17/03/2015 1 La Trobe University School of Psychology and Public Health PHE2HED Week 3: Group Dynamics and Group Processes Gregory Murphy, Ph. D. Lecture Objectives Define groups and distinguish between formal and informal groups Discuss two models of group development; and Explain how group size and member diversity influence what occurs in groups Discuss the causes and consequences of group cohesiveness Explain the dynamics of social loafing Describe the stages of optimal work team creation Promote the patient health self-management approach of Dr Kate Lorig, Stanford Patient Education Center 17/03/2015 2 Why Study Groups? They are widespread in organizations generally (and in health and human-service organisations particularly). They can influence individual behavior, sometimes positively but sometimes negatively. These influences can be very powerful so care must be taken in the ethical conduct of groups (both for employees and community members seeking service) They can enable us to do things we couldnt do alone They have the potential to perform better than individuals What is a Group? Group Two or more people in social interaction sharing common goals, having a stable group structure, and perceiving themselves as being in a group Formal work/task groups Groups that are established by organisations to facilitate the achievement of organisational goals e.g., task forces, committees, commercial weight-loss group Informal groups Groups that emerge naturally in response to the common interests of organisational or community members. The classic example of this is AA. Groups of persons who share a problem and meet without a professionally-trained leader. Many support groups are informal, but some are formal as in a Job-finding group for Workers Compensation clients. 17/03/2015 3 Work Groups/Teams/ Self-help and Support groups Self-help and Support groups are groups without standard definitions (see Kurtz, 1997). Essentially, self-help groups assist members achieve personal change (while Support groups facilitate the exchange of experiences) Work teams in organisations have: A team task Clear boundaries and reporting arrangements Stable membership for some period of time Some authority to manage their own work Group Dynamics Involves the nature of groups the variables governing: their formation and development their structure their interrelationships with: individuals (other groups) the organisation or social system in which they exist 17/03/2015 4 Defining Teams a group whose members have complementary skills and are committed to a common purpose or set of performance goals for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Three key constructs: complementary skills (?How identified) common purpose (?how evenly shared) mutual accountable (? how much shared responsibility) Five-Stage Model of Group Development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997) 1. Forming Dependency and inclusion 2. Storming Counterdependency and fight 3. Norming Trust and structure 4. Performing Working 5. Adjourning Termination 17/03/2015 5 Five-Stage Model of Group Development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997) 1. Forming Groups members try to orient themselves What are we doing here? What are the others like? What is our purpose? i.e., inclusion, can all live under this banner? The situation is often ambiguous (even if a seemingly clear goal can be stated, there are often divergent pathways to goal attainment, different indices that can be used to assess goal progress). Members are aware of their dependency on each other (or, at least on some others; i.e., there exists a problem or a task that each knows he/she cannot solve by himself/herself) Five-Stage Model of Group Development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997) 2. Storming Conflict often emerges (typically over pathways and/or measures that are valid for assessing the progress of the group). Confrontation and criticism occur as members determine whether they will go along with the way the group is developing. Sorting out roles and responsibilities i.e., counterdependency and fight 17/03/2015 6 Five-Stage Model of Group Development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997) 3. Norming Members resolve the issues that provoked the storming Members develop social consensus Compromise is often necessary Interdependence is recognized, norms are agreed to, and the group becomes more cohesive i.e., trust and structure Information and opinions flow (more or less) freely roles adopted within the group can limit some members contributions, give extra emphasis to those of others. Five-Stage Model of Group Development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997) 4. Performing With its social structure sorted out, the group devotes its energies (more or less) towards task accomplishment i.e., working (but what is the ideal ratio of on-task to off-task behaviours?) Achievement, creativity, and mutual assistance are prominent themes of this stage (but achievement quality cannot be assured, as it depends on the interaction of task characteristics and characteristics of group members). 