Resources for Faculty: Task Groups
-----------------------------
Primer
The Importance of Task Groups
Task group work is very important. It has long been the norm in scientific research; it has
increasingly become the norm in business. Solitary scientists working quietly in their laboratories and
solitary business people working diligently in their offices are anachronisms. Teams are much more common
in both situations. And teams are used in many others.
Teams or task groups can indeed take longer to do the work at-hand. (We all know this if we just think
of the committees we’ve served on.) This increased time might be considered a disadvantage. If so,
it is offset by the advantage the multiple perspectives the group members bring to a task. Multiple
perspectives mean more ideas and more people both critiquing and trying to improve possible solutions and
answers.
Task groups are called such because they have a task to complete—an experiment to finish, a
marketing plan to devise, a recommendation to make, etc. Because they have a task to complete, they are
different from discussion groups, where the goal is simply to generate ideas. Group communication is
perhaps best seen as a continuum from “pure” discussion groups at one extreme and
“pure” task groups at the other. The reality is that many groups fall in between. That said,
it is useful to think of groups you might set up in the classroom as primarily one or the other because the
communication dynamics do vary from discussion groups to task groups.
The Stages a Task Group Moves Through
Task groups rarely get immediately to work on the task at-hand. We know that they typically move through
five stages. Somebody years ago (somebody who liked to rhyme) labeled these stages (1) forming, (2) storming,
(3) norming, (4) performing, and (5) adjourning. (And, yes, “adjourning” doesn’t quite
rhyme; the “somebody” wasn’t particularly good at rhyming.)
The forming stage can be chaotic, and it can also be quiet. The group members at this stage are becoming
accustomed to each other and to the idea of working in this particular group. Soon, the group members will
start trying to figure out how they will work together. Typically, this storming phase will mix comments
about the group’s procedures with comments about the task. Group members will, during this stage, be
trying to figure out what their role or roles in the group is going to be. Soon, the relative chaos of
storming will settle into patterns. Group members will settle into roles; certain procedures will become
normal. Once a group passes through this norming phase, it is ready to begin truly performing whatever
tasks it has taken on or been assigned. After a group has performed that task, it is ready to adjourn. In
most cases, the adjourning stage needs to entail more than saying, “We’re out of here.”
Plans often must be made to carry out a plan that has been developed and, later, assess whether it was as
successful as the group thought it would be. Quite a few good plans have failed because a group rushed
through the adjourning stage.
Instructors need to understand that a task group will move through these phases and that it may take
some time to do so. Instructors might draw at least two implications from these facts: first, that they
need to be patient and not get anxious when “the work” is not being immediately done by a
group; second, that they might want to keep students in the same group throughout a course since we do
know that, although groups will proceed through these stages every time they meet, they will proceed through
them more and more quickly as their time together as a group increases. A group that is meeting for a third
or fourth time need not spend much time forming, storming, or norming.
Tension
As a task group moves through these phases, certain communication behaviors are noticeable.
First, there will be tension. There will be primary tension over such matters as who will do what. For
example, in a task group, there may be a couple of members who want to “take charge.” There will
be tension until the group norms its procedure and assigns leadership responsibilities as part of that
norming. There will also be secondary tension over ideas. Group members, if considering a problem, will
point to different causes and solutions. If engaged in scientific work, they will suggest different ways of
explaining the data. Instructors and students both must understand that these two types of tension are
normal and productive. Some students back away from tension and conflict; these students in particular need
to understand that task groups cannot function well without some tension.
Different Types of Talk
Second, there will be different kinds of “talk” that occur. There will be social talk,
especially during the forming phase. This talk has nothing to do with the task at-hand; therefore, it
frequently makes instructors nervous. Instructors need to understand that it’s normal and necessary
if the group is to move from forming onto storming. Once in the storming phase, role talk will begin to
dominate. Group members will talk about how the group should proceed. Inevitably, this talk will be about
who will do what. Only after the role talk subsides will problem-solving talk come to dominate the group's
work. If a group is together long enough or if a group works either very well or very poorly, a fourth kind
of talk will emerge—talk about the group. Group members will talk about how good the group is, perhaps
in comparison to others. Group members will talk—perhaps a bit reluctantly—about how the group
is not succeeding and why.
Norms
Third, group members will behave in accordance with the norms that have emerged. Since different groups
will develop different norms, the behavior may vary—even among four or five groups in the same
classroom. One group, for example, might decide to “go around the table” for reactions to ideas;
another might operate in a more free-wheeling manner. One group might allow members to pop in and out of the
group at will whereas another might cast chilly stares at a member who stands up to leave for a minute or
two. One group might acknowledge a “good” contribution effusively while another does not. No
set of norms is ideal, although there may be norms at the rigid and loose extremes instructors might want to
discourage as unproductive. The crucial thing is that group members behave in accordance with whatever norms
have developed. Should a group member depart, the group will usually act in some way to compel conformity.
