Working together in groups

Chapter 5


Working together in groups



Objectives



1. Identify three essential conditions for group effectiveness


2. Identify four stages of group development


3. Examine how different mental processes affect behavior in groups


4. Identify maintenance roles of group members


5. Identify task roles of group members


6. Identify individual roles of group members that impede group progress


7. Apply the concept of emotional intelligence to groups


8. Discuss why meetings are important


9. Identify tools to promote effectiveness in meetings


10. Discuss characteristics of effective groups


11. Describe strategies to organize a committee


12. Participate in exercises to build skills in working together in groups




We have experience with groups in many arenas in our lives. A group is two or more people coming together to pursue common goals and/or interests (Varcarolis and Halter, 2010). Nurses have many opportunities to work in groups: staff meetings; patient care conferences; committees; project teams, such as quality improvement teams; multidisciplinary research teams (Weaver, 2008); and patient groups, such as support groups, either motivational or educational (Touhy and Jett, 2010). In a community setting, nurses may serve on boards or task forces as volunteers or political appointees. Psychiatric nurses may lead therapy groups. This chapter focuses on the dynamics of people working together in groups rather than on insight-oriented therapy groups, although some principles apply to all groups. Reynolds (2005) suggests that nurses need more education about group dynamics and that we cannot rely on working in groups just being common sense.


Communicating assertively in groups requires an understanding of group dynamics. This information can help you understand and modify your own behavior and help you to be a responsible group member. As you read, be thinking about your own experience in groups as a student, as a practitioner, and as a community member.



Three conditions for effective group development


Research demonstrates that three conditions must be met for effective group development: group members must trust one another; a sense of group identity must be present; and there must be a sense of group efficacy, a belief that the group can and will perform well, that the group as a whole performs better than individuals working on their own (Druskat, 2001; Gundry and LaMantia, 2001; Rosenthal, 2001). For these conditions to be met, the group must achieve high levels of participation, cooperation, and collaboration. Communication in groups is a blending of communication styles that may conflict or agree. Alessandra (2001) writes that a genuinely productive team “fully understands and savors its members’ styles.” Individuals must work together with a sense of belonging, yet each must still retain a sense of self, of a person with a personal history and story. Because obstacles exist to smooth communication in groups, it is important that there be a common purpose that is clear. As you learn more about the dynamics of people working together in a group, whether it be a team, a committee, or another form of group, consider that the group may be bigger in scope, intention, and power than the individuals of whom it is composed.



Four stages of group development


Four stages occur in the development of a group or team, although there is no set time for these stages, and it may seem that members move back and forth among the stages. Understanding these stages promotes longevity of groups. The stages are forming, storming, norming, and performing (Tuckman, 1965; Stuart, 2009). Think about individual development and consider how these stages compare: forming is like childhood, storming is like adolescence, norming is like young adulthood, and performing is like adulthood (Box 5-1).



Box 5-1   Stages of Group or Team Development




• In the forming stage, people are polite yet impersonal, unsure of their commitment. The team is figuring out team goals and beginning to obtain a clear idea of the work to be done. Members are testing group relationships to see how the work will get done and may want a dependent relationship with the leader or other group members.


• In the storming stage, overt or covert conflict may be evident. People may be hostile, engage in power struggles, be apathetic, and not be willing to work. They are resisting the process of teamwork, are resisting cohesion and collaboration, and do not have a commitment to the team. A hazard here is early termination of the group or committee when conflict surfaces and it is not understood as a healthy stage of building a cohesive group.


• In the norming stage, the group is getting organized, figuring out necessary rules and standards to get the work done, confronting problems and issues in a constructive way, and giving feedback. Members clarify the goals of the team, adopt new roles, define the tasks and procedures for the work to be done, and move into cohesion, collaboration, and commitment. The norms might be to turn off cell phones and beepers during the meeting, to arrive on time, to begin and end on time, to allow only one person to speak at a time, and to follow the agenda.


• In the performing stage, the work is getting done. People are open, can collaborate, are flexible, and are productive. They begin to do quality work, respect and support one another, motivate others by group achievement, and become flexible in their roles.


Modified from Tuckman B: Developmental sequence in small groups, Psychol Bull 63:384, 1965; and Stuart GW: Principles and practice of psychiatric nursing, ed 9, St. Louis, 2009, Mosby.



