Managing Chaos in Work Group Settings - Term Paper Example

Managing Chaos in Work Group Settings Working with groups of people is like peeking through a kaleidoscope of colors and shapes. People have different personalities, and at one time or another, such personalities may merge or clash. The leader of the group has the best vantage point of these colorful personalities, as he is in a position of authority, somehow apart from his members, and yet with them, in the implementation of the group’s work functions. Usually, groups go through growth patterns, especially if members stay with each other for a prolonged period of time. Various theories on group development commonly identify the stages groups go through. Wheelan’s (1994) Integrated Model of Group Development describes the first stage as a period of member dependency on the leader and powerful group members to lead and to provide guidance and direction. The second stage is referred to as a period of Counterdependency and Fight, where members begin to disagree among themselves and assert their own individual opinions about group procedures and procedures. Since the group’s task is to develop a unified set of goals and operational procedures, this stage inevitably develops conflicts. Such conflict tests the strength of the member’s trust in each other, and if they are successful in overcoming the conflicts, a climate of trust and safety in expressing oneself is established. This paves the way for the third stage, which is the Trust and Structure phase, wherein commitment to the group and willingness to cooperate is very much evident. Mature negotiation about roles, organization and procedures are transacted, and members work to solidify positive relationships with each other. The fourth stage, which is the Work stage of group development lives up to its name as team productivity and effectiveness is intensified. The members of the group are assumed to have resolved many of the issues of the previous stages and are more ready to work towards the achievement of group goals and task accomplishment. Wheelan’s developmental description of the integrated model somehow parallels Tuckman’s model (1965), which is one of the most commonly cited models of group development (Cassidy, 2007). It was formed from a meta-analysis of 50 research-based studies of group development and identifies the stages as Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) later added the stage Adjourning, as they wanted closure in the life cycle of groups (Cassidy, 2007). The scenario at hand is as follows: “You are a group leader and are conducting a ten week program with your client group. It is now week 4. As you enter the room, you notice disquiet amongst several group members and, as the group progresses you feel there is some scapegoating on a group member, the group is not focused on the task, and there seems to be a lack of attention and focus within the group. In the first week of group, you made some group ground rules and these seem to be ignored this week. Some of the group members seem hostile towards you as the group leader and state that ‘coming to the group is a waste of time’. One group member, however, states that ‘the members acting immaturely and should grow up’.” Based on the literature, this group is currently in the second stage of group development: Wheelan’s Counterdependency and Fight stage and Tuckman’s Storming stage. It shows group members developing friction with some other members because they become aware that even if they are part of a group, they still maintain their individuality, and attempt to express that. “As the group develops, members start to find the leader-focused stage frustrating and confining. Individual members seek to clarify their roles, and the group seeks to assert independence from the leader (counterdependency). Coalitions start to form among members with similar ideas and values. Fights and conflicts between coalitions and members with different values start to emerge.” (Chang, Bordia & Duck, 2003, p. 107) Conflicts may arise from a variety of sources. Cassidy (2007) identifies some as “(a) trying to establish independence from the group, (b) vying for control or leadership of the group, (c) disagreeing about values and the expression of individual ideas, and (d) disagreeing about the task and goals of the group.” (p. 416) Although a group develops its own culture, as Wilfred Bion, a renowned psychoanalyst claims, it is not immune to the surfacing of its members’ individual psychodynamics every so often. This usually creates tension and anxiety within the group, often resulting in some members leaving the group if their ideas are not accommodated or at least acknowledged. However, what is usually emphasized in groups is conformity to its culture. David Armstrong, commenting on Bion’s work, concludes, “To achieve a full understanding of human behaviour in the round called for what Bion came to refer to as ”binocular vision”: the ability to view the same phenomena: human experience and behaviour, now through the vertex of the individual, now through the vertex of the group.” (Armstrong, n.d.) Psychoanalysts explain that a person going through anxiety responds with defense mechanisms such as rationalization, denial, projection, reaction-formation, sublimation and so on. When he is with his group, and they are faced with a crisis, each member may have his own default defense mechanism to cope with, at the same time, as a group, they tend to develop mechanisms to defend against emotion – especially uncertainty/ anxiety. These defenses work unconsciously. In the case of the group at hand, the members “scapegoat” on a particular member so as not to attract blame on themselves for going off-task. Bion has observed how groups go ‘off task’, when the emotional levels become too high. Dealing with problems as a group can be overwhelming. Groups seem to forget what the tasks are really there for and assume another task instead. In some instances, they revert to their own individual anxiety-coping ways. According to Bion, coping dynamics of the group include pairing with a perceived equal, the fight/flight dilemma or the ambivalence if they will conquer or retreat from a crisis, dependency on the group or on a particular leader, one-ness, or the assumption that the whole group responds homogeneously to the crisis and me-ness, or the tendency to fall out of the group and cope with the crisis on an individual level. At this second stage of group development, much learning ensues from the group members - learning about the group’s culture, function, objectives, tasks at hand, etc. Whoever said that “Experience is the best teacher” must have known Kolb, who came up with his own theory of the Learning cycle. In sum, it illustrates that a person learns through a concrete experience by observing its effects on himself and his environment and reflecting on it. Gathering enough material about this experience, he then forms his own generalizations and abstract concepts and then tests the implications of these concepts to new situations or experiences. Whatever he finds out beyond that is considered his new learning. Vince (1998) adds an alternative and more specific interpretation of Kolb’s Learning cycle. New experiences usually trigger anxiety at being uncertain of what to expect. This anxiety may either prompt an individual to either hold on to that anxiety and survive the ride during the experience or respond with the proverbial fight/flight reaction. Holding on to the anxiety makes the individual