Should there be many departures, the group will find itself in trouble.
Roles
Fourth, group members will assume certain roles and behave in accordance with those roles. Below I list
roles that are necessary for a group to succeed under three headings: task roles; procedural roles;
emotional support roles. There are far too many roles listed for each group member to choose just one. So,
we’re not talking here about a one-to-one correspondence between group members and a roles. A given
member will likely play several roles. Furthermore, a given role may be shared: one member may, for example,
play the role of regulating participation early in a session with another member playing that role later.
Inevitably, group members will look at the lists below and impose some sort of hierarchical structure on
them. Some roles are important; others not—that’s what the group members will think. It is
important for group members to realize that all roles are necessary and therefore important. A given group
member might “like” one role over another, and perhaps this affinity will be based on his/her
accurate assessment of his/her aptitude. Group members need, however, to identify several roles they are
good at—and therefore “like”—so that they can play whatever one or ones are
necessary in the group in question. Group members may accurately identify certain roles they are not good
at. This is usually fine because, unless the group is extremely unlucky, there will be someone in the group
to take on every role.
Here are the roles.
Task roles include (1) initiating discussion; (2) seeking information; (3) providing information; (4)
seeking opinions; (5) providing opinions; (6) elaborating on what has been said; (7) clarifying what has
been said; (8) evaluating what has been said; (9) seeking compromises between or among ideas; and (10)
summarizing what the group has concluded. All are important. Experienced speech communication teachers will
tell you that (7) is often the crucial role that goes begging. They will also tell you that group members
can be readily taught to perform that role.
Procedural roles include (1) regulating participation; (2) keeping the group on task; and (3) recording
the group’s conclusions. The first role includes both bringing the quieter members into the
conversation and getting garrulous members to talk less.
Emotional Support roles include (1) energizing the group; (2) supporting members who take risks; (3)
harmonizing the group when interpersonal tension develops; and (4) helping release tension using such tools
as humor. Research shows that all of these roles are crucial. The first three tend to be performed by women
more often than by men. As a result, in work environments one might term patriarchal, these roles are often
viewed as unimportant. The truth is the opposite: without these roles being performed, a group can turn
listless, inhibited, and unpleasant. Such a group will likely not be especially productive.
Leadership
In a typical task group, an individual or several individuals will likely assume a cluster a roles that
we might place high on a hierarchical list. This cluster we might connect to the concept of leadership.
Whereas strong leadership might be inappropriate in a discussion group, it is not at all inappropriate in a
task group. Task groups do not necessarily have leaders; however, they frequently do.
As most probably know, there is a large body of writing on leadership. There are leadership studies
programs at other colleges; there are even colleges of leadership at some universities. So, a few words on
leadership only scratches the surface. But here are those few words—offered because they may help
students decide if they are likely task group leaders and because they may help students shape their
leadership style.
There are designated leaders and emergent leaders. Researchers disagree on what characterizes those
leaders who emerge. One researcher says emerging leaders talk early and often, are knowledgeable, offer
opinions, welcome disagreement, and volunteer for work. Another says emerging leaders withhold views and
opinions, encourage participation, keep the group organized, develop harmony, and play the
“devil’s advocate.” In the terms in which we discussed roles, the first description seems
very task-oriented whereas the second seems much more procedural and emotional support oriented. A third
description focuses more on personal characteristics as opposed to communication behaviors: according to it,
emerging leaders have vision and credibility and exhibit composure, sociability, and extroversion. A fourth
description is the simplest: emerging leaders, according to this researcher, are high in procedure, moderate
in ideas, and low in opinions.
There are different descriptions; there are also different styles. A leader might be classified as
autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire, with the middle preferred. A leader might be placed somewhere
along a continuum from task-focused to relation-focused, with an intermediate position desired.
A leader might also be classified as either selling, telling, participating, or delegating.
Interestingly, these styles can be mapped onto the task group members’ level of readiness for the task
and level of comfort with it. Depending on the combination of these two variables, a different style is
preferred. For example, if the task group members are high in both, delegating is preferred, but if they are
low in both, selling is necessary. If members are high in readiness but low in comfort, the leader should
adopt a participatory style; if the opposite, a directive or “telling” style.
Behavior That Can Hurt a Group
A good leader can usually help a task group. There are, however, certain communication behaviors and a
certain group mentality that can significantly impede the work of task groups.
