Group and Inter-group

Processes
UNIT 14 GROUP DYNAMICS
Objectives

After reading this unit you will be able to:

• learn various theories of group development

• understand various concepts in sociometry
• understand the concept of group processes including, cohesiveness and its
• impact on group performance
• know what to observe in groups
• distinguish between task, group building, and self oriented roles in groups
• factors affecting group effectiveness.
Structure
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Models of Group Development
14.3 Sociometry
14.4 More Tools for Observation and Analysis of Groups
14.5 Various Roles in Group Process
14.6 Group Processes
14.7 Inter-group Processes
14.8 Improving Group Effectiveness
14.9 Summary
14.10 Self Assessment Questions
14.11 Further Readings

14.1 INTRODUCTION
We have made an artificial division of issues in group phenomenon into two units,
namely, structure and functions of groups and group process and group dynamics for
the convenience of presentation. One may raise questions regarding appropriateness
of classification or on coverage of material in the two units. For example, roles,
norms and group decision-making are part of the processes, but covered in structure
and function unit itself. Many structural issues like sociometry are being covered in
the present unit. This unit is entirely devoted to group processes and group dynamics.
Within group processes and dynamics, we are covering group development models,
observations of group processes, various roles played in group dynamics and finally
group effectiveness.

14.2 MODELS OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT

In this section we will briefly review following models of group development:

• Tuckman's five stage model

• Punctuated equilibrium model

• Tubb's. model
20
• Fisher's model Group Dynamics

• Poole's model

• Boss and Ryterband model

• Schutz's three stage model

Tucknan's five stage model. An alternative, and more popular, model by

Tuckman identifies four main successive stages of group development and
relationships: forming, storming, norming and performing.

• Stage 1 Forming : The initial formation of the group and bringing together of a
number of individuals who identify,. tentatively, the purpose of the group, its
composition and terms of reference.

At this stage consideration is given to hierarchical structure of the group, pattern

of leadership, individuals roles and responsibilities, and codes of conduct.

There is likely to be considerable anxiety as members attempt to create and

impression, to test each other, and to establish their personal identify within the
group.

• Stage 2 - Storming : As members of the group get to know each other better they
will put forward their views more openly and forcefully. Disagreements will be
expressed and challenges offered on the nature of the task and arrangements
made in the earlier stage of development. This may lead to conflict and hostility.
The storming stage is important because, if successful, there will be discussions
on reforming arrangements for the working and operation of the group, and
agreement on more meaningful structures and procedures.

• Stage 3 - Norming : As conflict and hostility start to be controlled members of the

group will establish guidelines and standards, and develop their own norms of
acceptable behaviour. The norming stage is important in establishing the need for
members to co-operate in order to plan, agree standards of performance and
fulfill the purpose of the group.

This co-operation and adherence to group norms can work against effective
organizational performance. It may be remembered, for example, that, in the
bank wiring room experiment of the Hawthorne studies, group norms imposed a
restriction on the level of output of the workers.

• Stage 4 - Performing : When the group has progressed successfully through the
three earlier stages of development it would have created structure and
cohesiveness to work effectively as a team. At this stage the group can
concentrate on the attainment of its purpose and performance of their common
task if likely to be at its most effective way.

• Stage 5 - Adjourning : This is last stage of the group development process. At

this stage wrapping up becomes the priority instead of high performance. At this
stage some members feel upbeat due to task accomplishment and some feel
depressed because this is the time members disband and friendship developed
during the group work will have to part. But this stage occurs only in the life of
temporary groups. For permanent groups performing is the last stage of
development.

These five stages are dynamic stages of group, many times group may regress to
lower stages after progressing to higher stages. This is the most cited model of group
development. Reaching to performance is most often considered desirable as groups
are expected to be high performing in performing stage. But this is not true. Some
time when conflict stimulation is necessary, storming stage will also produce high 21
performance in groups.
Group and Inter-group Punctuated equilibrium model: This model is applicable to temporary groups having
Processes specified deadlines. Studies suggest that such groups have their unique pattern of
action and inertia. Behaviour of such groups have common pattern: a. the first
meeting sets group's direction, b. this first phase of group activity lacks urgency,
represents the phase of inertia, c. transition takes place at the end of the first phase,
this most often happens when groups have consumed exactly half of its allotted time,
d. transition introduces major change, represents intense activity phase, e. second
phase of inertia follows the activity phase, and f. group's last meeting is marked again
by accelerated ace of activities. Essentially, this model suggests that temporary
groups with defined deadlines display long periods of inertia intercepted by brief
intense activity, sweeping changes stimulated primarily by members' consciousness
regarding time and deadlines.
Tubbs's small group development model: This model is conceptualized into four
stages:
• Orientation. In this stage, group members get to know each other, they start to
talk about the problem, and they examine the limitations and opportunities of
the project.
• Conflict. Conflict is a necessary part of a group's development. Conflict allows
the group to evaluate ideas and it helps the group avoid conformity and
groupthink.
• Consensus. Conflict ends in the consensus stage, when group members
compromise, select ideas, and agree on alternatives.
• Closure. In this stage, the final result is announced and group members
reaffirm their support of the decision.
Fisher's small group development: This model is again a four stage model of
development.
• Orientation. During the orientation phase group members get to know each
other and they experience primary tension, the awkward feeling people have
before communication rules ,and expectations are established. Groups take time
to learn about each other and feel comfortable communicating with new
people.
• Conflict. The conflict phase is marked by secondary tension, or tension
surrounding the task at hand. Group members disagree with each other and
debate ideas. Remember that conflict is considered good, because it helps the
group achieve desired results.
• Emergence. In the emergence phase, the outcome of the group's task and its
social structure become-apparent.
• Reinforcement. In this stage, group members examine their final decision from
various perspectives by using supportive verbal and nonverbal communication.
Poole's small group development model: Poole suggested that group development is
a complicated process and moves back and forth between three tasks: task,' topic and
relation. The three tracks can be compared to the intertwined strands of a rope.
• Task track. The task track concerns the process by which the group
accomplishes its goals,
• Topic track The topic track concerns the specific item the group is discussing at
the time,
• Relation track. The relation track deals with the interpersonal relationships
between the group members. At times, the group may stop its work on the task
and work instead on its relationships. When the group reaches consensus on all
22 three tracks at once, it can proceed in a more unified manner.
Breakpoints Group Dynamics

