Bruce W. Tuckman (1965)
Development sequence in small groups
Psychological Bulletin, 63, 6, 384-399.
Final short Summary
Tuckman reviewed 50 articles describing how groups develop over time. The majority of the studies were observational carried put in one of four settings, therapy, training, natural, and experimental. At any point in time the group will be involved in both the group task and the interpersonal relationships of the group, Tuckman described this as the realm of group. In this way Tuckerman recognized both the task-oriented functions of groups and the social-emotional, both of which occur simultaneously. By applying a conceptual framework that took account of the setting, and the realm of the reviewed studies Tuckerman constructed a 4 stage model, orientation,intragroup conflict, development of group cohesion and finally functional role relatedness to describe developmental process of group structure. During the orientation stage group members explore the boundaries of interpersonal behaviours and can display dependency on the group leader, or peer members. Group members try to identify the task parameters. Stage 2. Is characterized by conflict, hostility, benign regression, unacceptable behaviors, defensiveness. An individual may impose on the group and subgroups may form. As the individual perceives the interpersonal nature of the task context, the task itself may be viewed with heightened emotionality, there are barriers to effective group dynamics in both realms, task and interpersonal. At stage 3 the group has more harmony and cohesiveness. A sense of ‘we’ develops and a group culture of norms and values will emerge. The group settles down and begins to focus on the task with less emotionality. By stage 4 disruption from the socio-emotional dynamic of the group is usually minimal and most groups are able to engage in collaborative task work in a productive sense. Tuckman, p396, concluded that at this stage ‘interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task activities. Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into the task. Structural issues have been resolved, and structure can now become supportive of task performance.’
Each stage was named according to the process stage of the developing group, namely norming, storming, norming, performing.
( note – may want to refer to the training section to get more detail)
Given the relevance of the storming stage to the TEL literature on flaming, text based forums as a deficient group context, group identification SIDE, social information process (SIP) I am surprised that I have not come across a reference to Tuckman’ work on group processes, particular the storming stage. The ideas about these stages attracted a great deal of interest and research particularly in organizational psychology.
Furthermore, the description of the performing stage seems to encapsulate exactly what is required for collaborative learning.
Longer summary
Introduction
‘Reviews the literature dealing with the developmental sequence in small groups (the question of change in process over time) to evaluate this literature as a body, to extrapolate general concepts about group development, and to suggest fruitful areas for further research.’
Identifying a framework
‘The classification approach adopted for distinguishing between and within developmental studies is a threefold one. The delineations are based on (a) the setting in which the group is found, (b) the realm into which the group behavior falls at any point in time, that is, task or interpersonal, and (c) the position of the group in a hypothetical developmental sequence (referred to as the stage of development). It is this last delineation that allows not only for the separation and ordering of observations within each setting, but for the development of additional hypotheses as well.’
a) Setting
Classification according to setting allows for the clustering of studies based on their similarity of features, for example, group size, group problem area, group composition, duration of "group life," etc. More similarity between observations made in the same setting than in different settings is expected.
4 settings
1. group therapy
2. human relations training groups the task is to help indi- viduals interact with one another in a more productive, less defensive manner, and to be aware of the dynamics underlying such inter- action. The goal is interpersonal sensitivity.
3. Natural group
4. Experimental
(note Groups 3&4 combined due to low numbers of studies in each)
b) Realm: Task versus interpersonal
‘Within the studies reviewed, an attempt will be made to distinguish between interpersonal stages of group development and task behaviors exhibited in the group. The contention is that any group, regardless of setting, must address itself to the successful completion of a task. At the same time, and often through the same behaviors, group members will be relating to one another interpersonally. The pattern of interpersonal relationships is referred to as group structure and is interpreted as the interpersonal configuration and inter- personal behaviors of the group at a point in time, that is, the way the members act and relate to one another as persons. The content of interaction as related to the task at hand is referred to as task activity. The proposed distinction between the group as a social entity and the group as a task entity is similar to the distinction between the task-oriented functions of groups and the social-emotional- integrative functions of groups, both of which occur as simultaneous aspects of group functioning (Bales, 19S3; Coffey, 1952; Deutsch, 1949; Jennings, 1947).’
‘Failing to separate stages by realm obscures the continuity of the develop-mental process. While the two realms differ in content, as will be seen, their underlying dynamics are similar.
c) Developmental Sequence
The following model is offered as a conceptualization of changes in group behavior, in both social and task realms, across all group settings, over time. It represents a set of hypotheses reflecting the author's biases (rather than those of the researchers) and the perception of trends in the studies re- viewed which become considerably more apparent when these studies are viewed in the light of the model.