There are certain roles that, if enacted, can impede a group’s progress. Most group theorists list
seven such roles: (1) blocking the group’s progress—often to plead and re-plead a
“special interest”; (2) acting aggressively toward others and/or their ideas; (3) dominating
the group’s work; (4) seeking recognition to an inappropriate extent; (5) “confessing”
matters not relevant to the group’s task; (6) playing the clown; and (7) withdrawing from the
group’s work. Some theorists also once listed “being a playboy,” meaning flirting with
members of the opposite sex. Perhaps, if we label this behavior" (8) inappropriately flirting,"
we can add it to the list.
There is also a kind of statement that can stop the flow of ideas that is necessary if a task group is to
be as successful as possible. Many of these statements are drawn from the business world, not academe, but
they should give you—and students—a sense of what kinds of statements can stop a discussion
“cold”:
We tried that before.
That will never work.
It won’t work here.
Let’s all sleep on it.
That’s ridiculous.
Let’s get back to reality.
Where’d you dig that one up.
We’ll be the laughingstock of….
In general, such statements demean the idea and demean the person who offered it. No wonder they stop
discussion.
Finally, there is a mentality known as” “groupthink” that can characterize a task
group’s behavior. This phenomenon typically affects groups within rather hierarchical organizations
where those lower in the hierarchy can easily feel “silenced” by those higher. The
“classic” example is the decision-making that preceded the Challenger disaster. Researchers in
communication studies, social psychology, and management science have all examined this decision-making and
found that the task group did not do a very good job. Besides not attending to or suppressing information,
the group allowed itself to be driven by external concerns as well as by its sense of its infallibility or
invisibility.
“Groupthink” is probably more likely to occur in a college committee than in a student task
group. However, it is a concept that might be shared with students: in general, the more they know about
task group’s strengths and weaknesses, the better they will be able—now and in the
future—to work in such groups.
Problem-Solving Procedures
Once task groups turn to their tasks, they do not necessarily know how to proceed. In many cases, the
efficient procedure you might recommend is something you will have to extract from an examination of
effective task groups in your discipline. There are, however, some general procedures you might to recommend
to students. Three are problem-solving procedures that would shape a task group’s entire job; one can
be used as needed at various points in the process.
Over the decades, beginning with famous educator John Dewey, people in several academic fields have
developed problem-solving agendas. A generic version would have task group members proceed through eight
steps: (1) define and analyze the problem; (2) determine the goals a solution needs to meet; (3) pinpoint
any constraints that might prevent meeting those goals; (4) generate possible solutions; (5) evaluate
possible solutions; (6) select the best solution; (7) discuss the implications of that selection; (8)
confirm selection and develop a plan to implement it. This agenda has proven through the years to enhance
problem-solving. Those who use it, however, should be aware that its linearity is deceptive. Sometimes, task
group members need to loop back—for example, if step (7) causes members to doubt what was done at step
(6). Also, task members sometimes need to step outside the process to gather or verify information. With
these important caveats, the agenda is a sound general way to solve problems.
The Dewey agenda can only work if task group members fully participate. In some groups, full
participation might be an issue. Maybe some group members are shy; maybe there is a hierarchy in the group
that causes those lower to withhold their comments. In such cases, the task group might profitably use the
“nominal group technique” that several have developed over the years. These techniques combine
writing, discussing, and voting to generate and then assess ideas. For example, if a task group were trying
to decide how to market a new product, each member would be asked to generate three strategies and then to
write them on a surface (“blackboard”; flip chart; etc.) that all could see. Then, each strategy
is discussed. Then, each member votes for one or more “favorites.” Members might be given four
blue dots to place after the ideas they prefer. Those strategies receiving the most dots would then be
discussed further. After that discussion, there would be another vote, a vote that would determine the task
group’s choice. This technique is called “nominal” because, at crucial moments, the
individuals are acting—generating ideas, evaluating ideas—more on their own then as part of a
group. The theory is that, free from group pressure, people who are for some reason inhibited will more
fully participate,
Increasingly, we find more and more people to be “visual.” A problem-solving procedure that
capitalizes on how visual students (and others) are derives from the practice of flow-charting used by
computer scientists. This procedure requires task group members to chart carefully the steps they will go
through. Not only will such a chart feature a succession of rectangles representing the steps, it will have
inputs coming in from elsewhere at appropriate points. So, for example, if a task group working on a science
projects should not move forward until test results have been received from another laboratory, this needed
input will be marked and will stop the group from prematurely moving on to the next step. The task group can
add use multiple shapes and add all sorts of “bells and whistles” to a flow chart—as long
as the level of detail doesn’t begin to overwhelm group members. The important thing is that the chart
be in front of the task group members, guiding their movement through the problem-solving process they
designed. (Such a chart might also be designed by an instructor so that a group might follow the process he
or she has designed.)
