IRP416 LECTURE NOTE: NOT FOR SALE

GROUP PROCESSESS
Definition and Types of Groups
Groups are an essential feature of any organization. Individuals seldom work in isolation from
others. In organizations, most work is done within groups and the way groups function has
implications for organizational performance. Groups where people get along, feel the desire to
contribute to the team, and are capable of coordinating their efforts may have high performance
levels, whereas groups characterized by extreme levels of conflict or hostility may have
demoralizing effects on members of the workforce.

Although there is no single accepted definition of a group, but an understanding of a group

requires an understanding of what constitutes a group. In other words an understanding of the
features of a group, helps in the understanding of a group. Let's look at the defining
characteristics of a group. A group has all of these following characteristics:
 two or more people in social interaction
 stable structure
 members share common goals
 members perceive themselves as being a group

Therefore, for the purpose of this course therefore, we define group as a collection of two or
more interacting individuals with a stable pattern of relationships between them who share
common goals and who perceive themselves as being a group

Types of groups
In organizations, we encounter different types of groups, they include formal and informal
groups.
Formal groups are created by an organization and are designed to direct members toward some
important organizational goal. In formal groups, the behaviors team members should engage in
are stipulated by and directed towards organizational goals. The six members of an airline flight
crew are a formal group. Types of informal groups include command groups and task groups
 Command groups are determined by the connections between individuals who are a
formal part of the organization
 Task groups are formed around some specific tasks

Informal groups develop naturally among an organization’s personnel without any direction
from the management of the organization within which they operate. For example, a few people
in the company who get together to play tennis on the weekend would be considered an informal
group. Types of informal groups include: Interest groups and Friendship groups

Diagram showing group types in an Organizational setting

1
Why People Form Groups?
Why do people join groups, and why do they feel so strongly about them?
People join groups to have a sense of belonging. Group membership provides an individual with
a feeling of identity and the chance to acquire role recognition and status within the group or
team. Consider the celebrations that follow a sports team’s winning championship. Fans stake
their own self-image on the performance of someone else. The winner’s supporters are elated,
and sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats declaring support for the team skyrocket. Fans
of the losing team feel dejected, even embarrassed. A feature of the importance and the
significance of group membership is the concept of social identity theory

Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of
their groups because their self-esteem gets tied into the group’s performance. When group does
well, you bask in reflected glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly,
you might feel bad about yourself, or you might even reject that part of your identity, like “fair
weather fans.” Social identities also help people reduce uncertainty about who they are and what
they should do.

2
People develop a lot of identities through the course of their lives. They might define themselves
in terms of the organization they work for, the city they live in, their profession, their religious
background, their ethnicity, or their gender. Social identities help us understand who we are and
where we fit in with other people, but they can also have a negative side as well. In-group
favoritism means we see members of our in-group as better than other people, and people not in
our group as all the same. This obviously paves the way for stereotyping.

Factors that affect the development of social identity

Several factors make the development of social identity possible, they include:
 Similarity: Not surprisingly, people who have the same values or
characteristics as other members of their organization have higher levels of group identification.
Demographic similarity can also lead to stronger identification for new hires, while those who
are demographically different may have a hard time identifying with the group as a whole.
 Distinctiveness: People are more likely to notice identities that show how
they are different from other groups. Respondents in one study identified more strongly with
those in their work group with whom they shared uncommon or rare demographic
characteristics. For example, veterinarians who work in veterinary medicine (where everyone is a
veterinarian) identify with their organization, and veterinarians in non-veterinary medicine fields
such as animal research or food inspection (where being a veterinarian is a more distinctive
characteristic) identify with their profession.
 Status: Because people use identities to define themselves and increase
self-esteem, it makes sense that they are most interested in linking themselves to high-status
groups. Graduates of prestigious universities will go out of their way to emphasize their links to
their alma maters and are likely to make donations. People are likely to not identify with a lower-
status organization and will be more likely to quit in order to leave that identity behind.

 Uncertainty Reduction: Membership in a group also helps some people understand

who they are and how they fit into the world. One study showed how the creation of a spin-off
company created questions about how employees should develop a unique identity that
corresponded more closely to what the division was becoming. Managers worked to define and
3
communicate an idealized identity for the new organization when it became clear employees
were confused.

