The group as a target of change

Classic discussions of group development revolve around identifying predictable stages of group development and operation. Despite a label of group development theories, staged theories tend to focus on group task performance, not long-term group development (McGrath & Tschan, 2004). Tuckman (1965)  proposed that groups advance through fixed phases of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Theorists like Hill and Gruner (1973 [in McGrath & Tschan, 2004])  and Poole and Baldwin (1996) argue against fixed stages and propose a cyclical, multistage model that suggests groups go through different phases but may recycle through similar phases several times in an unpredictable sequence depending on contingency factors.

Bion offered a work and emotionality theory that described phases of group work as emotional preoccupations: dependency, fight-flight, and pairing. Rather than seeing group development as a sequential process, Wheelan (1993 [in McGrath & Tschan]) proposes that group development is a process of achieving maturity through the following stages: dependency, counter-dependency, conflict, work, and termination. Worchel (Worchel, 1996 [in McGrath & Tschan, 2004]) offered a developmental-stage theory that predicts intra-group behavior and intergroup perceptions that considers the value the group serves in meeting member needs and interests. Through this model, groups repeatedly recycle through six stages: discontent, wake up, identity and dependence, productivity, individual needs, and decay.

Levine and Moreland (Levine & Moreland, 1991 [in McGrath & Tschan, 2004]) considered the socialization process as an aspect of development that concentrates on the relationship between the group and the individual. Their model proposes that groups and their members evaluate how the social environment fulfills their needs. Members go through different transitions that alter the relationship between member and group through a two-way evaluation process. Typical transitions include group entry, acceptance, and exit. Socialization steps can have a logical sequence but can recycle between full and marginal member status.

A core assumption of group development theories is that groups change over time. Most assume that groups achieve greater maturity or need to resolve problems at different phases. Whether a group develops in stages, cycles, recycles, or transitions, each phase identified by these development models offers opportunities for analysis and intervention within the perspective of the practitioner. The object of intervention for these group-level interventions is generally to facilitate the group toward performing in the optimal phase of group development.

Complex action systems theory

McGrath and Tschan (2004) argue that accepting classical assumptions that groups achieve greater maturity as they change through developmental phases is a simplistic notion that requires dependency on too many factors to generalize to all types of groups. Integrating action theory and complex systems theory, McGrath and Tschan propose a theory of groups as complex action systems (CAST) for analyzing the operational, developmental, and adaptive processes that continually and interdependently operate in groups [See Figure 2].

CAST (McGrath & Tschan, 2004) shows that group action occurs at three levels: Purpose, Planning, and Performance. The purpose is a knowledge- and intention-based macro level that consists of selecting the group’s projects, and allocating resources. Resources include time, members, and tools available for the project. Planning is the lore- and logic-based Meso-level at which the group organizes work processes. This involves articulating a network of relations among members, tasks, and technology.

Performance is the action- thought- and word-based micro-level at which members carry out acts that relate hierarchically to project goals. Recurrent cycles of orient à enact à monitor à modify occur at this level, allowing the group to modify actions to remain on target. If the modification does not realign the action toward goals, the modification process is elevated to the planning level to change the structure of the process by coordinating the network of relations. If modification at the planning level is insufficient for realigning the process, the modification process is elevated to the purpose level, where the group reconsiders the selection and allocation of tasks, time, tools, and members. Thus, orient à enact à monitor à modify cycles at the action level can expand to higher levels of the hierarchical array. These processes occur fluidly, at times without blatant attention by group members. Complicating the process is that many groups have multiple concurrent projects, causing multiple interwoven sets of action cycles.

In CAST, McGrath and Tschan (2004) offer a different approach by proposing that a group’s development history can be understood through a matrix that considers the modes of a group’s life course against causal dynamics. The modes of a group’s life course are formation, operations, and metamorphosis:

• Formation means that the group forms.
• Operation means what groups do.
• Metamorphosis means that the group dissolves or transforms into a different system.

The levels of causal dynamics that continually and simultaneously influence the group’s energy are local, global, and contextual. Local dynamics are the complex interdependencies among members, tasks, tools, and features of the environment as they play out over time. Global dynamics are the system-level processes that emerge from and shape or constrain local dynamics. Contextual dynamics are the complex interplay between events in the group’s embedding contexts and the system’s responses to events. The causal dynamics map to the operational, developmental, and adaptive processes discussed earlier.

Groups form through a mix of forces, including external versus internal forces, and planned versus emergent forces. These forces combine to create four prototypical kinds of groups: concocted, founded, self-organized, and circumstantial. Group formation introduces the foundation member-task-tool pattern, which becomes more articulate in operations mode, then becomes specified as a member-task-tool-time process structure. The group modifies the structure as it develops.

From the perspective of CAST, the group’s action process engulfs the group structures of member, task, tool, labor, role, and job subnetworks that emerge from the group action. This means that a structure is a complex set of relations that emerge from group action, then guide and constrain subsequent action; group development depends on the variations among project, member, and technology. Except for the abstract modes of formation, operations, and metamorphosis, a fixed set of developmental stages does not exist (McGrath & Tschan, 2004).

Group interventions

As organizations adopt team-based structures, group interventions are becoming increasingly popular. Huy (2001) describes interventions that enhance the quality of social relationships among members to enhance performance. Specific group-level interventions for changing relationships in and performance of groups include the T-Group intervention, discussed earlier, and team building. I will also describe the Team Stages Exercise, an intervention approach I designed for developing learning teams in adult higher education, which may also be a useful tool for developing workgroups.