Sample Assignments
Any group laboratory assignment can probably function as a task group assignment. What the students do
will probably not change. What will change is how you look at their work. Yes, you’ll continue to
look at their work from the perspective of the particular scientific discipline. However, you’ll
occasionally change lenses and look at their work from the perspective of group communication. If you
choose to do so, you might want to talk with the students a bit about small groups so that, as you shift
your perspective a bit, they’re not totally thrown.
Case studies also make effective task group assignments. The cases can be hypothetical or real. For
example, in a political communication class that deals with elections, a group might be assigned the
campaign of a prospective presidential candidate. The “case” would outline, up to a certain
point in time, what had happened, what went right, and what went wrong. The group’s task becomes
designing a communication strategy for the next few weeks based on this information and what the group
members have learned in the course about political communication. This particular task might be just a
classroom exercise, or it could be the springboard for a group-authored paper or a group presentation.
A Handout You Might Give Students
Task Group Communication
The Stages a Task Group Moves Through
Forming --- Storming --- Norming --- Performing --- Adjourning
Different Types of Talk
> Social Talk – ok, especially heavy during FORMING stage
> Role Talk – ok, especially heavy during STORMING and NORMING and ADJOURNING stages
> Problem-Solving Talk – especially heavy during PERFORMING stage
> Talk About the Group – positive – when group is performing well
negative – when group is having performance Problems
Group Roles
Task Roles: Initiating; Seeking Information; Giving Information.
Seeking Opinions; Providing Opinions; Elaborating; Clarifying; Seeking Compromise; Summarizing
Procedural Roles: Regulating Participation; Keeping the Group on Task; Recording
Emotional Support Roles: Energizing; Supporting; Harmonizing; Releasing Tension
Negative Roles: Blocking Progress; Acting Aggressively Toward Others and/or Their Ideas;
Dominating the Group; Seeking Personal Recognition; Bringing up Personal Matters Irrelevant to the
Group's Task; Clowning Around; Withdrawing from the Group; Flirting
A Problem-Solving Procedure
- Define and Analyze the Problem
- Determine the Goals a Solution Must Meet
- Pinpoint Any Constraints that Might Prevent Meeting Those Goals
- Generate Possible Solutions
- Evaluate These Solutions
- Select the Best Solution/s
- Discuss the Implications of That Selection
- Confirm Selection and Develop a Plan to Implement It
Evaluation Advice and Instruments
The tools discussed under Discussion Groups would be useful here as well. There would be one important
difference in how the interaction diagram, the social vs. task talk chart, and the positive and negative
behaviors list might look. The difference is tied to the fact that, whereas discussion groups usually
proceed “loosely,” task groups tend to have leaders. Sometimes, there will be a leader
designated before the group begins its work; sometimes, a leader will emerge during the groups
“storming” phase.
The presence of leadership changes the likely interaction diagram in the following manner: many of the
arrows will go from various group members to the chair. Thus, the ideal pattern would probably feature
almost as many comments directed at the chair as comments directed at the group as a whole.
The presence of leadership changes the relative sizes of the circles in the social vs. task talk diagram.
Ideally, the circles will still be in the same location, but the circles of those who are leading the group
will typically be larger than they would be in a more non-hierarchical discussion group.
The presence of leadership changes the likely chart of the various group roles and who’s performing
them in the following manner: a sizeable percentage of the task, procedural, and emotional support roles
will be enacted heavily by the chair. Sometimes, you see the emergence of what the group communication
literature refers to as a “lieutenant.” This person assists the chair or leader in performing
these roles. If there is a “lieutenant,” she/he will also enact a sizeable percentage of the
necessary roles, but probably not as sizeable a percentage as the chair/leader.
All of these evaluative tools, of course, require the instructor to be monitoring the group. Quite
frequently, however, task groups will work outside the classroom and the instructor, as a result, cannot
monitor group performance. In such a case, it may be useful to have group members evaluate each other. A
long evaluation form will be taken less seriously than a short one, so my advice in designing such a form
would be to go to the list of group roles, select the ones that are more crucial to the success of the
particular group, and design a form such as the following:
| Role |
Chris |
Amy |
Mike |
Alison |
| Does the group member offer information? |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Does the group member voice opinions? |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Does the group member help clarify the ideas being considered?
|
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Does the group member assist the group in reach compromises?
|
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Does the group member help summarize where the group stands? |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Does the group member help keep the group on-task? |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Does the group member help energize the group? |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Does the group member support those who may offer controversial
or very personal observations? |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
1 2 3 4 5 |
Using such a chart, students have the opportunity to flag down those who may not be carrying their weight
without having to say, explicitly, that so-and-so is a slacker.
So keep in mind that the seven questions here were ones I selected based on what was important to be in
the task group’s work. In designing your own form, you could choose different roles from the
“standard” list of task, procedural, and emotional support roles. You could also go off that
list and come up with other questions: e.g., “Did the group member contribute to the library/internet
research pool the group drew from?”