Group Theories and Models

Group Theories and Models

            Facilitating groups and working with teams requires practitioners to utilize or consider group theories and models.  Since the 1950s various models from major theorists have been prescribed and implemented throughout the field.  Such approaches include the Sequential Model, Life Cycle Model, Cyclic Model, Equilibrium Model, and Adaptive/Nonsequential Model.  In this regard, when employing means of group development, facilitators must demonstrate proficiency and comprehension in order to appropriately assess and execute proper procedures (Wheelan, 2005).  This ability allows him or her to advantageously apply these models and theories within group practices, enabling participants to achieve favorable results.  Hence, the ensuing information defines and discusses such concepts.

            The first model illustrated is referred to as the sequential model.  This framework was introduced by Bennis and Shepard (1956) and demonstrated by other prominent researchers in particular Tuckman (1965) and later Tuckman and Jenson (1977).  The basic concept describes group development in a methodical, chronological manner.  In effort to expound upon the sequential model, Bennis and Shepard pioneered the study of T-groups which aim to teach and develop group processes among participants as well as promote interpersonal relations.  These aims are separated into two phases.  Phase one deals with dependence while the second phase concerns intimacy and interdependence matters.  Furthermore, Bennis and Shepard breakdown the phases of the sequential model into subphases.  The subphases of the dependence phase include dependency/flight, counterdependency/fight, and resolution/catharsis.  Then, phase two consists of enchantment/flight, disenchantment/ fight, and resolution/catharsis (Wheelan, 2005).  In order to grasp a comprehensive understanding of the sequential model an overview of the subphases is provided hereafter.    

            To begin with, dependency/flight is the initial step in which group participants seek guidance, understanding, and purpose from the leader or facilitator.  Often, individuals are apprehensive or reluctant, in need of motivation.  As the facilitator offers direction, clarification, and support, group members perceive him or her as knowledgeable and compassionate.  These considerations exemplify dependency.  The flight portion of the subphase transpires as participants attempt to avoid tasks.  Instead of focusing on goals and practices associated therein, individuals seek security and togetherness among their peers (Wheelan, 2005).

            The second subphase of dependence is counterdependency/fight.  This refers to the manner in which the facilitator refrains from completely expressing the group’s status or level of development.  Typically, some members are irritated and lose confidence in the facilitator’s abilities while other members maintain reliability towards the facilitator.  As a result the group becomes divided into opposing sides, counterdependents versus dependents.  From the ranks of those which oppose the facilitator, some may challenge the agenda.  Yet those which support the facilitator fight to thwart such challenges (Wheelan, 2005).

            As group members merge into the final subphase of dependence, resolution/catharsis, they become aware of the fact that their divided efforts have been impeding progress.  This takes place as certain members, independents, serve as mediators among the disputing parties.  Additionally, although the facilitator remains a valuable resource, participants begin to formulate their own course of action (Wheelan, 2005).

            Now, once the dependence phase diminishes, group members segue into the second phase with emphasis on intimacy and interdependence.  More specifically, the fourth subphase, enchantment/flight, occurs.  Initially this step is seemingly pleasant.  However, as members neglect their differences they encumber the ability to effectively and progressively communicate.  Undoubtedly participants’ culture, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, career, level of education as well as other dynamics vary from person to person.  Yet, as they bond with others within the group, the experience may conflict with external group associations.  Hence, group members may develop as sense of hypocrisy.  At times they may feel as if ‘self-in-group’ is not true to the ‘true self’ (Wheelan, 2005).

            Next, group members become disenchanted and fight.  Once again, two subgroups develop with differing perspectives on the quality of interpersonal relations and intimacy levels.  Overpersonals desire to maintain intimate communiqué while underpersonals object intimacy.  Subsequent to these realizations, independents come forward and mediate the situation (Wheelan, 2005).

            The final subphase of the sequential model is resolution/catharsis.  This step occurs as group norms are fostered which embody cultural diversity and awareness.  Relations among group members are genuine, encouraging self-expression and a developmental learning environment (Wheelan, 2005).

            Furthermore, Bennis and Shepard convey the fact that the aforementioned phases of the sequential model may vary from group to group.  Groups may terminate early on or experience difficulties throughout (Wheelan, 2005).

            In addition to Bennis and Shepard’s sequential model, numerous models utilizing ordered stages are recommended.  From these, Tuckman (1965) constructed a sequential model consisting of the following stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing.  Later on (1977), along with Jensen, a supplementary phase, adjourning, was added (Wheelan, 2005).  These phases are illustrated below:

1)  Forming – (Orientation): Group members get acquainted, tend to be

apprehensive, and outline various tasks.

2)  Storming – (Conflict): Roles and requirements are debated, differing views are

expressed.

3)      Norming – (Structure): Tasks towards goals are executed in a persistent manner

as interpersonal relations strengthen.

4)      Performing – (Work): Completion of tasks is the focal interest once the group

learns how to work effectively.

5)      Adjourning – (Dissolution): The group process concludes favorably or fails to

            achieve positive results (Levi, 2011, p. 40).

Similar to Bennis and Shepard, Tuckman and Jensen’s Sequential Model follows a systematic progression.  Additionally, groups may or may not realize each step or complete the full process (Levi, 2011).

