Storming

Storming is a time of conflict and anxiety, when the group moves from primary tension (awkwardness about being in a strange situation) to secondary tension (intragroup conflict) (Bormann, 1975). During this period, if the group is functioning well, it works out its “threshold for tension” and reaches a balance between too little and too much tension. Group members and leaders struggle with issues related to structure, direction, control, catharsis, and interpersonal relationships (Hershenson, Power, & Waldo, 2003; Maples, 1988). Although frustration and noise sometimes increase during this stage, quiet storming in the form of avoidance may also take place. It is important that “the group and its members express and explore differences between and among members” if the group is to be productive (Donigian&Malnati, 1997, p. 64). Members need to work through past nonproductive ways of relating, create new repertoires, and establish their place in the group.

Brief Case

Olivia Gets Stuck in Storming

Olivia is a new group leader. She has never read a book on leading groups or received supervision. Yet she thought it would be fun to form a group within her service club. For the first few sessions, all went well as members bantered about as they did at their weekly meetings. Then when the discussions got more serious about what the group would do to better the club, tension arose. Put quite simply, there are three competing ideas out on the floor, and there is a lot of competition to see which one emerges as the strongest. The group now has three subgroups and a few independent thinkers. Tempers are beginning to flare just a bit, and Olivia is worried that someone may get either mentally or physically hurt.

Questions

• What would you recommend Olivia do? When? How?

Each group experiences the storming process differently. Some may encounter all the problems associated with this period, whereas others may have few difficulties. A group’s development may be arrested here by either dwelling on conflict or ignoring it, and the group may never move on to the working stage (Forsyth, 2019). When this happens, conflict becomes destructive, and disagreements spiral upward, “characterized by power, manipulation, coercion, threats, and deception” (McRoy& Brown, 1996, p. 12). Therefore, it is essential that the group leader help members recognize and deal with their conflict and any anxiety and resistance associated with it (Gladding, 1994a; Mahler, 1969). They may do so through either conflict resolution or conflict management.

Conflict resolution “is based on the underlying notion that conflict is essentially negative and destructive” (Rybak & Brown, 1997, p. 31). Therefore, the primary focus is on ending a specific conflict. For instance, the leader may ask Kevin and Opal to stop calling each other names or making absolute, general statements about each other. Conflict management is premised on the “basis that conflict can be positive” (Rybak & Brown, 1997, p. 31); thus, the focus is on directing conflict toward a constructive dialogue (McRoy& Brown, 1996). For instance, if Peter and Heather accuse each other of being insensitive, then they may be asked to show each other which actions they would like to see in the other.

When group leaders employ either a conflict resolution or a conflict management approach, the potential benefits of conflict in a group are numerous. For instance, conflict can open up relationship development in the group by highlighting interpersonal boundaries between members. It can also help the group as a whole overcome resistance to change from receiving more information. Other positive functions of conflict that come from resolving or managing it include releasing tension, strengthening relationships, and reevaluating and clarifying goals (McRoy& Brown, 1996). Satisfactorily dealing with conflict results eventually in a, “degree of interdependence versus independence that is acceptable in the relationship between members and within the group as a whole” (Rybak & Brown, 1997, p. 31).

Storming has some central characteristics that determine which way conflict will be handled and how the group will progress: peer relationships, resistance, and task processing.

Peer Relationships in Storming

During the storming stage, group members are initially more anxious in their interactions with one another because they are afraid of losing control, being misunderstood, looking foolish, or being rejected. Some avoid taking a risk by remaining silent at this time; others who want to establish their place in the group deal with their anxiety by being more open and assertive (Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). For instance, Cheryl may remain quiet during storming and simply observe the group members’ interactions. However, Tony may be verbally aggressive and express his thoughts about every idea raised in the group.

The concern for power is also prevalent during storming. Power is “the capacity to bring about certain intended consequences in the behavior of others” (Gardner, 1990, p. 55). The struggle for power occurs soon after group members have oriented themselves to the group formation. Attitudes toward power become important because the ways in which group members deal with this issue influence how conflictual or cooperative a group will become (Johnson & Johnson, 2017).

Power within a group can take many forms. Informational power is premised on the idea that people who know more are able to exert control over situations, including those involving people. Influential power is based on the idea of persuasion and manipulation of others through convincing them that a certain course of action is correct. Authoritative power is predicated on social position or responsibility in an organization. Authoritative means, such as “pulling rank,” may be employed to try to influence members of groups that include individuals of unequal status, such as those in task/work groups.

Reflection

• When have you seen any of the three types of power just explained displayed? When have you exercised power of any type, especially in a group? How do you feel about exerting power? How do you feel when power is exerted on you?

The principles that operate in dealing with power are similar regardless of the type of power being expressed. At first, members will attempt to resolve power concerns in ways that resemble those they have used outside the group—for example, by fighting or fleeing. If these strategies work, then members will continue to employ them. If not, members will formulate new ways of handling potentially conflictual situations. For example, when Tracy finds that yelling at other group members does not influence them and make them respect her, she may try having one-to-one conversations or persuading the group that she should be respected by telling members stories about what she has done in the past.

