12 ORIENTATION, HISTORY, AND OVERVIEW
speech communications, political science, organizational behavior,
group psychotherapy, social work, and educational psychology. Accounts
of this history can be found in numerous publications (e.g.,
Cartwright & Zander, 1953, 1960, 1968; McGrath, 1997; McGrath &
Altman, 1966; Moreland, Hogg, & Hains, 1994; Sanna & Parks, 1997). In
our condensed summary, we note some of the strengths of group theory
and research up to the present time and some of its weaknesses. We cite
representative work within each tradition discussed, but the reader
should note that we do not intend this as an exhaustive review.
Some Main Themes From Past Research
Small group research has always incorporated a diffuse array of research
and theory. Much of the earliest research was generated by several
relatively distinct "schools" of small group research, each with its
own perspective about what groups are, what they do, and how to study
them. McGrath (1997) summarized early work in terms of three schools
and identified three additional defining metaphors for group research
in more recent work. We flesh out that account by adding several additiona
1 bodies of research, many of which ha ve a more applied focus
than the six reviewed by McGrath.
The first three schools of early research identified by McGrath focused
on studying groups as (a) systems for influencing members,
(b) systems for patterning interaction, and (c) systems for performing
tasks. To these we add (d) the classic work of the National Training Laboratory
(NTL) and others on groups as a setting in which individuals
grow in self-understanding; (e) the Tavistock Institute's groundbreaking
research in work organizations, in which groups were viewed as intact
sociotechnical systems with multiple outcomes (e.g., task performance
and member satisfaction); (f) the Hawthorne studies plus the
work of Katz, French, and others on how informal groups develop
within work settings and affect both work effectiveness and member
satisfaction; and (g) work by Sherif and others on the dynamic interplay
of intergroup and intragroup processes.
Three more recent bodies of research identified by McGrath (1997)
explore groups as (h) information-processing systems; (i) systems for
managing conflict and attaining consensus; and (j) systems for motivatSmaJl
Group Research 13
ing, regulating, and coordinating the activities of members. We add to
that list recent work reflecting some of the earlier applied themes: (k)
research on work teams in organizational settings and (1)research in
education, clinical psychology, and social work on using groups in
classroom, clinical, and community settings to enhance the learning
and psychosocial adjustment of members. We also add another stream
of basic research: (m) research on cognition and behavior in the minimal
group and social categorization tradition. Several of the more recent
research traditions integrate or reinterpret themes within one or
more of the earlier bodies of work.
Theoretical insights and empirical findings gleaned from these 13
research streams form the substantive underpinnings of our approach
to small groups. At the same time, each of those bodies of work contains
some serious constraints and limitations-some common to all of
them, some shared by most. Many of those constraints arise from inherent
features of the conceptual and methodological paradigms that allowed
that work to generate so much useful knowledge. These limitations
suggest to us that the field of small group research needs to
transcend some established assumptions and practices if it is to continue
to gain new insights and understandings about groups and how
they operate.
The next section covers each of the 13 bodies of past and current research
briefly. We then discuss some limitations of the existing knowledge
base and identify some conceptual tools we think are needed if the
next century of research on small groups is to make the dramatic progress
that we feel is possible.
Ear1y Group Research
Groups os Vehicles for lnfluencing Members
A large body of small group research in its early years viewed groups
as vehicles for influencing members (e.g., changing their attitudes). That
school was built on the work and inspiration ofKurt Lewin (e.g., Lewin,
1948, 1953; Lewin, Lippett, & White, 1939), with many now-famous
contributions, such as Festinger's (1954, 1957) social comparison theory
and dissonance theory, Thibaut and Kelley's (1959) exchange theory,
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
14 ORIENTATION, HISTORY, AND OVERVIEW
Newcomb's (1953, 1961) theory of communication acts and work on
the acquaintance process, French and Raven's analysis of power
(French, 1956; French & Raven, 1959), and Cartwright and Zander's
(1953,1960,1968) conceptual framework, which shaped the early organization
of the field.
Although this body of work began with the study of natural groups
(e.g., Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950), it quickly migrated into the
laboratory, In fact, researchers in this school played a major role in creating
a powerful experimental technology for studying groups in laboratory
experimental settings. In large part because this technology became
the dominant paradigm for studying groups, small group research
was a central topic within a developing experimental social psychology
in the 1950s and 1960s. The very success of this experimental technology,however,
helped separate many researchers from the study of natural
groups with which they had begun.
