EDP 5285-01 SPRING
2018
PROFESSOR SUSAN CAROL
LOSH
|
KEY TAKEAWAYS
|
| REFERENCE DONELSON FORSYTH'S GROUP DYNAMICS RESOURCES SITE HERE |
| GROUP PROCESSES |
|
ASPECTS OF GROUP STRUCTURE (I) |
| TOPICS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORE ON GROUP ROLES ROLE CONFLICT REFERENCE GROUPS |
|
|
A group and its activities reflect more than simply the interaction among its members. A group has a structure and it is situated in an environment or social space, that also has a structure. Picture, for example, that your group is developing a new product--a course, a training program for service personnel, or even an elaborate doghouse. Consider the following questions, only some of those which can be asked about a group and its structure:
Group environments and social spaces provide inputs and feedback, and receive outputs (the open system model). Groups have:
a
composition
(e.g., size, age or gender)
internal processes (e.g., leadership or
conformity) and
a
structure.
"Group structure"
often
refers to the set of interlocking roles
played
by group members and the norms
and
expectations
that
guide group behavior. In this course, we will go a step further and look
into differences between formal and informal groups, as well as artifacts
and experiences that contribute to group culture, and the group environment.
| GROUP COMPOSITION |
Groups vary in their membership, for example, in the age, ethnicity, social status or gender of group members, and membership can range from homogeneous to diverse.
When members share many characteristics in common, pressures toward conformity may increase because members expect their compadres to hold similar expectations, beliefs, and attitudes. Group dysfunctions, such as "groupthink," may then occur because the narrow range of opinions expressed in homogeneous groups leads members to believe that deviant opinions are very rare and will not be tolerated. (Sometimes this is called "pluralistic ignorance.")
The statuses that group members hold in the "outside world" (often called diffuse status characteristics) may influence how members interact. People may defer to older members, or to those with more education or prestigious occupations. Several studies have found that those higher in diffuse status characteristics more often interrupt others, or otherwise influence the course of conversation, than members with lower diffuse status characteristics. That these asymmetries exist because of relative social status, rather than from either "personality traits" or some inherent quality (e.g., "men are aggressive" or "women talk more"), is substantiated when we find such conversational asymmetries occur more often in diverse groups, rather than those comprised of members holding the same diffuse status characteristic. For example, in same sex groups, men and women interrupt each other at a roughly equivalent rate, while in mixed sex groups, men interrupt women far more than the reverse (see work by Candace West). (NOTE: Consider how status diversity might influence a focus group you have convened.)
Without doubt, group size has been one of the most studied compositional qualities. Group size can facilitate performance OR it can create a process loss (i.e., members perform below their potential). Individual performance levels can decline with group size (Ringelmann effect) perhaps due to social loafing (has anyone who has been in a work group NOT experienced social loafing?). Sometimes this phenomenon is called "free riding," where members who do relatively little share in the rewards of those who are highly productive. Better coordination and individual feedback can minimize social loafing. Incentives for social loafing (e.g., all members receive the same benefits regards of participation) increase it.
Larger groups tend toward less informal interaction and their members view them as "less friendly." In general, the larger the group, the less satisfied members tend to be with their membership. To produce more friendly relations--or even to get tasks accomplished--large groups commonly create smaller subgroups. This proliferation may create a more specialized division of labor. And, of course, larger groups have a membership that can be allocated to specialized tasks.
I found that large religious congregations were more likely to create "support groups," whose reason for existence was to meet socio-emotional needs among congregants. Smaller congregations appeared to meet these needs informally through continuous verbal interaction, often during the religious service itself. However, the congregations that created support groups could also politically mobilize more easily around goals that were important to them, such as lobbying on abortion or providing volunteers for a homeless shelter. This may have been because the creation and maintenance of support groups either drew upon bureaucratic skills among the membership (larger congregations were also higher socio-economic status congregations), or because members were required to develop such bureaucratic skills to create support and maintain support groups. Once developed, the same skills could also be used for political organizing.
Political scientists have found that these kinds of bureaucratic skills generally occur more often among well-educated Americans. See work by Warren Miller and his colleagues in The American Voter (2nd edition). (And the higher the social status of the religious congreations in my sample, the more these congregations created support groups.) However, Miller also found that Black individuals who were active in largely Black religious congregations also more often developed bureaucratic skills, regardless of the estimated status of the congregation. This may be because historically the Black Church has occupied a central role in America, not only serving religious and spiritual needs, but also educational, financial, and political functions for the U.S. Black community.
