LECTURE NOTES

FOR GROUP PROCESS

Prepared and Submitted by:

CATHERENE BUSTRILLOS-PERIN, MA Psych

CBAS, PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT
 FLOW OF TOPICS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO GROUP PROCESS

A. Group Dynamics Defined
B. History of Group Dynamics

CHAPTER TWO: The Psychology of Groups

A. Definition of a Group
B. Different Types of Groups
C. Characteristics of a Group

CHAPTER THREE: GROUP DEVELOPMENT

A. Stages of Group Development
B. Factors Affecting Group Behavior
C. Turning Groups into Effective Teams
D. Group Cohesiveness

CHAPTER FOUR: MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE

A. Social Facilitation in Groups
B. Social Loafing
C. Teamwork
D. Group Decision Making
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO GROUP PROCESS

Learning Objectives:
1. Understand the concepts discussed in this chapter.
2. Appreciate the importance of group dynamics.
3. Familiarize oneself with the theorists behind the development of group dynamics.

Topics:
C. Group Dynamics Defined
D. History of Group Dynamics

I. WHAT IS GROUP DYNAMICS/GROUP PROCESS?

According to Donelson T. Forsyth, group dynamics/process deals with the attitudes and
behavioural patterns of a group. It is concerned with how groups are formed, structure
and the different processes involved in their functioning. Thus, it is concerned with the
interactions and forces operating between groups.

Group dynamics is relevant to groups of all kinds – both formal and informal, which is
why in an organizational setting, it is considered as an important area of study.

An individual with expertise in group process can be helpful in the role of facilitator. This
is because group process occurs not only for task accomplishment but also for other
different types of groups such as personal growth groups (e.g. encounter groups, study
groups, prayer groups).

As a facilitator, it is important to gain knowledge and understanding of the different

factors that contributes to group process. These include factors such as social status of
people within the group (i.e., senior or junior), among others. The facilitator should also
understand as well that he bears a huge influence on the group due to his or her role of
shaping the group's outcomes. This influence includes but is not limited to the leader's
sex, race, relative age, income, appearance, and personality, as well as organizational
structures and many other factors. Below are some of the aspects of group process that
a process consultant would look at to become effective:

Some Dimensions of Group Process

1. Patterns of communication and coordination

2. Patterns of influence
3. Patterns of dominance (e.g. who leads, who defers)
4. Balance of task focus vs. social focus
5. Level of group effectiveness
6. How conflict is handled

Application:

The applications of group dynamics is quite wide. Not only is it very useful in the
different industries, it is also used as a basis for group therapy such as family therapies
and other expressive therapies. Increasingly, because of the age of technology, online
internet use has made group dynamics become a particular interest because of online,
social interaction. The settings have changed quite interestingly.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

ACTIVITY No. 1A
TITLE: APPLICATION
Let me ask you this… How do you describe your own dynamics with a particular
online group/ social media group?

Part 1- Name your group and write a short introduction of its nature (group size,
purpose of the group’s existence, members etc.)
Part 2- Answer the question above.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

II. HISTORY OF GROUP DYNAMICS

Depending on individuals' current or prospective connections to a sociological group,

the term group dynamics implies that individual behaviors may differ. According to
Donelson Forsyth of University of Richmond, one of the most influential theorist of the
field of group dynamics, he defines Group dynamics as “the field of study within the
social sciences that focuses on the nature of groups.” A person’s reason to join groups
and his urge to belong and identify with the group and the group’s influence will
determine his attitudes. “Group dynamics may also include changes in behavior of a
person when he is represented before a group, the behavioral pattern of a person vis-a-
vis group,” according to Forsyth.

Group dynamics is the study of groups, and also a general term for group processes. In
psychology and sociology, a group is two or more individuals who are connected to
each other by social relationships (Forsyth, 2006).

A random collection of individuals differ from groups because groups interact and
influence the members within. These dynamic processes marks the difference between
clusters of random people vs. a group.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

ACTIVITY No. 1B
TITLE: KEY THEORISTS
Instructions: Make a Facebook Timeline (more recent ones at the top) of the key
theorists in the field of group process. “Draw” a portrait of the theorist (as if he’s the one
posting) and write his contribution to the development of the field. Below are the list of
names of the key theorists as well as an example of what you need to do.

1. Gustave Le Bon 9. Donelson Forsyth

2. Wilfred Trotter 10. William McDougall
3. Kurt Lewin 11. Sigmund Freud
4. William Schutz 12. Jacob L. Moreno
5. Wilfred Bion 13. Richard Hackman
6. Bruce Tuckman 14. Emile Durkheim
7. M. Scott Peck 15. Wilhelm Wundt
8. Edward Bernays

Sample:
I believe that crowds possessed a
'racial unconscious' with primitive,
aggressive, and antisocial instincts.
Anyone agrees with me? Lemme
hear your thoughts by posting it on
the comment section below guys! =)

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤
 CHAPTER TWO: The Psychology of Groups

Objectives:
1. Understand the concepts discussed in this chapter.
2. Appreciate the importance of groups.
3. Differentiate the types of groups and identify the types one belongs to.

Topics:
a. Definition of a Group
b. Different Types of Groups

The Psychology of Groups

According to saylor.org academy, “Psychologists study groups because nearly all human
activities—working, learning, worshiping, relaxing, playing, and even sleeping—occur in
groups. The lone individual who is cut off from all groups is a rarity. Most of us live out our
lives in groups, and these groups have a profound impact on our thoughts, feelings, and
actions. Many psychologists focus their attention on single individuals, but social
psychologists expand their analysis to include groups, organizations, communities, and even
cultures.” This is exactly the reason why there is need to capture our understanding of the
individual person within the group context. Each of us influences the group and the people
in the group changes each one of us as well.

Joining groups satisfies our need to belong, gain information and understanding through
social comparison, define our sense of self and social identity, and achieve goals that might
escape us if we worked alone. As the famous goes, “Two heads are better than one.”

By and large, then, the functions of groups can be seen as either:

Individual satisfaction from group membership or fulfillment of personal and group

goals or it could be also a mixture of the two. Let's take a look at each of those in turn:

A. Individual Satisfaction
Some of the individual needs that may be met by group membership are:

1. affiliation needs: proposed by McClelland, affiliation needs means the need to

have close contact with others as well as acceptance
2. social needs: partly affiliation needs, it means the confirmation through the
presence of others and sharing the same views as theirs
3. Self-esteem needs: means the need to have a positive opinion of ourselves.
This only happens when we feel accepted by others and knowing that they share
our views and values
4. control needs and need for achievement: means a person’s desire for
accomplishment, our need to perform and reach objectives that cannot be done
alone
5. safety needs: according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, this means reducing the
sense of powerlessness and anxiety which we may experience in ambiguous or
threatening situations

So then, what is A Group?

According to Donelson Forsyth, a Group refers to two or more people who share a
common meaning and evaluation of themselves and come together to achieve common
goals. In other words, a group is a collection of people who interact with one another;
accept rights and obligations as members and who share a common identity.

