CHAPTER FOURTEEN

GROUP DEVELOPMENT

The stages of group development can be defined as definite changes

through time in the structures, processes, and norms of a group as
the group evolves from an aggregate, to a quasi-group, to a group, and
then back to a quasi-group or aggregate again. Thus processes such
as norm enforcement are themselves incorporated into a larger process
of group development. The development of a group in some ways
resembles the development of an individual. Just as there are large
stages in individual development, which have been designated by Er-
ickson in terms of trust vs. mistrust, autonomy vs. shame and doubt,
etc. (E. Erickson 1963), or by Piaget in terms of sensory-motor stage,
preoperational stage, stage of concrete operations, and formal oper-
ations stage (Ginsburg and Opper 1969), or by Freud in terms of the
oral, anal, genital, latency, and puberty periods (English and Finch
1957), so too have stages been designated by observers of the life of
a group.
An appreciation of the fact that groups do develop and change in
regular ways can be of enormous help to the practitioner starting a
new group, taking over a group which was previously led by someone
else, or entering into a relationship with a natural group. Even more
helpful is an understanding of the behavior that characterizes the
major stages through which the group passes. These regularities as
well as limitations on them will be discussed in the remainder of this
chapter.

GROUP DEVELOPMENT PHASES

Different theorists have used different terms to conceptualize the

phases of group development, but there is considerable agreement
among them, as Whittaker (1970) has shown. Among those who have
made major proposals are Garland, Jones and Kolodny (1965), Hare
(1976), T. Parsons, Bales, and Shils (1953), Sarri and Galinsky (1974),
H. Trecker (1955), and Tuckman (1965). The labels used by Tuckman
406

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/22/20 12:02 AM
 CROUP DEVELOPMENT 407

will be used for this discussion because of their clarity, but one could
just have readily chosen the terms of any of the others.
Tuckman (1965) reviewed over fifty articles dealing with phases of
group development over time, and concludes that there are four major
stages, excluding termination, in a wide variety of groups, including
therapy groups, T-groups, natural groups, and laboratory groups. He
labeled these stages in very graphic terms, as: 1) forming; 2) storming;
3) norming; and 4) performing. The same general pattern emerges,
according to Tuckman, whether one examines changes in interper-
sonal group relations or group task activities. In the social realm, the
four stages of development are reflected in: 1) testing and dependency;
2) intragroup conflict; 3) development of cohesion; and 4) functional
role-relatedness. In the task realm, the four stages are: 1) orientation
to the task; 2) emotional response to task demands; 3) open exchange
of interpretations; and 4) emergence of solutions.
The stages Tuckman delineates in the task area closely resemble
those articulated by Bales and Strodtbeck (1968) in their systematic
observations of problem-solving groups, namely, orientation, evalu-
ation, and control. Only emotionality is missing, which Bales may not
have observed in his focus on laboratory groups. Thus it appears that
the phases a group goes through in the process of solving a single
problem are analogous to the stages the group passes through in its
lifetime. T. Parsons, Bales, and Shils (1953) described Bales and Strodt-
beck's problem-solving stages as both a microscopic version of the
macrocosm and, simultaneously, as a constituent part of it. That is,
problem-solving sessions are one phase of group development, but in
this phase, the group goes through the same stages the entire group
goes through over a longer period. According to Parsons and col-
leagues, the problem-solving phases would constitute the state of in-
tegration in the group's development; in Tuckman's terms, it would
probably be the stage of norming, typified by the development of
cohesiveness in the social structure of the group and the open ex-
change of ideas in the task realm.
The interactions that take place in each of Tuckman's stages can
be described more precisely. Forming is the stage during which mem-
bers are involved in getting to know one another, seeking similarity
of interests, testing boundaries, identifying the task or goals of the
group and the ground rules for task accomplishment. The storming
stage is one of a struggle for power, polarization, often an overturn
of the initial leadership or a challenge to the existing structure; in
treatment and growth groups where the group task involves self-ex-

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/22/20 12:02 AM
40« BEHAVIORS A N D ATTITUDES: SECTION IV

ploration this stage of emotional reaction to the task is quite clear.