6.3 Stages of Group Development

American organisational psychologist Bruce Turkman presented a robust model in 1965 that is
still widely used today. Based on his observations of group behaviour in a variety of settings, he
proposed a four-stage map of group evolution, also known as the forming-storming-norming-
performing model (Tuckman, 1965). Later he enhanced the model by adding a fifth and final
stage, the adjourning phase. Interestingly enough, just as an individual moves through
developmental stages such as childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, so does a group, although
in a much shorter period of time. According to this theory, in order to successfully facilitate a
group, the leader needs to move through various leadership styles over time. Generally, this is
accomplished by first being more directive, eventually serving as a coach, and later, once the
group is able to assume more power and responsibility for itself, shifting to a delegator. While
research has not confirmed that this is descriptive of how groups progress, knowing and
following these steps can help groups be more effective. For example, groups that do not go
through the storming phase earlier on will often return to this stage toward the end of the group
process to address unresolved issues. Another example of the validity of the group development
model involves groups that take the time to get to know each other socially in the forming stage.
When this occurs, groups tend to handle future challenges better because the individuals have an
understanding of each other’s needs.
Here, we describe the five-stage model.

The five-stage group development model characterizes groups as proceeding through the distinct
stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
i. Forming: This is the first stage and it is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty
about groups purpose, structure, and leadership. Members “test the waters” to determine what
types of behaviors are acceptable asking (for instance a member tries to know if he/she can
interrupt or leave when he/she wants to). There is a level of formality, some anxiety, and a
degree of guardedness as group members are not sure what is going to happen next . “Will I be
accepted? What will my role be? Who has the power here?”. These are some of the questions
participants think about during this stage of group formation. Because of the large amount of

4
uncertainty, members tend to be polite, conflict avoidant, and observant. They are trying to
figure out the “rules of the game” without being too vulnerable. At this point, they may also be
excited and optimistic about the task at hand, perhaps experiencing a level of pride at being
asked to join a particular group. This phase is usually short in duration, perhaps a meeting or two
and is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a group.

ii. Storming: Once group members feel sufficiently safe and included, they tend to enter
the storming phase is the second stage of group development. The storming stage is
characterized by intra-group conflict. Participants focus less on keeping their guards up as they
shed social facades, becoming more authentic and more argumentative. Group members begin to
explore their power and influence, and they often stake out their territory by differentiating
themselves from the other group members rather than seeking common ground. Discussions can
become heated as participants raise contending points of view and values, or argue over how
tasks should be done and who is assigned to them. It is no unusual for group members to become
defensive, competitive or jealous. They may even take sides or begin to form cliques within the
group. Questioning and resisting direction from the leader is also quite common. “Why should I
have to do this? Who designed this project in the first place? Why do I have to listen to you?”.
Although little seems to get accomplished at this stage, group members are becoming more
authentic as they express their deeper thoughts and feelings. What they are really exploring is
“Can I truly be me, have power and be accepted?”. During this chaotic stage, a great deal of
creative energy that was previously buried is released and available for use, but it takes skill to
move the group from storming to norming. In many cases, the group gets stuck in the storming
phase.

iii. Norming: At this stage of group development, close relationships develop and the group
demonstrates cohesiveness. There is now a strong sense of group identity and camaraderie.
Group members often feel elated at this point, and they are much more committed to each other
and the group’s goal. Feeling energised by knowing they can handle the “tough stuff”, group
members are now ready to get to work. Finding themselves more cohesive and cooperative,
participants find it easy to establish their own ground rules (or norms) and define their operating
procedures and goals. The group tends to make big decisions, while individuals or subgroups
handle smaller decisions. Hopefully, at this point the group is more respectful and open toward
each other and members ask each other for both help and feedback. They may even begin to
form friendships and share more personal information with each other. At this point, the leader
should become more of a facilitator by stepping back and letting the group assume more
responsibility for its goal. Since the group’s energy is running high, this is an ideal time to host a
social or team-building event. This norming stage is complete when the group structure solidifies

5
and the group has assimilated a common set of expectations of what defines correct member
behavior.