Members’ attitudes about trusting the group and its leader are also an issue during storming. There is usually a good deal of mistrust in others during the storming stage, based partly on lacking experience in dealing with the group and partly on resolving anxiety and power issues while moving from a superficial group toward becoming a unified one. Too much mistrust will hinder people in the group from becoming cohesive. However, blind trust uninformed by experience (e.g., telling group members your intimate thoughts before getting to know them fully) is also inappropriate.

Connected to the issues of anxiety, power, and trust among peers is the question of the quality of verbal interaction. Negative comments, judgments, and criticisms are frequent during storming as members deal with issues of control, conflict, and dominance in the establishment of a hierarchy (Maples, 1988; Schutz, 1971; Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). For instance, members may focus on the content of the message. In these situations, their responses would most likely be statements such as “I cannot understand why you allowed that to happen to you,” “I don’t think you were very smart in letting that occur,” or “If I were you, I would have . . .”

Brief Case

Critical Carl

He swore he was only being truthful, but every time a group member brought up a situation in which he had been wronged, Carl pounced on the event like a lion on a gazelle. He was relentless in his criticism and judgment. Members either fought with him or stopped talking to him. Finally, several members of the group pointed out to Carl what he was doing. He protested but to no avail. It took considerable time, but finally Carl realized what he was doing and modified his behavior.

Questions

• Why do you think Carl was resistant to changing his critical demeanor? What strategies outside of verbal confrontation do you think would help an overly critical person modify a behavior?

If all goes well during the storming stage, then group members come to understand themselves and one another better. They begin to develop empathy for one another, too. However, to make progress, the group must work collectively through its resistance to change.

Resistance During Storming

Resistance is any behavior that moves the group away from areas of discomfort, conflict, or potential growth. It appears to increase especially during the early part of the storming stage (Higgs, 1992). Forms of resistance are multidirected and aimed at discussion material (e.g., “I don’t want to talk about that”), the leader (e.g., “You’re the leader; you show me how to change”), other members (e.g., “I think Jim doesn’t like me. I’m leaving”), questions of control (e.g., “I don’t feel safe in here, and I’m not going to say anything until I do”), or the group in general (e.g., “You guys are a bunch of losers. I don’t have anything in common with you”).

Group leaders who are unprepared for such experiences may become defensive when this kind of behavior happens. In such situations, the group is thrown into chaos, and the leader may feel personally attacked or insulted. When this behavior occurs, responses by members and the leader are usually angry and unproductive. For example, Helen may say, “June, if you do not like this group and what is being discussed here, you can quit and find another group.” June may reply by yelling, “You aren’t in charge and have no right to tell me what to do!”

Some forms of resistance are subtle. For example, group member behaviors may appear to be accepting on the surface but are really resisting underneath. The most prevalent forms of subtle indirect resistance are described in the following subsections.

Intellectualization

Intellectualization is a behavior characterized by an emphasis on abstraction with a minimal amount of affect or emotion (Clark, 1992). The person uses thoughts and a sophisticated vocabulary to avoid dealing with personal feelings. Such a process helps the member become detached from the group. For example, a psychotherapy group member might say to the group, “Many people think they are being threatened when others disagree with them.” Unless this comment contains some personal feelings, such as “I feel that this group is rejecting me when members disagree with me,” it is difficult to make a meaningful response.

Questioning

In interpersonal relationships, a question is often a disguise for a statement. If members are constantly questioning one another, then they are safe from exposing their true selves. Questions keep the group focused on why something occurred in the past and thereby prevent members from concentrating on what is happening now. In a resistant counseling group, members may use questions such as, “Do we really have to talk about how we feel?” or “How come John is not saying as much as Susan about his past group experience?”

To counter questions, group leaders need to take corrective actions. One of the best strategies is for leaders to ask members to use the word “I” before beginning a sentence, such as “I feel nervous.” A complementary strategy is for leaders to say, “Since most questions are really statements, I want each of you to rephrase your query as such.” Thus, in the examples just given, statements would be “I do not want to talk about my feelings” and “I wish John would say as much as Susan about his past group experience.” Through such approaches, members and the group as a whole are invited to examine their thoughts and feelings in a productive way.

Advice Giving

Advice giving involves instructing someone on what to do in a particular situation. Advice is seldom appropriate or needed in most groups (Sack, 1985). It prevents members from struggling with their own feelings (Greason, 2011) and keeps the advice giver from having to recognize shortcomings in his or her life. In a resistant group member, advice may be general or specific, but it is usually not helpful. For example, Jan may say to Wanda, “I think what you need to do is to exercise more. Until you feel better about your body, you will never feel good about yourself.” This advice may have merit, but because the members do not know one another well, it will probably be seen as criticism and separate Jan and Wanda even more.

