Group Dynamics PDF

Introduction to Group Dynamics C H A PTER 1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW...

Introduction to Group Dynamics C H A PTER 1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW CHAPTER OUTLINE Groups come in all shapes and sizes and their pur- 1-1 What Are Groups? poses are many and varied, but their influence is 1-1a Defining Groups universal. The tendency to join with others in 1-1b Varieties of Groups groups is perhaps the single most important char- acteristic of humans, and the processes that unfold 1-1c Characteristics of Groups within these groups leave an indelible imprint on 1-2 What Are Group Dynamics? their members and on society. Yet, groups remain 1-2a Dynamic Group Processes something of a mystery: unstudied at best, misun- 1-2b Process and Progress over Time derstood at worst. This investigation into the nature of groups begins by answering two funda- 1-3 Why Study Groups? mental questions: What is a group and what are 1-3a Understanding People group dynamics? 1-3b Understanding the Social World What are groups? 1-3c Applications to Practical Problems What are the four basic types of groups? 1-4 The Value of Groups What distinguishes one group from another? Chapter Review What are group dynamics? Resources Why study groups and their dynamics? 1 Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  2 CHAPTER 1 The Adventure Expedition: Groups and Their Dynamics On May 10, 1996, just after midnight, the members The Adventure Expedition broke that rule. The of the Adventure Consultants Guided Expedition most experienced climbers reached the summit by early crawled from tents pitched high on Mt. Everest to afternoon, but other group members continued their begin the final leg of their journey to the top of the dogged ascent well after caution demanded they turn world. The group included ten clients who had paid around. Many of them suffered from oxygen depriva- hefty sums to join the expedition; guides who set the tion, for the atmosphere above 24,000 feet is so thin climbing lines, carried provisions, and helped climbers that most hikers breathe from tanks of compressed air. along the way; and Rob Hall, the team’s leader. Hall Even these supplements cannot counteract the exhaus- was one of the most experienced high-altitude clim- tion that comes of climbing treacherous, ice-coated bers in the world; he had scaled Everest four times terrain, and many suffered from confused thinking, before. nausea, and dizziness. Yet, they may still have managed The climb to the summit of Mt. Everest is a care- to climb to safety had it not been for the storm—a fully orchestrated undertaking. Teams begin the rogue blizzard with 60-knot winds that cut the climbers ascent in the middle of the night to reach the peak off from camp and any hope of rescue. When the storm and return in a single day. But if their progress up the lifted the next day, four members of the Adventure mountain is too slow, even a midnight departure is not Expedition were dead. The victims included two clients early enough to get them up to the top and back (Douglas Hansen and Yasuko Nanba), a guide (Andrew down safely. So groups typically establish and adhere Harris), and the group’s leader (Rob Hall). Hall guaran- to the turnaround rule: If you have not reached the teed his clients that they would reach the top of the summit by 2 PM—at the very latest—your group must mountain and return safely; he could not keep that turn back. promise (Krakauer, 1997). Groups are and always will be essential to human work, to the very large groups of people with life. Across all cultures and eras we have lived, whom we share an important quality that creates worked, thrived, and died in our families, tribes, a psychological bond between us all. Given we communes, communities, and clans. Our ancestors spend our entire lives getting into, getting out of, protected themselves from dangers and disasters by and taking part in groups, it’s best to not ignore joining together in groups. Early civilizations—the them. Even better, it’s best to understand them: Aztecs, Persians, Greeks, and Romans—organized to recognize their key features, to study the psycho- their societies by forming legions, assemblies, pub- logical and interpersonal processes that continually lics, legislative bodies, and trade associations. For shape and reshape them, and to learn ways to help time immemorial, people have gathered for civic them function effectively. and religious purposes, including worship, celebra- tions, and festivals. So why study these groups? The answer is not 1-1 WHAT ARE GROUPS? complicated: Groups hold the secret to the universe—the human universe, at any rate. The Fish swimming in synchronized unison are called a rare individual—the prisoner in solitary confine- school. A gathering of kangaroos is a mob. A three- ment, the recluse, the castaway—is isolated from some of crows cawing from their perch on a tele- all groups, but most of us belong to all manner of phone wire is a murder. A gam is a group of whales. groups: from our small, close-knit groups such as A flock of larks in flight is an exaltation (Lipton, families or very close friends to larger groups of 1991). But what is a collection of human beings associates and colleagues at school or where we called? A group. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 3 What Groups Do You Belong To? Some may bemoan the growing alienation of Interpretation: Did you include your family? individuals from the small social groups that once The people you work or study with? How about linked them securely to society-at-large, but the sin- your roommates, housemates, or classmates? All of gle man or woman who has no connection to other the people you have friended on Facebook? How men and women is an extraordinarily rare human about people of your sex, race, and citizenship being. and those who share your political beliefs? Are African American men, Canadians, and Republicans Instructions: Most people belong to dozens of groups? Are you in a romantic relationship? groups, but we can become so accustomed to them Did you include you and your partner on your list that their influence on us goes unnoticed. Before of groups? Some people’s lists are longer than reading further, make a list (written or mental) of all others, but a list of 40 or more groups would not the groups to which you belong. be unusual. 