Small group researchers continue to be interested in influence processes
in groups, although the emphasis on majority influence in this
early work has broadened to include minority influence processes (e.g.,
Moscovici, Mugny, & Van Avermaet, 1985; Nemeth, 1986; for a recent
review, see Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Buscerne, & Blackstone, 1994).
The theory of social impact (Latané, 1981) and its successor, dynamic
social impact theory (Latané & L'Herrou, 1996; Nowak, Szamrej, &
Latané, 1990), integrate majority and minority influence into a single
framework and also take dynamics seriously.
The features ofthis work that have informed our approach to groups
are its substantive emphasis on how groups fulfill member needs, its
conceptual emphasis on the importance of member-member and member-group
relations, and of course the methodological approach of
studying groups experimentally.
Groups as Vehicles for Patterning lnteraction
Another large portion of early research on groups regarded groups as
vehicles for patterning human interaction (e.g., patterned sequences of
problem-solving phases). Bales's (1950a, 1950b) interaction process
analysis (IPA)theory and coding system and its applications to analysis
of group processes (Bales, 1953, 1955; Borgatta, 1962), leadership and
Smol! Group Research 15
group structure (Bales & Slater, 1955; Borgatta, Couch, & Bales, 1954;
Talland, 1955), and problem-solving phase analysis (Bales & Strodtbeck,
1951; Psathas, 1960), as well as his later SYMLOG theory (Bales &
Cohen, 1979), provided the benchmark work on group interaction process
for decades,
ln the same era, Bion, Thelen, and colleagues (Bion, 1961; Stock &
Thelen, 1958; Thelen, 1956; Thelen, Stock, & Associates, 1954) developed
an alternative theory of work and emotionality in groups and an
alternative system for coding interaction. That work had and continues
to have an enormous influence on research and theory in group psychotherapy
(e.g., Ettin, Fidler, & Cohen, 1995; Verdi & Wheelan, 1992;
Wheelan & McKeage, 1993). Both the Bales IPA system and the Bion
system for observing interaction (a) are highly labor intensive and demanding,
(b) focus on interaction proces s but not on its content, and (c)
are tightly tied to particular theories and hence less useful for researchers
working aut of other theoretical frameworks.
This work is important to our theory because of its emphasis on the
key role of group process and because of its early concern with the patterning
of interaction process over time. The focus on dynamic processes
continues in recent work based in this school, such as Polley's
(1988, 1989) development ať group field dynamics. See Bales (1999) for
a recent summary and integration of this body of work.
Groups as Vehicles for Performing Tasks
Another large body of early research on groups viewed groups as vehicles
for task performance. That work, much more diffuse, dates back
to the 19th-century work ofTriplett (1898), to Allport's (1920) early research
on social facilitation, and to the work of other scholars in the
early 20th century (e.g., Dashiell, 1930). Much ofthis work studied military
units and sports teams (e.g., Altman & Haythorn, 1967; Carter,
Haythorn, & Howell, 1950; Goodacre, 1953; Havran, Fay, & Goodacre,
1951; Havran & McGrath, 1961; Roby & Lanzetta, 1956; for reviews, see
Dyer, 1985; McGrath & Altman, 1966). The majority ofwork, however,
used ad hoc laboratory groups to study topics such as leadership styles
(e.g., Fiedler, 1964; Glanzer & Glaser, 1959, 1961), communication patterns
(e.g., Guetzkow & Simon, 1955; Shaw, 1954, 1958), and various
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
16 ORIENTATION, H ISTORY, AN O OVERVIEW
aspects of group problem solving, decision making, and task performance
(e.g., Davis & Restle, 1963; Hackman & Morris, 1975, 1978;
Laughlin & Ellis, 1986; Lorge & Solomon, 1955; Shaw, 1932; Steiner,
1972; Taylor & Faust, 1952; for reviews, see Davis, Laughlin, &
Komorita, 1976; Levine & Moreland, 1990; McGrath & Kravitz, 1982).
