Reflections on Developmental Research and Workgroup Conflict
Like in the instrumental perspective, research in the developmental perspective can be questioned on the grounds that normative theory may be shaping study results. The various models of long-term development such as Wheelan’s (2005) are normative in the sense that they present an ideal sequence of phases that—traversed properly—will result in a growth experience for both group and members.
Most evidence for these models comes from interpretive case studies and from longitudinal studies that measure behavior that would be expected in the phases. By presuming that patterns are present, these studies may be smoothing over other aspects of these groups that run counter to the proposed developmental sequences. The strong presumption that there are orderly patterns of longitudinal development raises questions about the openness of this research to rejecting the null hypothesis. More studies that consciously set out to test the null are needed.The tight connection between process and outcomes in these models also raises questions. If a group progresses through the phases in the order posited, the assumption is that it is solving the primary problems posed in the phases as it develops. If, on the other hand, a group “loops back” to earlier phases, the assumption is that it is regressing to previous problems that were not solved adequately. There is, then, a tendency toward circular reasoning between sequence and outcome in the application of these models. It is important to assess or measure adequacy of problem solving independent of progress through phases to rigorously assess developmental models. The developmental perspective provides a useful complement to the instrumental approach. Its long-term view of workgroups that focuses on their health has the potential to provide a useful frame for shorter-term instrumental conflict management processes.