werty Essay

Licensed to: iChapters User Licensed to: iChapters User Group Dynamics, Fourth Edition Donelson R. Forsyth Acquisitions Editor: Michele Sordi Assistant Editor: Jennifer Wilkinson Editorial Assistant: Jessica Kim Technology Project Manager: Erik Fortier Marketing Manager: Chris Caldeira Marketing Assistant: Nicole Morinon Advertising Project Manager: Tami Strang Project Manager, Editorial Production: Emily Smith Art Director: Vernon Boes Print/Media Buyer: Rebecca Cross/Karen Hunt Permissions Editor: Sarah Harkrader Production Service: G&S Book Services Text Designer: John Edeen

Copy Editor: Jan Six Illustrator: G&S Book Services Compositor: G&S Book Services Cover Designer: Denise Davidson Cover Image: Blue and Yellow Squares © Royalty-Free/CORBIS Text and Cover Printer: Phoenix Color Corp © 2006 Thomson Wadsworth, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, and Wadsworth are trademarks used herein under license. Thomson Higher Education 10 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA ALL RIGHTS RESER VED. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, ncluding photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution, information storage and retrieval systems, or in any other manner—without the written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 09 08 07 06 05 For more information about our products, contact us at: Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center 1-800-423-0563 For permission to use material from this text or product, submit a request online at http://www. thomsonrights. com. Any additional questions about permissions can be submitted by email to [email protected] com. ExamView ® and ExamView Pro ® are registered trademarks f FSCreations, Inc. Windows is a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation used herein under license. Macintosh and Power Macintosh are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Used herein under license. © 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Thomson Learning WebTutorTM is a trademark of Thomson Learning, Inc. Library of Congress Control Number: 2004113632 Student Edition: ISBN 0-534-36822-0 Instructor’s Edition: ISBN 0-495-00813-3 International Student Edition: ISBN 0-495-00729-3 (Not for sale in the United States) Asia (including India) Thomson Learning 5 Shenton Way #01-01 UIC Building

We will write a custom essay sample on
werty Essay
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

Singapore 068808 Australia/New Zealand Thomson Learning Australia 102 Dodds Street Southbank, Victoria 3006 Australia Canada Thomson Nelson 1120 Birchmount Road Toronto, Ontario M1K 5G4 Canada UK /Europe/Middle East/Africa Thomson Learning High Holborn House 50 –51 Bedford Road London WC1R 4LR United Kingdom Latin America Thomson Learning Seneca, 53 Colonia Polanco 11560 Mexico D. F. Mexico Spain (including Portugal) Thomson Paraninfo Calle Magallanes, 25 28015 Madrid, Spain Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.

Licensed to: iChapters User 1 INTRODUCTION TO GROUP DYNAMICS CHAPTER OVERVIEW CHAPTER OUTLINE Group dynamics are the in? uential interpersonal processes that take place in groups. The tendency to join with others in groups is perhaps the most important single characteristic of humans, and these groups leave an indelible imprint on their members and on society. To understand people, we must understand their groups. What Is a Group? ? What is a group? ? What are some common characteristics of groups? ? What assumptions guide researchers in their studies of groups and their processes? ? What ? lds and what topics are De? ning Groups Classifying Groups Describing Groups FOCUS 1-1: When Does a Group Look Like a Group? Groups Are Dynamic The Nature of Group Dynamics Orienting Assumptions FOCUS 1-2: Are Groups Good or Bad? Contemporary Group Dynamics Group Dynamics Is Dynamic Summary in Outline For More Information Media Resources included in the scienti? c study of group dynamics? 1 Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 2 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics

The lone individual—the single man or woman who has no connection to other men and women—is an extraordinarily rare human being. Homo sapiens is capable of surviving alone, and the recluse, ascetic, and prisoner in solitary con? nement can forge a life on their own. But few humans seek or enjoy the challenges of solitude. Most people prefer to live in groups. Virtually all the activities of our lives—working, learning, worshiping, relaxing, playing, and even sleeping— occur in groups rather than isolated from others. Most people belong to many different groups, so the number of groups in the world probably reaches well beyond six billion.

The world is literally teeming with groups. For centuries, sages and scholars have been fascinated by groups—by the way they form, change over time, dissipate unexpectedly, achieve great goals, and sometimes commit great wrongs. Yet groups remain something of a mystery— unstudied at best, misunderstood at worst. Here we unravel some of their mysteries by examining their basic nature, their processes, and their impact on their members. We begin our task by asking some questions: What is a group? What are the characteristics of groups that most interest us? What kinds of group processes do we want to study?

What do we mean by group dynamics? What assumptions do we embrace as we describe, analyze, and compare the various groups that populate the planet? What approach do we take to the study of groups? What Is a Group? Hundreds of ? sh swimming together are called a school. A pack of foraging baboons is a troupe. A half dozen crows on a telephone wire is a murder. A gam is a group of whales. But what is a collection of human beings called? A group. De? ning Groups What would you include if you were asked to name all the groups in which you are a member? Would you list your family? Your neighborhood association?

People who regularly log into a chat room on the Internet with you? Your political party? The handful of fellow students who often take the same classes you do? Coworkers who go out for drinks after work once in a while? The people standing in line with you at the checkout counter of the supermarket? Each of these collections of people may seem unique, but each possesses that one critical element that de? nes a group: connections linking the individual members. We understand intuitively that three persons seated in separate rooms working on unrelated tasks can hardly be considered a group, for they are not connected in any way to each other.

If, however, we create a connection among them, then these three individuals can be considered a rudimentary group. The members of a family who live in the same house, for example, are linked to one another by joint tasks, a shared living space, strong emotional bonds, and genetic similarities. People who work together are linked by the collaborative tasks that they must complete together, but in many cases they also become connected through a network of friendships and antagonisms. Even the people who are Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User What Is a Group? 3 standing in a queue in a checkout counter are a group, for they are brie? y connected in a situation that demands cooperation, communication, and patience. In all these examples, the members are linked together in a web of interpersonal relationships. Thus, a group is de? ned as two or more individuals who are connected to one another by social relationships. TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUALS A group can range in size from two members to thousands of members.

