GROUP DYNAMICS

JEREMIAH OYANA OWANGO

REG NO: I152/4056/2014
SUBMITED TO: PHILIP ABIERO
JARAMOGI OGINGA-ODINGA UNIVERSITY O SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
W!"# $% " G&'()
Definitions of the word group vary, but many stress one key consideration: relationships among the
members. Thus, a group is a collection of individuals who have relations to one another (artwright
! "ander, #$%&, p. '%() a group is a social unit which consists of a number of individuals who stand
in (more or less( definite status and role relationships to one another (*herif ! *herif, #$+%, p. #''()
and a group is a bounded set of patterned relations among members (,rrow, -c.rath, ! /erdahl,
0111, p. 2'(.
, group can range in si3e from two members to thousands of members. 4ery small collectives, such
as dyads (two members( and triads (three members( are groups, but so are very large collections of
people, such as mobs, crowds, and congregations (*immel, #$10(.
G&'() %#&(*#(&+: The underlying pattern of roles, norms, and relations among members that organi3es
groups.
R',+: , coherent set of behaviors e5pected of people who occupy specific positions within a group.
N'&-: , consensual and often implicit standard that describes what behaviors should and should not
be performed in a given conte5t.
G&'() *'!+%$'. The strength of the bonds linking individuals to and in the group.
E.#$#"#$/$#0 ,s described by Donald ampbell, the e5tent to which an assemblage of individuals is
perceived to be a group rather than an aggregation of independent,
unrelated individuals) the 6uality of being an entity.
T0)+% '1 G&'()%
P&$-"&0 2&'(): , small, long7term group, such as families and friendship cli6ues, characteri3ed by
face7to7face interaction, solidarity, and high levels of member7to7group interdependence and
identification) harles ooley believed such groups serve as the primary source of sociali3ation for
members by shaping their attitudes, values, and social orientation. 8rimary groups are primary in the
sense that they give the individual his earliest and completest e5perience of social unity, and also in the
sense that they do not change in the same degree as more elaborate relations, but form a comparatively
permanent source out of which the latter are ever springing. (ooley, #$1$, pp. 0%90:( ooley (#$1$(
maintained that, in earlier eras, individuals belonged only to small, primary groups. They could live out
their entire lives without leaving their small, close7knit families, tribes, or communities. /ut, as
societies became more comple5, so did their groups. These groups drew people into the larger
community, where they ;oined with others in social groups. These groups are larger and more formally
organi3ed than primary groups, and memberships tend to be shorter in duration and less emotionally
involving. The boundaries of such groups are more permeable, so members can leave old groups
behind and ;oin new ones. These groups are, in general, more instrumental ones: they are likely to
stress the performance of tasks rather than en;oying relationships. 4arious terms have been used to
describe this category of groups, such as secondary groups (ooley, #$1$(, associations (-ac<ver !
8age,#$2:(, task groups (=ickel, >amilton, ! *herman, 011#(, and .esellschaften (Toennies,
#&&:?#$%2(.
S'*$", 2&'()%: *mall groups of moderate duration and permeability characteri3ed by moderate levels
of interaction among the members over an e5tended period of time, often in goal7focused situations.
@5amples include oworkers, crews, e5peditions, fraternities, sports teams, study groups, task forces.
.C',,+*#$/+%: ,ggregations of individuals that form spontaneously, last only a brief period of time, and
have very permeable boundaries. @5amples include ,udiences, bystanders, crowds, mobs, waiting
lines (6ueues(
C"#+2'&$+%: ,ggregations of individuals who are similar to one another in some way, such as gender,
ethnicity, religion, or nationality. @5amples include ,sian ,mericans, Aew Borkers, physicians, C.*.
citi3ens, women
W!"# A&+ G&'() D0."-$*%3
The term Dgroup dynamicsD describes the way in which people in a group interact with one another.
Ehen dynamics are positive, the group works well together. Ehen dynamics are poor, the groupFs
effectiveness is reduced. 8roblems can come from weak leadership, too much deference to authority,
blocking, group think and free riding, among others.
To strengthen your teamFs dynamics, use the following strategies:
Gnow your team.
Tackle problems 6uickly with good feedback.
Define roles and responsibilities.
/reak down barriers.
Hocus on communication.
8ay attention.
Geep in mind that observing how your group interacts is an important part of your role as a leader.
-any of the behaviors that lead to poor dynamics can be overcome if you catch them early.
Gurt =ewin, a social psychologist and change management e5pert, is credited with coining the term
Dgroup dynamicsD in the early #$'1s. >e noted that people often take on distinct roles and behaviors
when they work in a group. D.roup dynamicsD describes the effects of these roles and behaviors on
other group members, and on the group as a whole.
-ore recent researchers have built on =ewinFs ideas, and this work has become central to good
management practice.
, group with a positive dynamic is easy to spot. Team members trust one another, they work towards a
collective decision, and they hold one another accountable for making things happen. ,s well as
this, researchers have found that when a team has a positive dynamic, its members are nearly twice as
creative as an average group.
<n a group with poor group dynamics, peopleFs behavior disrupts work. ,s a result, the group may not
come to any decision, or it may make the wrong choice, because group members could not e5plore
options effectively.
THE NATURE O GROUP DYNAMICS
.roup dynamics describes both a sub;ect matter and a scientific field of study. Ehen Gurt =ewin
(#$+#( described the way groups and individuals act and react to changing circumstances, he named
these processes group dynamics. /ut =ewin also used the phrase to describe the scientific discipline
devoted to the study of these dynamics. =ater, Dorwin artwright and ,lvin "ander supplied a formal
definition, calling it a field of in6uiry dedicated to advancing knowledge about the nature of groups,
the laws of their development, and their interrelations with individuals, other groups, and larger
institutions (#$%&, p. :(.
.roup dynamics is not even a century old. ,lthough scholars have long pondered the nature of groups,
the first scientific studies of groups were not carried out until the #$11s. artwright and "ander (#$%&(,
in their review of the origins of group dynamics, suggest that its slow development stemmed in part
from several unfounded assumptions about groups. -any felt that the dynamics of groups was a private
affair, not something that scientists should lay open to public scrutiny. Ithers felt that human behavior
was too comple5 to be studied scientifically and that this comple5ity was magnified enormously when
groups of interacting individuals became the ob;ects of interest. *till others believed that the causes of
group behavior were so obvious that they were unworthy of scientific attention.
The field also developed slowly because theorists and researchers disagreed among themselves on
many basic theoretical and methodological issues. The field was not established by a single theoristor
researcher who laid down a set of clear7cut assumptions and principles. Jather, group dynamics
resulted from group processes. Ine theorist would suggest an idea, another might disagree, and the
debate would continue until consensus would be reached.

level of analysis
Irgani3ation behavior is characteri3ed by different levels of analysis, the specific focus of study chosen
from a graded or nested se6uence of possible foci. ,n individual7level analysis e5amines specific
individuals in the group, that is) focused on the person in the group. Jesearchers who took this
approach sought to e5plain the behavior of each group member, and they ultimately wanted to know if
such psychological processes as attitudes, motivations, or personality were the true determinants of
social behavior. , group7level analysis focuses on the group as a unit, it assumes each person is an
element in a larger system, a group, organi3ation, or society. ,nd what he does is presumed to reflect
the state of the larger system and the events occurring in it (*teiner, #$:', p. $%) #$&2, #$&%(.
*ociological researchers tended to undertake group7level analyses and psychological researchers
favored the individual7level analysis, and an organi3ational level e5amines the individual nested in the
group, which is, in turn, nested in the organi3ational conte5t.
Jesearchers working at both levels (8sychology and *ociology( asked the 6uestion, ,re groups realK
.roup7level researchers believed that groups and the processes that occurredwithin them were
scientifically authentic. Lmile Durkheim (#&$:?#$%%(, for e5ample, argued that individuals who are not
members of friendship, family, or religious groups can lose their sense of identity and, as a result, are
more likely to commit suicide. Durkheim strongly believed that widely shared beliefsMwhat he called
collective representationsMare the cornerstone of society, and went so far as to suggest that large
groups of people sometimes act with a single mind. >e believed that such groups, rather than being
mere collections of individuals in a fi5ed pattern of relationships with one another, were linked by a
unifying collective conscious (Nahoda, 011:(.

Collective conscious (or groupmind) , hypothetical unifying mental force linking group members
together) the fusion of individual consciousness or mind into a transcendent consciousness.
-any psychologists who were interested in group phenomena 6uestioned the need to go beyond the
individual to e5plain group behavior. Hloyd ,llport, the foremost representative of this perspective,
argued that group7level phenomena, such as the collective conscious, simply did not e5ist. <n #$0',
,llport wrote that nervous systems are possessed by individuals) but there is no nervous system of the
crowd (p. +(. >e added, Inly through social psychology as a science of the individual can we avoid
the superficialities of the crowdmind and collective mind theories (p. &(. ,llport believed that the
actions of all are nothing more than the sum of the actions of each taken separately (p. +(, he thought
that a full understanding of the behavior of individuals in groups could be achieved by studying the
psychology of the individual group members.