Reflection

• When have you ever been offered advice? How did you feel as the recipient? Is there a danger to giving advice to someone in the midst of the struggle she is having about a decision? What is the downside to such action? What is the upside?

Band-Aiding

The cleverly named concept known as band-aiding involves the misuse of support. It is the process of preventing others from fully expressing their emotional pain through ventilating their feelings (catharsis). Band-aiders soothe wounds and alleviate feelings when just the opposite would be more appropriate. For example, in a psychotherapy group, Rad may try to calm Jason physically and psychologically when Jason is shouting about the way he was treated by his parents. If Rad succeeds in his effort, then he prevents Jason from releasing his feelings and thereby dealing with them. Jason may then continue to be angry and, at times, project his emotions onto others. This may result in extending the storming stage of the group.

Brief Case

Band-Aid Bob

He had been hurt badly in the breakup of an intimate relationship, and Bob still carried the wounds. He thought he had joined a grief support group, but he soon found out he had become a member of a denial troupe. The members simply did not want to listen to or hear about pain. Therefore, Bob became more and more frustrated. He wanted to get his feelings out. Instead, he was blocked from moving on in his life.

Questions

• What are some ways Bob could have handled this situation besides becoming frustrated and mad about it? When have you seen people or groups band-aid someone? What was the result?

Dependency

Group members who display dependency behaviors encourage advice givers and band-aiders. They present themselves as helpless and incapable but refuse to listen to feedback. They are “help-rejecting complainers” (Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). For example, Joyce may say to Tom, “What would you do in my situation? You are more experienced than I am. I need your help.” If Tom responds by taking charge of Joyce’s life, then neither he nor Joyce is helped because Joyce becomes more dependent on Tom, and the two begin to relate as unequals in a one-up/one-down position.

Other forms of resistance, discussed next, are more direct and potentially more destructive.

Monopolizing

Monopolizing occurs when a person or persons in the group dominate the group’s time through excessive talking or activity that is often irrelevant to the group’s task. At other times, their points are pertinent but so full of unimportant details or movement that group members are unable to process what they have heard. In either case, this form of resistance keeps the group from working on either individual or group projects.

Monopolizers may be helped by: (a) confronting them; (b) teaching them new skills to deal with anxiety (e.g., progressive relaxation); or (c) giving them feedback on how their old or new behaviors affect interpersonal communications (Krieg, 1988; Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). In some cases, the group leader may display a hand signal to remind the monopolizer that he or she needs to change behaviors.

Attack on the Group Leader

An attack on the group leader is probably the most direct form of resistance that causes groups difficulty. Such attacks are somewhat common in involuntary groups where members are mandated or assigned to come. Many theories view an attack on the leader as an opportunity to shape new norms and enhance group movement (Donigian& Hulse-Killacky, 1999). Regardless, it is vital that the group leader not ignore an attack. Sometimes attacks are justified, especially if the group leader has been insensitive to members’ needs. However, such is not always the case.

Processes that contribute to leader attacks in almost all groups, if they are voluntary, are subgrouping, fear of intimacy, and extragroup socializing. For example, if subgroups develop in the group, then isolated thoughts and ideas may germinate concerning the leader’s competence. It does not take long for such negative thoughts to surface and be expressed. These difficulties and attacks can be prevented if members are thoroughly screened, pregroup training takes place, and rules for the group are clearly defined in the beginning. For example, in a psychotherapy group, Zack may be asked to wait to participate in the next group being offered because he appears unable to think through situations by himself. When the leader has doubts about whether someone is ready for a group, it is probably better to err on the side of caution and deny the person a particular group experience.

When an attack on the leader comes, however, it must be addressed and dealt with immediately. Otherwise, the group will become unsafe for any risk-taking behavior and will disintegrate into a series of attack sessions in which members feel threatened and drop out (Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). In other words, perpetual storming will prevail. One of the best strategies for group leaders to use in dealing with attacks is to face them directly and attempt to determine the underlying variables that have led to them, such as unresolved feelings. It is best that the leader does this in a nondefensive and open manner. For example, if Ben, as the leader, is being attacked for not creating a safe and trusting atmosphere, he may state, “As I listen to what you are saying, I’m aware that you would like me to do more. I’d like to know what you have specifically in mind. I’d also like to know how you would like others in the group to act so that you would feel safer and more trusting.”

Task Processing in Storming

Task processing (ways of accomplishing specific goals) appears to regress during storming. No longer do members or leaders concentrate as directly on objectives as they did at the beginning of the group. Rather, there is a great deal of attention on personal matters, such as group safety, leader competence, trust, and ways of interacting. It is healthy that this “pause” in the group takes place, for it allows everyone the opportunity of reevaluating goals and directions. More important, it provides a chance for group participants to “look” before they “leap” toward the process of change.

