While in our 9th grade, my five friends and I formed a dancing group. Our main agenda was to be the most popular hip hop dancing crew across the state and participate in the dancing competitions that were held every year by the County government. The group members could meet every day, sometimes in the afternoon and other times in the evening. Although I was the team leader, every individual had a role to play as we were all assigned a choreography piece that we directed. We practiced dancing and participated in the December holidays competition which we always emerged the top 3. Amidst the efforts, the group faced various challenges, especially on holidays when our families would travel to different areas or go visiting relatives. During these times, we rarely met because of distance, and we could only meet again after the schools resumed. Amidst our efforts to keep up with the practice, we ended the group when we joined college.
The group dynamics and norms
Our group was categorized as a “task group” as it consisted of members who worked together to achieve a particular goal. The members came together to accomplish range of tasks within a set period (Friedman, 2001). Task groups are always referred to as task forces as the organization assigns each member a task which must be accomplished. In addition, all formal groups have roles assigned to members with emergent roles emerging naturally as the group attempts to meet its goals (Posavac " Carey, 2003). The dancing group was formally made although there were no significant formal structures as we had a leader and other members having same powers and rights. Every individual in our group was given a weekly task of training other members a particular dancing style. As the leader, my task was to oversee every activity in the group ensure there was coordination among the members (King " Kiely, 2008). I also had the role of ensuring that all decisions were made and executed in timely manner.
Group norms refer to the behavioral standards in a group that all the members share. They aid in the setting of acceptable and unacceptable behavioral boundaries (Corey, Corey, " Corey, 2014). Norms are created to enable groups to survive, make predictable behaviors, express the values of the group, and avoid any possible embarrassing situations. The dance group had set agreeable norms which set our performance limits and behaviors. All the team members, for instance, agreed to meet every evening, during games time and on weekends from 2.00 PM. We were also expected to come with our dancing attires which would aid in flexible and easy dancing moves. In addition, the group had agreed that anyone who would miss practice for 3 consecutive times or no longer perform as expected would be expelled. The groups, thus, worked tirelessly towards ensuring that the goals and tasks were achieved in a timely manner and every member’s ideas were respected.
Group formation process
The group had gone through Bruce Tuckman’s five stages of development. The first stage is identified as the forming process as it represents the time in which the group members just started to get together. It is characterized by uncertainty and anxiety as members are not so familiar with one another (Fehr¸ 2003). The stage is also accompanied caution among the members who have the desire to be accepted by all the other individuals in the group (Clayton, 1985). Tuckman (1965) also suggested that this is the stage where the purpose and focus of the team is created. Individuals are organized and responsibilities assigned. When we formed the group, we experienced most aspects of the first stage. Although we had known each other, every individual behaved cautiously and discipline (Wheelan " Hochberger, 1996). Everyone was soft spoken and all ideas were accepted. Personally, I was nervous in the first meeting, and when was made the group leader, I assured the other members that we would all have equal powers.
The second stage of group development process is storming where the members of the team begin to experience push and pull about the boundaries and goals of the team. It is characterized by conflicts among the team members who find differences in their working styles (Ainsworth, 1998; Tuckman, 1965). The stage is also associated with leadership challenges the followers may at this point challenge their leader by refusing to take orders or avoiding key tasks (Benson, 2001). After three weeks of our meetings, most of the team members began to arrive late for the dancing training. As a leader I would be forced to call them to remind them about our meeting times. On one instance, one of the team members said that I was being too strict yet training was not too serious activity. With frequent lateness, we became overwhelmed with the daily meeting, particularly was when there was an upcoming competition in a week’s time.
The third stage of the group formation process is norming. The stage evolves a different efforts made by the group members to resolve any conflicts that may arise (Sharry¸ 2001; Conyne, 1997). The group members also appreciate the efforts of other team members, and respect the leadership authority. With the intention to success, the group members get committed towards achieving how main objectives of the group (Tuckman, 1965). This stage was a key component in ensuring that our group survived for over 3 years. After the persistent conflicts that reduced intergroup communication, I called for a meeting to remind the team of the reasons the group was formed. We then discussed freely how we could address the challenges that we faced. From then, all the team members became active and attended the dance practice on time. Most of the group members respected me as their leader and would always inform me earlier in case they would miss the practice. As new dancing styles were introduced by some of our team members, everyone came up with constructive feedback.
Performing is considered the fourth stage of group formation. It is the stage that the team is able to achieve its goals without any friction. The process and structures that the group had formed initially helps in the achievement of the goal (Sharry¸ 2001). Leaders are able to delegate a lot of work, and the team members get the chance to grow professionally or socially. With the adherence to the training schedules and practice new styles as recommended by the group members, we reached a point of stability (Sharry, 2007). The group functioned efficiently, particularly when we were on the summer holiday. We met more than twice a day during the weekdays, and from 2.00 pm on the weekends. Everything could go on smoothly and each team member learnt new dancing moves. Interestingly, we got a choreographer who taught us different dancing techniques and dressing; the learning was easy and every member was cooperative.
The fourth stage of group development is adjourning which is usually the end process. At this point, the team members may decide to disband or exit from the group after accomplishing its goals (Rubin, 1995; Smith, 2001). Because of the resulting close relationship among the members, it is obvious that exiting would be a difficult process, especially when the future is unknown (Bundey, Cullen, Denshire, Grant, Norfor, " Nove, n.d). We also experienced this stage when we joined college. Everyone was admitted to different campuses so we would not meet. Although the dance group did not intend to end, the circumstances could not favor our practice; we thought we could continue with the dance practice on holidays, but our families could spend the times at different places. Eventually, we decided to dissolve the group with everyone wishing things were different.