Characteristics of a Group:
Regardless of the size or the purpose, every group has similar characteristics:
(a) 2 or more persons (if it is one person, it is not a group)
(b) Formal social structure (the rules of the game are defined)
(c) Common fate (they will swim together)
(d) Common goals (the destiny is the same and emotionally connected)
(e) Face-to-face interaction (they will talk with each other)
(f) Interdependence (each one is complimentary to the other)
(g) Self-definition as group members (what one is who belongs to the group)
(h) Recognition by others (yes, you belong to the group).

Source: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/group-dynamics-its-characteristics-
stages-types-and-other-details-management/5363

In order to understand group dynamics better, psychologists came up with a way to

classify them based on certain characteristics as described below.
TABLE 1: CLASSIFICATION and CHARACTERISTICS OF BASIC TYPES OF GROUPS

Type Of Group Characteristics Examples

Primary Groups Small, Long-term groups characterized by face- Families, Close Friends,
to-face interaction and high levels of tight-knit peer groups,
cohesiveness, solidarity, and member gangs, elite military squads
identification
Secondary Groups Larger, less intimate. More goal-focused groups Congregations, work
typical of more complex societies groups, unions,
professional associations
Planned Groups Deliberately formed by the members themselves
or by an external authority, usually for some
specific purposes
a. Concocted Planned by individuals or authorities outside the Production lines, military
group units, task forces, crews,
professional sports teams
b. Founded Planned by one or more individuals who remain Study groups, small
within the group businesses, expeditions,
clubs, associations
Emergent Groups Groups that form spontaneously as individuals
find themselves repeatedly interacting with the
same subset of individuals over time and settings
a. Circumstantial Emergent, unplanned groups that arise when Waiting lines (queues),
external, situational forces set the stage for crowds, mobs, audiences,
people to join together, often only temporarily, bystanders
in a unified group
b. Self- Emerge when interacting individuals gradually Study groups, friendship
organizing align their activities in a cooperative system of cliques in a workplace,
interdependence regular patron at a bar
Intimacy Groups Small groups of moderate duration and Families, romantic couples,
permeability characterized by substantial levels close friends, street gangs
of interaction among the members, who value
membership in the group
Task Groups Work groups in employment settings and goal- Teams, Neighborhood
focused groups in a variety of non-employment associations
situations
Weak Associations Aggregations of individuals that form Crowds, Audiences,
spontaneously, last only a brief period of time, Clusters of Bystanders
and have a very permeable boundaries
Social Categories Aggregations of individuals who are similar to Women, Asian Americans,
 one another in terms of gender, ethnicity, Physicians, New Yorkers
religion or nationality
Source: Forsyth, D., (2007). Group Dynamics. Wadsworth by Thomson Learning Asia. Singapore

Another way to classify the groups is by way of formality – formal and informal. Formal
groups are established by an organization to achieve its goals. They are more task-
focused. On the other hand, informal groups form unexpectedly/ spontaneously.
Formal groups may take the form of command groups, task groups, and functional
groups.

Informal Group vs. Formal Group:

Formal Groups:
1. Command Groups:
If the group is specified based on the organizational chart and follows a superior-
subordinate pattern, it is classified as a command group.

2. Task Groups:
When people work together to achieve a common task, the group is classified as a task
group. The tasks are to be completed in a particular time which brings the members
together to achieve the tasks. Task groups are also commonly referred to as task forces.
The organization chooses the members and assigns the different goals and tasks to be
accomplished.

3. Functional Groups:
In contrast to the task group, a functional group is created by the organization to
accomplish specific goals within an unspecified time frame. They remain to exist even
after completing the current goals and objectives. Examples of functional groups would
be a marketing department, a customer service department, or an accounting
department.

Unlike formal groups, informal groups are formed naturally and in response to the
common interests and shared values of individuals. They are formed not particularly for
the accomplishment of organizational goals and have no time frame. The members of
informal groups are not appointed by the organization and the members can ask others
to join form time to time.

Informal Groups:
Informal groups can take the form of interest groups, friendship groups, or reference
groups.

1. Interest Group:
Members of interest groups may not be part of the same organizational department but
because they are bound together by common interest, it can last quite a long time. The
goals and objectives of group interests are specific to the group and may not necessarily
be parallel to an organization’s objectives. An example of an interest group would be
students who come together to form a study group for a specific class.

2. Friendship Groups:
Friendship groups are a very common type of group. These groups are formed by
members who have similar social activities, share the same political beliefs and religious
values. Members enjoy spending their time together quite often. For example, a group
of employees who form a friendship group may have a yoga group.
 3. Reference Groups:
A reference group is a group that is used for self-evaluation. It is used primarily to seek
social validation and social comparison. According to Forsyth, D. (2006), Social validation
allows individuals to justify their attitudes and values while social comparison helps
individuals evaluate their own actions by comparing themselves to others. Examples of
this group type are Family, friends, and religious affiliations.

CHARACTERISTICS OF INFORMAL GROUPS:

1. Creation:
It springs up spontaneously.

2. Satisfaction of Needs:
Certain needs such as social and psychological needs of people usually drives them to
create informal groups.

3. Voluntary Membership:
Nobody is forced to join an informal organization.

4. Multi-Group Membership:
A member of an informal group can also be a member of another group. There is no
exclusivity of membership.

5. Systems and Processes:

Members of informal groups establish and follow their own norms, leadership,
communication, etc. to remain cohesive.
6. Leadership:
A leader in informal groups are selected by the members. He is seen as capable of
realizing the group’s goals. Once he is seen as doing otherwise, he is replaced with a
new leader.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

ACTIVITY No. 2
On a ONE WHOLE SHEET OF INTERMEDIATE PAPER, Write an Essay discussing the
Benefits and the Limitations of Informal Groups. Make sure to number your
individual points.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

One of the important factors that determines the success and failure of organizations is
how decision making is done. Group decision-making should be distinguished from the
concepts of teams, teamwork, and self-managed teams. Although groups and teams are
often used interchangeably, scholars differentiate between the two. The basis for the
distinction is that teams act more collectively and achieve greater synergy of effort.
Katzenback and Smith (2005) spell out specific differences between decision making
groups and teams:

GROUP vs. TEAMS

1. The group has a definite leader, but the team has shared leadership roles
2. Members of a group have individual accountability; the team has both individual
and collective accountability.
3. The group measures effectiveness indirectly, but the team measures performance
directly through their collective work product.
4. The group discusses, decides, and delegates, but the team discusses, decides, and
does real work.

Other Types of Groups:

What do the terms In-Group and Out-Group mean?

In-Group - The term in-group is another name for the majority. The members of the in-
group feel they are different and better than those people who they feel prejudiced
against. Members of the in-group believe in certain stereotypes. They are also
responsible for discriminating against people who are different from them.

Out-Group - The term out-group refers to those people in the minority. The out-group
is perceived as different, and sometimes, abnormal than those of the in-group.
Members of the out-group fall to become the major victims of social -isms and
discrimination brought about by the prejudice and stereotyping behaviors of the
members of the in-group.

An example of In-Group versus Out-Group is the famous battle between heterosexuals

versus homosexuals. Heterosexuals perceive themselves as "normal" and are the
majority, thus, the in-group. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are seen as “abnormal”
and unacceptable, which makes them members of the out-group.