Team-building.

Team-building approaches vary by organization, but Liebowitz and DeMeuse (1982) summarized the essence of team-building interventions as a process by which groups of people identify, diagnose, and solve their own problems. Liebowitz and DeMeuse define a team-building process that starts with scouting to determine if a team-building intervention is necessary, then entering into a relationship between the change agent and the team. The change agent collects data by interviewing, surveying, observing the team, and reviewing archive records to gain an understanding of how the group works together. The change agent summarizes and communicates the data to the team. This creates an unfreezing experience that encourages team members to examine closely how they function while laying the foundation for the group to analyze the data to identify performance barriers and to form solutions.

The team develops an action plan to address the problems. The plan becomes a tangible product of the group’s collaboration, serving to enhance individual commitment to the group process. The team then implements the plan. Implementation is challenging because the group must replace old patterns with new behaviors and thoughts. Finally, the team evaluates the process by assessing progress toward the action plan. Failure to follow up to reinforce or adjust the plan can allow the group to revert to old patterns.

Team Stages Exercise.

The Team Stages Exercise (Duncan, 2006) is a team intervention and development tool that I developed for helping established learning teams assess individual and group perceptions about team development to identify strategies for enhancing and maintaining group performance in a collaborative learning environment. Each individual member in the classroom receives a “Team Stages Exercise” worksheet that includes objectives, instructions, a team stages survey with tally sheets, questions about the team development process and teaching materials about Tuckman’s stages of group developments and intervention approaches for each stage.

The survey is a list of 27 statements that describe the behavior that teams exhibit at each group development stage defined by Tuckman (1965): forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Each individual rates the behavior of his or her team by indicating the degree to which each statement accurately reflects the current state of the team. Each member calculates his or her results on the Individual Tally Sheet, which shows his or her perceptions of the dominant stage at which the group exists.

Once the individuals have calculated their results, they join with their team members to combine scores using the Team Tally Sheet. The team reviews their individual and group scores against the teaching materials to understand what the results mean and to develop strategies for enhancing or maintaining performance levels. The facilitator has each team prepare a class presentation during which they present their discoveries to the class, discuss their strategies for enhancing and maintaining team performance, and address one of the questions provided in the worksheet. This step is vital for reinforcing learning and commitment by immediately applying the lessons learned and strategies developed during the exercise. The facilitator combines the team evaluation scores and strategies into a class score and strategy and then communicates the entire results to the class. The facilitator emphasizes the importance of collaborating to create a high-performance learning culture that engages individuals, groups, and systems in mutual development.

Although I originally designed this tool to teach Tuckman’s (1965) stages theory, Team Stages Exercise has evolved to be an effective team intervention tool in collaborative learning environments, while also providing important insights about group development as a dynamic versus staged process. Designing the survey responses to reflect degrees rather than dichotomy helps to demonstrate how groups develop in dynamic phases of relative prepotency rather than in fixed stages. This means that forces of each phase exist simultaneously, but that one phase may emerge as dominant over the emergent potential of the other phases. For example, the forces of forming and storming may lie dormant in an established team with a dominant performing domain; however, underlying storming forces can quickly emerge as dominant if the team confronts challenges that lead to dysfunctional conflict. In such a case, the learning materials recommend that the team re-engage in forming exercises to develop strategies for tapping the conflict as a development force to enhance productivity.

Another important aspect of the Team Stages Exercise is that it engages each individual in developing the team, while it commits the team to develop each individual member. Further, the exercise provides individuals and teams with a clearer understanding of how each individual and team contributes to the development of the entire classroom. Finally, the exercise illuminates how classroom-level development contributes to the development of groups and individuals. Follow-up interviews with participants indicate that the exercise is an effective tool for strengthening individual commitment to developing the team and team commitment to developing the individual while enhancing understanding of how classroom-level interactions contribute to the development of teams and individuals.

A limitation of the Team Stages Exercise is that it requires skillful facilitation. Students who were so satisfied with the results of their classroom-level intervention that they attempted to implement the Team Stages Exercise in their own professional environment generally reported that they lacked the expertise to “pull it off”. Similarly, providing the intervention tool for other faculty has not proved fruitful, typically because it is “too complex”. This does not mean that the tool is without value; rather, as with other intervention techniques, Team Stages Exercise requires training.

Socializing intervention and change in social relationships.

Socializing interventions change the quality of relationships among members to change long-term behaviors that improve task performance. Huy (2001) offers the organism as a metaphor of the socializing intervention, with the organization as an organic open system. Social technical systems and social learning theory provide the analytical frameworks for the socializing intervention. The goal is to create a democratic community of perpetually learning and innovating workgroups that are able to adapt in uncertain environments.

Using an empirical normative, the change agents are self-motivated organizational members with a long-term perspective who work to forge relationships that alter values and behaviors. This is a slow process that empowers people to change themselves, starting with the internal change agents changing their own behaviors, then convincing others to cooperate by changing their behavior. The socializing intervention approach is best for changing the relationships in the organization to improve organizational capabilities for the long term. Huy points out that a key weakness of this approach is that socializing can create anarchy as different groups fight for limited resources with no apparent leadership. In addition, informal groups that indulge in social learning can lose competence, creativity, and energy.