NOTE: because my study design was observational,
I can calculate the correlations among variables (the number of support
groups, congregational size, and congregational status) but I can't unequivocally
establish causal order. Thus I don't know whether managerial and professional
congregants stepped forward to create support groups because of their greater
experiences with bureaucracy--although I suspect this is very important,
or whether the average parishioner learned and developed bureaucratic skills
through trial and error (or denominational training) in order to
make support groups possible. Warren Miller et al's analyses suggest religious
congregations can teach these bureaucratic skills to members.
|
|
Groups vary along several dimensions. Characteristics of these dimensions can help to define group structure. For example, theorists often distinguish between primary groups, typically small, important to the individual, and characterized by considerable social interaction, and secondary groups, which are less central to the individual, often larger, and more aloof. Ascribed groups are more likely to be primary groups. Depending, primary groups may be either formal or informal, or, they may exist as a formal entity (as a family does to state and federal law) and be characteristized by interaction that is more informal: diffuse, socio-emotional, and particularistic. Religious congregations typically have a formal structure, in part imposed by a centralized denomination, but, except for paid officials, depend on volunteer attendance and labor.
| ACHIEVED VERSUS ASCRIBED GROUPS |
The membership of an ascribed group usually consists of individuals who either are born into the group, marry into the group, or who are otherwise placed there a priori by the norms and customs of a culture or subculture. Many important primary groups, such as families, are ascribed groups. In American society, religious affiliation is often treated as ascribed (note, for example, the many individuals who describe themselves as former or "lapsed" Catholics, or "Jews for Jesus," who retain a strong ethnic Jewish identity.) Ascribed groups are more typically "who you know" rather than "what you know."
Think: "you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family".
On the other hand, members in achieved groups must often accomplish a task or demonstrate a skill in order to enter the group. Recruits to youth gangs, or fraternity and sorority pledges, typically must complete a pledgeship or initiation to show that they deserve membership. Colleges demand a composite of board scores and grades while business organizations require a set of skills. Even in friendship groups, the member must demonstrate that she or he possesses sufficient social skills to belong.
The differences between ascribed and achieved groups may structure how the group interacts. Members of achieved groups tend to emphasize accomplishing group tasks. Indeed, the primary determinant of maintaining membership may be the individual's ability to demonstrate that they can perform group tasks and contribute to group goals (including social tasks or goals, such as planning a party or organizing a night out). In other words, the novice may need to serve a probationary period or undergo an initiation. Interaction tends to be more ritualistic and role specific (focused upon successful role performance), less wholistic, affectively neutral (emotionally neutral), and task-specific achievement oriented . Expectations for group members tend to be universalistic (i.e., the same criteria are used to judge all members).
Because individuals in ascribed groups often have little or no choice about their membership, face to face interaction may be less geared toward group tasks, or only partly oriented toward group goals. For example, family members may coordinate to ensure the group's financial survival (and such cooperation is often taken for granted), but families are also typically expected to fill many socio-emotional needs. Interaction is more diffuse (geared toward the "whole person" rather than toward only the specific role the individual occupies), more emotionally expressive,and particularistic (expectations that are particular to a specific person rather than to a role). The emphasis may be placed on seeing that group members all "get along."
[The above section relies heavily on applying concepts developed by the late sociologist Talcott Parsons; that's the same Parsons who worked with R. Freed Bales on groups.]
Many articles exist giving advice about job behavior. In European and U.S. companies, individuals are urged "not to bring their problems to work." Online article after article admonishes the employee not to show much emotion (unless "our team wins a big one") and not to discuss romantic or family problems. At the same time, many companies have established "Employee Assistance Programs" to help individuals cope with off-the-job problems and thus to increase their employee productivity.
Is it any wonder that employees are reluctant to visit EAPs under these circumstances? To admit one may be in trouble outside the office not only signals vulnerability to the competition, it also violates norms about admitting personal problems at work.
TO DISCUSS: How can an institution signal employees--or students--that it's OK to receive some assistance for off-job problems or situations?
More recently: one's political party can
function as a source of social identity and this has gained in importance
over the past few decades.
| FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL GROUPS |
Ascribed groups tend to have interaction styles that are informal, even though the group may be recognized by society as formal (families, for example). There is a tendency to think of achieved groups as formal, but watch out! Many informal friendship groups are basically achieved. Conceptually, it is clearer to think of ascribed versus achieved groups as forming one dimension, and formal versus informal groups as a second, and critical, dimension.
Informal groups dissolve when all the original members leave. Formal groups survive at least one complete turnover of members. This simple definition covers a lot of ground. For example, when does a formal group become a formal organization? That line isn't always clear. Formal organizations are often chartered on paper before they exist as a "group," e.g., have members or buildings. Thus, an organization may be created as a separate, free-standing entity. On the other hand, at least some formal groups may not start as organizations but ultimately develop into organizations.
Because of survival, formal groups often have more resources and advantages than informal groups. For example, a formal group may be more likely to have a group culture containing:
Histories, symbols, protocols, and a language then serve to set group boundaries, i.e., designations of who--or which entities--belongs to the group and who does not. Formal groups tend to have more clearly demarcated boundaries than informal groups. The rules and procedures for entrance, membership, and expulsion become part of group culture and are often codified. For example, the dog-breed club I belonged to (traumatically) expelled a member for animal neglect several years ago. Regretfully, we followed our Constitutional procedures for membership suspension and expulsion. In contrast, among informal groups, membership requirements tend to be more fluid, particularlistic and vague (e.g., the recruit has a "good personality"). "Expulsion" in an informal group may consist of "forgetting" to include the member in group events and behaviorally isolating him or her if s/he ends up attending anyway.