Very small collectives, such as dyads (two members) and triads (three members) are groups, but so are very large collections of people, such as mobs, crowds, and congregations (Simmel, 1902). On average, however, most groups tend to be relatively small in size, ranging from two to seven members. One researcher ( J. James, 1953), after counting the number of people in 7405 informal, spontaneously formed groups found in public settings, reported an average group size of only 2. 4. He also found that deliberately formed groups, such as those created in government or work settings, included an average of 2. 3 members ( J. James, 1951).

In many cases, larger groups are also sets of interlocked smaller groups. Although groups come in all shapes and sizes, they tend to “gravitate to the smallest size, two” (Hare, 1976, p. 215). The size of a group in? uences its nature in many ways, for a group with only two or three members possesses many unique characteristics simply because it includes so few members. The dyad is, by de? nition, the only group that dissolves when one member leaves and the only group that can never be broken down into subgroups ( J. M. Levine & Moreland, 1995). Very large collectives, such as mobs, crowds, or congregations, also have unique qualities.

In a very large group, for example, the chances for each member to be connected to all other members becomes very small. As groups increase in size, they tend to become more complex and more formally structured (Hare, 1976). By de? nition, however, all are considered groups. WHO ARE CONNECTED TO ONE ANOTHER Like a series of interconnected computers, the individuals in any given group are networked: They are connected one to another. These connections, or ties, may be strong emotional bonds, like the links between the members of a family or a clique of close friends.

The links may also be relatively weak ones that are easily broken with the passage of time or the occurrence of relationship-damaging events. Even weak links, however, can create robust outcomes across an entire group of networked individuals. Nor do these relationships need to link every person directly to every other person in the group. It takes, for example, 6 one-to-one links to connect every member of a 4-person group to every other member of that group (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, and C/D), but a 12-person group would need 66 links to join every member to every other member.

Hence, many ties between members in groups are indirect ones. Person A might, for example, talk directly to B, B may talk to C, so A is linked to C through B. But even in large groups, members often feel group Two or more individuals who are connected to one another by social relationships. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics TABLE 1-1 Some De? nitions of the Word Group Central Feature De? nition Categorization

A group is “two or more individuals . . . [who] perceive themselves to be members of the same social category” ( J. C. Turner, 1982, p. 15). “We mean by a group a number of persons who communicate with one another, often over a span of time, and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all the others, not at second hand, through other people, but face-to-face” (Homans, 1950, p. 1). “Two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person in? uences and is in? uenced by each other person” (M. E. Shaw, 1981, p. 54). “A group is a social system involving regular interaction among members and a common group identity. This means that groups have a sense of ‘weness’ that enables members to identify themselves as belonging to a distinct entity” (A. G. Johnson, 1995, p. 125). “A group is a collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some signi? cant degree” (Cartwright & Zander, 1968, p. 46). “A group is an aggregation of two or more people who are to some degree in dynamic interrelation with one another” (McGrath, 1984, p. 8). A psychological group is any number of people who interact with each other, are psychologically aware of each other, and perceive themselves to be in a group” (D. C. Pennington, 2002, p. 3). “A group . . . is two or more people possessing a common social identi? cation and whose existence as a group is recognized by a third party” (R. Brown, 2000, p. 19). “A group is de? ned as three or more people who work together interdependently on an agreed-upon activity or goal” (Keyton, 2002, p. 5). “A group is a social unit which consists of a number of individuals who stand in (more or less) de? ite status and role relationships to one another and which possesses a set of values or norms of its own regulating the behavior of individual members, at least in matters of consequence to the group” (Sherif & Sherif, 1956, p. 144). “Groups are open and complex systems . . . a complex, adaptive, dynamic, coordinated, and bounded set of patterned relations among members, tasks, and tools” (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000, p. 34). Communication In? uence Interaction Interdependence Interrelation Psychological signi? cance Shared identi? cation Shared tasks and goals

Structure Systems connected to the majority of the group’s members and to the group as a whole (Granovetter, 1973). BY SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS Table 1-1 samples theorists’ de? nitions of the word group. Some of these de? nitions do not specify the nature of the connection between group members, but others require members be linked in a particular way before an aggregation of individuals can be considered a group. Some, Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User

What Is a Group? 5 for example, emphasize the importance of interdependence; they suggest that members depend on one another to achieve their goals and secure positive outcomes. Others insist that the group must be organized in some way; otherwise, it is just a haphazard, accidental gathering of individuals. Still others propose that the connection should be based on mutual in? uence—the capacity of each group member to in? uence and be in? uenced by another. But no matter what the nature of the linkage—whether communication among members, mutual in? ence, or some type of organization—the group members must be connected at a social level. The relationship among group members is described as a social one to distinguish groups from categories. A category is an aggregation of individuals who share certain qualities, such as personality traits, physical features, or behavioral regularities. For example, individuals who are quiet and shy are often labeled introverts, the residents of New York City are New Yorkers, and individuals who routinely wager sums of money on games of chance are gamblers.