CHAPTER THREE: GROUP DEVELOPMENT

Objectives:
1. Understand the concepts discussed in this chapter.
2. Appreciate the importance of group norms and cohesiveness.
3. Describe how groups change over time.
4. Demonstrate behaviors reflecting the different roles as a group member

Topics:
a. Stages of Group Development
b. Factors Affecting Group Behavior
c. Turning Groups into Effective Teams
d. Group Roles

PROCESS/STAGES OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT:

Like everything else, groups also experience change. Groups are said to develop over
time. Depending on the purpose of its existence, groups go through developmental
stages. Group Development is a dynamic process. How do groups evolve? There is a
process of five stages through which groups pass through. The process includes the five
stages: forming, storming, forming, performing, and adjourning. These stages were
proposed by Bruce Tuckman.
 A. Forming:
The first stage in the life of a group is concerned with formation. This stage is
characterized by members seeking either a work assignment (in a formal group) or other
benefit, like status, affiliation, power, etc. (in an informal group). Members at this stage
either become actively involved and engaged or show apathy and disinterest in the
group.

B. Storming:
The second stage, storming, is marked by the formation of dyads and triads. Members
in the group tend to seek out familiar or individuals similar to them in values, attitudes
and characteristics and begin a deeper sharing of self. Tensions tend to surface because
of the increased attention placed upon the smaller groups/ dyads and triads. Pairing
becomes a common phenomenon. Conflict arises due to the tensions on who controls
the groups.

C. Norming:
The third stage of group development shows a more serious concern on the group’s
task performance. The smaller groups now seek out other members in the group. Norms
are slowly established for task performance.

Members begin to take greater responsibility for their own group. Once this stage is
complete, a hierarchy of leadership starts to emerge and is clearly understood by the
members. The norming stage is completed when there is a strong sense of group
structure and a sense of group identity and camaraderie.

D. Performing:
When the members of the group see themselves as part of the group and involves
themselves in performing the tasks at hand, the stage is called performing stage. At this
state, the group has become fully functional. Group norms, which were previously
established and learned by the members, are followed and collective pressure is exerted
to ensure effectiveness of the group.

E. Adjourning:
When groups are temporarily formed, such as project teams, they reach the final stage-
adjourning. The group decides to separate. Mixed emotions appear while some
members feel happy at the end of their group, others may be saddened over its
disappearance.

Other groups however, don’t necessarily finish with adjourning but rather continues on
with the cycle. Some stages may even occur simultaneously.
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

ACTIVITY No. 3A
Using INTERMEDIATE PAPER, create a short story that presents a group
undergoing the different stages of development. It’s time to let out the storyteller
in you =)

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

  THEORY OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT

           
    PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4
           
Negative- Interpersonal Creative
1 Descriptive Terms Pseudo Group Aggressive Functions Encounter
First
significant
Defining Minimal Group feelings growing open and direct
2 Characteristics Development emerge cohesiveness communication
sitting
together;
Accompanying "milling "Testing formation of person to person
3 Behavior around" Waters" cliques confrontation
personal
exploration
accompanied
Emotions/ Feelings Resistance to by such feeling good
4 with the Self Self-Exploration Negative emotion about the self
Positive and
Constructive
No sense of Supportive; Positive/
Emotions/ Feelings "oneness" or Formation of Negative
5 with the Group "groupness" Aggressive Cliques Feedback
6 Feelings towards He is the center He is seen He is Minimal
Facilitator of attention but negatively regarded Leadership
is regarded positively Dependence
with hostility
because he
does not
provide
 structure
frustration
because
they do not
function as
a group;
beginning of
trust
because of
realization
that group functions
Dissatisfaction; negative as a real group
they want to feelings working
Feelings of the move to the cannot hurt beginning of together despite
7 Group within Phase next phase them teamwork their differences
Between Individuals/ Within the
8 Level of Interaction Personal Individuals Groups Group
9 Pace of Movement Feelings may be related to the degree of familiarity among group
    members, as well as their homogeneity.
    In general, a group that is more familiar with each other, are more
    homogenous, would tend to move more rapidly towards phases 3
    and 4
10 Facilitator The facilitator’s techniques and interventions depend very much
    on what happens at a particular time during the development of
    the group.
    As a charge agent, the facilitator must be both sensitive to the
    need of others, of the group as well as capable of functioning as a
    well-integrated individual able to answer to the needs of the
    group in a manner that would best serve their interests.
    Understanding the characteristics of each phase, as well as the
    needs if the group will allow him to choose the most appropriate
    and effective interventions.

FACTORS AFFECTING GROUP BEHAVIOUR:

Kurt Lewin, the father of Group Dynamics once said that the success or failure of a
group depends upon so many factors. Such factors include (a) Group member
resources, (b) structure (group size, group roles, group norms, and group cohesiveness),
(c) group processes (the communication, group decision making processes, power
dynamics, conflicting interactions, etc.) and (d) group tasks (complexity and
interdependence).
1. Group Member Resources:
This refers to the members’ knowledge, abilities, skills; and personality characteristics
(sociability, self- reliance, and independence).

2. Group Structure:
Group Size: Group size can vary from 2 people to a very large number of people. Small
groups of two to ten are thought to be more effective because each member has ample
opportunity to take part and engage actively in the group. Large groups may waste time
by deciding on processes and trying to decide who should participate next.
Group Roles: Roles are always predetermined and assigned to members in formal
groups. Each role shall have attached specific responsibilities and duties that needs to
be fulfilled. Emergent roles however sometimes appear in order to meet the needs of
the group.

Group roles are classified as functional roles (work/task roles, social/maintenance roles)
and dysfunctional or blocking roles.

Work roles are task-oriented activities to accomplish the group goals while Maintenance
roles are social-emotional activities that help members maintain their involvement in the
group and develop their commitment. Both functional roles help in the success of the
group.

A. Functional Roles of Members

Task Roles

1. Initiator/Contributor Contributes ideas and suggestions; proposes solutions and

decisions; proposes new ideas or states old ideas in a novel
fashion.
2. Information Seeker Asks for clarification of comments in terms of their factual
adequacy; asks for information or facts relevant to the
problem; suggests information is needed before making
decisions.
3. Information Giver Offers facts or generalizations that may relate to the group’s
task.
4. Opinion Seeker Asks for clarification of opinions made by other members of
the group and asks how people in the group feel.
5. Opinion Giver States beliefs or opinions having to do with suggestions
made; indicates what the group’s attitude should be.
6. Elaborator/Clarifier Elaborates ideas and other contributions; offers rationales for
suggestions; tries to deduce how an idea or suggestion
would work if adopted by the group.
7. Coordinator Clarifies the relationships among information, opinions, and
ideas or suggests an integration of the information, opinions,
and ideas of subgroups.
8. Diagnostician Indicates what the problems are.
9. Orienter/Summarizer Summarizes what has taken place; points out departures
from agreed-on goals; tries to bring the group back to the
central issues; raises questions about the direction in which
the group is heading.
10. Energizer Prods the group to action.
11. Procedure Developer Handles routine tasks such as seating arrangements,
obtaining equipment, and handing out pertinent papers.
12. Secretary Keeps notes on the group’s progress.
13. Evaluator/Critic Constructively analyzes the group’s accomplishments
according to some set of standards; checks to see that
consensus has been reached.