Group Development
/ruce TuckmanOs theory of group development, for e5ample, assumes that most groups move through
the five stages summari3ed in Higure #.# (Tuckman, #$%+) Tuckman ! Nensen, #$::(.
H<.CJ@ #.# *tages of group development. TuckmanOs theory of group development suggests that groups typically pass
through stages during their development: formation (forming(, conflict (storming(, structure (norming(, productivity
(performing(, and dissolution (ad;ourning(.
Forming - stage 1
>igh dependence on leader for guidance and direction. =ittle agreement on team aims other than
received from leader. <ndividual roles and responsibilities are unclear. =eader must be prepared to
answer lots of 6uestions about the teamFs purpose, ob;ectives and e5ternal relationships. 8rocesses are
often ignored. -embers test tolerance of system and leader. =eader directs
Storming - stage 2
Decisions donFt come easily within group. Team members vie for position as they attempt to establish
themselves in relation to other team members and the leader, who might receive challenges from team
members. larity of purpose increases but plenty of uncertainties persist. li6ues and factions form and
there may be power struggles. The team needs to be focused on its goals to avoid becoming distracted
by relationships and emotional issues. ompromises may be re6uired to enable progress. =eader
coaches
Norming - stage 3
,greement and consensus largely forms among the team, who respond well to facilitation by leader.
Joles and responsibilities are clear and accepted. /ig decisions are made by group agreement. *maller
decisions may be delegated to individuals or small teams within group. ommitment and unity is
strong. The team may engage in fun and social activities. The team discusses and develops its processes
and working style. There is general respect for the leader and some of leadership is more shared by the
team. =eader facilitates and enables
erforming - stage !
The team is more strategically aware) the team knows clearly why it is doing what it is doing. The team
has a shared vision and is able to stand on its own feet with no interference or participation from the
leader. There is a focus on over7achieving goals, and the team makes most of the decisions against
criteria agreed with the leader. The team has a high degree of autonomy. Disagreements occur but now
they are resolved within the team positively, and necessary changes to processes and structure are made
by the team. The team is able to work towards achieving the goal, and also to attend to relationship,
style and process issues along the way. Team members look after each other. The team re6uires
delegated tasks and pro;ects from the leader. The team does not need to be instructed or assisted. Team
members might ask for assistance from the leader with personal and interpersonal development. =eader
delegates and oversees.
"uc#man$s fift% stage - &d'ourning
/ruce Tuckman refined his theory around #$:+ and added a fifth stage to the Horming *torming
Aorming 8erforming model 7 he called it ,d;ourning, which is also referred to as Deforming and
-ourning. ,d;ourning is arguably more of an ad;unct to the original four stage model rather than an
e5tension 7 it views the group from a perspective beyond the purpose of the first four stages. The
,d;ourning phase is certainly very relevant to the people in the group and their well7being, but not to
the main task of managing and developing a team, which is clearly central to the original four stages.
.roups also tend to cycle repeatedly through some of these stages as group members strive to maintain
a balance between task oriented actions and emotionally e5pressive behaviors (/ales, #$%+(. , group,
in a very real sense, is alive: <t ac6uires energy and resources from its environment, maintains its
structure, and grows over time (,rrow et al., 011+(.
"%e (ultilevel erspective
In time the rift between individual-level and group-level researchers closed as the unique contributions
of each perspective were integrated in a multilevel perspective on groups. This approach, illustrated in
Figure 1.2, suggests that group dynamics are shaped by processes that range along the micro-meso-
macro continuum. icro-level factors include the qualities, characteristics, and actions of the
individual members. eso-level factors are group-level qualities of the groups themselves, such as
their cohesiveness, their si!e, their composition, and their structure. acro-level factors are the
qualities and processes of the larger collectives that enfold the groups, such as communities,
organi!ations, or societies. "roups, then, are nested at the meso-level, where the bottom-up micro-
level variables meet the top-down macro-level variables.
H < . C J @ #.0 , multilevel perspective on groups. Jesearchers who study groups recogni3e that individuals are nested in
groups, but that these groups are themselves nested in larger social units, such as organi3ations, communities, tribes,
nations, and so on. Jesearchers may focus on one level in this multilevel system, such as the group itself,but they must be
aware that these groups are embedded in a comple5 of other relationships.
STUDYING GROUPS
(easurement )n Group Dynamics
JesearchersO success in studying groups is tied, in large part, to their progress in measuring group
membersO interpersonal actions and psychological reactions. >ere, we trace the growth and impact of
two important measurement methods observing groups and 6uestioning group members that gave
group dynamics a foothold in the scientific tradition.
*+servation
Jesearchers who study groups often begin with observation. Ao matter what the group that interests
them temporary gatherings of people in public places, teams in factories, gangs in the inner city, sports
teams, families with only one parent, fraternities, classrooms, performing orchestras, gamers on the
<nternet, and so on they often watch as the group members interact, perform their tasks, make
decisions, confront other groups, seek new members and e5pel old ones, accept direction from their
leaders, and so on. Jesearchers take various approaches to observation, but the essence of the method
remains: watch and record the actions taken by group members.
"ypes of o+servation,
*vert o+servation Ipenly watching and recording group behavior with no attempt to conceal oneOs
research purposes.
Covert o+servation Eatching and recording group behavior without the participantsO knowledge.
articipant o+servation Eatching and recording group behavior while taking part in the social process.
Structured *+servational (et%od , research procedure that classifies (codes( group membersO
actions into defined categories. using these behavioral definitions as a guide, they note the
occurrence and fre6uency of these targeted behaviors as they watch the group. This type of
research would be a 6uantitative study, because it yields numeric results (Eeingart, #$$:(.
-uantitative Study , research procedure used to collect and analy3e data in a numeric form,
such as fre6uencies, proportions, or amounts.

)nteraction rocess &nalysis ()&) , structured coding system developed by Jobert /ales used
to classify group behavior into task7oriented and relationship7oriented categories.
Systematic (ultiple .evel *+servation of Groups(S/(.*G) , theoretical and structured
coding system developed by Jobert /ales which assumes that group activities can be classified
along three dimensions: dominance versus submissiveness, friendliness versus unfriendliness,
and acceptance of versus opposition to authority.
F ) G 0 1 2 133 1o+ert F3 4ales5s original )nteraction rocess &nalysis ()&) coding system for structuring
o+servations of groups3 &reas & (163) and D (17612) are used to code socioemotional8 relations%ip interactions3 &reas 4
(!69) and C (:6;) are used to code tas# interaction3 "%e lines to t%e rig%t (la+eled a6f) indicate pro+lems of orientation
(a)8 evaluation (+)8 control (c)8 decision (d)8 tension-management (e)8 and integration (f)3
Jobert Hreed /ales developed two of the best known structured coding systems for studying groups
(/ales, #$+1, #$:1, #$&1(. /ales spent many years watching group members interact with each other,
and for many years he structured his observations using the )nteraction rocess &nalysis, or )&.
,nalysis, or <8,. Jesearchers who use the <8, classify each behavior performed by a group member
into one of the #0 categories shown in Higure #.2. *i5 of these categories (#92 and #19#0( pertain to
socioemotional, relationship interaction. These types of actions sustain or weaken interpersonal ties
within the group. omplimenting another person is an e5ample of a positive relationship behavior,
whereas insulting a group member is a negative relationship behavior. The other si5 categories ('9$(
pertain to instrumental, task interaction, such as giving and asking for information, opinions, and
suggestions related to the problem the group faces. Ibservers who use the <8, must be able to listen
to a group discussion, break the content down into behavioral units, and then classify each unit into
one of the #0 categories in Higure #.2.
1elia+ility and <alidity of *+servations,
*tructured observation systems, because they can be used to record the number of times a particular
type of behavior has occurred, make possible comparison across categories, group members, and even
different groups.
Self-report measures, despite their variations, are all based on a simple premise: if you want to know
what a group member is thinking, feeling, or planning, then ;ust ask him or her to report that
information to you directly. <n interviews the researcher records the respondentOs answer to various
6uestions, but 6uestionnaires ask respondents to record their answers themselves. *ome variables, such
as membersO beliefs about their groupOs cohesiveness or their perceptions of the groupOs leader, may be
so comple5 that researchers need to ask a series of interrelated 6uestions. Ehen the items are selected
and pretested for accuracy, a multi7item measure is usually termed a test or a scale.
Sociometry Nacob -oreno (#$2'(, a pioneer in the field of group dynamics, used self7report methods
to study the social organi3ation of groups of young women living in ad;acent cottages at an institution.
The women were neighbors, but they were not very neighborly. Discipline problems were rampant,
and disputes continually arose among the groups and among members of the same group who were
sharing a cottage. -oreno believed that the tensions would abate if he could regroup the women into
more compatible clusters and put the greatest physical distance between hostile groups. *o he asked
the women to identify five women whom they liked the most on a confidential 6uestionnaire. -oreno
then used these responses to construct more harmonious groups, and his efforts were rewarded when
the overall level of antagonism in the community declined (>are ! >are, #$$%(.