A potential problem in this suspension of effort to accomplish a task is that someone in the group may be blamed, or scapegoated, for the group’s lack of achievement (Rugel, 1991). To scapegoat is to project the group’s problems onto a single individual instead of the group taking responsibility for creating and resolving its difficulties. If such an event occurs, then the group spends additional time and energy working on interpersonal issues that must be resolved before the group as a whole can get back on task. It is crucial that members and leaders take responsibility for their own actions at this point in the life of the group. For example, in response to Marc being blamed by several group members for present problems, Jean may say, “I think the situation we are currently in is the result of more than one person’s actions. We have all contributed in our own unique ways to this situation. If we are going to help one another, then we need to explore what we have done up to this point and try to do some things differently.”

If members can be helped by the leader and one another to express their feelings in relation to individual or collective goals, then scapegoating is less likely to happen, and greater awareness will most likely evolve (Saidla, 1990). This process is helpful in the eventual achievement of selective tasks and the healthy growth of the group and its members.

Working Through Storming

Several methods have already been mentioned for working through particular forms of problematic intrapersonal and interpersonal group issues during storming. However, there are global and uniform means of helping the group as a body during this time as well. One way to help group members work through their feelings in storming is to use a process observer (a neutral third-party professional who observes the group and gives it feedback on its interpersonal and interactive processes). As Trotzer (1997) states, “The foundation for effective problem-solving and conflict resolution is effective group process. . . . Impasse and polarization arise with conflict when group process is defective or ignored” (p. 6).

By giving the group feedback as to what he or she sees occurring, a process observer can help the group become more open in acknowledging and constructively responding to tensions and anxieties that may be present in group member relationships. For example, the process observer may say to the group, “I have noticed that Rick and Darla seem to be struggling with each other regarding what the group will focus on today while the rest of the group is silent. This pattern has been going on about 10 minutes now. I wonder what is happening with the group?” Framing an observation in such a factual way allows all members of a group to hear it and allows members besides Rick and Darla to deal with what appears to be a covert conflict. By starting early to observe what is going on among group members, the members and the group as a whole can attempt to change behaviors or modify ways of interacting.

A second way to work through the storming stage is to use the process of leveling, where members are encouraged to interact freely and evenly (Kline, 1990; Kottler, 1994). In leveling, the leader draws out group members who are underparticipating, and those who are excessively active are helped to understand the impact of their actions through group feedback. For instance, if Tonya is always making a comment after each group member voices a concern or makes a statement, then the leader may intervene by saying, “Tonya, do you realize how your active participation in the group affects other members’ abilities to get involved?” If Tonya does not acknowledge any awareness, then the leader may ask the group to help Tonya become more sensitive to how her actions are preventing others from becoming involved in the group. A slightly different strategy would work for Al, who is not speaking up in the group. An open invitation by the group leader might be, “Al, we haven’t heard from you today. What’s on your mind?” If leveling works well, then the verbal behavior within the group is modified so that members participate evenly. When everyone in the group interacts, issues that have the potential to cause conflict may surface and be resolved sooner.

Another method for working through storming is for group members to acknowledge what is occurring in the group independent of a process observer. If group leaders or members deny that the group is in unrest or even conflict, then confusion will arise. In addition, members will not trust themselves, take risks, or believe the leader. In most groups, members can handle honesty better than denial or deception. They may agree with Walter, who says to Michelle and Megan, “I wish you guys would resolve your personal disagreement so we can move on toward working on our goals.” By facing the fact that storming is happening, members and leaders know what they are up against and can thereby give themselves permission to be less frustrated and display greater tolerance of what is happening. Acknowledgment also enables members to make plans and develop a greater sensitivity to the situation so that it can be improved.

A fourth global way of dealing with the storming part of transition is to get feedback from members about how they are doing and what they think needs to be done (Greason, 2011; Ponzo, 1991). Feedback either encourages change or supports the current status quo. The feedback process can take place in a formal or an informal way. Using informal feedback, the leader may ask members to give their reactions to a group session in an unstructured way at any time they wish. Such an invitation is likely to increase spontaneity and sensitivity. For instance, Bettie may say, “Oh, I just realized something I’m doing. Every time Patricia talks, I tune her out. She reminds me of my mother, with whom I had real trouble. Yet, just now, Patricia, I heard your comments about your own pain, and I suddenly became aware that you are your own person.”

Formal feedback is structured. It may be set up, for example, through the use of what is known as rounds (having each person in the group make a comment). In rounds, individuals have the same amount of time, usually 1 or 2 minutes, to say whatever they wish. Through using rounds, especially those that are time specific, everyone gets equal “airtime” to give input and make suggestions. In formal feedback rounds, the views of the group as a whole are heard. Formal feedback may also include the use of logs or journals (members’ written comments made after a group). Ideally, logs are written and read between group sessions by the group leader. The leader then gives feedback to group members and even the group as a whole regarding specific and general comments. “Collected logs can be a robust diary of the entire group experience, documenting ups and downs, the progress or lack of it, and can sometimes serve as a map showing members’ growth” (Riordan & White, 1996, p. 98).

