STAGES OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT – A PCP APPROACH

Mary Frances

STAGES OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT – A PCP APPROACH

Mary Frances
Lemington Spa, UK

Groups and their members can be seen as experiencing a ‘life cycle’, characterised by a sequence of devel-
opmental stages. Life cycle models typically present these stages as phenomena of group experience. This pa-
per experiments with the application of Personal Construct Psychology to phases of group development, de-
scribing these as processes of construing and elaboration made more vivid by the intense ‘laboratory’ of the
group. The group context serves to highlight the experimental nature of our actions, and the analysis of group
interaction reveals some recognisable patterns of behaviour as groups develop. A potential 4-stage model us-
ing personal construct theory is described, and implications for group facilitators are explored at each stage.

Key words: groups, group development, facilitation

INTRODUCTION considering appropriate facilitator interventions.
An awareness of these possible stages seems to

The development of a group has typically been help, not least by normalising the inevitable diffi-
described as a ‘life cycle’, characterised by a culties of group process, and the model can use-

sequence of developmental stages. The most fully highlight the way in which task and process

commonly used model is the work of Tuckman run concurrently through the life of the group,
(1965) who described the four stages of forming, both part of its essential work. Descriptions of
storming, norming and performing. group development tend to present these ‘stages’
as phenomena of group experience, sets of behav-
 Forming refers to the early stages of a iours which occur specifically when people come
group’s life as people come together and be- together and form a group with a common task or
gin to find ways to interact and share com- purpose.
mon purpose;
In this paper I look at group development
 Storming is the stage where group roles, rela- through the lens of Personal Construct Psychol-
tionships and values are contested and nego- ogy (Kelly, 1955/1991). Kelly himself outlined
tiated, including issues of leadership and con- the stages of a group, largely in terms of its func-
trol; tion and activities. Ideas for structuring group
activity have since been elaborated, notably by
 Norming refers to the stage at which group Dunnett & Llewellyn (1978) and Neimeyer
roles, norms and expectations begin to be es- (1988). The notion of what constitutes ‘a PCP
tablished; and group’ has been explored creatively by Stringer
& Thomas (1996).
 Performing describes the point at which
group processes are established and the group I am proposing the application of PCP to the
is able to work within these constraints in developmental life cycle of groups in terms of
relatively effective ways. process as well as task. Viewed from the perspec-
tive of Kelly’s theory, the experiences of a group
This 4-stage model has very wide currency in the might be seen less as phenomena unique to
world of group facilitation. While the stages can- groups, and rather as particularly vivid examples
not usefully be seen as either linear or universal, of everyday processes of construing. Personal
we will often recognise some distinctive patterns construct theory applies to all of us, all of the
as groups develop, and Tuckman’s work is con- time, and our construction processes are likely to
sidered by many to be a useful starting point for be thrown into sharp relief by the intense ‘labora-

10

Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Stages of group development – a PCP approach

tory’ of the group which serves to highlight the psychologist in clinical work. Referring to Tuck-

experimental nature of our behaviour. man’s model, Clarkson has suggested that

Recognising the established usefulness of a 4-

stage approach to understanding group develop- ‘predictable patterns…can be perceived by

ment, and making connections as far as possible an initiated observer over the course of a

with Tuckman’s ideas, I am proposing a group 3-year training or a half-hour committee

life-cycle from a PCP perspective, comprising meeting. Knowledge of these phases is

therefore relevant and potentially useful to

 Stage One: Individual Anticipation any person who is either a member or a

 Stage Two: Individual Experimentation leader of any group of individuals for al-
 Stage Three: Collective Construction most any conceivable purpose: from bring-
 Stage Four: Collaborative Action ing up children to conducting an anti-
nuclear demonstration to running a psy-

