I decided to observe the group covertly because I felt that if the group had realised that they were being observed, they would have behaved differently and I would not have been able to assess the group dynamics appropriately. At the end of the observation, I consulted with the group in order to seek permission for this information to be used for the purposes of this assignment and ensured them that information gathered from the exercise would remain confidential.
Bruce W Tuckman, a well respected, Princeton Graduate, observed groups from a wide range of society and came up with the theory that there are four main stages of group development (1965) Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. He added another stage (1975) which he termed as Adjourning, which involved the completion of the given task and the dissemination of the group (www.businessballs.com). However, it is not often that any group reaches this stage and for this reason, I decided to base my observation on the initial four stages.
Forming:
The groups are well known to each other; however, members were still conscious of other people’s opinions and how to react to the given task, wary of taking a leadership stance despite the fact that the task required the delegation of a leader. C.H. is a member who generally assumes responsibility of leader and is quite autocratic in style and he assumed this role during this session. He did notice though, that other members were a little aggrieved by his assumption and he ‘stood down’ and allowed another member, A.N. to take the lead. This member thought that the best and most logical way to decide on the leader for the task was to nominate a less prolific member in order to allow this person to be part of what was going on. D.L. is a fairly introvert personality who prefers to remain in the background and yet was given the impetus to become a more proactive member. I viewed this event as ‘subconscious empowerment’ on the part of the other group members. Once all roles had been established, members settled down to discuss the correct way in which to deal with the given task, at which point, I became aware that some members were even getting complacent in their attitudes. Tuckman refers to the ‘Forming’ stage as a comfortable stage and states that due to the comfort factor and the lack of challenging/threatening behaviour, very little in the way of task, gets done.
Storming:
The majority of the group, at this stage, appeared ‘task orientated’ and were keen to start the project. Some members, R.F. and S.R. were happier to sit back and allow the others to proceed with the task. Due to the reluctance of these two members to join the process, it quickly became obvious that the group were showing signs of confrontational behaviour. The group dynamics at this stage were being undermined in that the two members were reluctant to carry on in the original structure. The other members appeared impatient although they attempted to hide their feelings. I felt that the reasoning behind this suppression of anger was due to the fact that the group recognised (as did Tuckman), that some members feel at ease in stage one and are unhappy at having to move forward.
Norming:
After approximately ten minutes of disagreements within the group, R.F., stated that the group were failing to concentrate on the given task and that their group leader, D.L., needed to “stand up and sort them out!” This had a strange effect in that the group were openly embarrassed by the fact that another group member felt the need to voice an opinion as to the qualities of the leadership style. At this point, two other members, C.D. and J.K. both agreed and assisted the leader in calming the group and focusing on the task. This interested me greatly, as covertly, I was more interested in the process than the task and yet, they believed that the task was more important. Once settled again, the group established ground rules and each member had a clear definition as to their roles. It was at this point that the group bonded well together, voicing opinions which were being heard by all and acted upon accordingly. On the whole, members that could not agree decided to agree to disagree, which acted as a happy medium and forced the members to look at alternate methods for completing the task.
Performing:
This stage was interesting in that R.F. and S.R., previously rigid in their though processes, showed a great deal of flexibility and all members seemed to work really well together without distractions and although the task did not reach completion, it was very plain to see that the group had become very focussed and ‘task orientated’.
Summary:
Tuckman’s theory of Storming, Forming, Norming and Performing, proved to be an excellent theory for me with which to measure the successes of group dynamics.
This group went quickly from stage one to stage two and then took a little longer to reach stage three. On a few occasions, some group members reverted back to stage one but stronger members quickly gave ample support to those people in order to get the team back to the same stage.
I enjoyed this observation very much as it allowed me to gain a deeper insight into the personalities of the young people in my charge in a way that, ordinarily, during other recreational activities, I would not have been privy to.
The ground rules laid down by the group as a whole had been adhered to and even when broken were done so with sensitivity and thought for others.
Bibliography:
www.businessballs.com
Course handouts – B.B.T.S. Youth Workers Training Scheme