1-1a Defining Groups evidenced by the criteria of gesticulation, laughter, smiles, talk, play or work” (James, 1951, p. 475). The Adventure Expedition was, in many respects, a He recorded pedestrians walking down the city unique collection of people facing an enormous streets, people shopping, children on playgrounds, challenge. Rob Hall, its leader, deliberately created public gatherings at sports events and festivals, patrons the group by recruiting its 26 members: climbers, during the intermissions at plays and entering movie guides, cooks, medical staff, and so on. Its members theaters, and various types of work crews and teams. were united in their pursuit of a shared goal, as is so Most of these groups were small, usually with only often the case with groups, but some of the members two or three members, but groups that had been put their own personal needs above those of the deliberately created for some specific purpose, such group. The members not only interacted with each as the leadership team of a company, tended to be other face-to-face in a physical space, but they also larger. His findings, and the results of studies con- used technology to communicate with one another ducted in other settings (e.g., cafeterias, businesses), and with people who were not part of the team. But suggest that groups tend to “gravitate to the smallest Adventure Expedition, although unique in many size, two” (Hare, 1976, p. 215; Jorgenson & Dukes, ways, was nonetheless a group: two or more individuals 1976; Ruef, Aldrich, & Carter, 2003). who are connected by and within social relationships. Two or More Individuals Groups come in a stag- Who Are Connected Definitions of the word gering assortment of shapes and sizes, from dyads (two group are as varied as groups themselves, but a com- members) and triads (three members) to huge crowds, monality shared by many of these definitions is an mobs, and assemblies (Simmel, 1902). Sociologist emphasis on social relations that link members to one John James was so intrigued by the variation in the another. Three persons working on math problems size of groups that he took to the streets of Eugene in separate rooms can hardly be considered a group; and Portland, Oregon, to record the size of the 9,129 they are not connected to each other in any way. If, groups he encountered there. He defined a group to however, we create relationships between them— be two or more people in “face-to-face interaction as for example, we let them send notes to each other or we pick one person to distribute the problems to the others—then these three individuals can be con- group Two or more individuals who are connected by sidered a rudimentary group. Neither would we call and within social relationships. people who share some superficial similarity, such as Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  4 CHAPTER 1 eye color, a favorite football team, or birth date, based on task-related interdependencies. In some group members for we expect them to be connected groups, members are friends, but in others, the to each other in socially meaningful ways. A family is members are linked by common interests or experi- a group because the members are connected, not just ences. Nor are the relationships linking members by blood but also by social and emotional relation- equally strong or enduring. Some relationships, ships. Adventure Expedition was a group because like the links between members of a family or a the members were linked by the tasks that they clique of close friends, are tenacious, for they have completed collectively and by friendships, alliances, developed over time and are based on a long history responsibilities, and inevitable antagonisms. of mutual influence and exchange. In others, the ties between members may be so fragile that they By and Within Social Relations The relations are easily severed. Every individual member of the that link the members of groups are not of one group does not need to be linked to every other type. In families, for example, the relationships are person in the group. In the Adventure Expedition based on kinship, but in the workplace, they are group, for example, some people were liked by all What Is a Group? No one definition can capture the many nuances of the and perceive themselves to be in a group” (Pen- word group. Some definers stress the importance of nington, 2002, p. 3). communication or mutual dependence. Still others sug- Relations: “Individuals who stand in certain rela- gest that a shared purpose or goal is what turns a mere tions to each other, for example, as sharing a aggregate of individuals into a bona fide group. Even the common purpose or having a common intention- minimal number of members needed for a true group is ality, or acting together, or at least having a debated, with some definitions requiring three members common interest” (Gould, 2004, p. 119). but others only two (Moreland, 2010; Williams, 2010). Shared identity: “Two or more people possessing Categorization: “Two or more individuals … a common social identification and whose exis- [who] perceive themselves to be members of the tence as a group is recognized by a third party” same social category” (Turner, 1982, p. 15). (Brown, 2000, p. 19). Communication: “Three or more people … who (a) Shared tasks and goals: “Three or more people think of themselves as a group, (b) are interdepen- who work together interdependently on an dent (e.g., with regard to shared goals or behaviors agreed-upon activity or goal” (Keyton, 2002, p. 5). that affect one another), and (c) communicate Size: “Two or more people” (Williams, 2010, p. 