Module 1: Group Work Theories
PART V: The Dynamics of Group Development
Group members use communication to form a social group with a unique group culture. Through interaction, groups establish their roles within the group, as well as rules or expectations for each other. They solve problems and make decisions as they progress toward completion of the group’s goals (Anderson, Riddle, & Martin, 1999).
The elements of group communication consist of the group members and the skills and experiences they bring to the group; their messages and ways of communicating with the group (e.g., task-focused, with humour, with frustration, etc.); the physical context (e.g., a public work area, a private conference room, or via teleconference); channels of communication (e.g., email, group chat, teleconference, in person); verbal and nonverbal feedback; and barriers to successful communication (e.g., physical or mental noise or discomfort) (Engleberg & Wynn 2017).
According to Anderson, Riddle, and Martin (1999), the group socialization process can be broken down into five phases:
- Antecedent phase: when members express their beliefs and attitudes about group work based on previous experience.
- Anticipatory phase: when individuals decide what they want to get from group membership and their expectations of others in the group.
- Encounter phase: when individuals first meet to establish group goals, roles, and expectations. A Group Charter (see Module 3) can be helpful in facilitating these discussions and codifying the results.
- Assimilation phase: when members begin to identify with the group. This may include rituals, such as starting meetings with brief personal catch-ups or having members bring snacks to share.
- Exit phase: when members exit learning or working groups.
Developing Group Dynamics
Group socialization is an important part of group development with its own outcomes. Group socialization leads to stronger group cohesion that compels individuals to remain in and contribute to the group, improving the group’s success. Communication is a large part of group socialization requiring three components: 1) consensus around member roles; 2) judgement of the group’s progress; and 3) freedom of group interactions (Heslin & Dunphy, 1964). Rather than enforcing majority rule in decision-making, creating consensus through communication leads to stronger results in terms of group cohesion (DeStephen & Hirokawa, 1988).
The group’s structure will be impacted by the size of the group, the purpose or goal of the group, the availability of resources, the group’s attitude depending on both internal and external factors, and level of informal and formal networking within the group. Group communication is impacted by the group’s size and structure (Ellis & Fisher 1994). The group may be structured around a central leader, or it may be decentralized with group members communicating with each other as required (Engleberg & Wynn 2017).
A group has both transactional and task processes. A good way to lay the foundation for a functional group is to start with introductions including each other’s names, but also a little about each person’s strengths or weaknesses. What can they contribute to the task? What common ground can be established between group members? What are your shared or conflicting priorities, personal agendas, and expectations of the task or project? Understand each other’s external time commitments and communication preferences. All this information can be shared via asking questions and listening to answers in a collegial manner.
In the 1960s, Jack Gibb developed categories of opposing defensive and supportive group climates. As Gibb suggested, “One way to understand communication is to view it as a people process rather than a language process. If one is to make fundamental improvement in communication, one must make changes in interpersonal relationships” (DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION n.d., n.p.). The point is to recognize when personal and/or linguistic behaviours are impeding or promoting successful communication and teamwork.
We have all witnessed, or even been guilty of, exhibiting defensive behaviours. The problem with defensiveness in a group is that it distracts from the collaborative task and erodes the group dynamic. A defensive actor devotes most of their energy to being defensive, trying to impress, or trying to dominate. Having one defensive group member tends to rub off on the others, making them similarly defensive. Communication, both in terms of listening and responding, becomes defensive and communication is no longer successful. Ultimately, the group is incapable of working towards the task and the project falters (DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION n.d.).
Conversely, a more supportive behavioural environment reduces the defensiveness of all group members, enabling them to concentrate on the intended messages of the communication and proceed with the task. Their energies are devoted to the shared project, rather than being distracted by defensiveness (DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION n.d.).
Over eight years of research, Gibb developed six pairs of variables to determine defensive or supportive communication. The behaviours listed in the left column below tend to evoke defensiveness, while those in the related right column are perceived as supportive and thereby reduce defensiveness in the group dynamic.
Gibb’s Defensive and Supportive Group Behaviours
| Defensive Group Behaviours | Supportive Group Behaviours | |
| Evaluation: judging others | ⇔ | Description: describing others’ behaviours |
| Control: imposing solutions | ⇔ | Problem Orientation: mutually agreeable solutions |
| Strategy: manipulating | ⇔ | Spontaneity: open, honest constructive comments |
| Neutrality: appearing indifferent | ⇔ | Empathy: recognizing others’ feelings |
| Superiority: self-promoting | ⇔ | Equality: believing everyone can contribute |
| Certainty: inflexible | ⇔ | Provisionalism: offering ideas and accepting suggestions |
See DEFENSIVE COMMUNICATION (n.d.) for a detailed discussion and examples of these dichotomies.
