direction. Behavior is keeping things simple and avoiding controversy. Orientation to tasks and to each other, discussion around scope of task, how to approach it. To move to next stage must risk possibility of conflict. StormingCompetition & ConflictPersonal relations in the group become conflicted as group members organize for the task. Individuals have to adjust their own feelings, attitudes, ideas and beliefs to suit the group organization. There are questions about rules, who does what, criteria for evaluation and conflicts over leadership, structure, power. Group needs to move to problem-solving mentality to get to the next stage. Norming CohesionThere is active acknowledgment of all members contributions and a sense of community within the group. Leadership is shared and trust in each other and the group increases. Major task function is data flow among members. There is a high level of sharing and collaboration, much creativity and openness. Performing True Interdependence This stage is not reached by all groups. If reached, group members can work independently, in subgroups or as a total unit with equal levels of ease. Group members are both highly task oriented and people oriented. This is the most productive stage. There are high levels of morale, group identity and loyalty. Adjourning Termination of task behaviors & disengagement from relationships Important to address the apprehension some may feel as they give up inclusion in the group, recognize participation and achievement, give members an opportunity to say their goodbyes. The activities of the group are winding down. Need to facilitate task termination and disengagement. 7 Models of Group Stages

Tuckman’s Model 7 Models of Group Stages Click Here

Model 2: Another model with elements similar to the Tuckman model developed by Wheelan (1990, 1994a) Stage Relationships Interactions Task FunctionDependency and InclusionConcerns about safety (of the group) and inclusion issues. Members are significantly dependent on the leader (as well as powerful group members) for direction.Members may engage in “pseudo work” and have discussions about outside topics not relevant to the group’s goals or functions. Counter-dependency and FlightConflict is an inevitable part of this process. Disagreements among group members about group goals and procedures are characteristic of this stage. Conflict is necessary for establishing trust and creating an environment where members are empowered to disagree with each other. The group is developing a unified set of goals, values and operational procedures which inevitably generates conflict. Trust and StructureTrust, commitment to the group, willingness to cooperateCommunication is more open and task-oriented. Negotiations around roles, task, organization and procedures have matured. Members focus on solidifying positive working relationships with each other. Work Stage Intense team productivity and effectiveness Increased member trust, commitment to the group and willingness to cooperate. Communication is open and task-oriented. Members solidify positive working relationships with each other. Group focuses its energy on goal achievement and task accomplishment. Distinct Ending Point (or not)Team disbands and members go their separate ways Impending termination may cause disruption and conflict in some groups. Address separation issues and allow members to appreciate each other and the group experience. 7 Models of Group Stages

Model 3: Stages of group development are compared to the major stages of life (birth, fulfillment, ascension, culmination, closure) from Albert -Lorincz Eniko, Katalin Barna (2013)StageRelationshipsInteractionsTask FunctionMeetingMutual exploration and testing limits between group membersDependence on group leader, group members demand safety, struggle to keep identity, group makes efforts to solve problem situations.Activate the need for safety.StructuringStruggle for role hierarchy, compromisesThe groups values and norms are formed in this stage and conflict resolution methods are worked out. Activate the need for love and belonging. Work StageCollaboration Members of the group are task oriented. Intra- and interpersonal issues are worked out. Taboos are destroyed. Activate the need for esteem and acceptance. Presentation of Results Cohesion The group works together in a mature fashion to solve problems. They each practice the new roles they have taken on during the previous stages. Activate the need for self-realization. DetachmentExperience the loss Group member s exhibit a state of independence and autonomy. There is a period of reintegration and consolidation where they find an effective and harmonious way of working. Activate the need for self-realization (same as above). 7 Models of Group Stages

Group Stages Perspective from I.D. Yalom Development may be at times linear, and times cyclical, and the boundaries between stages are not clear. Groups do not graduate from one phase and move to another. Consider group development as “changing a tire” – one tightens the bolts just enough one after another until the wheel is in place, and then repeats the sequence again this is similar to what happens in groups, revisiting the same stage from a different perspective, but at a deeper level (e.g. high engagement, low conflict follow by periods of lower engagement and higher conflict). It is better to think about stages – as group tasks. Leaders / therapists must be aware of the “anti-group” forces (individual and societal). Fear of merging Fear of loss of one’s sense of independenceLoss of one’s fantasy of specialnessFear of seeking out being turned awayModel 4: Developed by Yalom (2005) uses Tuckman’s model as a start point to present the stages of development in psychotherapy groups. It is important to note the nuances – and comments he makes about those stages – some of which can extend to working groups. 7 Models of Group Stages

