Assignment: Demonstrating Group Process Using Ek Ruka Hua Faisla/12 Angry Men

NAME: - JYOTI THAKUR MASW-I Year ROLL NO. : - 14 COURSE: - SOCIAL WORK METHODS: WORKING WITH INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS AND COMMUNITIES

Question 1 Give a brief description of each of Tuckmans proposed stages of development in the group. How do you see stages emerging in the jury group? Introduction During 1960s, large several papers were published in the field of small group development. Maier, Sarri and Galinsky, Kindelsperger, Trecker, Garland, Jones and Kolodny, each presented his/their own model of small group dynamics, providing description of different stages involved. It was in this golden age of research on small group development, Dr. Bruce Wayne Tuckman (hereinafter referred to as Tuckman) in his paper titled Development sequence in small group (published in 1965) proposed a four stage model of group functioning. According to the paper, effective group functioning required successful completion of each of the stage. Later, working with Mary Ann Conover Jensen, Tuckman revised original paper in 1977. The revision included addition of another stage Adjourning. Integrated Stage Model of Group Development Parallel Stages Tuckman Garland, Jones, and Kolodny
Pre-affiliation

Maier

Sarri and Galinsky

- Origin - Formative

Kindelsperger

Trecker

Forming

Locating Commonness Creating Exchange

Approach Orientation Relationship negotiation or conflict - Group Role emergence - Vacillating group role dominance

Begining

Storming

Power and Control

- Intermediate I - Revision

-------------

Norming

Intimacy

Developing mutual identification

Intermediate II

Emergence of group feeling and organization - Development of bond, purpose, cohesiveness - Strong group feeling group roles

Performing

Differentiation

Developing group identification

Maturation

- Group role dominance - Institutionalized group roles

Adjourning

Separation

--------------

Termination

--------------

- Decline in interest, less group feeling - Ending stage

According to Tuckman, the stages are often fluidic and may overlap each other. Thus it was not necessary that stages should follow a definitive pattern or flow. Each of the stages proposed by Tuckman has been briefly described in the following paragraphs: 1) FORMING This is the first stage of group development. This stage generally involves members introduction, first impressions, preliminary information gathering etc. As this is just the starting point in the group formation, members may have anxiety about their performance, acceptance etc. in the group. Therefore, members often seek comfort in the familiarity achieved through initial interactions and avoid conflicts at this stage. Lack of focus is visible and interactions here are usually personal in nature and little attention is given to the nitty-grittys of the task at hand. This is the stage where the task of the group is decided and the ways to achieve are generally discussed. Gradually groups start settling down and the ground rules for the conduct in the group are established. Thereafter, the second stage commences. 2) STORMING This is the stage of conflict and hence, aptly named storming. After the initial merry making, members start searching for their individual role and space in the group. This is the stage where individual members express their opinions and clash of opinions take place. The stage is marked with flaring up of emotions, unpleasant exchanges, and attempts to dominate and to seek superiority. Members can even become hostile towards each other or may be some time towards leader also. This stage can be characterised by the emotional response of the members and resistance. Such interactions can have negative impact on the participation of matured members of the group. Therefore, it is pertinent that the leaders/supervisors (whether formal or those who emerged as one during the formation of the group) play an active role to tone down the conflict and resolve the emerged differences. 3) NORMING In this stage the question of power became of less important as by now every member has established its role and space in the group. Cohesion between the members starts building up and now they are accepting each others peculiarity. Rules and norms are developed in order avoid clashes in the working. This often involves toning down of positions and mutual give and take to achieve workable degree of consensus. According to Tuckman, norming is a very fluid stage and often overlaps other stages as at each stage the members of the group attempt to develop internal mechanism for the smooth functioning of the group. 4) PERFORMING This is the last stage of the original model. In this stage members become focused on the task and group assume the shape of problem solving instrument. Every member contributes towards the completion of the task. The energy of the group is channelized as members use their skills to enhance the activity of the group. Members are now readily cooperative. The influence of the group dynamics is the highest here.

5) ADJOURNMENT This is the last stage of the life of the group. Depending upon the outcome of the performing stage, there can be a feeling of achievement or failure among the group members. Members may exchange feedback, discuss personal matters. Group may go back to the previous behaviour pattern.