269). (interact) with one another (via face-to-face or tech- Social unit: “Persons who recognize that they nological means)” (Frey & Konieczka, 2010, p. 317). constitute a meaningful social unit, interact on Influence: “Two or more persons who are inter- that basis, and are committed to that social unity” acting with one another in such a manner that (Fine, 2012, p. 21; Kerr & Tindale, 2014). each person influences and is influenced by each other person” (Shaw, 1981, p. 454). Structure: “A social unit which consists of a number of individuals who stand in (more or less) definite Interdependence: “A dynamic whole based on status and role relationships to one another and interdependence rather than similarity” (Lewin, which possesses a set of values or norms of its own 1948, p. 184). regulating the behavior of individual members, at Interrelations: “An aggregation of two or more least in matters of consequence to the group” people who are to some degree in dynamic inter- (Sherif & Sherif, 1956, p. 144). relation with one another” (McGrath, 1984, p. 8). Systems: “An intact social system, complete with Psychological significance: “A psychological group boundaries, interdependence for some shared is any number of people who interact with each purpose, and differentiated member roles” other, are psychologically aware of each other, (Hackman & Katz, 2010, p. 1210). Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 5 Groups Primary groups Social groups Collectives Categories Families, close Men, Asian Coworkers, Audiences, friends, small Americans, teams, crews, queues, mobs, combat squads New Yorkers, study groups, crowds, social (fireteams), doctors, task forces, etc. movements, etc. etc. Britons, etc. F I G U R E 1.1 A fourfold taxonomy of groups and examples of each type. the other group members, but others had only a groups profoundly influence the behavior, feel- few friends in the group. In some cases, such as ings, and judgments of their members, for mem- groups based on ethnicity, race, or gender, the bers spend much of their time interacting with connection linking members may be more psycho- one another, usually in face-to-face settings with logical than interpersonal. But no matter what the many of the other members present. Even when nature of the relations, a group exists when some the group is dispersed, members nonetheless feel type of bond links the members to one another and they are still “in” the group, and they consider to the group itself (Bosse & Coughlan, 2016). the group to be a very important part of their lives. In many cases, individuals become part of primary 1-1b Varieties of Groups groups involuntarily: Every member of Adventure No one knows for certain how many groups exist at Expedition was born into a family that provided this moment, but given the number of people on the for their well-being until they could venture out planet and their groupish proclivities, 30 billion is a to join other groups. Other primary groups form conservative estimate. Groups are so numerous that when people interact in significant, meaningful the differences among them are as noteworthy as ways for a prolonged period of time. For exam- their similarities. Figure 1.1 brings some order to this ple, and unlike Adventure Expedition, some challenging miscellany by distinguishing between four climbing teams have summited so many moun- types of groups: primary groups, social groups, collec- tains on so many expeditions that these groups tives, and categories. are more like families than expeditions. They “continue, with more or less the same people in Primary Groups Sociologist Charles Horton them, for a very long time” (McGrath, 1984, Cooley (1909) labeled the small, intimate clusters p. 43), and affect the members’ lives in significant of close associates, such as families, good friends, and enduring ways. They are broad rather than or cliques of peers, primary groups. These limited in their scope. Cooley (1909) considered such groups to be primary because they transform individuals into primary group A small, long-term group characterized social beings. Primary groups protect members by frequent interaction, solidarity, and high levels of inter- from harm, care for them when they are ill, dependence among members that substantially influences and provide them with shelter and sustenance, the attitudes, values, and social outcomes of its members. but as Cooley explained, they also create the Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  6 CHAPTER 1 connection between the individual and society clubs, secretarial pools, congregations, study groups, at large: guilds, task forces, committees, and meetings, are extremely common (Schofer & Longhofer, 2011). They are primary in several senses, but chiefly When surveyed, 35.7% of Americans reported they in that they are fundamental in forming belonged to some type of religious group (e.g., a the social nature and ideals of the individual. congregation) and 20.0% said they belonged to a The result of intimate association, psycho- sports team or club. The majority, ranging from logically, is a certain fusion of individualities 50% to 80%, reported doing things in groups, such in a common whole, so that one’s very as attending a sports event together, visiting one self, for many purposes at least, is the another for the evening, sharing a meal together, common life and purpose of the group. or going out as a group to see a movie (Putnam, Perhaps the simplest way of describing this 2000). People could dine, watch movies, and travel wholeness is by saying that it is a “we.” singly, but most do not: They prefer to perform (Cooley, 1909, p. 23) these activities in social groups. Americans are above average in their involvement in voluntary asso- Social (Secondary) Groups In earlier eras, peo- ciations, but some countries’ citizens—the Dutch, ple lived most of their lives in primary groups that Canadians, Scandinavians—are groupier still (Curtis, were clustered together in relatively small tribes or