riticisms undermine the group's ability to accomplish the task (cited in Egolf 102). On the other hand, Fisher highlighted the fact that the members' conflicts stem primarily from the differences in the ideas and approaches to implement the task at hand. Unlike Tuckman's negative perspective of this phase, Fisher considered conflicts to be a positive development that will stimulate group members to exchange ideas (cited in Borchers 2).
In the case of my task group, the conflict phase resembled Fisher's model more closely than Tuckman's theory. Since three members were close friends, the members were not competing with one another to gain leadership positions at all. The conflict between the group members was centered on ideas for organizing the research effort and ways of collecting data for the project. Therefore, the arguments between the group members in my task group should be classified as task conflicts, not interpersonal conflicts (Egolf 117-8).
Furthermore, my task group followed the Adult (A) Mode of communication, as highlighted in Berne's Parent, Adult, Child (PAC) model from his Transaction Theory. When individuals communicate in the Adult Mode, they demonstrate their concern for the others' perspectives and offer room for alternative possibilities in the discussion (Egolf 37-8). In my task group, even the remaining member of the group who was not familiar with the other members utilized the (A) mode of communication by emulating the communication style of the other members. This form of communication also limited the group's conflicts to the discussion about the task.
In addition to conflicts over ideas about implementing the tasks, Fisher noted that coalitions are formed during this phase (cited in Egolf 103). With regards to my task group, the coalitions were based more on shared ideas, rather than human relationships. As Egolf pointed out, coalitions between group members are not static. In...