Myers-Briggs Personality Types
What sort of person are you? The type of person you are will impact how you function within a group, and the development of the group’s dynamics as you work together. Based in Jungian psychology, Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in the mid-1900s. Although it has sometimes been criticized, it is still commonly used to assess personality types. The system is based on four preference pairs:
| Extraversion | ⇔ | Introversion |
| Sensing | ⇔ | Intuition |
| Thinking | ⇔ | Feeling |
| Judging | ⇔ | Perceiving |
When combined, these four preference pairs make up sixteen personality types. Additional information, including where to take the test, can be found on the Myers and Briggs Foundation website.
Tuckman’s Model
In 1965, Bruce Tuckman published the article Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. This survey article indicated similarities between group formation in a variety of contexts, leading him to propose a series of steps that now seem familiar.
| Forming | At this initial stage, group members are on their best behaviour as they first meet. |
| Storming | As individual members begin to assess their places in the group, some conflict is almost inevitable; however, it can be productive if members remain respectful in their communication with each other and focus on their shared end goals. |
| Norming | The group starts to gel and cohere, creating a more stable and productive work environment. Leaders have emerged and individual members are more confident of their roles in the group. Although smoother sailing, groups can slip back into the Storming stage again, and often vacillate between these two stages as work progresses. |
| Performing | Ideally, a sense of synergy is reached with group members working fairly smoothly towards completion of a task. |
In 1977, Tuckman added a final phase called Adjourning, acknowledging the separation of group members either because the task has been completed or for some other reason. This stage of completion and disbanding is a time for both celebration and mourning.
Conflict Management and Belbin’s Team Roles
“Conflict in inevitable, combat is optional.”
Max Lucado
In terms of group dynamics, while striving for cohesion, groups must recognize the possibilities for conflict. Avoiding conflict often leads to swallowing negative emotions, becoming passive-aggressive, not sharing ideas, and subsequent groupthink that may not lead to the best results. We tend to think of conflict in negative terms, and yet from conflict, sometimes the best and brightest ideas can emerge. It all depends on how that inevitable conflict is managed. If group members disagree, that could lead to turmoil and the destruction of the group. It could also lead to ideas being challenged and critically discussed, with the potential for ideas to merge in unexpected ways, and a powerful synergy that creates a unique idea incorporating the best of both options.
To understand the basis of conflict, it is important to understand the source of the conflict. Is there a misunderstanding in communication? Is there a personality conflict? A disagreement about the group’s goals, or about how to reach the group’s goals? How can the individuals in the disagreement find resolution? What can the group do to support resolution and progress as a group?
Based in research in the 1970s, Meredith Belbin discovered the nine Belbin Team Roles | Belbin, each with given strengths and weaknesses, which can be broken into three general areas: social, thinking, and action. A well-balanced group should have members in each area. These include:
| Social roles | Strengths | Weaknesses |
| Resource Investigator | An enthusiastic extrovert good at finding contacts and resources | May lost interest over time |
| Teamworker | A good listener and diplomat who helps avoid conflict | May avoid confrontation, even in critical moments |
| Co-ordinator | Confident and focussed, helping clarify goals | May be manipulative or shirk work |
| Thinking roles | ||
| Plant | Creative idea generator and problem solver | May be self-absorbed and not communicate effectively |
| Monitor Evaluator | A good judge of all options | May be overly critical and uninspiring |
| Specialist | Dedicated to specialist knowledge | May have narrow focus |
| Action roles | ||
| Shaper | Driven and fueled by pressure | May provoke others |
| Implementer | An organizer who turns ideas into actions | May be slow to adapt to change |
| Finisher | A perfectionist who finishes the project to a fine polish | May be anxious and controlling |
When conflict rises, several options exist for resolution. Jerry
| A – Acknowledge | Assume that others mean well |
| E – Express | Verbalize that you see their good intention |
| I – Identify | Diplomatically propose a recommendation for a compromise |
| O – Outcome | Share the benefits of the outcome and thank individuals for their willingness to compromise |
| U – Understanding | Clarify next steps on specific actions |