Breakpoints occur when a group switches from one track to another. Shifts in the
conversation, adjournment, or postponement are examples of breakpoints.

Bass and Ryterband's model. This model consists of four distinct stages in group
development: mutual acceptance and membership; communication and decision
making; motivation and productivity; and control and organisation.

• First stage - developing mutual acceptance and membership : Members have an

initial mistrust of each other and a fear of inadequacies. They remain defensive
and limit their behaviour through conformity and ritual. The priority is with
questions of likes and dislikes, and power of dependency of group members.

• Second stage - communication and decision-making : Once members have learnt

to accept each other they begin to express their feelings and conflicts. Norms of
procedure are established and there is acceptance of legitimate influence over the
group. Member develop a liking, or at least a sense of caring for each other.
There are more open communications and reactions. More constructive problem-
solving and decision-making behaviour strategies develop.

• Third stage - motivation and productivity : Problems of members' motivation

have been resolved. Members are involved with the work of the group. They co-
operate with each other instead of competing. Members are motivated by
intrinsic rewards to achieve a high level of productivity.

• Fourth stage - control and organization : The final stage of group development.
Work is allocated by agreement and according to the members' abilities.
Members work independently and the organization of the group is flexible and
adaptable to new challenges.

Schutz's three Stage model. This model suggests that each group irrespective of its
nature given enough time goes through the three interpersonal phases of inclusion,
control, and affection in the same sequence. The three stages are described briefly:

• Inclusion. In this phase the question is where they fit, in-or out. It starts with
formation of groups. People try to know each other through discussion on issues
that never closes. Question that is answered: do I belong ? The stage deals with
the issues like attention, acknowledgement, recognition, identity, and
participation. Once the issue of boundary problem or belongingness is resolved,
the group moves to control issue.

• Control. At this stage issue is whether I am at top or bottom, Here people decide
regarding sharing of responsibility, distribution of power and control. Typical
behaviour at this stage is leadership struggles, competition, and methods of
decision making, sharing of responsibility for the group's work. Each
member tries to establish a comfortable interchange and degree of initiation
with respect to control, influence and responsibility.

• Affection.. Ta third and last stage , the issue is `near or far'. Members have
already established their power and control relations. Now they want to
establish emotionally close and intimate relationship. Positive behaviour are
intimacy, personal confidence. Negative response is hate, hostility, and
emotional rejection.

The three issues are always present: in the group. They may surface again as
for some members the issues are not still resolved. The dealing with these
needs have been compared with changing of tires where bolts are tightened
Again and again. Similarly, in group development, the need areas are worked 23
on until they handled satisfactorily. Later they are returned to be more
satisfactorily worked upon if the same was left out in the first cycle.
Group and Inter-group
Processes
14.3 SOCIOMETRY

Originally developed by Moreno, sociometry (also called social network mapping or

organizational network analysis) a is a method of indicating the feelings of
acceptance or rejection among members of a group. A sociogram (see Fig.l ) is a
diagrammatical illustration of the pattern of interpersonal relationship derived from
sociometry. The sociogram depicts the choices, preferences, likes or dislikes, and
interaction between individual members of a group. It can also be used to display the
structure of the group and to record the observed frequency and/or duration of
contacts among members.

The basis of sociometry, however, is usually `buddy rating' or `peer rating'. Each
member in the group is asked to nominate or to rate, privately, other members in
terms of some given context or characteristic, for example with whom they
communicate, how influential or how likeable. Questions may relate to either work or
social activities. For example: who would you most prefer or least prefer as a work-
mate ? or who would make a good leader of the group? Or with whom would you
choose and not choose to go on holiday?

Positive and negative choices may be recorded for each person, although sometimes
positive choices only are required. The choices may be limited to a given number or
they may be unlimited. Sometimes individuals may be asked to rank their choices.