Effect of personal mental processes on behavior in groups


People have preferences for and are most comfortable with certain styles of mental processing. These styles include extroversion versus introversion and intuitive versus sensing modes of perceiving. Group conflict may be a reflection of differences in the way people process data. As you read, consider how these differences can be gifts to the functioning of a group.


People characterized by extroversion talk to think. Extroverts think out loud and get their energy from fast-paced conversations with quick exchanges of partially formed ideas. They get excited about their ideas and do their best work when they have time to talk them through to a logical conclusion. These people are comfortable sharing an idea just to get others’ reactions. This does not mean that they necessarily believe what they say.


People characterized by introversion think to talk. Introverts prefer to contemplate their ideas before sharing them. They use fewer, measured words and prefer not to share their ideas until their ideas are fully formed. They are less likely to respond quickly to questions because they wait to give their best answer.



WIT&Wisdom






WIT&Wisdom


For the extrovert


It has been estimated that we have 15,000 thoughts per day. There is no need to share every one of these.




WIT&Wisdom




Take a moment to consider whether extroversion or introversion sounds like your style. If group members are not aware of these different styles of thinking and sharing ideas, the people who talk to think, extroverts, may appear always to lead the discussion and to receive no help from those who think to talk. The extroverts resent the lack of participation of the quieter members, or perhaps they never even notice. The quieter members, the introverts, may believe their opinions are not wanted and stop trying. To honor these differences, the extroverts can practice their listening skills, understanding that silence may be needed for processing and that it does not necessarily mean consensus. They can consciously slow down and ask only one question at a time, allowing time for a response. The introverts can understand this and allow the extroverts time to process their ideas aloud. They can ask for a moment to think and take the initiative to make sure they are heard. With this knowledge, a group can avoid misunderstanding of each others’ styles and confront this issue to continue to get the best of people’s gifts. Some organizations provide staff with training in personality preferences, using a personality preference profile such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and/or trained facilitators to promote richer problem solving that honors the different styles people bring to groups (Balzer Riley, 1997; Kroeger et al, 2002).


People with an intuitive style of perceiving see the big picture. Intuitive individuals look for the end product and anticipate it. They may skip steps on the way to the solution, thinking “A . . . oh, yes, D.” In solving problems, they use and trust their intuition.


People with a sensing style collect data. Sensors want to know how many, how big, when, what, where, and who. They think “A . . . B . . . C . . ., and then D.” They solve problems by collecting facts.


Big-picture people may present what seem like unrealistic, fantastic ideas. They may jump to conclusions without careful consideration of all the practicalities involved in implementing their ideas. These big-picture people, or intuitives, if they can laugh at themselves, will understand the one-liner, “The possibilities are endless.” Data collectors, or sensors, may have trouble making a decision because they can never obtain all the data they would like. If these people can laugh at themselves, they will understand the one-liner, “Analysis paralysis.”


To honor these differences, big-picture people, intuitives, can listen to the detail people, sensors, to avoid making hasty decisions. They can be more patient with the necessary process of attention to details. They can focus on the current issues to be resolved before a solution can be implemented. Data collectors, sensors, can give others time to express their ideas without rapid dismissal, so that the creativity may be harnessed. They can understand that all the little pieces fit together to make the big picture (Kroeger et al, 2002).


To apply these concepts to group decision making, consider these two kinds of thinkers as divergent thinkers and convergent thinkers. Divergent thinkers want to express their views and broaden the discussion; this approach is characterized by the generation of options, free discussion, and gathering of diverse opinions. Convergent thinkers want to move toward conclusions; this approach is characterized by the evaluation of options, summarization of key points, and sorting of ideas into categories (Kaner et al, 1996).



Task, maintenance, and individual roles in groups


In groups, people assume roles that can facilitate or impede the work of the group. Table 5-1 lists maintenance and task roles that help build group success. As you read, consider what roles you have played in groups and those you might be willing to assume. Table 5-2 describes roles that can hinder the progress of groups. Consider which of these behaviors you have observed in groups and honestly evaluate which roles you have played that you would be willing to reexamine and change.


Tags:
Oct 26, 2016 | Posted by in NURSING | Comments Off on Working together in groups

Full access? Get Clinical Tree
Get Clinical Tree app for offline access