Group Stage and Adaptation Models

Seeing as group interactions and the person-in-group-in-environment perspective form a fundamental component of learning in adventure programming, understanding how groups function is vital (Schoel & Maizell, 2002). A classical model of group development, formed primarily from studies of therapy progression, suggests five stages of group development: forming, storming, norming, performing, and finally adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Cassidy (2007) proposed a model that may be more applicable outside therapeutic contexts, and focuses on practitioner concerns, rather than group outcomes. In her model practitioners initially emphasise individual concerns, then group concerns, followed by purpose concerns, work concerns, and finally termination concerns. Another approach to group development emphasises adjustment to the “culture shock”, and associated responses such as homesickness or anger, group members experience when entering a novel physical

environment with new social norms and people from diverse backgrounds (Fabrizio &

Neill, 2005). The stages of adaptation in this model include: (a) honeymoon or tourist stage (coinciding with the forming stage); (b) crisis or culture shock phase (coincides with the storming stage); (c) adjust and reorientation stage (coincides with the norming stage); and (d) adaptation, resolution or acculturation phase (coincides with the performing stage) (Fabrizio & Neill, 2005; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Winkelman, 1994). Ideally this process should be educational and developmental, but groups can fail to progress in their development for a number of reasons. Important aspects that can influence the development of groups include the nature and order of tasks, the perceived social norms espoused by the programme, and the leadership style and intervention of programme staff. Also, group development is seldom as linear as suggested by stage models (Dexel, 2009).

The group activities should be structured to provide progressively more challenging goals so as to provide groups with opportunities for success and the development of skills, and thereby facilitate positive group functioning and development (Bisson, 1999). However, affirming activities can be derailed if negative group norms like apathy, defiance or hostility begin to play out. In order to facilitate positive group interactions, foster healthy group development, and create a nurturing programme environment a full value contract can be used (Scheol & Maizell, 2002).

The contract consists of six principles that should be discussed between the group members and facilitated by the programme leaders so that, ideally, participants feel ownership of these group norms: (a) be here – requires participants to be drawn into deeper levels of affiliation with the group and involvement in activities, involving being at the least physically present in the activity, participation, connection, and

having fun together; (b) be safe – involves continual attention to safety and taking responsibility, making a commitment to one's self and the group, maintaining healthy boundaries, and forging relationships with the group and leaders; (c) commitment to goals – involves identifying chosen goals, taking initiative in developing solutions and strategies, accessing help that is needed, and evaluating outcomes and obstacles;

(d) be honest – involves each member assessing their own and others strengths, weaknesses and potential value; providing feedback from a positive place that is caring, concrete, concise, and clear; and encouraging participants to value and learn from others' perspectives; (e) let go and move on – involves challenging participants to accept challenge and risk, accept the positive and negative aspects of the situation and use forgiveness to let go, accept the vulnerability and insecurity of transition and change, and then move forward to a better way of being; and (f) care for self and others – involves negotiating a balance between self care by pulling on the support of the group and spirituality in the various forms it is experienced, and other centred caring by serving the needs of the larger community (Scheol & Maizell, 2002). The relative involvement and style of leadership enacted by programme staff is likely to influence group development and emotional response (Rothwell, Siharath, Badger, Negley, & Piatt, 2008). Positive adaptation can be facilitated by pre-experience preparation, support structures during the experience, experiential exercises such as role plays, and post-experience debriefing (Fabrizio & Neill, 2005). The style of leadership and roles leaders must play are largely dependant on the stage of development the group is in, and the individual goals and needs of the group at any given time. McPhee and Gass (1993) provide a model that describes five stages of group development, as well as the common interactions, and instructor roles for each

stage. Although the model provides a useful framework to consider the pressing needs and activities the group may be involved in at any given point during the adventure programme, McPhee and Gass (1993) emphasise that leaders must bear in mind that individual needs and goals that may be separate from the group, and that individuals may jump backwards and forwards through stages.

Table 2.1

McPhee and Gass' (1993) adventure programme group development model Stage Group interactions Instructor roles

- Fear of expectations - Clearly define programme expectations and goals for

Another model that is useful for understanding how leader roles and style need to adjust according to the group's developmental phase is proposed in the Conditional Outdoor Leadership Theory (COLT, Priest & Chase, 1989). According to this theory an autocratic leaderships style, which involves making decisions and then convincing the group to follow you, is most appropriate during the forming and adjourning stages of group development. A democratic leadership style, in which decision-making power is shared between the leader and the group, is most appropriate during the storming and performing stages of group development. While an abdicratic leadership style, in which leaders delegate decision-making responsibility to the group, is most appropriate during the norming stage of group development. At different times during the groups development concern for the task and relationship dimensions of activities will fluctuate from high to low (Priest & Chase, 1989). These variations are illustrated in the figure below:

Figure 2.3: Conditional Outdoor Leadership Theory (Priest & Chase, 1989)