Stages in Groups and Leadership

 Stages in Groups and Leadership

            When working with a team or group, various stages and sequences inevitably take place as the group develops.  These stages, as outlined by Wheelan (2005), respectively consist of; Stage 1: Dependency and Inclusion, Stage 2: Counterdependency and Fight, Stage 3: Trust and Structure, and Stages 4 and 5: Work and Termination.  As the leader or facilitator of a group, a range of issues arise over the course of each stage.  Accordingly, it is imperative for the leader to display proficiency in assisting the group in order for group members to favorably mature through these stages.  In particular, leadership behaviors should be considered correspondingly to each phase.  Also, based on Judge & Bono, 2000; Judge et al., 2002,  “individuals who are high in extraversion, openness to experience, emotional stability, and conscientiousness emerge more frequently as leaders and tend to be more effective in their leadership roles (Schaumberg & Flynn, 2012).  Furthermore, as a leader, one ought to have a self awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses.  Such factors are pertinent to the success of group processes.

            During the initial stage, dependency and inclusion, groups establish relationships, cohesion, goals, tasks, role expectations, and structure.  Thus, forming effective communication is essential.  At this point, group members tend to be apprehensive and insecure due to the fact they are unaccustomed to group support systems (GSS) and may not know what to anticipate.  Hence, it is critical for the facilitator to ease these uncertainties by addressing, directing, and coordinating tasks and procedures (Wheelan, 2005).  According to Pavitt (1999), leaders provide “those functions that are instrumental in guiding a group to its goals, and a ‘leader’ is a group member who regularly performs at least some of these functions” (Wheelan, 2005, p. 54).  Therefore, the leader plays an active, dual role.  Additional leadership obligations include establishing rapport and trust.  Group members must regard the leader as competent as well as compassionate.  Failing to attain this manner of respect is detrimental resulting in defiance and noncompliance (Ehrhart, 2012).

            Now, in effort to address and overcome issues throughout Stage 1, the leader should exercise appropriate behaviors.  More specifically, exhibiting certain traits is critical.  Stoghill (1948, 1974) prescribes these attributes as task-related, social. and motivational skills.  In addition, Carter (1954) offers that leaders maintain group goal facilitation, sociability, and individual prominence which parallel Stoghill’s beliefs (Wheelan, 2005).  Contrarily, lacking such traits obstructs the group process and development.  Furthermore, the leader’s assuredness, uncertainty, or complacency may deter the group.  Overconfidence or the lack thereof has a tendency to foster contempt.  Also, if the leader becomes complacent as the group proceeds throughout the introductory phase, he or she may have difficulty entering into successive stages (Wheelan, 2005).

            Next, the counterdependency and fight period, Stage 2, is characterized as turbulent and divergent.  Group members may find it challenging to comprehend aspirations and expectancies or realize the value of GSS.  Upholding boundaries presents difficulties as well.  In addition, subgroups may formulate in which members either support or disapprove of leadership.  No longer is everyone dependent upon the leader.  As some group members begin to realize their own power or further question leadership competence, a divide occurs.  The subgroups create conflict in which opposing parties quarrel amongst one another.  In addition, group roles transform in which members start to take on personal responsibility.  Hence, the leader is faced with new challenges as the group transitions.  In response to such concerns, a leader’s greatest tool is awareness.  Possessing an awareness of the disputes, complexities, and hostilities which may present themselves grants foresight which enables the facilitator to make choices with the groups’ best interest in mind.  However, leaders which fail to recognize, accept, and cope with conflict and emerging roles or perspectives impede progress and prolong the phase.  One should refrain from being threatened by such occurrences (Wheelan, 2005).