To measure attraction, the researcher might ask, Ehom do you like most in this groupK but such
6uestions as Ehom in the group would you like to work with the mostK or Ehom do you like the
leastK can also be used. Jesearchers often limit the number of choices that participants can
make.These choices are then organi3ed in a sociogram8 which is a diagram of the relationships among
group members.
, sociogram yields information about individual members, relationships between pairs of members,
and the groupOs overall structure. Depending on their place in the groupOs sociogram, and the number
of times they are chosen by others, members can be compared and contrasted:
populars, or stars, are well7liked, very popular group members with a high choice status: they are
picked by many other group members
unpopulars, or re;ected members, are identified as disliked by many members and so their
choice status is low
isolates, or loners, are infre6uently chosen by any group members
positives, or sociables, select many others as their friends
negatives select few others as their friends
pairs are two people who choose each other, and so have reciprocal bonds
clusters are individuals within the group who make up a subgroup, or cli6ue
Jeliability and 4alidity of *elf7Jeport -easures *elf7report methods, such as sociometry, have both
weaknesses and strengths. They depend very much on knowing what 6uestions to ask the group
members. , ma3e of technical 6uestions also confronts researchers designing 6uestionnaires. <f
respondents do not answer the 6uestions consistentlyMif, for e5ample, assesa indicates that he likes
,drew the most on -onday but on Tuesday changes his choice to ,nneMthen the responses will be
unreliable. ,lso, if 6uestions are not worded properly, the instrument will lack validity, because the
respondents may misinterpret what is being asked. 4alidity is also a problem if group members are
unwilling to disclose their personal attitudes, feelings, and perceptions or are unaware of these internal
processes. Despite these limitations, self7report methods provide much information about group
phenomena, but from the perspective of the participant rather than the observer. Ehen researchers are
primarily interested in personal processes, such as perceptions, feelings, and beliefs, self7report
methods may be the only means of assessing these private processes. /ut if participants are biased,
their self7reports may not be as accurate as we would like. *elf7reports may also not be accurate
indicators of group7level processes, such as cohesiveness or conflict
F I G U R E 1.4
Examples of sociograms. Sociograms chart group structure by identifying relationships among the
members. Group is a centrali!ed group" but # is relati$ely decentrali!ed. Group % has a number of subgroups that
are not &ell'lin(ed" and Group ) is relati$ely disorgani!ed.
RESEARCH METHODS IN GROUP DYNAMICS
.ood measurement alone does not guarantee good science. Jesearchers who watch groups and ask
group members 6uestions can develop a detailed description of a group, but they must go beyond
description if they are to e5plain groups. Ince researchers have collected their data, they must use that
information to test hypotheses about group phenomena. They use many techni6ues to check the
ade6uacy of their suppositions about groups, but the three most common approaches are (#( case
studies8 (0( e=perimental studies that manipulate one or more aspects of the group situation, and (2(
correlational studies of the naturally occurring relationships between various aspects of groups.
Case Study, , research techni6ue that involves e5amining, in as much detail as possible, the dynamics
of a single group or individual.
2=periment Study, , research design in which the investigator manipulates at least one variable by
randomly assigning participants to two or more different conditions and measuring at least one other
variable.
Correlational Studies, , research design in which the investigator measures (but does not manipulate(
at least two variables and then uses statistical procedures to e5amine the strength and direction of the
relationship between these variables.
The students who attended /ennington ollege in the #$21s were changed by the e5perienceMnot
;ust intellectually but politically. Ehen they first entered school most of them were conservative, but
by the time they graduated they had shifted to become more liberal. <n fact, in #$2% fully %0P of the
first7year class preferred the Jepublican presidential candidate. /ut only #+P of the ;uniors and
seniors endorsed the Jepublican candidate, evidence of a profound shift in political beliefs.
Theodore Aewcomb (#$'2(, a faculty member at /ennington ollege in the mid7#$21s, believed that
the first7year students were changing their group allegiances to match the prevailing politics of
/ennington. The younger students were, in effect, accepting seniors as their reference group, which is
a group that provides individuals with guidelines or standards for evaluating themselves, their
attitudes, and their beliefs (>yman, #$'0(. ,ny group that plays a significant role in oneOs life, such as
a family, a friendship cli6ue, colleagues at work, or even a group one admires but is not a member of,
can function as a reference group (*inger, #$$1(. Ehen students first enrolled at /ennington, their
families served as their reference group, so their attitudes matched their familiesO attitudes. The longer
students remained at /ennington, however, the more their attitudes changed to match the attitudes of
their new reference groupMthe rest of the college population. Their families had conservative attitudes,
but the college community supported mainly liberal attitudes, and Aewcomb hypothesi3ed that many
/ennington students shifted their attitudes in response to this reference7group pressure. Aewcomb
tested this hypothesis by administering 6uestionnaires and interviews to an entire class of /ennington
students from their entrance in #$2+ to their graduation in #$2$. >e found a consistent trend toward
liberalism in many of the students and reasoned that this change resulted from peer7group pressure
because it was more pronounced among the popular students. Those who endorsed liberal attitudes
were (#( both capable and desirous of cordial relations with the fellow community members
(Aewcomb, #$'2, p. #'$(, (0( more fre6uently chosen by others as friendly, and (2( a more cohesive
subgroup than the conservative students. <ndividuals who did not become more liberal were less
involved in the collegeOs social life, or they were very family7oriented. These reference groups
changed the students permanently, for the students who shifted were still liberals when Aewcomb
measured their political beliefs some 0+ years later (Aewcomb et al., #$%:(.
S+,+*#$.2 " R+%+"&*! M+#!'4
Jesearchers who study groups rather than individual human beings face some uni6ue logistic and
statistical problems. <ndividuals change over time, but their development tends to be gradual and
continuous. .roups, in contrast, can change rapidly and dramatically, so that the group that is studied at
one point in time may evolve into a very different group when studied again. The group may also
change because its composition changes) if a member ;oins or leaves a group, the groupOs structures
and processes may change. The interactions that take place within groups are also comple5 and
nuanced, so researchers sometimes encounter more data than they can ob;ectively record and process.
.roup process carries literally hundreds of messages, so even after applying one, two, three, or
more content analysis schemes to it, more information remains to be gathered and interpreted (-ills,
#$:$, p. '#+(.
Jesearchers use a variety of empirical procedures to deal with these comple5ities. *ome observe group
processes and then perform a 6ualitative analysis of their observations, whereas others insist on
6uantitative measurement methods and elaborate controlled e5periments. *ome researchers conduct
their studies in field situations using bona fide groups, whereas others bring groups into the laboratory
or even create groups to study. *ome researchers undertake e5ploratory studies with no clear idea of
what results to e5pect, whereas other research studies are designed to test hypotheses carefully derived
from a specific theory. *ome study group phenomena by asking volunteers to role7play group
members, and others simulate group interaction with computers. <nformation technologies provide
opportunities to study groups using the <nternet, and software can now search out and model the
structure of groups. Jesearchers have even begun developing tools that will allow them to create
virtual reality groups, where computers are used to immerse individuals in groups that seem to be real
but are actually created by virtual environment technologies (/lascovich et al., 0110) >oyt !
/lascovich, 0112(.
This diversity of research methods does not reflect researchersO uncertainty about which techni6ue is
best. Jather, the diversity stems from the uni6ue advantages and disadvantages offered by each
method. ase studies limit the researcherOs ability to draw conclusions, to 6uantify results, and to make
ob;ective interpretations. /ut some topics, such as groupthink, are difficult to study by any other
method. ,s Nanis (#$&0( himself pointed out, it would be difficult to e5amine groups that make
decisions about national policiesMincluding war and civil defenseMthrough traditional 6uantitative
methods such as e5perimentation. /ut the real forte of the case study approach is its power to provide
grist for the theoreticianOs mill, enabling the investigator to formulate hypotheses that set the stage for
other research methods.
