| Copyright 2002
Wilderness Drum, Inc.
All rights reserved Team Building in the Wilderness
Steve Beyer Development An experienced wilderness leader will usually have noticed that the process of group development seems to follow relatively predictable stages. In this section, we will briefly discuss three models of group development that seek to capture this sequence in meaningful and useful ways. The General Model A number of very similar models of group development have been proposed, in both the business and the wilderness contexts, which we can call the general model. Indeed, a discussion of one of these models frequently refers to the others (for example, Drury & Bonny, 1992, pp. 75-77). The following chart correlates four of these general development models. Drury & Bonney, 1992 | Jones, 1973 | McPhee & Gass, 1993 | Priest & Gass, 1997* | Orientation | Orientation | Pre-affiliation | Forming | Conflict | Organization | Power and control | Storming | Integration or cohesion | Data-flow | Intimacy | Norming | Achievement or interdependence | Problem-solving | Differentiation | Performing | Order | | Separation | [Adjourning] | * based on Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe, 1988. |
The model most often referred to – probably because of its nifty mnemonic (see Peck, 1987, p. 86) – is the forming-storming-norming-performing model (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe, 1988; Priest & Gass, 1997, pp. 63-64); a fifth term, adjourning, which does not rhyme, has unfortunately been tacked on at the end, in order to correlate with the separation or farewell stage in other models. Given the profusion of terms for essentially similar stages, we adopt here the alternative descriptive terminology suggested by Drury & Bonny (1992, pp. 75-77), and set out this model of group development as follows: - Getting acquainted In this stage, group members try to become familiar with each other and their environment. Relationships tend to be superficial and stereotypic; members are ambivalent about their involvement; experiences with other groups influence members' views and expectations of the group.
- Struggling forward Once members have decided that the group is safe and worth emotional investment, they begin to test power and control issues – status, influence, communication, values. Members try to figure out their roles; they may be impatient with each other, interrupt each other, disagree over plans, compete for attention and leadership within the group. Behaviors begin to push the limits of acceptability, as members struggle for power and attempt to impose their views and authority.
- Becoming personal This is a period of reconciliation. An atmosphere of cooperation emerges; members start to openly collaborate on projects. Members seek consensus, listen to each other, accept differences, work together; they seem more tolerant, and ease into relationships that seem more cohesive and intimate. The group begins to develop its own norms and identity.
- Working together The group has become a team. The group is functional, efficient, capable of both task and maintenance functions. Interpersonal relationships are strong. Roles tend to be less rigid. Members focus on getting the job done well; they are proud of the group. This is an ideal stage, and some groups reach this stage only briefly. But, boy, is it a pleasure while it lasts.
- Saying goodbye The members of the group prepare to separate. They wrap up loose ends, bringing work to a close, often with a sense of anxiety. Some may begin the process of disinvestment; there may be apathy, withdrawal, reluctance to introduce new ideas. The group may reminisce about past group experiences; there may be grieving for the dissolution of the group.
The FIRO Model Will Schutz (1958; see also Schutz, 1994; Drury & Bonney, 1992, pp. 77-78), in his Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory and its associated test instrument FIRO-B (now Element B), describes interpersonal behavior in terms of three basic needs – for inclusion, for control, and for affection or openness (for a brief application of this model to wilderness group development, see Drury & Bonney, 1992, pp. 77-78). Everyone in a group – including the leader – has the need to feel adequate, liked, and competent. These needs are both sequential and cyclical. Thus, the need for inclusion in the group must be met, at some level, before group members can address their needs for power within the group; issues of power and control must be resolved, at some level, before group members can address their needs for affectional bonds with each other. Moreover, after these needs have been met sequentially, they cycle back to the beginning. A team that has resolved its needs for affection and openness with each other may then, at a higher and more effective level, deal with issues of acceptance and inclusion of its members. - Inclusion Initially, team members wonder if they fit in, whether they will be accepted, whether they have the necessary skills. Team members need to know whether they are in or out. When inclusion needs in the group are not being adequately met, team members feel excluded; they do not cooperate or interact with each other, participation is unevenly distributed, and individuals make decisions on their own, without the group. When inclusion is adequate, on the other hand, participation is evenly distributed, individual needs are recognized and accepted, team members interact, and the group is committed to well articulated goals.
- Control When inclusion needs have been – for the moment – satisfied, team members become concerned about roles, responsibilities and, especially, power – who has it, who wants it, and how it is distributed. Team members need to know whether they are up or down. When control is inadequate, there are power struggles, competitiveness, backbiting, and lack of leadership. When control is adequate, the decisionmaking process is clear, conflict is accepted and dealt with, and team members share leadership and power within the group.
- Affection or openness When control needs have been – for the moment – satisfied, team members become concerned about whether they are liked and whether they can like the other members of the group. Team members need to know whether they are close or distant. When openness is inadequate, there is limited communication; members withhold feedback, distrust each other, and are dissatisfied with the group. When openness needs are being met, communication is open and honest, feelings are expressed, and group members feel close, free to be different, and receptive to new ideas.
Peck's Model of Community Building Peck (1987, pp. 86-106) provides a very helpful alternative model for the development of what he calls community. In this model, community-making proceeds through four stages – pseudocommunity, chaos, emptiness, and community. - Pseudocommunity A group seeking to form a community often begins by faking it. They are extremely pleasant and avoid all disagreement. Individual differences are denied; the members act as if – pretend that – they all have the same beliefs and histories. People speak in generalities rather than specifics.
- Chaos Pseudocommunity quickly turns into chaos as individual differences force themselves to the surface and people attempt to heal and convert others. Members seek to have their own viewpoints or beliefs or projects or solutions prevail, and they perceive disagreement as intransigence. The struggle goes nowhere; it is merely noisy, uncreative, and unconstructive. This stage is often perceived as a deterioration from the smooth surface of pseudocommunity, and group members blame each other and, of course, the leader.
- Emptiness When the group is exhausted by chaos, the members can begin the process of emptying themselves of the feelings, assumptions, ideas, and motives that have hindered their communication. A few members begin to share their vulnerabilities – their defeats, failures, doubts, fears, inadequacies – but may retreat quickly when others attempt to heal and convert them. But it is too late to continue to deny individual differences; slowly, members of a group on the way to true community give up their pretensions, assumptions, expectations.
- Community Finally, the group members accept their vulnerabilities and their differences. People begin to speak – and listen – from the heart. The group task – whatever it may be – is approached in a new way, cooperatively rather than competitively.
The Group Development Process These three models have much in common, and each is worthy of reflection. Group development is never as orderly or predictable as any model would have it; yet each model provides insight into process. It is important, too, to note the differences between linear and cyclical models; yet even in a linear model it is possible at each stage to fall back to a prior stage – from community chaos, for example, or even to pseudocommunity. References Drury, J., & Bonney, B. (1992). The backcountry classroom: Lesson plans for teaching in the wilderness. Old Saybrook, CT: Globe Pequot. Jones, J. (1973). A model of group development. In Jones, J., & Pfeiffer, J. (Eds.), The annual handbook for group facilitators (pp. 129-134). LaJolla, CA: University Associates. McPhee, P., & Gass, M. (1993). A group development model for adventure therapy programs. In Gass, M. (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming (pp. 171-178). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Peck, M. (1987). The different drum: Community making and peace. New York, NY: Touchstone. Priest, S., & Gass, M. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Schoel, J., Prouty, D., & Radcliffe, P. (1988). Islands of healing: A guide to adventure based counseling. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure. Schutz, W. (1994). The human element: Productivity, self-esteem, and the bottom line. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group & organization studies, 2(4), 419-427. < Previous Next > |