Stage Relationships Interactions Task Function The First Meeting Concern with task and initial membership and affiliationActions that a therapist may take (leader) to decrease anxiety. Therapist begins to shape the norms of the group. Activate the need for safety.The Initial StageOrientation, Hesitant Participation, Search for Meaning, Dependency Group seeks understanding how to achieve primary task– or purpose of why they join. As well as attend social relationships that will allow members to express their individuality– as well as enjoy the pleasures of being part of the group. Activate the need for purpose, love and belonging.Concern with: In or Out Second Stage / Storming Conflict, Dominance, RebellionEstablish a social pecking order– individuals ascertain preferred amount of initiative and power. Sources of conflict: reactions to leader, scapegoating, change & struggle for control. Activate the need for dominance, power, control. Concern: Top or Bottom. Third Stage Development of Cohesiveness There are two phases: Mutual Support: low conflict– but may plateau if group suppresses negative feedback, in order to remain a united front. Advance Stage– able to work with the tension that emerges as conflict and differentiation is permitted to emerge. Productive Working Phase –characterized by intimacy, engagement and genuine cohesion. Concern: Near or Far Termination Experience the loss Try if at all possible to finish task at hand with as few regrets as possible about work undone, emotions unexpressed or feelings not shared. Feelings of loss and bereavement. Model 4: ( Yalom ) , continued 7 Models of Group Stages

Model 5: M.S. Poole views group development as “phases” versus “stages”. Instead of developing in rigid stages, groups go through continuously developing threads of activity which can be intertwined. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_development Phase Description Task TrackThe task track concerns the process by which the group accomplishes its goals, such as problem analysis, idea generation and designing solutions.Relation TrackThe relation track deals with the interpersonal relationships between the group members. At times, the group may stop its work on the task and focus instead on its relationships, share personal information or engage in joking.Topic TrackThe topic track includes a series of issues or concerns the group may have over time.BreakpointsBreakpoints occur when a group switches from one track to another. Shifts in the conversation, adjournment, or postponement are examples of breakpoints.7 Models of Group Stages

Model 6: Gersick’s “Punctuated Equilibrium” model suggests that groups experience periods of intense productivity punctuated by periods of concentrated change. The model suggests the occurrence of these period is influenced mainly by time. Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_development Stage Definition Phase 1A framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which a group approaches its project emerges in its first meeting, and the group stays with that framework through the first half of its life. Teams may show little visible progress during this time because members may be unable to perceive a use for the information they are generating until they revise the initial framework.MidpointAt the calendar midpoint, groups experience transitions-paradigmatic shifts in their approaches to their work, enabling them to capitalize on the gradual learning they have done and make significant advances. The transition is a powerful opportunity for a group to alter the course of its life midstream. If this transition is not used well, it is unlikely to alter its basic plans again.Phase 2A second period of inertial movement takes its direction from plans crystallized during the transition. At completion, when a team makes a final effort to satisfy outside expectations, it experiences the positive and negative consequences of past choices.7 Models of Group Stages

Periods of Rapid Change Change Time Gersick’s Model of Punctuated Equilibrium 7 Models of Group Stages Periods of Stability Chronological Midpoint Legend

Model 7: As an employee of Procter and Gamble, George Charrier developed the Cog’s Ladder: A Model of Group Growth (Charrier, 1972). The Cog’s model is similar to the Tuckman model with more modern language which might make the stages easier to understand and relate to. StageRelationshipsInteractionsTask FunctionPolite StagePeople connect with each other. Team is getting acquainted and figuring out how the group will be structured. There may be cliques at this point and hidden agendas stay hidden. Feedback and disclosure are minimal. Use agendas during meetings. Share information in an organized fashion. “Ice breaking “ exercises are helpful so people get to know each other and begin to participate. Why We’re Here StageGroup’s purpose and goals are established.The objectives and goals for the group are defined and elaborated at this stage. While identity with the group is still low, there is some increase in risk taking among members of the group. Share and talk about what the expectations are for individuals and the group. Formally define what the goals for the group are. Power Stage Group members have different ideas and compete for power. There is an attempts by group members to influence others and competition for attention and recognition. Feedback can be harsh at this point. Some groups never progress past this stage. Understand the dynamics of the group and formulate distinct roles for group members. Share relevant skills and experience, plan to utilize. Co-operation Stage Group members start working as a team. At this stage, individual defenses and barriers come down and the group functions more cohesively. Openness and trust is established, resources are used effectively, leadership is shared. Discuss and agree on a common approach to solving problems. The decision making process should be based on consensus, unanimity. Esprit Stage Mutual acceptance and high cohesiveness. Members of the group accept each other and work well together. Spirits are high, cliques are absent and there is a high degree of loyalty to the group. If a new member joins the team at this point there will be a regression to an earlier stage. Deal with challenges, expand level of risk taking. The team should review progress in order to evaluate their performance and determine how to continue to improve it. 7 Models of Group Stages

