2.1 – Group Life Cycle Patterns

In Tubb’s Small Group Communication Theory (1995), the emphasis is on conflict vs. groupthink. As we’ve discussed, conflict is present in all groups, and we see the danger of groupthink raised in its absence. When the emphasis is on conformity, the group lacks a diversity of viewpoints, and the tendency to go along with the flow can produce disastrous results.

First Tubb’s A systems approach to small group interaction. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.) asserts that we are involved in an orientation phase. We get to know each other, focus on limitations, opportunities, strengths, and weaknesses, and begin to discuss the task at hand. This stage is followed by the conflict stage, characterized by different viewpoints, disagreements, competing agendas, and debates. This stage is natural and in this model is viewed as necessary to inhibit conformity or groupthink. The consensus stage follows conflict, where group members select some ideas or actions over others and the group proceeds to get the task done. It is characterized by agreement and teamwork. Individual differences are not as apparent, having been sorted out during the previous conflict stage. All groups end, and once the task has been completed as a result of consensus and action, the group dissolves in the closure stage. This stage often features statements of agreement and support for the result, action, or outcome.

We can compare and contrast Tubb’s model of group development to Fisher’s and view both overlap and divergence. Here the emphasis is on the group process of individuals becoming a functioning group that emerges successfully from conflict. The first stage is familiar: Orientation. It is characterized by awkward moments as individuals get to know each other, their backgrounds or special skill areas, and people size each other up. The group turns the corner to conflict where divergent points of view are presented, often characterized by struggles for power or a speech turn. As the group descends into conflict there can emerge allies and challengers, as members persuade each other and present alternatives. This process continues until one viewpoint, course of action, or path becomes the generally agreed upon course for the group, and they emerge together in the emergence stage. Dissension and argument are no longer features of the conversation, and the emphasis is on the action. The team acts and then progresses to the reinforcement stage, characterized by affirmations and statements of agreement or support for the task or actions. Group members often look to each other for support at this stage, and it sharply contrasts with the preceding conflict stage, where opposing viewpoints are aired. The emphasis is on group members to reinforce each other and the decision or outcome.

Finally, we can consider Poole’s approach to group development, itself a distinct and divergent model that provides additional insight into group dynamics. In the case of Tuckman, Tubbs, and Fisher, we can observe a step-by-step process from start to finish. Poole asserts group development is far more complex but offers three distinct, interdependent tracks or patterns of communication that overlap, start and stop, and go back and forth as the group wrestles with the challenges. Here the emphasis is on the transitions between the two main tracks: Topic and Relation. In the topic track, group members discuss the topic and all the relevant issues as they explore how to approach it, get a handle on it, or resolve it. In the relation track, group members also discuss themselves, self-disclose information, and ask questions to learn more about each other. It relates to reducing uncertainty between group members, and sometimes the group shifts from the topic track to the relationship track as members sort out personal issues or work on relationships. In this moment where the group shifts between the two main tracks emerges a third track: breakpoints. The breakpoint stage is characterized by turns in the conversation that regulate interaction, from an actual break in the discussion like a coffee break to a shift in the conversation to something they all have in common, like participation in a softball league. Breakpoints can also include postponement, where decisions are delayed to allow for further research or consideration, regression in the conversation, where topics once considered and addressed are raised yet again, or even adjournment, where the group closes for a time, for the day, or disbands to address new tasks as members of new groups.

Finally, let’s turn our attention to assessing whether the group is working together, pulling apart, and ways to improve group interactions.

An effective group can be recognized in several ways including:

• Group members are active, interested, and involved.
• Group members are comfortable; no obvious tensions.
• Group members understand and accept the task, goal, or activity.
• Disagreement is resolved amicably.
• Active listening behaviors can be frequently observed.
• Group members interact freely; no one member is in control.
• Group members openly discuss their progress.
• Criticism is present, accepted, and discussed openly.

These signs allow us insight into the group dynamics, and we can observe how they contribute to task completion as well as group health.

Conversely, there are also several ways we can recognize when a group is ineffective:

• Some group members are not active, interested, or involved.
• Group member interactions include obvious tensions.
• Group members do not understand or accept the task, goal, or activity; passive/aggressive behaviors may be present.
• Disagreement is not resolved.
• Active listening behaviors cannot be frequently observed.
• Group members do not interact freely; one member is in control.
• Group members do not discuss their progress.
• Criticism is not present; Groupthink is a significant risk.

With these telltale signs in mind, we can take an active part in promoting an active, effective, and healthy group:

• Encourage every member to contribute, speak, or share their thoughts.
• Encourage every member to understand their role, and everyone’s roles, and how they complement each other.
• Encourage interdependence and interaction.
• Encourage the group to build on their common strengths and skills, celebrating incremental success.
• Encourage active listening and refrain from interruptions.
• Encourage group members to assess their collective progress frequently.

In this section, we have examined group development and several theories on how groups come together, complete their tasks, goals, or activities, and grow apart. Just like interpersonal relationships include signs of health and prosperity, so do groups.

Healthy Signs in Groups

• The effective group leader understands both group processes and ways to make a positive difference.
• Individual members demonstrate interest and involvement.
• There are no obvious tensions.
• It is clear the group understands and accepts the task.
• Listen behaviors are clearly demonstrated.
• A difference of opinion or viewpoint doesn’t upset the group. Humor is a common characteristic, and tensions that may arise are quickly and amicably resolved.
• People feel free to express their viewpoints, thoughts, and feelings. Criticism is considered by group members and is considered not a personal attack.
• Consensus in decision-making is apparent.
• No one individual dominates the group.
• The group self-regulates, evaluating progress, regrouping, or advancing towards a common goal.
• Group member roles are clear and accepted.

An ineffective group can also be recognized in several ways:

• Some topics are not discussed and understood as off-limits.
• There is a sense of urgency, preferring advancement and task completion before consideration or consensus.
• One or more group members dominate the discussion.
• Individual members demonstrate a lack of interest and involvement.
• There are obvious tensions.
• It is clear the group does not understand or accept the task. Group members are arguing in cycles, returning again and again to themes with no resolution.
• Listen behaviors are not clearly demonstrated.
• Differences of opinion or viewpoint upset the group. Tensions rise with the expression of criticism.
• Criticism is not considered by group members and is often interpreted as a personal attack.
• Consensus in decision-making is not apparent.
• The group does not self-regulate, and little discussion on group progress is present.
• Group member roles are not clear or accepted.

As we close our discussion on group development, let’s consider;

Five action steps members can encourage to help a group become more effective:

• Group members take turns speaking and listening and do not interrupt.
• Group members acknowledge and combine their strengths.
• Group members separate the issues from personalities, i.e. the message from the messenger.
• Group members outline action steps and discuss progress periodically.
• Group members clearly understand their roles and responsibilities.