Phase 1 Orientation
Interpersonal: An attempt by group members to discover what interpersonal behaviors are acceptable in the group, based on the reactions of the therapist or trainer (where one is present) and on the reactions of the other group members. Coincident to discovering the boundaries of the situation by testing, one relates to the therapist, trainer, some powerful group member, or existing norms and structures in a dependent way.
Task : Group members attempt to identify the task in terms of its relevant parameters and the manner in which the group experience will be used to accomplish the task.
Phase 2 intragroup conflict
Interpersonal: Group members become hostile toward one another and toward a therapist or trainer as a means of expressing their individuality and resisting the formation of group structure. Interaction is uneven and "infighting" is common. The lack of unity is an outstanding feature of this phase.
Task: Emotional response to task demands is identified as the second stage of task-activity development. Group members react emotionally to the task as a form of resistance to the demands of the task on the individual, that is, the discrepancy between the individual's per- sonal orientation and that demanded by the task. In both task and interpersonal realms, emotionality in response to a discrepancy characterizes this stage. However, the source of the discrepancy is different in the different realms.
Phase 3 Development of group cohesion
Interpersonal: Group members accept the group and accept the idiosyncracies of fellow members. The group becomes an entity by virtue of its acceptance by the members, their desire to maintain and perpetuate it, and the establishment of new group-generated norms to insure the group's existence. Harmony is of maximum importance, and task conflicts are avoided to insure harmony.
Task: The open exchange of relevant interpretations. In all cases one sees information being acted on so that alternative interpretations of the information can be arrived at. The openness to other group members is characteristic in both realms during this stage.
Phase 4 Functional role relatedness
The fourth and final developmental phase of group structure is labeled as functional role-relatedness.
Interpersonal: The group, which was established as an entity during the preceding phase, can now become a problem-solving instrument. It does this by directing itself to members as objects, since the subjective relation- ship between members has already been established. Members can now adopt and play roles that will enhance the task activities of the group, since they have learned to relate to one another as social entities in the preceding stage. Role structure is not an issue but an instrument which can now be directed at the task. The group becomes a "sounding board" off which the task is "played."
In task-activity development, the fourth and final stage is identified as the emergence of solutions.
Conclusion so far
There is an essential correspondence between group structural and task realms over time. In both realms the emphasis is on constructive action, and the realms come together so that energy previously invested in the structural realm can be devoted to the task.
Behavior is changed as a function of the acceptance of group structure.
Focus on developmental stages as exhibited in the different settings and involving realms, i.e. both interpersonal and task.
Therapy
Stage 1
Interpersonal:
Dependency on the therapist
Corsini (1957), in an integration of other studies, identifies hesitant participation as an initial stage, in which members test the group and therapist to discover how they will respond to various statements.
Schindler (1958), labels the initial stage as attachment to the group, in which individuals discharge old ties and establish new ones.
Taylor (1950) talks about qualifying for acceptance by the group at the start of therapy which implies both testing and conforming.
Task
suspiciousness of and fearfulness toward the new situation which must be overcome (Corsini, 1957).
Stage 2
Interpersonal:
Thirteen of the 26 studies of group therapy reviewed identified a stage of intragroup conflict
Particularly relevant (cf flaming) ‘King (1959), in activity-group therapy, describes a second stage of benign regression characterized by extreme acting-out and unacceptable behavior.’ Martin and Hill (1957) theorize about a stage of polarization featuring the emergence of sub- groups following a stage of interpersonal exploration.
Coffey et al. (1950) – pecking orders
Task: resistance
Stage 3
Interpersonal:
‘22/26 studies identified a stage in which the group became a cohesive unit and developed a sense of being a group’
Taylor (1950) describe a stage following the stage of intragroup hostility in which the group becomes unified and is characterized by the existence of a common goal and group spirit. Parker (1958) and Shellow et al. (1958) see the stage of crisis and factions being followed by one featuring consensual group action, cooperation, and mutual support. Abrahams (1949) describes the development of "we-consciousness"
Stage 4
Task: Almost all of the therapists discuss the final stage of development of the therapy group in task terms as the therapeutic stage of under-standing, analysis, and insight. The group is seen as serving a therapeutic function, but the nature of this therapeutic function is not spelled out. the group as a social entity has developed to the point where it can support rather than hinder task processes through the use of function- oriented roles.
Other therapy researchers failing to specifically delineate this final stage in social development have tended to lump the third and fourth stages together and not make the distinction between the development of cohesion and the "use" of cohesion (via functional roles) as a therapeutic force.