The first two stages refer primarily to individuals, chotherapy group.’ (Clarkson, 1995, p. 88)

which perhaps reflects our felt experience of While acknowledging a variety of leadership
group process. PCP describes the personal and roles, I refer throughout the paper to the ‘facilita-
unique construct systems through which we each tor’. Given the generic applicability of group
make sense of our worlds. When we first come development models and of PCP theory, I hope
together there may be little ‘groupness’ but rather that the suggestions for facilitators will have a
a collection of individuals with their own systems wide range of convenience, at least as starting
of meaning making and anticipation who need to points for reviewing our own practice.
find connections and gradually develop and share

constructs. Many of us will be aware of the early

stages of group process where our engagement STAGE ONE - INDIVIDUAL ANTICIPA-
with the group is intermittent and we are primar- TION
ily focussed on our own thoughts, feelings, and

reactions in and to the group. It is in the later This stage would be roughly equivalent to Tuck-
stages that we are more fully engaged as group man’s ‘forming’, which is usually described as a
members, becoming less consciously and less tentative testing of the boundaries of interper-
frequently preoccupied by our internal process. sonal and task behaviours. Group members may
be quiet and watchful as they orientate them-
The stages could be elaborated more fully as:

 Stage One: Individual Anticipation - of the selves in the group, and they are often highly
group dependent on the group leader, thus avoiding
early issues of power, control and preference
 Stage Two: Individual Experimentation - in between themselves. A cautious politeness regu-
the group larly dominates.

 Stage Three: Collective Construction – by the From a PCP perspective, the focus would be
group on anticipation1. Our theory describes us as living
in anticipation, continually forming our hypothe-
 Stage Four: Collaborative Action – as a ses about what is happening and what might be
group

This sequence illustrates the gradual emergence our next best move. From day to day much of this
of the ‘groupness’ of the group, out of an initial process happens outside our awareness, but the
coming together of individuals. intense social experience of a new group pushes
our anticipations into the foreground. Group
At each stage I offer some ideas about the role members are likely to be highly occupied with
of a group facilitator. This may be a professional their own personal questions (what is happening
facilitator but is more often a manager, trainer or now? what is it like to be here? who are these
team leader in an organisational setting, a teacher

or tutor in educational practice, or a therapist or 1 Terms introduced or modified by Kelly are set in

italics

11

Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Mary Frances

people? how will it be? why am I here? what do experiential or outdoor training programmes

they make of me?) and will be trying more or less where existing hierarchies and work experience

consciously to form some provisional answers for lose their usual power to structure and control the

themselves. group experience.

A primary experience will be that of Kellyan

anxiety, as we may not have many existing con-

structs for dealing with the experience of this THE FACILITATOR AT STAGE ONE

group. The more that is unfamiliar to us (the

members, the venue, the purpose, the facilitator, Facilitators at the stage of ‘Individual Anticipa-

the experience of being in a group) the higher our tion’ will need to accept that dependencies are

levels of anxiety may be. There is also the possi- unlikely to be dispersed through the group, and

bility of threat, the awareness that our core con- members may be looking to them for a fairly

structs may be about to be challenged by this strong lead, and for guidance about what might

experience. In some settings, such as therapy happen and how things might work. Where a

groups, joining a new profession, or a first ex- facilitator wants to increase group safety, they

perience of higher education, there is little doubt might helpfully offer some tightening interven-

that we are opening ourselves to a life-changing tions, clarifying expectations and thereby helping

experience. However sought-after this change members to form some provisional constructs

may be, our system will be experiencing some about the group and its task. Information and a

threat. All change involves loss, and we cannot degree of control from the group leader can help

yet be sure that the change will be better, or even to minimise the anxieties of the unfamiliar.

manageable. Facilitators are also likely to be given respon-

Those members with considerable experience sibility for managing the CPC cycle of decision-

of groups are likely to have quite well-developed making in the group, exercising leadership, and

constructs of ‘self-in-a-group’ which may allow helping members orientate themselves by giving

them to make more confident predictions and some compass points.