Cog’s Ladder by Charrier 7 Models of Group Stages Click Here

Theoretical Orientations

Overview of Theoretical Orientations Unit of Analysis Focus Refer When Curious About:Key AuthorsField Theory Patterns of interaction between the individual/group and the total field (environment)The influence behind group members’ actions.Understanding why group members interact the way the way they do.Kurt LewinInteraction Theory Patterns of social interaction of groups with “its activity” in relation to each other and other variables Groups balance two fundamentals: task-related needs & socioemotional needs (field and psychology themes) Problem solving, managerial processes, group, assessment, group observation,team effectivness, group design, task responsibility, feedback & rewards Robert Freed Bales George C. Homans William F. Whyte Systems Theory Holistic view of Individual, group & environmental factors as well as group processes & outputs. Group members in relation to inputs, process & outputs Groups are complex, adaptive, and dynamic systems of individuals and their interactions-members->units attached via relationshipsTalcott ParsonsNiklas Luhmann Psychoanalytic Theory Group acting a single entity Interactions at a c onscious and unconscious level Groups that may be struggling to perform Task Structure breaks down Leader/member dynamics: dependence, interdependence Positioning of members Groups split in against or pro-task/leader. Groups gets stuck W. R . Bion Smith & Berg General Psychology Individual and group interactions from a psychological perspective Understanding the characteristics of how groups operate Natural g roup emergence Group cohesion Social communication Group conformity Leon Festinger Solomon Asch Five key theoretical orientations or “lenses” can be used to view group stages and development

Lewin Homans Asch Bion Field Theory Interaction Theory Systems TheoryPsychology TheoryPsychoanalytic Theory Luhmann Key Contributors Overview of Theoretical Orientations

Field Theory Field theory is a psychological theory developed by Kurt Lewin which examines patterns of interaction between the individual and the total field, or environment (Wikipedia) Theoretical Orientations

Field Theory Key Concepts (Fairfield, 2004) Example The field is a unitary whole or web of relationships where everything affects everything else. When an event occurs such as a disagreement, one should be suspicious of linear, one-way causality.One group member verbally provokes the group to become more productive. This could be because the person: Is accustomed to being in a leadership positionWas taught by his/her parents that groups of people are inherently unproductiveIs not actually provoking, but is from a different cultureAny number of other reasonsRather than merely admitting a group is embedded in larger systems, field theory studies the potentially infinite, interpenetrating and interdependent forces that support the emergence of the figure of ‘group’.What caused the need for this group? Who created it? Why is each group member present? What groups really are in themselves remains unknown to us, despite our propensity to classify their properties. One assumes events can be translated into what is observed sufficiently so that an outsider will grasp the phenomenon in the same way; however, n obody can inhabit another person’s perspective exactly. A group leader reports that the group acclimatized well. However, her perspective is influenced by forces she’s not even aware of, so she can’t fully understand and communicate what actually took place.

Interactive Theory The idea that social interaction is studied by looking first at the group and its activities then the personality roles within the group. The foundation of the theory rests in Field Theory and Psychology. Theoretical Orientations

Interactive Theory Key Contributors Contributions George Homans “Father of Behavioral Sociology & the Exchange Theory” Major contribution to the field was his work titled The Human Group (1950) where he set an understanding of social behavior and interaction theory by looking at 3 levels: social events, customs and hypotheses to test the stability of groups. SourceMain approach: The Exchange Theory – economic and psychological foundation because individuals and behaviors are key to understanding society. The theory works on the notion of the person or firm and dealing with the “market” “system.” Social Exchange Theory – looks at the relations between peoplePracticed under the Conceptual Scheme notion by looking at a set of variables that must be taken into account when observing groups, describe data under certain behaviors and external, internal systems, and how the variables relate to one another. SourceRobert BalesInfluenced by Field Theory, specifically Kurt Lewin Integrate psychological & sociological Practiced under the notion that task-oriented groups go thru the same stages that Tuckman & Lewin studied Identifying task-oriented or relationship-oriented individuals in groups is key focus of work Source SYMLOG (Systematic MultiLevel Observation of Groups ) : application for assessment & training for team effectiveness, individual leadership. Four Key Steps: 1) Observation & Data Collection 2) Data Processing & Feedback Prep 3) Feedback 4) Learning & Changing Through Interaction Source Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) or Equilibrium Model: Three distinct stages: 1) Socioemotional/interpersonal stage 2) task 3) control. Task oriented or relationship oriented within a group SourceWilliam Whyte “Pioneer in participant observation” Practice point of view was from an ethnology lens which resulted in his most well known piece of work: Street Corner Society (1943) Source Street Corner Society (1943): Whyte lived in a Boston slum district for three years where he observed the Italian population (suspected of danger & crime) tracing back to Mussolini. In Street Corner Society Whyte documented groups within that district, how gangs were organized and formed, the difference between a “corner boy” and “college boy” and the dynamic of politics and social structure related to that district. Source