The Movie The movie, Ek Ruka Hua Faisla (released in 1986) is based on 1957 American film, 12 Angry Men. The movie is an exact remake. Therefore, the Indian audience may find it difficult to relate to it as the Jury system is not part of the Indian legal system. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful movie for the students of group dynamics. All the stages of Tuckmans model are on display for anyone to see and learn. The movie is about a 19 years old boy whose whole life is spent in the slums and is accused of murdering his father. There are two witnesses who deposed against the accused. The Court decided to appoint a jury group of 12 people to decide the fate of the boy. The movie revolves around the functioning of this jury group and amply displays each of the Tuckmans stages. Tuckmans stages arent in linear form here and often overlap. As hypothesised by Tuckman, one stage starts before completion of the earlier one. Forming The Forming stage of jury group begins with the judge constituting the jury group consisting of twelve strangers and issues formal instructions to the group about the further proceedings including an explicit condition that the group is required to arrive at a unanimous decision and expected them to undertake this task with utmost diligence and honesty. After this the jury members are huddled into a room with instruction that they can leave the room only after a unanimous decision is arrived at. The members spend first few moments in basic introduction. The conversation revolves around anything but the main task. Movies, fan, smoking, air-conditioning etc hog all the limelight. Members are offering each other some items and drinking tea etc. That is how they open up to each other. Even during the norming process, the Juror 12 (the Advertiser) seeks the acceptance of other members. He helps Juror 7 by carrying his bag to his seat. The group shares some light moments when juror 4 cracks a joke. Norming The stage of Norming comes before storming in this jury group. Actually, norming starts even before the Forming stage when gatekeeper enters the room and declares that the members are not allowed to come out of the room or attend phone calls before they arrived at the decision. Then he leaves the room closing the door behind him. Closed door is a symbol that the group is a closed group and no person from outside the group is allowed to participate. The members start discussing their views about the case. The group decides to sit according to their numbers. This all essentially constitute the norming process. Finally, in order to gauge the degree of unanimity in the group, they

decades to go for a vote before discussing the facts of the case. With this they were moving towards the next stage. Storming Storming is visible when people start expressing their personal views and personal agendas. Juror 7 appeared to be a man in hurry and wanted the decision to be made at the earliest possible because he wants to go for movie. Juror 10 ridiculed the suggestion given by Juror 1for sitting according to numbers. Juror 4 however backs Juror 1 on this. Again juror 10 commented against the section of people living in the slums. Juror 1 was playing the role of moderator. Actually, storming stage continues all through till the very end and often overlaps with performing stage. After the first round of voting, 11 Jurors vote in favour of guilty verdict but Juror 8 votes for not-guilty. This sparks a high-pitched debate where arguments were irrelevant to the basic issue and many Jurors blamed Juror 8 for wasting their time. Arguments were personal in nature and often offensive. Juror 3 actually stays in the storming mode till the very end! Till the very end, he tries to shout down any view inconsistent with his beliefs. His consistent shouting down of Juror 2 is reflection of the continuous power struggle he engages in. Performing After many rounds of arguments, group decided to go for second voting. Juror 1 decided not to participate in the voting this time. Juror 9 voted in favour of non-guilty. So now 2 members are in favour of non-guilty and 10 are in favour of guilty. Now the members start thinking more seriously on the matter from other dimensions also. This is indicated by the statement of juror 9 when he said he voted in favour of non-guilty because now he wants to discuss other dimensions of the case also. The group is now trying to evolve the methods to solve the issue together. This was evident when juror 11 supported the wish of juror 9 to explain his reasons of voting against the group. Frustration of loss can be seen in the group when juror 3 accusing juror 5 for this act. But despite of all tensions in the group members were start discussing the matter on the basis of logic instead of emotions or biases. Then they were heading towards third voting. Now the position is 6 in favour and 6 in opposition of boys guilt. The arguments become more logical from both sides and several rounds of voting take place. With each passing round the vote tally keeps changing. This is a reflection of Jurors reconsidering their stand on the basis of discussions which is a reflection of positive group performance. However, Juror 3 remained unconvinced and keeps barging at other group members. It was only after he had an emotional break-down and vented out his emotional despair, the group was able to achieve unanimity. After expressing the emotional despair and frustration he had because of his fight with his son, he finally gave his assent in favour of non-guilty and the group achieved its stated objective of arising at a unanimous decision. Adjournment Once the unanimous decision was taken, the gatekeeper opened the door, indicating that the task has been accomplished. Members become helpful towards each other which can be seen when they are

helping each other for picking the jacket, bag etc. There was also show of sympathy for each other for example juror 8 laying a hand on the shoulders of juror 3 and juror 9 was offering him water. In the last scene people were talking about weather and exchanging contacts with each other. Slowly everyone left the scene and adjournment was completed. Critique of Tuckmans Model Tuckmans model is considered to be most referred to and widely recognised in organizational literature (Miller, 2003) and offered a simple means of discussing and exploring team dynamics (Richards and Moger, 2000). However, it should be construed as an ever-compassing model for small group development. The model has its own deficiencies. According to Cassidy Tuckmans model has limited applicability to experimental education as Tuckmans storming stage may not be a clearly defined stage for practitioners outside of therapeutic groups. (Cassidy 2007). Richard and Moger (2000) noted that the model was unable answer question such as: how groups change over time?; what if storm stage never ends? and what is needed to exceed the performance norms? Miller (2003) questioned the one model fits all groups approach of Tuckman and noted that group dynamics are considerably more complex to fit in the linear developmental model of Tuckman. Another criticism came from Gersick (1988): she noted that closed group model of Tuckman shall have only limited application as it disregards the outside influences on group development. Despite the limitations as noted by various researchers, Tuckman offers an easy to understand, accessible and flexible model that can be applied in various settings.