iv. Performing: Galvanized by a sense of shared vision and a feeling of unity, the group is
ready to go into high gear. Members are more interdependent, individuality and differences are
respected, and group members feel themselves to be part of a greater entity. At the performing
stage, participants are not only getting the work done, but they also pay greater attention to how
they are doing it. They ask questions like, “Do our operating procedures best support
productivity and quality assurance? Do we have suitable means for addressing differences that
arise so we can pre-empt destructive conflicts? Are we relating to and communicating with each
other in ways that enhance group dynamics and help us achieve our goals? How can I further
develop as a person to become more effective?”. By now, the group has matured, become more
competent, autonomous, and insightful. Group leaders can finally move into coaching roles and
help members grow in skill and leadership. For permanent work groups, performing is the last
stage in development but for project oriented and temporary groups like teams, task forces

v. Adjourning: Just as groups form, so do they end. For example, many groups or teams
formed in a business context are project oriented and therefore are temporary in nature.
Alternatively, a working group may dissolve due to an organisational restructuring. Just as when
we graduate from school or leave home for the first time, these endings can be bittersweet with
members feeling a combination of victory, grief, and insecurity about what is coming next. For
those who like routine and bond closely with group members, this transition can be particularly
challenging. Group leaders and members alike should be sensitive to handling these endings
respectfully and compassionately. An ideal way to close a group is to set aside time to debrief
(“How did it all go? What did we learn”), acknowledge each other, and celebrate a job well done.

Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed a group becomes more effective as it
progresses through the first four stages. Although this may be generally true, what makes a group
effective is actually more complex. First groups proceed through the stages of group
development at different rates. Those with a strong sense of purpose and strategy rapidly achieve
high performance and improve overtime, whereas those with less sense of purpose actually see
6
their performance worsen overtime. Similarly, groups that begin with a positive social focus
appear to achieve the “performing” stage more rapidly. Nor do groups always proceed clearly
from one stage to the next. Storming and performing can occur simultaneously, and groups can
even regress to previous stages.

6.4 Group Properties

 Group Property 1: Roles
Shakespeare said, “All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” Using
the same metaphor, all group members are actors, each playing a role. : Role is a set of
expected behavior pattern that characterizes a person occupying a given position in a social unit.
Our understanding of role behavior would be dramatically simplified if each of us could choose
one role and play it regularly and consistently. Instead, we are required to play a number of
diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. One of the task in understanding behavior is grasping the
role a person is currently playing. The concept of ‘role’ is important to the functioning of groups
and for an understanding of group processes and behavior. It helps to clarify the structure and to
define the pattern of complex relationships within the group.

The role, or roles, that the individual plays within the group is influenced by a combination
Of factors namely:
 situational factors, such as the requirements of the task, the style of leadership,
position in the communication network; and
 personal factors such as values, attitudes, motivation, ability and personality.
The role that a person plays in one work group may be quite different from the role that
person plays in other work groups. However, everyone within a group is expected to behave
in a particular manner and to fulfill certain role expectations.

ROLE CONCEPTS:
 Role Incumbent: This means a person holding a particular role
 Role Differentiation: The tendency for various specialized roles to emerge as groups
Develop
7
  Role Perception: This is our own view of how we are supposed to act in a given
situation. We get role perceptions from stimuli all around us – for example, friends, books, films,
television. Of course, the primary reason apprenticeship programs exist in many trades and
profession is to allow beginners to watch an expert so they can learn to act as they should
 Role Expectations: The behaviors expected of someone in a particular role. They are the
way others believe you should act in a given context. The role of a federal judge is viewed as
having propriety and dignity, while a football coach is seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring
to his players. In the workplace, Many role expectations are prescribed formally and indicate
what the person is expected to do, their duties and obligations. we look at role expectations
through the perspective of the psychological contract: an unwritten agreement that exists
between employees and employer. This agreement sets out mutual expectations: what
management expects from workers and vice versa. Management is expected to treat employees
justly, provide acceptable working conditions, clearly communicate what is fair day’s work, and
give feedback on how well am employee is doing. Employees are expected to respond by
demonstrating a good attitude, following directions, and showing loyalty to the organization.

 Role incongruence
An important feature of role relationship is the concept of ‘role incongruence’. This arises when
a member of staff is perceived as having a high and responsible position in one respect but a low
standing in another respect. Difficulties with role incongruence can arise from the nature of
groupings and formal relationships within the structure of the organisation. There are a number
of work-related relationships such as doctor and nurse, chef and waiter, senior manager and
personal assistant which can give rise to a potential imbalance of authority and responsibility.

