The Nature of Groups & Group Behaviour

AS and A Level Psychology

Business Environment & Practice

Assignment 3

The Nature of Groups

Group Behaviour

28th May 2004

Produced By:

Chris Hall

HND1 BIT

1. Introduction

The aims of this assignment, are to define the term ‘groups’ within the work environment, and discuss the difference between informal and formal groups. Using Tuckman’s (1965) model the way groups form will be examined and also used to discuss the effectiveness of group working. Finally the advantages and disadvantages of groups will be discussed.

Throughout the assignment personal experiences will be used and referred to as appropriate.

2. Explanation of the Term ‘Group’ and Description of ‘Informal’ and ‘Formal’ Groups.

Handy (1993) describes a group as ‘any collection of people who perceive themselves to be a group’, whilst Shaw (1981) after reviewing 80 definitions of a group, says ‘ a group is defined as two or more people who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person’.

Groups are typically separated into two main categories – formal and informal. Formal groups are the units established by the management as part of an organisation structure. They are defined in terms of their purpose and roles, they are official in the sense that they have appropriate authority, and they are provided with financial and physical resources. The principal function of a formal group is to further the aims and objectives of the organisation as laid down in policies and mission statements.

A functional analyses described by Cartwright and Zander (1968) describes, a group as one whose members are committed to a set of values that define the overall pattern of activity (meaning), have accumulated or generated the resources necessary for the task at hand (resources), have worked out an appropriate form of role differentiation and developed a sufficient level of morale for the task (integration) and have sufficient control in the form of leadership to coordinate the use of resources by the members to attain specific roles (goal attainment).

Informal groups tend to be employee centred groups whose aims and intentions may be different to those of the official organisation. They tend to draw their norms from themselves, their first loyalty is to their fellow group members, their goals are decided as to what is right for them, their behaviour is derived from interpersonal relationships, they are less permanent, primarily meet social needs, and their group leadership is likely to be exercised on a charismatic basis rather than authoritarian one (Brown 1998).

To illustrate this using my own personal experience, I have chosen an example from when I was an employee at the Isle of Man Post office, and was asked to revise all delivery duties out of the office from where I was based. Throughout this assignment I shall refer to this example.

This saw the formation of a formal group within the existing workplace, as a result of the organisation wanting a revision of duties to make us more efficient, but also due to demographic changes through housing development within the catchment area. For this task we were provided with the physical and financial resources that we needed, e.g. computer software and paid work time. We were therefore ultimately furthering the aims of the organisation, we needed to attain specific goals and we had an appointed leader. It was still a group however, that did have a personal agenda, in that every individual had an interest in how each delivery round would change, and effect their daily working routine.

3. Group Development

There are many theories for group development. These describe different orders of development (Bales & Strodtbeck 1951; Bennis & Shepard 1956; Schutz 1958; Tuckman 1965). Some researchers maintain that there is no normal sequence of phases (Gersick 1988), while others argue that there is no evidence for any phases in group development (Cissna 1984), although there may be continual growth as a group becomes more cohesive and better able to achieve a task (Barker 1991). However, for the purposes of this section of the assignment, Tuckman’s (1965) model is going to outlined and discussed.

3.1. Tuckman’s Model

Tuckman (1965) devised a model for considering how groups changed over time. He identified four key stages for group development, which was later joined by a fifth stage (Tuckman & Jenson 1977). These were:

3.1.1. Stage 1 – Forming

The first stage – forming- refers to the initial formation of the group, and is where the group may still be seen as a collection of individuals. It’s also where tasks have to be understood, resources and information acquired, individuals have to get to know one another and no one will want to seem ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

3.1. Tuckman’s Model

3.1.1. Stage 1 – Forming

Using my personal experience, although each individual of my selected group did know each other, there was to be a change in the relationships as everybody now had to work together to achieve an end result, regardless of whether we had previously ‘got on’ as a group. As the appointed leader, I was looked upon to provide the lead, and achieve the best possible result for all involved.

3.1.2. Stage 2 – Storming

The storming stage represents that period when problems begin to be faced more openly than in the earlier stage. Individuals begin to question or challenge the task and have to confront emotional issues between themselves. This stage can lead to disagreement and conflict within the group. This was true within my own group, as each member strove to ensure that their own personal agenda was met. Each member of the group stood to have their daily working practice changed, and thereby stood to gain or lose from the outcome. Personal feelings were therefore very much in evidence.

3.1.3. Stage 3 – Norming

This period of relative upheaval then moves into a stage 3, where conflicts are settled, new standards are developed by members, and co-operation begins. The group agrees individual requirements and expectations and develops their own forms of acceptable behaviour. This stage did see some agreement between my group members, as an outline of the duties began to emerge, and it was evident that most members would benefit from the revision.