T h e norming stage consists largely of developing commitment to the
group as an entity, the evolution of stable norms, and the open expres-
sion of feelings and ideas. T h e final performing stage is one when
cohesiveness is highest, functional roles have been differentiated and
are carried out with the result that the group can effectively move
toward its goal as well as effectively respond to stress. Sarri and Gal-
insky (1974) refer to this as the stage of maturation of the group.
Tuckman did not include the period of group disintegration as one of
the stages in group development in his original proposal (1965), but
did later add adjourning to his conceptualization (Tuckman and Jen-
sen 1977) because several observational studies identified such a phase
(e.g., Lacoursicrc 1974; Spitz and Sadock 1973). Other conceptuali-
zations of group development, especially those designed for group
practitioners, have recognized the special aspects of the ending of
groups. Sarri and Galinsky (1974) call this the termination phase and
Garland, Jones, and Kolodny (1965) label it the separation stage. It is
the phase in which the previously formed group norms begin to lose
their power to control members' behaviors.

CROUP DEVELOPMENT AND INTERVENTION PLANS

O n e important implication of group development theory for practi-

tioners is that a storming stage should be anticipated in spite of the
good feeling present in the forming phase. Such preparation might
involve discouraging a growth group from establishing formal leaders
at the first meeting or two, for they will be difficult to displace when,
as is likely, the group challenges the existing leadership. T h e worker
should also be prepared to deal with the reactions of individuals in
treatment groups, who regardless of any formal position, perform lead-
ership functions during early group sessions and whose influence is
likely to be resisted later in the group's development. Such challenges
to members' and the practitioners' influence can be discouraging.
Thus the practitioner might want to prepare the group for the strong
differences of opinion likely to emerge, and exert influence to keep
the group from breaking apart during the storming stage. For example,
the worker might ask the group to think about accusations of mistrust
during the period between meetings and not to arrive at any hasty
decisions at the moment of confrontaton.
Recognition that norms take time to develop and require the estab-
lishment of trust in members and beliefs in the utility of the group

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/22/20 12:02 AM
 CROUP DEVELOPMENT 409

would discourage the practitioner from expecting or fostering high

levels of self-disclosure in early meetings, even though this may ulti-
mately be desired. Perhaps the absence of group norms regarding self-
disclosure is the reason that M . A. Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles
(1973) found that self-disclosure tended to be ineffective or harmful
in the encounter groups they studied when it occurred early in the
group meetings, but was more beneficial during later phases.
T h e worker who understands group development will also anticipate
a growth toward more effective activity as the group matures, and may
plan on playing a more passive role as powerful, highly crystallized
norms emerge, that is, norms on which there is high consensus (J. M.
Jackson 1966). Further, an understanding of the time needed to reach
the stage of norming would keep a worker from suggesting group tasks
requiring a high degree of interdependence in its early stages; parallel
activities may be best initially.
T h e worker may also wish to prepare the group for termination
when it appears that the peak o f effectiveness is passed and the norms
either become fewer in number or weaker. Preparing clients for ter-
mination will be discussed in more detail in the next part of this book
but it is important at this point to state that group members may find
separation from the group painful or uncomfortable. T h e worker who
anticipates this feeling of letdown may want to provide some way of
maintaining the memory of other members, perhaps suggesting the
exchange of pictures, planning a brief reunion at some future date,
or helping the members find other groups that will meet their needs.
Whittaker (1970) contrasts the activities of social workers using dif-
ferent models of group work as their groups pass through the devel-
opmental stages. For example, in the stage of storming or power strug-
gle, a worker using the Social Goals approach would encourage all
members to participate in decision making but essentially must go
along with the group's decision about leadership structure and work
with those leaders who seem to have the support of the majority. If
the worker was successful in laying the groundwork for democratic
participation, the leaders chosen will most likely represent the total
group, but there is no guarantee that this will occur. Workers in the
Remedial Model, on the other hand, would allow a certain amount of
member rebellion, but would "act in their capacity of group executive
and controller of membership roles to forestall the crystallization of
any power takeover by a particular clique or subgroup" (Whittaker
1970:316). A worker using the Reciprocal Model would clarify the
power struggle and focus on the function of the group, which is to