Because task performance was central to this school, a portion of the
work from this perspective dealt with the effects of different types of
tasks (e.g., Carter, 1950; Kent & McGrath, 1969; Laughlin & Shippy,
1983; Laughlin, VanderStoep, & Hollingshead, 1991; McGrath, 1984;
Roby & Lanzetta, 1957, 1958; Steiner, 1972). This school's emphasis on
task performance as an outcome and its concern with differential effects
of different tasks have both been important to our own thinking.
Groups as Vehicles for lmproving
Member Self-Understanding
Simultaneous with these three schools of basic research on groups,
work at the National Training Laboratory at Bethel, Maine, was exploring
small groups from a more applied standpoint, investigating how
groups could be used to help individuals learn, grow, and gain greater
understanding of themselves. This work, which also originated with
the insights and teachings ofKurt Lewin (see Moreland, 1996, for an account
of how this tradition got started), led to a host of alternative approaches
by many research and practice groups, all of them exploring
how groups can contribute in a quasi-therapeutic way to individua 1
growth and development. Each research or practice team tended to develop
its own protocol for establishing and directing groups and established
its own criteria for assessing the progress of members on their
self-insight and self-development tasks.
One long-standing contribution of this body of work was the insights
it contributed to how small groups developed over time (see, e.g.,
Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Hill & Gruner, 1973; LaCoursiere, 1980; and
integrative reviews by McGrath, 1984; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman &
[ensen, 1977). For examples of more recent work on group development
that draws on this tradition, see McCollom (1995b) and Worchel
(1994). This work is important for our thinking because of its focus on
developmental issues and also because of the importance it placed on
the personal and interpersonal consequences of group activities.
SmaIl Group Reseorch 17
Groups as lntact, Holistic,
Sociotechnical Systems
The work of researchers at the Tavistock Institute in London, using
what came to be known as the "sociotechnical'' approach, related both
to the basic issues of the first three schools and to the applied focus of
the fourth. That work viewed groups as intact systems, consisting not
only of a collection of members but also of the tools, resources, and
technology available to (or imposed on) them. It studied groups in the
field (see, e.g., Trist & Bamforth, 1951) and revealed how changes in
technology could not be viewed separately from the group structure
that had grown up around a particular technology and set of tasks. The
sociotechnical tradition of studying naturally occurring work groups in
context has been continued by contemporary researchers inspired by
this tradition (e.g., Goodman, 1986; Kolodny & Kiggundu, 1980).
This work has been important to our thinking because of its focus on
technology and the interconnection between members, tasks, and
tools. More fundamentally, this body of work was one of the earliest to
study groups as intact, complex systems, embedded within larger contexts
that set constraints on these systems.
lnformal Groups in Work Settings
Much early applied research on groups was conducted in work organizations.
Unlike the sociotechnical school (and a later tradition to be
discussed below), most ofthis research was not concerned with analyzing
how formally organized work groups did their tasks; indeed, this
work stumbled on the importance of groups in the workplace serendipitously.
Perhaps the most notable part of this body of work were the
well-known "Hawthorne studies" (Homans, 1950; Roethlisberger &
Dickson, 1939), conducted at the Western Electric Company's plant in
Hawthorne, Illinois. The researchers conducting these studies were
not, initially, studying groups. Instead, they were interested in the impact
of workplace conditions and incentives on individual productivity.
Tofacilitate their studies, however, they separated out small groups
of workers and placed them in separate rooms for easier observation.
They found-to their surprise-that these informal groups of workers
developed and enforced strongly entrenched "group norrns," which
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
18 ORIENTATION, HISTORY, AND OVERVIEW
sometimes worked against the higher productivity goals of management,
counteracting the expected impact of production incentives, and
sometimes promoted enhanced production.
Other group researchers (e.g., Coch & French, 1948; Kahn & Katz,
1953) began investigating informal groups in work settings more deliberately.
They were interested in how emergent informal groups-the
unplanned patterns of interpersonal relations that developed among
coworkers-affected task performance and worker satisfaction in those
settings. They found that informal groups had a strong impact on what
formal work groups could accomplish and on how they carried out
their work. This body of work is important to our thinking because of
its emphasis on the importance of emergent groups and because of its
early investigation of how the group as a distinct entity mediates the
impact of a larger embedding context (typically work organizations) on
individuals.
