Five Group Process Myths That Are Contributing To Psychosocial Incidents
How commonly held beliefs about the stages of group development foster conflict and what to do about it.
Nearly every program is experiencing similar trends around psychosocial incidents and psychological safety. It seems that in the post-COVID world, social/emotional harm is one of the big safety issues and frontiers in outdoor and school-based programs.
The led outdoor activity sector is becoming more aware of the complexities behind psychological safety. Unfortunately, the models and assumptions that underpin common approaches to programming are contributing to their occurrence.
As a national risk management director and on-call for programs across 50 states, I saw how these assumptions foster group conflict and safety concerns.
Group development refers to the patterns of growth and change that occur in groups throughout their life from formation to dissolution
The group process is essential to the transformative “magic” that happens in the field.
However, many practitioners are taught and accept misleading assumptions about it. Moving beyond these beliefs will not only help increase psychological safety among group members, but also aid in interpersonal skills development and help to achieve healthy group cohesion more effectively.
This post outlines 5 commonly held myths about the group process I’ve seen in my work and that I’ve had to “unlearn” from my own career:
Myth #1: Storming is an essential stage to reach before performing
Storming is the label assigned to the second stage of group development and is characterized by “necessary” inter-group conflict. The thinking goes that this is the stage where conflict occurs. Conflict, they say, is not only normal but necessary to reach the next stage– performing.
What to do instead: Focus on sorting
Simply replacing the label for the second stage of group development is a helpful first step. Rather than focusing on storming as the means or the tool for social cohesion, give the word sorting a try.
However, sorting is not synonymous with storming. It is, in fact, a different word with a different meaning altogether.
Sorting is about each group member learning the rules– whether they are explicit or implicit rules, like, who does what and how to get along with the other group members and leaders (Mitten, 1999).
While in this stage, group members are still highly dependent on group leaders. Many program professionals are taught and have experienced that participants will test or challenge roles, boundaries, and structures early in a program.
However, sorting gets at the leaders’ ethical responsibilities to help clarify the norms, like roles, boundaries, and structures, that indicate success in the program, rather than leaving group members to figure it out among or for themselves.
Program designers who update the name of this stage also give direction to their staff. Rather than focusing on conflict as the means for group development, staff are more likely to prioritize giving the structure and clarity group members need to succeed.
Stages of Group Development: Sorting instead of storming
Sorting emphasizes establishing norms to work with conflict rather than using conflict as a means toward group performance. Adapted from Mitten, 1999.
Myth #2: The staff’s role is to solve conflict among group members
This is perhaps one of the things I experience most when I’m on call. Staff are exhausted and desperate to resolve group members’ conflicts.
In the post-COVID era, where more attention is being brought to the responsibilities of educational institutions to relieve or eliminate cognitive and social dissonance, it’s tough to see how it is not staff’s role to solve conflict– especially when there is fear of reprisal or being “canceled.”
But this is the very point of many led outdoor activity programs– to learn how to establish healthy relationships and productively navigate conflict.
What to do instead: Model how to deal with conflict
Staff set the tone for working with conflict. To be capable of this, leaders should start with themselves. Staff who understand and can work with their own reactions to conflict can usually remain emotionally and physically present during a clash, and they have an easier time helping group members work with conflict.
Conflict is present in each stage of the group process, and staff should focus on the drivers of conflict in each stage instead of putting so much emphasis on a single stage, alone (Cassidy, 2007).
Depending on the origin of the conflict, it may be straightforward to resolve. If the conflict is complicated, it is important for leaders to be able to explore it– and it is generally helpful to explore conflict with curiosity.
Leaders, with the help of their supervisors and administrators, decide if a conflict can be resolved or if it needs to be managed and perhaps revisited throughout the program. Note: staff should always intervene when conflict can result in imminent safety issues.
Myth #3: Emphasize the need for belonging
To be clear, belonging is a noble and worthwhile intention. However, I’ve seen too many times (across many and different programs) that schools and organizations move to exclude or separate from participants because they didn’t “belong.”
The ethical dilemma with this is that the fact or act of being/thinking/doing different– or in other words– an expression of individuality, becomes the problem or fault of the participant instead of the goal or means of the program.
While belonging is a noble intention, I’m not convinced it should be the goal.
What to do instead: Prioritize individual differentiation
Differentiation is the healthy expression of differences, and it is the result of diversity and inclusion at work. In fact, it should be the leaders’ job to comfortably bring out diversity.
Coalitions begin to form among group members early in a program. These affiliations are based on similar ideas and values. Coalitions are neither (or can be) both good and bad, meaning they can help establish or reinforce desired norms or detract from them. Or, a social affiliation may have nothing to do with desired norms at all.
