The goal of most research on group development is to learn why and how small groups change over time. To quality of the output produced by a group, the type and frequency of its activities, its cohesiveness, the existence of group conflict.
A number of theoretical models have been developed to explain how certain groups change over time. Listed below are some of the most common models. In some cases, the type of group being considered influenced the model of group development proposed as in the case of therapy groups. In general, some of these models view group change as regular movement through a series of "stages", while others view them as "phases" that groups may or may not go through and which might occur at different points of a group's history. Attention to group development over time has been one of the differentiating factors between the study of ad hoc groups and the study of teams such as those commonly used in the workplace, the military, sports and many other contexts.
Theories and models In the early 1970s, Hill and Grunner reported that more than 100 theories of group development existed.Hill, W. F., & Gruner, L. (1973). A study of development in open and closed groups. Small Group Behavior, 4(3), 355–381. Since then, other theories have emerged as well as attempts at contrasting and synthesizing them. As a result, a number of typologies of group change theories have been proposed. A typology advanced by George Smith (2001) based on the work of Mennecke and his colleagues (1992) classifies theories based on whether they perceive change to occur in a linear fashion, through cycles of activities, or through processes that combine both paths of change, or which are completely non-phasic. Other typologies are based on whether the primary forces promoting change and stability in a group are internal or external to the group. A third framework advanced by Andrew Van de Ven and Marshall Scott Poole (1995), differentiates theories based on four distinct "motors" for generating change.Van de Ven, A., Poole, M. S. (1996). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 510–540 According to this framework, the following four types of group development models exist:
Life cycle models:Describe the process of change as the unfolding of a prescribed and linear sequence of stages following a program that is prefigured at the beginning of the cycle (decided within the group or imposed on it).Teleological models:Describe change as a purposeful movement toward one or more goals, with adjustments based on feedback from the environment.Dialectical models:Describe change as emerging from conflict between opposing entities and eventual synthesis leading to the next cycle of conflictEvolutionary models:Describe change as emerging from a repeated cycle of variation, selection and retention and generally apply to change in a population rather than change within an entity over time.
Some theories allow for combinations and interactions among these four "motors". For example, Poole (see below) found in his empirical research that seemingly complex patterns of behavior in group decision-making result from the interplay of life-cycle and teleological motors.
An important observation made by McGrath and Tschan in 2004 regarding the different models of group development found in the literature is that different models might explain different aspects of the history of a group.McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Temporal matters in social psychology: Examining the role of time in the lives of groups and individuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. On the one hand, some models treat the group as an entity and describe its stages of development as a functioning unit or "intact system" (p. 101). In this case, the models should be independent of the specific details of the task that the group is performing. On the other hand, some models might describe phases of the group's task performance and, because of this, tend to be very sensitive to the type of task that the group is engaged in (the "acting system", p. 101).
Below are descriptions of the central elements of some of the most common models of group development (See Smith, 2001 Smith, G. (2001) Group development: A review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions. Group Facilitation; 3, pp. 14–45 and Van de Ven & Poole, 1996 for a more complete list of theories and models).
Kurt Lewin's individual change process The first systematic study of group development was carried out by Kurt Lewin, who introduced the term "group dynamics".Arrow, H., Henry, K. B., Poole, M. S., Wheelan, S. A., & Moreland, R. L. (2005). Traces, trajectories, and timing: The temporal perspective on groups. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. His ideas about mutual, cross-level influence and quasi-stationary equilibria, although uncommon in the traditional empirical research on group development, have resurged recently. His early model of individual change, which has served as the basis of many models of group development, described change as a three-stage process: unfreezing, change, and freezing.
Unfreezing: This phase involves overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing "mind set". Defense mechanisms have to be bypassed. Change In the second stage change occurs. This is typically a period of confusion and transition. One is aware that the old ways are being challenged but does not have a clear picture to replace them with yet. Freezing In the third stage the new mindset is crystallizing and one's comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as "refreezing".Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1 (1), 5–41.