B. Social/ Maintenance Roles

1. Supporter/Encourager Praises, agrees with, and accepts the contributions of others;

offers warmth, solidarity, and recognition.
2. Harmonizer Reconciles disagreements; mediates differences; reduces
tensions by giving group members a chance to explore their
differences.
3. Tension Reliever Jokes or in some other way reduces the formality of the
situation; relaxes the group members.
4. Conciliator Offers new options when his or her own ideas are involved in
a conflict; disciplines to admit errors so as to maintain group
cohesion.
5. Gatekeeper Keeps communication channels open; encourages and
facilitates interaction from those members who are usually
silent.
6. Feeling Expresser Makes explicit the feelings, moods, and relationships in the
group; shares own feelings with others.
7. Follower Goes along with the movement of the group passively,
accepting the ideas of others sometimes serving as an
audience.
Dysfunctional Roles

1. Blocker Interferes with progress by rejecting ideas or taking a

negative stand on any and all issues; refuses to cooperate.
2. Aggressor Struggles for status by deflating the status of others; boasts;
criticizes.
3. Deserter Withdraws in some way; remains indifferent, aloof, and
sometimes formal; daydreams; wanders from the subject;
engages in irrelevant side conversations.
4. Dominator Interrupts and embarks on long monologues; is authoritative;
tries to monopolize the group’s time.
5. Recognition Seeker Attempts to gain attention in an exaggerated manner;
usually boasts about past accomplishments; relates irrelevant
personal experiences, usually in an attempt to gain
sympathy.
6. Playboy Displays a lack of involvement in the group through
inappropriate humor, horseplay, or cynicism.
Source: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/group-dynamics-its-characteristics-
stages-types-and-other-details-management/5363

Blocking roles or dysfunctional roles are activities that disrupt the group and usually
leads to poor performance. Blockers will stubbornly resist the group’s ideas, disagree
with group members for personal reasons, and will have hidden agendas.

According to Donelson Forsyth (2006), “Role conflicts arise when there is ambiguity
(confusion about delegation and no specific job descriptions) between the sent role and
the received role which leads to frustration and dissatisfaction, ultimately leading to
turnover; inconsistency between the perceived role and role behaviour (conflict between
work roles and family roles); and conflicting demands from different sources while
performing the task.”

Group Norms:
When people get together to form groups, they undergo a stage where they identify
and eventually, formalize the norms of the group. These norms will serve as basis on
what behaviors are acceptable and which are not to the group. These norms are shared
by the members and if they want to stay as a member, they will try to adhere to these
norms. The norms that members create will ensure their group survival, makes
behaviour predictable and will reflect the values shared by the group. The norms are a
reflection of the level of commitment, motivation, and performance of the members of
the group.

Group norms only becomes valid if it shared, accepted and understood by all. The
majority of the members determines the appropriate behaviour, although sometimes,
they also violate it from time to time. Norms however change as well. This change
occurs when majority of the members do not follow it anymore and will eventually
change. It will no longer become the standards of behaviour to be followed. When
members do not conform to the norms, they will be subjected to exclusion and
sometimes, will be asked to leave the group.

Group Cohesiveness:
Cohesiveness refers to the feeling of unity and closeness to the group. A lot of factors
affect the level of cohesion the group experiences. These include agreement on group
goals, frequency of interaction, personal attractiveness, inter-group competition,
favourable evaluation, etc.

When members feel it to be too difficult to obtain group membership, the more
cohesive the group will be. Additionally, groups increase their cohesiveness when
members feel there is an intense competition with other groups or there is a threat to
the group’s survival. Smaller groups and those who spend their time together also tend
to be more cohesive.

Group cohesion results in a wide array of positive effects including worker satisfaction,
low turnover and absenteeism, and in turn, higher productivity. However, if group goals
are not aligned to organizational goals, highly cohesive groups may be detrimental to
organizational performance.

Highly cohesive groups may also be more vulnerable to groupthink. According to

Forsyth, D. (2006), groupthink occurs when members of a group exert pressure on each
other to come to a consensus in decision making. Furthermore, he said that groupthink
results in careless judgments, unrealistic appraisals of alternative courses of action, and
a lack of reality testing. When the tasks to be performed requires a different set of skills,
experience, and decision making, groups typically outperform individuals.
Source: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/group-dynamics-its-characteristics-
stages-types-and-other-details-management/5363

3. Group Processes:
Group decision-making is far more superior since groups can come up with more
information and knowledge and can produce different alternatives

Turning Groups into Effective Teams:

All teams are groups but not all groups are teams.

Forming teams are more difficult than it looks. It takes time for its members to learn
how to work together and develop a good relationship with each other. Being part of a
team increases one’s view of the world. It requires the person to develop a deep
understanding of the objectives and aims to be fulfilled.

An organization needs to work in a team-oriented environment in order for it to

succeed. Each member of the team has to make his/her contribution in order to achieve
the results needed. Teams are better than groups due to more flexibility and their
tendency to be more responsive to dynamic environment.

In order for the team members to develop a relationship and feel that they are part of a
team, conducting team-building activities will help. It increases intra-group and inter-
group effectiveness among the members.

Teams can be of four types:

a. problem-solving teams (only making suggestion)
b. self-managed, teams (operate without a manager)
c. cross-functional teams (a group of experts from different specialties)
d. virtual team (members collaborate online)

Here is a table to show you the difference between a GROUP and a TEAM:
Eight Cs for Team Building:
Here’s a figure that shows how Productivity is achieved when working in teams.

Successful team building, that creates effective, focused work teams, requires
attention to each of the following:

1. Clear Expectations:
The managers must clearly tell the team members of the expected performance and the
team members must understand the reason for its creation. For it the organization must
support the team with resources of people, time and money.

2. Commitment:
Team members must participate in the team, feel that the team mission is important,
and show commitment to accomplishing the team mission and expected outcomes.
Commitment will come if team members perceive their service as valuable to the
organization and to their own careers.
3. Competence:
Team members must have the knowledge, skill and capabilities, the resources, strategies
and support needed to accomplish its mission to address the issues for which the team
was formed.

4. Control:
The team must have not only enough freedom and empowerment to feel the ownership
necessary to accomplish its charter, but also the accountability. There has to be a
defined review process.

5. Collaboration:
The team should understand group processes and work effectively and cooperatively
with other members of the team. For it they have to understand the roles and
responsibilities of team members, team leaders, and team recorders.

6. Communication:
To make team members clear about the priority of their tasks, and receive regular
feedback, team members must clearly and honestly with each other. Diverse opinions be
welcome and conflicts be taken up positively.

7. Creativity:
The team should value creative thinking, unique solutions, and new ideas; and reward
members who take reasonable risks to make improvements. If necessary, it should
provide the training, education, access to books and films, and field trips to stimulate
new thinking.

The creative development of new products, new technologies, new services, or new
organizational structures is possible because teams may have variety of skills needed for
successful innovation.

Team members can uncover each other’s flaws and balance each other’s strengths and
weaknesses. Managers should empower the team and make it accountable for the
innovation process.

8. Coordination:
Teams should understand the concept of internal customer to whom they provide a
product or a service. Team efforts need to be coordinated by a central leadership team
that assists the groups to obtain what they need for success.
The cross- functional and multi-department teams must work together effectively. The
organization should develop a customer-focused and process-focused orientation and
move away from traditional departmental thinking.