Implemented group facilitation techniques
When the team was active, the members utilized various group facilitation methods to ensure that the goals were achieved. A key technique that was implemented was action planning (Justice " Jamieson¸ 1999). This involved gaining commitment towards achieving the goal by setting key action items. A team using this approach records each action item by highlighting: “what” the point of action is; “when” the action is to be executed; “who” performs every activity of the action; and “progress” of the action which is to be filled later (Justice " Jamieson¸ 1999; Heron, 2000). When we first created the group, we had an agenda which was to learn unique hip-hop dancing moves. Since we had to do different tasks including learning foot work, hand moves, and even wining, the group came up with an action plan. We scheduled each activity for a week; for instance, the footwork was assigned the first week we started training. The group agreed to meet during games time in the field to do the practice. Furthermore, one of them members was chosen to teach us this single move. The plans were prepared every single week when we practiced different dancing styles.
To ensure that the action plans were effective, the group ensured that no member was forced to take a particular action. We had to list all the activities to be carried out, and every member given the chance to choose the tasks they were comfortable executing (Johnson " Johnson, 2013). The actions were described by the team leader using understandable terminology with all group members agreeing on the date of completion (Justice " Jamieson¸ 1999). All the dance moves the group was tasked with would take a period of one and every member understood their tasks thereby enhancing the success of the group. We also ensured that the progress of the team was reported every Sunday; one of the team members would write minutes on the progress as well as the possible actions that could be used as interventions.
Another facilitation method the team adopted was brainstorming. The technique is an ideal tool that can be used to generate large quantities of ideas in a group (Fehr¸ 2003). For effectiveness, there is need to: let ideas flow freely; record all the ideas proposed by each group member; focus of quantity rather than the quality of ideas; avoid criticizing any proposed ideas during the brainstorming process; and the need for a facilitator during the process (Clayton¸ 1996; Napier " Gershenfeld, 1999). As the leader of the group, I always ensured that I oversee the brainstorming process which we did almost every day when we practiced. Dancing is an art, and as such requires continuous creativity. The team members would, thus, pause in the process of dance training to brainstorm on various moves that could be integrated into the assigned dancing styles. Every individual was given the opportunity to suggest their moves with no restrictions (Bundey, Cullen, Denshire, Grant, Norfor, " Nove, n.d). None of the proposed moves were criticized, and all the members would try to practice and make group selection of the best proposals.
Conclusion
Our dancing group was in existent for 5 years while we were in high school. The group constituted of six members who were dedicated towards winning the hip hop dancing awards in the county competitions. Being a leader, I ensured that there was discipline in the group and every member felt comfortable. The group had its unique norms and structure that allowed every individual to fit in the organization and perform their individual tasks. Some of the key principles that guided the group were: equality, perseverance, and hard work. All the members had the same rights and could equally contribute to the group. We also ensured we worked hard daily and could sacrifice our family fun activities to meet for practice. Although we ended the group due to time constraint, we managed to win three awards in the 4 years period.
References
Ainsworth, F. (1998). Program evaluation for child and family services: What can be done? Children Australia, 23(2), 39–43.
Benson, J. (2001). Working more creatively with groups (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Bundey, C., Cullen, J., Denshire, C., Grant, J., Norfor, J., " Nove, T. (n.d.). A manual about group leadership and a resource for group leaders. Sydney, Australia: Western Sydney Area Health Promotion Centre.
Carter, P., " Russell, K. (2003). More psychometric testing. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley " Sons.
Clayton, M. (1989). Group work training manual. Melbourne, Australia: Australian College of Psychodrama.
Clayton, M. (1996). Effective group leadership. Melbourne, Australia: ICA Press.
Conyne, R. (1997). Group work ideas I have made aphoristic (for me). Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 22(3), 149–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933929708414376
Corey, M. S., Corey, G., " Corey, C. (2014). Groups: Process and practice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fehr, S. (2003). Introduction to group therapy: A practical guide. New York, NY: The Hayworth Press.
Friedman, M. (2001). The results and performance accountability implementation guide. Retrieved from http://www.raguide.org/RA/complete_paper.htm
Heron, J. (2000). The complete facilitator’s handbook. London, England: Kogan Page.
Johnson, D. W., " Johnson, F. P. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Justice, T., " Jamieson, D. W. (1999). The facilitator’s fieldbook: Step-by-step procedures, checklists and guidelines, samples and templates. New York, NY: Amacom.
King, A., " Kiely, P. (2008). Effective group leadership training manual. Sydney, Australia: UnitingCare Burnside.
Napier, R., " Gershenfeld, M. (1999). Groups: Theory and experience (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Posavac, E. J., " Carey, R. G. (2003). Program evaluation methods and case studies (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, F. (1995). A basic guide to evaluation for development workers. Oxford, UK: Oxfam Publishing.
Schneider-Corey, M., Corey, G., " Corey, C. (2018). Groups: Process and practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning
Sharry, J. (2007). Solution-focused groupwork (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action research. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Wheelan, S., " Hochberger, J. (1996). Validation studies of the group development questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27(1), 143–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496496271007