There seems to be overwhelming agreement among the observers of therapy-group development that the final stage of task development is characterized by attainment of the desired goal,
Training groups
Stage 1
Interpersonal: Nine of the 11 training-group studies identify an initial stage characterized at least in part by testing and dependence ( on the group trainer
Task: Bradford (1964b) identifies an initial stage of learning how to learn which is characterized by acceptance of the group's goal and orientation to the techniques to be used. Herbert and Trist
(1953) label their initial stage as discovery, in which the members orient themselves to the consultant or trainer who serves an interpretive and educational role.
Stock and Thelen (1958) discuss an initial stage characterized by little "work" and a variable amount of "emotionality," during which time the members are concerned with defining the directions the group will pursue.
As can be seen, initially interpersonal problems are dealt with via dependence, while task problems are met with task-orienting behavior (i.e., what is to be accomplished and how).
Stage 2
Interpersonal: Ten of the 11 studies identify intragroup conflict as a second stage,
There appears to be general agreement that the dependency stage is followed by a stage of conflict between warring factions representing each side of the polarized issue: ( KRO identify the issue for polarization in CMC) dependence versus independence, safe retreat into the familiar versus risky advance into the unfamiliar, defensiveness versus experimenting.
Task Activity: Emotional Response to Task Demands. Bradford (1964b) individuals learn how to give help which requires that they remove blocks to learning about themselves, reduce anxiety, and express real reactions. Stock and Thelen (1958) see emotionality occurring in considerable excess of work during this period. The Tulane studies (1957) describe the second stage as one of experimental aggressiveness and hostility where individuals express themselves freely.
Thus, self-change and self-denial necessitated by the learning task is reacted to emo- tionally, as is the imposition of the group on the individual. Often the two (representative of the two realms) are difficult to separate.
Stage 3
reduction of the conflict, resolution of the polarized issues, and estab-lishment of group harmony in the place of disruption. It is a "patching-up" phase in which group norms and values emerge. Whitman (1964) talks about a middle phase, following conflict, described as the development of a new group culture via the generation of norms and values peculiar to the group as an entity. Bradford (1964b) identifies a third stage as one of developing a group climate of permissiveness, emotional support, and cohesiveness in which learning can take place. This description would appear to subserve both interpersonal and task realms.
Task: Herbert and Trist (1953) identify a stage labeled as execution, in which the group settles down to the description of a single basic problem and learns to accept "the examination of what was going on inside of itself as a regular part of the task . . . ." While emotionality is still high, it now contributes to work.
Stage 4
Hearn (1957) discusses mutual acceptance and use of differences in the collaborative process during the fourth and fifth group stages, Semrad and Arsenian (1961) describe a final phase of productive collaboration,
Stock and Thelen (1958) de- scribe the fourth and final stage as one characterized by a high degree of work in the absence of affect. The issues are dealt with in a less excited way.
Natural and laboratory groups
Stage 1
Interpersonal: group members categorize one another so that they could define the situation and reduce ambiguity.
Task:placing major emphasis on problems of orientation
Stage 2
Interpersonal: Friction, disharmony rebellion, opposition, conflict. In this stage the greater emphasis is on autonomy and individual rights. a leadership struggle
Task: the stage of emotional response to task demands is not delineated in any of the studies, presumably due to the impersonal and non- threatening nature of the task in these set- tings.
Stage 3
concept of the group as a functioning unit and the emergence of a team "dialect." emphasis on mutuality and the maintenance of interpersonal relationships.
Task "Evaluation" as a descriptor of the exchange of opinions
Stage 4
Task: "Evaluation" as a descriptor of the exchange of opinions
"asks for suggestion" and "gives suggestion")
Discussion
Evaluated the method
Main critique that the majority of the studies on which the review was based were qualitative therefore subjective! ( 1965 of course)
Summarised the model
In order to isolate those concepts common to the various studies reviewed (across settings), a developmental model was proposed. This model was aimed at serving a conceptual function as well as an integrative and organizational one.
Describes the developmental stages as follows
Forming
Groups initially concern themselves with orientation accomplished primarily through testing. Such testing serves to identify the boundaries of both interpersonal and task behaviors.
Storming
characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues, with concomitant emo- tional responding in the task sphere. These behaviors serve as resistance to group influence and task requirements
Norming
Resistance is overcome in the third stage in which ingroup feeling and cohesiveness de- velop, new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted. In the task realm, intimate, personal opinions are expressed..
Performing
Finally, the group attains the fourth and final stage in which interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task activities. Roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is channeled into the task. Structural issues have been resolved, and structure can now become supportive of task performance.
duration of group life would be expected to influence amount and rate of development.