The lnterplay o! lntergroup Relations
and Within-Group Processes
Some early group research also tackled the question of intergroup relations
and how those intergroup processes are intertwined with
intragroup activities. A classic early study that epitomizes work on this
topic was the Robbers Cave study by Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and
Sherif (1961), which showed that rivalry between groups typically
worsened under close contact but could be transformed into cooperation
through the manipulation of a common fate affecting both groups.
This study and other early work exploring intergroup relations (e.g.,
Blake & Mouton, 1961; Rabbie & Horwitz, 1969) continue to inform
studies of conflict between groups ranging in size from a few people to
whole nations or societies. A primary emphasis has been understanding
the roots of intergroup hostility and violence, demonstrating the ineffectiveness
of mere contact between members of different groups in
counteracting hostility, and searching for more effective ways to prevent
or defuse intergroup conflict in schools (e.g., [ohnson, Johnson, &
Maruyama, 1984; Schofield, 1978), in the workplace (e.g., Brown, Cendor,
Matthews, Wade, & Williams, 1986), and between large racial and
ethnic groups (e.g., Staub, 1989; White, 1969). This body of work has
been important to our thinking because ofits focus on the dynamic tenSmaJl
Group Research 19
sion between cooperation and competition, on the importance of contextual
factors in understanding intragroup relations, and on the twoway
interchange between a group and its embedding contexts, which
also contain other groups.
More Recent Bodies o! Group Research
As noted above, work on the core topics of many of the "early"
schools has continued to the present. Small group researchers have not
lost interest in influence processes, the patterning of interaction, group
performance, and so on, and contemporary work on these themes can
be viewed as contributing to a continuous line of research established
by this early work. So the work of many of these schools is ongoing.
ln this section, we identify recent bodies of work that are less easily
identified as continuations of one of these prior streams. Others surveying
the field might come to different conclusions about which bodies of
work constitute "continuations" or "new themes," and we have no
doubt left out some bodies ofwork that others would include. The bodies
of work that we have decided to call new "schools" or "streams" of
research strike us as different from continuations of the early schools
for one or more reasons. Some are pursued primarily by researchers in
disciplines other than experimental social psychology. Some integrate
multiple themes from different early schools; others coalesce around
new metaphors for thinking about groups. The first one we describe exemplifies
the emergence of a new metaphor.
Groups as InJormation-Processing Systems
The metaphor of the computer, which inspired the development of
modern cognitive psychology and contributed to a new interest in cogniti
on by social psychologists, has also been applied in the past few decades
to small groups. This growing body of research treats groups as
systems for organizing and processing inJormation-that is, acquiring,
encoding, processing, storing, exchanging, and using "inforrnation,"
broadly construed. It is exemplified by the theory and research of
Wegner and colleagues, and others, on transactive memory in groups
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
20 ORIENTATION, HISTORY, AND OVERVIEW
(Hollingshead, 1998; Wegner, 1986; Wegner, Erber, & Raymond,
1991); the work ofDavis and colleagues, and others, on group decisionmaking
processes, information exchange, and group memory (Clark &
Stephenson, 1989; Davis, Kameda, Parks, Stasson, & Zimmerman,
1989; Hartwick, Sheppard, & Davis, 1982; Hinsz, 1990; Hinsz, Tindale,
& Vollrath, 1997; Laughlin & Adamopoulos, 1982; Stasser, Taylor, &
Hanna, 1989; Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987; Tindale, 1989); and the work
ofLevine, Moreland, and others on sociocognition (Gruenfeld & Hollingshead,
1993; Levine & Moreland, 1985, 1991). This work emphasizes
what we see as one of the crucial "instrumental functions" of a wide variety
of kinds of groups: the acquisition, storage, processing, generation,
and use of information.
Groups as Conjlict-Managing
and Consensus-Seeking Systems
Another body of more recent work treats groups as systems for managing
conflict and generating consensus. Scholars who take this perspective
focus on the political work that groups do. It contrasts with the
earlier stream of research on conflict because it emphasizes what happens
when group members work together to try to resolve conflict and
thus tends to focus on intragroup, rather than intergroup, conflict. It is
exemplified by theory and research on negotiations and mediation and
on the experience and effects of intragroup conflict (e.g., Bazerman,
Mannix, & Thompson, 1988; Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b; Deutsch & Krauss,
1962; Iehn, 1995, 1997; Komorita, 1973, 1974, 1979; Pruitt & Kimrnel,
1977; Vidmar & McGrath, 1970).