If these categories create an interpersonal connection among the category members, then a category may be transformed into a group. But if the categorization has no social or psychological implications, then the category only describes individuals who are similar in some way, rather than a meaningful social group (Wilder & Simon, 1998). Classifying Groups Researchers often begin their analyses of group processes by drawing distinctions between the different types of groups they study. Typologists, no matter what their scienti? c ? ld, bring order to their individual observations by identifying shared similarities and signi? cant differences among the individual cases they examine. The group typologist asks, “What type of group is this? ” and answers by classifying groups into meaningful clusters or categories. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY GROUPS Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1909), in his early studies of groups, distinguished between primary groups and secondary groups. Primary groups, such as family and friends, are small, longterm groups characterized by face-to-face interaction and high levels of cohesiveness, solidarity, and member identi? ation. In many cases, individuals become part of primary groups involuntarily: Most are born into a family, which provides for their well-being until they can join other social groups. Other primary groups form when people interact in signi? cant, meaningful ways for a prolonged period of time. Cooley (1909, p. 23) thought that primary groups protect members from harm, care for them when they are ill, and provide them with category An aggregation of people or things that share some common attribute or are related in some way. rimary group A small, long-term group characterized by face-to-face interaction, solidarity, and high levels of member-to-group interdependence and identi? cation (e. g. , families or friendship cliques). Such a group serves as the primary source of socialization for members by shaping their attitudes, values, and social orientation. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 6 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics helter and sustenance. But he believed that their most important function was in creating a bridge between the individual and society at large: Primary groups are primary in the sense that they give the individual his earliest and completest experience of social unity, and also in the sense that they do not change in the same degree as more elaborate relations, but form a comparatively permanent source out of which the latter are ever springing. (Cooley, 1909, pp. 26 –27) In earlier times, individuals belonged only to primary groups.

They could live out their entire lives without leaving their small, close-knit families, tribes, or communities. As societies became more complex, however, so did their groups (Toennies, 1887/1963). Cooley called these more complex social structures secondary groups. Such groups are larger and more formally organized than primary groups, and they tend to be shorter in duration and less emotionally involving. However, secondary groups continue to de? ne the individual’s place in the social structure of society (T. Parsons, Bales, & Shils, 1953). PLANNED AND EMERGENT GROUPS Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander 1960) were reluctant to classify groups, because any typology is bound to underestimate the variety and complexity of all groups and may prompt people to feel that they completely understand a group once they have slotted it into a particular category. But they did note that groups tend to fall naturally into two categories: planned groups, which are deliberately formed by their members or by an external authority for some purpose, and emergent groups, which come into existence spontaneously when individuals join together in the same physical location or form gradually over time as individuals ? d themselves repeatedly interacting with the same subset of individuals. People found planned groups, but they often ? nd emergent groups. Arbitration boards, civil rights groups, commissions, committees, expeditions, juries, legislative bodies, military units, musical groups, research teams, self-help groups, social agencies, sports teams, study groups, task forces, therapy groups, trade associations, veterans organizations, and work groups are all examples of planned groups. Planned groups tend to be organized, task focused, and formal.

Such groups generally de? ne their membership criteria clearly and so at all times know who is and who is not in the group. They often operate under a set of bylaws, contracts, or similar regulations that describe the group’s acceptable procedures and practices. The group’s structure may even be formalized in an organizational chart that de? nes who has more authority than others, who reports secondary group A relatively large, often formally organized, social group common in more complex societies (e. g. , work groups, clubs, congregations). Such a group in? ences members’ attitudes, beliefs, and actions, but as a supplement to the in? uence of smaller primary groups. planned group A group deliberately formed by its members or an external authority. emergent group A group that comes into existence gradually as individuals repeatedly interact with the same subset of individuals. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User What Is a Group? 7 to whom, and how subgroups within the overall group are connected.

Such groups, despite their overall level of organization and de? nition, may also lack emotional substance. They may be characterized by considerable routines, ceremonies, and procedures, but they may also be devoid of any warmth or emotional depth. Emergent groups, such as audiences at events, bystanders at a crime scene, crowds, customers at a club, gangs, families, friendship networks in work settings, mobs, people waiting to board an airplane, and all manner of queues and lines, arise over time through repeated association of the eventual members.

These groups are not explicitly organized, but they often develop elements of structure as their members determine what kinds of behaviors are expected of members, who is more or less liked, who leads and who follows, and so on. Such groups often have unclear boundaries, for they allow members to come and go rather than requiring them to join in a formal way. They have no written rules, but they likely develop unwritten norms that de? ne what behaviors are appropriate and what behaviors are inappropriate within the group.

Unlike planned groups, membership in an emergent group is sought as an end in and of itself: People do not join to gain some goal but because they ? nd satisfaction in associating with the other group members. Holly Arrow, Joseph E. McGrath, and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2000) extended this distinction between planned and emergent groups by asking another question: Is the group created by forces within the group (internal origins) or forces outside of the group (external origins)?

Arrow and her colleagues combined both the planned– emergent dimension and the internal– external dimension to generate the following fourfold taxonomy of groups: I I I I Concocted groups are planned by individuals or authorities outside the group. A team of laborers digging a trench, the ? ight crew of an airplane, and a military squad would all be concocted groups, as those who created them are not actually members of the group. Founded groups are planned by one or more individuals who remain members of the group.

A small Internet start-up company, a study group, an expeditionary team, or a grass-roots community action group would all be founded groups. Circumstantial groups are emergent, unplanned groups that arise when external, situational forces set the stage for people to join together— often temporarily—in a uni? ed group. A group of travelers stranded together when their bus breaks down, a mob breaking shop windows and setting parked cars on ? re, and a crowd of patrons at a movie theater would be circumstantial groups.

Self-organizing groups emerge when interacting individuals gradually align their activities in a cooperative system of interdependence. Parties, gatherings of surfers waiting for waves just offshore, drivers leaving a crowded parking lot through a single exit, and a half-dozen adolescents who hang out together are all organized groups, but their organization is generated by implicit adjustments of each member to each other member. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics GROUPS, TASK GROUPS, ASSOCIATIONS, AND CATEGORIES Brian Lickel and his colleagues (Lickel et al. , 2000), rather than basing their analysis of group types on theoretically prominent dimensions, instead chose to study the way ordinary people intuitively classify the groups they encounter in their daily lives. In a series of studies, they asked college students in the United States and Poland to compare different collectives and rate them in terms of their size, duration, permeability, interaction, importance, and so on.