Examines groups in terms of the interplay between deep psychological or sociological dynamics (Poole et al., 2004) . Main focus is the affective and emotional side of groups. Psychodynamic Theory Theoretical Orientations

Psychodynamic Theory W. R Bion (1961) How These Assumptions May Show Up Describes two types of cultures: Work Groups: engaged in collaboration, sophisticated (emotionally intelligent), rational workBasic Assumption: Groups displaying the basic assumptions are not longer using organisation and structure and cooperation as “weapons of work group”(Bion, 1961)Work Groups are conscious, Basic Assumption (BA) groups are unconscious (McLeod, Kettner-Polley, 2004)Characteristics Looks at unconscious group reactions that come to the surface when “task structure breaks down”Leaders-Member relations--perceptions of how a leader may be viewed when things are not going wellIntroduction of notion of valency. Bion defined it as:“..the individual readiness to enter into combination with the group in making and acting on basic assumptions; if his capacity for combination is great, I shall speak of high valency, if small, of low valency; he can have in my view, no valency only by ceasing to be human”. (Bion, 1961 p.116)The consultant does not act as a leader, organiser or facilitator of the group—role ambiguity central to technique.Contribution to Tavistock Method – treatment of whole group Fight or Flight Group Group unites against vaguely perceived external enemiesFlight group protects group from infighting Opposition by some members of the group to the ideology/stream of thought cannot be tolerated Main group easily splits in sub-groups which fight each other Frequently one sub-group becomes subservient to the idealised leader. The Dependency Group (Heavily reliant on leader) Group display desperate efforts to extract knowledge, power or goodness from leader, in a forever dissatisfied wayPerceived failure of the leader to line up with such an ideal of perfection met with denial, then rapid complete devaluation of him and a search for a substitute leadershipMembers feel united by a sense of needfulness, helplessness and fear. Pairing Assumptions (Primal Scene)Group focus on 2 members– a couple, frequently but not necessarily heterosexualThe couple symbolises – “a magical union” that will save the group from the conflicts related to the dependency & fight & flight assumptions. Based on Schermer (2000) Curious Questions Are these Basic Assumptions states always latent in all groups? Or Do they Surface only when the group is not working?

Psychodynamic Theory Smith & Berg 1987 How These Paradoxes Show Up: Provides new framework to understand “perceived” within group conflict and contradictions. Once understood, these paradoxes are released without need resolution. They are seen as part of group life. Smith & Berg said “…the actual domain of conflict may be in the system of thinking about an event rather than in the actual event…the process of transforming conflict demands therefore a shift in our modes of thinking.”(pg. 649)Based on normal group behaviourParadox of Belonging : Involves issues of the trade offs of group membership Paradox of Engagement/Commitment: involves trade offs of how much to share of oneself. Paradox of Speaking (dynamics of influence)Nugget Encourages group to reflect on its own experience of understanding reality.Paradox of Belonging:Identity: process through which both identity and individual identity is formed. Individuals struggle over what to give up to belong, and group what to invest of itself in its individual membersParadox of Engagement/Commitment Disclosure: Members must self disclose..as the group sorts out what is going to be like members can determine what they need to disclose. Helps with assessment of strengths and weaknesses matching aspirations with capacity. Trust: Willingness of the group to trust different voices within the group –specially those that may be providing negative feedback. Individuality: Group grows and is strengthen by the individuality of its members. At the same time the group requires connections, conformity and similarity for its existence. Paradox of Speaking Authority: Members subordinate their autonomy to the group for the group to become stronger and represent their collective interest. By doing this the individual diminishes herself, and thus the group becomes weaker. Linked to concept of Self Empowerment. Regression: Willingness of the person to be part of an integrated entity and in the process experience a temporary lost sense of wholeness. Creativity: Acknowledging tension of growth processes i.e. making of new, giving up the old. Tension of loath and love towards members with alternative (creative) points of view. Focuses on maintaining the co-existence of both processes and embracing twin forces of stability and novelty.