Spend time and attention on each of these eight tips to ensure your work teams
contribute most effectively to your business success. Your team members would love
you, your business will see new heights, and empowered people will “own” and be
responsible to their work processes.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

ACTIVITY No. 3B
Using INTERMEDIATE PAPER, discuss how the Eight Cs for Team Building can
improve organizational productivity in working teams.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

Factors whether a group works well or not depends on a whole variety of different
factors. The three classes of variables identified by Davis are:

A. Person variables - abilities, personality traits, motives

B. Environmental variables - the effects of the immediate location and larger
organization, community, social context and group size
C. Task variables - how easy or difficult a task is

Davis (1969), cited in Burton and Dimbleby (1988)

A. Person variables
Qualities of a person that will either enhance or limit the cohesiveness of the group
includes ones personality traits, motives and abilities. If in a group the members are
more extraverted while some members is introverted, there will most likely be lesser
cohesiveness.

B. Environmental variables
Group size is an important factor in the development of group cohesion. Moreover, the
physical space that the group also utilizes and claims will affect cohesion. For example, a
church group will less likely expect attendance from its members if a church building is
not in place. The physical location of the members will matter as well.
As regards optimum group size, according to Fukuyama (1999 : 213) suggests that it
cannot reasonably exceed fifty to one hundred members, since the various biological
mechanisms for detecting 'free-riders' in groups were developed in our evolutionary
past in hunter-gatherer societies, which must have been around that size.

Also referred to by Peters is the duration of the group. According to him, a group is
likely to be more successful in realizing its goals if it is of limited duration.

C. Task variables
It refers to factors associated with the tasks or goals that the group is trying to achieve.
Tasks that are too difficult to perform will lead the members to leave the group. On the
other hand, tasks that are too easy for the members to do will eventually in the long run,
become too boring for the members, and will lead them to leave as well.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

ACTIVITY No. 3C
Choose a story where the variables of group cohesion can be used to explain the
outcome of the story. Discuss in details. Make sure to attach a copy of the
complete story for me to review as well.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤

12 Factors Influencing Group Cohesiveness

In an article written by Khushboo Sinha, he discussed that there are 12 top factors that
influences how cohesive groups can be. Try to see if you can relate…

(1) Similarities of Attitudes and Values

(2) Size of the Group
(3) Time
(4) Location
(5) Status
(6) Difficulty in Entry
(7) Inter Dependency
(8) Management Behaviour
(9) Member Turnover
(10) Threat
(11) Previous Successes and Shared Goals
(12) Cooperation

1. Similarities of Attitudes and Values:

One of the strongest sources of group cohesiveness is the similarity in attitudes and
values among group members. We enjoy the company of people who hold similar
opinions, morals, beliefs and code of conduct, because the person who shares the same
opinions as we do provide us with a kind of social validation for our beliefs. He provides
us with a feeling that we are right. If someone disagrees with us, this might make us
scared that we are wrong.

Similarity of interest is very important when the group’s primary goal is that of creating
a friendly interpersonal climate. This factor may not be so important when the goal is
task oriented. For example, if the army has to win a strategic battle, then the task
accomplishment becomes the cohesive factor rather than the similarity of attitudes and
values because the unit may consist of soldiers from different parts of the country who
may not have much in common.

2. Size of the Group:

Small groups are effective. The larger the size of the group, the less cohesive the group
is.

The main reasons for this are as explained below:

(i) When the group is small, its members have constant face to face contacts. Thus, there
will be high degree of interaction and communication with each other. In large groups,
the possibility of interaction among members is less.

(ii) As group size increases, it becomes more difficult to get the group to agree on
common goals and activities and expression of disagreement and dissatisfaction
increases.

(iii) Another problem with large size groups is that there is a likelihood of forming small
groups within the large groups. This would result in the dilution of the common group
goal thus increasing the extent of power politics play. This tends to decrease the overall
cohesiveness.

(iv) Studies have shown that if all the members of the group are of the same sex, then
small groups have better cohesion than large ones. But when the groups were made up
of both males and females, the large groups have better cohesion.

3. Time:
It is quite natural that the more time people spend with one another, the more they will
get to know each other and more tendency there will be to get closer to each other,
thus, strengthening the degree of cohesiveness. In a workplace, people who work near
each other are more likely to spend more time together. In routine life, you will spend
more time with only those whom you like personally and want to continue interacting
with them.

4. Location:
Location of the group plays an important role in determining the cohesiveness. Where
members of a group are located close together separated from other groups, they will
develop greater cohesiveness because of constant face to face interaction. Where there
is no dividing line between one group and another, cohesion is more difficult to achieve
because a chain of interactions develops.

5. Status:
Status of a group determines the degree of group cohesiveness to a great extent. A high
status group receives greater loyalty from its members which in turn makes the group
stronger. That is why people are generally more loyal to high status groups.

6. Difficulty in Entry:
The more difficult it is to get in a group, the more cohesive that group becomes. The
reasons is that in exclusive and elite groups the members are selected on the basis of
certain characteristics and these characteristics being common to all add to the degree
of liking and attraction towards each other. The more exclusive the group the more is
the closeness among members. As the groups are not easy to join, the selected
members feel a sense of pride and accomplishment.

7. Inter Dependency:
When each member of a group has independent activities, the cohesiveness among the
members of such group will be less as compared to the group whose members are
doing the operations which are dependent upon each other, thus, mutual dependency
leads to greater cohesiveness.

8. Management Behaviour:
The behaviour of management has a direct influence on the degree of cohesiveness that
exists within a group. The manager can make close relations difficult by creating
unhealthy competition among employees. On the other hand, he can build solidarity by
rewarding cooperative behaviour. The cohesive group can help attain the group goals
more effectively, if the group members are properly inspired by the manager.

9. Member Turnover:
To make a group more cohesive, there is need for some degree of stable relationships
among members. The higher the degree of member turnover, the less cohesive a group
becomes, because the more frequently members leave a particular group the more time
a new member takes to get attached to the group and the more time the old member
takes to get attached to the new group.

10. Threat: Threat is a very powerful force which unifies the group, particularly
when it come from:
(i) Outside the group

(ii) Cooperation can help over-some the threat and

(iii) There is little or no chance for escape.

For example, the management threats frequently bring together an otherwise disarrayed
union. Thus, the threatening party will have a less chance of success when faced with a
unified force.

11. Previous Successes and Shared Goals:

When a group achieves a meaningful goal, the cohesiveness of the group increases
because the success is shared by all the members and each one feels responsible for the
achievement. , If the group agrees on the purpose and direction of its activities, this
serves to bind the group together. For this reason, successful companies find it easy to
hire new talented employees.
12. Cooperation:
Sometimes the general atmosphere of group enhances cohesiveness. The overall
atmosphere depends among other things on leadership.

CHAPTER FOUR: MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE

Learning Objectives:
1. Understand the concepts discussed in this chapter.
2. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making.
3. Realize the key ingredients to transforming a group into an effective team.
4. List and discuss the factors that facilitate and impede group performance and
decision making.