When they examined these data using a statistical procedure called cluster analysis, they identi? ed the following basic types of groups: I I I I Intimacy groups, such as families, romantic couples, close friends, and street gangs, were judged to be the most group-like by perceivers. These groups were small in size and moderate in duration and permeability, but characterized by substantial levels of interaction among the members, who considered these groups to be very important to them personally. Task groups included work groups in employment settings and goalfocused groups in a variety of nonemployment situations.

Many of these groups, such as employees at a restaurant, people who worked in a factory, or company committees, were work groups in a business or commercial setting. Task groups outside the employment arena included student service groups, support groups, jury members, and study groups. Members of these groups were thought to be united in pursuing common goals and outcomes. Weak associations were aggregations of individuals that formed spontaneously, lasted only a brief period of time, and had boundaries that were very permeable.

Some of these associations were very transitory, such as people gathered at a bus stop waiting for the next bus, or an audience in a movie theater. Others lasted longer but were marked by very weak relationships or very limited interactions among their members. Examples of these weak social relationship associations were residents of a large neighborhood and students in a college class. Social categories, as noted earlier, were aggregations of individuals who were similar in terms of gender, ethnicity, religion, and nationality. Such collectives as “women,” “Jews,” “doctors,” and “citizens of Poland” clustered together in this category.

Lickel et al. (2000) also asked the perceivers if they considered all these kinds of aggregations of individuals to be true groups. They did not force people to make an either– or decision about each one, however. Recognizing that the boundary between what is and what is not a group is perceptually fuzzy, they instead asked participants to rate the aggregations on a scale from 1 (not at all a group) to 9 (very much a group). As they expected, intimacy groups and task groups received high average ratings (6. 8 and 6. 3), whereas categories and associations were rated lower (4. 5 and 4. , respectively). These ? ndings suggest that people are more likely to consider aggregations marked by strong bonds between members, frequent interactions among members, and clear boundaries to be groups, but that they are less certain that such aggregations as crowds, waiting lines, or categories qualify as groups (see Table 1-2). Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User What Is a Group? 9 TABLE 1-2 Characteristics of Basic Types of Groups Type of Group Characteristics Examples

Primary groups Small, long-term groups characterized by face-to-face interaction and high levels of cohesiveness, solidarity, and member identi? cation Larger, less intimate, more goal-focused groups typical of more complex societies Families, close friends, tightknit peer groups, gangs, elite military squads Secondary groups Planned groups Concocted Founded Emergent groups Circumstantial Self-organizing Intimacy groups Task groups Weak associations Social categories Deliberately formed by the members themselves or by an external authority, usually for some speci? c purpose or purposes

Planned by individuals or authorities outside the group Planned by one or more individuals who remain within the group Groups that form spontaneously as individuals ? nd themselves repeatedly interacting with the same subset of individuals over time and settings Emergent, unplanned groups that arise when external, situational forces set the stage for people to join together, often only temporarily, in a uni? ed group Emerge when interacting individuals gradually align their activities in a cooperative system of interdependence Small groups of moderate duration and permeability characterized by ubstantial levels of interaction among the members, who value membership in the group Work groups in employment settings and goal-focused groups in a variety of nonemployment situations Aggregations of individuals that form spontaneously, last only a brief period of time, and have very permeable boundaries Aggregations of individuals who are similar to one another in terms of gender, ethnicity, religion, or nationality Congregations, work groups, unions, professional associations Production lines, military units, task forces, crews, professional sports teams Study groups, small businesses, xpeditions, clubs, associations Waiting lines (queues), crowds, mobs, audiences, bystanders Study groups, friendship cliques in a workplace, regular patrons at a bar Families, romantic couples, close friends, street gangs Teams, neighborhood associations Crowds, audiences, clusters of bystanders Women, Asian Americans, physicians, U. S. citizens, New Yorkers Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 10 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics Describing Groups

Each one of the billions of groups that exist at this moment is a unique con? guration of individuals, processes, and relationships. The family living at 103 Main Street is different in dozens of ways from the family that lives just next door to them. The team of workers building automobiles in Anytown, U. S. A. , is unlike any other team of workers in any other factory in the world. The group of ? ve students in a university library reviewing material for an upcoming test displays tendencies and qualities that are unlike any other study group that has ever existed or ever will exist.

But all groups, despite their distinctive characteristics, also possess common properties and dynamics. When we study a group, we must go beyond its unique qualities to consider characteristics that appear with consistency in most groups, no matter what their origin, purpose, or membership— qualities such as interaction, interdependence, structure, cohesiveness, and goals. INTERACTION Groups are systems that create, organize, and sustain inter- action among the members. Group members get into arguments, talk over issues, and make decisions.

They upset each other, give one another help and support, and take advantage of each other’s weaknesses. They rally together to accomplish dif? cult tasks, but they sometimes slack off when they think others will not notice. Group members teach one another new things; they communicate with one another verbally and nonverbally, and they touch each other literally and emotionally. Groups members do things to and with each other. Group interaction is as varied as human behavior itself, for any behavior that an individual can perform alone can also be performed in a group context.

Robert Freed Bales (1950, 1999), after observing groups interacting in all types of situations, identi? ed two classes of interaction that are most common in group situations. Task interaction includes all group behavior that is focused principally on the group’s work, projects, plans, and goals. In most groups, members must coordinate their various skills, resources, and motivations so that the group can make a decision, generate a product, or achieve a victory. When a jury reviews each bit of testimony, a committee argues over the best course of action to take, or a family plans its summer vacation, the group’s interaction is task focused.

Relationship interaction (or socioemotional interaction), in contrast, is focused on the interpersonal, social side of group life. If group members falter and need support, others will buoy them up with kind words, suggestions, and other forms of help. When group members disagree with the others, they are often interaction The social actions of individuals in a group, particularly those that are in? uenced either directly or indirectly by the group. task interaction Actions performed by group members that pertain to the group’s projects, tasks, and goals. elationship interaction Actions performed by group members that relate to or in? uence the emotional and interpersonal bonds within the group, including both positive actions (social support, consideration) and negative actions (criticism, con? ict). Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User What Is a Group? 11 roundly criticized and made to feel foolish. When a coworker wears a new suit or out? t, others in his or her work unit notice it and offer compliments or criticisms.

