Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Models of Group Dynamics
Similar to Models of Group Dynamics (20)
More from Fiona Beals
More from Fiona Beals (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Models of Group Dynamics
- 1. Group work Models YD6201 Fiona Beals & Arden Perrot
- 2. Tuckman’s Model 1965 O Forming O Storming O Norming O Performing O Adjorning (Tuckman & Jensen 1977)
- 3. Tuckman’s Model 1965 O Forming – Range of emotions experienced as people start to get to know each other in a group O Storming – conflict, struggle for power push boundaries set up in forming stage O Norming – people come together – resolve differences, roles taking up, see the goal move towards it. O Performing – Achieving the goal, team working smoothly, no friction. O Adjourning – ending stage of the group, find it hard to leave strong relationships, uncertain about future O https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJaz3sinE s
- 4. Cog’s Ladder O Polite stage O Why are we here stage O Bid for power O Constructive O Espirit
- 5. Cog’s Ladder • Esprit – Creativity, trust, support, caring, openness, respect, acceptance, etc. • Constructive – Listening Co-operation, shared leadership, group Identity, etc. • Bid for Power – Competition, win-lose arguments, withdrawing, controlling, criticism, etc. • Why are we here? Clarifying purpose, sharing values, forming cliques, some risk taking questioning • Polite – Getting acquainted, sharing info, holding back, seeking approval, hidden agendas, low conflict, etc.
- 6. Gersick (1988) O Punctuated equilibrium model O Different from the stage model of group development O Workers do not form, storm and norm about goal or task at hand as they share common scripts (experiences about the task at hand and their roles) therefore can immediately work as a group cohesively. O Up to a point when the group realizes the time has passed they begin to storm and question the project and the intended outcomes future direction and when groups come together with different scripts they usually have to form storm and norm before they can work together collectively and cohesively
- 8. ABL
- 9. Firo B Model O Fundamental O Interpersonal O Relations O Orientation O (Behavior) What FIRO B measures is how you act around other people and how you expect them to act around you
- 10. Firo B Model What FIRO B measure Identifies three areas of interpersonal need. What people seek/need or act in a group setting. O Inclusion O Control O Affection
- 11. Firo B Model Within those there are two dimensions within these. O Expressed O Wanted
Editor's Notes
- Simmillar models to this one that you guys might be interested in. Tubbs -Group Communication theory Orientation Conflict Consensus Closure Fishers Model Orientation (Awkward) Conflict Emergence Reinforcement Wheelan (IMGD) Dependency/inclusion Counter dependency /fight Trust/structure Work/productivity Termination And also Coggs latter is very similar – what it tells us is that when we have multiple research of theories that the more evidence we have to suggest and idea. So there must be some relevance to Tuckman’s Model, best evidence suggest that groups do go through a stage of forming, storming, norming and performing and Adjorning
- Forming In this stage, most team members are positive and polite. Some are anxious, as they haven't fully understood what work the team will do. Others are simply excited about the task ahead. As leader, you play a dominant role at this stage, because team members' roles and responsibilities aren't clear. This stage can last for some time, as people start to work together, and as they make an effort to get to know their new colleagues. Storming Next, the team moves into the storming phase, where people start to push against the boundaries established in the forming stage. This is the stage where many teams fail. Storming often starts where there is a conflict between team members' natural working styles. People may work in different ways for all sorts of reasons, but if differing working styles cause unforeseen problems, they may become frustrated. Storming can also happen in other situations. For example, team members may challenge your authority, or jockey for position as their roles are clarified. Or, if you haven't defined clearly how the team will work, people may feel overwhelmed by their workload, or they could be uncomfortable with the approach you're using. Some may question the worth of the team's goal, and they may resist taking on tasks. Team members who stick with the task at hand may experience stress, particularly as they don't have the support of established processes, or strong relationships with their colleagues. Norming Gradually, the team moves into the norming stage. This is when people start to resolve their differences, appreciate colleagues' strengths, and respect your authority as a leader. Now that your team members know one-another better, they may socialize together, and they are able to ask each other for help and provide constructive feedback. People develop a stronger commitment to the team goal, and you start to see good progress towards it. There is often a prolonged overlap between storming and norming, because, as new tasks come up, the team may lapse back into behavior from the storming stage. Performing The team reaches the performing stage when hard work leads, without friction, to the achievement of the team's goal. The structures and processes that you have set up support this well. As leader, you can delegate much of your work, and you can concentrate on developing team members. It feels easy to be part of the team at this stage, and people who join or leave won't disrupt performance. Adjourning Many teams will reach this stage eventually. For example, project teams exist for only a fixed period, and even permanent teams may be disbanded through organizational restructuring. Team members who like routine, or who have developed close working relationships with other team members, may find this stage difficult, particularly if their future now looks uncertain.