Difficulties with role incongruence can also arise in line-staff relationships: for instance, a
relatively junior member of the HR department informing a senior departmental manager that a
certain proposed action is contrary to the policies of the organisation. Another example with staff
relationships is where a person establishes themselves in the role of ‘gatekeeper’ to the boss – for
instance, where a comparatively junior personal assistant passes on the manager’s instructions to
one of the manager’s more senior subordinates or where the personal assistant attempts to block
a more senior member of staff having access to the manager.
8
 Role Set:. In addition to the role relationships an individual has with members of their own
group – peers, superiors, subordinates – the individual will have a number of role-related
relationships with outsiders– for example, members of other work groups, trade union officials,
suppliers, consumers. This is the person’s role set. Role set therefore, comprises the range of
associations or contacts with whom the individual has meaningful interactions in connection with
the performance of their role

Representation of a possible role set in the work situation

HRM
Department Group Peers
Senior Manager Trade Union Officials

Friends

Customers

An
individual

Group Leader
Work Coleagues
In other groups

Administrative Services
Accounts Department Group Subordinates

 Role Conflict: When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to
comply with another, the result is role conflict. At the extreme, two or more role expectations are
mutually contradictory. Role conflict as a generic term can include:
■ role incompatibility
■ role ambiguity

9
■ role overload
■ role underload.
These are all problem areas associated with the creation of role expectations
Role incompatibility arises when a person faces a situation in which simultaneous different
or contradictory expectations create inconsistency. Compliance with one set of expectations
makes it difficult or impossible to comply with other expectations. The two role expectations are
in conflict. A typical example concerns the person ‘in the middle’, such as the supervisor or
section head, who faces opposing expectations from workers and from management. Another
example might be the situation of a manager who believes in a relaxed, participative style of
behaviour more in keeping with a Theory Y approach, but whose superior believes in a Theory X
approach and expects the manager to adopt a more formal and directive style of behaviour.
■ Role ambiguity occurs when there is lack of clarity as to the precise requirements of the role
and the person is unsure what to do. The person’s perception of their role may differ from the
expectations of others. This implies that insufficient information is available for the adequate
performance of the role. Role ambiguity may result from a lack of formally prescribed
expectations. It is likely to arise in large, diverse groups or at times of constant change.
Uncertainty often relates to such matters as the method of performing tasks, the extent of the
person’s authority and responsibility, standards of work, and the evaluation and appraisal of
performance.
■ Role overload is when a person faces too many separate roles or too great a variety of
expectations. The person is unable to meet satisfactorily all expectations and some must be
neglected in order to satisfy others. This leads to a conflict of priority. Some writers distinguish
between role overload and work overload. Role overload is seen in terms of the total role set and
implies that the person has too many separate roles to handle. Where there are too many
expectations of a single role – that is, a problem of quantity – this is work overload.
■ Role underload can arise when the prescribed role expectations fall short of the person’s
perception of their role. The person may feel their role is not demanding enough and that they
have the capacity to undertake a larger or more varied role, or an increased number
of roles. Role underload may arise, for example, when a new member of staff is first
appointed or from the initial effects of empowerment.

10
 Role stress
Role conflict can result in role stress. As discussed in Chapter 3, although a certain amount
of stress may arguably be seen as a good thing, and especially at managerial level helps to
bring out a high level of performance, it is also potentially very harmful. Stress is a source of
tension, frustration and dissatisfaction. It can lead to difficulties in communication and
interpersonal relationships and can affect morale, effectiveness at work and health.
 Common Roles :
 Task-Oriented Role: The activities of an individual in a group who, more than
anyone else, helps the group reach its goal
 Socio-emotional Role: The activities of an individual in a group who is
supportive and nurturant of other group members, and who helps them feel good
 Self-Oriented Role: The activities of an individual in a group who focuses on his
or her own good, often at the expense of others

 Group Property 2: Norms

All groups established norms – acceptable standards of behavior shared by their members that
express what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances. When agreed to and
accepted by the group, norms influence members’ behavior with a minimum of external controls.
Different groups, communities, and societies have different norms, but they all have them. We
encounter two types of norms which specify the dos and the don’ts in the organizational setting.
They are:
 Prescriptive norms: They dictate the behaviors that should be performed (the dos)
 Proscriptive norms: They dictate specific behaviors that should be avoided (the don’ts )

Norms can cover virtually any aspect of group behavior. Probably the most common is a
performing norm, providing explicit cues about how hard members should work, and what
level of output should be, how to get the job done, what level of tardiness is appropriate, and the
like. These norms are extremely powerful and are capable of significantly modifying a
performance prediction based solely on ability and level of personal motivation. Other norms
include appearance norms (dress code, unspoken rule about when to look busy), and social
arrangement norms (with whom to eat lunch, whether to form friendship on and off the job),
11
and resource allocation norms (assignment of difficult jobs, distribution of resources like pay
or equipment).