Such actions do not help the group accomplish its designated task, but they do sustain the emotional bonds linking the members to one another and to the group. Bales based his Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) on this distinction between task and relationship interaction forms. This model is reviewed in Chapter 2. INTERDEPENDENCE Most groups create a state of interdependence, for members’ outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences are determined in part by other members of the group (Wageman, 2001). The acrobat on the trapeze will drop to the net unless her teammate atches her outstretched arms. The assembly line worker is unable to complete his work until he receives the un? nished product from a worker further up the line. The business executive’s success (and salary) is determined by how well her staff completes its work. She can ful? ll her personal tasks skillfully, but if her staff fails, then she fails as well. In such situations, members are obligated or responsible to other group members, for they provide each other with support and assistance. Interdependence also results when members are able to in? uence and be in? uenced by others in the group.

In a business, for example, the boss may determine how employees spend their time, what kind of rewards they experience, and even the duration of their membership in the group. These employees can in? uence their boss to a degree, but the boss’s in? uence is nearly unilateral: The boss in? uences them to a greater degree than they in? uence the boss (see Figure 1-1). In other groups, in contrast, in? uence is more mutual: One member may in? uence the next member, who in turn in? uences the next (sequential interdependence) or two or more members may in? uence each other (reciprocal or mutual interdependence).

Interdependence can also occur because groups are often nested in larger groups, and the outcomes of the larger groups depend on the activities and outcomes of the smaller groups (multilevel interdependence). STRUCTURE Group members are not connected to one another at random, but in organized and predictable patterns. In all but the most ephemeral groups, patterns and regularities emerge that determine the kinds of actions that are permitted or condemned: who talks to whom, who likes whom and who dislikes whom, who can be counted on to perform particular tasks, and whom others look to for guidance and help.

These regularities combine to generate group structure—the complex of roles, norms, and intermember relations that organizes the group. Roles, for example, specify the general behaviors expected of interdependence Mutual dependence or in? uence, as when one’s outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences are determined in whole or in part by others. group structure Norms, roles, and stable patterns of relations among the members of a group. role A coherent set of behaviors expected of people who occupy speci? c positions within a group. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc.

All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 12 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics Unilateral interdependence Sequential interdependence D A A B B C C Mutual, reciprocal interdependence Multilevel interdependence G A B C E A F B C D FIGURE 1-1 How do groups create interdependence among members? In some cases, interdependence results from dependence, as when a member’s outcomes and experiences are determined by others. In other cases, interdependence is created by patterns of in? ence in the group and by the group’s structure. A leader may, for example, in? uence others but not be in? uenced. In other cases, in? uence is chain-like and hierarchical, as Person A in? uences B who in turn in? uences C. In? uence is often mutual and reciprocal: All members in? uence one another. people who occupy different positions within the group. The roles of leader and follower are fundamental ones in many groups, but other roles—information seeker, information giver, elaborator, procedural technician, encourager, compromiser, harmonizer—may emerge in any group (Benne & Sheats, 1948).

Group members’ actions and interactions are also shaped by their group’s norms— consensual standards that describe what behaviors should and should not be performed in a given context. Roles, norms, and other structural aspects of groups, although unseen and often unnoticed, lie at the heart of their most dynamic processes. When people join a group, they initially spend much of their time trying to come to terms with the requirements of their role. If they cannot meet the role’s demand, they might not remain a member for long. Norms within a group are de? ed and renegotiated norm A consensual and often implicit standard that describes what behaviors should and should not be performed in a given context. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User What Is a Group? 13 over time, and con? icts often emerge as members violate norms. In group meetings, the opinions of members with higher status carry more weight than those of the rank-and-? le members. When several members form a subgroup within the larger group, they exert more in? ence on the rest of the group than they would individually. When people manage to place themselves at the hub of the group’s information exchange patterns, their in? uence over others also increases. If you had to choose only one aspect of a group to study, you would probably learn the most by studying its structure. GOALS Groups usually exist for a reason. A team strives to outperform other teams in competitions. A study group wants to raise the grades of all of the students who are members. A jury must make decisions about guilt or innocence. The members of a congregation seek religious and spiritual enlightenment.

In each case, the members of the group are united in their pursuit of common goals. In groups, people solve problems, create products, create standards, communicate knowledge, have fun, perform arts, create institutions, and even ensure their safety from attacks by other groups. Put simply, groups make it easier to attain our goals. For this reason, much of the world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals. Groups do so many things that their activities can be classi? ed in a variety of ways. Joseph E. McGrath’s circumplex model of group tasks, for example, istinguishes among four basic group goals: generating, choosing, negotiating, and executing. As Figure 1-2 indicates, each of these basic categories can be further subdivided, yielding a total of eight basic tasks. When groups work at generating tasks, they strive to concoct the strategies they will use to accomplish their goals (planning tasks) or to create altogether new ideas and approaches to their problems (creativity tasks). When choosing, groups make decisions about issues that have correct solutions (intellective tasks) or questions that can be answered in many ways (decision-making tasks).

When groups are negotiating, they must resolve differences of opinion among members regarding their goals or decisions (cognitive con? ict tasks) or resolve competitive disputes among members (mixed-motive tasks). The most behaviorally oriented groups actually do things: Executing groups compete against other groups (contests/battles) or perform ( performances). Some groups perform tasks from nearly all of McGrath’s categories, whereas others concentrate on only one subset of goals (Arrow & McGrath, 1995; McGrath, 1984). COHESIVENESS Groups are not merely sets of aggregated, independent indi- iduals; instead, they are uni? ed social entities. Groups cannot be reduced down to the level of the individual without losing information about the group as a unit, as a whole. Whenever a group comes into existence, it becomes a system goal The aim or outcome sought by the group and its members. circumplex model of group tasks A conceptual taxonomy developed by Joseph McGrath that orders group tasks in a circular pattern based on two continua: cooperative– competitive and conceptual–behavioral. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.