Tuckman's Stages model Bruce Tuckman reviewed about fifty studies of group development (including Bales' model) in the mid-sixties and synthesized their commonalities in one of the most frequently cited models of group development (Tuckman, 1965).Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. Tuckman's model of group development describes four linear stages (forming, storming, norming, and performing) that a group will go through in its unitary sequence of decision making. A fifth stage (adjourning) was added in 1977 when a new set of studies were reviewed (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Org. Studies 2:419-27
Forming:Group members learn about each other and the task at hand. Indicators of this stage might include: Unclear objectives, Uninvolvement, Uncommitted members, Confusion, Low morale, Hidden feelings, Poor listening, etc. A leadership strategy to help groups that are forming is to act as a "coordinator" by helping to "set the stage" (i.e., purposefully pick the team, facilitate group goals, and create a team shared mental model) (Manges et al., 2016).Storming:As group members continue to work, they will engage each other in arguments about the structure of the group which often are significantly emotional and illustrate a struggle for status in the group. These activities mark the storming phase: Lack of cohesion, Subjectivity, Hidden agendas, Conflicts, Confrontation, Volatility, Resentment, anger, Inconsistency, Failure. A leadership strategy to help groups that are storming is to act as a "coach" by helping to "resolve conflict and tension" (i.e., act as a resource, develop mutual trust, calm the work environment) (Manges et al., 2016). Norming: Group members establish implicit or explicit rules about how they will achieve their goal. They address the types of communication that will or will not help with the task. Indicators include: Questioning performance, Reviewing/clarifying objectives, Changing/confirming roles, Opening risky issues, Assertiveness, Listening, Testing new ground, Identifying strengths and weaknesses. A leadership strategy to help groups that are norming and performing is to "empower" to help the team "successfully implement and sustain projects" (i.e., allow for the transfer of leadership, seek feedback from staff, set time aside for planning and engaging the team) (Manges et al., 2016).Performing: Groups reach a conclusion and implement the solution to their issue. Indicators include: Creativity, Initiative, Flexibility, Open relationships, Pride, Concern for people, Learning, Confidence, High morale, Success, etc.Adjourning:As the group project ends, the group disbands in the adjournment phase. This phase was added when Tuckman and Jensen's updated their original review of the literature in 1977. During the adjourning stage, the leader should transition into a supporting role in order to expand the initiative (i.e., create future leadership opportunities for the group members) (Manges et al., 2016).
Each of the five stages in the Forming-storming-norming-performing-adjourning model proposed by Tuckman involves two aspects: interpersonal relationships and task behaviors. Such a distinction is similar to Bales' (1950) Bales, R. F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-Wesley. equilibrium model which states that a group continuously divides its attention between instrumental (task-related) and expressive (socioemotional) needs.
As Gersick (1988) Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. The Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 9–41. has pointed out, some later models followed similar sequential patterns. Examples include: define the situation, develop new skills, develop appropriate roles, carry out the work (Hare, 1976);Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. orientation, dissatisfaction, resolution, production, termination (LaCoursiere, 1980);Lacoursiere, R. B. (1980). The life cycle of groups. New York: Human Sciences Press. and generate plans, ideas, and goals; choose & agree on alternatives, goals, and policies; resolve conflicts and develop norms; perform action tasks and maintain cohesion (McGrath, 1984).McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Tubbs' systems model
Stewart Tubbs "systems" approach to studying small group interaction led him to the creation of a four-phase model of group development:
Orientation: In this stage, group members get to know each other, they start to talk about the problem, and they examine the limitations and opportunities of the project. Conflict: Conflict is a necessary part of a group's development. Conflict allows the group to evaluate ideas and it helps the group conformity and groupthink Consensus: Conflict ends in the consensus stage, when group members compromise, select ideas, and agree on alternatives. Closure In this stage, the final result is announced and group members reaffirm their support of the decision.
Fisher's theory of decision emergence in groups
Fisher outlines four phases through which task groups tend to proceed when engaged in decision making. By observing the distribution of act-response pairs (a.k.a. "interacts") across different moments of the group process, Fisher noted how the interaction changed as the group decision was formulated and solidified. His method pays special attention to the "content" dimension of interactions by classifying statements in terms of how they respond to a decision proposal (e.g. agreement, disagreement, etc.).