*uch stimulation of theory is also fre6uently a conse6uence of correlational research. orrelational
studies are limited in causal power, but they yield precise estimates of the strength of the relationships
between variables. @5perimentation provides the firmest test of causal hypotheses by showing that
variable Q will cause such and such a change in variable B. <n a well7designed and 7conducted
e5periment, the researcher can test several hypotheses about groups, making the method both rigorous
and efficient. >owever, when an artificial setting would yield meaningless results, when the
independent variable cannot be manipulated, or when too little is known about the topic even to suggest
what variables may be causal, some other approach is preferable. The solution, then, is to study groups
using multiple methods (see Hocus 0.2(. ,s Noseph -c.rath e5plained, ,ll methods have inherent
flawsMthough each has certain advantages. These flaws cannot be avoided. /ut what the researcher
can do is to bring more than one approach, more than one method, to bear on each aspect of a
problem (#$&', p. 21(.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES IN GROUP DYNAMICS
M'#$/"#$'.", ".4 E-'#$'.", P+&%)+*#$/+%
Ehy do some people vie for leadership in their groups, whereas others remain content with less
prominent rolesK Ehy do some groups struggle against adversity, whereas others give up after the first
setbackK Ehy do some people shy away from groups, whereas others ;oin do3ens of themK The
answers to these why 6uestions often lie in peopleOs motivations and emotions. -otivations are
psychological mechanisms that give purpose and direction to behavior. These inner mechanisms can be
called many thingsMhabits, beliefs, feelings, wants, instincts, compulsions, drivesMbut no matter what
their label, they prompt people to take action. @motions often accompany these needs and desires)
feelings of happiness, sadness, satisfaction, and sorrow are ;ust a few of the emotions that can influence
how people act in group situations. -otivational approaches offer insight into a wide range of group
phenomena. Ehy, for e5ample, do people take more credit when their group is a successful one, but
then downplay their connection to their group when it performs poorlyK , motivational e5planation of
this selectivity might focus on the role groups play in meeting peopleOs basic need for self7esteem.
8eople vary considerably in their appraisal of their own self7worth) the depressed individual feels
inferior, discouraged, or even worthless, whereas the narcissist is consumed with self7adoration. -ost
people, however, are motivated to maintain and enhance their self7esteem, and so they tend to
e5aggerate the role they played in their group when things go well and avoid responsibility for group
failure.
Nennifer .eorgeOs (#$$+( theory of group affective tone takes a more emotion7focused approach to
e5plaining group behavior. .eorge posits that groups, over time, develop a tendency to display
collective mood states. This general affective tone is not tied to any specific aspect of the groupOs
activities or to any one individual, but rather pervades all the groupOs day7to7day activities. The groupOs
mood may be so taken for granted that members do not reali3e its influence, but .eorge believes that
positive group affect will lead to increases in a number of pro7group actions, including helping out
other members, protecting the group, making constructive suggestions, and spreading goodwill
during interpersonal encounters (.eorge ! /rief, #$$0, p. 2#1(. Aeedless to say, a negative affective
tone sets the stage for any number of anti7group actions, including absenteeism, low morale, and
conflict (Gelly, 011#(.
B+!"/$'&", P+&%)+*#$/+%
-any theories about groups draw on the seminal work of psychologist /. H. *kinner (#$+2, #$:#(.
*kinnerOs behaviorism was based on two key assumptions. Hirst, *kinner believed that psychological
processes, such as motives and drives, may shape peopleOs reactions in groups, but he also believed
that such psychological processes are too difficult to inde5 accurately. >e therefore recommended
measuring and analy3ing how people actually behave in a specific conte5t rather than speculating
about the psychological or interpersonal processes that may have instigated their actions. *econd,
*kinner believed that most behavior was consistent with the law of effectMthat is, behaviors that are
followed by positive conse6uences, such as rewards, will occur more fre6uently, whereas behaviors
that are followed by negative conse6uences will become rarer.
Nohn Thibaut and >arold GelleyOs (#$+$( social e5change theory e5tended *kinnerOs behaviorism to
groups. They agreed that individuals hedonistically strive to ma5imi3e their rewards and minimi3e their
costs. >owever, when individuals ;oin groups, they forego e5clusive control over their outcomes.
.roups create interdependence among members, so that the actions of each member potentially
influence the outcomes and actions of every other member.
S0%#+-% T!+'&0 P+&%)+*#$/+%
, systems theory approach assumes groups are comple5, adaptive, dynamic systems of interacting
individuals. The members are the units of the system, who are coupled one to another by relationships.
Nust as systems can be deliberately designed to function in a particular way, groups are sometimes
created for a purpose, with procedures and standards that are designed with the overall goal of the
system in mind. .roups can, however, be self7creating and self7organi3ing systems, for they may
develop spontaneously as individuals begin to act in coordinated, synchroni3ed ways. Nust as a system
receives inputs from the environment, processes this information internally, and then outputs its
products, groups gather information, review that information, and generate products.
C'2.$#$/+ P+&%)+*#$/+%
, groupOs dynamics, in many cases, become understandable only by studying the cognitive processes
that allow members to gather information, make sense of it, and then act on the results of their mental
appraisals. Ehen people ;oin a group for the first time, they immediately begin to form an impression
of the group. This perceptual work prompts them to search for information about the other group
members, rapidly identifying those who are outgoing, shy, and intelligent. .roup members also search
their memories for stored information about the group and the tasks it must face, and they must retrieve
that information before they can use it. , group member must also take note of the actions of othersand
try to understand what caused the other member to act in this way. Thus, group members are
busyperceiving, ;udging, reasoning, and remembering, and all these mental activities influence their
understanding of one another, the group, and themselves (>ins3, Tindale, 4ollrath, #$$:) >odgkinson
! >ealey, 011&(.
Nohn TurnerOs (#$$#, #$$$( self7categori3ation theory, or *T, offers a cognitive e5planation for a
range for group processes, including intergroup perception and stereotyping. This theory e5plains the
cognitive mechanisms that work to align peopleOs self7conceptions with their conception of the groups
to which they belong.
B$','2$*", P+&%)+*#$/+%
.roup members can solve comple5 problems, communicate with one another using spoken and written
language, build and operate massive machines, and plan their groupOs future. /ut group members are
also living creatures, whose responses are often shaped by biological, biochemical, and genetic
characteristics. Ehen conflict arises in the group, heart rates escalate, and other body changes occur to
help members cope with the stress (/lascovich, Aash, ! .insburg, #$:&(. Ehen groups are trapped in
confining, cramped spaces, members often become physiologically aroused, and this arousal can
interfere with their work (@vans ! ohen, #$&:(. Ehen people feel that they have been e5cluded
from a group, their neurological reactions betray the distress they are feeling. Their brains display a
pattern of activity that is very similar to the brains of people who are e5periencing physical pain
(@isenberger, =ieberman, ! Eilliams, 0112(.
Ine biological perspectiveMevolutionary psychologyMargues that these processes may be genetically
determined, part of the speciesO biological programming that has evolved through natural selection.
This perspective argues that in the last #+ million years, the human species has evolved socially as well
as physically. Those individuals who were even slightly genetically predisposed to engage in adaptive
social behaviors tended to survive longer, so they were more successful in passing their genes along to
future generations (aporael et al., 011+(.
I.*,(%$'. ".4 I4+.#$#0
-ost people prefer group membership to isolation, but once they ;oin with others they find they must
sometimes do what is best for the group rather than what benefits them personally. .roups blur the
boundary between the self and the others, for members retain their personal 6ualitiesMtheir motives,
emotions, and outlooksM but add to them a sense of self that incorporates their collective rather
than their individual characteristics. .roups transform the me into the we.
Do human tend to keep to ourselves, guarding our privacy from the incursions of others, or are we
group7oriented animals, who prefer the company of other people to a life aloneK -ost theorists, when
identifying the fundamental psychological processes that drive humansO actions across a range of
situations and settings, include a need to belong on their list (-aslow, #$:1) 8ittman ! "eigler, 011:(.
,ll human beings, write Joy /aumeister and -ark =eary (#$$+, p. '$:(, have a pervasive drive to
form and maintain at least a minimum 6uantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal
relationships. They likened the need to belong to other basic needs, such as hunger or thirst.
T!+ N++4 #' B+,'.2
,ristotle famously suggested that -an is by nature a social animal) and an unsocial person who is
unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either unsatisfactory or superhuman. >enry David Thoreau
disagreed with ,ristotle, and to prove his point spent two years relatively secluded at Ealden 8ond.
>e deliberately kept his group memberships to a minimum during this period, although he maintained
ties to his family and some friends. >e e5plained, report en;oying the self7discovery, contemplation,
and increased spirituality that occurs when one is physically isolated from interactions with and
observations by others (=ong et al., 0112(. Ehen alone, people report they can discover who < am,
determine what < want to be, meditate and reflect, try out some new behaviors, recover my
self7esteem, protect myself from what others say, and take refuge from the outside world
(8edersen, #$$$, p. 2$$(. *ome philosophers, writers, and artists have reached the ape5 of their
creativity during times of isolation, when they were not distracted by other people (*torr, #$&&)
*uedfeld, #$$:(. /ut even though people e5press a desire for privacy, most people spend the ma;ority
of their waking hours in the company of other peopleM only unmarried or widowed adults over the
age of '+ reported spending more time alone than with others. The sheer number of groups that e5ist
at any moment in time is also clear evidence of the strength of the need to belong.
T!+ P"$. '1 E5*,(%$'.