            Although the previously mentioned methods suggest groups develop in stages, others argue group development occurs in repetitive cycles.  Generally, cyclic models advise that issues or events may persist and reappear at various instances throughout the group process.  Furthermore, as with sequential models, several practitioners prescribe varying cyclic models.  Of these, Bion (1959) and Parsons (1961) are highlighted (Wheelan, 2005).

            First, Bion considered opposing groups, the work group and the basic assumption group.  Throughout the group process, the work group stays on task in effort to achieve goals while the basic assumption group refrains from completing tasks and fights or flees from the facilitator or productive group members.  These actions are similar to those expressed by Bennis and Shepard’s dependency substages.  The major variance is the fact that in Bion’s opinion, such realizations may take place at any time with no respect of order (Wheelan, 2005).

            Next, Parsons demonstrated four phases among groups.  These include latent pattern maintenance (L), adaptation (A), goal attainment (G), and integration (I) as described in the following:

1)      Latent Pattern Maintenance – Behavioral patterns are established and maintained, norms developed.

2)      Adaptation – The group organizes and establishes role expectancies.

3)      Goal Attainment – Tasks are performed in order to achieve goals.

4)      Integration – Organizational modifications are incorporated to benefit group functionality (Wheelan, 2005, pp. 10-11).

Although the order of these stages is debatable and varies dependant upon the group in question, the cycle is repetitious (Wheelan, 2005). 

            Another model of group development is the life cycle model.  Such methods imply that group processes correspond to life.  More specifically, “groups are born, develop, mature, and eventually die” (Wheelan, 2005, p. 11).  In comparison to sequential models, life cycle models utilize chronological stages.  However, the final stage, termination is more emphasized.

            Again, quite a few versions of the life cycle model are shown.  For these purposes, Burnand (1990) and Mann (1975) are illustrated respectively.

Burnand: Specific Focal Issues

Stage 1 – Members are reliant upon the facilitator seeking acceptance and guidance.

Stage 2 – Conflict ensues as group norms are established.

Stage 3 – The facilitator is disregarded as the group focuses on completing tasks.

Stage 4 – Members become more intimate as they divide into subgroups.

Stage 5 – Boundaries are set, members endeavor to unite.

Stage 6 – Individual and group aspirations are realized (Wheelan, 2005, p. 11).

Mann: Group Conversation Analysis

Stage 1 – Dependency.

Stage 2 – Member apprehension and conflict.

Stage 3 – Dissatisfaction increases.

Stage 4 – Dissatisfaction and conflict decreases with emphasis on task completion.

Stage 5 – Separation and dissolution (Wheelan, 2005, p. 11).

            The fourth type of group development models, equilibrium models, regard group stability.  This consideration is demonstrated in robust equilibrium and punctuated equilibrium.  Robust equilibrium speculates that initially group interaction wavers yet stabilizes as time progresses.  Although punctuated equilibrium exercises these beliefs, additionally this premise features excessive change.  Afterwards, phases of change are followed by stability once again as the group transitions throughout the latter stages of the process (Wheelan, 2005).

            The final model displayed is the adaptive/nonsequential model.  Within this approach, internal and external factors influence the quality of group interaction.  Hence, environment, individual perspective, or personal circumstances affect interpersonal relations, behavioral patterns, conflict, and change.  Additionally, another form of this model considers the complexity theory and defines groups as complex adaptive systems.  Such systems are comprised of interconnected individuals with the ability to alter conditions and predict prospective incidents (Wheelan, 2005). 

            As mentioned beforehand, these models mirror and contrast one another.  In terms of the sequential and life models, both utilize systematic order yet describe such stages in varying ways.  Also, both models illustrate comparative features to the cyclic models such as dependency, conflict, flight, and task or goal achievement.  In addition, resistance, relapse, inactivity, and repetition commence throughout varying models.  “These similarities among models have led some researchers to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that all groups face a basic set of developmental tasks” (Wheelan, 2005, p. 13).

            From a personal perspective past experiences have realized certain aspects of all four of these models.  However, the sequential model has been the most prevalent.  Typically, when starting a new class or group intake features outlined by Tuckman and Jenson come about.  A specific case involved a fraternal process.  Initially, aspirants (group members) were introduced to one another and acclimated to the process.  During this forming stage the level of apprehension and uncertainty were high and participants were quite dependant upon the dean (group leader).  Maintaining his favor was imperative.  As the aspirants entered the storming phase, personalities and interests conflicted.  Once the norming phase began, members acted as a collective unit and refrained from depending upon the dean, relying upon one another instead.  By the time the performing stage presented itself aspirants were completing service programs, planning social functions, meeting regularly for study sessions, and exercising daily as a unit.  Although the adjourning phase signified the end of the process and concluded with the ultimate goal, attaining brotherhood, it was merely the beginning of a new existence.  This group process, when effectively administered, equips members with the tools, knowledge, ability, confidence, and camaraderie to maintain interpersonal relations and succeed in this multi-faceted global society.

            In conclusion, practitioners should be aware of the varying models and theories of group development.  The sequential, life cycle, cyclic, equilibrium, and adaptive/nonsequential models encompass several dynamics worth consideration which must be appropriately applied.  Although researchers debate or prescribe varying approaches, several similarities exist.  Noting these commonalities coupled with the ability to differentiate among group development models are vital to group processes. 

References:

Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Wheelan, S. (2005). Group process: A developmental perspective (2^nd ed.). Boston:

Pearson Education Inc.