Coming together is a Coming together is a beginning, staying together beginning, staying together

is progress, working is progress, working together is success.together is success.

Henry FordHenry Ford

Group DevelopmentOutline

Group Development and Group Cohesion Tuckman’s Basic Group Development Model An Alternative Explanation for Developing Group

Cohesion Social Identity Theory

Model of Group Socialization Factors Affecting Impact of Membership Change

Dyadic Group Development Social penetration theory Relational dialectics

Group Cohesion

The strength of the bonds linking the group members to the group, the unity of the group, the feeling of attraction for specific group members and the group itself, and the degree to which the group members coordinate their efforts to achieve goals. (Forsyth, 1999)

• “A dynamic process reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives” (Carron, 1982)

Cohesion & Performance

Performance Success

Cohesion

Relationship Between Cohesiveness and Productivity

Group Development

Group development How groups develop

over time as members interact, learn about each other, structure relationships and roles

Sequential stage theories Group development

proceeds through a fixed series of stages

Theories of Cohesion

Research generally suggests that there are five stages to the development of group cohesion.

Tuckman (1965), defined these as1. Orientation (Forming)

2. Conflict (Storming)

3. Structure (Norming)

4. Work (Performing)

5. Dissolution (Adjourning)

Tuckman’s Five-Stage Theoryof Group Development

PerformingAdjourning

Norming

Storming

Forming

Return toIndependence

Dependence/interdependence

Independence

Tuckman’s Five-Stage Theoryof Group Development

IndividualIssues

Forming Storming Norming Performing

“How do I fit in?”

“What’s myrole here?”

“What do theothers expectme to do?”

“How can I bestperform my role?”

GroupIssues

“Why are we here?”

“Why are wefighting overwho’s incharge and whodoes what?”

“Can we agreeon roles andwork as a team?”

“Can we do thejob properly?”

Group Cohesion: An Alternative Explanation

Group cohesion may be caused by the processes of social identity and self categorization (Hogg)

Social Identities People have an innate and strong tendency to mentally

organize things and people into categories; ingroups and outgroups

To the extent that we associate ourselves with groups (i.e. self-categorization), we have social identities To the extent that we identify with groups that are valued

(e.g., powerful, prestigious, high status, popular), we’ll feel good about ourselves.

Social identities (via our group memberships) are important aspects of how we define ourselves Accentuation of ingroup similarities and outgroup

differences leads to depersonalization of members as individuals take on the identity of the group

Social Identity & Group Cohesion

Group cohesion can be explained by social attraction whereby members are attracted to the group entity (ideas and beliefs) rather than its individual members.

Popular members of a group are those who epitomize the groups beliefs and norms

This idea of shared beliefs and values generates a higher degree of unity and sense of “we-ness”

Model of Group Socialization Group Socialization

Process of mutual adjustment between the group and its members

Model of Group Socialization Investigation phase

Socialization phase

Maintenance phase

Resocialization phase

Remembrance phase

Factors Affecting Impact of Membership Change

Fixed/stable vs. not fixed/unstable

Reason for member change

Frequency/predictability of member change

Size of change relative to group size

Centrality of departing members

Dyadic Group Development

Models of two-person group development

Dyadic group development theories Social penetration theory Relational dialectics

Social Penetration Theory

Social penetration theory Relationships develop as

people engage in reciprocal self-disclosure

The Self as a Multilayered Onion

Levels of self 1. Public self 2. Semi-private self – limited set of people know 3. Inner Core

a. Private domain b. Values, self-concept, deeply felt emotions

Relational intimacy is tied to how much other person knows of these levels

Self Disclosure

Definition: The disclosure of personal information not available to all.

Self-disclosure has breadth (range) and depth (how revealing) and develops over time

Everyone has different level of comfort some disclose info. freely and often some hold personal info. very close

What is acceptable / unacceptable?

Expectation of reciprocity

Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973)

Breadth and Depth of a Typical Onion

Social Penetration Theory

4 Stages: Orientation stage

Exchange of superficial (public) information about self Exploratory affective stage

More information is exchanged but it’s still not very personal

Affective stage Close friendships develop and some intimate details are

shared; some barriers remain Stable exchange stage

Highly intimate; able to predict each other’s actions and responses

Another View on Dyadic Relationships

Relational dialectics Dyadic relationships change in response to opposing, yet

related, forces

Dyadic partners experience internal, conflicting pulls causing relationships to be in a constant state of flux, known as dialectical tension.  The pressures of these tensions occur in a wavelike or cyclical fashion over time.  Relational Dialectics introduces the concept that the closer individuals become to one another, the more conflict will arise to pull them apart.

Relational Dialectics

3 relationship dialectics Openness/closedness dialectic

‘I want to be close/I need my own space’

Novelty/predictability dialectic ‘I like the familiar rhythms/we need to do something new

and different’

Autonomy/connection dialectic ‘I like sharing with you/I don’t want to share this with you’

Group Development Activity

Trace the development of a group you once belonged to (consider, for example, a class you took last semester).

Make note of the extent to which the group experienced (a) an orientation stage, (b) conflict, (c) increased cohesion and changes in structure, (d) a period of high performance.

Which of the two theories discussed in the book--Tuckman's stage model or Bale's equilibrium model--best describes your group?