17/03/2015 7 Five-Stage Model of Group Development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997) 5. Adjourning Rites and rituals that affirm the groups previous successful development are common e.g., ceremonies and parties Members often exhibit emotional support for each other Threats to Team Performance from failure at each developmental stage Failure to form Low cohesion and commitment Lack of information about relative strengths and weaknesses Failure to Storm Unless all major elephants in the room are acknowledged, there is increased risk of conflict at critical moment later in group life that is hard to settle Difficulty making tough decisions Failure to Norm Unclear procedures, practices, and group roles Poor coordination 17/03/2015 8 Punctuated-Equilibrium Model (Gersick, 1989) When groups have a specific deadline by which to complete some task, we can often observe a very different development sequence Equilibrium means stability Gersicks research revealed apparent stretches of group stability punctuated by: A critical first meeting A midpoint change in group activity A rush to task completion Punctuated-Equilibrium Model (Gersick, 1989) 17/03/2015 9 Punctuated-Equilibrium Model (Gersick, 1989) Phase 1 Begins with the first meeting and continues until the midpoint in the groups existence The very first meeting is critical in setting the agenda for what will happen in the middle of this phases Assumptions, approaches, and precedents that the members develop in the first meeting end up dominating the first half of the groups life Although it gathers information and holds meetings, the group makes little visible progress toward the goal Punctuated-Equilibrium Model (Gersick, 1989) Midpoint transition Occurs at almost exactly the halfway point in time toward the groups deadline Marks a change in the groups approach, and how the group manages it is critical for the group to show progress The need to move forward is apparent, and the group may seek outside advice This transition may consolidate previously acquired information or even mark a completely new approach, but it crystallizes the groups activities for Phase 2 just as the first meeting did for Phase 1 17/03/2015 10 Punctuated-Equilibrium Model (Gersick, 1989) Phase 2 For better or worse, decisions and approaches adopted at the mid-point get played out in Phase 2 It concludes with a final meeting that reveals a boost of activity and a concern for how outsiders will evaluate the product Recommendations Based on the Punctuated-Equilibrium Model (Gersick, 1989) Prepare carefully for the first meeting What is decided here will strongly determine what happens in the rest of Phase 1 As long as people are contributing, do not look for radical progress during Phase 1 Manage the midpoint transition carefully Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the ideas that people generated in Phase 1 Clarify any questions with whoever is commissioning your work Recognize that a fundamental change in approach must occur here for progress to occur Essential issues are not likely to work themselves out during Phase 2 Be sure that adequate resources are available to actually execute the Phase 2 plan Resist deadline changes these could damage the midpoint transition 17/03/2015 11 Team composition & its consequences Real teamwork requires task interdependence where team members are required to interact in the performance of the task (cf., Thompson, 1967) Team members are selected on the basis of their Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) in order to contribute to effective team work (?team vs group) However, team members personality and demography can play a critical role in addition to key KSAs Team Composition: Personality Personality make-up of the team affects its performance (Neuman & Wright, 1999) e.g., the more team members rate highly on the personality dimensions of agreeableness and conscientiousness, the better the team as a whole seems to perform (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998) 17/03/2015 12 Team Composition: Demography Additive Resources View (Williams & OReilly, 1998) As team membership becomes more heterogeneous, the amount and availability of info. the team can draw on in decision-making & problem-solving increases Team Composition: Demography Social Identity / Self-Categorization (Hogg & Terry, 2000) Increasing the demographic diversity may lead to exaggerated perceived differences between sub-groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity) leading to increased conflict, communication problems, lowered cohesiveness, increased dissatisfaction If one wishes to plan for successful interaction between members of sub-groups, best to follow the prescriptions of Amirs contact hypothesis (see Amir, 1969; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). 17/03/2015 13 Team Composition: Demography Similarity / Attraction Processes (Pfeffer, 1983) The tendency for individuals to like and be attracted to others who share similar backgrounds, attitudes, values, etc. Attraction processes are proposed to have positive impacts on communication & cohesiveness (Tsui et al., 1992).But, beware of groupthink as per Janis. Team Composition: Demography Empirical Conclusions Diversity frequently has negative effects on team effectiveness in the initial stages of team work More diverse groups have a more difficult time communicating effectively and becoming cohesive - i.e., diverse groups might tend to take longer to do their forming, storming, and norming However, once they do develop, more diverse groups can be equally cohesive and sometimes more productive than are homogenous groups. 