What is Group development in social work?

Introduction
Theories and models
Further challenges

Introduction

The majority of group development research aims to figure out why and how small groups change over time. The quality of a group's output, the type and frequency of its activities, its cohesiveness, and the presence of group conflict are all factors to consider.

To explain how certain groups change over time, a number of theoretical models have been developed. Some of the most common models are listed below. In some cases, such as therapy groups, the type of group being considered influenced the model of group development proposed. In general, some of these models see group change as a regular progression through a series of "stages," while others see it as a series of "phases" that groups may or may not go through at various points in their history. One of the distinguishing 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 has been attention to group development over time.

Theories and models

Hill and Grunner estimated that there were over 100 theories of group development in the early 1970s. Other theories, as well as attempts to contrast and synthesise them, have emerged since then. As a result, a variety of group change theory typologies have been proposed. Based on the work of Mennecke and his colleagues (1992), George Smith (2001) proposed a typology that categorises theories based on whether they believe change occurs in a linear fashion, through cycles of activities, or through processes that combine both paths of change, or are completely non-phasic. Other typologies are based on whether the primary forces in a group that promote change and stability are internal or external. Andrew Van de Ven and Marshall Scott Poole (1995) proposed a third framework that distinguishes theories based on four distinct "motors" for generating change. The following four types of group development models exist, according to this framework:

Life cycle models: Describe the change process as the unfolding of a predetermined and linear sequence of stages in accordance with a programme that is predetermined at the start of the cycle (decided within the group or imposed on it).
Teleological models: Describe change as a deliberate movement toward one or more goals, with adjustments made in response to environmental feedback.
Dialectical models: Describe change as the result of conflict between opposing entities and the resulting synthesis, which leads to the next conflict cycle.
Evolutionary models: Change is defined as the result of a continuous cycle of variation, selection, and retention, and it usually refers to change in a population rather than change within an entity over time.

Combinations and interactions between these four "motors" are allowed in some theories. Poole (see below) discovered in his empirical research that the interaction of life-cycle and teleological motors results in seemingly complex patterns of behaviour in group decision making.

McGrath and Tschan (2004) made an important observation about the various models of group development found in the literature: different models may explain different aspects of a group's history. Some models, on the one hand, treat the group as a separate entity, describing its stages of development as a functioning unit or "intact system" The models should be independent of the specific details of the task that the group is completing in this case. Some models, on the other hand, may describe phases of a group's task performance and, as a result, are very sensitive to the type of task that the group is working on

The central elements of some of the most common models of group development are described below (See Smith, 2001 and Van de Ven & Poole, 1996 for a more complete list of theories and models).

Kurt Lewin's individual change process

Kurt Lewin, who coined the term "group dynamics," conducted the first systematic study of group development. His ideas about mutual, cross-level influence and quasi-stationary equilibria have recently resurfaced, despite their rarity in traditional empirical research on group development. His early model of individual change, which became the foundation for many group development models, described change as a three-stage process: unfreezing, change, and freezing.

Unfreezing: This stage entails breaking free from inertia and dismantling the existing "mind set." Defense mechanisms must be dismantled.
Change : Change occurs in the second stage. This is usually a time of transition and confusion. One recognises that old ways are being challenged, but does not yet have a clear picture of how to replace them.
Freezing : The new mindset is crystallising in the third stage, and one's comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is frequently mistranslated as "refreezing."

Tuckman's Stages model

In the mid-sixties, Bruce Tuckman reviewed about fifty studies of group development (including Bales' model) and synthesised their commonalities in one of the most widely cited group development models (Tuckman, 1965). [7] In its unitary sequence of decision making, Tuckman's model of group development describes four linear stages (forming, storming, norming, and performing) that a group will go through. When a new set of studies was reviewed in 1977, a fifth stage (adjourning) was added (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