Psychodynamic Theory Ringe r 2002 How To Create A Reflective Space: Based in psychodynamic view of experiential learning groups Effective group leaders work with conscious and unconscious processesLeaders to assist in creating a “reflective space” to hold group consciousness. This is a mental construction and not a physical space. This is an individual and collective space. , it changes overtime as the group develops. Goal is to promote initiation, development and voicing of ideas and emotions. Group members develop a mental representation of groups as a whole creating a durable representation of the group, i.e. self, the group, and the relationship with the group. Ensure that group understand that the Reflective Space supports not only talking about ideas and feelings but also supports, having ideas and experiencing those feelings. Keep in mind that different group members will have varying degrees of ability to contribute to and support the reflective space. Guard against attacks or rejections of group members thoughts and feelingsIt is important that you and other group members acts as if I this reflective space exists

Dependency Pairing Fight & FlightInstincts Pleasure Seeking Paradox feeling of feeling taken care of by leading whilst loading dependency on leader. Expectation & Hope Rescue from all their problemsPain Avoidance—can’t face the enemy or are ready to battlePredominant Dynamic Mechanism IntrojectionIdealization DevaluationDenial RepressionSplitting ProjectingObject RelationsLeader—container breastObject hunger/object lossCondensation of oedipal & pre-oedipal object relations via the primal senseBad, externalized object is pervasive Internal world is objectlessNarcissistic Features Over-idealization of leaders Is defence against narcissistic injury Narcissistic Self Object merger with the pair Primary Narcissism Narcissistic RageMythic FeaturesThe leaders is anti-hero, prophet and deityMessianic myths, myth of the birth of the hero, creation mythologiesStruggle between good an evilParadise Lost Roles The “duel” of the leader depends and counter-depends Mary & Joseph Over-personal & Impersonal Flight Leader Fight Leader Biogenetic Care Child rearing & bonding Reproduction & Production Protection of Group from Danger Bion’s Basic Assumptions ( Schermer 2000; McLeod and Kettner-Polley 2004) Psychodynamic Theory

The idea that one can apply key findings in the field of general psychology to understand how groups are formed and how individuals within that group will behave. General Psychology Theoretical Orientations

General Psychology Key Contributors Contributions Leon Festinger Studied under Kurt LewinBest known for theory of cognitive dissonance (discomfort from holding two conflicting beliefs)Also known for social comparison theory (people come to know themselves by comparing self to attitudes, beliefs and abilities of others)Major Contributions:PROXIMITY EFFECT (group formation can be predicted by “propinquity” which is a closer physical and functional distance between people).INFORMAL SOCIAL COMMUNICATION (one of major pressures to communicate in a group comes from “social reality” (the attitudes and opinions of the reference group). People use social reality to determine the validity of their own attitudes and opinions – an opinion or attitude is valid to the extent that it is similar to that of the reference group). GROUP COHESION (cohesion is the willingness of group members to stick together, the degree to which they are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. This is thought to be one of the most important characteristics of a group and linked to group performance, intergroup conflict and therapeutic change. As group cohesiveness increases, member participation and member retention also increase).

General Psychology Key Contributors Contribution Solomon Asch American Gestalt psychologist & social psych pioneer Studied impression formation, prestige suggestion, conformity and other topicsBecame famous in 1950’s for experiments on the effects of social pressures on conformity in groupsConformity is an individual’s tendency to follow unspoken rules or behaviors of a social group, can also be defined as “yielding to group pressure”Asch’s Findings:Group members would give an incorrect answer (i.e. conform) in a group setting one third of the time even though individually they had the correct answer 98% of the time (due to desire not to face ridicule from the rest of the group)Conformity increases as size of group increases up to a group size of 4 -5 (therefore four is considered to be the optimal group size)When even one other person goes against the majority, conformity decreased by up to 80% (suggests that people conform due to concern about what others think of them)The more difficult the task, the greater the conformity (seems to indicate that when we are uncertain, we look to others for confirmation)Conformity decreases when participants are allowed to answer in private (due to reduced group pressure and lowered fear of rejection)People will conform more to opinions of someone who is influential and/or of high status

Groups are complex, adaptive, and dynamic systems of individuals and their interactions-members->units attached via relationships Systems Theory Theoretical Orientations