experiment more quickly with their behaviour. In A group leader may want to facilitate early

most cases, our behavioural experiments will be experiments in sociality, encouraging mutual

cautious, characterised by circumspection. We understanding by initiating some opportunities

will be leaving ourselves plenty of opportunity to for the exchange of personal information, views

withdraw before getting out of our depth. Alter- and ideas. The gradual management of personal

natively, some of us, while lacking in ready-made disclosure/exposure was emphasised by Kelly:

constructs, may adopt the characteristic impulsiv-

ity of preemption, throwing ourselves rapidly, ‘We are fully convinced that no member of

even recklessly, into the experience. In these cir- the group should be encouraged, or even

cumstances, we are likely to gain a massive allowed, to put [themselves] in a vulner-

amount of feedback very quickly, which we may able position…until supports have become

or may not have consciously anticipated, and apparent in the group’s interactions and

which we may find more or less validating. We those supports are obviously available to

become the first-time gambler rapidly throwing the person who confides’. (Kelly 1991, p.

all our chips on to one number as the best option 421)

we can see in a setting where we don’t really

know the rules of the game. We may also need to accept a tendency for con-

This stage of ‘Individual Anticipation’ may be striction at this early stage. A lot of process work

very marked in ‘stranger’ groups where members is being done, and there may be a limit to how far

are meeting for the very first time, such as the the group can also progress its task. A focus on a

early meetings of a support or therapy group, or limited range of work tasks may help the group

the first contact between students beginning a keep anxiety to more manageable levels.

course of study. It is also likely to be a feature Where appropriate, threat might usefully be

when groups are required to suspend previously explicitly acknowledged by the facilitator as a

established roles and rules, for example in highly feature at the start of group projects, normalising

12

Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Stages of group development – a PCP approach

the experience and helping group members to involved, there will be more at stake and we will

identify the turbulence they may be feeling. be working harder to maintain the integrity of our

own construct system in the face of challenge,

striving to retain our sense of self in whatever

STAGE TWO: INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMEN- ways seem possible. Since the group may be rela-

TATION tively unaware of what is core for each member,

the levels of volatility and strength of reaction to

This stage corresponds to Tuckman’s ‘storming’ each others’ contribution may be difficult to

which he describes as characterised by “conflict make sense of and accept.

and polarisation around interpersonal issues, with Kelly’s constructs of transition may also be

concomitant emotional responding in the task very much in evidence at this point. In addition to

sphere”. anxiety and threat, there are likely to be differ-

Often groups will be in explicit conflict ences in the level of aggression displayed by

around issues of control, inclusion and affection, group members. While aggression in a colloquial

preoccupied with who is taking the lead and how sense is very much a part of this stage, Kellyan

people feel about them, concerned about who is aggression – the active elaboration of our con-

in or out and what sub-groups are emerging, and struct systems – is what is in play here. Some

reacting to whether they feel appreciated, valued people will want to move faster, to be more radi-

and liked as individuals. cal, to do more, while others will need to reflect

Kelly described the stage of group develop- and progress more slowly, with more reserva-

ment where differences and contrasts between tions. Kelly suggested that those who go around

group members are highlighted and need to be ‘aggressively dilating other people’s worlds’ are

managed. Many of the anxieties, questions and bound to encounter hostility in others whose in-

preoccupations of this stage arise from differ- vestment will be in not changing, (at least, not

ences in individuals’ construct systems, and tur- yet), and whose energy will go into ensuring that

moil and conflict in the group can be a conse- events continue to fit their original script. The

quence of the various experiments group mem- tension between hostility and aggression may be

bers engage in to test their hypotheses and gain one of the dominant features of the Individual

validation for themselves and their contributions. Experimentation phase.