A final way of working through storming is the use of motivational interviewing (MI), a client-centered, directive method for resolving ambivalence that impedes change (Young, 2013). The spirit of MI is founded on the client-centered principles of autonomy (that the group member has a right and ability to make choices), collaboration (the opposite of confrontation), and evocation (as opposed to education). By using MI techniques such as keeping questions open-ended, intentionally using reflections, recognizing readiness, and guiding members in setting personal goals, the leader may help a group member, and the group itself move on.

Reflection

• Which of the strategies just described do you think you would employ in a group that was storming? Which would you not employ? Why?

Results of Working Through Storming

When the group works through storming, especially in regard to resistance, the group will take on a new dimension characterized by members making emotional space for one another and being accommodating. Additional changes will include, “more plain talk, open risk taking, overt agendas, increased intimacy, greater appreciation for one another, more intense emotions, and an emphasis on the present” (Ormont, 1988, p. 44). Members may decide to revise their goals or alter their style of interpersonal relationships as a result of working through storming.

Altering interpersonal relationship style is especially important to the group’s future development. Often members enter a group with a limited response range. For example, in the area of conflict management, members may only know or feel comfortable using one or two of five dominant conflict management orientations: competing, accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, or compromising (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). These conflict management styles can be characterized as follows:

• Competing—Occurs when individuals pursue their own concerns at other people’s expense—for example, Heather insists that she be picked up from school at 5:00 p.m. even if it means others have to rearrange their schedules to do so.
• Accommodating—Happens when individuals neglect their own concerns to satisfy the concerns of others—for example, Anna gives up an hour of sleep each night so she can fix breakfast for her suite mates.
• Collaborating—Occurs when individuals work with others to find solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of both—for example, the Brown family searches until they can find a movie they all want to see.
• Avoiding—Is when individuals do not immediately pursue their concerns or those of other persons—for example, Sam lets his wish to be a pilot take a back seat while he checks out the reactions of others to his tentative choice of a job.
• Compromising—Is in effect when individuals attempt to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties—for example, in peace negotiations, representatives from countries may have to give up some of the things they want in order to get a final agreement.

Although each of these responses has advantages (e.g., in regard to time limits, competing may work best), group members who are limited in their responses may restrict their ability to relate to all members of the group. Such a case would occur if Kenneth constantly challenged other members of his work group to “put up or shut up.” By altering their style of conflict management, members increase their flexibility and the probability that the conflicts they have with other members will have a more positive than negative outcome (e.g., provide vivid feedback, motivate individuals to search for creative alternatives) (Mitchell & Mitchell, 1984).

Different types of groups will vary in the length and depth of their experience in storming and amount of conflict (Jacobs et al., 2016). For psychotherapy groups, the impact of the storming period on the group itself will be greater and last longer than for psychoeducational groups. In fact, psychoeducational groups are usually low in interpersonal conflict, and the duration of such conflict is relatively brief if it occurs at all. Psychotherapy groups, in contrast, are generally intense, and the storming period can be quite long. Regardless of the time and intensity, storming provides a time for group members to become realistic and active in examining their goals and working out relationships in their interactions with others. For most groups, the interdependency among group members and the stability of the group as a whole cannot deepen until intragroup hostility has surfaced, been acknowledged, and been dealt with (Greason, 2011). Therefore, the work done during storming is the foundation on which most groups will be built (Mahler, 1969).

 

Norms and Norming

There is both a distinction and a relationship between the concept of norms and the group experience of norming. Norms are expectations about group members’ behaviors that should or should not take place (Forsyth, 2019). “Group norms regulate the performance of the group as an organized unit” (Napier &Gershenfeld, 2004, p. 101). Words commonly associated with norms are “ought, should, must, or better” (Shepherd, 1964, p. 123). In some groups, especially those that are open ended, group norms may be unclear, confusing, ambiguous, arbitrary, and restrictive. In most groups, however, norms are clear and are constructed both from expectations of the members for their group and from the explicit and implicit directions of the leader and more influential members (Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). Therefore, most norms are based on input from everyone involved in the group and ensure group predictability and survival.

At the beginning of a group, norms may not be as clear or as well defined as they will be later. As the group develops, group members and leaders become more aware of the verbal and nonverbal rules they wish to follow to achieve their goals. They also become better acquainted with one another.

Group norming is the feeling of “We-ness,” identity, groupness, or cohesiveness that comes when individuals feel they belong to an association or organization larger than themselves. The process of norming is often characterized as one of the major aspects of groups (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Like storming, norming is a crucial part of the group process because it sets the pattern for the next stage: performing (working). In the norming stage, enthusiasm and cooperation are expressed (Hershenson et al., 2003). In many ways, it parallels the forming stage in its emphasis on positive emotions. However, because group members are more informed and experienced with one another, they can concentrate on themselves and one another better in the group. Although some groups experience norming as a distinct stage in their development, others find the process to be continuously evolving. Two main aspects of norming are peer relations and task processing.