Forming: Members of the group gain knowledge of one another and the task at hand. Uncertain objectives, disengagement, uncommitted members, confusion, low morale, hidden feelings, poor listening, and so on are all indicators of this stage. Acting as a "coordinator" by helping to "set the stage" (i.e., purposefully selecting the team, facilitating group goals, and creating a team shared mental model) is a leadership strategy for assisting groups that are forming (Manges et al., 2016).
Storming: As members of the group continue to work, they will engage in arguments about the group's structure, which are frequently emotional and reflect a struggle for status within the group. The storming phase is marked by the following activities: Inconsistency, Failure, Lack of Cohesion, Subjectivity, Hidden Agendas, Conflicts, Confrontation, Volatility, Resentment, Anger, Inconsistency Acting as a "coach" by assisting in the "resolution of conflict and tension" (i.e., acting as a resource, developing mutual trust, and calming the work environment) is one leadership strategy for assisting groups that are storming (Manges et al., 2016).
Norming: Members of the group establish implicit or explicit rules for achieving their goal. They discuss the types of communication that will or will not aid in the completion of the task. Questioning performance, reviewing/clarifying objectives, changing/confirming roles, opening risky issues, assertiveness, listening, testing new ground, and identifying strengths and weaknesses are just a few of the indicators. Allowing the team to "successfully implement and sustain projects" (i.e., allowing for the transfer of leadership, seeking feedback from staff, setting aside time for planning and engaging the team) is a leadership strategy for helping groups that are norming and performing (Manges et al., 2016)
Performing: Groups come to a decision and put the solution to their problem into action. Creativity, initiative, flexibility, open relationships, pride, concern for people, learning, confidence, high morale, and success are examples of indicators.
Adjourning: In the adjournment phase, the group disbands as the project comes to a close. When Tuckman and Jensen updated their original review of the literature in 1977, this phase was added. The leader should transition into a supporting role during the adjournment stage in order to expand the initiative (i.e., provide future leadership opportunities for the group members) (Manges et al., 2016).

Tuckman's Forming-storming-norming-performing-adjourning model involves two aspects: interpersonal relationships and task behaviours in each of the five stages. A similar distinction can be found in Bales' (1950) equilibrium model, which states that a group's attention is constantly divided between instrumental (task-related) and expressive (socioemotional) needs.

Some later models, as Gersick (1988) pointed out, followed similar sequential patterns. Orientation, dissatisfaction, resolution, production, and termination (LaCoursiere, 1980); [13] and generate plans, ideas, and goals; choose & agree on alternatives, goals, and policies; resolve conflicts and develop norms; perform action tasks and maintain cohesion are some examples (McGrath, 1984)

Tubbs' systems model

Stewart Tubbs "systems" approach to studying small group interaction led him to the creation of a fourphase model of group development:

Orientation: During this stage, group members get to know one another, begin discussing the problem, and assess the project's limitations and opportunities.
Conflict: Conflict is an inevitable part of a group's growth. Conflict allows the group to assess ideas and promotes group conformity and groupthink.
Consensus: When group members compromise, select ideas, and agree on alternatives, conflict comes to an end in the consensus stage.
Closure: The final result is announced at this point, and group members reaffirm their support for the decision.

Fisher's theory of decision emergence in groups

Fisher identifies four stages that task groups typically go through when making decisions. Fisher observed how the distribution of act-response pairs (a.k.a. "interacts") changed as the group decision was formulated and solidified by observing the distribution of act-response pairs (a.k.a. "interacts") across different moments of the group process. His method classifies statements in terms of how they respond to a decision proposal, paying special attention to the "content" dimension of interactions (e.g. agreement, disagreement, etc.).

Orientation: During the orientation phase, members of the group get to know one another and experience a primary tension: the awkward feeling that people have before communication rules and expectations are established. Groups should take the time to get to know one another and feel comfortable communicating with strangers.
Conflict: Secondary tension, or tension surrounding the task at hand, characterises the conflict phase. Members of the group will have disagreements and debate ideas. Conflict is viewed positively in this context because it aids the group in achieving positive outcomes.
Emergence: The outcome of the group's task and its social structure become apparent during the emergence phase. Members of the group soften their positions and change their attitudes, making them less adamant in defending their individual viewpoints.
Reinforcement: During this stage, group members use supportive verbal and nonverbal communication to bolster their final decision.