In this body of work, groups are viewed not so much as problemsolving
systems but, rather, as interest- ar perspective-blending systems.
They are looking not for a correct answer but for consensus. This
work is important to our thinking because it makes clear that rational
information processing and problem solving is not the only thing
groups do, because it recognizes the importance of dynamic political
tensions in groups, and because it ťocuses on consensus as an emergent
group-level product ať interactions among members. It complements
the cognitive focus ať the inťormation-processing school with an emphasis
on affective processes.
Sma/l Group Research 21
Groups as Systems jor Motivating,
Regulating, and Coordinating Member Activities
A third body ať recent work treats groups as systems for motivating,
regulating, and coordinating member behavior. Work along these lines
includes research and theory on socialization ať members by Moreland,
Levine, and others (e.g., Goodman & Leyden, 1991; Goodman,
Devadas, & Hughson, 1988; Moreland & Levine, 1982, 1984; Salas,
Blaiwes, Reynolds, Glickman, & Morgan, 1985); work on habitual routines
by Gersick and Hackman (1990) and others (e.g., Weiss & Ilgen,
1985); and the work ofPoole and colleagues on adaptive structuration
(e.g., Poole, 1981, 1983; Poole & DeSanctis, 1989, 1990; Poole & Roth,
1989a, 1989b; Watson, DeSanctis, & Poole, 1988). Much work in sports
psychology (e.g., Ball & Carron, 1976; Carron, 1988) also takes this per-
spective.
This body ať work views groups as the medium within which much
human development and activity takes place and in which interaction
and resulting interpersonal relations are motivating forces, normativeregulatory
forces, and behavior-coordinating ťorces. This body ať work
has been important to our thinking because ať its emphasis on ongoing
group processes and because more than any ať the other current
"schools" it stresses the dynamics ať group operation.
The Development and Use oj Teams
in Work Organizations
In the last decade ar so, there has been a resurgence ať interest in
groups in the workplace, coincident with the growing use ať "teams" as
a basic unit of organizations (e.g., Beyerlein, [ohnson, & Beyerlein,
1997; Guzzo & Salas, 1995; Hackman, 1990; Salas, Dickinson, Converse,
& Tannenbaum, 1992; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990; see
Guzzo & Dickson, 1996, for a recent review). This body ať work shows
both that teams can be very effective units ať the work organization and
that teams can fail to provide high perťormance effectiveness, depending
on the features that they incorporate and the contextual conditions
under which they operate. That work also shows that organizations often
create unit s they call teams and expect the benefits that are purported
to flow from them but create those teams in a way that undercuts
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
22 ORIENTATION, 1-IISTORY, AND OVERVIEW
their effectiveness as autonomous performing units-by failing to provide
needed resources, including training; by placing responsibility on
the team but rewarding individuals; and by failing to provide an appropriately
supportive embedding context for the team to do its work. We
draw on this body of research not only because it emphasizes teams ar
groups as intact systems but also because it stresses the importance of
both initial conditions and interrelations with embedding contexts.
Groups as Vehicles Jar Improving the
Learning and Adjustment oj Members
The early work on "t-groups" and other forms of groups designed to
benefit members' psychosocial adjustment has its para11el in current
bodies of work within group psychotherapy, social work, and educationa
1 and clinical psychology (e.g., Corey & Corey, 1992; Kaplan &
Sadock, 1993; Yalom, 1995). Some ofthat work, done in classroom settings,
explores the benefits of group activities both for individuallearning
and for the development of positive patterns of interpersonal relations
(e.g., Christensen, 1983; Michaelsen, Watson, & Schrader, 1985;
Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). Application of these ideas,
within a wide range of types of groups, explores how group settings can
be beneficial to individual psychosocial adjustment, whether those individuals
are children and adolescents (e.g., Duncan & Gumaer, 1980;
Scheidlinger, 1984), adults suffering from the after-effects of childhood
trauma such as incest (e.g., Herman & Schatzow, 1984), people with behavioral
problems such as eating disorders (e.g., Brisman, & Siegal,
1985; Hendren, Atkins, Sumner, & Barber, 1987), battered women (e.g.,
Sadock, 1983), ar the men who batter them (e.g., Grusznski & Bankovics,
1990). This work emphasizes the two-way interchanges between
the group and its members and highlights a wide range of group
types and a wide range of group-related phenomena.