Baer, & Grabb, 2001). communities. But, as societies became more com- plex, so did our groups. We began to associate with Collectives Some groups come into existence a wider range of people in less intimate, more pub- when people are drawn together by something— lic settings, and social groups emerged to structure an event, an activity, or even danger—but then the these interactions. Social groups are larger and more group dissolves when the experience ends. formally organized than primary groups, and Any gathering of individuals can be considered a memberships tend to be shorter in duration and collective, but most theorists reserve the term for less emotionally involving. Their boundaries are larger, less intricately interconnected associations also more permeable, so members can leave old among people (Blumer, 1951). A list of examples groups behind and join new ones, for they do of collectives would include crowds watching a not demand the level of commitment that primary building burn, audiences seated in a movie theater, groups do. People usually belong to a very small line (queues) of people waiting to purchase tickets, number of primary groups, but they can enjoy gatherings of college students protesting a govern- membership in a variety of social groups. Various ment policy, and panicked mobs fleeing from dan- terms have been used to describe this category of ger. But the list would also include social movements groups, such as secondary groups (Cooley, 1909), asso- of individuals who, though dispersed over a wide ciations (MacIver & Page, 1937), task groups (Lickel, area, display common shifts in opinion or actions. Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001), and Gesellschaften The members of collectives are joined by their com- (Toennies, 1887/1963). mon interest or shared actions, but they often owe Social groups, such as the Adventure Expedi- little allegiance to the group. In many cases, such tion, military squads, governing boards, construc- groups are created by happenstance, convenience, tion workers, teams, crews, fraternities, sororities, dance troupes, orchestras, bands, ensembles, classes, collective A relatively large aggregation or group of indi- viduals who display similarities in actions and outlook. A street crowd, a line of people (a queue), and a panicked social group A relatively small number of individuals group escaping a fire are examples of collectives, as are who interact with one another over an extended period more widely dispersed groups (e.g., listeners who respond of time, such as work groups, clubs, and congregations. similarly to a public service announcement). Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 7 Are People Bowling Alone? The numbers tell the tale. In 1975, people reported terms. A person with considerable social capital is well playing card games together, like poker and bridge, connected to other people across a wide variety of about 14 times a year. By 2000, that number had been contexts, and these connections provide the means for halved. In the 1970s, 50% of the people surveyed agreed him or her to accomplish both personal and collective that their family usually eats dinner together. By the end outcomes. of the century, only about 33% reported regular family Putnam’s findings suggest that the types of meals and the family vacation was also becoming rarer. groups people join are changing. People are not as Today fewer people report visiting with neighbors fre- interested in joining traditional types of community quently and they are less likely to join social clubs, such groups, such as garden clubs, fraternal and professional as the Kiwanis and garden clubs. As the political scientist organizations, or even church-based groups. But some Robert Putnam (2000) wrote in his book Bowling Alone, types of groups, such as book groups, support groups, in the 1960s 8% of all adult American men belonged to teams at work, and category-based associations (e.g., a bowling league, as did nearly 5% of all adult women. the American Association of Retired Persons), are However, even though the total number of bowlers in increasing in size rather than decreasing. Individuals America continues to increase over time, fewer and are also more involved in online associations, interac- fewer belong to bowling leagues. tions, and networks, such as Facebook. These social Putnam concluded that Americans’ withdrawal groups are the ubiquitous “dark matter” of social cap- from groups and associations signals an overall decline ital, for they knit people together in social relations but in social capital. Like financial or economic capital, are often overlooked in tallies that track the number social capital describes how rich you are, but in inter- and variety of more formal and official groups (Smith, personal terms rather than monetary or commercial Stebbins, et al., 2016). or a short-lived experience, and so the relations join- someone celebrates St. Patrick’s Day because of his ing the members are so transitory that they dissolve Irish heritage, if people respond to a woman differently as soon as the members separate. when they see she is an African American, or if a gay man identifies with other LGBTQ persons—then a Categories A social category is a collection of category may be transformed into a highly influential individuals who are similar to one another in some group (Abrams, 2013). way. For example, citizens of Ireland are Irish, As social psychologist Henri Tajfel (1974) Americans whose ancestors were from Africa are explained, members of the same social category African Americans, and men who are sexually attracted often share a common identity with one another. to other men are gay. If a category has no social impli- They know who is in their category, who is not, cations, then it only describes individuals who share and what qualities are typical of insiders and out- a feature in common. If, however, these categories siders. This perception of themselves as members of set in motion