Fisher developed his "Decision Proposal Coding System" based on this categorization, which identifies actresponse pairs associated with each decision-making phase. He noticed that group decision-making tended to be more cyclical and, in some cases, even erratic. He theorised that the social demands of discussion necessitate "breaks" from task work. Fisher noted in particular that a number of contingencies could explain some of the decision paths taken by some groups. When it comes to modifying proposals, for example, groups tend to fall into one of two categories. If there is little conflict, the group will reintroduce proposals in more concrete, less abstract language. When there is more conflict, the group may not try to make a proposal more specific; instead, because there is disagreement over the basic idea, the group may introduce substitute proposals that are at the same level of abstraction as the original.

Poole's multiple-sequences model

According to Marshall Scott Poole's model, different groups use different decision-making sequences. The multiple sequences model, in contrast to unitary sequence models, considers decision-making as a function of several contingency variables, including task structure, group composition, and conflict resolution strategies. Beyond the abstract action descriptions of previous studies, Poole developed a descriptive system for studying multiple sequences. Poole proposes 36 clusters of group activities for coding group interactions and four cluster-sets: proposal development, socioemotional concerns, conflict, and expressions of ambiguity, based on Bales' Interaction Process Analysis System and Fisher's Decision Proposal Coding System.

Poole, on the other hand, rejected phasic models of group development in favour of a model based on continuously developing threads of activity in his later work. In essence, discussions are marked by intertwining tracks of activity and interaction, rather than by blocks of phases that occur one after the other.

Task progress, relational focus, and topical focus are the three activity tracks Poole recommends. Breakpoints, which mark changes in the development of strands and links between them, are interspersed among them. With topic shifts and adjournments, normal breakpoints keep the conversation moving. Another breakpoint is delays, which hold information recycling patterns in place. Finally, disruptions such as conflict or task failure break the discussion threads.

Task track: The task track concerns the process by which the group accomplishes its goals, such as dealing doing problem analysis, designing solutions, etc.
Relation track: The relation track deals with the interpersonal relationships between the group members. At times, the group may stop its work on the task and work instead on its relationships, share personal information or engage in joking
Topic track: The topic track includes a series of issues or concerns the group have over time
Breakpoints: Breakpoints occur when a group switches from one track to another. Shifts in the conversation, adjournment, or postponement are examples of breakpoints.

McGrath's Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) theory

McGrath's (1991) research emphasised the possibility that different teams could take different developmental paths to achieve the same result. He also suggested that teams engage in four different types of group activities: conception, technical problem solving, conflict resolution, and execution. Modes I and IV (inception and execution) are involved in all group tasks and projects, while Modes II (technical problem solving) and III (conflict resolution) may or may not be involved in any given group activity, according to this model (p. 153). As a result, Modes I and IV (inception and execution) are involved in all group tasks and projects, while Modes II (technical problem solving) and III (conflict resolution) may or may not be involved in any (Hare, 2003 uses the terms meaning, resources, integration, and goal attainment for these four modes).

McGrath went on to say that all team projects should start with Mode I (goal selection) and end with Mode IV (goal achievement), but that Modes II and III may or may not be required depending on the task and the group's previous activities. McGrath claimed that, for each identified function, groups can take a variety of different "time-activity paths" to get from the start to the finish. TIP theory states that between two modes of activity, there is a "default path" that is "satisficing" or "least effort," and that this default path will "prevail unless conditions warrant some more complex path" (1991, p. 159).

Mode I: Inception: Inception and acceptance of a project (goal choice)
Mode II: Technical Problem Solving: Solution of technical issues (means choice)
Mode III: Conflict Resolution: Resolution of conflict, that is, of political issues (policy choice)
Mode IV: Execution: Execution of the performance requirements of the project (goal attainment)

Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model

Gersick's research on naturally occurring groups deviates from traditional group development models. Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model (Gersick, 1988, 1989, 1991) proposes that groups develop by forming, maintaining, and revising a "performance framework" on the fly. This model describes the processes by which such frameworks are created and revised, as well as the timing of progress and when and how groups are likely to be influenced by their environments at various stages of development. Because groups' historical paths are expected to vary, the model leaves the specific issues and activities that dominate their work unspecified. The following is how her proposed model works.