Figure 1: A. Simple Sociogram

- D is a star and is most often chosen by members

- J and G are unpopular chosen least by members

- D serves a bridge by belonging two cliques ABCD and DEFH

- ABCD clique has all channel communication

Constructing a Sociogram

In constructing the sociogram the distance between the points may be arranged to
indicate the degree of positive attraction. If two people, choose each other the points
representing these individuals will be closer together than if neither person chooses
the other. If both positive and negative choices are recorded some distinguishing
24 feature, such as different colours or the use of solid and broken lines, can be used to
differentiate clearly between selection and rejection.
Members' choices could be tabulated, but the advantage of the sociogram is that it Group Dynamics
provides a visual description of the sociometric structure of a group. It indicates
cliques and sub-groups, compatibility, and members who are popular, isolated or who
act as links. However, sociograms can become complicated and unwieldy especially
for larger groups or where there is an unlimited number of nominations, if rankings
are given, or where both positive and negative choices are recorded. Individuals
express desired choices and may indicate what they feel should happen. This does not
always correspond with actual patterns of behaviour.

Colleagues' rating is used sometimes ad part of a staff selection procedure, usually as

a basis for judgement of candidates "sociability' rating. This method can only be
used, of course, if a group of candidates have been together long enough to become
well acquainted with each other. Within sociometry, we use following terminology to
identify various kinds of interaction:

Social networks, A specific set of linkages among defined set of people Cluster.
Existing groups within social network

Prescribed clusters. Formal groups with in network such as departments, task forces,
committees etc.

Emergent clusters. Informal groups like friendship group, interest group

Coalitions. Clusters of people who temporarily align together to attain certain

objectives

Cliques. Relatively permanent informal groups involving friendship Stars.

Individuals with most linkages in a network

Liaisons. Individuals who connect two or more clusters but are not members of any
cluster

Bridges. Individuals who function as linking pins by belonging to two or more

clusters

Isolates. People who have no connections in social network

Understanding regarding emerging clusters, cliques, coalitions, stars, liaisons, and

bridges etc. may be useful in putting people on various projects, or identifying
informal leaders, or identifying people who can break peace if there is conflict in the
network .

14.4 MORE TOOLS FOR OBSERVATION AND

ANALYSIS OF GROUPS
Bales Interaction Process Analysis

The basic assumption behind interaction analysis is that behaviour in groups may be
analysed from the viewpoint of its function. This approach has developed largely
from the work of Bales on methods for the study of small groups. This aim is to
provide ways of describing group process and indications of factors influencing the
process.

In Bales’ ‘Interaction Process Analysis' every act of behaviour is categorized, a it

occurs, under twelve headings. These differentiate between `task' functions `socio-
emotional' functions. The categories apply to both verbal interactions non-verbal
interaction.

25
Group and Inter-group Major Categories Subcategory Illustrative Behaviour
Processes
Social-Emotional area 1.Seems friendly jokes, raises other' status, gives
(A. Positive& Mixed help, rewards, friendly
Reaction
2. Dramatizes laughs, shows satisfaction,
3. Agrees shows passive acceptance,
understands, concurs, complies.

Task Area 4. Gives suggestion direction, implying autonomy for

B. Attempted others.
Answers 5. Gives opinion evaluation, analysis, expresses
feeling, wish.
6. Gives information information, repeats, clarifies,
Task Area confirms
7.Asks for requests orientation, information,
information repetition, confirmation.
C. Questions 8. Asks for opinion requests opinion, evaluation,
analysis,
9. Asks for requests suggestion, direction,
suggestion possible
10. Disagrees Passively rejects, resorts to
formality, withholds help

Social& Emotional 11. Shows tension Asks for help; Withdraws,

Area daydreams
D. Negative(& 12. Seems unfriendly Deflates other's status, defends or
Mixed) asserts self, acts hostile
Reactions
Figure 2: Categories for Interaction Process Analysis
(Based on Robert F Bales(1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge Mass: Addison -
Wesley)
Symlogs
Bales devised another system of coding and observing group interaction called
Symlog which stands for System for the Multiple Level Observation of groups. Here
Bales argues that three structural dimensions underly differences among individuals
in groups: dominance versus submission (or status), friendliness versus
unfriendliness (or attraction), and instrumental control versus emotional
expressiveness (or role orientation). When individuals are classified as either high,
neutral, or low on these three dimensions, their position in the group's structure can
be identified. Bales's model yields the 26 distinct positions identified by the labels
listed in Forsyth.
Process observers' Checklist
John Brilhart provided a comprehensive checklist of questions related to process
flow. These can be used for observing groups:
1. Are there clear and accepted goals? Has the committee a clear understanding of
its charge? Is there an understanding of the type of output required?
2. Are all members are aware and accepting the limits of their areas of freedom?
3. Are any environmental problems disrupting the group such as poor seating
arrangement, noise, other distractions?
4. Do members seem to be adequately prepared with information?
5. Are information and ideas being evaluated, or accepted at face value?
6. Has some procedure or agenda for the discussion been provided or
developed by the group? If so, how well this being followed? Does it help
chooses group?
26 7. Distinguished problem solving discussion, has the group defined and clarified the
lines, can b thoroughly, or has it started working on solution too soon'?
8. How creative is the group in generating potential solutions to the problem? In Group Dynamics
interpreting information?

