Process group: internal working, look out for the well being of members.
Content group: substantive issues, quality of decisions reached and amount of output.
The balance of these serves to locate them at some point on this continuum and provides distinct identity. The group as a whole seemed to be more on the Content side rather than looking after each other as it was a business venture we were planning. We wanted to see the amount of output we could gain from the group as a whole.
Our group was only small and not an aggregation so this helped to reduce confusion within the group as to what people's tasks were. This kind of group is similar to what Cooley 1929 define as a primary group and was typified for close and frequent face to face association which was the main basis of our business planning. This face to face interaction has been talked about by Saks and Krupat 1988 stressing the importance of this type of interaction and interpersonal involvement between group members so as to work as a SYNERGY.
Shaw 1981 also said that:
" Two or more persons interacting with one another causes each individual to influence the other and vice versa."
This was quite true as we all had different viewpoints and as we discussed them other ideas opened up as to how we could carry out things. An example being how we could market the product one person talked about using aesthetically pleasing workers and another came up with using music so as to slow people down to choose more than what they wanted. This was taken from working at McDonalds as they play fast music to make the customers eat quickly and leave the restaurant as soon as they finished.
Due to us knowing that we needed to work hard on this piece of work it gave us a knock on effect on how we ought to work. As some people needed to work harder than others to be able to get on to the next year. Once the person showed that he wanted to work hard the others also decided to do the same, this is the same as what Zander said with his theory in 1982.
"Knock on effect within the group, as if one person is affected by an event the will have a bearing on the rest of the group and the groups outcome will affect each individual so everything works within a cycle."
This also comes in with the theory of Hare 1976 as the entire group shared a common goal and that was to make the business to succeed and for the work to gain a pass grade. Once this goal though had been achieved the group seemed to disperse and return to their usual group.
The groups though all wanted at the start wanted to be included, secondly have control and thirdly recognition. This is similar to Schutz 1955 theory of inclusion, control and affection. Also this ties in with Argyle's theory of interpersonal behaviour in response to social drives for affiliation, dominance, dependency and aggression although dominance depends on the submissiveness of the others within the group although the group tended to work on the same level rather than having a main leader. I think this was due to most people in the group having the same kind of attitude and temperament. As the group evolved the expectations of what each person needed to do was no needed to be voiced it was all fairly clear from body language what everyone was needed to do. This was probably due to the regularities of operations and because we all expected each the same from each other. This can be linked to Baron's theory from 1992 when he said,
" Such norms will generally have powerful effects on thoughts and actions of group members"
The efficiency towards the end of the project was extremely good everyone seemed to gain a grasp upon what was needed and what was expected as they had gained a greater understanding for the projects needs. This conforms to the theory in the book written by Hargie,Saunders and Dickson stating:
"Conformity to the commonly held views and practices of the majority has a number of advantages for the group. It tends to increase efficiency and facilitate group maintenance as well as reducing uncertainty and confusion among members and project a strong group image to the rest of society"