- Very similar to Tuckman’s model - "Cog's Ladder: A Model of Group Growth", by George O. Charrier, an employee of Procter and Gamble, published in a company newsletter in 1972. The original document was written to help group managers at Procter and Gamble better understand the dynamics of group work, thus improving efficiency. It is now also used by the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, and other businesses - to help in understanding group development.
- Gersick's study of naturally occurring groups departs from the traditionally linear models of group development. Her punctuated equilibrium model (Gersick, 1988, 1989, 1991) suggests that groups develop through the sudden formation, maintenance, and sudden revision of a "framework for performance". This model describes the processes through which such frameworks are formed and revised and predicts both the timing of progress and when and how in their development groups are likely, or unlikely, to be influenced by their environments. The specific issues and activities that dominate groups' work are left unspecified in the model, since groups' historical paths are expected to vary. Her proposed model works in the following way. When groups come together to work on a task, they may go through what has been called 'punctuated equilibrium'. When groups form, they rapidly work out task goals and how they will proceed. They then work around the agreed schedule until they realize that the original plan is inadequate. They then re-plan and set off in the new direction. A typical key factor is time. As the delivery milestone approaches the group realizes that they will not make it in time and so hurriedly revise their plans.This 'punctuation' of the work may be repeated a number of times as the team finds that subsequent plans are inadequate. It often happens once, particularly when there is no time to change plans several times. Gersick (1988) noted that groups she was studying did not follow defined stages (notably Tuckman's model), which led her to search for a new model that would explain her observations. Okhuysen and Waller (2002) noted that not everyone understood the need for change at the punctuation points and might continue working to the original plan. A critical factor in this effect is where insufficient time is taken up front to plan properly. With a need to demonstrate action and get into the 'real work', an effective investigation and planning phase is significantly reduced, setting up the 'act now, pay later' pattern.It is notable that poor quality results can result when teams keep to the original timescale and revise their plans to reduce testing and other quality assurance activities. It is often feasible to hide these cuts with the real costs not being realized until long after the team has disbanded. This pattern is particularly common in software development where the construction of the product is invisible to outsiders.
- When you think about the All blacks – They pick a team from all other teams – and they come together and perform without the forming, storming (stage model) Even though thy come from different backgrounds, ages, experience – they can come together for a week and win and over time they get better and better – when they lose they then have to revise their plan knowing time is not on their side and then they again work as one.
- Dr. Will Schutz Psychologist 1925-2002 Originator of FIRO-B® (1958)
- Inclusion. Is about - recognition, belonging, participation, contact with others, & how you relate to groups (refers to being involved with others) Control is about influence, leadership,responsibility & decision making(refers to power) Affection is about closeness, warmth, sensitivity, openness & how you relate to others(refers to being ‘up close & personal’)
- Expressed refers to the behavior we express to others within a group – this behavior is initiated by you Expressed Inclusion: how often do you act in ways that encourage your participation in situations? Expressed Control: how often do you act in ways that help you direct or influence situations? Expressed Affection: how often do you act in ways that encourage warmth and closeness in relationships? Wanted – how the person wants other to behave towards them. The behavior that is desired or wished by you Wanted Inclusion: how much do you want to be part of others’ activities? Wanted Control: how much leadership and influence do you want others to assume? Wanted Affection: how much warmth and closeness do you want from others?