Peer Relationships During Norming

During the norming stage, several important changes occur in peer relationships. Among these are outlook and attitude. Group members usually have a positive attitude toward others in the group and the experience itself during norming. They feel a newfound sense of “belongingness” and “groupness” (Saidla, 1990). This positive mind-set is likely to result in learning, insight, and feelings of support and acceptance. Members are willing to give of themselves and committed to taking needed actions. They expect to be successful. Peer interactions are manifest through identification, here-and-now experiences, hope, cooperation, collaboration, and cohesion.

Identification

A sense of identification is a “normal” developmental process in which individuals see themselves as being similar to one another (Freud, 1949). For example, in a counseling group, Allison and Lynn may come to realize they have many similar tastes, from food to clothes to reading materials. Identification explains why group members often become emotionally attached to their leaders and give them power. It also explains why some strong friendships begin in groups. Identification must be taken into account when considering the behavior of groups of all sizes. Groups in which there is more identification with the leader or other members will be more cohesive and less resistant to change than groups without these elements. In norming, identification with others grows.

Brief Case

Buford Becomes Mobile, Agile, and Hostile

When Buford was 20, he went through basic training in the U.S. Army. The training molded him into a person who thought of himself as a part of a greater whole. Although individually he was “mobile, agile, and hostile” (who crawled on his belly like a reptile), he also identified himself as part of a larger group that was the same. His identity went beyond his dog tags. He was a part of the armed forces and realized that when he was instructed to “take a hill,” “take a hike,” or “take a 5-minute rest period,” he needed to do as instructed for the good of the group.

Questions

• Buford’s experience is not that different from what you may have experienced in being a member of a club, art group, or athletic team. What words, slogans, logos, and mascots have you identified with in the past, and why? Gauge the strength of your relationship to these entities with which you have identified. How important has it been for you to do as instructed in the groups to which you have belonged? Why?

Here-and-Now Experiences

Although group growth can be charted on a session-by- session basis, the best way to help individuals and the group make progress is to deal with immediate feelings and interactions (existential variables). Conflict, withdrawal, support, dominance, and change all need to be acknowledged as they occur. Feelings from ecstasy to depression must be addressed as they surface. Group leaders and members can link present with past trends, but it is crucial that behaviors and emotions be recognized and worked on when they arise. Some individual and group experiences will focus on what Yalom and Leszcz (2005) describe as personal issues about one’s own life and death. Others will be directed toward obtaining specific goals, such as learning to accept others who differ or finding new, appropriate ways to interact with members of the opposite sex (Carkhuff, 1971; Rose, 1982; Watson & Tharp, 2013).

Hope

The experience of hope occurs on both a cognitive and an emotional level in groups. Cognitively, hope is the belief that what is desired is possible and that events will turn out for the best. Emotionally, hope is the feeling that what you wish for will occur. The importance of hope is that it energizes group members and the group as a whole. Furthermore, hope helps groups envision meaningful, but not yet realized, possibilities.

In norming, groups and their members need to hope and usually do so. Psychotherapeutic group members may hope, for instance, that they have the courage to overcome past tragedies, whereas counseling group members may hope they can purposefully plan a future different from their past. Task/work group members may express hope in combining their talents so that new products can be marketed. Likewise, psychoeducational group members may hope they can learn to integrate new life skills into their daily lives.

Cooperation

Cooperation occurs when group members work together for a common purpose or good. During norming, group participants become relaxed and work better together. Vying for position, which is so prevalent in storming, diminishes. In some task/work groups, cooperation increases because there is increased awareness of a group goal and members realize more fully what each can do for the other (Johnson & Johnson, 2017). In psychotherapeutic groups, cooperation is often the result of better understanding and communication worked out in the storming stage. In such cases, it is based on a hope for change (Weiner, 1984).

Collaboration

Collaboration goes hand in glove with cooperation. Members who think they can work in a harmonious, cooperative manner are likely to share facts and feelings about themselves and other matters with the group; that is, they collaborate. Furthermore, they are prone to work with other group members in sharing a vision and making that goal a reality.

Collaboration is probably seen most clearly in task/work groups in which members work on a tangible product. However, in counseling groups, collaboration is expressed when members assist one member in obtaining a personal goal even when there is no observable reward for the rest of the group. Children can learn collaboration skills through scaffolding—that is, providing resources and support with not only content-related issues but also interactive processes, and through developing skills that support quality relationship (Van Velsor, 2017).

Reflection

• When have you seen a group work hard for the benefit of one of its members? Even when it appears that only the member benefits, what else might be happening?