Group leaders should encourage a climate that feels safe to talk about differences and should actively model and reinforce the desired norms for doing so.
Realizing and acknowledging differences is important because a group member who feels uncomfortable or embarrassed about sharing something they feel is an important aspect of themselves may tend to withdraw and isolate from others.
Individual differentiation happens throughout all stages of the group process, and it increases as the group’s identity and practices become established. Differentiation is a crucial component to group members’ safety and success, and for the success of the program.
Differentiation is both a stage and a dimension of group development
Individual differentiation should be fostered throughout a program. It tends to be more readily visible as group members gain more competence and comfort, as indicated by the previous performing stage. Differentiation in behaviors are positive and contribute to the success of the group and desired norms, they are not rebellious. Adapted from Mitten, 1999.
Myth #4: The group process is something that “just happens”
This commonly held belief is that the group process is organic and will occur, no matter what. While it is true that a group process will occur, program designers and staff play a hefty role in determining the desired process and shepherding group members through it.
Staff who fail to be active observers and drivers of the group process fail at helping group members feel included in it. Because stages do not have discreet beginnings or endings, the group becomes ruled by the process itself.
What to do instead: Drive the group process by aligning with stages of programming
The group process is programming. It’s the basis for developing healthy relationships and the desired skills the program seeks to impart. By not actively responding to and driving the group development process, staff may incompletely deliver their own program.
Researchers discuss in the academic literature alternatives to stages that are defined by behavioral outcomes, like the often-used sequence: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Instead, consider adopting stages that are defined by programmatic outcomes, like addressing individual concerns, group concerns, purpose-related concerns, work/activity-related concerns, and separation concerns. (Cassidy, 2007). These concerns are present throughout an entire program, and as group cohesion evolves, they become the developmental goals of the group.
Rather than responding to behavior, aim to design a program that shapes behavior through an intentional progression of programming.
Myth #5: There is one model of small-group development
Many of us are presented with only one model of group development and are told, “This is how groups develop.” Due to the lack of diversity and accessibility of theoretical explanations, our experiences and observations reinforce the model and, therefore, how programming works.
Tuckman’s model– of forming/storming/norming fame (1965), is the model most widely adopted by led outdoor activity providers and programmers. The model was intended to address the Navy’s need to learn about small-group behavior and is based on a review of the existing academic literature. Tuckman himself said that there wasn’t much available at the time (Bonebright, 2010).
The model is heavily influenced by 1950s-era research on leaderless groups (e.g., Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951; Bales, 1953). Led outdoor activities and programs are not, by definition, leaderless.
If the model was never intended for educational outdoor programs,
why is there such a strong attachment to it?
What to do instead: Choose a model that suits your programmatic context and purpose
There are, in fact, hundreds of models that describe small-group development and process.
More descriptions of group process exist in today’s academic literature compared to the 1960s. Available models take several forms, including a linear process in which group behavior transitions from one stage to the next (e.g., Tuckman, 1965), multiple possible sequences, and cyclical stages (Bonebright, 2010).
Experienced professionals have likely experienced a group that did not entirely follow Tuckman’s description. My first realization was while working in East Asia, when a group of students never seemed to storm…they just went straight to performing.
Not all groups go through each stage. In fact, groups can progress and regress through various stages and even skip certain stages, which helps explain my experience (Wheelan, 2005).
Non-linear models of group development can be useful to program designers. Rather than describing when a group will demonstrate its highest level of functioning (i.e., performing), they can shed light on why group cohesion may be high or low at any given point in the program (Chidambraram & Bostrom, 1996).
Understanding the factors that cause group development to shift, such as intergroup conflicts, supports programs in reducing strife. This helps to increase psychological safety and ultimately meet individual and group development goals.
Group development is essential and inherent in led outdoor activity programs. While intentional application of the group process enhances program success and safety, many designers misapply models that are not intended for their context, risking psychosocial and ethical harms. Revisiting these assumptions and re-framing the group process is a necessary step to reducing the potential for and severity of these incidents.
References
Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. Working papers in the theory of action, 111(161), 3-45.
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485-495. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059886
Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099
Cassidy, K. (2007). Tuckman revisited: Proposing a new model of group development for practitioners. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 413-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590702900318
Chidambraram, L., & Bostrom, R. (1996). Group development (I): A review and synthesis of development models. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6, 159-187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008603328241
Forsyth, D. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks and Cole.
Mitten, D. (1999). Leadership For Community Building. In J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 253–261). Venture.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Wheelan, S. (2005). Group process: A developmental perspective (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
If you like what you’re reading, consider subscribing to my newsletter.
In addition to new blog posts and news updates, I’ll send academic and other articles for subscribers to learn more about how contemporary thinking can help solve the big issues schools and programs are facing.