personal or interpersonal processes—if the same group or social category—this social identity—is “that part of an individual’s self- concept which derives from his knowledge of his social capital The degree to which individuals, groups, or larger aggregates of people are linked in social relation- membership of a social group (or groups) together ships that yield positive, productive benefits; analogous to economic capital (fiscal prosperity), but determined by extensiveness of social connectedness. social identity An individual’s sense of self derived from social category A perceptual grouping of people who are relationships and memberships in groups; also, those assumed to be similar to one another in some ways but dif- aspects of the self that are assumed to be common to ferent in one or more ways, such as all women, the elderly, most or all of the members of the same group or social college students, or all the citizens of a specific country. category. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  8 CHAPTER 1 with the emotional significance attached to that were all clients: Weathers was “garrulous,” Fischbeck membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p. 69). was “dapper” and “genteel,” and Kasischke was tall But social categories can also influence the per- and athletic (Krakauer, 1997, p. 37). ceptions of people who are not part of the category. Groups may be more than the sum of their parts When perceivers decide a person they encounter is but each part defines the whole (Moreland, 2013). A one of “those people,” they will likely rely on any group with a member who is naturally boisterous, stereotypes they have about the members of that mean-spirited, hard-working, chill, or close-minded social category to formulate an impression of the will be different from the group with a member who person. Social categories tend to create divisions is domineering, self-sacrificing, lazy, anxious, or cre- between people, and those divisions can result in ative. A group with many members who have only a sense of we and us versus they and them. just joined will differ from one with mostly long- term, veteran members. A group whose members 1-1c Characteristics of Groups differ from each other in terms of race, sex, eco- nomic background, and country of origin will differ Each one of the billions of groups that exist at this from a group with far less diversity. Were we to moment is a unique configuration of individuals, assign 100 people to twenty 5-person groups, each processes, and relationships. The Adventure Expedi- group would differ from every other group because tion mountaineering group, for example, differed in it joins together 5 unique individuals. a hundred ways from the other teams of climbers on Mt. Everest that season. But all groups, despite their Boundaries: Who Does NOT Belong? The uniqueness, share some common features. Some of relationships that link members to one another these features, such as the size of the group and the define who is in the group and who is not. tasks they are attempting, are relatively obvious ones. A group is boundaried in a psychological sense; Other qualities, such as the group’s cohesiveness or those who are included in the group are recognized the permeability of the group’s boundaries, must be as members and those who are not part of the uncovered, for they are often overlooked, even by group are excluded outsiders. In some cases, these the group members themselves. boundaries are publicly acknowledged: Both mem- bers and nonmembers know who belongs to an Composition: Who Belongs to the Group? To honor society, a rock band, or a baseball team. understand a group, we must know something about But in other cases, the boundaries may be indistinct the group’s composition: the qualities of the indi- or known only to the group members themselves. viduals who are members of the group. The Adven- A secret society, for example, may not reveal its exis- ture Expedition team, for example, differed from the tence or its membership list to outsiders. A group’s other teams on Mt. Everest that year because each boundary may also be relatively permeable. In open member of that group was a unique individual with groups, for example, membership is fluid; members specific talents, weaknesses, attitudes, values, and per- may voluntarily come and go as they please with no sonality traits. Hall, the group’s leader, was a world- consequences (and they often do), or the group may class high-altitude climber. Andy Harris, a guide, was frequently vote members out of the group or invite outgoing, physically fit, and passionate about climb- new ones to join. In closed groups, in contrast, the mem- ing, but he had never been to Mt. Everest before. bership roster changes more slowly, if at all. But, Beck Weathers, Frank Fischbeck, and Lou Kasischke regardless of the reasons for membership fluctuations, open groups are especially unlikely to reach a state of stereotype A socially shared set of qualities, characteris- equilibrium since members recognize that they may tics, and behavioral expectations ascribed to a particular lose or relinquish their place within the group at any group or category of people. time. Members of such groups, especially those in composition The individuals who constitute a group. which membership is dependent on voting or meeting Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 9 Are Social Networks Groups? Social networks are in most respects very group-like. the only requirement to join a network is the accep- Their members are linked to each other by social tance of a link request from someone already linked relationships, which can vary from the inconsequen- to others in the network. If Helen and Rob are tial and ephemeral to the deeply meaningful and already linked, then Pemba can join their network by long-enduring. Networks, however, lack clear establishing a relationship with Helen or Rob. In boundaries that define who is in the network and consequence, social networks tend to be