CHECK OUT THE UPDATED COURSE PROJECT PAGE THAT WILL
GO HERE.
EDP5285-01
SPRING
2018
PROFESSOR SUSAN CAROL
LOSH
| GROUP PROCESSES |
"Most of us yearn for that stellar group
experience in which the group functions like a well-oiled team machine.
The group knows what its work is; the environment and leadership are supportive
of the group's work; the group has adequate resources to do its work; the
group's members possess the relevant skills needed to get the job done
and members communicate well to get it done. Even better, the group experience
is a socially positive one..." (Shawn Burn, Groups: Theory and Practice,
Thomson/Wadsworth, 2004: 372)
|
COHESIVENESS II |
|
|
KEY TAKEAWAYS
|
| TOPICS |
|
|
|
|
THE GOOD STUFF |
|
Are these phenomena the same as the "suicide flyers" of 911? Yes and no. We now know that the "muscle" on these 911 airplanes apparently did not realize that theirs was a suicide mission. Despite Osama Bin Laden's assertions at that time that thousands of young Muslims were prepared to die for Jihad, only a relative few of the 911 hijackers, who were the plane pilots, apparently knew that they were to die. Of course, there are hundreds, even thousands, of (typically) young persons who may be willing to die for their cause, including Jihad.
Ah..."group cohesion"...Like "sex appeal," we feel we recognize it when a group has that "special something" that makes it function as a unity. Yet simultaneously attempts to define cohesion frequently break down into either vague or overly restrictive terms. Part of the problem is failing to constantly consider the many dimensions of group cohesion in sources and outputs. A unified work group is not a neighborhood after-school friendship group. Different bases for group cohesion depend on the type of group and on the resources that the group and members offer one another. Similarly, the dimension of cohesion that may work well for one type of task (member socio-emotional support) may work poorly in another (assembling a car).
This guide applies material on attraction to groups with material on group cohesion. After all, the elements that make a group "attractive" contribute to recruiting members and maintaining their membership.
| PROMOTING TOGETHERNESS: INTERPERSONAL |
Much of this site is adapted from different versions of Losh, "Promoting Togetherness: Fostering Group Cohesion in Religious Congregations" and in Group Behavior in Organizations (Bridgepoint Education, 2011).
There are several possible sources of group cohesion, some interpersonal, some structural. And, of course, more than one source can operate simultaneously for any particular group.
Interpersonal sources of group cohesion depend on the characteristics of individual members. The group is cohesive because individual members are attracted to one another. Some major sources include:
Member similarity
Member attractiveness (a resource, very often true of a formal group in particular)
Propinquity. Spatial contiguity is important because people interact more with contiguous individuals. By seeing the same people in the elevator every day, standing in line in the cafeteria, or always being seated next to the same person in the alphabet, individuals become familiar to us. Other things equal, Zajonc found that we like familiar objects more (even familiar nonsense syllables) than unfamiliar ones.
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE: Most, although
not all, studies that examine member characteristics use groups of strangers.
How might these variables differ if we studied intact groups instead? Might
an "oral history" of the group or a longitudinal, natural setting design
such as Newcomb's Michigan study yield different data (we have Newcomb
to thank for propinquity)?
| PROMOTING TOGETHERNESS: STRUCTURAL |
Structural sources of cohesion center more around attraction to the group itself or aspects related to group tasks than they do around characteristics of individual members. This may be more apparent in formal than in informal groups.
Group leaders have more power to influence structural sources of cohesion than they do interpersonal sources. Leaders can be creative with the nature of the task or generate a group enemy. The group may have rewards that it can distribute to loyal members. Structural sources of cohesion may emphasize collective or group identity.
Here are some possible bases:
Arousal
| PROMOTING TOGETHERNESS: ORGANIZATIONAL |
Finally, a group actually may be a formal organization or part of a formal organization. The organization itself can be very attractive, although feelings toward the individual members may be neutral or even hostile. Even the particular subgroup within an organization can be interpersonally unattractive, but the overall group or organization can be structurally attractive. This focuses our attention on what the group or organization can offer as opposed to interpersonal attraction. As you recall, because of their history, organizations frequently can offer members what a more informal (or even a formal sub) group cannot.
I know I sound like I am "harping" on social status but...
A large, wise organization will support and create smaller groups within it, preferably subgroups composed of individuals who share commonalities. We know that people are more satisfied with their membership in smaller than in larger groups. We can instill interpersonal attraction through those subgroups.
This wise organization will directly tie these smaller groups to the larger organization to create a network of interlocking loyalties. Thus, the individual is not only committed to the subset but comes to feel a kinship with the school, the company, or the religious congregation (also see work by Edward Lawler on "structural cohesion.") For example, I found that socio-emotional support groups formed in religious congregations brought together people who were initially strangers but who had common interests (e.g., they were all young mothers or they were interested in applications of Bible study.) In this way, the congregation created new social ties among parishioners, and this contributed to the cohesion of the entire congregation. In contrast, congregations that were characterized by high levels of interpersonal interaction tended to form "cliques." Clique members continually reinforced their relations with one another but did not tend to reach out to new members and did not create ties with other congregational subgroups.