The strength of the need to belong is seen even more clearly when this need is thwarted. -ost people,
both young and old, find protracted periods of social isolation disturbing ("ubek, #$:2(. The diaries of
individuals who have been isolated from others for long periods of timeMstranded e5plorers, scientists
working in seclusion, and prisoners in solitary confinementMoften stress the psychological costs of
their ordeal rather than physical deprivations. ,s their isolation wears on, they report fear, insomnia,
memory lapses, depression, fatigue, and general confusion. 8rolonged periods of isolation are also
marked by hallucinations and delusions, as when one solo sailor at sea was startled when he thought
he saw a pirate steering his life raft (/urney, #$%#(.
F I G U R E 1.*
+he inclusion,exclusion continuum. -hen indi$iduals are acti$ely sought out by groups
they experience maximal inclusion" and &hen groups acti$ely ostraci!e them people experience maximal exclusion.
S.UR%E/ 0eary" 1112.
ROM INDIVIDUALISM TO COLLECTIVISM
/rian 8almer and Noe .orman, like most human beings, were members of many groups. They both had
families and in their free time they rela5ed with their children and spouses. Ehen working, they spent
most of their time with a relatively small group of fellow employees. They also belonged to an
assortment of other groups and associations, such as cli6ues of friends, country clubs, professional
associations, church congregations, political parties, and so on. /ut 8almer and .orman viewed their
memberships very differently. 8almer remained ever mindful of his personal needs and interests. >e
;oined groups, but he never put the groupOs needs above his own. .orman, in contrast, was less
concerned with his own gains than he was with the groupOs outcomes. Cnlike the self7centered 8almer,
he was group7centered.
8almer and .orman personify the differences between individualism and collectivism. <ndividualism
is based on the independence of each individual. This perspective assumes that people are autonomous
and must be free to act and think in ways that they prefer, rather than submit to the demands of the
group. @ach person is also uni6ueMa true individualMand all people are encouraged to strive to
achieve outcomes and goals that will personally benefit them. ollectivism recogni3es that human
groups are not mere aggregations of independent individuals, but comple5 sets of interdependent actors
who must constantly ad;ust to the actions and reactions of others around them. @ach person, if even
recogni3ed as an independent entity, is inseparably connected to the group or community. *ocial
e5istence is centered on group relations, for it is the group that creates social obligations based on
respect, trust, and a sense of community. 8eople are group members first, individuals second (=ukes,
#$:2(.
Social 1elations
#oth individualism and collectivism recogni!e the human need for belonging and connection, but a
collectivistic orientation puts more value on these relationships. $ollectivists feel close affinity with
one another and, so, are more li%ely to adopt a communal orientation to their groups &oeme%a,
1''(). They value their memberships in their groups more, consider these relationships to be stable
and long lasting, and so are less willing to sever their memberships. Individuals who are collectivists
see% *obs that will enhance the quality of their relationships with other people, and their satisfaction
with their wor% depends on the quality of their relationships with their cowor%ers. Independents
choose *obs that are personally fulfilling and that offer them opportunities for advancement &+eary,
,heeler, - .en%ins, 1'(/). $ollectivists, compared to individualists, have a more favorable attitude
toward group-level rewards for collective wor% &0aines - Taggar, 211/), and they are more li%ely to
be corporate citi!ens who help cowor%ers rather than compete with them &+eung, 211(). Individualists
stress their superiority over others on attributes that pertain to autonomy and independence, but
collectivists thin% of themselves as more relational and self-sacrificing than others &2edi%ides,
"aertner, - Toguchi, 2113). ,omen lean more toward collectivism, at least in ,estern cultures,
where women more often stress connections with other people, whereas men tend to stress
independence and autonomy &$ross - adson, 1''45 "abriel - "ardner, 1'''). $ollectivists are
more firmly rooted to their communities6 they report having moved less frequently than individualists
&7ishi, +un, - 2herman, 2114).
Social *+ligations
8 collectivist orientation requires a willingness to cooperate with others, and a degree of optimism that
these others are also committed more to the common good than to their own personal out-comes.
9ousseau:s term for this assurance is the social contract, which he believed individuals intuitively
accept when they enter into cooperative arrangements with others, including groups, communities, and
societies. 9ousseau recogni!ed the tension between collectivism and individualism, for as he
e;plained, <,hat man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and the absolute right to
anything that tempts him and that he can ta%e5 what he gains from the social contract is civil liberty=
&1'/(, p. />).
If the goals of the group perfectly matched the individual members: goals, then individualists and
collectivists would be indistinguishable. #y helping the group prosper, the members help themselves
prosper. 0owever, if members must choose between ma;imi!ing their own personal goals or helping
their group reach its goals, then the self interest of the individualists will prompt them to further their
own ends. Individualists tend to be self-serving, or egocentric?they strive to e;tract all the resources
they can, while minimi!ing their contribution of personal resources. $ollectivists, in contrast, are
group-serving, or sociocentric?they strive to increase the well-being of the community as a whole.
Social Self
8 communal orientation is not *ust about relationships and obligations &see Table 3.1). 8s people adopt
a more other-centered orientation they also change the way they thin% about themselves. @nique,
individualistic qualities?traits, beliefs, s%ills, and so on?constitute the personal identity. The social
identity &or collective identity) includes all those qualities that spring from membership in a vast array
of social groups, including families, cliques, wor% groups, neighborhoods, tribes, cities, regions, and
countries. The idea of a self as private and highly personali!ed is more characteristic of an
individualistic outloo%5 in the collective identity view, some portion of the group becomes represented
in each member, so that their individual selves share some qualities in common. The personal identity
is the me of the self, and the social identity is the we &Turner et al., 1'(4).
" & 4 . 2 )39 Common &ttri+utes of )ndividualism and Collectivism
If as%ed to describe the self, an individualist li%e #rian Aalmer would li%ely mention his physical
qualities such as height, weight, and physical appearance5 enduring personality traits and beliefs5
attitudes and interests5 and personal goals and e;periences &Banagawa, $ross, - ar%us, 2111). 0e
would be less li%ely to mention other people or his relations with them, because the self is considered
to be independent of others. The self of the collectivist, in contrast, includes all those qualities that
spring from his or her relationships with other people and group memberships.
(otivation and Social )dentity
2ocial identity theory provides %ey insights into a host of psychological and interpersonal processes,
including collectivism, perceptions of the outgroup, presumptions of ingroup permeability, tolerance of
deviance within the group, increased satisfaction with the group, and feelings of solidarity &Benworthy
et al., 211(5 +each et al., 211().
E$aluating the Self ichael 0ogg &211>) suggests that at least two basic motives influence the way
social categori!ation and identification processes combine to shape one:s sense of self. In general,
individuals are motivated to thin% well of themselves, and since their groups comprise a significant
portion of their selves, they maintain their self-worth by thin%ing well of their groups. 2econd, 0ogg
suggests that self-understanding is a core motive for most people, and that groups offer people a means
of understanding themselves.
,hen individuals *oin groups, their self-concept becomes connected to that group, and the value of
that group influences their feelings of personal worth. Aeople who belong to prestigious groups tend to
have higher self-esteem than those who belong to stigmati!ed groups &so long as they are not reminded
that their group:s revered social position is undeserved5 #ranscombe, 1''().
+ # 0 E 1.3 Items from the %ollecti$e Self'Esteem In$entory
*ICJ@: , ollective *elf7@steem *cale: *elf7@valuation of IneOs *ocial <dentity by J. =uhtanen and N. rocker,
8ersonality and *ocial 8sychology /ulletin, #&, #$$0.
4rotecting the %ollecti$e Self/ ,hen individuals identify with their group, they also tend to e;aggerate
the differences between their group and other groups. 7nce people begin to thin% in terms of we and
us, they also begin to recogni!e them and they. The tendency to loo% more favorably on the in group is
called the ingroupCoutgroup bias.
4rotecting the 4ersonal Self/ Aeople protect their collective self-esteem *ust as they protect their
Aersonal self-esteem. They deny that their group possesses negative qualities. They consider their
group to be superior to alternative groups. They give their group credit for its successes, but blame
outside influences when their group fails. 2hould other, more rewarding groups stand willing and
ready to ta%e them in, individuals remain loyal to their original group. Identity is the glue that binds
individuals to their groups &Dan Dugt - 0art, 211E).
0owever, there are limits to what individuals will tolerate. In some cases, individuals strive to resist
being seen as a member of a group to which they belong, particularly if they do not wish to have the
stereotypes about that group applied to them personally. In general, people are more disturbed by
threats to their personal self-esteem than to their collective self-esteem. They are more li%ely to deny
the accuracy of negative individuali!ed information relative to negative group information, and they
more readily claim positive feedbac% when it focuses on them rather than on their group.
ORMATION: >oining Groups
ersonality
F;traversion is a particularly influential determinant of group behavior &8sendorpf - ,ilpers, 1''().