Systems Theory Key Contributors Contributions Talcott Parsons In 1951 Parsons published two major theoretical works, The Social System and Toward a General Theory of ActionThe Social system attempted to present a general social system theory build systematically from it most basic premises and hence, it featured the idea of an interaction situation based on need-dispositions and facilitated through the basic concepts of cognitive, cathectic and evaluative orientation. Source WikipediaNiklas LuhmannLuhmann's systems theory focuses on three topics, which are interconnected in his entire work. Systems theory as societal theoryCommunication theory andEvolution theory Source Wikipedia The core element of Luhmann's theory is communication. Social systems are systems of communication, and society is the most encompassing social system. Being the social system that comprises all (and only) communication, today's society is a world society. A system is defined by a boundary between itself and its environment, dividing it from an infinitely complex, or (colloquially) chaotic, exterior. The interior of the system is thus a zone of reduced complexity: Communication within a system operates by selecting only a limited amount of all information available outside. Source Wikipedia

Theoretical Orientations Systems Approach 2-MTSU.edu Individual Factors Group Factors Environment Factors Group Process Performance Outcomes Other Outcomes INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT Click Here

Theoretical Orientations Task Field Theory Individual Group Psychology PsychodynamicNarrow Focus Broad Focus Interactive Theory Systems Theory Relationship Environment Illustration of the connection between the theories based on the key units of analysis and how the environment, group and individual impact the theory Source: MSOD 613 Group 6 Click Here

Examples

Examples Larry has an angry outburst during the “storming” stage... #&%$!!

Examples Why did this happen to poor Larry? ? What are all past and present influences on Larry, including his morning coffee, the office layout and his neighbors dog’s tendency to “use” his yard? What happened so far in this meeting today is all you need to explain it. Simply an expected symptom of Stage 2: Storming Larry was not hugged enough as a child. That’s Larry’s “fight” response. No one can have another point of view Field Systems Psychology Interaction Psychoanalysis

Examples Get your popcorn, take a seat, and get ready to sharpen your group dynamics knowledge by watching a movie clip

Examples Thin Slicing Technique (Waller, Sohrab and Ma 2013) Goal : Learn to recognize merging group behavior on a real time basisTechnique: Choose 3 to 5 video-clipsAsk participants to keep in mind the group dynamic themes while they watch the clipsShow a clip and ask them to describe the behaviors they saw (no discussion while watching the clips)Show the clips once moreAgain, ask participants to identify the behaviors they sawEngage in full discussion regarding behaviors observed: Matching the theory or research to clipEvaluating which answers are most suitablePredicting what may happen next, based on what the behaviors that were observed Discuss the most appropriate actions for the leader of the team depicted This is a fast paced visual and oral exercise!

Thin Slicing Technique: Recognizing Emerging Behavior Film Title Suggested Behaviors for Discussion Starting Time Length21 (Spacey, Ratner, Brunetti, DeLuca & Luketic, 2008) Link to MovieSocializing new memberExplaining task interdependence00:30:2400:59Task Conflict, New Team Formation, Cohesion, Conformity, Loss of Leader, Leadership01:27:28 01:17 Apollo 13 (Grazer & Howard, 1995)Link to the Movie) Relationship Conflict, Task Interdependence, Trust/Blame 01:25:11 02:00 Heat (Mann, Linson & Mann, 1995) Movie TrailerPower/Status; Factional Teams, Team Composition, Affect, Emotion & Mood01:10:1500:47 Little Miss Sunshine (Berger, Friendly, Saraf , Turtleataub , Yerxa , Dayton & Faris , 2006) Link to Movie Task Interdependence, Conformity, Escalation of Commitment, Affect, Emotion, and mood. Task Conflict 00:56:25 03:00 Thin Slicing Film Clips Collection (Waller, Mary J et al. 2013) Examples

Application

Applications Elements that May Influence Group Stages and Development As leader or facilitator of the group you will need to keep an eye and understand the following elements that may work for and against group dynamics Size of group : ideal size of 5 to 7 people. Number of participants needs to be in direct relation to the size and complexity of the task to avoid natural splits of sub-groups. Established leader and his/her influence: Leader’s experience in leading teams, Past history of interactions of leader with group; the commitment/willingness to have a leaderless group. Time: how long will the group be working together. More care and time should be taken in building teams that will work together for extended period of time. Physical proximity to others: Geography Emerging Behaviour: How does the Group validate one another? Is there a sense of cohesion? Are participant willing to collaborate? During the Performing stage– is there a tacit agreement toward the majority to maintain peace? Is this a block to further growth? What kinds of behaviours are being observed as a Group or individuals? When are those behaviours triggered? System/organization around them (Is the environment supportive of team work?) Relationship between/among members Individual past history (link to expectations and ideas about groups) Level of individual internal psychological integration– re behaviours such as splitting, projecting, and development of co-dependency on other group members.