more fluid who is not. To become part of a social network, an in terms of membership than groups with clearly individual need only establish a relationship of some identified boundaries, but they can also attract sort with a person who is already part of the net- more diverse members to their ranks (Svensson, work. In most social networking sites, for example, Neumayer, Banfield-Mumb, & Schossböck, 2015). a particular standard, are more likely to monitor the to all other members, subgroups are very likely to actions of others. In contrast, closed groups are form, and one or more leaders may be needed to orga- often more cohesive as competition for member- nize and guide the group. ship is irrelevant and group members anticipate A group’s size also determines how many social future collaborations. Thus, in closed groups, indi- ties—links, relationships, connections, edges—are viduals are more likely to focus on the collective needed to join members to each other and to the nature of the group and to identify with the group. The maximum number of ties within a group (Ziller, 1965). group in which everyone is linked to everyone else is given by the equation n(n – 1)/2, where n Size: How Large Is the Group? Jon Krakauer is the number of people in the group. Only one (1997), who chronicled the experiences of Adven- relationship is needed to create a dyad, but as ture Expedition as it attempted its climb of Mt. Figure 1.2 illustrates, the number of ties needed to Everest, admitted he was unsettled by the size of connect all members grows as the group gets larger. the group: “I’d never climbed as a member of such Three relationships would be needed to join each a large group … all my previous expeditions had member of a three-person group, but six, ten, and been undertaken with one or two trusted friends, fifteen relationships are needed to link the members or alone” (p. 37). of four-, five-, and six-person groups. Even larger A group’s size influences many of its other features, groups require even more ties. For example, a for a small group will likely have different structures, group the size of the Adventure Expedition (26 processes, and patterns of interaction than a larger one. members) would require 325 ties to completely A two-person group is so small that it ceases to exist link each member to every other member. when one member leaves, and it can never be broken Because of the limits of most people’s capacity down into subgroups. The members of dyads (e.g., to keep track of so many social relationships, once best friends, lovers) are sometimes linked by strong the group surpasses about 150 individuals, members emotional bonds that make their dynamics so intense usually cannot connect with each and every mem- that they belong in a category all their own (Levine & ber of the group (Dunbar, 2008). In consequence, Moreland, 2012). Larger groups can also have unique in larger groups, members are connected to one qualities, for the members are rarely connected directly another indirectly rather than directly. Beck Weathers might, for example, be linked to guide Mike Groom, and Groom might establish a bond social network A set of interpersonally interconnected with Jon Krakauer, but Weathers may not get to individuals or groups. know Krakauer. In even larger groups, members Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  10 CHAPTER 1 Two Three Four Five Six members members members members members F I G U R E 1.2 As groups increase in size, the number of relationships needed to link each member to every other member increases. Only one relationship is needed to form a dyad (two members), but 3, 6, 10, and 15 relations are needed as groups increase in size from three to six members. In even larger groups, the number of relations needed to link all members to each other becomes so great that some members are only linked indi- rectly to each other. may only feel connected to the group as a whole, Task interaction includes all group behavior that or to subgroups within the larger group (Katz et al., is focused principally on the group’s work, projects, 2005). Larger groups are more schismatic than plans, and goals. In most groups, members must coor- smaller ones; they more easily break up into smaller dinate their various skills, resources, and motivations groups. so that the group can make a decision, generate a product, or achieve a victory. When a jury reviews Interaction: What Do Members Do? Groups each bit of testimony, a committee discusses the best are the setting for an infinite variety of interper- course of action to take, or the Adventure Expedition sonal actions. If we were to watch a group for plans the approach they will take to the summit, the even a few minutes, we would see people doing group’s interaction is task-focused. all sorts of things: talking over issues, getting into But groups are not simply performance arguments, and making decisions. They would engines, for much of what happens in a group is upset each other, give each other help and support, relationship interaction (or socioemotional interac- and take advantage of each other’s weaknesses. tion). If group members falter and need support, They would likely work together to accomplish others will buoy them up with kind words, sugges- difficult tasks, find ways to not do their work, tions, and other forms of help. When group mem- and even plot against the best interests of those bers disagree with others, they are often roundly who are not a part of their group. Many of the criticized and made to feel foolish. When a most interesting, influential, and entertaining coworker wears a new suit or outfit, others in his forms of human action are possible only when peo- or her work unit notice it and offer compliments or ple join with others in a group. criticisms. Such actions sustain or undermine the Sociologist Robert Freed Bales (1950, 1999), intrigued by the question “What do people do when they are in groups?” spent years watching and task interaction The conjointly adjusted actions of recording people in relatively small, face-to-face group members that pertain to the group’s projects, tasks, and goals. groups. He recognized the diversity of group interac- relationship interaction (socioemotional interaction) tion, but eventually concluded that the countless The conjointly adjusted actions of group members that actions he had observed tend to be of two types: relate to or influence the nature and strength of the emo- those that focused on the task the group was dealing tional and interpersonal bonds within the group, includ- with and those that sustained, strengthened, or weak- ing both sustaining (social support, consideration) and ened interpersonal relationships within the group. undermining actions (criticism, conflict). Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 11 Why Do Humans Have Such Big Brains? Humans have done well, evolutionarily speaking. Their size of the average group for a species with the brain large, sophisticated brains provide them with the means size of the species, he discovered that species with to store and share information, solve problems, and bigger brains did tend to live in larger social groups. plan for future contingencies. To account for the rapid Dunbar’s findings also suggest that, given the size of development of humans’ intellectual prowess, conven- the human neocortex, humans were designed by evo- tional explanations usually suggest big brains helped lution to live in groups of 150 people or less; anything early humans find food and shelter and survive envi- more would overload humans’ information-processing ronmental threats. But what if humans’ brains devel- capacity. Dunbar sees evidence of this constraint in oped to deal with the mental demands of group life? his studies of the size of naturally occurring groups. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s (2008) social brain Although the size of traditional hunter-gatherer soci- hypothesis assumes that group life is more psycholog- eties varies with habitat, in many cases, they range up ically demanding than a more isolated, independent to—but not over—150 members. Until recently, small one. With groups come not only survival advantages, communal villages and townships included about 150 but also substantial amounts of new information to people. Armies often organize soldiers into divisions of continually process. Individuals must be able to recog- about 150 soldiers. Some businesses and organizations, nize other members of the group, track shifting pat- too, have learned that productivity and solidarity suf- terns of alliances and coalitions, and remember who fer when too many people work in one place. If they can be trusted and who is likely to refuse to share. need to expand their operation, they do not add more To deal with the increasing complexity of their social people to an existing plant; instead, they build an worlds, humans’ ancestors needed bigger brains additional plant next to the old one and fill it with capable of processing more information. another 150 personnel. Dunbar’s recommendation: Dunbar tested this hypothesis by studying a vari- To avoid taxing the processing capacity of members, ety of group-living species. When he correlated the limit your groups to 150 members or fewer. emotional bonds linking the members to one means that members depend on one another; their another and to the group. We will review the outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experi- method that Bales developed for objectively record- ences are partially determined by others in the ing these types of interactions, Interaction Process group. Analysis (IPA), in Chapter 2. Some groups create only the potential for interdependence among members. The outcomes Interdependence: Do the Members Depend on of people standing in a queue at a store’s checkout Each Other? The acrobat on the trapeze drops counter, audience members in a darkened theater, to the net unless her teammate catches her out- or the congregation of a large mega-church are stretched arms. The assembly line worker is unable hardly intertwined at all. The individuals within to complete his work until he receives the unfin- these groups can reach their goals on their own ished product from a worker further up the line. without making certain their actions mesh closely The business executive’s success and salary are deter- with the actions of those who are nearby. Other mined by how well her staff complete their work; if groups, such as gangs, families, sports teams, and her staff fail, then she fails as well. In such situations, military squads, create far higher levels of interde- members are obligated or responsible to other pendency since members reliably and substantially group members, for they provide each other with influence one another’s outcomes over a long support and assistance. This interdependence period of time and in a variety of situations. But even the interdependencies in these tightly interdependence Mutual dependence, as when one’s meshed groups are rarely invariant or undifferen- outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences tiated. As Figure 1.3 suggests, in symmetric are influenced, to some degree, by other people. groups with a flat, nonhierarchical structure, the Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  12 CHAPTER 1 A group structure—the complex of roles, norms, and intermember relations that organizes the group. A B C Roles specify the general behaviors expected of peo- B C D ple who occupy different positions within the group. The roles of leader and follower are fundamental ones (a) Symmetric (b) Hierarchical in many groups, but other roles—information interdependence interdependence with reciprocity without reciprocity seeker, information giver, and compromiser—may emerge in any group (Benne & Sheats, 1948). A Group members’ actions and interactions are also shaped by the group’s norms that describe what behaviors should and should not be performed in B C D A B C a given