First identified by the psychologist $arl .ung &1'2E), e;traversion is the tendency to move toward
people or away from people. Those on the introversion end of this personality dimension, the
introverts, tend to be withdrawn, quiet, reclusive, and shy. Their opposites, the e;traverts, are sociable,
outgoing, gregarious, and tal%ative. F;traverts are li%ely to prefer the company of others, particularly in
pleasant and en*oyable situations &+ucas - Giener, 2111). Gifferent cultures imbue introversion and
e;traversion with unique, culture-specific meaning, but people all over the world spontaneously
appraise their own and others: social tendencies &Hang - #ond, 1''1). F;traverts may see% out groups
because such interactions are stimulating, and e;traverts appreciate stimulating e;periences more than
introverts do &Fysenc%, 1''1). F;traverts: affinity for being part of a group may also be based on
assertiveness, for they tend to be influential group members rather than quiet followers. "roups may
also see% out e;traverts rather than introverts. 2ome qualities, li%e intelligence, morality, and
friendliness, are difficult to *udge during initial encounters, but observers are particularly good at
detecting e;traversion in others &8lbright, Benny, - alloy, 1'(().
Relationality The degree to which one:s values, attitudes, and outloo%s emphasi!e, and facilitate
establishing and maintaining, connections to others. 2uch individuals more frequently play team sports
such as volleyball or soccer, and they do so because they prefer e;ercising with other people rather than
alone. They see% *obs that will enhance the quality of their relationships with other people, and their
satisfaction with their wor% depends on the quality of their relationships with their cowor%ers &+eary,
,heeler, - .en%ins, 1'(/).
(en8 ?omen8 and Groups
*tudies of relationality fre6uently find the se5es differ in their emphasis on connecting interpersonally
with other people: women are more relational than men (e.g., .ore ! ross, 011%(. Bet, nearly all the
impressionists were men) /erthe -orisot and -ary assatt were e5ceptions. ,re men or are women
the more social se5K
*tudies find that men and women differ in their tendency to ;oin groups, but the differences are far
from clear. Eomen tend to be somewhat more e5traverted than men, particularly on facets of the trait
concerned with interpersonal warmth and gregariousness (osta, Terracciano, ! -crae, 011#(.
Eomen remember more details about their relationships than do men, and they more accurately recount
events that occurred in their social networks (Joss ! >olmberg, #$$0) Taylor et al., 0111(. Eomen
report that their relationships are more important to themM that they feel pride, for e5ample, when
someone close to them succeeds (.ore ! ross, 011%(. Ehen asked to take photographs that describe
how they see them7selves, women are more likely to include pictures of themselves with other people
rather than alone (Dollinger et al., #$$%(.
7ther studies, however, have questioned the magnitude and meaning of these differences between the
se;es. Fven though women may put more value on their relationships, they may not be any more
social than men. 7ne survey of (11 adults in the @nited 2tates found that men belonged to more
professional groups, governing boards, political parties, and military organi!ations than women but
women spent more time in their groups than did men &#ooth, 1'42). The se;es do not differ in the
time they spend in solitary activities5 their involvement in community groups5 or their membership in
more unusual types of groups, such as cults and satanic covens &7sgood et al., 1''/5 Aar%um -
Aar%um, 1'(15 Aittard-Aayne, 1'(1).
The differences that emerge, although subtle, indicate that women see% membership in smaller,
informal, intimate groups, whereas men see% membership in larger, more formal, tas%-focused groups.
Social (otivation
5eed for ffiliation/ Aeople who see% out contact with other people often have a high need for
affiliation. Aeople with a high need for affiliation tend to *oin groups more frequently, spend more of
their time in groups, communicate more with other group members, and accept other group members
more readily &c8dams - $onstantian, 1'(35 c$lelland, 1'(>5 2mart, 1'/>).
5eed for 4o&er/ #ecause group interactions provide many opportunities to influence others, those
with a high need for power also tend to see% out groups &c8dams, 1'(25 ,inter, 1'43).
C'!+%$'. ".4 D+/+,')-+.#
ohesion can lay claim to being group dynamicsOmost theoretically important concept. , uni6uely
group7level concept, cohesion comes about if, and only if, a group e5ists. Eithout at least some degree
of cohesion, groups would disintegrate as each member withdraw from the group. ohesiveness
signals, if only indirectly, the health of the group. , cohesive group will be more likely to prosper
over time, since it retains its members and allows them to reach goals that would elude a more
incoherent aggregate. The group that lacks cohesion is at risk, for if too many members drift away the
group may not survive.
Components of Co%esion
ohesive groups are unified and morale is high. -embers en;oy interacting with one another, and they
remain in the group for prolonged periods of time. /ut what about the group where all the members
like one anotherM they are close friendsMbut they have no commitment to the group as a wholeK The
group where members no longer feel emotionally connected to one another but still feel proud of their
groupK The group whose members fit together like parts in a fine watchMso closely con;oined that they
function as a single productive unitMyet they do not likeone anotherK ohesiveness takes so many
differentforms and fulfills so many functions that some theorists have complained that the concept,
ironically, lacks cohesion (e.g., asey7ampbell ! -artens, 011&) -c8herson ! *mith7=ovin, 0110)
-udrack,#$&$) see Table #.(. This diversity of meanings and interpretationsreflects the comple5ity
inherent in the concept itself. ohesion is not a simple, unitary process but a multicomponent process
with a variety of indicators.
+ # 0 E 1.6 Sampling of )efinitions of %ohesion
Group Dynamics and )nfluence
8s cohesion increases, the internal dynamics of the group intensify. In consequence, the pressure to
conform is greater in cohesive groups, and individuals: resistance to these pressures is wea%er.
8necdotal accounts of highly cohesive groups?military squads, adolescent peer groups, sports
teams,fraternities and sororities, and cults?often describe the strong pressures that these groups put on
their members &"oldhammer, 1''/).
Group 4roducti$ity
ost people consider cohesion to be a %ey ingredient for group success. The cohesive, unified
grouphas, throughout history, been lauded as the most productive, the most li%ely to win in battle,
andthe most creative. The 2partans who held the passat Thermopylae were a model of unity,
courage,and strength. Go $ohesive "roups 7utperform +ess @nified"roupsI 2tudies of all %inds of
groups?sports teams, wor% groups in business settings, e;peditions, military squads, and laboratory
groups?generally confirm the cohesionCperformance relationship6 $ohesive groups tend to
outperform less unified groups.
Structure
"roup processes are shaped by unobservable, but influential, group structures. 8ll but the most
ephemeral groups develop written and unwritten norms that dictate conduct in the group, e;pectations
about members: roles, and networ%s of connections among the members. 8ny group, whether sitting
at a conference table, or wor%ing to manufacture some product, can be better understood by e;amining
its structure. 2uch an analysis assumes that despite widespread differences among groups, all share a
common structural core. In a sense, e;amining group structures is li%e studying an individual:s
personality. 8n acquaintance:s personality cannot be observed directly, but people assume that his or
her behavior is the e;ternal manifestation of basic traits and dispositions. 2imilarly, a structural analysis
assumes that interaction among members follows a predictable, organi!ed pattern because it is
regulated by influential interpersonal structures.
8 norm is a group-held belief about how members should behave in a given conte;t. 2ociologists
describe norms as informal understandings that govern society:s behaviors, while psychologists have
adopted a more general definition, recogni!ing smaller group units, li%e a team or an office, may also
endorse norms separate or in addition to cultural or societal e;pectations. The psychological definition
emphasi!es social normsJ behavioral component, stating norms have two dimensions6 how much
behavior is e;hibited and how much the group approves of that behavior.
The different types of norms include6
prescriptive norm , consensual standard that identifies preferable, positively sanctioned behaviors.
proscriptive norm , consensual standard that identifies prohibited, negatively sanctioned behaviors.
descriptive norm , consensual standard that describes how people typically act, feel, and think in a
given situation.
in'unctive norm ,n evaluative consensual standard that describes how people should act, feel, and
think in a given situation rather than how people do act, feel, and think in that situation
T!+ D+/+,')-+.# '1 N'&-%
.roups sometimes discuss and formally adopt norms as their groupOs rules, but more fre6uently norms
are implicit standards rather than e5plicit ones. /ecause members gradually align their behaviors until
they match certain standards, they are often not even aware that their behavior is dictated by the
norms of the situation. 8eople do not, for e5ample, spend a great deal of time wondering, *hould < be
6uiet in the libraryK *hould < nap during the group meetingK or *hould < stop when the light turns
redK They take these norms for granted so fully that they comply with them automatically (,arts,
Di;ksterhuis, ! usters, 0112(.
R',+%
role differentiation ,n increase in the number of roles in a group, accompanied by the gradual
decrease in the scope of these roles as each one becomes more narrowly defined and speciali3ed.
tas# role ,ny position in a group occupied by a member who performs behaviors that promote
completion of tasks and activities, such as initiating structure, providing task7related feedback, and
setting goal
relations%ip role ,ny position in a group occupied by a member who performs behaviors that improve
the nature and 6uality of interpersonal relations among members, such as showing concern for the
feelings of others, reducing conflict, and enhancing feelings of satisfaction and trust in the group.