Topics:
 E. Social Facilitation in Groups
F. Social Loafing
G. Teamwork
H. Group Decision Making

Groups usually exist for a reason. In groups, we solve problems, create products, create
standards, communicate knowledge, have fun, perform arts, create institutions, and even
ensure our safety from attacks by other groups. But do groups always outperform
individuals? And do groups achieve better goals set by themselves?

Where groups have a fairly definite aim to achieve something within a larger organization,
then, according to Peters (1995: 127), they are likely to be more effective if they can set their
own goals than if targets are imposed on them.

Social Facilitation in Groups

Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Norman Triplett
(1898) examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology. While
watching bicycle races, Triplett noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against
other racers than when they raced alone against the clock. To determine if the presence of
others leads to the psychological stimulation that enhances performance, he arranged for
40 children to play a game that involved turning a small reel as quickly as possible (see
Figure 1). When he measured how quickly they turned the reel, he confirmed that children
performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs compared to when they
played alone (see Stroebe, 2012; Strube, 2005).

Triplett succeeded in sparking interest in a phenomenon now known as social facilitation:

the enhancement of an individual’s performance when that person works in the presence of
other people. However, it remained for Robert Zajonc (1965) to specify when social
facilitation does and does not occur. After reviewing prior research, Zajonc noted that the
facilitating effects of an audience usually only occur when the task requires the person to
perform dominant responses, i.e., ones that are well-learned or based on instinctive
behaviors. If the task requires non-dominant responses, i.e., novel, complicated, or untried
behaviors that the organism has never performed before or has performed only
infrequently, then the presence of others inhibits performance. Hence, students write poorer
quality essays on complex philosophical questions when they labor in a group rather than
alone (Allport, 1924), but they make fewer mistakes in solving simple, low-level
multiplication problems with an audience or a co-actor than when they work in isolation
(Dashiell, 1930).
Social facilitation, then, depends on the task: other people facilitate performance when the
task is so simple that it requires only dominant responses, but others interfere when the task
requires non-dominant responses. However, a number of psychological processes combine
to influence when social facilitation, not social interference, occurs. Studies of the challenge-
threat response and brain imaging, for example, confirm that we respond physiologically
and neurologically to the presence of others (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon,
1999). Other people also can trigger evaluation apprehension,  particularly when we feel that
our individual performance will be known to others, and those others might judge it
negatively (Bond, Atoum, & VanLeeuwen, 1996). The presence of other people can also
cause perturbations in our capacity to concentrate on and process information (Harkins,
2006). Distractions due to the presence of other people have been shown to improve
performance on certain tasks, such as the Stroop task, but undermine performance on more
cognitively demanding tasks (Huguet, Galvaing, Monteil, & Dumas, 1999).

Social Loafing
Groups usually outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get
less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing
a tug-of-war game against a group will lose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport
your household belongings faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, “Many
hands make light the work” (Littlepage, 1991; Steiner, 1972).

Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. Studies of social facilitation confirmed the

positive motivational benefits of working with other people on well-practiced tasks in which
each member’s contribution to the collective enterprise can be identified and evaluated. But
what happens when tasks require a truly collective effort? First, when people work together
they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum
level of efficiency—but they rarely do (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Three people in a tug-of-war
competition, for example, invariably pull and pause at slightly different times, so their efforts
are uncoordinated. The result is coordination loss: the three-person group is stronger than a
single person, but not three times as strong. Second, people just don’t exert as much effort
when working on a collective endeavour, nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying
to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display social loafing (Latané,
1981).

Bibb Latané, Kip Williams, and Stephen Harkins (1979) examined both coordination losses
and social loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of
varying sizes. The students cheered alone or in 2- or 6-person groups, or they were lead to
believe they were in 2- or 6-person groups (those in the “pseudo-groups” wore blindfolds
and headsets that played masking sound). As Figure 2 indicates, groups generated more
noise than solitary subjects, but the productivity dropped as the groups became larger in
size. In dyads, each subject worked at only 66% of capacity, and in 6-person groups at 36%.
Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups. If subjects
thought that one other person was shouting with them, they shouted 82% as intensely, and
if they thought five other people were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity.
These loses in productivity were not due to coordination problems; this decline in
production could be attributed only to a reduction in effort—to social loafing (Latané et al.,
1979, Experiment 2).

Teamwork
Social loafing is no rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared
goals, they tend to “take it easy” if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work
(George, 1992). People who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group
brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people
who are generating new ideas individually (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Students assigned group
projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each member’s
contributions: Some people just don’t work as much as they should to help the group reach
its learning goals (Neu, 2012). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks
expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf
(Karau & Williams, 1993).

Groups can, however, overcome this impediment to performance through teamwork. A

group may include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their
individual abilities and energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be
set, work patterns structured, and a sense of group identity developed. Individual members
must learn how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal
relations need to be identified and resolved (Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009).

Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental
representation of the task and group unity. Teams improve their performance over time as
they develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting. Some
semblance of this shared mental model is present nearly from its inception, but as the team
practices, differences among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation
and their team diminish as a consensus becomes implicitly accepted (Tindale, Stawiski, &
Jacobs, 2008).

Effective teams are also, in most cases, cohesive groups (Dion, 2000). Group cohesion is the
integrity, solidarity, social integration, or unity of a group. In most cases, members of
cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are united in their pursuit of
collective, group-level goals. Members tend to enjoy their groups more when they are
cohesive, and cohesive groups usually outperform ones that lack cohesion.

This cohesion-performance relationship, however, is a complex one. Meta-analytic studies

suggest that cohesion improves teamwork among members, but that performance quality
influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994;
Mullen, Driskell, & Salas, 1998; see Figure 3). Cohesive groups also can be spectacularly
unproductive if the group’s norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity
(Seashore, 1954).

Making Decisions in Groups

Groups are particularly useful when it comes to making a decision, for groups can draw on
more resources than can a lone individual. A single individual may know a great deal about
a problem and possible solutions, but his or her information is far surpassed by the
combined knowledge of a group. Groups not only generate more ideas and possible
solutions by discussing the problem, but they can also more objectively evaluate the
options that they generate during discussion. Before accepting a solution, a group may
require that a certain number of people favor it, or that it meets some other standard of
acceptability. People generally feel that a group’s decision will be superior to an individual’s
decision.

Groups, however, do not always make good decisions. Juries sometimes render verdicts that
run counter to the evidence presented. Community groups take radical stances on issues
before thinking through all the ramifications. Military strategists concoct plans that seem, in
retrospect, ill-conceived and short-sighted. Why do groups sometimes make poor
decisions?

Group Decision Making Methods

There are many methods or procedures that can be used by groups. Each is designed to
improve the decision-making process in some way. Some of the more common group
decision-making methods are brainstorming, dialectical inquiry, nominal group
technique, and the Delphi technique.

A. Brainstorming

Brainstorming involves group members verbally suggesting ideas or alternative courses

of action. The "brainstorming session" is usually relatively unstructured. The situation at
hand is described in as much detail as necessary so that group members have a
complete understanding of the issue or problem. The group leader or facilitator then
solicits ideas from all members of the group. Usually, the group leader or facilitator will
record the ideas presented on a flip chart or marker board. The "generation of
alternatives" stage is clearly differentiated from the "alternative evaluation" stage, as
group members are not allowed to evaluate suggestions until all ideas have been
presented. Once the ideas of the group members have been exhausted, the group
members then begin the process of evaluating the utility of the different suggestions
presented. Brainstorming is a useful means by which to generate alternatives, but does
not offer much in the way of process for the evaluation of alternatives or the selection of
a proposed course of action.