            As the third stage, trust and structure, presents itself, group members continue to seek clarity in terms of task performance and goals.  Adjustments continue to take place.  Although increased cohesion, tolerance, and trust are realized, underlying pressures become evident causing additional conflict.  Group members start to question their motives and actions based on external realizations in relation to factors such as gender, ethnicity, culture, and socio-economic status (Wheelan, 2005).  They may feel as if they are incapable of conveying “behaviors and attitudes that demonstrate the roles he or she plays in other groups that make up his or her sense of self” (Wheelan, 2005, p. 9).  Within this phase the leader emerges into the essence of a facilitator.  In these instances, the leader is viewed as a consultant or mentor.  A more detailed illustration of the leadership role in Stage 3 is outlined as follows:

1)      Autocratic I – leader uses relative information to settle issues devoid of group contribution.

2)      Autocratic II – leader considers group information in order to seek resolve.

3)      Consultative I – leader considers the input of those directly affected by the issue, and then reaches a resolve.

4)      Consultative II – leader shares the issue with the collective in pursuit of feedback, and then reaches a resolve.

5)      Group II – both the leader and the collective discuss the issues and select a resolve (Wheelan, 2005, p. 83).

Furthermore, the leader must be capable of selecting the appropriate leadership style according to the dynamics of the group.  The greatest deterrent at this stage is the inability to choose a suitable approach or lacking adequate information (Wheelan, 2005).

            The final stages of group development, work and termination, entails task performance and productivity in lieu of goals resulting in a constructive conclusion of the group process.  During these closing phases, efficiency is critical.  At this time, many consider certain roles or expectations of the leader as having been dispersed or delegated to group members, demonstrating a democratic approach.  This may exemplify effectual leadership on behalf of the facilitator.  Yet others desire the leader to remain as active, persuasive, and involved as within previous stages, referred to as an autocratic style.  Ostensibly, the leadership style should be tailored to the given situation or status of the group (Wheelan, 2005).  Although these methods are arguable, other actions or behaviors are generally deemed unfavorable.  In particular, leaders that do not relate to the group decrease overall productivity, negating favorable outcomes (Wheelan, 2005).

            Additional elements to consider are the personal strengthens and weaknesses associated with the leadership role and group processes.  First, as a leader, the contributor is confident in his abilities to facilitate and manage teams throughout group development.  Past experience, training, and education are key tools in achieving such achievements.  Although it is important to refrain from audaciousness, one must realize his or her abilities and essentially exercise such in effort to assist, guide, support, and gain the confidence of those in his or her care.  He has served in various managerial, training, and leadership roles which have enhanced his proficiency and level of comfort, enabling him to offer beneficial tutelage.  However, one must equally consider his or her limitations.  Personally, the greatest obstacles to overcome involve the perceptions of others.  Often, as a young black male aged thirty-five appearing to be a twenty-something, people perceive one to be unknowledgeable, inexperienced, or incapable of addressing various relevant issues or merely maintaining a conversation of substance.  Additionally, while former experience is valuable, supplementary tools are required to advantageously assist individuals in future endeavors.  Furthermore, personal bias concerning differing religious beliefs may hamper efficient leadership.  Coming from a Christian background, certain practices and lifestyles are regarded as unacceptable or problematic triggers.  In consideration of the aforementioned factors, one should remain objective and aim to assist individuals within the group in suitable manner in spite of.

            In closing, leaders persuade the actions and thoughts of team or group members by helping them relate to one another and alter the manner in which they perceive themselves (Johnson, Venus, Lanaj, Mao, & Chang, 2012).  As group members progress throughout the stages of development, leaders are challenged to sustain such realizations.  Therefore, as a leader, one must consider the difficulties which are revealed throughout the process.  Moreover, as the leader one must ponder upon their own strengthens, weaknesses, and biases which may persuade or construe their vantage, impeding group processes.  The ability to generate conditions which enhance functionality, productivity, and favorable outcomes is essential (Wheelan, 2005).        

References:

Ehrhart, M.G. (2012). Self-concept, implicit leadership theories, and follower preferences

for leadership. Journal of Psychology, 220(4), 231-240.

Johnson, R.E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C. (2012). Leader identity as an

antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration,

and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance online

publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029043.

Schaumberg, R.L. & Flynn, F.J. (2012). Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown: The

link between guilt proneness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 103(2), 327-342.

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

Pearson Education Inc.

 

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.