Cohesion

The last factor in the interpersonal process of norming, cohesion, has received a great deal of attention. It is widely recognized as central to the success of groups, and, although not sufficient in itself to make a group effective, it is necessary (Forsyth &Diederich, 2014). In fact, cohesiveness is often cited as the most important factor in shaping the outcome of groups because without it, groups would not stay together (Nitza, 2005; Pender & Prichard, 2009). Cohesion can be thought of as a sense of “groupness” or “We-ness.” Groups that establish such a spirit (and keep it) run harmoniously as a unit. Morale, trust, attendance, commitment, and solidarity increase, as do actions involving self-disclosure, whereas premature termination decreases (Marmarosh& Van Horn, 2010). The chief concern of the group during this time is intimacy and closeness (Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). In a cohesive atmosphere, emotional closeness becomes acceptable and valued.

There is a difference between “total group cohesiveness and individual member cohesiveness (or, more strictly, the individual’s attraction to the group)” (Yalom, 1985, p. 49). Yet a positive correlation often exists between the two, with members of groups attracted to a particular group contributing to it. Group and individual cohesion can be measured by behaviors, such as attendance, punctuality, risk taking, self-disclosure, and dropout rates. Cohesive groups are more effective in their communication patterns, and members communicate with one another frequently. Cohesive groups also appear to have considerable fun together and yet are achievement oriented, especially on difficult tasks (Johnson & Johnson, 2017). They are able to express their hostilities and conflicts openly and come to some resolutions. Well-functioning athletic teams are cohesive.

The advantages and limitations of group cohesion are notable. On the positive side, it has generally been demonstrated that members of cohesive groups “(1) are more productive; (2) are more open to influence by other group members; (3) experience more security; (4) are more able to express hostility and adhere more closely to group norms; (5) attempt to influence others more frequently; and (6) continue membership in the group longer” (Bednar & Lawlis, 1971, pp. 822–823). There is even an afterglow benefit to group cohesion, because members in more cohesive groups continue to improve after treatment has ended more than those in less cohesive groups (Conyne, 2010), and individuals who feel valued and accepted in a group can actually increase in self-esteem and self-acceptance (Waldo, Schwartz, Horne, & Cote, 2010).

However, cohesion can be problematic. Among the potential difficulties with cohesion is that group participants may decide they like the positive atmosphere so much that they are unwilling to talk about anything that might be upsetting. In such groups, harmony is stressed over everything, and a type of pseudo-acceptance (false acceptance) prevails. This type of atmosphere prevents anxiety, but it keeps the group from progressing. Groups that finally settle down into the performing or working stage are those that can discuss negative, as well as positive, material.

Brief Case

Anxious Alan

Alan grew up in an environment where he had to be tough to survive and get what he needed, let alone get what he wanted. Therefore, he vowed he would make life easier for others whenever he could. That vow included individuals in the groups Alan was asked to run for an agency where he got his first job. At his 3-month review, Alan’s supervisor noted that feedback from the groups Alan ran was consistently negative. He was described as a passive leader and one who insisted everyone be upbeat. One feedback statement even portrayed Alan as “on a mission to have everyone like everyone” and “in the end hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya.’” Alan told his supervisor he just did not have it in him to be negative. He wanted to be sure there was minimum tension in his groups. Thus, he purposely smoothed things out in a glib way whenever he saw tension developing in the context of the group.

Questions

• If you were Alan’s supervisor, what would you do first? Second? Third? If you were Alan, how would you take this feedback? What do you think Alan should do from here on out?

Task Processing During Norming

One main task objective in the norming stage is for members to reach an agreement on the establishment of norms, or rules and standards from which to operate the group. Some norming is done on a nonverbal, mostly unconscious, level, but other aspects of norming are conducted verbally. Through norms, group members learn to regulate, evaluate, and coordinate their actions (Gibbs, 1965). Groups typically accept both prescriptive norms, which describe the kinds of behaviors that should be performed, and proscriptive norms, which describe the kinds of behaviors that are to be avoided (Forsyth, 2019).

Norms are value laden and give a degree of predictability to the group that would not be there otherwise (Luft, 1984). Often, they evolve so gradually that they are never questioned until they are violated. Norms allow the group to begin to work, although not all norms are productive (Wilson & Hanna, 1986).

Another main, task-related goal of the norming stage is commitment. The commitment is to the group as a whole and its rules as well as to individual goals. The group and its members begin to operate on a higher level when commitment is a central part of the group. Eventually, participants come to “evaluate their performances and the performances of others in terms of accomplishment of the group’s goals” (Napier &Gershenfeld, 2004, p. 194). This sense of commitment carries over and intertwines with the group at work (Schutz, 1958). It is at this point that the group and its members can begin to see the tangible results from their dreams and efforts. Groups in which members are most committed to one another are more likely than not to be productive in achieving tasks as well as successful in feeling good about the group experience.