The picture is conjured vividly by Efran et al A further issue causing potential disruption at

(1988/1992): this stage will be the balance for each person

between individuality and commonality. We need

‘Picture a number of playwrights who have to feel that we can be different, that our unique-

been invited to present little playlets, si- ness is accepted and valued. It will be important

multaneously, and on overlapping stages. to be ourselves in the group, and not be taken

Furthermore, each playwright, since he or over or required to conform in ways which feel

she was going to be there anyway, has unacceptable to us.

been given a part in every other play- The time frame of the group will sometimes

wright’s production. Constructivism leads have relevance to this stage. In relatively short-

us to anticipate that we will all be enacting lived group experiences we will sometimes be

our unique playlets in roughly the same more ready to avoid or accommodate differences,

performance space, and using one another and may be content to leave leadership in the

as members of the cast. Under these seem- hands of the group leader or facilitator. Where we

ingly bizarre conditions – what we typi- are making a more serious investment of time and

cally refer to as ‘living’ – is it any wonder energy however – joining a major project team or

that there are a number of bumps and starting a long course of study for example – we

bruises, accusations and confusions?’ will be more concerned to establish roles and

norms which are acceptable to us, may be less

In PCP terms, the more core the issues involved, prepared to compromise and adjust, and we may

the more turbulent this phase will be. Where key also be more concerned to establish a particular

aspects of personal or professional identity are

13

Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Mary Frances

impression of ourselves and our strengths and mentation’ phase, construing the conflicts and
qualities. difficulties of this stage as normal developmental
processes and not as an invalidation of the facili-
At the same time, this stage may also be a tator’s role in managing and enabling the group.
striking feature in one-off meetings, particularly Facilitators who have an assessment or evaluative
in high threat situations where group members’ role, in education for example, need to look rela-
needs for personal validation may be combined tively benignly on some of the behaviours of this
with a tendency to invalidate others. This combi- stage which may range from socially inept to
nation is characteristic of gatherings where indi- seemingly destructive. Members are navigating
viduals perceive that a lot is at stake, for example their way through an unknown social context,
in groups where judgements are being made such using resources and experience with which we
as job interview exercises, group election proce- are not familiar, based on personal hypotheses
dures, and assessment processes of all kinds. which we have yet to understand.

THE FACILITATOR AT STAGE TWO

STAGE THREE: COLLECTIVE CON-

Far from being a distraction from the task, the STRUCTION

rocky process of the ‘Individual Experimentation’

stage is a necessary stage through which people This stage corresponds to Tuckman’s ‘norming’,

evolve and establish the roles they might play, during which shared norms and values develop,

and the degree to which their various needs and and a degree of cohesiveness is established. This

motivations can be satisfied. is where the group makes explicit its own sense

Sociality is again a key tool. The facilitator of ‘the way we do things round here’.

might want to promote and model discussions and At this stage the balance shifts from individu-

explorations which enable members to understand ality, which has now hopefully been established,

each others’ needs, views and motivations, and to to commonality. We need to agree a similar

appreciate and value difference and individuality enough understanding of what we are doing and

rather than feel threatened by it. At the same time, how we will proceed for us to feel that the group

there will be a need to work towards some com- has purpose and meaning. Perceived commonal-

monality, defining shared tasks and group groun- ity needs frequent checking and exploration, as it

drules, which will need periodic tightening. It is quite possible to have a high degree of superfi-

may be important however not to push the group cial commonality (particularly through common

towards clarity and task focus too quickly, as language) without a corresponding level of mu-

some interpersonal turbulence is usually a neces- tual understanding.

sary precursor to productive groupwork. Kelly As sociality develops, members are more able

suggested we keep an emphasis on the ‘task of to clarify the roles they might play in the group

understanding faithfully’ the outlook of the indi- and the ways in which they can pool their

vidual group members. strengths and resources. Patterns of decision mak-

Because of inevitable differences in pace and ing tend to become established and accepted

experience, the facilitator may still be managing within the group. With more robust constructs

the CPC cycle. They will need to ensure on the about each other, group members are ready to

one hand that the group does not rush to preemp- take responsibility themselves with the subse-

tion to get out of difficult conflicts which would quent emergence of leadership from within the

benefit from further exploration rather than pre- group.

