Group development: A review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions

Group Facilitation, Spring 2001 by Smith, George

The five frameworks share several common themes. One shared themes is that each of the frameworks presents a classification that depicts group development as a linear, step-by-step process. Gibbard, Hartman and Mann (1974), for example, apply the specific label of linear-progressive to this class of models while Mennecke et al. (1992) refer to the models as being progressive in nature as they build step-by-step toward higher levels of productivity. In McCollom's (1990) frame work the argument could be made that two of his classes, performance and emotional, are linear progressive. The emotional model category contains models that build hierarchically and his performance model category describes models that are focused on improvements in performance over time.

A second theme that emerges in three of the five models, Gibbard et al. (1974), Shambaugh (1989), and Mennecke (1992), is a class of group development models describing recurring, pendular or cyclical phases. The models in this category depict the group development as a continual process of cycling or swinging between phases. The cycling or recurrence of phases often results from additional knowledge or understanding of the group's task. Poole's non phasic models may also fit this category. In his description of these models, Poole notes that groups and their members go through periods where they are in and out of synch. Thus, group development could be viewed as a constant cycling between these two phases.

Mennecke et al.'s (1992) framework was used as a starting point for classifying the group development models reviewed in this paper. One reason for selecting this model was that it had a history in that it built upon and updated Gibbard et al.'s (1974) work. A second reason for using this framework was that it included the two commonly reported models types, linear-progressive and cyclical or recurring cycle, found in the four other frameworks. The third reason for basing the framework used here on Mennecke et al.'s work was that by virtue of it being the most recent, it recognized and classified several of the newer group development models.

Several modifications were made to Mennecke et al.'s framework. One notable change was the moving of the life-cycle models from under the cyclical model category to the linear progressive category. This change was made based on the belief that life-cycles proceed in a linear fashion (birth-maturation-death). Even if an organism/ group was born and immediately died it would still have progressed in a linear fashion from birth to death.

Insights from the four other frameworks were also applied in modifying Mennecke et al.'s framework. For example, Mennecke et al.'s category of non-sequential models was expanded to include hybrid models. Hybrid models come in two types. One type addresses the existence/affect that contingent factors may have on determining developmental patterns. This type was presented in Poole's category of contingency models. The second type of hybrid model emerges from the combining of development models or theories. An example of this type of model is Morgan, Salas and Glickman's (1993) TEAM model that merged ideas found in Tuckman's (1965) model with the ideas of the cyclical models. The revised framework is depicted in Table 2.