Definition or Description:

Groups of individuals gathered together to achieve a goal or objective, either as a committee or some other grouping, go through several predicatable stages before useful work can be done. These stages are a function of a number of variables, not the least of which is the self-identification of the role each member will tend to play, and the emergence of natural leaders and individuals who will serve as sources of information. Any individual in a leadership position whose responsibilities involve getting groups of individuals to work together should both be conversant with the phases of the group process and possess the skills necessary to capitalize on these stages to accomplish the objective of forming a productive, cohesive team.

Comment:

Given the current emphasis in active learning (Silberman, 1996), collaborative learning (Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994), and other methods that involve group process, teachers need to be able to plan and carry out activities that depend not only on sound organization, but also on students’ willingness to participate and work effectively together. SoTL studies of group process would require knowledge of the underlying theories as well as common best practices and the strategies that fit specific instructional situations. Though group process is an area that will require more exploration, skills in this area are at least occasionally required. If the instructor chooses to employ active or collaborative methods, skills in this area become critical and SoTL studies can explore the most effective ways to use these techniques. (See the Other section below for additional information on various group process models.)

References and/or Links:

Resource Links

Explanation of the Phases

Phase I Task: Orientation
In the first phase, the needs of group members are to be oriented to the task, that is, to define the task, specify issues, identify expectations, and explore the nature of the work. From this members develop a common understanding of the group's purpose that begins to answer the questions: Why are we here? What are we supposed to do? How are we going to get it done? And, what are our goals?

Personal Relations: Testing and Dependency
In the first phase, participants generally act as if they depend on the leader to provide all the structure. They look to the leader to set the ground rules, establish the agenda, to do all the "leading," while the group members acclimate themselves to the setting. Feelings involved are excitement, apprehension, and confusion. Group members exhibit behavior to test what behavior is acceptable and what is taboo, and begin to establish boundaries, to consider themselves as individuals vis-a-vis the group, and to define the function of the group and the leader.

Concluding Phase I
This phase generally concludes when there is general agreement that the goals are achievable and that change is possible--whether it be changing behavior, making a decision, or solving a problem.Phase IITask: Organizing to Get Work Done
Organizing to get work done involves a number of group decisions. These include:

Establishing work rules
Determining limits
Defining the reward system
Setting the criteria for the task
Dividing the work
Assigning individual responsibility for particular tasks

Personal Relations: Intragroup Conflict
Participants bring to a group activity unique perspectives and many unresolved conflicts with regard to authority, dependency, rules, and agenda. The result is that groups experience interpersonal conflict as they organize to get work done. The conflict may remain hidden, but it is there.

The variety of organizational concerns that emerges reflects the interpersonal conflict over leadership and leadership structure, power, and authority.

Awareness of the possibility of change that was begun in Phase I, becomes a denial of the possibility of and the need for change; group members adhere instead to one or another extreme. The feeling level is marked by dependency on old ways and resistance to take the risks that work and change require.

This polarizing effect of early group interaction is documented in the work of Myers and Lamm (1975). After some initial effort to alter previously held positions, group members revert to their previous, pre-group stance and fight to maintain it. This phenomenon, variously described as regression or resistance, seems to occur when the group is perceived as an arena wherein deep-seated values, beliefs, and world views can be challenged. During this phase, the atmosphere is tense and much work is accomplished.

Concluding Phase II
This phase concludes when group members have struggled enough with each other to resolve, partially, their personal relations concerns (similarities to and differences from other group members, authority, dependency, and leadership) and have agreed upon how they will organize to do the work. This allows issues to emerge that are sufficiently important for the group as a whole to consider.Phase IIITask: Information Flow
Participants begin sharing ideas and feelings, giving and soliciting feedback, exploring actions, and sharing information related to the task. This is a period during which people become gradually more comfortable about being part of a group. There is an emerging openness with regard to the task.

Personal Relations: Group Cohesion
It is during the third stage of development (assuming the group gets this far) that the participants, having resolved interpersonal conflict, begin to experience catharsis and a feeling of belonging to a group. This enables the group to focus on the task. Different points of view enrich the group process.

This phase is marked by the emergence of a "both/and" attitude on the part of group members, which replaces the "either/or" thinking of Phase II. Power and authority are seen as residing both in the group and in its members. In many theories this is the central period of group development.

During this stage there is sometimes a brief abandonment of the task in which a period of play, an enjoyment of the cohesion being experienced, takes place.

Concluding Phase III
When it becomes apparent that there has been learning in the form of new insights and new solutions to problems, the group moves into phase four.Phase IVTask: Problem Solving
During Phase IV, the group's tasks are well-defined, there is a commitment to common activity, and there is support for experimentation in solving problems.

Personal Relations: Interdependence
Stage four, which is not achieved by many groups, is characterized by interdependence in personal relations. Interdependence means that members have the ability to work singly, in any subgroup, or as a total unit.

The group's activities are both collaborative and functionally competitive. The feelings are focused on enjoyment of the here and the now. A reflective, meditative silence coexists with playful and pleasurable interaction with others. The task seems completed and there is a need for closure, repose, and quiet.

This movement is marked by integration and celebration. Much work is accomplished; previously difficult issues are simply and easily resolved. There may be attempts by some members of the group to "freeze" change and the group may decide to stop its work here.

Concluding Phase IV
If it develops the awareness that this apparent and point offers the possibility for a new beginning, the group may begin at this new starting point and work through each of the four phases in a somewhat different fashion.

References
Banet, Anthony G., Jr. "Therapeutic intervention and the perception of process." In Pfeiffer, J. William Pfeiffer and Jones, John E. (eds.), The 1974 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. University Associates: La Jolla, CA 1974.

Banet, Anthony G., Jr. "Yin/Yang: A perspective on theories of group development." In Pfeiffer, J. William Pfeiffer and Jones, John E. (eds.), The 1976 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, University Associates: La Jolla, CA, 1976.

Bion, W. R. Experiences in Groups. Basic Books: New York, 1959.

Butkovich, P., Carlisle, J., Duncan, R., & Moss, M. "Social system and psychoanalytic approaches to group dynamics: Complementary or contradictory?" International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1975, p. 25.

Jones, John. E. "A model of group development." In Pfeiffer, J. William, and Jones, John E. (eds.), The 1973 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. University Associates: La Jolla, CA, 1973.

Lundgren, C.C. "Trainer style and patterns of group development." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, p. 7.

Myers, D.G., and Lamm, H. "The polarizing effect of group discussion." American Scientist, 1975, p. 63.

Tachman, B. W. "Developmental sequence in small groups." Psychological Bulletin, 1965, p. 63.