mature closure, and on the other hand that the There is likely to be some constriction in

group does not stay in circumspection too long terms of what the group needs to do. At this

for fear of facing up to the difficulties and power stage, members are no longer requiring the group

clashes involved in making decisions and taking to meet all their needs and expectations, and a

responsibility. more realistic and pragmatic approach to the

It can help to remind ourselves of the emo- work of the group develops, enabling more focus

tionally volatile nature of the ‘Individual Experi-

14

Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Stages of group development – a PCP approach

on tasks and less preoccupation with interper- tions, the facilitator might helpfully tighten, by
sonal issues. summarising, clarifying, and constricting discus-
sion to more manageable dimensions.
As the group attempts to accommodate and in-
clude its own variety and differences, individuals Finally, we can encourage the maintenance of
may be experiencing different levels of more or propositionality. In group settings we all need
less manageable fragmentation. Group work of- encouragement to be Kellyan ‘good scientists’ –
ten includes a number of sub-systems which are to hold our hypotheses with some lightness, stay-
inferentially incompatible, but which can hope- ing receptive to feedback which may or may not
fully be subsumed by a useable superordinate validate our experiments. Groups need to stay
construct concerning the overall value and/or flexible in their rule-making and their meaning-
purpose of the group. In essence, the group’s making if they are to adapt and thrive through
values need to become each member’s values, at inevitable ongoing change.
least for now, and when in the group.

THE FACILITATOR AT STAGE THREE STAGE FOUR: COLLABORATIVE AC-
TION

We are aiming for ‘good-enough’ collective con- The group is now at the stage Tuckman calls

struction, with members experiencing enough ‘performing’, where the “interpersonal structure

individual and collective validation to progress becomes the tool of task activities, roles are func-

with their project. tional and flexible, and group energy is chan-

At this stage, the facilitator will focus on the nelled into task”.

emergence of leadership from within the group, This stage will be an important feature of

encouraging dependencies to become more dis- work and project teams, and of those groups

persed between group members, and validating whose core purpose extends well beyond the per-

the group’s work as it moves to a new level of sonal development of members towards explicit

maturity and self-determination. or prescribed practical outcomes.

We may recognise and usefully tighten shared At the stage of ‘Collaborative Action’, indi-

constructs, identifying superordinate constructs vidual and joint constructs about the group are

to which people can commit, which will give a now well elaborated, and threat and anxiety are

shared sense of purpose while struggling through consequently lower. Members’ roles in the group

conflicts about practicalities. With all projects, are adequately aligned with their sense of self.

robust mutual objectives help support the group There is enough commonality in construing the

when members have equally strong ideas about roles and responsibilities of each member, and

the different ways this might be achieved. The individuality is respected through the continued

shared aim becomes a kind of touchstone to keep allocation of tasks according to strengths and

us on track and make it worth the hassle. interests. To the extent that group members are

The other key focus for a facilitator at this working with high levels of sociality and are able

stage is to monitor the rhythms of loosening and to construe each others construing, the behaviour

tightening – the process heartbeat of the group. patterns of individuals and sub-groups are now

Kelly proposed an essential connection between more intelligible; they can at least be adapted to,

this rhythm and our ability to work creatively. If a and at best are becoming valued. There is scope

group settles into relatively tight modes of con- for individual members to behave aggressively

struing which might limit progress by excluding without evoking instant hostile reactions.

alternative ways of seeing things, the facilitator As the group has developed some explicit

might perhaps ask more open questions, suggest norms and has some experience of acting to-

more playful ways of working, or nudge the gether, some loosening is possible around time

group to more philosophical musing. Where the and structure as anxieties lessen and the group’s

group is construing very loosely and may be in range of convenience expands. The group is now

danger of being overwhelmed by a confusion of engaged in repeated experience cycles, acting

possibilities or by an unwieldy range of implica- collaboratively and reviewing the outcomes in

