Hello again! Let's continue exploring the important concept of group development and how it relates to group communication. Now previously, we learned about socialization, norms, and roles – the "what" of group development. Now we're focusing on various models that help us understand and explain the "how" of group development. We began by looking at phase models of group development or the idea that groups progress consecutively through a series of distinct phases as they develop towards high-performing groups and teams. And although this does represent the conventional wisdom of group development and it's a reasonable way to think about group progress, there are some key shortcomings that limit our understanding of the nuances and complexities of group development that we are sure to come across in our day-to-day experiences. The most notable shortcoming of phase models is the idea that groups develop linearly or consecutively through a series of unitary or discrete phases. That is, groups develop from one phase to the next in a relatively straightforward manner, and at any given time, the group is involved in one dominant phase of activity. Now, this may be true for zero-history groups observed in a laboratory or real-world project groups that have a very particular task to complete during a specified period of time. But it simply doesn't reflect the way many groups actually develop in a variety of professional and civic contexts. Research has shown that group development is a lot more complicated and messy than straightforward phase models would suggest, but the good news is that researchers have also developed new models that can account for these complexities, and these can help us improve our understanding of group development. To keep it fairly brief for our purposes here, I'll focus on the research of Marshall Scott Poole, a communication professor at the University of Illinois, who has been studying small groups and teams for decades and whose research has transformed how we understand group development. In a series of research studies throughout the 1980s, Professor Poole challenged the traditional approach to group development: that groups develop through a series of consecutive and unitary phases. Instead, his research demonstrates that rather than following a rigid phase-like approach, groups are involved in a variety of activity tracks that are continuously evolving and don't always proceed in a linear sequence. Or as Professor Poole put it in one of his seminal research articles, groups engage in a "set of interlocking tracks of activities oriented towards task or goal accomplishment." The three key activity tracks are task, relational, and topical. Now the task-process activity track involves group members analyzing the job at hand and utilizing various problem-solving and decision-making procedures. The relational activity track occurs when group members engage in various behaviors that promote member relationships. And the topical focus activity track happens when group members concern themselves with major issues or themes that arise at any given point in the group's work that become a subsequent agenda item for later work. The key is that most groups oscillate between these different activity tracks, going back-and-forth between activity tracks in a nonlinear fashion, and when groups shift between activity tracks, we call this a breakpoint, like when there is a shift in focus, a reexamination of a position or a conflict arises. And all of these activity tracks may develop simultaneously, though often at uneven rates. For example, a group may go through several shifts or breakpoints in their relational activities while engaged in a single-task process. I bet you've experienced this idea of multiple sequences of activities in the groups you've been involved with, even if you didn't recognize it quite like this or use this kind of a vocabulary. Rather than following a rigid sequence of linear phases, you probably bounce back-and-forth between many different activities and stages. Perhaps jumping right into trying to solve a problem and making a decision, and then slowing down a bit when you recognize there is important relational work that still needs to be done first. Then maybe you make a big jump forward when someone comes up with an idea that seems to solve the problem, but then cycle back when you realize that your initial conception of the problem or task was incorrect, so you need to gather more information. Then the relational dynamic changes again because someone leaves or joins the group, and then there's some conflict that disrupts the relational balance. Then you come across new information that enables you to reach consensus on a final decision and accomplish your task. If we tracked all of this on a chart like the phase model, it would look like a mess. It'll be all over the place, but it's a much more realistic picture of how groups actually develop. So why is this important for our understanding of group communication? Well, in general, we certainly want a more accurate, realistic understanding of anything we're studying and trying to improve, and the multiple sequence model of group development certainly helps us do that. It's a more refined model and offers greater flexibility to explain, predict, and influence group development. But more specifically, understanding group development in terms of a multiple sequence model gives us better insight into how we can communicate more effectively throughout the development of our groups. The multiple sequence model gives us a better vocabulary and a richer set of concepts so we can better recognize what is actually happening in our groups, what needs to happen, and how we should communicate in any number of situations. For example, say, your group is in the early stage of development, what the phase model would call forming, getting to know each other, figure out your place in the group, and far from the performing phase that isn't supposed to happen until later in your development. But what if a discussion arises early on that seems to offer key insights to help your group accomplish its tasks? Should you not talk about this because it's not part of the forming stage? Of course not. But if you're locked into a rigid view of linear group development as a set of unitary phases, you may not recognize this important breakpoint and respond with appropriate communication. Likewise, your group may be in a later performing phase when you recognize that the conversation that is unfolding is starting to have some important relational implications, like certain group members' ideas are being marginalized and their value on the team implicitly questioned. Should we say, "Well, we're past all that, we're past the forming and storming stages. So we're not gonna get bogged down with this touchy-feely relational stuff. We need to keep performing at a high level." I hope you don't say that. Instead, I hope you're understanding group development from a multiple sequence perspective, and you can recognize the need to intervene and initiate a breakpoint that opens a new and even simultaneous relational activity track so you stay focused on the task at hand and do the necessary relational work that keeps the team cohesive. And all of this will happen, or not, through the ways in which you communicate with your group members, what you say to initiate a breakpoint or what you don't say when you recognize the potential for a simultaneous activity track to emerge. But this sort of misrecognition of group development and restriction on group communication is unfortunately quite common. Believe it or not, I was actually in a series of meetings recently where we had an outside consultant talking about our group and its development from a phase model perspective. He even put the same picture of Tuckman's model that I showed in our previous video on the screen in one of our meetings. Now, nothing wrong with that per se, but the problem came when we were later instructed not to engage in certain kinds of conversations or activities because our group hasn't moved on to the next phase yet or that we were supposed to be OK with certain problems and complications because, well, that's what you're supposed to do in that phase or that's what's supposed to happen in this stage. But I don't know about that. The multiple sequence model of group development would say that we should be much more flexible in our communication as our group develops, recognizing that we can engage in a variety of simultaneous and overlapping activity tracks on our way towards task accomplishment and constructive group development. I certainly don't want to miss a potentially important intervention opportunity in my group because it didn't fit with a particular phase. I want the flexibility to cycle back and engage in whatever communication is necessary to help my group progress and develop, and the multiple sequence model of group development provides a more refined understanding to explain the complexities of group development and shape our group communication. So that concludes our look at the important concept of group development, both in terms of socialization, norms, and roles that explain the "what" of group development and the different conceptual models that help us explain the "how" of group development. Now in the second half of module two, we're gonna move on to an exploration of decision making, arguably the most significant function of groups and a key aspect of group communication. I'll see you next time.