Question 2 What is your understanding of the group dynamics? Explain the group processes as they emerge during the interaction of the group members

A group is dynamic in nature and constantly evolves with passage of time. Over the life of a group, its structure, goals and mode of operations undergo changes on account of interaction among the group members and also on account of the influence of external forces and the individual experience and beliefs that the members bring to the group. The forces emerging out of these interactions among the group members (intra-group) and with the external forces (inter-group) are referred to as group dynamics. Thus, it is essential to understand various domains of group dynamics. A broad categorization of group dynamics can be made as under: 1. Communication processes and interaction patterns 2. Interpersonal interactions and cohesion 3. Social integration and influence 4. Power and control 5. Culture The above domains of group dynamics can be explained with the help of the functioning of the jury group in movie the EK RUKA HUA FAISLA. Communication Processes and Interaction Pattern The communication process in the jury group can be divided into formal and informal communication. Formal communication The movie begins with establishment of a formal jury group with a stated objective and formal (though verbal) instructions being issued towards the conduct of the group. Further, during what we can consider at Tuckmans performing stage, group involves into intense debate with each issue related to the murder case being minutely argued upon. Further, the group also undertakes several round of voting to determine the opinion among the group members. Informal Communication From the beginning, jury members are involved in informal discussions on issues ranging to the climate, rains, electricity, movies, cartoons etc, shared contacts details, made enquires about health certain jury member (Juror 9). On and off, certain jury members recited jokes. On a few occasions,

certain slandering comments too were made, such as made by Juror 10 regarding the nature of the people living in slums. This all formed part the informal communication in the group. Verbal Communication and Body language Largely, the jury group is involved in verbal synchronous communication in real time. The views expressed by one member are immediately responded to. On certain occasions members also involve in non-verbal communication through facial expressions and their body language. Such non-verbal communication often plays a very important role as it further enhances the expression of the communicator. Body language of Juror 3 is of a person trying to stamp his authority where as Juror 9 is a valiant fighter, waving his arms in desperation and holding his body straight despite being visibly ill. Written Communication The written communication takes place in form various rounds of voting. Feedback Communication among the Jury member is largely synchronous. Thus, the feedback is immediate in most of the cases. Opinions were immediately approved or opposed by the other group members. Even in case of formal communication part (the voting), the result were immediately available. Thus, the feedback process among the group members, though unpleasant sometimes, was instant and allowed for immediate corrections. Interaction Patterns The interaction pattern in the jury group is very dynamic. Initially the interaction pattern in the group is Free-Floating pattern, with any member of the group expressing his opinion randomly on the issues concerning the facts of the case or otherwise. Thereafter, group undertook a round-robin form of interaction where each member was asked to state his reasoning for holding the accused guilty or not guilty. Later, achieved Juror 8 emerges as a leader for holding the accused not guilty. For a period of time, the interaction takes place between this leader and the other group members (Maypole pattern). At later stage, two groups emerge, with Juror 3 emerging as leader of members considering accused as guilty (sub-group formation). At this stage, interactions are mainly between these leaders with other members making sporadic comments. Interpersonal Interaction and Cohesion There is constant interaction among the Jury members which results in conflicts and cohesion simultaneously. Juror 7 is constantly trying to please anyone whom he finds compatible to his idea of finishing the task in hand at the earliest so that he can watch the 6.30 movie show. Through his logical reasoning and calm expressions, Juror 8 is able to garner support of Juror 9. Juror 3 is often hyper-reactive in his reactions and adversely affects the group cohesions. Slander comments by Juror 10 result in conflict with Juror 5. Various dynamics emerge from the above. It is visible that soft spoken members, speaking with reasons and diligence, attract empathy of the other members and find support even from the