15

Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Mary Frances

joint terms. The group and the individuals within  Stage Three - Collective Construction: Vali-
it will be experiencing the validation of achieve- dating the shared project; encouraging disper-
ment. sal of dependencies; highlighting superordi-
nate constructs; encouraging rhythmic loos-
THE FACILITATOR AT STAGE FOUR ening and tightening; maintaining proposi-
tionality;
At the ‘Collaborative Action’ stage, the facilitator
must be able to be able to let go. The high levels  Stage Four - Collaborative Action: Letting
of dependency on facilitation at earlier stages can go of group dependency and managing asso-
make it difficult for us to re-construe our role as ciated threat; overseeing learning and cycles
the group develops. We need to be aware of our of experience; balancing individuality and
own levels of threat, as constructive leadership commonality; encouraging Kellyan aggres-
emerges from within the group and we are no sion.
longer looked to for the same dominant role. Fa-
cilitators might usefully elaborate some su- Again, it feels important to acknowledge that the
perordinate constructs about the benefits of self- stages are not linear, universal or mutually exclu-
managing groups, and the helpful role we can sive, but they are likely to reflect some of the
play in fostering this developmental process. most likely patterns.

As the group conduct their shared experi- In recent years I have noticed that facilitators,
ments, we can encourage them to review the out- in organisational settings particularly, can feel
comes in terms of useful feedback rather than in considerable pressure to move through the stages
terms of fear or blame. A focus on using out- as quickly as possible. This aim is promoted in
comes to make better predictions and plans will contemporary management discourse with its
ensure that any invalidation of shared action does focus on the speedy creation of ‘high-performing
not result in the invalidation of persons, or of our teams’. Speed is not necessarily the most useful
joint project. We can also encourage the recogni- superordinate in the development of a group, and
tion of individual contributions and talents, ensur- a focus on speed can be at the expense of under-
ing that individuality is still balanced with the standing. The urge to get to ‘Collaborative Ac-
high levels of commonality operating at this tion’ as soon as possible can leave interpersonal
stage. difficulties, and conflicts about group norms,
grumbling under the surface. These are likely to
FACILITATING THE LIFE-CYCLE erupt, often at critical times when group pressure
is high, resulting in disruption of the task and
In summary, we might propose a number of areas throwing group projects off-course. This does not
for the facilitator to attend to at each stage: mean that early stages need be slow or protracted,
just that they need adequate attention.
 Stage One - Individual Anticipation: Accept-
ing group dependencies; tightening initial ex- It will be apparent that I have written this
pectations; managing the CPC cycle; intro- piece from my experience of working with facili-
ducing opportunities for sociality; appropri- tators whose brief is a fairly hands-on approach to
ately constricting the range of early tasks; ac- group management, whether in organisational,
knowledging and normalising threat; educational or therapeutic settings.

 Stage Two - Individual Experimentation: I have also tried to reflect, as well as I am
Encouraging sociality; accepting diversity; able, Kelly’s own very active style of group man-
highlighting commonalities; acknowledging agement. I am aware that there are alternative
threat and anxiety; lightly tightening ground styles of group work in which the facilitator will
rules; facilitating the CPC cycle; working be far less focussed on taking responsibility for
constructively with invalidation; managing the group and its progress.

The four stages provide us with a valuable
story – a model which can help us when faced
with the dynamic phenomenon of a living group.
It will be important however that we do not fall