Licensed to: iChapters User 14 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics GENERATE Generating plans Cooperation Generating ideas Solving problems with correct answers Type 2: Creativity tasks Type 1: Planning tasks Type 8: Performances/ psychomotor tasks Type 3: Intellective tasks EXECUTE Con? ict CHOOSE Deciding issues with no right answer Executing performance tasks Type 7: Contests/ battles/ competitive tasks Type 4: Decision-making tasks Type 5: Cognitive con? ict tasks Resolving con? icts of viewpoint Type 6: Mixed-motive tasks NEGOTIATE Conceptual Resolving con? icts of power Resolving con? icts of interest

Behavioral FIGURE 1-2 What do groups do? Joseph E. McGrath’s task circumplex identi? es eight basic activities undertaken by groups: planning, creating, solving problems, making decisions, forming judgments, resolving con? icts, competing, and performing. with emergent properties that cannot be fully understood by piecemeal examination. The Gestalt dictum, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” suggests that a group is more than the sum of the individual members. This quality of “groupness” or unity is determined, in part, by group cohesion—the strength of the bonds linking members to one another.

A group of executives squabbling among themselves each time the group must reach a decision is clearly less cohesive than a sports team whose members train together group cohesion The strength of the bonds linking individuals to the group, feelings of attraction for speci? c group members and the group itself, the unity of a group, and the degree to which the group members coordinate their efforts to achieve goals. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User What Is a Group? 15

FOCUS 1-1 When Does a Group Look Like a Group? I wandered lonely as a cloud . . . When all at once I saw a crowd –William Wordsworth Some collections of people seem to be more like groups than others. Six people playing a game of poker may seem to be a clear case of a group, as would a family of ? ve on a picnic. But what about the audience at a movie? Two lovers walking hand in hand? Thousands of spectators watching a soccer match? Are some groups “groupier” than others? Donald T. Campbell’s (1958a) analysis of entitativity suggests that some groups seem more real than other groups.

Campbell drew on the work of Gestalt psychologists, who studied how the human mind decides whether something is perceived as a uni? ed entity (a Gestalt) or a random collection of unrelated elements. For Campbell, a group’s entitativity depends on certain perceptual cues that perceivers rely on intuitively to decide if an aggregation of individuals is a true group or just a collection of people. For example, the spectators at a football game may seem to be a disorganized mass of individuals who happen to be in the same place at the same time, but the tendency of the spectators to shout the same heer, express similar emotions, and move together to create a “wave” gives them entitativity. Entitativity, according to Campbell, is substantially in? uenced by • Common fate: Do the individuals experience the same or interrelated outcomes? • Similarity: Do the individuals perform similar behaviors or resemble one another? • Proximity: How close together are the individuals in the aggregation? Consider, for example, four people seated at a table in a library. Is this a group? They could be four friends studying together, or just four independent individuals. To answer the question, you ust consider their common fate, similarity, and proximity. The principle of common fate predicts that the degree of “groupness” you attribute to the cluster would increase if, for example, all the members began laughing together or moved closer to one another. Your con? dence that this cluster was a real group would also be bolstered if you noticed that all four were reading from the same textbook or were wearing the same fraternity shirt. Finally, if the members got up and left the room together, you would become even more certain that you were watching a group. Campbell’s analysis of entitativity argues that ndividuals are intuitively sensitive to information that signals the unity of a group (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, 1998; Lickel et al. , 2000). People identify more with their group when all the members share a common fate—for example, if they all fail together or succeed together (Deutsch, 1949a). People recruited for newly formed groups, if told that their group members share many similarities, are more likely to respond as a uni? ed group than people who believe that their group includes dissimilar individuals (Knowles & Brickner, 1981; Schachter, Ellertson, McBride, & Gregory, 951). When researchers repeatedly told women working in isolation that they were nonetheless members of a group, the women accepted this label and later rated themselves more negatively after their “group” failed (Zander, Stotland, & Wolfe, 1960). Proximity also in? uences entitativity, for people display more group-level reactions when they meet face to face in a single location than when they meet across long distances in telephone conference calls or through computer-mediated discussions (Kraut, Egido, & Galegher, 1990; Lea & Spears, 1991). Moreover, once a group is judged to be real, this classi? ation leads to a host of perceptual and interpersonal consequences. People who think they are part of a group respond differently than entitativity As described by Donald Campbell, the extent to which an assemblage of individuals is perceived to be a group rather than an aggregation of independent, unrelated individuals; the quality of being an entity. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 16 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics FOCUS 1-1 (continued ) people who do not think they are in a group, and bservers’ impressions of people differ when they think that the people they are watching are members of a uni? ed group. Labeling an aggregation a group is not just a matter of semantics. Desig- nating a group as real makes it real in its consequences (W. I. Thomas, 1928). Even if groups are not real, they may nonetheless have important interpersonal consequences if people de? ne them to be real. daily to perfect their coordination and ef? ciency. However, all groups require a modicum of cohesiveness; else the group would disintegrate and cease to exist as a group (Dion, 2000).

A group’s unity may also be more perceptual than interpersonal. Even though an aggregation of individuals may not be very cohesive, those who observe the group—and even the members themselves—may believe that the group is a single, uni? ed whole. As Focus 1-1 explains, such groups look like groups because they seem to possess the qualities of a real entity. Groups Are Dynamic If you were limited to a single word, how would you describe the activities, processes, operations, and changes that transpire in social groups?