 Group Property 3: Status

Status is the relative social position or rank given to groups or group members by others and it
permeates every society. Even the smallest group will develop roles, rights and rituals to
differentiate its members. Status is a significant motivator and has major behavioral
consequences when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their status is and
what others perceive it to be. Two types of status exist within an organization, they are :
 Formal Status: Attempts to differentiate between the degrees of formal authority given
employees by an organization
 Informal Status: The prestige accorded individuals with certain characteristics that are
not formally recognized by the organization
Determinants of Status
According to status characteristics theory, status tends to derive from one of three sources:
i. The Power a Person Wields over Others. Because they likely control the
group’s resources, people who control the outcomes tend to be perceived as high
status.
ii. A Person’s ability to contribute to a Group’s Goal. People whose contributions
are critical to the group’s success tend to have high status
iii. An individual’s personal characteristics. Someone whose personal
characteristics are positively by the group (good looks, intelligence, money, or a
friendly personality) typically has higher status than someone with fewer valued
attributes.

 Group Property 4: Size

Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect depends on the
what dependent variables we look at. Smaller groups are faster at completing task than larger
ones, and individuals perform better in smaller groups. However, in problem solving, large
groups consistently get better marks than their smaller counterparts. Translating these results into
specific numbers is a bit more hazardous, but groups with a dozen or more members are good for
12
gaining diverse input. So if the goal is fact-finding, larger groups should be more effective.
Smaller groups of about seven members are better at doing something productive with that input.

 Group Property 5: Cohesiveness

This is the strength of group members’ desires to remain a part of their groups. It is also the
degree to which group members are attracted to each pther and motivated to stay in the group.
Groups differ in their cohesiveness. Some work groups are cohesive because the members have
spent a great deal of time together, or the group’s small size facilitates high interaction, or
external threats have brought members close together. The following things can be done to
enhance group cohesiveness:
Determinants of group cohesiveness
The following factors can enhance or diminish group cohesiveness:
 Group size: The size of a group affects the overall behavior of the group members. For
Instance, smaller group meet more often and spend more time together, this facilitates high
interaction thereby enhancing group cohesiveness.
 Proximity: Groups that spend enough time together tend to be cohesive
 Shared purpose: Groups are more cohesive when they share and agree with group goals
 Severity of initiation: when group make their membership attainment difficult, the status
of such groups increases as well as the groups cohesiveness
 External threat: External threats for instance, competitions with other groups enhance group
cohesiveness. This is because, groups share common fate and outcomes, therefore, they tend to
work together for the success of the group in such competitions.
 History of success: Groups that have achievements to refer to are more cohesive. This is
Because, members tie their self esteem to the success or failure of their groups.

Based on the factors explained to affect group’s cohesiveness above, the following can be done
to enhance group cohesiveness.
i. Make the group smaller
ii. Encourage agreement with group’s goals
iii. Increase the time members spend together
iv. Increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership
13
 v. Stimulate competition with other groups
vi. Give reward to the group rather than to individual members
vii. Physically isolate the group

 Group Property 6: Diversity

The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group’s membership. Group
diversity here means the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different
from, one another. A great deal of research is being done on how diversity influences group
performance. Some look at cultural diversity and some at racial, gender, and other
differences. Overall, studies identify both benefits and cost from group diversity.

Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure,
which often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. However, culturally and
demographically diverse groups may perform better overtime – if they can get over their
initial conflicts. Why might this be so? Surface level diversity – in observable characteristics
such as national origin, race, and gender – alerts people to possible deep-level diversity – in
underlying attitudes, values and opinions.

The impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short
term. However, if members can weather their difference, over time diversity may help them
be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to
be especially strong.

6.5 Groups Versus the Individual

Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group decisions
preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends on a number of factors.
Let’s begin by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

Strengths of Group Decision Making: Groups generate more complete information and
knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals, groups bring more input as
well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer increased diversity of views. This
14
opens up the opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives. Finally, groups lead
to increased acceptance of a solution. Group members who participated in making a decision
are more likely to enthusiastically support and encourage other to accept it.