Examining Aspects of Norming

Norming is generally characterized in terms of behaviors and feelings expressed by group members toward one another. Although it is difficult to measure the impact of emotion on the group, there are ways of examining behaviors during this stage that are both concrete and scientific. One way involves peer relationships. This method uses a research-based theory of personality and group dynamics that is referred to by the acronym SYMLOG (System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups) (Bales, 1980; Bales, Cohen, & Williamson, 1979).

The SYMLOG model yields a field diagram that pictures how members of a group are rated on three dimensions: dominance versus submissiveness, friendliness versus unfriendliness, and instrumentally versus emotionally expressive. In addition, it yields a total of 26 roles found in groups. One way to use this instrument is to rate each group member’s tendency to engage in any of the 26 roles on the instrument and then to summarize the scores along the three dimensions. For instance, an industrialist such as Henry Ford might be classified as UF (assertive and businesslike), whereas a talk show host such as Jimmy Fallon might be UPB (entertaining, sociable, smiling, and warm). By using SYMLOG, the interactional dynamics and personality of the group can be better understood because the homogeneous or heterogeneous nature of the group is clearer.

Promoting Norming

Norming can be promoted through actions by either the group leader or group members. Several human relations and specific group skills can be used in this process. Chief among these skills are supporting, empathizing, facilitating, and self-disclosure.

Supporting

Supporting is the act of encouraging and reinforcing others. Its aim is to convey to persons that they are perceived as adequate, capable, and trustworthy. Through the act of supporting, group members feel affirmed and are able to risk new behaviors because they sense a backing from the group, a secure base (Harel, Shechtman, &Cutrona, 2012). The result is often creative, surprising actions that are novel and positive because self-defensiveness is reduced and self-confidence is increased. An example of what supporting in a counseling group can do is when Trip (speaking for the group) says to Burgess, “I, and we as a group, really think you can be more assertive in letting your spouse know what you want.” The results are that Burgess comes into the group the following week and presents a one-person play called “How to Be Assertive” in which she humorously, yet sensitively, shows how she used the group’s support to ask her husband for what she wanted.

Empathizing

Empathizing means putting yourself in another’s place in regard to subjective perception and emotion while keeping your objectivity (Brammer & MacDonald, 2003). It demands a suspension of judgment and a response to another person that conveys sensitivity and understanding. Again, during the norming stage, expressing empathy takes on special significance. Members need to listen to the verbal and nonverbal messages of others in the group and be responsive. For instance, in a psychotherapy group, Nancy may say to Fred, “It seems to me you are sad. Your voice is low, and your eyes are focused on the floor.” Such a message reflects an understanding of another person’s voice and body signals and opens up potential dialogue and problem-solving avenues.

Facilitating

The act of facilitating involves using clear and direct communication channels among individuals. It is an activity usually assumed by a group leader, although members of the group may engage in this process at times. Part of facilitation is to make sure messages are sent and received accurately. The leader may say, “Tammy, when Noah said he was glad you had resolved your differences, you looked a bit perplexed. I wonder what you were thinking?” In this case, Tammy may shrug off the suggestion that anything was bothering her, or she may confess that it feels unusual for her not to be at odds with Noah. In either case, Noah, Tammy, and the group as a whole get the benefit of making sure these two group members are feeling connected so that underlying problems do not arise later to the detriment of the group as a whole.

Self-Disclosure

One of the strongest signs of trust in a group is self-disclosure (revealing to group members information about yourself of which they were previously unaware) (Jourard, 1971). Self-disclosure is enhanced when members feel safe. Through self-disclosure, barriers that inhibit communication among individuals are torn down. A sense of community and camaraderie is established. Leaders may model disclosure behaviors to show which materials should be revealed and how. It is best to first disclose materials related to individuals and experiences in the group. Through such a process, members’ bonds become stronger.

Reflection

• When have you felt closer to someone because of self-disclosure? When have you felt further from others because they did not self-disclose? When have you felt someone went too far in self-disclosing? What do these experiences tell you about self-disclosing in a group?

Results of Norming

If the process of norming goes well, then the group will be ready for the next step in its developmental process—working. Members will feel connected with the group and will be able to concentrate on being productive, rather than protecting themselves. Just as Maslow’s (1962) hierarchy of personal needs builds from the basics up, such is also the case in groups. When members feel secure and linked with others, they are free to begin cooperating and coordinating their efforts to achieve specific goals.

Norming gives group members guidelines under which to operate. They are, therefore, able to gauge how well they are doing individually and as a group. If discomfort is evident in the group, then members may realize that they or the group is regressing instead of progressing. It is from the baseline of norming that the group is measured or referenced.

Overall, norming has the effect of helping members in the group feel good about themselves and the group. Norming is like a breath of fresh air after the turmoil of successfully resolving the difficulties of the storming stage. Norming allows members to clear their minds, reassess their goals from a realistic perspective, feel good about themselves and the group’s progress, and make new plans for the working stage of the group. Such processes help group members and groups as a whole renew their efforts toward achievement.