Phase I: A framework of behavioural patterns and assumptions through which a group approaches its project emerges in its first meeting, according to the model, and the group sticks with that framework for the first half of its life. Teams may make little visible progress during this time because members may not see a use for the data they're generating until the initial framework is revised.
Midpoint: Groups experience transitions – paradigmatic shifts in their approaches to their work – at their calendar midpoints, allowing them to capitalise on the gradual learning they've done and make significant progress. A group's transition is a powerful opportunity to change the course of its life in the middle of it. However, the transition must be used wisely, because once it is over, a team's basic plans are unlikely to change again.
Phase 2: The direction of a second period of inertial movement is determined by plans crystallised during the transition. When a team makes a final effort to meet external expectations, it experiences both the positive and negative consequences of previous decisions.

Wheelan's integrated model of group development

Susan Wheelan proposed a "unified" or "integrated" model of group development based on Tuckman's model and her own empirical research as well as Wilfred Bion's foundational work (Wheelan, 1990; Wheelan, 1994a). Although this model is linear in some ways, it is based on the idea that groups mature as they continue to work together rather than simply going through stages of activity. In this model, "early" stages of group development are associated with specific issues and talk patterns, such as those related to dependency, counter-dependency, and trust, that occur before the actual work that occurs during the "more mature" stages of a group's life.

Each of these phases is described below.

Stage I Dependency and Inclusion: Significant member dependence on the designated leader, safety concerns, and inclusion issues characterise the first stage of group development. Members rely on the leader and powerful group members to provide direction at this stage. Team members may engage in "pseudo-work," such as exchanging stories about outside activities or other topics unrelated to the group's objectives.
Stage II Counterdependency and Fight: Members of the second stage of group development disagree about the group's goals and procedures. This process will inevitably lead to conflict. At Stage 2, the group's task is to create a unified set of goals, values, and operational procedures, which inevitably leads to conflict. Conflict is also necessary for the development of trust and the creation of an environment in which members feel free to disagree with one another.
Stage III Trust / Structure: Members' trust, commitment to the group, and willingness to cooperate increase if the group is able to work through the inevitable conflicts of Stage 2. Communication becomes more open and focused on the task at hand. The trust and structure stage, also known as the mature stage of group development, is marked by more mature negotiations about roles, organisation, and procedures. It's also a time when team members work to strengthen positive working relationships.
Stage IV Work / Productivity: The fourth stage of group development, as its name suggests, is a period of high team productivity and effectiveness. After resolving many of the issues from the previous stages, the group can concentrate its efforts on achieving goals and completing tasks.
Final: A fifth stage is experienced by groups that have a distinct ending point. Some groups may experience disruption and conflict as a result of the impending termination. Separation issues are addressed in other groups, and members' appreciation for one another and the group experience is expressed.

Wheelan developed and validated a Group Development Observation System (GDOS) and a Group Development Questionnaire based on this model (GDQ). Researchers can use the GDOS to determine a group's developmental stage by categorising and counting each complete thought expressed during a group session into one of eight categories: Dependency statements, Counterdependency, Fight, Flight, Pairing, Counterpairing, Work, or Unscorable statements (Wheelan, 1994). The GDQ is a survey instrument that is used to poll group members and assess their individual perceptions of their group's developmental status (Wheelan, S., & Hochberger, 1996). GDQ Associates, Inc., has taken her academic work and turned it into a commercial venture.

Wheelan (2003) examined the relationship between the length of time a group has been meeting and the verbal behaviour patterns of its members, as well as the members' perceptions of the group's state of development, in order to empirically validate the model. Her findings appear to show that there is a link between the length of time a group has been meeting and the verbal behaviour patterns of its members. Members of older groups also tended to perceive their groups as having more Stage-3 and Stage-4 characteristics and as being more productive. Wheelan's position is based on these findings, which support traditional linear models of group development while casting doubt on cyclic models and Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model.