3.1.4. Stage 4 – Performing

Stage 3 paves the way for the most productive stage, - performing. The group is now working effectively both in terms of its goals and its internal relationships. Teamwork develops and solutions are found. Stage 4 saw the completion of the revision, and was where the group was working together in a co-operative manner. Members had their personal agenda’s met in a fair and democratic way. For the few who were not initially happy, solutions were found via group consultation.

3.1.5. Stage 5 - Adjourning

The last stage, underlines the fact that a group’s life will eventually come to an end as people move on elsewhere in the organisation or as the original purpose is attained and the job is completed. As my group was formed for one task alone, on completion of the revision, adjournment did take place within the group, and the large group returned to the more informal groups that had previously existed within the workplace.

4. Group Effectiveness

The measurement of group effectiveness depends very much on the answer to the question ‘for whom is it effective’ (Handy 1965). Productivity and the fulfilment of task and organisational goals are important measurement factors for the organisation, whilst group member satisfaction is considered more of an important marker for its members (Handy 1965).

In order to maximise a group’s effectiveness and ensure optimum efficiency for the organisation within the workplace, it is important for a leader to have the ability to identify any characteristics that make a group effective or ineffective. In order to examine and assess group effectiveness, both quantifiable and qualitative factors will be discussed throughout this section of the assignment.

4.1. Quantifiable Factors

Quantifiable factors are characteristics of work place groups that are easier to measure than qualitative, as they have a measurable outcome. An effective group has a low turnover of members, high attendance and low absenteeism, high quality work output and productivity. However it is still able to achieve the targets of its individual members (Argyle 1989). These positive outcome factors are measurable and desirable for both the organisation and the group members.

In contrast an ineffective group would be one where group membership has a high turnover and absenteeism, group output is low and poor quality, time is wasted due to disputes between members and individual targets are not met. Flynn (1996) uses the example of Hallmark cards to illustrate measurable success from effective group behaviour. Despite being the largest greeting cards manufacturer in the world Hallmark remains a family group run business which puts its achievement down to successful communication and group co-operation, so much so that through a profit sharing programme employees now own one third of the company.

4.2. Qualitative Factors

McGregor (1960), when examining qualitative factors, distinguished between effective and ineffective groups in terms of how well they handle internal processes within the group. His key factors for success included:

Good communication with clear understanding of the group task, and role divisions within the group
Member commitment to that task and its achievement
Constructive conflict is brought into the open and dealt with in a environment of trust
Decisions are formulated by consensus of opinion
Ideas are expressed freely and openly
Leadership is shared when appropriate, and the group can still function in the absence of the appointed leader
The group is committed to helping each other and to a high level of group participation to ensure the best outcome

Characteristics of an ineffective group therefore include:

Inability to identify an eventual goal
Low commitment
Poor role definition
Mistrust between members
Conflict is avoided or develops into open disagreement
Group members are hostile to other member’s ideas
Few ideas are generated from within the group
Decisions are accepted without discussion
The group needs its leader to function

4.3. Personal Experience of Group Effectiveness

Within my own personal group I feel that looking at both the quantifiable and qualitative factors; we were a very effective group until our eventual adjournment. Prior to the group’s formation, we were a workforce of thirty staff all concerned only with our own individual agenda. Smaller informal groups did exist, but these were based on social and not work needs.

Within the ‘forming’ stage, good communication was established between group members with a clear understanding of what we as a group needed to achieve, that of fair, revised working duties for everybody. It was also made clear what each persons role within the group would be, with myself responsible to take the initial lead, but would make no decisions without the full consensus of the group.

Throughout the ‘storming’ stage, there was some conflict but this was dealt with in an open and constructive way. For example, several group members were anxious that changes made to the structure of their duties would be to their detriment. However with adequate explanation regarding other group members increasing workload every group member became committed to achieving the fair revision of duties, and all group members contributed openly without fear of hostility, as they realised it would benefit all.

In the ‘performing’ stage therefore, group decisions were achieved and reached by consensus, fulfilling many of McGregor’s (1960) qualitative success factors. The group had full member involvement; good attendance at meetings and at work, and despite its agenda maintained good quality, high out put work. The review of duties took approximately three months, thus work had to continue using the old duties which were now considered unfair by most. However, as group members were not only kept informed but were active in the changes, the group remained effective for both the organisation and its individual group members in achieving its goal.

5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Working

‘Groups are a characteristic of all social situations and almost everyone within any organisation will be a member of one of more groups’ (Mullins 1995). The power of group membership over individual behaviour has been well documented and tested within human relations (Asch 1951, Milgram 1965), and this has shown that groups are not only powerful, but are an essential feature of the work pattern of any organisation. Indeed, Heller (1997) writes that the ‘best culture for an organisation is a team/group culture’.

Within this section I aim to discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of group working, using my own personal experience as a reference point. However I do not aim to provide a completely exhaustive list as this would not be possible within the confines of this assignment.

