SBenegaL

Category: Group Formation

  • Group Formation: Structure

    In the last byte, we looked at group cohesion. In today’s byte, we look status structure and attempt to understand how this influences the characteristics of a mature group.

    Status structure refers to the set of authority and task relations among a group’s members! However there is no specific indication of how these status structures are created – it could be hierarchical or democratic – it depends on the group in discussion. If these issues are resolved within a team, it would result in a well-understood status structure and a good leader-follower relationship that emerges.

    Leadership in a team could also be of two types depending on the team in question. It could be a single person acting as the task master of the group setting agenda, initiating much of the work activity and ensuring the team meets its deadlines or could also be a shared leadership in which case there are multiple group members taking up different but interrelated leadership roles in the group settings. Example for the second kind: there could be someone who could be a task master while there could be someone else in the team who maintains the interpersonal relationships to an optimal level.

    There could be role diversity in a group and these could be classified into one of the following ways:

    1. Contributor – one who is data driven, supplies necessary information, adheres to high performance standards
    2. Collaborator – sees the big picture, keeps the focus on the mission constantly, urges other members to join the effort for accomplishing the mission
    3. Communicator – listens well and facilitates the group processes and humanizes the collective effort
    4. Challenger – acts as a devil’s advocate
    Over and above these it would definitely help if there is the role of an integrator who stitches the various role diversities in a group.

  • Group Formation: Tuckman’s Model 3

    In the last byte, we looked at the Norming stage of group formation. In today’s byte, we look at Performing and Adjourning stages of group formation.

    In the performing stage, it becomes more aware and clear about its mission and purpose. The interpersonal, task and authority issues are already taken care of. The team makes decisions and disagreements that arise are resolved positively with any changes to structure and processes to the existing structure or process of working. The team controls its members by judicious application of positive or negative sanctions. In fact at this stage, the group member wouldn’t need to be instructed by the leader – the leader is required to only delegate and oversee.

    In the adjourning stage, the task that the group set out to accomplished is completed and the group members could prepare to move out of the create new things. The leader would in this case recognize and appreciate the achievements of this team.

    It is also important to note that many groups do not get to the adjourning phase, exception to this are the task-force sort of teams. These teams would continue to remain at the performing stage and there would be no disbanding of the group.

  • Group Formation: Tuckman’s Model 2

    In the last byte, we looked at forming and storming phases of group formation. In today’s byte, we look at storming stage of group formation.

    As one moves from the storming phase of group formation to norming phase, we begin finding that roles and responsibilities of the individual becomes clearer. The group members would also have accepted these roles and responsibilities and major decisions would begin forming through group consensus. Agreements and Consensus are in fact the characteristics of this phase.

    The focus of the group members would have shifted from interpersonal issues to decision making activities that the team is expected to accomplish. Decisions having relatively smaller impact would be delegated to smaller teams or individual team members.

    Some questions that get answered in this phase are:

    1. Who is responsible for what aspects of groups work?
    2. Is there a need for a primary leader or a spokesperson? Etc

    Leadership style expected at this stage is facilitative and team is willing to share the responsibility of leadership.

  • Group Formation: Tuckman’s Model 1

    In the last byte, we began discussion about Tuckman’s model of group formation.  In today’s byte, we begin looking at the forming and storming stage of group formation.

    Forming stage is the first stage of group formation – in such a case, the team members would still be unclear about individual roles and responsibilities. Guidance is crucial in this phase in fact; the dependence on guidance and direction is really the defining characteristics of this stage. The dependence on the leader is very heavy in this phase – the answers to the questions of the teams’ purpose, objective, external relationship etc are all to be answered by the leader.

    Storming is the next phase following the Forming phase of group formation. The team members, having understood the purpose and other related aspects of the group in the earlier phase would be found competing for positions in this phase. One could expect considerable conflict as power struggles, cliques and factions within the group become visible. Over time, these conflicts lead to a greater clarity of purpose, but we would also find the members assessing one another for trustworthiness, emotional comfort etc. A leader is expected to have a coaching style of leadership during this phase.

  • Group Formation: Tuckman’s Model

    in the last byte, we looked at Benni’s and Shepard’s group development model. In today’s byte, we begin looking at Tuckman’s five stage model.


    Bruce Tuckman views the group development process to consist of 5 stages:
    1. Forming
    2. Storming
    3. Norming
    4. Performing
    5. Adjourning
    The following diagram summarizes the discussion.
    We shall continue this discussion further over the next few bytes.

  • Group Formation: Bennis and Shepard’s Model

    In the last byte, we had a generic discussion about group formation.  In today’s byte, we look at Bennis and Shepard’s group development model.
    This model proposes that there would be four stages in group development:
    1. Mutual Acceptance
    2. Decision Making
    3. Motivation and Commitment
    4. Control and Sanction
    If a team’s needs to become a mature team, it would need to navigate through and negotiate all these stages of group development successfully.

    This model in essence addresses three issues:

    1. Interpersonal issues – these involve matters of trust, personal comfort and authority
    2. Task issues – include mission or purpose of the group, methods employed by the group, outcome expected by the group
    3. Authority issues – includes decisions about who is in-charge, who tells whom what to do etc

  • Group Formation

    In the last byte, we looked at how loss of identity begins affecting the behavior of an individual in a group setting. In today’s byte, we look at group formation and continue the discussion further over the next few bytes.

    It is common to ask if there is a pattern in the way groups are formed – the answer to this is – “YES” but the pattern depends on the way you look at it. We would study three different models of group formation in this series. The people who proposed these models are:

    1. Bennis and Shepard
    2. Bruce Tuckman
    3. Gerick
    It is interesting to note that these models of development could be applied to both formal and informal groups. In organizations the formal and informal groups are formed with a different reason.

    Forma groups generally gather to perform various tasks and include an executive and staff, standing committees of the board of directors, project task forces, and temporary committees! Informal grips evolve in the work setting to gratify a verity of member needs not met by formal groups.