16
Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Stages of group development – a PCP approach

into the trap of seeing these stages as inevitable or key role of facilitators. Reactions are likely to be
strictly sequential. Clarkson (1995) advises us wide-ranging, and may include celebration and
against ‘the assumption of causal, linear, progres- relief as well as loss or sadness. There may be
sive, and left-hemispheric game-rules’ when con- appreciation of some aspects of the experience
struing group development. There is likely to be and some regrets about missed opportunities. The
much to-ing and fro-ing within the stages, and the facilitator might usefully encourage awareness of
arrival of a new member, or a change or addition the ending/mourning process, both in the group,
to the group task or role, will often necessitate the and by promoting reflection or journaling outside
re-working of earlier stages as the group re- group meetings. Rituals of collective review or
construes itself, incorporating new aspects. celebration can help the time-binding process,
which enables us to move from the group experi-
ENDING THE CYCLE ence with our personal constructs elaborated,
richer for the experience, and ready for new in-
Tuckman & Jensen (1977) revisited the original terpersonal and social challenges.
model and added the fifth stage of adjourning,
marking the ending of the group’s life cycle. In- While use of a developmental model can help
terestingly, much subsequent writing has re- us clarify what is happening in groups, I am
named this stage mourning, tending to focus on aware that the wide range of facilitation sugges-
its more painful aspects. (Other stages have also tions included here may appear to add a demand-
been proposed, though they have often been de- ing complexity to the process of group leadership.
scribed as having more emphasis on rhyme than My intention in sharing these ideas is to offer
reason.) potential clues or glimpses of what might be help-
ful, and my hope is that we might each select and
Kelly was himself aware of the importance of further elaborate those suggestions most com-
group endings, and proposed a further task for patible with our own practice setting, weaving
facilitators over the life-cycle of a group, which is them creatively into our ongoing development as
members and leaders of groups.

‘to help the client extend the les-

sons…learned about role relationships REFERENCES

with a particular group and apply them to

other personas outside the group and to Clarkson, P. (1995) Stages of group development and

humanity in general’ (Kelly, 1991, p. 431) the group imago. In P. Clarkson. Change in Or-
ganisations, London: Whurr. (pp. 85-106)

The generalisation of learning points from the Dunnett, G & Llewellyn, S. (1988) Elaborating per-
group experience enables the transfer of learning sonal construct theory in a group setting. in Dun-
to life in general, counteracts some of the inevita- nett. G. (ed.) Working with people, clinical uses of
ble constriction of the group experience, and personal construct psychology, London: Routledge
helps group members capture transferable learn- (pp. 186 – 201)
ing in anticipation of the group’s ending.
Efran, J.S., Lukens, R.J., & Lukens, M.D. (1988) Con-
structivism, what’s in it for you?, Family Therapy

In PCP terms the group ending stage involves Networker, 12, 27-35

a kind of meta-construing. The focus is on ensur- Kelly, G., (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal

ing the completion of an experience cycle, and on Constructs, Vols 1 & 2, London: Routledge (1991
the review and evaluation of the overall experi- reprint)
ment of being in this the group. As well as devel- Neimeyer, R. A. (1988). Clinical guidelines for con-
oping some collective view of how it has been, ducting Interpersonal Transaction Groups, Interna-
group members will be re-claiming their more tional Journal of Personal Construct Psychology,
personal constructs and making their own mean- 1, 181 -190
ings of the experience as they anticipate life Stringer, P. & Thomas, L. (1996). Of cats and cloud.
ahead without the group. In D. Kalekin-Fishman & B. M. Walker, B. (eds).
The Construction of Group Realities – culture, so-

Realising the centrality of anticipation and ciety and personal construct psychology, Malabar,

prediction, the signalling of endings becomes a Florida: Krieger (pp. 65 – 93)

17

Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008

Mary Frances

Tuckman, B. (1965) Developmental sequence in small REFERENCE
groups, Psychological Bulletin, 384-399
Frances, M. (2008). Stages of group development
Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, K. (1977). Stages of small – a PCP approach. Personal Construct Theory &
group development, Journal of Group & Organisa- Practice, 5, 10-18.
tional Studies, 419-427 Retrieved from: http://www.pcp-
net.org/journal/pctp08/frances08.pdf
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Received: 8 Oct 2007 - Accepted:17 Jan 2008 - Pub-
Mary Frances is a facilitator working with the lished: 4 June 2008
process of change in individuals, groups and or-
ganisations.
Email: [email protected]

18
Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 2008