Identity in Groups
One body of work currently receiving considerable emphasis is the
study of social identity, group identity, in-group/out-group perceptions,
members' attributions about self and others, and other concepts
SrnaJ1 Group Reseorch 23
involving groups and identity. Unlike the earlier work of Sherif and
others on intergroup relations, current work is much more focused on
basic research issues, and rather than studying more natural groups
longitudinally, it primarily studies either short-lived, ad hoc laboratory
groups ar "minimal groups" whose members are informed of their
membership but do not interact.
This body of work, which draws on social identity theory (Tajfel,
1974, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and social categorization theory
(Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wethera11, 1987), focuses
on the cognitive process of perceiving groups and group boundaries
and identifying oneself as a member and on the consequences of
this process, such as in-group favoritism and discrimination against
out-group members. The emphasis has been largely on intergroup relations
(e.g., Brown, 1978; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Taylor &
McKirnan, 1984; van Knippenberg & E11emers, 1993) rather than on
intragroup process (for some exceptions, see Brewer & Gardner, 1996,
Hogg, 1987, 1996; Hogg & Hardie, 1991; Rabbie & Lodewijkx, 1996).
This work is important to our thinking because of its emphasis on individual
cognition and perception about groups, on the group boundary,
and on the ways in which the context ofintergroup relations may affect
group members' cognition, emotion, and behavior.
~ SOME STRENGTHS
AND LlMITATIONS
OF PAST THEORY AND RESEARCH
The research from these 13 streams of work on small groups, plus other
work that does not fit neatly within any of these categories, encompasses
an enormous number of published studies (see McGrath &
Altman, 1966; Moreland et al., 1994; and Sanna & Parks, 1997, for overviews).
Research in a11of these approaches has been done well for the
most part-as well as can be done by working with the methodological
tools that have dominated our field during this era. These multiple research
streams have provided key ideas for our theory of groups. The
ideas that we will draw from these bodies of work, and some crucial
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
62 THE THEORY IN DETAIL
sentful, ar indiťťerent, and they make preliminary inquiries to see
which candidates express strong interest. They consider the leadership
styles of different potential members and the possible pitfalls ať assigning
different members as task force leader. Barbara, who is familiar
with research on creativity in groups, wants the group to be demographically
diverse, with a mix of men and women and representation
from some different ethnic groups. After weighing these various requisites
and constraints, Ali and Barbara assemble the group, designate a
leader, and arrange an initial group meeting at which they clarify the
objectives of the group, the resources available, the deadline for completion,
and the frequency with which they would like to hear progress
reports from Richard, the group leader. Then they hope for the best.
Contrast this with the formation of a three-person flight crew, such
as the one described by Ginnett (1990). Tom, Bill, and Greg were assigned
by the airline to be the captain, first officer, and flight engineer
in this group on the basis of their availability in time and space and
their certification to perťorm one of these three roles. Tom and Greg had
ťlown together beťore, as it happened, but past experience with the
other crew members was, according to Ginnett, the exception rather
than the norm for such crews (p. 428). This crew was expected to ťulfill
its mission of flying planeloads of people back and ťorth along the Eastern
seaboard, in challenging weather conditions, with many lives and
staggeringly expensive organizational resources at stake. Airline rnanagers
presumably had high confidence that any given crew assembled
in this ťashion would complete group formation and be ready to perťorm
this challenging task successťully within minutes of meeting for
the first time. In stark contrast to the lengthy decision process that Ali
and Barbara went through to assemble their task force, the airline might
well have used an automated scheduling program to assign pilots and
flight engineers to crews.