Morgan, Salas & Glickman's TEAM model

Morgan, Salas, and Glickman (1994) developed the Team Evolution and Maturation (TEAM) model by combining multiple theories and Tuckman and Gersick's development models to describe a series of nine developmental stages through which newly formed, task-oriented teams are hypothesised to evolve. Because "sharp demarcations are not often characteristic of the dynamic situations in which operational teams work and develop," the periods of development are referred to as "stages" and are intended to be "relatively informal, indistinct, and overlapping." Teams may begin a given period of development at different stages and spend different amounts of time in each stage, according to this model. Teams are not always expected to progress through all of the stages in a straight line. The characteristics of the team and team members, their past histories and experience, the nature of their tasks, and the environmental demands and constraints all influence where a team starts and how they progress through the stages (cf. McGrath, 1991).

The TEAM model identifies nine stages in total, with seven central ones and two additional ones. The seven central stages start with the team's formation during its first meeting (forming), and progress through the members' initial, and sometimes unstable, exploration of the situation (storming), initial efforts toward accommodation, and the formation and acceptance of roles (norming), performance leading to occasional inefficient patterns of performance (performing-I), reevaluation and transition (reforming), and refocusing of efforts to produce effective performers (refocusing) (conforming). If a failure to achieve satisfactory performance, or if adjustments to environmental demands are required, or if problematic team interactions develop, the development of a team may be recycled from any of the final stages to an earlier stage.

The model's core stages are preceded by a pre-forming stage that recognises the external forces (environmental demands and constraints) that call for and contribute to the formation of the team; that is, forces outside the team (before it exists) that cause the team to form. The final stage denotes that the team will be disbanded or de-formed after it has served its purpose. Individuals (separately or simultaneously) leave the group, and the team loses its identity and ceases to exist.

The TEAM model also assumes that there are two distinct activity tracks that run through all of the stages. The first of these tracks consists of activities that are related to the task(s) being completed. Interactions between team members and tools and machines, technical aspects of the job (e.g., procedures, policies, etc.), and other task-related activities are all examples of these activities. The other activity track focuses on improving the quality of team interactions, interdependencies, relationships, affects, cooperation, and coordination.

The model's proponents did not empirically test its components or stages, but they did confirm that team members' perceptions of the team's performance processes include both team-centered and task-centered activities, and that these perceptions appear to change over time as a result of team training.

Hackman's Multilevel Perspective

Since its inception, the study of group dynamics has sparked debate among researchers, with some arguing that the focus should be on the individual, while others arguing that the focus should be on the group. The Multilevel Perspective combines these analyses into a single, comprehensive approach. It suggests that the best way to understand group development and success is to look at components at all levels of analysis.

Individual, group, and organisational or societal behaviour can all be broken down into three levels of analysis: micro, meso, and macro (macro).

Micro-Level: (Individual Level) Refers to the personal qualities and characteristics of individual group members, as well as their actions.
Meso-Level: (Group Level) Refers to the overall qualities and characteristics of the group, such as how cohesive it is, how big it is, how structured it is, and so on.
Macro-Level: (Organizational or Societal Level) Refers to the qualities, characteristics, and processes of the larger collectives of which a group is a part of (i.e., the organization or the community).

According to Hackman (2003), the scientific community has a tendency toward "explanatory reductionism," or the belief that the functioning of all natural systems can be explained by the properties of the parts that make them up. In reality, highly complex systems, such as groups, can have components that cannot be explained solely by looking at individual properties. It is critical to focus on the big picture in order to gain a true understanding of group dynamics.

Hackman (2003) illustrates this point with an example from his previous research on airline cockpit crew effectiveness. The research looked at 300 crew members from various airlines in the United States, Europe, and Asia (Hackman, 1993). The crews differed in terms of success and current obstacles, which included things like economic hardship and other external stressors.