17/03/2015 14 Team Composition: Demography Empirical Conclusions Surface vs. Deep diversity Any negative effects of surface diversity in age, gender, or race seem to wear off over time However, deep diversity in attitudes toward the value of the goal or how to accomplish a goal can badly damage cohesiveness Only functional diversity (the extent to which a team possesses diverse KSAs) has been consistently linked to performance & satisfaction Diverse groups sometimes perform better when the task requires cognitive, creativity-demanding tasks and problem solving rather than more routine work because members consider a broader array of ideas Team Composition: Team Size and Performance Optimal team size depends on the exact task that the group needs to accomplish and on what we mean by good performance Additive tasks Tasks in which group performance is dependent on the sum of the performance of individual group members e.g., picking grapes we can estimate potential speed of harvesting the fruit by adding the efforts of individual workers Thus, for additive tasks, the potential performance of the group increases with group size 17/03/2015 15 Team Composition: Team Size and Performance Disjunctive tasks Tasks in which group performance is dependent on the performance of the best group member e.g., a research team might require one particularly bright, attentive, logical-minded individual Thus, the potential performance of groups doing disjunctive tasks also increase with group size because the probability that the group includes a superior performer is greater In many skill-acquisition groups ( as in health self-management groups), the presence of an advanced group member can facilitate higher average performance by group members via modelling, but with attention drawn to key features of any display. Team Composition: Team Size and Performance As groups performing tasks get bigger, they tend to suffer from process losses Process losses Group performance difficulties stemming from the problems of motivating and coordinating larger groups Even with good intentions, problems of communication and decision making increase with size Thus, actual performance =potential performance process losses 17/03/2015 16 Team Size and Performance (Additive and Disjunctive Tasks) a) both potential performance and process losses increase with group size for additive and disjunctive tasks b) the net effect which demonstrates that actual performance increases up to a point and then falls off c) shows that the average performance of group members decreases as size gets bigger Thus, up to a point, larger groups might perform better as groups, but their individual members would be less efficient Team Composition: Team Size and Performance Conjunctive tasks Tasks in which group performance is limited by the performance of the poorest group member e.g., an assembly-line operation is limited by its weakest link Thus, both the potential and actual performance of conjunctive tasks would decrease as group size increases because the probability of including a weak link in the group goes up In skill-acquisition groups, a low-performing member can retard the progress and achievements of others by consuming too much time, eliciting frustration and drop out in others etc.. 17/03/2015 17 Team Composition: Team Size and Satisfaction Members of larger groups consistently report less satisfaction with group membership As opportunities for friendship increase, the chance to work on and develop these opportunities decrease owing to the sheer time and energy required Larger groups, in incorporating more members with different viewpoints, might prompt conflict and dissension, which work against member satisfaction As group size increases, the time available for verbal participation by each member decreases Many people are inhibited about participating in larger groups To the extent that individuals value such participation, dissatisfaction will be the outcome In larger groups, individual members identify less easily with the success and accomplishments of the group Team Process: Group Cohesiveness Interactions between team members and between members and individuals/groups external to the team are strongly predictive of both team performance and member satisfaction (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996) Cohesiveness degree to which group members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group (West et al., 1998) Generally, cohesiveness is positively associated with both performance and member satisfaction (Mullen & Copper, 1994) Facilitates Trust development Affective: benevolence & integrity Cognitive: perceived competence 17/03/2015 18 Team Processes: Group Cohesiveness Increasing group cohesiveness: 1. Make the group smaller 2. Encourage agreement within group goals 3. Increase time members spend together 4. Increase group status and admission difficulty 5. Stimulate competition with other groups 6. Give rewards to the group, not