9. Has judgment been deferred until the solutions have been listed and understood
by all members?

10. Do members share values and criteria of decision making or there is clarification
sought on these issues?

11. When evaluating decisions does group uses information previously available to
it?

12. How are decisions being made?

13. If needed, has group made adequate plans to implement its decisions including
members responsibilities, resources future meetings etc.

14. Are periodic summaries needed to help members recall previous discussions and
to move to new issues without much repetition?

15. If needed, are decisions properly recorded?

16. If there is a designated leader, what style does he adopt and whether that is
appropriate for the group?

17. Does the role structure provide all the inputs? Are any needed behavioural
function's missing?

18. Are special procedural techniques such as brain storming etc being used in ways
that are productive? Could procedural changes benefit the group?

National Training Laboratory Approach

National Training Laboratory ,USA trains people in group process. The following
framework presents two observation sheets, one covering six types of leader-member
task-function behaviour and the other covering six types of leader-member group
building and maintenance function behaviour.

Task Functions

1 Initiating Proposing tasks or goals; defining a group problem, suggesting a

procedure or ideas for solving a problem.

2 Information or opinion seeking : Requesting facts, seeking relevant information

about a group concern, asking for suggestions and ideas.

3 Information or opinion giving : Offering facts, providing relevant information

about group concern; stating a belief; giving suggestions or ideas.

4 Clarifying or elaborating : Interpreting or reflecting ideas and suggestions;

clearing up confusions; indicating alternatives and issues before the group, giving
examples.

5 Summarising: Pulling together related ideas, restating suggestions after group has
discussed them; offering a decision or conclusion for the group to accept or
reject.

6 Consensus testing : Sending up `trial balloons' to see if group is nearing a

conclusion; checking with group to see how much agreement has been reached.

Group Building and Maintenance Functions

1. Encouraging : Being friendly, warm and responsive to other, accepting others

and their contributions, regarding others by giving them an opportunity for 27
recognition.
Group and Inter-group 2. Expressing group feelings: Sensing feeling, mood, relationships within the group,
Processes sharing one's own feelings with other members.

3. Harmonising : Attempting to reconcile disagreements, reducing tension through

'pouring oil on troubled waters', getting people to explore their differences.

4. Compromising : When own idea or status is involved in a conflict offering to

compromise own position, admitting error, disciplining oneself to maintain group
cohesion.

5. Gate-keeping : Attempting to keep communication channels open, facilitating the

participation of others; suggesting procedure for sharing opportunity to discuss
group problems.

6. Setting standards: Expressing standards for group to achieve, applying standards

in evaluating group functioning and production.

Use of Different Frameworks

Different frameworks use a different number of categories for studying behaviour in

groups, The interaction analysis method can become complex, especially if non-
verbal behaviour is included. Many of the categories in different frameworks may at
first sight appear to be very similar.

It is important, therefore, to keep the framework simple, and easy to understand and
complete. The observer's own personality, values and attitudes can influence the
categorization of behaviour. For these reasons it is preferable to use trained
observers, and wherever possible and appropriate to use more than one observer for
each group. The observers can then compare the level of consistency between their
categorisations.
Observation sheets can be designed to suit the particular requirements of the group
situation and the nature of the activity involved. Bales Interaction Process Analysis
subcategory can be good observation schedule (Figure 3). Similarly, problem solving
part of process observation can be undertaken through Brilhart's (Figure 4) schedule.
S.No. Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Class hour
Date
1 Seems friendly
2 Dramatizes
3 Agree
4 Gives suggestion
5 Gives opinion
6 Gives information
7 Asks for information
8 Asks for opinion
9 Asks for suggestion
10 Disagrees
11 Shows tension
12
Figure 3: Bales FORN Group Report
F= Frequently; 0= Occasionally; R= Rarely; N=Never
General comments on the Group
Instructions : On each scale indicate the degree to which the group accomplished
each identified behaviour . Use following scale for your evaluation:
l=Poor; 2=Fair; 3= Average, 4=good, 5=Excellent
28
 Group Dynamics
S.No. Item 1 2 3 4 5
1 The concern of each member was identified regarding
the group problem.
This concern was identified before the problem was
2
solved

3 In the problem analysis, the present condition was

carefully compared with specific condition desired

4 Goal was carefully defined and agreed by members

5 Valid (and relevant) information was secures when

needed
6 Possible solution were listed and clarified before they
were evaluated
7 Criteria for evaluating proposed solutions were clearly
identified and accepted by the group