5.1. Potential Advantages

Effective group work promotes a good working relationship, high staff morale and work performance
Group/team work can increase competitiveness in a positive way by

- improving productivity and quality

- encouraging innovation

- improving employee motivation and commitment

The achievement of certain tasks that can be performed only through the combined efforts of individuals working together
Groups encourage co-operation between members
Groups provide companionship and support from colleagues
Group working provides guidelines on appropriate norms for working
Provides protection for its members
Helps facilitate effective communication
Potential source of motivation and job satisfaction
Effective groups can have extremely beneficial effects for the organisation and its work output

5.2. Potential Disadvantages

If all members of the group do not have the same goal, tension can develop and individuals may impede efforts to work together
Being assigned to a group may lead to dissatisfaction immediately, and individuals may become marginalised
Groups may compete against each other in a non productive manner
Members may spend too much time enjoying being part of a group and not working
Larger groups can develop communication problems and can splinter into smaller groups where friction can develop
Group unity may not always be immediate and take time to develop
Strong groups do not always produce a higher level of output, it will depend on the group ‘norm’
Strong groups once formed can prove resistant to change and develop hostile attitudes towards those outside the group
Role conflict can arise from inadequate or inappropriate role definition

5.3. Personal Group Experience

Overall the example I have used throughout this assignment to illustrate group working, was a positive experience with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.

The group was originally formed with one unequivocal goal and was formed from a larger group that already had a good working relationship, thus it generated a high morale and maintained the productivity and quality of its work ethic.

The successful revision of the duties to the eventual satisfaction of all could only have been possible through the combined efforts of everybody working together in co-operation, and the acceptance that all members of the group had an equal say in the final outcome. Through effective listening and communication, the group generated its own norms, and was able to resolve any conflict in a manner that was eventually suitable for all.

Despite being a larger group, it was not in existence long enough for smaller groups to splinter, and as everybody already knew each other, nobody within the group had a chance to become marginalised.

Group unity for goal achievement was immediate, although how this was going to be achieved was not always agreed on. This however did not cause excessive hostility, as it was dealt with openly. Role functions within the group were well defined, everybody had an equal part to play, despite me having an original lead role and being the one who eventually documented all changes. The group functioned purely as a formal work group until adjournment, and was not therefore one that had a social agenda – its members were only interested in achieving a fair revision of work duties so that work load was once again distributed evenly. Consequently, this group experience was a positive and successful one for both its members, and the organisation that we worked for.

6. Conclusion

Throughout this assignment, I have outlined - how groups form and become either formal or informal, are effective or ineffective and their advantages and disadvantages. Although I have examined the theory around these issues I have also used a positive example of working within a group, and demonstrated how powerful and productive group working can be.

Work groups are an essential feature of the modern workplace, and if a person managing a situation can learn how work groups operate effectively, then it can often be a positive and productive factor for both the group workers as well as the work organisation.

7. Bibliography

Argyle, M. (1989) The Social Psychology of Work Second Edition, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Asch, S.E. (1951) Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgements. In Guetzkow, H. (Ed) Groups, Leadership and Men, New York: Carnegie Press.

Bales, R.F. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1951) ‘Phases in Group Problem Solving’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46: 485-95.

Bennis, W.G. and Shepard, H.A. (1956) ‘A Theory of Group Development’ From Turniansky, B. and Hare, A.P. (1998) Individuals and Groups in Organisations, Sage Publications: London.

Brown, A. (1998) Organisational Culture, Financial Times Management: London.

Cartwright, D and Zander, A (Eds) (1968) Group Dynamics: Research And Theory, New York: Harper and Row.

Cissna, K.N. (1984) ‘Phases in Group Development’ ‘Small Group Behaviour, 15:3-32 From Turniansky, B. and Hare, A.P. (1998) Individuals and Groups in Organisations, Sage Publications: London.

Flynn, G. (1996) ‘Hallmark Cares’, Personnel Journal, 75 (3): 50-9.

Gersick, C.J. (1988) ‘Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward New Model of Group Development’, Academy of Management Journal, 1: 9-41 From Turniansky, B. and Hare, A.P. (1998) Individuals and Groups in Organisations, Sage Publications: London.

Handy, C.B. (1993) Fourth Edition, Understanding Organisations, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Heller, R. (1997) In Search of European Success, Harper Collins Business.

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Milgram, S. (1965) Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority, Human Relations 18(1): 57-76.

Mullins, L.J. (2002) Sixth Edition, Management and Organisational Behaviour, Pearson Education: London.

Schutz, W.C. (1958) FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour, From Turniansky, B. and Hare, A.P. (1998) Individuals and Groups in Organisations, Sage Publications: London.

Shaw, M.E. (1981) Third Edition, Group Dynamics, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965) ‘Development Sequence in Small Groups’ From Mullins, L.J. (2002) Sixth Edition, Management and Organisational Behaviour, Pearson Education: London.

Tuckman, B.W. and Jenson, N. (1977) Stages of Group Development Revisited Group and Organisation Studies, 2(3): 419-27.

Woodcock, M. (1979) Team Development Manual, Gower Press.