Applications How can Group Stages and Development Work for You? Useful It gives the practitioner/leader an idea how generally groups may evolve. Tries to predict human behaviour for both individual and groups The different theories provide us with data of how different dynamics may surfaces– and what do they mean, for example when a group verbally attacks the leader. Theories provide us with a framework to understand/recognise behaviour that may be hidden to the individual. Helps member(s) grow by assisting with their own internal integration, i.e. facilitator/leader calling out those behaviours and dynamics. Harmful Generalizing behaviour by falling into the trap that one size- fits all. Not all groups evolve the same way, this may be due to individual past history, or antecedents of prior work among group members. Justification of an unproductive event by naming it a stage, not leading to change or progress Models don’t fully describe the mechanisms of change, the triggers or the time groups may stay in a particular stages. Some groups may be working at two stage levels at any one time. Models don ’ t consider group sensitivity to outside influence and environmental contingencies Either Socio-emotional relationships within groups relating to leadership, task effecivness, completion

The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation™ (FIRO ® ) instruments help people understand their interpersonal needs and how those needs influence their communication style and behavior—and in the process improve their personal relationships and professional performance.

The FIRO assessments are based on social need theory: all living things seek equilibrium between their basic needs and getting those needs met. They address, gather, and present critical insights around these fundamental areas: How you tend to behave toward others.How you want others to behave toward you. What it does: Helps you in understanding your behavior and its effect on others. Increases your awareness of your natural strengths and weaknesses. Provides suggestion for improving the way in which you relate to others.It’s an instrument for emotional intelligence awarenessSelf –AwarenessCommunicationBuilding RelationshipsConflict ManagementClick Here

Psychodynamic Tools

IN THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE TOTAL EXPRESSED AND WANTED IS LOW Examples Include: Low Expressed Inclusion: “I form relationships based on common interests and skills. “I’d rather “play it safe” than let other know that I want to be included.”Low Wanted Inclusion:May feel invitations are obligations. May not want to be singled out.OVERALL IS LOWExamples Include:Low Expressed Affection: “I believe that too much self-disclosure is unprofessional.”“I know more about colleagues than they know about me.”Low Wanted Affection:May find reassurances as superficial.May become offended by personal questions.Examples Include:Low Expressed Control: “I accept control from those in authority.”“I am not interested in gaining influence.”Low Wanted Control:May not want any control.May find competitive behavior annoying.INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION

So How Does FIRO Fit into Group Dynamics? In the above example, as a leader if you know someone is LOW Expressive and Wanted, you may approach them differently to get them to participate. If you know someone is High Expressive or High Wanted, you may curtail them from participating too often. It can help your group get “unstuck”. GROUP DEVELOPMENT THEORY Source: Consulting Psychologists Press

GROUP DEVELOPMENT THEORY SELF AWARENESS Source: Consulting Psychologists Press So How Does FIRO Fit into Group Dynamics?

Group 6 Reflection

Grou p Reflection Through The Team’s Lens As we were forming, we started with the preconceived idea that the task at hand was quite straight forward. However this was not to be the case – as just the title in itself presented its difficulties: groups stages and development– which we initially read as “Stages of Group Development”. Some of the developmental theories we were reading did not have such a thing as stages; this pushed us to question what we were doing and how we were interpreting the task and Creating Meaning for Ourselves. The creation of meaning also required that each of us made up our own minds around releasing and dealing with our Paradox of Belonging– especially the one around individuality – as we all had competing commitments, personal lives especially in the holiday season, other assignments to read for, other papers, and just having a small but significant break . Until then, it was all about a group of individuals researching particular facets of the assignment and then collating it all together. This moved us to experience the many facets of Interactive theory– i.e. goal/ task, our relationships with one another and the group activity. There were also significant challenges around logistics i.e. location of the group members – some were travelling and in different time zones. These logistical challenges and the experience of understanding and accommodating each other’s working styles moved us into the “storming” stage. The Dynamics at Play