Initially, the analysis focused on structural aspects (the design of the flying task and the crew itself), which were evaluated through surveys, interviews, and reviews of training and procedure manuals. A one-way analysis of variance revealed that the airlines had almost no variation on measures of crew structure and behaviour once the data analysis began. These findings were quite the opposite of what had been expected, but Hackman had gathered data on a number of individual and contextual factors just in case. The airlines did not appear to vary significantly at the individual level, but the source of variance was discovered at the organisational level. The organisational context of each crew was found to be related to the variability in crew success. Five key characteristics were identified as determinants of crew success: adequate material resources, clarity of performance objectives, recognition and reinforcement for excellent crew performance, educational and technical assistance, and informational resources. The study would not have yielded significant results if the researchers had only collected data at one level of analysis (for example, at the group level).

It's critical to consider all levels of analysis when studying group development and dynamics. While it may be tempting to concentrate solely on the group level, important information can be found one level up (at the organisational level) or one level down (at the individual level) (the individual level).

Chaos Theory of Nonlinear Dynamics

The concept of chaos theory comes from the physical sciences. It casts doubt on models that assume linear and sequential processes, arguing instead that growth is inherently unpredictable. According to chaos theory, a system cannot go through deterministic, predictable, and repeated stages. McClure (1998) was the first to apply it to group development literature, arguing that groups never repeat themselves in the "exact" same way, but that teams go through periods of chaos in which the group's trajectory is determined by conflict, turbulence, and uncertainty.

There is, however, some order that emerges from the chaos. A strange attractor is a system that is prone to being resolved in a specific way but is not determined by a specific trajectory or constrained by time. Working as a functioning, effective team serves as an odd attractor for groups, because this is the state to which they naturally want to return after a chaotic period.

This has been used in studies of hazing and initiation rituals to look at how the initiation process for sports teams puts the group in an unfamiliar state, where group development is unpredictable, and can result in a variety of outcomes depending on the individual and the team's leadership. In addition, the role of leadership in a chaotic system has been investigated in order to determine how turbulent processes can be managed or guided to successful outcomes.

Further challenges

Apart from the validity of the research methods used and the generalisations that can be made based on the types of groups studied, the study of group development still faces some significant challenges. Group development models, as some researchers have pointed out (e.g. Tuckman, 1965), often provide only snapshots of groups at specific points in their history and do not fully describe the mechanisms of change, the "triggers" that lead to change, or the length of time that a group may remain in a stage. Furthermore, naturally occurring groups are often highly sensitive to external influences and environmental variables, but few models take these factors into account.

Organizational development models are related to "small" group development models, but they operate at a different level of analysis. Regardless of their differences, both fields of study seek to comprehend patterns and processes of collective change. According to Poole and Van de Ven (2004), both fields should strive to develop "process-oriented" theories, which:

Provide a deep understanding of how change comes about by describing the generative mechanism that drives the process;
Can account for path dependence and the role of critical events in change and innovation; and
Can incorporate the role of human agency in change without reducing it to causal terms.

In the study of group development over time, a number of questions remain unanswered. Some of these challenges, according to McGrath and Tschan (2004), include:

Do groups of all types change in the same way?
Are the temporal patterns in groups in fact developmental stages with the changes patterned so that the same kinds of structures and processes occur in the same fixed sequences for all groups?
If there is a fixed sequence of stages of development, are the stages of equal or different durations? Do all groups go through these stages at the same rate?
Is the pattern of stages immutable or subject to alteration by unique circumstances or events external to the group?
If a given group does not follow a fixed sequence of stages, is variation in the sequence indicative of malfunction in the group's development or maturation, or does it merely express normal variation arising from initial or contextual conditions?

References

Arrow, H. (1997). Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 75–85.
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.
Bales, R. F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-Wesley.
Bales, R. F. (1953), The equilibrium problem in small groups, in T. Parsons, R. F. Bales and E. A. Shils (eds.), Working Papers in the Theory of Action, Free Press, 111–61.