Phase Models: Mapping the Life of a Group

The groups that emerge are often called zero-history groups or LGDs (for “leaderless group discussions”). The latter label does not mean that this kind of group has no leader; it simply means that whatever happens within the group (including leader emer­gence) evolves naturally. By looking at these kinds of groups, researchers can ex­amine the development of group culture from its very beginning. Of course, the characteristics that make LCDs interesting to study make them somewhat differ­ent from ongoing “real life” groups, for the latter are not free from outside in­fluence.

The phase models that have been developed by studying decision-making groups are remarkably similar, even though they differ in the exact number of phases they identify and in the labels they give these phases. The first model to overlook is Bruce Tuckman’s five-stage model that gives a general overview of group and development. The second one is Aubrey Fisher’s four-phase model, the best known phase model. It concen­trates more on the communication behavior of decision-making groups.

 

Tuckman’s Five-Stage Model

In the mid-1960s, Bruce Tuckman proposed a five-stage model of group deci­sion making. Tuckman believed that groups go through five consecutive phases: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. In the first or form­ing stage, group members cautiously try to identify the nature of the task and their relationship to one another. As they become more familiar with one an­other, they feel freer to argue with one another and to vie for status and posi­tion within the group. This behavior constitutes the storming stage. Once ini­tial disagreements are worked out, groups enter the norming stage, during which members settle down and find ways to work with one another. In the performing stage, the group focuses on the task and gets most of the work done. Finally, as the project nears completion, group members tie up loose ends and reflect on their time together. This is the final, adjourning stage.

 

Fisher’s Four-Phase Model

In the 1970s, Aubrey Fisher developed a communication-based model of group development that is consistent with the findings of Tuckman and others. Fisher found that group members experience four phases of group communication as they move from being strangers to being part of an effective, interdependent system. These phases are orientation, conflict, emergence, and reinforcement.

The first phase of Fisher’s four phase model is the orientation phase. Here group members begin the complicated process of becoming inter­dependent. In most cases, this transition is not easy and is marked by primary tension, tension caused by the natural uncertainty people experience before communication norms and rules have been worked out. Primary tension is char­acterized by periods of silence broken by ambiguous, tentative, and occasionally awkward comments. Members tend to be polite and formal with one another and do their best to avoid controversy.

The best way to deal with primary tension is simply to act in an open,friendly, and positive manner and to give members time to feel comfortable with one another. It is not a good idea to force decisions during orientation. Although highly task-oriented members may feel impatient with the vague and overly po­lite conversation that goes on in this phase, this communication serves an im­portant purpose. Members who try to push the group too hard by dominating or being too original may be labeled deviants by the rest of the group. Skillful group communicators use their time during this phase to make other group members feel at ease. By responding with warmth and interest to the contribu­tions of others, they make it possible for the group to go on to the next phase.

As groups move into the second or conflict phase, they experience a new kind of stress, called secondary tension. Secondary tension occurs as group members disagree over the best ways to accomplish the task and as they struggle to find a role within the group that will meet both group and individual needs.

Secondary tension feels quite different from primary tension. Communication is less tentative and polite and may be marked by overt argument, sarcastic dis­agreement and even hostile remarks.

Conflict can be distressing for group members who fear argument. In fact conflict is quite healthy, for debate and discussion mean that a variety of ideas are being aired. What is important is to learn to manage, rather than to avoid, secondary tension. Members should learn to expect periodsof conflict and find ways to benefit from the energy and ideas that are generated during these periods. Groups that never experience conflict are not working at capacity. As Fisher explains, a healthy group is apt to be noisy. Its members are uninhibited and probably not governed by norms of politeness, there are frequent disagreements, arguments, and constant interruptions which reflect the members’ eagerness and commit­ment to their group – high group identification.

Secondary tension dissipates as leadership issues are resolved and as one of the competing solutions gains support. At this point the group enters the third or emergence phase. Members who have opposed the leading solution begin to back down, replacing their earlier strong disagreement with noncommittal, somewhat ambiguous comments. During this phase, the eventual task outcome becomes apparent as does the social structure of the group.

The final phase which occurs only if the preceding phases have been suc­cessfully completed is the reinforcement phase. Here members bolster their de­cision through the expression of favorable comments and positive reinforcement.

Although almost all groups experience periods of primary and secondary tension, every group does not neatly file through the four phases in exactly the same way. Some groups stall, never getting over their primary tension or be­coming trapped in the conflict phase, for it takes good group skills to reach re­inforcement. Other groups seem to fall into cycles, running through repeated periods of primary and secondary tension at each meeting. These observations have led some researchers to criticize Fisher’s and the other early phase models and to propose more complicated theories of group development.

 

Poole’s Alternative: A Multiple-Sequence Model

The major criticism of Fisher’s four-phase model is that it makes group commu­nication seem too simple. Although it may fit many zero-history project groups, it does not apply quite as well to long-standing groups with multiple tasks to accomplish. Researchers such as Marshall Scott Poole and Jonelle Roth argue that real-life groups are much “messier” and more complex than Fisher’s model suggests. Rather than seeing one unified progression, Poole’s multiple-se­quence model suggests that groups develop simultaneously on three different tracks: task, topic and relation tracks. During discussion, groups work on ways to accomplish their task by analyzing problems and evaluating solutions; they move from one topic to another and back again; and they concern themselves with relational problems, dissipating tensions and conflict. If a group reaches consensus on all three tracks at once, then a unified phase such as one that Fisher discusses can occur; but work on one track often continues after work on another track has been finished.

Poole’s model does not necessarily invalidate the more global phase models. Groups do experience periods of primary tension during orientation; they do experience conflicts, de­cisions do eventually emerge; and successful groups do end by reinforcing one another. Members can benefit from knowing that these processes are likely to occur and from learning how to deal with them. On the other hand, the path groups take in solving problems may not be as neat and as predictable as theo­rists such as Tuckman and Fisher suggest.