B+..+ ".4 S!+"#%6 G&'() R',+%
Identifying 4ot% ositive and Negative Group 4e%avior 1oles
T"%7 R',+%
These are the roles that relate to getting the work done. They represent the different roles needed to
take a pro;ect step7by7step from initial conception through to action. (<ndividuals may fulfill many of
these roles during the life of a pro;ect.(
I.$#$"#'&/C'.#&$8(#'& 9 8roposes original ideas or different ways of approaching group
problems or goals. This role initiates discussions and move groups into new areas of
e5ploration.
I.1'&-"#$'. S++7+& 9 Je6uests clarification of comments in terms of their factual ade6uacy.
*eeks e5pert information or facts relevant to the problem. Determines what information is
missing and needs to be found before moving forward.
I.1'&-"#$'. G$/+& 9 8rovides factual information to the group. <s seen as an authority on the
sub;ect and relates own e5perience when relevant.
O)$.$'. S++7+& 9 ,sks for clarification of the values, attitudes, and opinions of group
members. hecks to make sure different perspectives are given.
O)$.$'. G$/+& 9 @5presses his or her own opinions and beliefs about the sub;ect being
discussed. Iften states opinions in terms of what the group DshouldD do.
E,"8'&"#'& 9 Takes other peopleFs initial ideas and builds on them with e5amples, relevant facts
and data. ,lso looks at the conse6uences of proposed ideas and actions.
C'-'&4$."#'& 9 <dentifies and e5plains the relationships between ideas. -ay pull together a few
different ideas and make them cohesive.
O&$+.#+& 9 Jeviews and clarifies the groupFs position. 8rovides a summary of what has been
accomplished, notes where the group has veered off course, and suggests how to get back on
target.
E/",("#'&/C&$#$* 9 @valuates proposals against a predetermined or ob;ective standard. ,ssesses
the reasonableness of a proposal and looks at whether it is fact7based and manageable as a
solution.
E.+&2$9+& 9 oncentrates the groupFs energy on forward movement. hallenges and stimulates
the group to take further action.
P&'*+4(&", T+*!.$*$". 9 Hacilitates group discussion by taking care of logistical concerns like
where meetings are to take place and what supplies are needed for each meeting.
R+*'&4+& 9 ,cts as the secretary or minute7keeper. Jecords ideas and keeps track of what goes
on at each meeting.
P+&%'.", ".4/'& S'*$", R',+%
These roles contribute to the positive functioning of the group.
E.*'(&"2+& 9 ,ffirms, supports, and praises the efforts of fellow group members.
Demonstrates warmth and provides a positive attitude in meetings.
H"&-'.$9+& 9 onciliates differences between individuals. *eeks ways to reduce tension and
diffuse a situation by providing further e5planations or using humor.
C'-)&'-$%+& 9 Iffers to change his or her position for the good of the group. Eilling to yield
position or meet others half way.
G"#+7++)+&/E5)+4$#+& 9 Jegulates the flow of communication. -akes sure all members have a
chance to e5press themselves by encouraging the shy and 6uiet members to contribute their
ideas. =imits those who dominate the conversation and may suggest group rules or standards
that ensure everyone gets a chance to speak up.
O8%+&/+&/C'--+.#"#'& 9 8rovides feedback to the group about how it is functioning. Iften
seen when a group wants to set, evaluate, or change its standards and processes.
',,':+& 9 ,ccepts what others say and decide even though he or she has not contributed to the
decision or e5pressed own thoughts. *een as a listener not a contributor.
D0%1(.*#$'.", ".4/'& I.4$/$4(",$%#$* R',+%
These roles disrupt group progress and weaken its cohesion.
A22&+%%'& 9 -akes personal attacks using belittling and insulting comments, for e5ample,
DThatFs the most ridiculous idea <Fve ever heard.D ,ctions are usually an attempt to decrease
another memberFs status.
B,'*7+& 9 Ipposes every idea or opinion that is put forward and yet refuses to make own
suggestions, for e5ample, DThatFs not a good idea.D The result is that the group stalls because it
canFt get past the resistance.
R+*'2.$#$'. S++7+& 9 Cses group meetings to draw personal attention to him or herself. -ay
brag about past accomplishments or relay irrelevant stories that paint him or her in a positive
light. *ometimes pulls cra3y stunts to attract attention like acting silly, making e5cess noise, or
otherwise directing members away from the task at hand.
S+,1-C'.1+%%'& 9 Cses the group meetings as an avenue to disclose personal feelings and issues.
Tries to slip these comments in under the guise of relevance, such as DThat reminds me of a
time when.D -ay relate group actions to his or her personal life. Hor e5ample, if two others are
disagreeing about something, the *elf7confessor may say, DBou guys fight ;ust like me and my
wife.D
D$%&()#+&/P,"08'0 '& P,"02$&, 9 Cses group meetings as fun time and a way to get out of real
work. Distracts other people by telling ;okes, playing pranks, or even reading unrelated
material.
D'-$."#'& 9 Tries to control the conversation and dictate what people should be doing. Iften
e5aggerates his or her knowledge and will monopoli3e any conversation claiming to know more
about the situation and have better solutions than anybody else.
H+,) S++7+& 9 ,ctively looks for sympathy by e5pressing feelings of inade6uacy. ,cts helpless,
self deprecating and unable to contribute. Hor e5ample, D< canFt help you, <Fm too confused and
useless with this stuff.D
S)+*$", I.#+&+%# P,+"4+& 9 -akes suggestions based on what others would think or feel. ,voids
revealing his or her own biases or opinions by using a stereotypical position instead, for
e5ample, DThe people over in ,dmin sure wouldnFt like that idea.D or DBou know how cheap our
suppliers are, they wonFt go for that.D
Power, Authority and Politics
<n groups, people attempt to influence each other and e5ercise power. 8ower cannot e5ist without
relationships or communication, but power is evident in all relationships, so power is always part of
group dynamics. ,nd yet, no single group member DownsD power in a group. 8ower is a force that
gives one communicator (or unit( the ability to influence another communicator (or unit( to take an
action which would not otherwise be taken. Thus, power is not the static property of an individual,
group, organi3ation, or the environment. Jather, power operates in the Din7betweenD spaces in conte5ts
and relationships. Nust as a leader cannot lead without followers, individuals and groups cannot e5ercise
power independent of conte5t and relationships. *ince power functions within specific conte5ts and
relationships, the people who e5ercise power and the occasions when they do so change as time passes
and conte5ts change.
,uthority refers to power that has been validated by formal cultural, societal, small group, and
organi3ational rules and practices. ,uthority is vested in a particular position or role. Hor e5ample,
appointed group leaders are granted a certain degree of power based on their leadership role. -embers
of a group, organi3ation, society, or culture develop an understanding that power should be distributed
in a certain way. Thus, we generally donFt 6uestion parentsF authority over their children. ,lthough,
while authority is linked to particular roles, conte5ts, issues, and relationships, circumstances can still
influence the legitimacy of individualsF authority. 8olitics occur when group members vie for power
and influence within the group. 8olitical communication can also occur between groups and between a
group and its environment.
T0)+% '1 P':+&
Formal o@er
1e@ard po@er is conveyed through rewarding individuals for compliance with oneOs wishes. This may
be done through giving bonuses, raises, a promotion, e5tra time off from work, etc. Hor e5ample, the
supervisor who provides employees comp time when they meet an ob;ective she sets for a pro;ect.
Coercive po@er is conveyed through fear of losing oneOs ;ob, being demoted, receiving a poor
performance review, having prime pro;ects taken away, etc. This power is gotten through threatening
others. Hor e5ample, the 48 of *ales who threatens sales folks to meet their goals or get replaced.
.egitimate po@er comes from having a position of power in an organi3ation, such as being the boss or1
a key member of a leadership team. This power comes when employees in the organi3ation recogni3e
the authority of the individual. Hor e5ample, the @I who determines the overall direction of the
company and the resource needs of the company.
ersonal o@er
2=pert po@er comes from oneOs e5periences, skills or knowledge. ,s we gain e5perience in particular
areas, and become thought leaders in those areas, we begin to gather e5pert power that can be utili3ed
to get others to help us meet our goals. Hor e5ample, the 8ro;ect -anager who is an e5pert at solving
particularly challenging problems to ensure a pro;ect stays on track.
1eferent po@er comes from being trusted and respected. Ee can gain referent power when others trust
what we do and respect us for how we handle situations. Hor e5ample, the >uman Jesource ,ssociate
who is known for ensuring employees are treated fairly and coming to the rescue of those who are not.
THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
8eople have probably been pu33ling over leadership since the first hominid cave weller told the rest of
the group, EeOre doing this all wrong. =etOs get organi3ed. @gyptian hieroglyphics written +111
years ago include the terms leader and leadership (/ass, #$$1(. The great epics, such as /eowulf, the
*ong of Joland, and the Idyssey, are filled with the e5ploits of leaders of small bands of adventurers.
=eaders, like se5, language, and groups, make the anthropologistOs list of universals that have been
identified as common to all cultures and all civili3ations, without e5ception (/rown, #$$#(.