During apprenticeship, formal group recruits may be required to learn group culture, and only group members may be allowed entrance to group culture. Christian Science youth attend religious school until they are 21, in part so that they can "navigate" a complex service liturgy that alternates between the Christian Bible and Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health. Schools and sports teams invoke group symbols to increase "group spirit." Professional and graduate school students learn an elaborate jargon which further serves to distinguish members from nonmembers.
Codification, history, symbols, and language may even serve to attract recruits, apart from whether they like--or even know--group members. For example, without knowing other students or even much about the faculty, adolescents may select a college because of group culture features. Parishioners may join a church because they enjoy the liturgical music.
Longevity and history may figure prominently in creating group structure. Over time, formal groups tend to create specialized roles and a division of labor. Creating a specialized division of labor is a watershed development in the lives of most groups. Ideally, it makes the group perform more effectively. In practice, it serves to create specialized role positions that take on a momentum of their own. Once specialized roles are created, the group recruits individuals, possibly from outside the group, to fill them (the fraternity historian; the webmaster for distance learning, the assistant coach on a sports team). A created role may begin to seem so important that members forget why it was first created, only that it must be filled. Members may not think of reassuming the tasks inherent in the role position, only about finding a new role incumbant. The "iron laws of bureaucracy" in part describe what happens when the created roles take on a life of their own. Effective organizations often have procedures in place to re-evaluate when a role position is vacated and determine whether a new role incumbant is necessary, whether existing group members can assume these tasks, or whether the role even needs to continue to exist.
Groups may develop a status hierarchy, or a clearly demarcated chain of command and levels of status.
Formal groups may increase enough in size, geographic dispersion, and specialization to have a central office or decision-making body. Centralized offices can harbor resources to be parcelled out among existing groups or new affiliates. For example, once the United Faculty of Florida affiliated with the National Education Association, the NEA provided funds for organizing the membership, training opportunities for UFF leaders, literature, benefits (such as group insurance rates), and other perquisites. Large, well-organized religious denominations, such as the African Methodist-Episcopal Church, may provide sermon topics (complete with jokes) for the pastor or outlines of Sunday School lessons for constituent churches.
Teams are an interesting amalgam. They are frequently created as smaller, task specific collectivities within a larger group or organization. If they are part of a formal group, the larger entity will have a vested interest in their achievement of group goals. Recruitment may be formal and performance evaluated using standardized criteria.
Of course, informal
groups often exist within formal ones, such as the friendship groups that
develop in a work setting.
| MEMBERSHIP GROUPS, NON-MEMBERSHIP GROUPS |
We can conceptualize being a group member versus not as a continuum. One can be a member in a group (typically formal) with very sharp boundaries, such as a classroom. Other group memberships, such as in a study group or a friendship group, are more fluid. You come and go at your own convenience, sometimes defining yourself as a member, sometimes not. There are groups you hope to join (a university faculty) but have not yet joined. Finally, there are groups that you neither belong to nor expect to join in the future.
Even when you are not a group member, however, groups can influence you. The most obvious example is aspiring membership. Pledges in a fraternity, professional school students, pre-med majors, engaged couples, and tryouts for sports teams are only a few examples. Individuals who aspire to membership may be influenced even more heavily by group norms and values than current members are, because aspiring members hope to fulfill all the criteria for group entrance and may be uncertain about being accepted. Anticipatory members have received notice of acceptance (that letter from the graduate school of your dreams) but have not yet assumed membership.
But even groups you don't expect to join may have an inflence. My next guide will explore reference groups in more detail. People refer attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviors to reference groups, which serve both normative and informational purposes. For example, I don't come even close to professional tennis player quality. Nevertheless, I may study good players for hints on the game. Several years ago, I presented a paper at the American Anthropological Association annual meetings. I had never been to the AAA meetings before (or since), I'm not a member and have no current plans to join. However, I enjoyed wandering around the lobby and gawking (anthropologists seem to dress very colorfully, for example, evidently assuming the dress of the countries they study)--the lobby of the San Francisco Hilton was (illegally) filled with cigarette smoke, in contrast to the more "hygenic air" at the meetings of the American Educational Research Association or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and attending sessions, comparing and contrasting approaches with my own, and deciding what I could "borrow" intellectually.
Leon Festinger's theory of social comparison processes addresses how we compare ourselves with relevant others. His theory makes predictions of when similar others will be influential, even if we do not belong to groups with them. Festinger believed that under ambiguous circumstances, people turn to others for clarification and norms about how to behave, and the more ambigious the situation, the greater the likelihood of turning to others. Similarity, an important principle in attraction, raises the influence of others on our own beliefs and behavior. In addition, Festinger recognized the influence of status for reference groups and figures, even proposing a unidirectional "upward drive" in our comparisons.
Assumed similarity will please a role in establishing one's social identities, i.e., often there is an assumption that group members will be similar in many key respects.
OVERVIEW |
 |
This page was built with
Netscape Composer.
Susan Carol Losh January
9 2018