context. Roles, norms, and other structural aspects of (c) Hierarchical (d) Sequential groups, although unseen and often unnoticed, lie at interdependence with interdependence the heart of their most dynamic processes. When peo- (unequal) reciprocity without reciprocity ple join a group, they initially spend much of their time F I G U R E 1.3 Examples of interdependence among trying to come to terms with the requirements of their group members. role. If they cannot meet the role’s demand, they might not remain a member for long. Norms within a group are defined and renegotiated over time, and conflicts often emerge as members violate norms. In group influence among members is equal and reciprocal meetings, the opinions of members with higher status (Figure 1.3a). But more typically interdependen- carry more weight than those of the rank-and-file cies are asymmetric, unequal, and hierarchical. In members. When several members form a subgroup a business, for example, the boss may determine within the larger group, they exert more influence how employees spend their time, what kind of on the rest of the group than they would individually. rewards they experience, and even the duration When people manage to place themselves at the hub of of their membership in the group (Figure 1.3b). the group’s information-exchange patterns, their influ- In other cases, the employees may be able to ence over others also increases. influence their boss to a degree, but the boss influ- If you had to choose only one aspect of a group ences them to a much greater extent (Figure 1.3c). to study, you would probably learn the most by Interdependency can also be ordered sequentially, studying its structure. The Adventure Expedition’s as when C’s outcomes are determined by B’s structure, for example, improved the group’s overall actions, but B’s actions are determined by A efficiency, but at a cost. When researchers surveyed (Figure 1.3d). Structure: How Is the Group Organized? group structure The organization of a group, including Group members are not connected to one another the members, their interrelations, and their interactions. at random, but in organized and predictable pat- role A socially shared set of behaviors, characteristics, and terns. In all but the most ephemeral groups, patterns responsibilities expected of people who occupy a partic- ular position or type of position within a group; by and regularities emerge that determine the kinds of enacting roles, individuals establish regular patterns of actions that are permitted or condemned: who talks exchange with one another that increase predictability to whom, who likes whom and who dislikes and social coordination. whom, who can be counted on to perform partic- norm A consensual and often implicit standard that ular tasks, and whom others look to for guidance describes what behaviors should and should not be per- and help. These regularities combine to generate formed in a given context. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS 13 expert mountain climbers asking them to evaluate the ideas or plans, choosing a solution, negotiating a wisdom of hiking in a team with a clear chain- solution to a conflict, or executing (performing) a of-command versus one with a less leader-centered task. As Figure 1.4 indicates, each of these basic culture, these experts favored a hierarchical structure categories can be further subdivided, yielding a for its efficiency. However, they also warned that such total of eight goal-related activities. groups were not as safe as groups that were more Generating: Groups concoct the strategies they egalitarian, since members were less likely to share will use to accomplish their goals (Type 1: information about threats and concerns. These planning tasks) or create altogether new ideas researchers then confirmed the experts’ prognosis by and approaches to their problems (Type 2: examining the records of 5,104 group expeditions in creativity tasks) the Himalayas. Sure enough, more climbers reached the top of the summit when they hiked in teams with Choosing: Groups make decisions about issues hierarchical cultures, but more climbers also died in that have correct solutions (Type 3: intellective these groups during the expedition. The researchers tasks) or questions that can be answered in concluded: “Hierarchy, structurally and as a cultural many ways (Type 4: decision-making tasks) value, can both help and hurt team performance” Negotiating: Groups resolve differences of (Anicich, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015, p. 1340). opinion among members regarding their goals or decisions (Type 5: cognitive conflict tasks) or Goals: What Is the Group’s Purpose? Humans, settle competitive disputes among members as a species, seem to be genetically ready to set goals (Type 6: mixed-motive tasks) for themselves—“what natural selection has built into Executing: Groups do things, including taking us is the capacity to strive, the capacity to seek, the part in competitions (Type 7: contests/battles/ capacity to set up short-term goals in the service of competitive tasks) or creating some product longer-term goals” (Dawkins, 1989, p. 142)—and or carrying out collective actions (Type 8: that tendency is only amplified in groups. A study performances/psychomotor tasks) group wants to help members get better grades. A jury makes a decision about guilt or innocence. The McGrath’s task circumplex model also distin- members of a congregation seek religious and spiritual guishes between conceptual–behavioral tasks and experiences. The team Rob Hall created, the Adven- cooperation–conflict tasks. Groups dealing with ture Expedition, pursued its goals relentlessly and, for conceptual tasks (Types 2–5) generally exhibit high some members, fatally. The groups Bales (1999) stud- levels of information exchange, social influence, and ied spent the majority of their time (63%) dealing process-oriented activity. Groups dealing with behav- with goal-related activities and tasks. The members