8 Predictions were made regarding the probable

effectiveness of each proposed solution, using
available information and criteria
9 Consensus was achieved on the most desirable
solution
10 A detailed plan of implementation chalked out
11 The problem solving process was systematic and
orderly
Figure 4: Problem Solving Process Scale (Brilhart)
14.5 VARIOUS ROLES IN GROUP PROCESS
If the group is to be effective, then, whatever its structure or the pattern of
interrelationships among members, there are two main sets of functions or processes
that must be undertaken task functions and maintenance functions.
• Task functions are directed towards problem-solving, the accomplishment of the
tasks of the group and the achievement of its goals. Most of the task-oriented
behaviour will be concerned with `production' activities, or the exchange and
evaluation of ideas and information.
• Maintenance functions are concerned with the emotional life of the group and
directed towards building and maintaining the group as an effective working unit.
Most of the maintenance-oriented behaviour will be concerned with relationships
among group members, giving encouragement and support, maintaining
cohesiveness and the resolution of conflict.
Task and maintenance functions may be performed either by the group leader or by
members. In non-hierarchical groups both sets of functions are carried out
interchangeably by various members and the right balance is achieved between them.
The appropriate combination of task-oriented behaviour and maintenance-oriented
behaviour is essential for groups to be effective.
In addition to these two types of behaviour members of group may say or do
something in attempt to satisfy some personal needs or goals. The display of behavior
in this way is termed self-oriented behaviour. This gives classification of three main
types of functional behaviour which can be exhibited by individual members of a
group: task-oriented, maintenance-oriented and self-oriented.
While discharging task and maintenance functions members of groups assume three
kinds of roles : Task roles, group building and maintenance roles and self oriented
roles.
29
A popular system for the classification of these role is devised originally by Benne
and Sheats which further classifies the three roles into several subroles.
Group and Inter-group Task roles : These assume that the task of the group is to select, define and
Processes
solve common problems. Any of the roles may be performed by the various members
or the group leader.

Initiator-contributor: Suggests tasks and goals for the group, identifies problems that
need to solved and suggests procedure to approach them, generates new ideas.

Information-seeker: Asks for information about the task, clarifies issues, checks
factual accuracy.

Opinion-seeker: Asks for the input from the group about its values, seeks expression
of opinions and concerns of all members to ensure full participation and difference
opinion expressed. .

Information-giver: Gives facts, ideas, information regarding group problems and

proposes several alternatives to solve the problem.

Opinion-giver: States his or her beliefs and values about problems at hand.

Elaborator: Builds on others ideas and explains ideas within the group, offers
examples to clarify ideas.

Coordinator: Tries to identify common meeting points among between ideas,

synthesizes ideas .

Orienter: Shifts the direction of the group's discussion.

Evaluator-critic: Measures group's actions against some objective standard.

Energizer: Stimulates the group to a higher level of activity. Procedural-technician:
Performs logistical functions for the group. Recorder: Keeps a record of group
actions

Group building and maintenance roles : The analysis of member-functions is

oriented towards activities which build group-centred attitudes, or maintain group-
centre behaviour. Contributions may involve a number of roles, and members or the
leader may perform each of these roles.

Encourager: Appreciates the ideas of others.

Harmonizer: Mediates and reconciles differences between group members, reduces

tension, ensures that differences among members are brought to surface and resolved
satisfactorily.

Compromiser: When own idea or status is involved in a conflict offering to

compromises own position, admits error, disciplines, oneself to maintain group
cohesion.

Gatekeeper/expediter: Keeps communication channels open, creates space where

others can contribute, suggests procedures to share ideas.

Standard Setter: Suggests standards or criteria for the group to achieve.

Group observer: Keeps records of group activities and uses this information to offer
feedback to the group.

Follower: Goes along with the group and accepts the group's ideas.

Individual roles : These are directed towards the satisfaction of

personal needs. Their purpose is not related to either group task or to the group
functioning,

30 Aggressor: Attacks other group members, deflates the status of others, and other
aggressive behaviour.
Blocker: Resists movement of the group. Group Dynamics

Recognition seeker: Preoccupied in catching the attention of group to himself or

herself.

Self-confessor: Seeks to disclose nongroup related feelings or opinions.

Dominator: Controls the group by manipulating the other group members. Help
seeker: Tries to gain the sympathy of the group.

Special interest pleader: Uses stereotypes to assert his or her own prejudices.

By discouraging self oriented in groups and by actively performing task and group
building and maintenance, groups are capable of achieving twin goals of high
performance and member satisfaction and morale.

14.6 GROUP PROCESSES

Group processes refer to what happens within groups including communication,
decision making, leadership, motivation and cohesiveness, norms, roles, power and
control dynamics, synergy, social loafing or free riding , social facilitation effect etc.
Issues of communication, decision-making, group think, group shift, conflict
management norms, roles, power etc have been taken in other units. Here we will
take up the issues of group cohesiveness, synergy, social loafing and social
facilitation effects.

Group Cohesiveness

Group cohesiveness refers to extent to which members of the group are attracted
towards each other demonstrated through unity in the group, conformity to the norms
of the group and willingness to continue in the group. Attraction, cohesion, and
willingness to conform to the norms are interrelated concepts. The higher the
attraction among members towards each other, the higher will be cohesion. The
higher the cohesion, the greater will be the influence of members to conform to the
group norms.