One of the difficulties with brainstorming is that despite the prohibition against judging
ideas until all group members have had their say, some individuals are hesitant to
propose ideas because they fear the judgment or ridicule of other group members. In
recent years, some decision-making groups have utilized electronic brainstorming,
which allows group members to propose alternatives by means of e-mail or another
electronic means, such as an online posting board or discussion room. Members could
conceivably offer their ideas anonymously, which should increase the likelihood that
individuals will offer unique and creative ideas without fear of the harsh judgment of
others.

B. Dialectical Inquiry

Dialectical inquiry is a group decision-making technique that focuses on ensuring full

consideration of alternatives. Essentially, it involves dividing the group into opposing
sides, which debate the advantages and disadvantages of proposed solutions or
decisions. A similar group decision-making method, devil's advocacy, requires that one
member of the group highlight the potential problems with a proposed decision. Both
of these techniques are designed to try and make sure that the group considers all
possible ramifications of its decision.

C. Nominal Group Technique

The nominal group technique is a structured decision making process in which group
members are required to compose a comprehensive list of their ideas or proposed
alternatives in writing. The group members usually record their ideas privately. Once
finished, each group member is asked, in turn, to provide one item from their list until
all ideas or alternatives have been publicly recorded on a flip chart or marker board.
Usually, at this stage of the process verbal exchanges are limited to requests for
clarification—no evaluation or criticism of listed ideas is permitted. Once all proposals
are listed publicly, the group engages in a discussion of the listed alternatives, which
ends in some form of ranking or rating in order of preference. As with brainstorming,
the prohibition against criticizing proposals as they are presented is designed to
overcome individuals' reluctance to share their ideas. Empirical research conducted on
group decision-making offers some evidence that the nominal group technique
succeeds in generating a greater number of decision alternatives that are of relatively
high quality.
D. Delphi Technique

The Delphi technique is a group decision-making process that can be used by decision-
making groups when the individual members are in different physical locations. The
technique was developed at the Rand Corporation. The individuals in the Delphi "group"
are usually selected because of the specific knowledge or expertise of the problem they
possess. In the Delphi technique, each group member is asked to independently provide
ideas, input, and/or alternative solutions to the decision problem in successive stages.
These inputs may be provided in a variety of ways, such as e-mail, fax, or online in a
discussion room or electronic bulletin board. After each stage in the process, other
group members ask questions and alternatives are ranked or rated in some fashion.
After an indefinite number of rounds, the group eventually arrives at a consensus
decision on the best course of action.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

The effectiveness of decision-making groups can be affected by a variety of factors.

Thus, it is not possible to suggest that "group decision making is always better" or
"group decision making is always worse" than individual decision-making. For example,
due to the increased demographic diversity in the workforce, a considerable amount of
research has focused on diversity's effect on the effectiveness of group functioning. In
general, this research suggests that demographic diversity can sometimes have positive
or negative effects, depending on the specific situation. Demographically diverse group
may have to overcome social barriers and difficulties in the early stages of group
formation and this may slow down the group. However, some research indicates that
diverse groups, if effectively managed, tend to generate a wider variety and higher
quality of decision alternatives than demographically homogeneous groups.

Despite the fact that there are many situational factors that affect the functioning of
groups, research through the years does offer some general guidance about the relative
strengths and weaknesses inherent in group decision-making. The following section
summarizes the major pros and cons of decision-making in groups.

Advantages.

Group decision-making, ideally, takes advantage of the diverse strengths and expertise
of its members. By tapping the unique qualities of group members, it is possible that the
group can generate a greater number of alternatives that are of higher quality than the
individual. If a greater number of higher quality alternatives are generated, then it is
likely that the group will eventually reach a superior problem solution than the
individual.

Group decision-making may also lead to a greater collective understanding of the

eventual course of action chosen, since it is possible that many affected by the decision
implementation actually had input into the decision. This may promote a sense of
"ownership" of the decision, which is likely to contribute to a greater acceptance of the
course of action selected and greater commitment on the part of the affected
individuals to make the course of action successful.

Disadvantages.

There are many potential disadvantages to group decision-making. Groups are generally
slower to arrive at decisions than individuals, so sometimes it is difficult to utilize them
in situations where decisions must be made very quickly. One of the most often cited
problems is groupthink. Irving Janis, in his 1972 book Victims of Groupthink, defined the
phenomenon as the "deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral
judgment resulting from in-group pressure." Groupthink occurs when individuals in a
group feel pressure to conform to what seems to be the dominant view in the
group. Dissenting views of the majority opinion are suppressed and alternative courses
of action are not fully explored.

Research suggests that certain characteristics of groups contribute to groupthink.

A. In the first place, if the group does not have an agreed upon process for
developing and evaluating alternatives, it is possible that an incomplete set of
alternatives will be considered and that different courses of action will not be
fully explored. Many of the formal decision-making processes (e.g., nominal
group technique and brain-storming) are designed, in part, to reduce the
potential for groupthink by ensuring that group members offer and consider a
large number of decision alternatives.
B. Secondly, if a powerful leader dominates the group, other group members may
quickly conform to the dominant view. Additionally, if the group is under stress
and/or time pressure, groupthink may occur.
C. Finally, studies suggest that highly cohesive groups are more susceptible to
groupthink.
Group Polarization is another potential disadvantage of group decision-making. This is
the tendency of the group to converge on more extreme solutions to a problem. The
"risky shift" phenomenon is an example of polarization; it occurs when the group
decision is a riskier one than any of the group members would have made individually.
This may result because individuals in a group sometimes do not feel as much
responsibility and accountability for the actions of the group as they would if they were
making the decision alone.

Group Polarization
Let’s say you are part of a group assigned to make a presentation. One of the group
members suggests showing a short video that, although amusing, includes some
provocative images. Even though initially you think the clip is inappropriate, you begin to
change your mind as the group discusses the idea. The group decides, eventually, to throw
caution to the wind and show the clip—and your instructor is horrified by your choice.

This hypothetical example is consistent with studies of groups making decisions that involve
risk. Common sense notions suggest that groups exert a moderating, subduing effect on
their members. However, when researchers looked at groups closely, they discovered many
groups shift toward more extreme decisions rather than less extreme decisions after group
interaction. Discussion, it turns out, doesn’t moderate people’s judgments after all. Instead,
it leads to group polarization: judgments made after group discussion will be more extreme
in the same direction as the average of individual judgments made prior to discussion
(Myers & Lamm, 1976). If a majority of members feel that taking risks is more acceptable
than exercising caution, then the group will become riskier after a discussion. For example,
in France, where people generally like their government but dislike Americans, group
discussion improved their attitude toward their government but exacerbated their negative
opinions of Americans (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). Similarly, prejudiced people who
discussed racial issues with other prejudiced ind ividuals became even more negative, but
those who were relatively unprejudiced exhibited even more acceptance of diversity
when in groups (Myers & Bishop, 1970).