Finally, consider a group of nine students who form a new a capella
singing group. No one assigns these students to the group; instead, one
or more of them come up with the idea of creating a group, and somehow
they find one another. No one assembles this group by assigning
members to it. Instead, people transform themselves into members as
the group assembles itself. The group includes men and women; sopranos,
altos, tenors, and basses; and members with a range of singing
backgrounds and skills. No one has a predetermined conception ofhow
many people will be in the group or what attributes they will have,
Group Formation
63
apart from a shared interest in membership. A leader emerges. A group
identity and boundaries develop. The group invents projects, figures
out what tasks the projects entail, and acquires or develops tools and resources
for completing the tasks. In contrast to the planning task force
and the flight crew, the singers are a completely self-organized group.
As these examples illustrate, group formation is not a single process
with minor variations. Instead, distinctly different sequences of events
can result in the formation of new groups. In this chapter, we view
group formation as resulting from the planned assembly of elements
plus emergent dynamics. These processes are driven both by the individuals
who become group members and by external forces that either
initiate or facilitate group formation. On the basis of the relative importance
of internal and external forces, and of planning and emergence,
we define four catagoriesof groups. A section on the "prehistory" ať
groups covers the context in which groups Iorrn, social integration, and
planning that occurs in advance of group formation. We then discuss
the impact of initial conditions and initial events that set the group on a
path of development, and we define six prototypical project-ťocused
and member-ťocused groups.
~ FOUR FORCES OF FORMATION
The creation of a new interacting group requires the assembly of components
into a new who1e; the transformation of peop1e, resources, and
intentions in the context of the whole: and the emergence of grouplevel
features as the members oťthe new group come together. The formation
of new groups is driven in part by the motivated action oť their
members. The structure of new groups is also determined in part by
constraints, opportunities, and demands in the group's embedding
contexts. People who are not group members are often instrumenta1 in
forming new groups. In the early history oť the group, potential group
members interact both with one another and with aspects of the embedding
context to create a new collective entity. The new group then
mediates and moderates the interaction between members and environment
and creates a new boundary that defines what is interna1 and
what is external for the group. External and interna1 forces contribute
to both assemb1y and emergence.
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
64 THE THEORY IN DETAIL
Assembly is the deliberate combination of parts to form an envisioned
whole, according to an implicit ar explicit plan ar plans. The
primary cha11enge of assembly, as illustrated by Ali and Barbara's experience
in putting together the notepad task force, is to select and combine
people and resources in a group that is likely to complete its projects
successfully, keeping in mind how different combinations of
elements with different arrays of attributes are likely to fit together. The
task force and the flight crew examples illustrate very different solutions
to this assembly problem.
Structure and order can also emerge from initia11yuncoordinated 10cal
interaction among individuals who transform themselves into
members of a group without any overa11orchestrated plan. The formation
of the singing group illustrates this process. In this case, the logic of
the structure is determined not by a blueprint and careful engineering
but by characteristic dynamics that entrain and order interacting parts,
replacing independence with complex patterns of interdependence.
Even the most carefu11y assembled groups have features-such as
group boundaries, group identity, norms, and co11ective memory systems-that
emerge as the group begins to operate.
The most important "elements" in a group are people, whose identity
and behavior will change to some degree in the process of psychological
group formation. Ali and Barbara "hope for the best" because
they realize that the success of the group will depend very much on
emergent processes. Some aspects of group structure, such as leadership,
may be either predetermined ar emergent. When elements of the
group are transformed in the context of the whole, gene rating new dynamic
patterns, we view this as a proces s of emergence.
~ THE GROUP FORMATION SPACE
External and internal forces, planned assernbly, and emergent processes
play a part in the formation of a11groups. However, the balance
of forces that shape their formation differs markedly across groups. Together,
the four forces define a group formation "space" in which new
groups can be arrayed. By dividing this space into quadrants we identify
four categories of groups (see Figure 4.1):
Group Formation 65
External
Circumstantial
Groups
Founded
Groups
Concocted
Groups
Emergent Planned
Self-Organized
Groups
Interna!
Figure 4.1. Forces in the Group Formation Space
1. Concocted groups (external, planned forces predominate)
2. Founded groups (internal, planned forces predominate)
3. Self-organized groups [internal, emergent forces predominate)
4. Circumstantial groups [external, emergent forces predominate)
When external agents deliberately form new groups according to
some plan, we call these concocted groups. Many work groups in organizations,
for example, are established by a manager who "creates"
them by fiat, assigning mernbers, tasks, and/ar tools to them. These correspond
to what Walton and Hackman (1986) ca11edwork teams. The
notepad task force and the flight crew are both concocted groups.
