Case Study-Week 3 There are five stages to group development. Many groups are unable to make it to the final stage and find it uncomfortable to work within the group they are in. Also they find it almost impossible to finish the tasks that are expected of them. The five stages are as follows: I. Forming stage- this is the initial stage. The primary concern is the entry of the members of the group. Multiple questions are asked as the members within the group begin to identify with other members and the group itself. The main purpose in this stage is getting to know each other, determining the tasks at hand, defining the group rules, and considering the acceptable behavior within the group. II. Storming stage- The is a period of high emotion and tension within the group and among the members. Hostility and fighting between members may occur and the group may experience changes. Coalitions and Cliques may form within the groups. Outside demands may create tension and pressure. Expectations tend to be clarified and the attention gradually shifts to obstacles standing in the way of the group goals. Group members start to understand one another and efforts are made to accomplish group goals and satisfy individual needs. III. Norming stage- this is the initial integration of the group. The point where the group really begins to come together as a unit. There is a new sense of harmony after the storming stage and members try and maintain a positive balance. Critiscim may be discouraged as group members experience a preliminary sense of closeness. Some members may think they have reached the maturity stage. IV. Performing stage- the total integration stage. The emergence of a mature, organized, and well-functioning group. Now able to deal with complex tasks and handle internal disagreements in creative ways. Structure is stable; members are motivated by group goals and are generally satisfied. V. Adjourning stage- Well integrated groups are able to disband if required when the work is done. The stage is important because group members must be able to convene quickly, do their jobs on a tight schedule, and then adjourn. This stage is important to long term test of group success.
After looking at the different stages of group development my final decision on Christine’s group is that it never really made it out of the storming group. The reason I say this is because Mike was very hostile towards the group and was getting in the way of the group goals. As Christine sat thinking about Mike and the way the group was struggling due to one team member it may have been helpful for her to realize where they were in the group development stage so that she better understood what was expected and where they had to get. I believe there were two problems within the group. One being the FIRO-B theory and the other being social loafing. The FIRO-B theory would be the primary problem in the group I believe while the social loafing could be a secondary problem. The FIRO-B theory according to our text is said to be the theory that “examines differences in how people relate to one another based on their needs and express and receive feelings of inclusion, control, and affection.” The theory was developed by William Schultz. FIRO stands for fundamental interpersonal orientation. The theory suggests that groups whose members have compatible needs are more likely to be effective than groups whose members are more incompatible. Symptoms of incompatibility are withdrawn members, open hostilities, struggles over control, and domination by a few members. I believe that this could be the main problem within the group. Mike seems to be incompatible with the rest of the members. Not that I am blaming everything on him but the other members seem to be working together and getting their parts of the assignment done just fine. He is the one that showed open hostility when he saw the group sitting for lunch without him. He also seems to be withdrawn from the group and be dealing with his own personal life issues. He has not contributed barely anything to the group and I think the reason is that he doesn’t really fit in with the other personalities. Also, there is a sense of social loafing. Social loafing occurs when people work less hard in groups than they would individually. It seems that Mike has only made limited attempts with the group and he has done very little work. He is hard to track down and can never make the meetings. He may be hoping that the group will carry him. There are many different ways that these problems can be handled. The first way to handle the fact that the group is possibly incompatible is to go to the teacher and tell her their concerns. Whether it is Christine or the entire group. They need to alert the teacher to the fact that the group is failing in making their goals and deadlines and why that is. Although, it does state that teacher said if there were disagreements within the groups they should work it out between them this could be an exception because Mike has obviously become to hostile to talk to and has made himself scarce to the group. Another avenue they could take would be to do the work they allotted for him themselves and when the project is over inform the teacher that he had very limited contact with group and they ended up doing the work on their own. The last alternative I could think of is to try and get a hold of Mike one last time and figure out what is going on and why he feels so left out of the group when numerous attempts have been made to try and include him in the things that are being done and the goals they are reaching. Maybe if he feels that the group is more interested in his opinions and ideas he will be more adept to helping and eventually finishing his part in the project. Dealing with the social loafing is another matter. If that is one of the reasons the group is failing there are a couple of things they can do to help with the problem. They can clearly define the tasks and goals of the group to minimize individual interests. They can raise accountability by making individual performance expectations and the can reward individuals compared on their contributions to the group. I however, don’t think that any of these things will help in this case unless the main problem is solved. I honestly don’t think Christine was a good group leader in this case because toward the end of the case study she still had no idea what to do or how to handle it. The group never reached a peak stage where they could actually work as a team and make progress towards their goals. In this specific case I think that she failed as a group leader. However, the case study was kind of cut short at the end and you have to come up with your own theories as to what happened in the end.