Introduction to Group Dynamics PDF

INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS Definition of a Group A group may be defined as two or more individuals; ○ Interacting with each other ○ Are interdependent ○ Define themselves and are defined by others as belonging to th...

INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS Definition of a Group A group may be defined as two or more individuals; ○ Interacting with each other ○ Are interdependent ○ Define themselves and are defined by others as belonging to the group ○ Share norms concerning matter of common interest and participate in a system ○ Influence each other ○ Find the group rewarding ○ Pursue common goals When Do You Consider a Group To Be Effective? 3 Core Activities ○ Accomplishing its goals ○ Maintaining itself internally ○ Developing and changing Group members must have the skills to eliminate barriers to the accomplishment of the group’s goals to solve problems in maintaining high quality interaction among members, and to overcome obstacles to the development of a more effect Dimensions of Group Effectiveness Group goals must be clearly understood. Group members must communicate their ideas and feelings accurately and clearly. Participation and leadership must be distributed among members. Appreciative decision-making procedures must be used flexibly if they are to be matched with the needs of the situation. Power and influence need to be approximately equal throughout the group. Conflicts arising from opposing ideas and opinions (controversy) are to be encouraged. Group cohesion needs to be high. Problem-solving adequacy should be high. Interpersonal effectiveness of members needs to be high (how well the consequences of your behavior match your intention) Evolution of Group Dynamics The earliest existing philosophical literature contains a great deal of wisdom about the nature of groups. Although the basic assumptions that guide the field of group dynamics were discussed from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries. The field of group dynamics is strictly a twentieth-century development. In the 1900s, a number of psychologists investigated the effects of having several persons take part simultaneously in a variety of standard psychological experiments to see if an individual’s normal solitary performance occurred when others were present (Allport, 1924; Moede, 1920). A related line of research compared the performance of individuals and groups to determine which were more productive (Gordon, 1924; Shaw, 1932; Watson, 1928). 1  INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS End of the 1930s, a rapid advance in the field took place, due largely to the efforts of three sociologists. ○ Sherif (1936) studied the impact of group norms on perception of an ambiguous stimulus. He demonstrated that the judgments made by individuals were influenced by the judgments of their fellow group members. ○ Newcomb (1943) conducted a field study investigating the impact of social norms concerning political issues on the students of Benington College, documented how the interaction of students changed their attitudes so that they become more congruent with the prevailing norms of the peer group. ○ W.F. Whyte (1937) moved into one of the slums of Boston and began a three-and-a-half-year study of social clubs, political organizations, and racketeering. He reported in vivid detail on the great significance of the structure, culture, and functioning of the Norton Street gang and the Italian Community Club. Lewin, Lippit, and White (1939) studied the influences on groups and group members of different leadership patterns. Groups of 10 and 11 year old children met regularly for several weeks under the leadership of an adult, who behaved in one of three ways: democratically, autocratically, or in a laissez-faire manner. The effects were large and dramatic, severe forms of scapegoating occurred in the autocratic groups, and at the end of the experiment the children in some of those groups destroyed the things they had constructed, important social issues could be studied. French (1914) conducted an experiment on the effects of fear and frustration on organized versus unorganized groups. Bavelas (1942) conducted an experiment to determine whether the behavior of leaders of youth groups could be significantly modified through training. Lewin, Radke, and others (1947) conducted a number of experiments on group decision as a means of changing eating habits related to wartime food shortages. Lewin, French, and Marrow (Marrow, 1957) explored group decision procedures as a means of improving industrial production. In the 1940s, the rise of dictatorship in Europe, and the second World War, most Americans were worried about the fate of their country and the future of democracy. There was a general agreement that a better understanding was needed of how democratic organizations could be made to function more effectively. The field of Group Dynamics was thought to have significant potential for improving democracy. The health of a democratic society was seen as depending on the effectiveness of its component groups. Strengthening the family, the community, and the multitude of groups within our society was viewed as the primary means of ensuring the vitality of our democracy. The drive to strengthen democracy by using the scientific method to strengthen groups resulted in two movements within psychology. ○ The first was the scientific study of Group Dynamics (conducted studies of discussion, group productivity, attitude change and leadership, in strengthening democracy). ○ The second movement began deriving methods for training leaders and group members in the social skills they would need in order to promote the effective functioning of democratic groups. 2