Cohesiveness is an important concept as it is related to group performance and

productivity. But it may work as double edged sword. It may enhance or depress
group productivity depending on whether group's goals (performance norms) are
aligned with organizational goals. Studies consistently suggest that relationship
between productivity and group cohesiveness is moderated by the nature of
performance norms in the group. If the group is highly cohesive, more members will
follow its goals. If group's performance norms are high (aligned with organizational
goals: high productivity, high quality, customer orientation towards outsiders and
nonmembers) and cohesiveness is high, more members will try to perform to their
best so that group attains its goals. Contrary to that, if group's performance norm is
low, and cohesiveness is high more members will collude to suppress the
productivity. This happens when. cohesive workers union decides not to perform
•optimally or resort "work to rule". When group cohesiveness is low, and
performance norm is high, there may be a moderate improvement in productivity.
When group cohesiveness is low, performance norm is also low, there may not be a
significant effect on productivity.

Gibson and his Colleagues have suggested one or more of following steps can be
used by managers if they are interested in enhancing group cohesiveness:

1. Make the group smaller.

2. Encourage agreement with group goals

31
3. Provide opportunity to members to spend more time together
Group and Inter-group 4. Increase the status of the group and also make eligibility of group
Processes membership difficult.
5. Stimulate competition with other groups

6. Reward groups, not individual members

7. Physically isolate groups

Synergy

Group processes can facilitate as well as hamper group effectiveness. When

collective effort of the group members produces much better outcome for the group
than what is possible through simple addition of contributions of individual members.
The concept of synergy has been derived from biology that refers to an interaction of
two or more substances that generates an outcome which is different from the
individual addition of the substances. Synergy is observed in groups when through
interaction and group process arrive at creative break through decisions or solutions
to the problem.

Social Loafing or Free Riding

We are reminded of a story. A Yajan was to .happen in un Asharam. The rishi of the
Asharam requested each household to contribute one bowl of milk in the kunda
tomorrow morning. Households thought that so many people will contribute milk, if I
contribute one bowl of water, it will not be detected. In the morning the entire kunda
was full of water only. Moral of the story is that when individual contribution is not
identified, individuals tend to reduce their contribution. Social loafing or free riding
is tendency of individuals to reduce their effort or contribution in the group situation
than when working individually. This happen when individual efforts are not
identifiable or not rewarded . Free riders believe that group is working anyway, if I
take the benefit, what is the harm. As a result of social loafing, group outcome is less
than simple addition of contribution of persons working alone. Thus social loafing is
a case of negative synergy. Social loafing happens because of diffusion of
responsibility. It may also happen when all the members are looking towards others
for initiative and effort.

Social Facilitation Effect

Social facilitation effect is a phenomenon in which individual's performance

improves or deteriorates in presence of others. This may not be considered entirely a
group process, as other may or may not be a group member. However, group
provides a social context where such phenomenon occurs. You have privately
prepared a presentation, and you are comfortable with it but when you actually
present it, it gets messed up. It generally happens in initial presentations when things
are not learnt thoroughly. Contrary to that, some time you make extempore
presentation, and you deliver it beyond your expectations. The studies on social
facilitation suggests that if the task is simple and routine , task is performed more
efficiently in presence of others. If the task is complex requiring more focused
attention, performance seems to deteriorate in presence of others.

Another trend is if the task is well learned. , performance improves in presence of

others whereas if the task is not well learned performance declines in presence of
others.
From group effectiveness point of view synergy and social facilitation on well
learned tasks may increase process gains and social loafing and social facilitation on
poorly learned task may generate process losses. Similarly group cohesiveness
32
and task and group building roles may contribute positively to process gains while Group Dynamics
self oriented behaviour may contribute to processes losses. The process gain or loss
will actual group effectiveness.
14.7 INTER-GROUP PROCESSES
Schein suggests that groups working in organizations face two major problems. One
they perform effectively, i.e. , contribute positively to organizational goals and fulfill
their members needs. Second, how to create and sustain conditions between groups
which enhances the productivity of each without hampering inter group relations and
coordination. This problem emerges as groups become more committed to their own
goals and norms and start competing with one another and undermining rivals's
activities. Consequently, they become liability for organization as a whole. Challenge
before managers is to develop collaborative intergroup relations where task
interdependence or the need for unity becomes precondition for organizational
effectiveness.
What happens in intergroup competition with in and between competing has been
first studied by Sherif and his colleagues. The same experience is observed in other
replications in different kinds of groups at various locations. The experiences can are
described in terms A. what happens with in each competing groups, B. What happens
between competing groups, C. What happens to the winner and D. what happens to
the loser (See box 1).
Box 1: Experiences in Inter-group Competition