gain insights and openness to various possibilities. Engaging in these possibilities opens the doors to learning. In contrast, when a person shuns the anxiety by avoiding it, raising defences and self-justifications against it, he denies the possibilities of learning. To resolve the “storming” issues happening at this stage and to eventually progress to the next stage in group development calls upon the groups’ compromising, consensus-making and dialoguing skills. Coming up with group guidelines is an essential part of group work. William Isaacs discusses the importance of dialogue in group processes as an important intervention in facilitating group growth and development. Dialogue is defined as “a sustained collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions and certainties that compose everyday experience.” (Isaacs, n.d.). In the group setting, dialogues are used to have a “meeting of minds”, extracting what each member believes and coming up with an agreed decision that takes into account those beliefs, Members think together, analyzing causes and effects, and end up understanding a shared meaning. Usually, they reach greater heights in idea-storming that as individuals, they could not have thought of. This is contrasted with the construct of consensus building wherein people “seek some rational means to limit options and focus on the ones that are logically acceptable to most people.” (Isaacs, n.d.). Usually, the final consensus is reached if only to end the discussion, and that is what the group can “live with for now”. There is no guarantee that whatever factor initially leading some members to disagree will just vanish after the consensus has been made. It is likely that some members walk away in resignation but not in total satisfaction. Wheelan (1999) offers the keys to successful team intervention to include the following elements: “First, an accurate, detailed assessment of a group’s current developmental level is critical. Second, successful intervention is guided by information. That is, educating members about group development, the characteristics of effective teams, and the importance of taking a systemic view of group problems is an important step in the intervention process. If members can take a systemic view, then they can work together to improve the functioning of the team processes and procedures” (p. 187). Another important thing to consider is the role of the leader. The scenario shows that the group members tend to question their leader’s capabilities at the particular stage of group development they are in. A leader is stereotypically known to possess positive qualities and capabilities. However, in a research reported by French, Simpson and Harvey (2001), a good leader is also equipped with ‘negative capability’. “The underpinning image of leadership is based on knowing and is manifested through activity, work and achievement. There is, however, a quite other dimension of leadership, based on not knowing, on not doing, on being-done-to, and on being no longer in control of one’s own situation.” (French, Simpson & Harvey, 2001). It is heartening to find a leader who is humble enough to admit when he doesn’t really know instead of putting up a façade of being all-knowing. This peculiarly human capacity to live with and tolerate ambiguity, of being content with half knowledge is quite a refreshing concept. “It implies the capacity to engage in a non-defensive way with change, without being overwhelmed by the ever-present pressure merely to react. It also indicates empathy and even a certain flexibility of character, the ability ‘to tolerate a loss of self and a loss of rationality by trusting in the capacity to recreate oneself in another character or another environment’ (Hutter, 1982, p. 305). What is ideal is the fusion of positive capabilities with negative capability in an effective leader. This is likened to visual illusions showing two images simultaneously, one in the positive and the other in the negative. The eye needs to focus on one image at a time to decipher what it is. Once the eye figures both images out, there is a tendency to keep shifting from one image to another. Similarly, a good leader is like that. In the image, it seems as if he has each foot on an image of positive and negative – of “knowing” and “not knowing”. “The capacity to work at the edge, in the intermediate space, enables a leader to move back and forth between a state of knowing and one of not-knowing, to continue to think in the ‘limbo’ state between certainty and uncertainty, or to seek out and cross the edge into the unknown in order to return with new insight.” (French, Simpson & Harvey, 2001). A good leader is always open to learning something new, and not haughty enough to claim that he is already “made”. Being human and fallible is one trait that all members of the group share, and what better quality to relate to than that? Group members will even feel important enough to share the burden of thinking up solutions to problems with their leader. An effective strategy is unknowingly rotating of the role of leadership among the members. Even if there is a designated leader, each member can take up the role voluntarily in their areas of strengths. This goes without being appointed, in the desire of each member to be contributing parts of the whole. In following the suggested interventions, the leader develops confidence that by the 10th week, he will have been successful in eliciting the support and cooperation of his members in following the group guidelines and in the efficient and effective performance of their tasks. The case at hand is a manifestation of “growing pains” that most groups go through before they eventually reach a stage of agreement to move forward. As trust and commitment is developed within the group, the members foresee signs of better things to come, as the group eventually takes off to fulfil the purposes for which it was established in the first place. References Armstrong, D. (n.d.) “Making absences present: the contribution of W. R. Bion to understanding unconscious social phenomena.” Retrieved on January 17, 2008 from http://human-nature.com/group/chap3.html Cassidy, K. (2007) “Tuckman Revisited: Proposing a New Model of Group Development for Practitioners”, Journal of Experiential Education, Volume 29, No. 3 Chang, A., Bordia, P. & Duck, J. (2003) “Punctuated Equilibrium And Linear Progression: Toward A New Understanding Of Group Development”, Academy of Management Journal, 2003. Vol. 46, No. 1. 106-117 French, R., Simpson, P. & Harvey, C. (2001), “‘Negative capability’: the key to creative leadership.” Presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations 2001 Symposium. Retrieved on January 17, 2008 from www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/2001Symposium/french.htm Hutter, A.D. (1982) Poetry in psychoanalysis: Hopkins, Rosetti, Winnicott. International Review of Psycho-Analysis 9, 303-16. Isaacs, W.,(n.d.) “Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning.” Organizational Dynamics Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages in small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427 Vince, R, (1998) “Behind and beyond Kolbs learning cycle”, Journal of Management Education. Volume no/issue: 22, June pp. 304-319 Wheelan, S. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wheelan, S.A. (2003) “An Initial Exploration of the Internal Dynamics of Leadership Teams”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 55, No. 3, 179–188 Read More