T A L E !"# Political Leaders$ %o&&ents on the Nature o' Leadershi(
=eadership has a several definitions, that include:
=eadership is a reciprocal process, involving the leader, the followers, and the group situation.
The leader does not ;ust influence the group members) rather, the leader9follower relationship
is mutual. ,n interactional view assumes that leadership cannot be understood independently of
followershipMthe skills and 6ualities displayed by non7leaders (>ollander, 011%) -essick,
011+)
=eadership is a transactional process, in which leaders and followers work together,
e5changing their time, energies, and skills to increase their ;oint rewards (,volio, 011'(.
=eadership is a transformational process, for leaders heighten group membersO motivation,
confidence, and satisfaction by uniting members and changing their beliefs, values, and needs
(/urns, 0112(.
Group decision-ma#ing
.roup decision7making (also known as collaborative decision7making( is a situation faced when
individuals collectively make a choice from the alternatives before them. The decision is then no longer
attributable to any single individual who is a member of the group. This is because all the individuals
and social group processes such as social influence contribute to the outcome. The decisions made by
groups are often different from those made by individuals. .roup polari3ation is one clear e5ample:
groups tend to make decisions that are more e5treme than those of its individual members, in the
direction of the individual inclinations
"eams
Teams are groups of people that share a common purpose, to which they are all committed, and who
are empowered to set goals, solve problems and make decisions. Eithout these common traits they are
not a FteamF 7 they are a group of people who happen to work together in the same environment 7 a work
group. @ffective teamwork has a number of benefits 7 to the organisation, to the team and, not least, to
the individuals within the team. The way that people work in teams is ;ust as important as their
individual performance.
This includes their capacity not only to work within their own team but also to have good inter7team
relationships. Eorking in such an environment helps build high staff morale and improved work
performance. <n many organisations today we see a move towards flatter, leaner structures. *tripping
out layers of management means that individuals have to be more willing to take on additional
responsibility and accountability 7 achieved through team working.
Teamwork can contribute towards:
<mproved productivity
Ruality improvement
<nnovation and reativity
apitalisation of technological advances
<mproved employee motivation and commitment
Genneth /lanchard describes the characteristics of effective teams using the mnemonic 8@JHIJ-:
PCJ8I*@
-embers can describe and are committed to a common purpose
.oals are clear, challenging and relevant to purpose
*trategies for achieving goals are clear
<ndividual roles are clear
E-8IE@J-@AT
-embers feel a personal and collective sense of power
-embers have access to necessary skills and resources
8olicies and practices support team ob;ectives
-utual respect and willingness to help each other is evident
R@=,T<IA*><8* ,AD I--CA<,T<IA
-embers e5press themselves openly and honestly
Earmth, understanding and acceptance is e5pressed
-embers listen actively to each other
Differences of opinion and perspective are valued
0
=@Q</<=<TB
-embers perform different roles and functions as needed
-embers have responsibility for team leadership and team development
-embers are adaptable to changing demands
4arious ideas and approaches are e5plored
O8T<-,= 8JIDCT<4<TB
Iutput is high
Ruality is e5cellent
Decision7making is effective
lear problem solving process is apparent
R@I.A<T<IA ,AD ,88J@<,T<IA
<ndividual contributions are recognised and appreciated by leader and other members
Team accomplishments are recognised by members
.roup members feel respected
Team contributions are valued and recognised by the organisation
MIJ,=@
<ndividuals feel good about their membership on the team
<ndividuals are confident and motivated
-embers have a sense of pride and satisfaction about their work
There is a strong sense of cohesion and team spirit
Genneth /lanchard (#$$1(
"a+le 1231 "ypes of "eams
Conf lict
.roup members do not always get along well with one another. @ven in the most serene circumstances
the groupOs atmosphere may shift rapidly, so that once close collaborators become hostile adversaries.
/ecause conflict is a ubi6uitous aspect of group life, it must be managed to minimi3e its negative
effects.
Conflict, This is the disagreement, discord, and friction that occur when the actions or beliefs of one or
more members of the group are unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of the other group
members.
"A2 1**"S *F C*NF.)C"
onflict is everywhere. Ehen the members of :# groups were asked, Did your group e5perience any
conflictK they identified '0' instances of interpersonal irritation (Eall ! Aolan, #$&:(. Ehen Jobert
Hreed /ales and his colleagues used <nteraction 8rocess ,nalysis (<8,( to record group interactions,
some of the groups they observed spent as much as 01P of their time making hostile or negative
comments (/ales ! >are, #$%+(. Jesearchers who asked group members to work together on a
frustrating, impossible7to7solve task were startled by the intensity of the conflict that overtook the
groups. <n one particularly hostile group, members averaged #2.+ antagonistic comments per minute
(Hrench, #$'#(.
/efore *culley ;oined ,pple, *cully was independent of Nobs. *culleyOs success or failure in
manufacturing and marketing 8epsi did nothing to influence NobsOs outcomes and vice versa. Ehen
they both worked at ,pple, that changed. ,t first, the two worked together cooperatively, for each
oneOs success helped the other succeed. Their relationship changed yet again when they ran headlong
into a dispute over the -ac. The two men refused to change their minds, and so their once cooperative
relationship turned into a competitive one. Hor *culley to succeed, Nobs would have to fail. Hor Nobs to
succeed, *culley would have to fail. Ehen people are independent of each other, their pursuit of their
aims and ob;ectives influences no one else. The lone artist and craftsperson struggle alone in the
pursuit of their goals, but their independence from others means that should they succeed or fail only
they are influenced. /ut people in groups are, by definition, interdependent, so their outcomes are
often linked together. -any such situations promote cooperation between members, for the success of
any one member of the group will improve the chances of success for the other members. -orton
Deutsch called this form of interaction promotive interdependence (Deutsch, #$'$b(. /ut situations can
also pit individuals against one another. Ehen two people play backgammon, one must win and the
other must lose. Ehen two coworkers both want to be promoted to office manager, if one succeeds the
other will fail. <n a footrace, only one runner will end up in first place. ,s Deutsch e5plained, such
situations involve competition: The success of any one person means that someone else must fail.
Deutsch (#$'$b( called this form of interaction contrient interdependence.
independence , performance situation that is structured in such a way that the success of any one
member is unrelated to the chance of other membersO succeeding.
cooperation , performance situation that is structured in such a way that the success of any one
member of the group improves the chances of other membersO succeeding.
competition , performance situation that is structured in such a way that success depends on
performing better than others.
REFERENCES
$heney, "., 2traub, .., 2peirs-"lebe, +., 2tohl, $., GeGooyer, .r., G., ,halen, 2., "arvin-Go;as, B., -
$arlone, G. &1''(). Gemocracy, participation, and communication at wor%6 8 multidisciplinary review.
In . 9oloff &Fd.), $ommunication yearboo% 21 &pp. 3>-'1). Thousand 7a%s, $86 2age.
"astil, .. &1''3). Gemocracy in small groups6 Aarticipation, decision ma%ing, and communication.
Ahiladelphia, A86 Kew 2ociety Aublishers.
umby, G. B. &1'((). $ommunication and power in organi!ations6 Giscourse, ideology and
domination. Korwood, K.6 8ble;.
Afeffer, .. &1'(1). Aower in organi!ations. #oston6 Aitman.
8arts, 0., Gi*%sterhuis, 8., - $usters, 9. &2113). 8utomatic normative behavior in environments6 The
moderating role of conformity in activating situational norms. 2ocial $ognition, 21,
8brams, G., 0ogg, . 8., 0in%le, 2., - 7ften, 2. &211>). The social identity perspective on small
groups. In . 2. Aoole - 8. #. 0ollingshead &Fds.), Theories of small groups6 Interdisciplinary
perspectives &pp. ''C134). Thousand 7a%s, $86 2age.
#ales, 9. F., - $ohen, 2. A. with ,illiamson, 2. 8.
&1'4'). 2H+7"6 8 system for the multiple level observation of groups. Kew Hor%6 Free Aress.
#ales, 9. F., - 2later, A. F. &1'>>). 9ole differentiation in small decision-ma%ing groups. In T. Aarsons
and 9. F. #ales &Fds.), Family, sociali!ation, and interaction process &pp. 2>'C31/). Kew Hor%6 Free
Aress.
#ales, 9. F., - 2later, A. F. &1'>>). 9ole differentiation in small decision-ma%ing groups. In T. Aarsons
and 9. F. #ales &Fds.), Family, sociali!ation, and interaction process &pp. 2>'C31/). Kew Hor%6 Free
Aress.
#eal, G. .., $ohen, 9. 9., #ur%e, . .., - c+endon, $. +. &2113). $ohesion and performance in
groups6 8 meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. .ournal of 8pplied Asychology, ((,
'('C111E.
#ell, 2. T. &2114). Geep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance6 8 meta
analysis. .ournal of 8pplied Asychology, '2, >'>C/1>.