Through The Team’s Lens However, through all this we managed to stay connected and focus ed . As a team we embraced what was new technology for some such as Acrobat Workspaces, which we used to update new versions of docs that we were working on. Overall our group had/s a fairly positive outlook - and we did not see any of the Base Assumptions come to the fore. All voices were heard when in attendance, and decisions were made around plausibility, time constraints, skill set , risk and time management (e.g. how much more to research, how much to debate etc., and when to get on and execute.) This level of cooperation denoted the “norming” stage. Paradox of Commitment – we managed that by having minutes for meetings to remind each other what we have said, what to do and by when…for some members the deadlines meant a way to challenge themselves (Myer-Brigs P’s) while for others it meant delivering at all costs (J’s). During this project our J’s came to the fore…and felt rather anxious and fighting not to do more (research/reading) to cover perceived gaps. As a group we managed our collective angst by accepting feedback, pursuing leads that were provided by other group members, and by being extremely open to suggestions while still remaining task focused. Grou p Reflection The Dynamics at Play

Through The Team’s Lens As we grew more comfortable with one another, as well as with the fact that we had most of our basis covered – we were able to release the Paradox of Creativity – that is embrace making up new– such as incorporating new research and interpretation as well new ways of presenting our material i.e. website. We managed collectiv ely to create a “Reflective Space” for all. Towards the end of our project we moved to a stage where we were both task and people oriented (“performing”)., with high levels of morale and contribution by all members of the team. Laugh Barometer: We did chat for about a good 10 to 12 hours all up. What became apparent was that the laugh barometer got louder– in spite of the deadline getting closer. Rework– as with any human interaction there was a spanner thrown for good measure (feedback from our Professor)– and some healthy debate– we finally experienced what is called Advanced Group Development that is continue to express our POVs, felt that one is heard, and after agreement continue to move on with fear of any repercussion in a virtual environment that was psychologically safe. Grou p Reflection The Dynamics at Play

Additional Resources

Additional Resources Sources for Additional Information on Each Orientation Interactive Theory Bales Robert (2005): Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Stufy of Small Groups (link)Bales Robert (1999): Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement (link)Homans GC (1991): The Human Group: Classics in Organization and Management (link)Homans GC (1977): Behavioral Theory in Sociology: Essays in Honor of George C. Homans (link) Whyte WF (1991): Social Theory for Action: How Individuals and Organizations Learn to Change (link ) Whyte WF (!993): Sociological Forum, Vol.8, No.2: Revisiting Street Corner Society ( link ) Field Theory Fairfield M.A. (2004). Gestalt Groups Revisited: A Phenomenological Approach. Gestalt Review, 8(3): 336-357. (link)Forsyth D.R. (2006) Group Dynamics, Introduction to Group Dynamics. Chapter 1. Thompson Learning Inc. (link) Yalom , I. D. and Leszcz , M.(2005) The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. 5 th Edition . Perseus Books Group, Cambridge. General Psychology Kurt W. Back, Stanly Schachter Leon Festinger : Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing , ( link ) Perceived Cohesion: A Conceptual and Empirical Examination ( link )Group Processes ( link ) Overviews of Leon Festinger and his work ( link ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Asch http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm http://psychology.about.com/od/socialinfluence/f/conformity.htm McLeod, S. A. (2008). Asch Experiment. Retrieved from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/13/asch-elevator-experiment/ http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Aschs-Conformity-Study.pdf http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/socialpsychology/section8.rhtml

Additional Resources Sources for Additional Information on Each Orientation Systems Theory Systems Theory: ( link ) Talcott Parsons: (link)Niklas Luhmann: (link)Psychodynamic TheoryBion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in Groups and other Papers. Routledge, London, Great Britain. Eniko, A and Barna, K. The Evolution of a Psychodrama Training Group From the Perspective of the Group Process. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research, 2013, 21 (1) May, 91-104. Mcleod, P. L and Kettner-Polley, R. B. (2004) Contributions of Psychodynamic Theories to Understanding Small Groups. Small Group Research (35) pp 333-361. On-line version: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/35/3/333 Poole, M. S. and Holligshead , A. B. et al. (2004) Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Small Groups . Small Group Research (35) 3-16. On-line version: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/35/13 Ringer, T. M (2002) Group Action-The Dynamics of Groups in Therapeutic, Educational and Corporate Settings. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Schermer , V. L (2000). Beyond Bion : The Basic Assumptions States Revisited in Bion and Group Psychotherapy, Malcolm Pines, ed. London, Jessica Kingsley. pp139-149. Smith, K. K. And Berg, D N. (1987) A Paradoxical Conception of Group Dynamics. Human Relations, (40), pp 633-658. On-line version http://hum.sagepub.com/content/40/10/633.Smith, K. K. And Berg, David N. (1987) Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis and Movement in Group Dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.