Weaknesses of Group Decision-Making: Group decision-making are time consuming

because groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are conformity pressures.
The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can squash
any overt disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or more a few members.
If they are low and medium ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer.
Finally, group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it is
clear who is accountable for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any
single member is diluted.

Effectiveness and Efficiency: Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends
on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally more accurate than the
decision of the average individual in a group, but less accurate than the judgement of the
most accurate. In terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups
tend to be more effective. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final
solution achieves, the nod again goes to the group.

But we cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few exceptions,
group decision-making consumes more work hours than an individual tackling the same
problem alone. The exceptions tend to be the instances in which, to achieve comparable
quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time
reviewing files and talking to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then,
managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the
reduction in efficiency.

In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in the decision
making process and offer both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If group
members have diverse backgrounds, the alternatives generated should be more extensive and
15
the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a
group decision to support ad implement it. These pluses, however, can be more than offset by
the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflict they create, the pressures they
generate toward conformity. In some cases, therefore, we can expect individuals to make
better decisions than groups.

6.6 Groupthink and Group-shift

Two by-products of group decision making have the potential to affect a groups ability to
appraise alternative objectively and arrive at high-quality solutions.

Groupthink
The first called Groupthink relates to norms. It describes situations in which group pressures
for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular
views. Groupthink is a disease that attack many groups and can dramatically hinder their
performance.

Have you ever felt like speaking up in a meeting, a classroom, or an informal group but
decided against it? One reason may have been shyness. Or you may have been a victim of
groupthink, which occurs when the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of
alternative courses and the full expression of deviant, minority, or unpopular views. The
individual’s mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment deteriorate as a result of
group pressures. Examples of assumptions of groupthink are:
i. Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumption they have made. No
matter how strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, they behave
so as to reinforce them.
ii. Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about
any of the group’s shared views, or who question the validity of arguments supporting
the alternative favoured by the majority.
iii. Members who have doubts or differing points of view seek to avoid deviating
from what appears to be group’s consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and
even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts.
16
 iv. There is an illusion of unanimity. If someone doesn’t speak, it’s assumed he or
she is in full accord. Abstention becomes a “yes” vote.

Group-shift or Group Polarization

The second phenomenon is group-shift, which describes the group members tend to exaggerate
the initial positions they hold when discussing a given set of alternative and arriving at a
solution. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conservative shift, while in other
situations groups tend toward a risky shift.

We can view group polarization as a special case of groupthink. The group’s decision reflects the
dominant decision-making norm hat develops during discussion. Whether the shift in the group’s
decision is toward greater caution or more risk depends on the dominant pre-discussion norm.

6.7 Group Decision-Making Techniques

The following techniques are adopted by groups in decision-making:
1. Interacting Group: The most common form of group decision making takes place in
interacting groups. Members meet face to face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal
interaction to communicate. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated,
interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward
conformity of opinion. Brainstorming, the nominal group techniques, and electronic
meetings can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.
2. Brainstorming: This can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity
by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism. In a typical
brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader
states the problem in a clear manner so all participants understand. Members then
freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. To encourage
members to “think the unusual,” no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre
suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.
3. Nominal Group Technique: This technique restricts discussion or interpersonal
communication during the decision-making process, hence the term nominal. Group
members are all physically present, as in a traditional committee meeting, but they
17
 operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the group takes the
following steps:
 Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas on the
problem.
 After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion takes
place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.
 The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
 Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the idea. The idea with the
highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.
The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to meet formally
but does not restrict independent thinking, as does an interacting group. Research generally
shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.
4. Electronic Meeting: This is the most recent approach to group decision-making. It
blends the nominal group technique with sophisticated computer technology. It is called a
computer assisted group. Once the required technology is in place, the concept is simple.
Up to 50 people sit around a horseshoe-shaped table, empty except for a series of
networked laptops. Issues are presented to them, and they type their responses into their
computers. These individuals but anonymous comments, as well as aggregate votes, are
displayed on a projection screen. This technique allows people to be brutally honest
without penalty. And it is fast because chitchat is eliminated, discussions do not digress,
and many participants can talk at once without stepping on one another’s toes.

Each of the four group decision-making techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.
The choice depends on what criteria you want to emphasize and the cost benefit trade-off. For
example, interacting group is good for achieving commitment to solutions, brainstorming
develops group cohesiveness, the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for
generating a large number of ideas, and electronic meetings minimize social pressures and
conflict.

18