Alternatively, one ar more persons who will be charter member( s) of
a group may deliberately assemble a new group by linking up with
other people. We call these founded groups. A sma11business start-up
would fall into this quadrant. Both concocted and founded groups are
formed because some person ar persons-outsiders in one case, future
members in the other-set aut deliberately to connect people and resources
into a coordinated whole that will complete co11ectiveprojects.
Other groups, such as the singing group described at the beginning
of the chapter, come into being without much planning. These groups
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.
66 THE THEORY IN DETAIL
arise more ar less spontaneously from self-organized activity that flows
within existing patterns of relations among members, tasks, and tools.
We call groups that emerge from local interactions among persons pursuing
their individual agendas selj-organized groups. Many friendship
groups form this way. Walton and Hackman's (1986) category of selfenacted
groups at work indudes many groups of this type.
Groups thrown together by unexpected environmental circumstances
that dictate both the project and the membership of the group
fit the fourth quadrant of circumstantial groups. A group of people
stranded together on a broken-down bus, for example, may form a circumstantial
group. In self-organized groups, the primary impetus for
group formation comes from group members; in circumstantial groups,
the primary impetus emerges unexpectedly from the environment or
embedding context. Neither is planned in advance.
Our designation ofthese four categories emphasizes the relative balance
of forces in a group's formation, but all groups are formed by a
combination of forces. The people in a stranded bus, for example, become
avyare of themselves as a bounded set of people who share a common
predicament because of an unexpected external event, but no
group will form if the people fail to make contact and simply continue
reading ar staring out the window. By the same token, dyadic contacts
among people who are linked in a social network will not generate a
bounded, functionally coordinated group if the context provides no opportunities
ar rewards for doing so. Instead, interpersonal contact will
simply lead to more interpersonal contact.
~ WHAT THE CATEGORIES ILLUMINATE
The distinction between planned assembly and emergence is, in part, a
distinction between groups that are to some degree "built" by designers
(whether members of the group-to-be or not) who deliberately connect
the elements and groups that "grow" out of an embedding context as
ties among certain element s become denser and more dosely coordinated
with one another.
We believe that this typology is useful because the primary issues involved
in group formation differ depending on where in this space a
new group falls. When external forces predominate, a primary issue for
Group Formation 67
the new members of the group is how to conform to external demands.
When internal forces predominate, a primary issue is how new members
will coordinate and integrate their own goals, intentions, and expectations.
The distinction between internal and external forces is, in
part, a distinction between groups for which the member-group interchange
develops first and plays a prominent role in a group's early development
and groups for which the group-context interchange develops
first and thus takes precedence over member-group relations in
shaping a group's early development.
When a group is planned and deliberately created, the problems of
assembly come to the fore-how to choose among, gain access to, recruit,
and combine possible components. What to plan and what to
leave to "chance" or emergent dynamics are also an issue. The external
and internal creators of concocted and founded groups, respectively,
are attempting to optimize (or possibly satisfice) the group composition,
given their intentions for the group. The process of planning that
precedes group formation determines some but not all aspects of the
group composition. In groups that emerge more spontaneously, the
composition is also emergent. Understanding the formation of such
groups requires that we look at the forces that tend to bring people together
into new collectives and consider the impact these forces have
on the likely composition of emergent groups. In the next section, we
discuss the "prehistory" relevant to groups in all quadrants of the group
formation space.
~ THE PREHlSTORY OF GROUPS
Although it is often not possible to identify the starting point of a new
group with precision, we propose that a group "begins" when people
who think of themselves as belonging to a new group interact
withother new members and begin coordinating their actions for
some collective purpose. Thus, group formation is both a cognitive
and a behavioral process. All groups form in some context, in which
people and resources are available, to serve one or more purposes via
collective action. In the next section, we identify features of the embedding
context that should affect the prevalence of forces during group
formation.
ARROW, Holly a Joseph E. MCGRATH a Jennifer L. BERDAHL. Small groups as complex systems :formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000. viii, 336. ISBN 0-8039-7230-X.
Tento materiál je určen pro studijní účely.