What word illuminates the interdependence of people in groups? And what word adequately summarizes a group’s capacity to promote social interaction, to create patterned interrelationships among its members, to bind members together to form a single unit, and to accomplish its goals? Kurt Lewin (1943, 1948, 1951), who many have argued is the founder of the movement to study groups scienti? cally, chose the word dynamic. Groups tend to be powerful rather than weak, active rather than passive, ? uid rather than static, and catalyzing rather than reifying.

Lewin used the term group dynamics to stress the powerful impact of these complex social processes on group members. Although Lewin died unexpectedly of a heart attack just as group dynamics was beginning to develop more fully, his students and colleagues have carried on the Lewinian tradition in their theory, research, and applications (Back, 1992; Bargal, Gold, & Lewin, 1992; Marrow, 1969; R. K. White, 1990, 1992). The Nature of Group Dynamics When Kurt Lewin (1951) described the way groups and individuals act and react to changing circumstances, he named these processes group dynamics.

But Lewin also used the phrase to describe the scienti? c discipline devoted to the study of these dynamics. Later, Cartwright and Zander, two of the most proli? c group dynamics The scienti? c study of groups; also the actions, processes, and changes that occur in social groups. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User The Nature of Group Dynamics 17 researchers in the ? eld, supplied a formal de? nition, calling group dynamics a “? ld of inquiry dedicated to advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, the laws of their development, and their interrelations with individuals, other groups, and larger institutions” (1968, p. 7). Cartwright and Zander also pointed out what group dynamics is not. It is not, for example, a therapeutic perspective holding that psychological well-being can be ensured through participation in small groups guided by a skilled therapist. Nor is it the communication of certain rules or guidelines that enable individuals to develop the skills needed for smooth and satisfying social interactions.

Finally, group dynamics does not refer to a loose collection of maxims concerning how groups should be organized— emphasizing, for example, such niceties as equal participation by all group members, democratic leadership, and high levels of member satisfaction. Rather, group dynamics is an attempt to subject the many aspects of groups to scienti? c analysis through the construction of theories and the rigorous testing of these theories through empirical research. Orienting Assumptions Sociologists and psychologists “discovered” groups almost simultaneously at the beginning of the 20th century (Steiner, 1974).

Sociologists, trying to explain how religious, political, economic, and educational systems function to sustain society, highlighted the role played by groups in maintaining social order (Shotola, 1992). Emile Durkheim (1897/1966), for example, argued that individuals who are not members of friendship, family, or religious groups can lose their sense of identity and, as a result, are more likely to commit suicide. Similarly, Cooley suggested that primary groups, such as families, children’s play groups, and emotionally close peers, “are fundamental in forming the social nature and ideas of the individual” (1909, p. 3). At the same time, psychologists were also studying the impact of groups on individuals. In 1895, the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon published his book Psychologie des Foules (Psychology of Crowds), which describes how individuals are transformed when they join a group: “Under certain circumstances, and only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of men presents new characteristics very different from those of the individuals composing” the group (1895/1960, p. 23). Although Le Bon’s work was speculative, Norman Triplett’s (1898) laboratory study of competition con? med that other people, by their mere presence, can change group members. Triplett arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turning a small reel as quickly as possible. He found that children who played the game in pairs turned the reel faster than those who were alone, experimentally verifying the shift that occurs when a person moves from a wholly individual circumstance to a social one. All sciences are based on paradigms, which are sets of guiding assumptions or principles shared by researchers in the ? eld (Kuhn, 1970).

These early studies paradigm Scientists’ shared assumptions about the phenomena they study; also, a set of research procedures. Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 18 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics laid the foundation for the ? eld’s paradigm by suggesting that if sociologists and psychologists are to understand society and the individuals in that society, they must understand groups. They also provided examples of the way in which questions about groups could be answered through scienti? c analysis.

Although the group dynamics paradigm continues to evolve and change as theoretical and methodological issues are debated and resolved, several of its core assumptions are considered hereafter (see Gouran, 1999; Harrington & Fine, 2000; J. M. Levine & Moreland, 1990, 1998; McGrath, 1997; Pepitone, 1981; and Steiner, 1986 for more details on the development of group dynamics. ) GROUPS ARE REAL The roots of group dynamics in both sociology and psychology produced a difference in the levels of analysis used when studying groups. A group-level analysis assumes that each person is “an element in a larger system, a group, organization, or society.

And what he does is presumed to re? ect the state of the larger system and the events occurring in it” (Steiner, 1974, p. 96). An individual-level analysis, in contrast, focuses on the individual in the group. Researchers who took this approach sought to explain the behavior of each group member, and they ultimately wanted to know if such psychological processes as attitudes, motivations, or personality were the true determinants of social behavior. Sociological researchers tended to undertake group-level analyses, and psychological researchers favored the individual-level analysis (Steiner, 1974, 1983, 1986).

Both group-oriented and individualistic researchers asked the question, “Are groups important? ” but they often settled on very different answers. Group-level researchers believed that groups and the processes that occurred within them were scienti? cally authentic. Durkheim (1897/1966) argued that his studies of suicide provided clear evidence of the reality of groups, for it revealed that a very personal act— ending one’s life— can be predicted by considering an individual’s links to social groups.

Durkheim was also impressed by the work of Le Bon and other crowd psychologists and went so far as to suggest that large groups of people sometimes acted with a single mind. He believed that such groups, rather than being mere collections of individuals in a ? xed pattern of relationships with one another, were linked by a unifying groupmind, or collective conscious. Durkheim believed that this force was sometimes so strong that the will of the group could dominate the will of the individual. Many psychologists who were interested in group phenomena rejected the reality of such concepts as groupmind or collective conscious.

Floyd H. Allport, level of analysis The specific focus of study chosen from a graded or nested sequence of possible foci. An individual level analysis examines specific individuals in the group, a group level analysis focuses on the group as a unit, and a multi-level analysis considers both individual- and group-level processes. groupmind (or collective conscious) A hypothetical unifying mental force linking group members together; the fusion of individual consciousness or mind into a transcendent consciousness, suggested by early psychologist Gustave Le Bon.

Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User The Nature of Group Dynamics 19 the foremost representative of this perspective, argued that such terms were unscienti? c, as they referred to phenomena that simply did not exist. In his 1924 work Social Psychology, Allport wrote that “nervous systems are possessed by individuals; but there is no nervous system of the crowd” (p. 5). He added, “Only through social psychology as a science of the individual can we avoid the super? ialities of the crowdmind and collective mind theories” (p. 8). Taking the individualistic perspective to its extreme, Allport concluded that groups should never be studied by psychologists, because they did not exist as scienti? cally valid phenomena. Because Allport believed that “the actions of all are nothing more than the sum of the actions of each taken separately” (p. 5), he thought that a full understanding of the behavior of individuals in groups could be achieved by studying the psychology of the individual group members.

Groups, according to Allport, were not real entities. Allport’s reluctance to accept such dubious concepts as groupmind into social psychology helped ensure the ? eld’s scienti? c status. His hard-nosed attitude forced researchers to back up their claims about groups. Many group-level theorists believed in the reality of groups, and they were certain that a group could not be understood by only studying its individual members. Allport’s skepticism, however, spurred them to identify the characteristics of groups that set them apart from mere aggregations of individuals.

GROUP PROCESSES ARE REAL Allport was correct in rejecting the concept of groupmind—researchers have never found any evidence that group members are linked by a psychic, telepathic connection that creates a single groupmind. However, the ? nding that this particular group-level concept has little foundation in fact does not imply that other group-level processes, phenomena, and concepts are equally unreasonable. Consider, for example, the concept of a group norm. As noted earlier, a norm is a standard that describes what behaviors should and should not be performed in a group.

Norms are not just individual members’ personal standards, however, for they are shared among group members. Only when members agree on a particular standard does it function as a norm, so this concept is embedded at the level of the group rather than at the level of the individual. The idea that a norm is more than just the sum of the individual beliefs of all the members of a group was veri? ed by Muzafer Sherif in 1936. Sherif literally created norms by asking groups of men to state aloud their estimates of the distance that a dot of light had moved.

He found that the men gradually accepted a standard estimate in place of their own idiosyncratic judgments. He also found, however, that even when the men were later given the opportunity to make judgments alone, they still based their estimates on the group’s norm. Moreover, once the group’s norm had developed, the original members of the group could be removed and replaced with fresh members, and the group norm would remain intact. If the individuals in the group are completely replaceable, then where does the group norm “exist”? At the group level rather than the individual level (MacNeil & Sherif, 1976).

The rift between individual-level and group-level researchers closed as the unique contributions of each perspective were integrated in a multilevel analysis of Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User 20 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Group Dynamics Community Organization ganization Group M e m b e r M e m b e r M e m b e r Organization Group M e m b e r M e m b e r Organization Group M e m b e r M e m b e r M e m b e r Group M e m b e r M e m b e r M e m b e r Individuals FIGURE 1-3 What is the multilevel view of groups?

When researchers study groups, they recognize that individuals are nested in groups, but that these groups are themselves nested in larger social units, such as organizations, communities, tribes, and nations. Thus, the unit of analysis—the source of the data the researcher seeks— can be individuals in groups, groups themselves, or groups that are part of organizations, communities, tribes, and societies. Researchers may focus on one level in this multilevel system, such as the group itself, but they must be aware that these groups are embedded in a complex of other relationships. groups (Hackman, 2003).

This perspective, illustrated in Figure 1-3, recognizes that individuals’ thoughts, actions, and emotions are shaped by individual-level processes, but that each individual is also shaped by the groups to which he or she belongs. These groups are shaped by their individual members, but they are also nested in larger groups themselves, including communities and organizations. Any analysis that focused only on one level would overlook forces operating at other levels and across levels. Allport, by the way, eventually amended his position and himself conducted extensive studies of such group phenomena as rumors and morale during wartime (F.

H. Allport & Lepkin, 1943) and the way norms in? uence behaviors (the J-curve hypothesis; F. H. Allport, 1934, 1961). GROUPS ARE MORE THAN THE SUM OF THEIR PARTS Allport initially be- lieved that group behavior was completely predictable by considering the characteristics and qualities of the individual members. But Kurt Lewin’s (1951) ? eld Copyright 2006 Thomson Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Licensed to: iChapters User The Nature of Group Dynamics 21 theory of group dynamics assumed that groups are more than the sum of their parts.

Field theory is premised on the principle of interactionism, which assumes that the behavior of people in groups is determined by the interaction of the person and the environment. The formula B ? ?(P,E ) summarizes this assumption. In a group context, this formula implies that the behavior (B) of group members is a function ( ? ) of the interaction of their personal characteristics (P ) with environmental factors (E ), which include features of the group, the group members, and the situation. According to Lewin, whenever a group comes into existence, it becomes a uni? d system with emergent properties that cannot be fully understood by piecemeal examination. Lewin applied the Gestalt dictum, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” to groups. Many group phenomena lend support to Lewin’s belief that a group is more than the sum of the individual members. A group’s cohesiveness, for example, goes beyond the mere attraction of each individual member to another (Hogg, 1992). Individuals may not like each other a great deal, and yet, when they join together, they experience powerful feelings of unity and esprit de corps.

Groups sometimes perform tasks far better— or far worse—than might be expected given the talents of their individual members. When individuals combine synergistically in a group, they sometimes accomplish incredible feats or make horrible decisions that no single individual could ever conceive (Hackman, 1987; Janis, 1983). Such groups seem to possess supervening qualities “that cannot be reduced to or described as qualities of its participants” (Sandelands & St. Clair, 1993, p. 443). GROUPS ARE LIVING SYSTEMS A holistic perspective on groups prompted researchers to examine how a group, as a unit, cha


Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out