individuals 7. Physically isolate the group However, strong cohesion can be dysfunctional for teams: a phenomenon referred to as Groupthink (Janis, 1972) Team Process Losses: Groupthink (Janis, 1982) Initial Conditions High cohesiveness Insulation of the group from outsiders Lack of methodical procedures for search and appraisal Directive leadership High stress with a low degree of hope for finding a better solution than the one favored by the leader or other influential persons Complex/changing environment Characteristics of Groupthink Illusion of invulnerability Collective rationalization Belief inherent morality of the group Stereotypes of other groups Direct pressure on dissenters Self-censorship Illusion of unanimity Self-appointed mind guards Groupthink Leads to Defective Decision Making in Terms of Incomplete survey of alternatives Incomplete survey of goals Failure to examine risks of preferred choice Poor information search Selective bias in processing information at hand Failure to reappraise alternatives Failure to work out contingency plans Conformity-Seeking Tendency of Group 17/03/2015 19 Team Processes: Decision-Making Decision-making by groups is improved when they develop constructive norms regarding problem solving e.g., not shying away from raising & discussing problems Constructive controversy the willing consideration of opposing positions Thus, while too much intra-team conflict can hinder team effectiveness, conflict can give rise to beneficial outcomes Effective decision-making is also related to the extent to which teams scan and review their environment to identify & classify problems Team Processes: Motivation Collective Group Efficacy / Group Potency The aggregate belief of team members that their team can be effective in performing their overall job (Prussia & Kinicki, 1996) Collective efficacy is an element of team empowerment G.M.s query: Self-efficacy is an individual attribute built on personal history (read and master Banduras work on this). Group Goal-Setting Teams with collective goals expend more effort, persist longer in pursuit of their goal, & achieve higher levels of performance (OLeary et al., 1994) Effort is enhanced by the teams commitment to the goal, and by the provision of feedback on team performance (Sawyer et al., 1999) Goal acceptance moderates the relationship b/w cohesiveness and performance (Podsakoff et al., 1997) 17/03/2015 20 Team Process Losses: Social Loafing The tendency for group members to exert less individual effort on additive task as the size of the group increases Managing social loafing Make individual performance visible Make work interesting Increase feelings of indispensability Increase performance feedback, but with individual contributions monitored Reward group performance Stages of Work Team Creation (Hackman, 1987) Stage 1: Do Prepwork Decide what work needs to be done, what community (health) problem is worth tackling Determine if a team is necessary to accomplish the task, if an appropriate group can be assembled that would be capable of producing good (health) outcomes Determine what authority the group should have (in health, most health self-management skills are capable of being developed via the use of resources available within the group Decide on the teams/groupss goals Stage 2: Create Performance Conditions Provide all needed materials and equipment (may be ICT) Ensure that the team/group contains at least one suitably knowledgeable and skilled individual (model), and there is capacity for reinforcement of skill gains displayed. 17/03/2015 21 Stages of Work Team Creation (Hackman, 1987) Stage 3: Form and Build the Team Establish boundaries i.e., who is and is not in the team/group Arrive at an agreement regarding the tasks to be performed Clarify the behaviours expected of each team member Stage 4:Provide Ongoing Assistance Intervene to eliminate team problems e.g., members not doing their share; destructive members Replenish or upgrade material resources Replace members who leave the team/group (? How feasible with health self-management groups) Summary Group development is influenced by maturation stages (Tuckman) and by time available (Gersick) Groups can produce synergistic gains but are also subject to process losses & groupthink Team composition is crucial, and someone has to lead or monitor the group processes to ensure that unhelpful norms do not become established (e.g., lack of contribution by some members, dominating behaviour by others etc.) 17/03/2015 22 Conclusion You are all more likely than ever to enter the Health and Community Services workforce and work in teams and/or promote particular support groups Self-reflect on your own teamwork experiences (as a student, as an employee, as a volunteer, as a member of a community organisation): strengths & weaknesses. Health-related knowledge (chronic conditions) Skills in facilitating the development of positive new behaviours and reducing negative behaviours Optimistic attitude formation via positive self-talk Use team theory & empirical research findings to enhance your understanding about how best to work in teams, and to be an effective team-worker and team leader! Read everything produced by Dr Kate Lorig, Patient Education Center, Stanford University.