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/22/20 12:02 AM
41« BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES: SECTION IV

provide a mutual-aid system. However, any rules for the group must
emerge from the group and the necessities of the work, rather than
from the personal authority of the helping agent.
Thus, the particular strategy workers use to help the group move
smoothly and constructively through the phases may well depend on
their orientation to group work. All workers, however, should be sen-
sitive to the stages groups move through, and modify their interven-
tions accordingly.
T o determine the stage at which a group is functioning, one key
factor should be an examination of the strength of the norms. In a
study of residents of two housing units, it was shown that norms began
to predict and control behavior only after the group had reached some
degree of maturity (Festinger, Schachter, and Back 1968). They were
not likely to be very powerful initially. By observing the compliance
with the group's norms, the new worker in an established group can
make an educated guess as to whether this is a group in its infancy,
adolescence, middle age, or old age. Similarly, the presence of a power
struggle or of well-meshed differentiated group roles provides clues as
to where the group has been and where it is likely to go.

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PHASES OF CROUP DEVELOPMENT

Most theories of group development have evolved from work with

particular types of groups. The Bales and Strodtbeck (1968) studies
were done with small groups of college men who worked together on
a single task. In the literature reviewed by Tuckman (1965), studies
of therapy and T-groups predominated. The Garland, Jones, and Ko-
lodny (1965) model of development in social work groups was rooted
in the groups seen at a children's agency. It is not surprising then that
a number of the unresolved issues regarding group development con-
cern the conditions that limit the observation of typical phases (Tuck-
man 1965). Variations in setting may affect the time a group spends
in any phase. Treatment and growth groups might be expected to
evolve norms about intimate self-disclosure more slowly than would
task groups. T h e length of time a group expects to meet together would
be likely to affect the speed with which the norming phase is reached.
While much work remains to be done on these issues, a few empirical
studies do shed some light.
A study conducted to test empirically Tuckman's stages of group
development discovered that groups that undergo a considerable

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/22/20 12:02 AM
 GROUP DEVELOPMENT 411

change in membership and in task go through Tuckman's first four

stages twice (Runkel et al., 1971), T h e groups of students went from
larger groups to smaller groups to select a task, pursue a research
investigation, and then present the work in written form. The authors
concluded that the fit of the observed groups' activities to Tuckman's
(1965) stages was very good but there was a double cycle, which was
not surprising since there was a radical change in structure with two
different tasks to be completed and with somewhat different members.
Psathas (1960) established that in two psychoanalytically oriented treat-
ment groups the three main phases of group movement described by
Bales and Strodtbeck did occur. But the sequence of orientation, eval-
uation, and control was found only when the entire period of the
treatment groups' meetings were considered, not during a single group
meeting. This was viewed by Psathas as a reflection of the fact that
such groups are not confronted by a single problem in a given meeting,
but with multiple problems that take several meetings to resolve. Fur-
ther, he suggests, some treatment groups do not involve pressure for
reaching a group decision and may therefore show less variability in
control acts—giving and asking for directions or suggestions.
Hill and Gruner (1973) similarly performed an empirical test of Bales
and Strodtbeck's (1968) theory of group development, using records
of Guided Group Interaction meetings of the Provo, Utah project.
There were sharp differences between groups starting with 100 percent
naive members (closed groups) and groups that were generated from
closed groups and contained members at various stages of knowledge
of group procedures. Under the conditions in which members all
started at one point and continued meeting for a long time, the theory
of group development approximated the behavior pattern in the group.
When the conditions did not approach the ideal postulated for the
theory, the effects were masked, distorted, or absent. Hill and Gruner
concluded that group development theories should be considered the-
ories that depend on pure states, not often obtained in the real world.
Hill and Gruner's (1973) conclusions may be rather severe, but their
study and that of Runkel and colleagues (1971) suggest that one should
not look too closely for the stages delineated by the theorists unless
conditions are ideal, that is, unless dealing with a smali group of
individuals who join a group at the same time and remain with it until
the group terminates, with no new members added. However, it is
valuable in working with a group to think about the stages and to
attempt to ascertain whether the typical sequence of stages is being

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/22/20 12:02 AM
412 BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES: SECTION IV

followed, and if not, why not. This procedure alone should sensitize
practitioners to the fact that the group may be changing as it ages and
that modifications in plans are called for. In addition, if the group
appears to be fixated at one stage, that of storming for example, there
may be unusual problems present which the worker should try to
address immediately.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/22/20 12:02 AM