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 (2nd ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education
Inc.
