Jason Grindstaff: Coach, we're back one more time.
Ashwin Patel: Okay.
Jason: All right.
Ashwin: Let's hear this one.
Jason: So let's do a real quick review, maybe let the viewer know what are we doing here
for one, and what were the other two models, the other two videos that they might want
to check out.
Ashwin: All right, so the first one was Tuckman's model, it was the linear model of how teams
actually progress through a series of stages.
The second one was more of life cycle process, kind of a birth through growth through death.
So this one now is what, this looks kind of interesting.
I don't know what this one is.
Jason: It is an interesting one.
You had mentioned that the initial one was a linear model, the second one was a life
cycle model.
So here we have a visual of a pendulum.
This is an additional way to describe the group development process, how the team comes
together, and how they become, hopefully, a cohesive unit.
So very similar to the other models is that we have some kind of an orientation, we have
a starting point.
So we have a natural starting point in the group development process, and over time,
this pendulum is going to swing back and forth, and with momentum, we're always going to be
swinging back and forth between two ends of our spectrum.
We're going to have some sort of differentiation or team conflict that the group is going to
be going through.
So we looked at some examples of that, so as the team is coming together, not everybody
is going to be a starter.
You're going to have other roles on the team, and so coming through that conflict of figuring
out who is in what role certainly is going to have to be worked through.
Ashwin: Okay.
Jason: And from that differentiation, what this model would suggest is that there's a
great deal of momentum that takes us from differentiation and conflict into resolution
and cohesion.
Ashwin: All right.
Jason: So very similar to Tuckman's model of that storming stage, where it's a very
natural and normal part of that process, that as the team goes through that conflict and
as they come to resolution, that hopefully the outcome there is that the team is a bit
closer, that they enjoy being around one another, and that they're more cohesive in their drive
to accomplish the team goals.
Ashwin: So take me through this, the part in terms of conflict here.
Would this also involve maybe conflict between the coaches and the players?
Jason: Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Ashwin: Okay.
Jason: So for example on many teams where you have a head coach and you have assistant
coaches, often times the assistant coaches, much like the players, have different roles,
and so a lot of times the coaches are trying to figure out, "Hey, what is my role on this
team?"
So for example, I know many teams where the head coach is considered the bad cop and the
assistant coaches are the good cops.
Ashwin: Yeah.
Jason: So in that case, the assistant coach is the one that comes up and puts his arm
around the players, "Hey, hang in there," and the head coach is the disciplinarian.
So in some respects, what you might see with the good cop, bad cop is that the players
themselves, then kind of rally against the head coach, or if it's a particular assistant
coach that they don't like, in that case.
So most certainly, the coaches can have specific roles.
Ashwin: So kind of like, initially, in Miracle, where they seem to be revolting against Herb
Brooks's character, or Remember the Titans with Coach Boone, like that, some of the players
were like, "Why you so hard on me?"
Those types of things.
Jason: Absolutely.
So in both of those examples, here you had a great examples of the coaches who were more
like managers of sorts.
Instead of being that kind of transformational leader where they're really developing those
relationships with the players, but you see over the course of that movie, as the players
work and the coaches worked through that conflict, you see them coming to that resolution and
the players themselves come to greatly appreciate and love their coaches; whereas first they
saw them as these hard-nose disciplinarians that didn't genuinely care about them, but
over time then saw this different side of the coaches as they worked through that.
Ashwin: I like that.
Jason: So what we see is that this in this particular model, one of the advantages that
we have is that because it is a pendulum and much like pendulum, they are constantly in
flux.
We're constantly swinging back and forth, so during this cycle, if you will, of the
team development from beginning to end, we could cycle back and forth, this pendulum
could go back and forth between resolution and conflict as many times that it needs.
For those teams that they're together for a season, if we look at maybe a high school
team, that season might be three or four months long.
They might cycle in and out of this resolution and this conflict numerous times over just
a few months.
Ashwin: Sure.
Jason: But then we look at other teams that they're together for a year, or an incoming
class of freshmen into a college or university that might be together for three or four years.
During that group process, they can be cycling back and forth an unlimited number of times.
Ashwin: Nice.
Jason: But then what we also see in this process is that we do have a beginning and then we
do have a natural ending to this process, so as the team has worked their way and out
of this momentum, that the pendulum is eventually going to swing back to its original starting
position, and that's where the team is going to naturally have its endpoint, its termination.
Ashwin: Okay.
Jason: So just to kind of review what we've done here in these videos, we looked at the
process of group development, how groups come together, and how that build can build cohesion
within a team, and we looked at three particular models.
We looked at a linear model, we looked at a life cycle model, and then here today, we
just finished up with a pendular model of group development.
Ashwin: So as you said before the end of the last video, the life cycle video, it doesn't
mean that one's better than the other or one's right or wrong, it's just other ways of understanding
how groups and teams form and go through their process of becoming, of developing and becoming…
Jason: Absolutely.
Any one of those models that we look at is going to have particular advantages and some
disadvantages.
Ashwin: Okay.
Jason: I think for particular coaches, it's much like wearing a pair of glasses, it all
frames how you see the world.
It frames how you see your team.
Ashwin: I like that.
Jason: So maybe as a coach, I take more towards this pendular model.
So from that particular point of view, that's going to resonate with me where I see that
the team is naturally going to go through this conflict and this resolution multiple
times throughout the season.
Maybe if I and that particular coach, as the team has that conflict, I don't jump in and
save them.
Ashwin: Fair enough.
Jason: That I let them work through that process and they come to that resolution.
Maybe there's certainly times where they do need a hand, but if I look at it from that
perspective of this pendular model, then I might not be jumping in there every time that
they need saved, if you will.
Ashwin: That makes sense.
Sure.
Absolutely, that's great.
Jason: So all of those models have some real strengths and some assets to them.
Then other components of the model are going to maybe have some disadvantages.
So really encourage coaches and athletes that are kind of interested in this group development
process, choose the one that works best for you, and understand what maybe some of the
other models how they can help you become a better coach and how they can help your
teams develop more adequately and achieve their goals.
Ashwin: Nice.
That's great.
Jason: Yes.
Well, very good job.
Good review of those three models, buddy.
Ashwin: Yes Coach.
Thanks.
Jason: All right.
Thanks a lot.
Ashwin: Thank you.