A. What happens within each competing group?

1. Each group becomes more closely knit and elicits greater loyalty from its
members; members close ranks and bury some of their internal differences.
2. The group climate changes from informal, casual playful to work and task
oriented; concern for members' psychological needs declines while concern for
task accomplishment increases,
3 Leadership patterns tend to change from more democratic toward more
autocratic; the group becomes more willing to tolerate autocratic leadership.
4 Each group becomes more highly structured and organized.
5. Each group demands more loyalty and conformity from its members in order to
be able to present a "solid front."
B. What happens between competing groups?
1. Each group begins to see the other group as the enemy, rather than merely a
neutral object.
2. Each group begins to experience distortions of perception-it tends to perceive
only the best parts of itself, denying its weakness, and tends to perceive only
the worst parts of the other group, denying its strengths; each group is likely to
develop a negative stereotype of the other ("they don't play fair like we do")
3 Hostility toward the other group increases while interaction and
communication with the other group decreases; thus it becomes easier to
maintain the negative stereotype and more difficult to correct perceptual
distortions.
4. If the groups are forced into interaction-for example, if they are forced to listen
to representatives plead their own and the others' cause in reference to some
task-each group is likely to listen more closely to their own representative and
not to listen to the representative of the other group, except to find fault with
his or her presentation; in other words, group members tend to listen only for
that which supports their own position and stereotype.
C. What happens to the winner?
1. Winner retains its cohesion and may become even more cohesive.
2. Winner tends to release tension, lose its fighting spirit, become complacent,
Casual, and playful (the condition of being "fat and happy").
33
Group and Inter-group 3. Winner tends toward high intragroup cooperation and concern for members'
Processes
needs, and low concern for work and task accomplishment.
4. Winner tends to be complacent and to feel that the positive outcome has
confirmed its favorable stereotype of itself and the negative stereotype of itself
and the negative stereotype of the "enemy" group; there is little motivation for
reevaluating perception or reexamining group operations in order to learn how
to improve them, hence the winner does not learn much about itself.
D. What happens to the loser?
1. If the outcome is not entirely clear-cut and permits a degree of interpretation
(say, if judges have rendered it or if the game was close), there is a strong
tendency for the loser to deny or distort the reality of losing; instead, the loser
will find psychological escapes like "the judges were biased," "the judges didn't
really understand out solution," "the rules of the game were not clearly
explained to us, "if luck had not been against us at the one key point, we would
have won," and so on. In effect, the loser's first response is to say "we didn't
really lose!"
2. If the loss is psychologically accepted, the losing group tends to seek someone
or something to blame; strong forces toward scope-goofing are set up; if no
outsider can be blamed, the group turn on itself, splinters, surfaces previously
unresolved conflicts, fights within itself, all in the effort to find a cause for the
loss.
3. Loser is more tense, ready to work harder, and desperate (the condition of
being "lean and hungry")
4. Loser tends toward low intragroup cooperation, low concern for members'
needs, and high concern for recouping by working harder in order to win the
next round of the competition.
5. Loser tends to learn a lot about itself as a group because its positive stereotype
of itself and its negative stereotype of the other group are disconfirmed by the
loss, forcing a reevaluation of perceptions; as a consequence, the loser is likely
to reorganize and become more cohesive and effective once the loss has been
accepted realistically
(Source: Edgar H Schein (1983). Organizational psychology (3rd ed.), New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India.}
Preventing Inter-group Conflict
Managers who are responsible for coordination and integration of performance of
various groups may consider using some of the following steps:
1. Emphasize total organizational effectiveness. Departments and sections should
be assessed and rewarded for their contribution to overall goal of the
organization rather that individual effectiveness.
2. High interaction and frequent communication. Opportunity should be created
for working together on projects requiring intergroup cooperation, groups may
be rewarded on the basis of help extended to other groups.
3. Frequent rotations of members among groups and departments. People having
experience of working in multiple departments have more understanding and
empathy than people who have no such opportunity. Thus frequent rotations and
transfers of members will develop more empathy and prevent conflict.
4. Avoid win-lose situation . Managers may emphasize pooling of scarce resources
for organizational effectiveness rather than driving the groups to win-lose
situation . Groups/departments should be rewarded equally for organizational
achievement.
Reducing Negative Consequences of Inter-group Competition
1. Locating the common enemy. When groups are competing within organizations
and energy is being wasted, manager need to canalize it fight the common
enemy. Two departments production and sales are fighting among themselves, if
they exhorted to fight the competing company, there may be reduction in the
34 departmental conflict. Now conflict has shifted to a higher level and energy is
being used to fight common enemy.
2. Bringing leaders, of competing groups together. Working together generates Group Dynamics
understanding of each other. Leaders of competing groups if brought together
may convince each other who inturn may influence their group members.
Frequent contacts and dialogues of group representatives may reduce conflict.
3. Locating super ordinate goals. When survival of the competing group is stake or
competing groups have identified- which is beneficial to both parties, groups
will agree to collaborate: When there is aggressive takeover bid from a foreign
competitor, companies competing earlier may join hand to abort take overbid.
Similarly, when Mohammedan Sporting and Mohan Baghan are playing with in
the country, they are arch rivals, but when the members the two team working
together and representing India, they forget the identity of Mohan Baghan or
Mohammedan, and play for the country.
4. Experiential intergroup training. Experiential training to reduce intergroup
conflict has been tried by organizations. If organization is aware of the problem
and recognize that it needs to do something to deal with the problem and also
ready to share this problem to an external consultant, then Blake and Mouton's
experiential workshop approach can be used for reducing conflict (Box 2).
Box 2. Blake and Mouton' s Approach for Handling Intergroup Conflict
1. The competing groups are asked to join a training setting and the common
objective to explore the mutual perceptions and mutual relations.
2. The two groups are then separated and each group is asked to discuss and
prepare a list of its perceptions of itself and the other group.
3. In the presence of both groups, representatives publicly `share the
perceptions of self and other which the groups have prepared, while the
group are expected to remain silent as objective is inform the other group
accurately as possible the images that each group has developed in
private).
4. Before any discussion , the groups return to private sessions to digest and
analyze what they have heard; there is a great likelihood that the
representatives' reports have revealed discrepancies to each group between
its self-image and the image that the other group hold of it; the private
session is partly devoted to an introspection and analysis of the reasons for
these discrepancies, which forces each group to review its actual behaviour
toward the other group and the possible consequences of that behavior,
regardless of its intentions.
5. In public session, again working through representatives each group shares
with the other what discrepancies it has found and the possible reasons for
them, focusing on actual, observable behavior.
6. After this mutual exposure, a more open exploration is permitted between
the two groups on the now-shared goal in identifying further reasons for
perceptual distortions.
7. A joint exploration is then conducted of how to manage future relations in
such a way as to minimize a recurrence of the conflict,
Interspersed with these steps are short lectures and reading assignments on
the psychology of intergroup conflict, the bases for perceptual distortion,
psychological defense mechanisms, and so on. The goal is to bring the
psychological dynamics of the solution into conscious awareness and to
refocus the groups on the common goal of exploring. jointly the problem
they share. In order to do this, they must have valid data about each other,
which is provided through the artifice of the representative reports.

