SBenegaL

Blog

  • Purpose and Mission in Behavioral Norms

    In the last byte, we listed the characteristics of a mature group. In today’s byte, we look at the aspects of Purpose and Mission as well as Behavioral Norms.

    Purpose and Mission: A group could have a purpose or a vision for itself through one of the two methods:

    1. The purpose/mission was assigned to the group
    2. The purpose/mission emerged from within the group.

    In the first case it is also possible that group may reexamine, modify, revise or question the mission; or it may simply accept the mission given to it.

    Behavioral Norms: these are standards of behavior that is well-understood by the group members. These could have evolved over time too. These are like the bench marks against which the team members would be evaluated.

    These Behavior Norms could be written rules – say something like an attendance policy; or could be informal.

    These norms could also evolve around performance and productivity. It has been observed that high-performance teams would set its productivity standards above organizations expectation – so that they could excel, while the average teams set it consistent with the organizational expectations, the non-compliant or counterproductive teams would set its standards below the organizational productivity!

  • Characteristics of well functioning effective group

    In the last byte, we looked at the punctuated equilibrium model of group formation. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion about the characteristics of group formation.

    For the sake of clarity, it would be interesting to look at the following table before we move ahead on discussion:

    Clearly from the above, we could look at four important characteristics that are important for a mature group these are:

    1. A Clear Purpose and Mission
    2. Well-understood norms and standards of conduct
    3. A high level of group cohesion
    4. A flexible status structure.
    We shall look at each of these in the next few bytes.

  • Punctuate Equilibrium Model

    In the last byte, we looked at the performing and adjourning stages. In today’s byte, we look at the Punctuate Equilibrium Model.

    While studying Tuckman’s mode of “forming-norming-storming-performing-adjourning” it is easy to get an illation that group formation is a linear process. In reality however, this is not the case – the conflicts are not timed. Different conflicts could happen at different times.

    It was Connie Gersick who proposed that groups do not necessarily progress linearly from one step to another in a pre-determined sequence byte alternate between period of inertia where there is little progress towards goal achievement and this is punctuated by bursts of high energy and activity where most of the work gets done.

  • 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.

  • Individual in a group setting

    In the last byte, we looked at how group cohesion and social loafing influence group behavior. In today’s byte, we look at how the aspect of loss of individuality in groups and see how this affects group behavior.

    We had defined “loss of individuality” as a social process in which individual group members lose self-awareness and its accompanying sense of accountability, inhibition, and responsibility for individual behavior. It is also called “deindividuation”.

    You would notice that individual group members wouldn’t have a sense of accountability/inhibition or responsibility for their behavior – this could have potentially catastrophic influence. People could engage in morally reprehensible acts and sometimes even violence. Research has noted that – loosening of normal ego control mechanisms in an individual could also lead to a prosocial behavior and one expect heroic acts even in dangerous situations. There could also be the other dimension of a negative impact also seen due to such behavior – in mob scenarios.

    What is important it to note that – a group that successfully develops into a mature group may not encounter the issues with the loss of individual identity? What is important is the way the culture of a group gets established.