Group Life Cycle and Conflict

A long tradition of research has observed the functions of conflict in long-term group development. In one of the most famous for­mulations, Tuckman (1965) postulated that groups pass through stages of forming, storm­ing, norming, and performing.

Stage 1: Dependency and inclusion

Stage 2: Counterdependency and fight

Stage 3: Trust and structure

Stage 4: Work

Stage 5: Termination

The various stages present the group and its members with problems they must resolve:

(a) how to deal with dependence on others,

(b) what degree of independence of member action is allowed, (c) the purpose and direc­tion of the group, (d) control and power issues, (e) organizing the group for effective work, (f) maintaining an effective and creative work process, (g) meeting members’ individual needs, and (h) coming to terms with the end of an important experience. Bushe and Coetzer (2007) suggested that the primary conflict of workgroups at those stages might be differ­ences in perceptions of the group as it is versus the group as it ought to be. Karriker (2005) argued that leadership emergence was a key concern. As the group faces these and other problems, if it works through its problem effectively, it will develop and members will grow, both as group members and personally. Then the group can move on to confronting its next problem in the developing sequence. If the group avoids dealing with these issues or does not address them effectively, the group may remain “stuck” in a stage and not be able to develop further. Even if the group continues to develop, the problems will come back to haunt it. A group that runs into difficulties is likely to regress to an earlier stage at some later time.

Conflict is a critical part of the developmen­tal process.

From a developmental perspective, effec­tive conflict management depends on dealing with current issues. An effective outcome is one that members are satisfied with and that puts the issue to rest. Akrivou, Boyatzis, and McLeod (2006) argued that the devel­opmental perspective might also be used in a normative way to make prescriptions for groups initiating change. Akrivou et al. cri­tiqued previous research on group develop­ment as overly descriptive and called for more research on prescriptive change in group life cycles.

Unlike the instrumental perspective, the developmental perspective regards emotion as a necessary and potentially beneficial part of conflict. Indeed, Akrivou et al. (2006) argued that too much research on conflict considers emotions negatively. Conflict stems from exis­tential needs and therefore inherently arouses emotions. Dealing with conflict effectively requires members to acknowledge and work through their emotional reactions to the group and to each other. Only if the group members successfully come to terms with their needs and express their emotions will a group be effective in the instrumental sense.