((Source: Edgar H Schein (1983). Organizational psychology (3'' ed.), New Delhi: Prentice
Hall of India.)
14.8 IMPROVING GROUP EFFECTIVENESS
Group effectiveness is influenced by multiple factors. A simplified model of group
effectives has been conceptualized in terms of Input-processes- and outcomes (Figure
5). 35
Group and Inter-group
Processes

Figure 5: A Model of Group Effectiveness

In input variables the in the model included organizational context: environment,

structure, layout, technology, incentive system:, nature of task: task complexity,
procedure, and group members resources: skills and abilities, work values, number of
members. Similarly, Process variables included cohesiveness, norms, roles, decision
making, synergy, social facilitation etc. At outcome level, the model includes quality,
quantity, timeliness of performance, group morale and members' satisfaction. Based
on various researches following suggestions are made to improve group
effectiveness:
1. Groups exist within larger organizational context, orgazational structure,
strategy, authority relationship, selection procedure, motivational structure,
organizational layout, and workflow etc will influence group productivity. Where
organizational climate is supportive, resources are abundant, and company
follows meritocracy, group is likely to perform well. Managers should therefore,
look the group performance in context and try to provide supportive context.
2. Keep the groups smaller generally having five or seven members perform better
performance due to better adherence to group norms and cohesiveness. Smaller
groups also more satisfied members.
3. In order to collaborative norms organizations should reward group performance
rather than individual performance.
4. Complex tasks require more focused interaction compare to simple tasks. Thus
group will require more frequent and more intense interaction for solving
complex problems.
5. Group members if having requisite skills to tackle the problem, group's
effectiveness will be high.
6. If group's goals are aligned with organizational goals, and cohesiveness is high,
group performance will be high. Thus managers need to encourage groups to
internalize organizational goals.
7. Groups must use decisions techniques that minimizes the possibility of group
think.
8. Managers need to encourage shared leadership concept where members can
interchange the task and groups building roles. Self oriented behaviour should be
36 minimized.
9. To minimize social loafing develop task structure, specialized roles and some Group Dynamics
measure to assess individual contribution to group achievement .
10. When the task is interdependent, use effective communication and minimize
conflict to enhance high productivity.
11. Groups within an organizations should not pitted against each other to compete
for scarce resources, instead emphasis should be on pooling and sharing of
resources and work for superordinate goals of organization.
12. Educate and train group members in group process and group dynamics.

14.9 SUMMARY
The Unit covered group processes and group dynamics. Here we presented seven
models of group development of which Tuckman's model is most popular. We have
presented the concept of sociometry and elements of the same. Further, we discussed
various frameworks including Bales and NTL used for observing and analysing
group processes and dynamics. In the next section, we talked about task roles, group
building and maintenance roles and self oriented behaviour displayed by members.
Group processes including group cohesiveness, synergy, social loafing, social
facilitation effect have been discussed. Intergroup processes including how to deal
with competing groups have been discussed. A model of group effectiveness have
been presented and ways to improve group effectiveness have been .suggested.

14.10 SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. Discuss any group development model, which you consider most appropriate.
Why?
2. What is sociometry? Describe various elements in the same.
3. How can you analyse group interaction? Which framework would you like to
use and why?
4. What is synergy and how it is linked with social, loafing?
5. What social facilitation effect?
6. How can you deal with competing groups within an organization?
7. Define group effectiveness. What can be done to increase group effectiveness?

14.11 FURTHER READINGS

Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: research and theory. New
York: Harper & Row.
Robbins, S.P. (2001). Organizational behaviour (9° ed.). New Delhi: Prentice Hall of
India.
Ross, R.S. (1989). Small groups in organizational settings. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Inc.
Schein, E.H. (1983). Organizational psychology (3"' ed.) . New Delhi: Prentice Hall
of India
Sekaran, U. (1989). Organizational behaviour. New Delhi: Tltta Mcgraw-Hill.
www.akacgn.com/commstudies/groups/devgroups.httJ. Accessed on 27.9.2003

37