Exploratory Analysis of a Developmental Model for Task-Oriented Small Groups

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe and perform an exploratory analysis of a conceptual model for task-oriented small group development. The four phases of the model were defined as: Eatency, adaptation, integration, and goal-attainment. To test assumptions of phasic development, data from minute-byminute observations made on 30 groups of undergraduate women were collapsed into quarters and submitted to a one-way multivariate analysis of variance for the purpose of making a priori nonorthogonal comparisons. Results from the initial a priori comparisons and subsequent data-snooping techniques did not confirm the existence of four sequential phases in group development. Results did disclose a pattern of development that began with an extended adaptation phase covering most of the first half of group interaction. Groups characteristically shifted into a partially defined integration phase where affectivity and neutrality themes appeared to follow each other. Goal-attainment themes were most prominent during the final quarter of interaction.

Decision Development in Small Groups IV A Typology of Group Decision Paths

“…model: orientation, conflict, emergence, and reinforcement. Other unitary sequence models have been proposed and supported by Tuckman (1965; see also Runkell, Lawrence, Oldfield, Rider, & Clark, 1971), Mabry (1975), andLaCoursiere (1980).…”

Describing know‐how about group discussion procedure: Must the representation be recursive?

“…The resulting "linear phase model" implies that the functional requirements for a group decision lead all groups to pass through the same set of phases in the same order. While the specific content of the phases as described in subsequent research has depended upon each researcher's methodology (compare Bales and Strodtbeck with, for example, Fisher, 1970, andMabry, 1975), the general notion received substantial empirical support and, in essence, became reified in our textbooks.…”

Systematic Biases in Coded Social Interaction Data

“…If systematic errors exist in aggregate measures of control symmetry or complementarity, for instance, the conclusions drawn from the bulk of relational communication research are open to question. The same can be said of recent efforts to study reciprocity and strategizing in negotiation (Donohue, 198 1 ;Putnam & Jones, 1982), group decision making (Mabry, 1975a;1975b;Poole, 1981), the behavioral effects of message campaigns (Hewes, 1980c), and a host of other areas. Systematic biases in the distributional and temporal descriptions of any of these phenomena is a problem of considerable import.…”