Common Knowledge Effect

One of the advantages of making decisions in groups is the group’s greater access to
information. When seeking a solution to a problem, group members can put their ideas
on the table and share their knowledge and judgments with each other through
discussions. But all too often groups spend much of their discussion time examining
common knowledge—information that two or more group members know in common
—rather than unshared information. This common knowledge effect will result in a bad
outcome if something known by only one or two group members is very important.
Researchers have studied this bias using the hidden profile task. On such tasks,
information known to many of the group members suggests that one alternative, say
Option A, is best. However, Option B is definitely the better choice, but all the facts that
support Option B are only known to individual group members—they are not common
knowledge in the group. As a result, the group will likely spend most of its time
reviewing the factors that favor Option A, and never discover any of its drawbacks. In
consequence, groups often perform poorly when working on problems with nonobvious
solutions that can only be identified by extensive information sharing (Stasser & Titus,
1987).

Conformity and Groupthink

Groups sometimes make spectacularly bad decisions. In 1961, a special advisory
committee to President John F. Kennedy planned and implemented a covert invasion of
Cuba at the Bay of Pigs that ended in total disaster. In 1986, NASA carefully, and
incorrectly, decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle in temperatures that were
too cold.

Irving Janis (1982), intrigued by these kinds of blundering groups, carried out a number
of case studies of such groups: the military experts that planned the defence of Pearl
Harbor; Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs planning group; the presidential team that escalated the
war in Vietnam. Each group, he concluded, fell prey to a distorted style of thinking that
rendered the group members incapable of making a rational decision. Janis labelled this
syndrome groupthink: “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply
involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override
their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Janis identified both the tell-tale symptoms that signal the group is experiencing
groupthink and the interpersonal factors that combine to cause groupthink. To Janis,
groupthink is a disease that infects healthy groups, rendering them inefficient and
unproductive. And like the physician who searches for symptoms that distinguish one
disease from another, Janis identified a number of symptoms that should serve to warn
members that they may be falling prey to groupthink. These symptoms include
overestimating the group’s skills and wisdom, biased perceptions and evaluations of
other groups and people who are outside of the group, strong conformity pressures
within the group, and poor decision-making methods.

Janis also singled out four group-level factors that combine to cause groupthink:
cohesion, isolation, biased leadership, and decisional stress.

 Cohesion: Groupthink only occurs in cohesive groups. Such groups have many
advantages over groups that lack unity. People enjoy their membership much
 more in cohesive groups, they are less likely to abandon the group, and they
work harder in pursuit of the group’s goals. But extreme cohesiveness can be
dangerous. When cohesiveness intensifies, members become more likely to
accept the goals, decisions, and norms of the group without reservation.
Conformity pressures also rise as members become reluctant to say or do
anything that goes against the grain of the group, and the number of internal
disagreements—necessary for good decision making—decreases.
 Isolation. Groupthink groups too often work behind closed doors, keeping out of
the limelight. They isolate themselves from outsiders and refuse to modify their
beliefs to bring them into line with society’s beliefs. They avoid leaks by
maintaining strict confidentiality and working only with people who are members
of their group.
 Biased leadership. A biased leader who exerts too much authority over group
members can increase conformity pressures and railroad decisions. In groupthink
groups, the leader determines the agenda for each meeting, sets limits on
discussion, and can even decide who will be heard.
 Decisional stress.  Groupthink becomes more likely when the group is stressed,
particularly by time pressures. When groups are stressed they minimize their
discomfort by quickly choosing a plan of action with little argument or
dissension. Then, through collective discussion, the group members can
rationalize their choice by exaggerating the positive consequences, minimizing
the possibility of negative outcomes, concentrating on minor details, and
overlooking larger issues.

The 'conformity' stage can be far less positive than portrayed above, resulting in rather
sterile groupthink. In such a case, the survival of the group becomes more important
than the achievement of its goals and conflict is deliberately side-stepped in order to
avoid any threat to the group's existence (whereas the 'mature' group can cope with
disagreement). (For further information on group pressures to conform, see the sections
on social influence).

Quite why we have this tendency to conform is not very clear, but it might well be
related to the behavior of animals in herds and birds in flocks. Once a couple of
antelopes start running from a lion, it makes sense for the others to start running as
well, rather than hanging around to check whether there really is a lion. There's also the
possibility that a tendency to imitate others is built into our make-up, since it is an
important way of learning (see the section on Bandura and social learning theory).

Conceivably, we are genetically predisposed towards social conformism and

ethnocentrism (i.e. the tendency to support and conform to our own group). Such a
predisposition would be advantageous in promoting cultural group selection in the
same way that in natural selection sharp teeth or the ability to run fast from danger
confer an advantage. Sociobiologists have found it difficult to account for such
behaviors as altruism, co-operation and group loyalty in terms of Darwin's theory of
evolution, which would be expected to lead to primarily egocentric behavior. However, it
might be possible to demonstrate (theorists disagree over this) that cultures whose
members' behavior is purely egocentric tend to die out whereas co-operative cultures
survive. If so, then it would follow that the surviving cultures are those with the 'co-
operation gene'. (Further, brief comment on evolutionary psychology)

Not all people conform, of course, and there is evidence that those who don't tend to
have a healthy level of self-esteem and to have mature social relationships, as well as
being fairly flexible and open-minded in their thinking.

You and Your Groups

Most of us belong to at least one group that must make decisions from time to time: a
community group that needs to choose a fund-raising project; a union or employee
group that must ratify a new contract; a family that must discuss your college plans; or
the staff of a high school discussing ways to deal with the potential for violence during
football games. Could these kinds of groups experience groupthink? Yes they could, if
the symptoms of groupthink discussed above are present, combined with other
contributing causal factors, such as cohesiveness, isolation, biased leadership, and stress.
To avoid polarization, the common knowledge effect, and groupthink, groups should
strive to emphasize open inquiry of all sides of the issue while admitting the possibility
of failure. The leaders of the group can also do much to limit groupthink by requiring
full discussion of pros and cons, appointing devil’s advocates, and breaking the group
up into small discussion groups.

If these precautions are taken, your group has a much greater chance of making an
informed, rational decision. Furthermore, although your group should review its goals,
teamwork, and decision-making strategies, the human side of groups—the strong
friendships and bonds that make group activity so enjoyable—shouldn’t be overlooked.
Groups have instrumental, practical value, but also emotional, psychological value. In
groups we find others who appreciate and value us. In groups we gain the support we
need in difficult times, but also have the opportunity to influence others. In groups we
find evidence of our self-worth, and secure ourselves from the threat of loneliness and
despair. For most of us, groups are the secret source of well-being.
Discussion Questions

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of sociality? Why do people often
join groups?
2. Is self-esteem shaped by your personality qualities or by the value and qualities
of groups to which you belong?
3. In what ways does membership in a group change a person’s self-concept and
social identity?
4. If you were a college professor, what would you do to increase the success of in-
class learning teams?
5. What are the key ingredients to transforming a working group into a true team?
6. Have you ever been part of a group that made a poor decision and, if so, were
any of the symptoms of groupthink present in your group?

Additional REFERENCES:

https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/group-dynamics-its-characteristics-
stages-types-and-other-details-management/5363

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/groups/groups.html