members who have a different opinion. On the other hand, Juror using high pitched voice to shout down different opinions is met with increased isolation (Juror 3). Social Integration and Influence Each Juror plays a different role in the functioning of the group: Juror 1 plays the role of facilitator and attempts to keep the group focussed on its stated objective. Juror 2 as seen from the beginning is very docile person and it seems that he does not have his own opinion about the group. He is afraid of going against the majority so he is an observer. Juror 3 is trying to convince others to vote in favour of guilty as is it is his personal matter. Time and again he is showing his dislike about the present generation which become clear towards the end when he breaks down and expresses his hurt due to his son deserting him. At several instances he bullies juror 2. Thus some time he is playing the role of dominator and sometimes of blocker. Juror 4 presents himself as a well cultured and knowledgeable person. He is analysing each and every argument with his critical perspective. He always presents his argument logically. Thus he is the assertive person of the group. Juror 5 is from the beginning very conscious about his position in the group. He did not want to speak in the beginning but later due to provocative comments by some members, he speaks in favour of juror 8. He is a Conformist and emotional. Juror 6 is worker who does not take any decision. He admits this very honestly that he is not accustomed to take decision because decisions are taken by the bosses. Even he does not have any opinion of his own and he prefers to blow with the wind. He is also a conformist. Juror 7 seems to have no interest at all in the discussion as it is evident from the fact that from the beginning he is perusing the group to windup as early as possible because he want to go for a movie. He is the playboy of the group. Juror 8 is the person who is able to see the other side of the case. He is the person who does not believe in herd mentality and have the ability to pursue the matter with patience. He is judging the situation on the basis of logic without any prior bias or prejudice. So he is the non-conformist of the group. Juror 9 is an old man and he is trying to judge the situation on the basis of his life experiences. So he is an opinion giver. Juror 10 is a man with deeply prejudiced. If he is to be believed then every person from the lower strata of the society is a criminal. He is very violent person because he can be seen indulging in physical confrontations with other members on many occasions. He is a blocker.

 Juror 11 is polite person who have good knowledge about the case and who is ready to discuss the matter in detail. He is the opinion giver. Juror 12 is doesnt find the proceedings of the group interesting and is busy in creating advertisement campaigns. On a couple of occasions he contributes ideas towards the functioning of the group. He has no opinion about the accused and changed his vote twice during the discourse. So he is also a conformist. In the impact of influence is also visible in the functioning of the group. Impact of thinking of more vocal and assertive members over the group decision making is visible. There sub-group formation can be see within the majority group , those who are supporting guilty because they does not want to waste time and those who are of conformist thinking. Some people like juror 7 and juror 3 are supporting each other because of their ulterior motives. As described above, every member of the dons a different hat and contributes differently to the functioning of the group. Conformist thinking, ulterior motives and social hierarchy result in subgroup formation resulting social integration which in turn influences the decision making. Often too much social integration result in Group Think. In this jury group, Juror 8, through his patience and reasoned thinking, reduces the chances of Group Think. Power and Control In any group (formal or informal), whether through will or by chance, certain members achieve a degree of power and consequently wield a proportionate degree of influence over the functioning of the group. In the instant jury group, it is visible that the members who voted in favour of guilty are not sure of their decision. Some of them are looking towards others and later raising their hands and they are the ones who later start changing of votes. Such members are prone to be influenced by the members who are in position to control the functioning of the group. Juror 3 makes a visible attempt to gain the power in this group and attempts to dominate the functioning of the group through high-pitched arguments and boasting about his past experience about such jury groups. However, he lacks the required information and expert power to consolidate his votes. He fails to stand up to a reasoned debate and constantly loses his battle for power.On the other hand, Juror 8 is a person who believe in democratic decision and he does not want to impose his believes on other members. After a long session of heated debate he ask for second round of voting but said that this time he will not participate and if the majority still firm on their previous decision then he will also vote in favour of guilty. Through his polite manners and the ability to take a moral high ground by refraining to vote in the second round, gives him a certain degree of reference power. On the other hand of the spectrum is Juror 2. He fails to present his views and repeatedly fails to stand upto Juror3. Consequently, he has no influence over the functioning of the group. Culture Generally, group culture is developed over a period of time. Though the instant jury group is a onetime arrangement, which significantly rules out development of a distinct group culture, the

impact of formal sanctions of the court and the diversity in the background of group members do result in development of a sort of group culture. The directions of the court make the jury group a very goal driven group. Most of the norms developed during the jury meeting were towards the achievement of this goal and had little to do with the cultural diversity of the group. Nevertheless, the socio-economic background of the group members play important role in the functioning of the group. Members develop natural affinity towards members who were amiable. On the other hand, some members considered themselves to be of higher social hierarchy and formed a loose sub-group. Washroom can be seen as the metaphor for the outer world where people influence each other. Members can be seen sharing their personal views in the washroom.

References 1. Gravin D.Charles, Gutierrez M. Lorraine & Galinsky J.Maeda [2004] Handbook of Social Work with Groups, Spring Street, New York, The Guilfor Press A Division Of Guilford Press. Armstrong A.Stephen [2007] The Journal for Specialists in groupwork, Demonstration Group Process Using 12 Angry Men. Lindsay Trevor & Orton Sue [2009] Group Work Practices In Social Work, Britain,TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall. Whittaker K.James [1970] Social Service Review, Models Of Group Development Implications For Social Group Work Practices, Vol. 44 No.3,pp. 308-322.

2. 3. 4.