In my study of congregations, I was impressed at just how much structural cohesion contributed to a congregation's "locomotion" toward its goals. The greater the number of support groups that a congregation created, the more ties it had with other congregations, regardless of denomination. Congregations emeshed in a network with other churches and synagogues more often engaged in organized social and political action, for example, creating a homeless shelter, an organization that provided emergency health care, or a series of Interfaith celebration services. In contrast, high levels of social interaction were unrelated to congregational insularity or to any kind of organized social and political action. It is as if the skills used to build and maintain support groups--or the skills learned through participation in such groups generalize to other types of organization-building skills, making these congregations more effective.
Remember, too, that
the late political scientist Warren Miller and his colleagues in The
American Voter book (second edition, ~1996) found that Black churches
fostered these kinds of interpersonal skills in their memberships regardless
of the status level of the congregation. Members of White congregations
tended to develop such skills largely in upper status congregations. Miller,
et
al. tended to explain their results in terms of the multi-dimensional
nature of the Black church compared with the White church, i.e., because
of prior racial segregation, Black churches have and do serve as educational,
political, and financial centers, as well as spiritual centers, more than
White churches do.
| COHESION OUTCOMES: THE "GOOD STUFF" |
Although we know better, and we have known better for over 50 years, there is still a tendency to see the effects of group cohesion as almost entirely positive. It is not clear why such a positive bias about the concept of cohesion occurs. Perhaps our personal experiences in cohesive groups bias our professional judgement. Perhaps when positive effects occur, they are so positive that we overlook the negative effects of cohesiveness.
Despite these collective positive blinkers, negative effects of cohesion are plentiful. Not only that, when negative effects of group cohesiveness occur, they tend to be spectacularly bad. In terms of process, here's what's going on:
Highly cohesive groups can enforce group norms--whatever they are--far more effectively than less cohesive groups. Pressures to conform (internal pressures) are greater. Because people value their membership in cohesive groups, they are willing to adjust their behavior to group standards so that they can continue to belong. Even if there is initial "storming" and conflict, if the group "gels," a "norming" period follows and members conform. However, external pressures are greater too. Cohesive groups put more pressure on deviants to conform to group norms than less cohesive groups do.
The valences of group cohesion outcomes become heavily dependent on just what the group norms are. Fifty years ago while studying group productivity, group dynamicists realized to their considerable surprise that productivity outcomes for cohesive groups tended to be relatively polarized, either very productive or very unproductive. They found that the average productivity of cohesive groups was quite close to that of uncohesive groups.
(More recent and more statistically sophisticated meta analyses suggest on balance cohesive groups are more productive than the average group. This suggests that more cohesive group goals probably are more consistent with larger organizational goals on the average too.)
What was the conflict? Highly cohesive groups who valued social interaction spent their time on that, not on the group task imposed by the experimenter. Everyone got along great, everyone liked everyone else. Group task productivity was terrible. Haven't all of us known work groups like that? The social "touchy-feelies" are great, but not a whole lot of work gets done.
Or, consider youth gangs. These may be highly cohesive but their goals may conflict with those of the larger society (school, family, neighborhood). The group is still able to enforce its goals if it is highly cohesive even if these prove deadly (e.g., gang warfare) or detrimental to particular individuals (injury, prison).
Moral: if group norms align with those of the larger organization, cohesive groups outproduce less cohesive groups. The question is: how can this be done? Research on influence and persuasion indicates that if groups are allowed some choice in setting goals, their committment to the organization is higher. Including representatives of groups in decision-making for the entire organization also builds commitment (NOTE: representation must be more than simply "token;" representatives must have real input and at least some control over decisions for this to work). My guess is that building in structural subgroups to bring members together probably helps too.
So, what would we call "the good stuff," that is, the positive outcomes of high group cohesion?
|
|
Alas, almost certainly the identical dynamics that produce "good" outcomes in groups can also produce the "bad" outcomes in groups. The major culprit is the desire among group members to remain in the group and to please one another. This is what gives groups an enhanced ability to influence members and enforce conformity.
But cohesion alone is NOT enough suggests the research literature. A critically important aspect is a structure that discourages--or at least that fails to actively encourage--interaction between the group and its outside environment. Or, a structure that fails to take rank and file members and their input into leader consideration.
What does this imply? Cohesive groups can tend toward surface--sometimes superficial--harmony. To avoid confrontation and other forms of ill-will members will publicly agree even when they privately disagree (thanks to Ken Wald in political science at UF for this insight). Even if a brave member speaks up in opposition, cohesive groups can be very cruel toward "deviants." If they remain in the group, deviants tend to become isolates and possibly even scapegoats. When group members are aware of these sanctions, they engage in self-censorship either avoiding contentious topics or carefully monitoring their verbal responses.
Group members may suffer from pluralistic ignorance. Although most others in the group may agree with them, the behavior of a vocal minority--with silence from those who disagree--mean that those taking what is in fact a majority position may feel outnumbered. Group decisions may reflect these misperceptions leading to decisions which render most members silent but unhappy.
Surface harmony combined with perceived group enemies can contribute to group insularity or insulation, the tendency of group members to interact primarily with each other and to avoid cross-group contacts. Once an imposed group homogeneity emerges, the group has closed itself off from cross-fertilization of ideas or from corrective input for its mistakes. Further, since members largely interact with one another, they may begin to feel invulnerable and superior to those who are not group members. The more insulated the group, the less corrective feedback they receive.
Given such self-protective strategies, members can propose extreme ideas and face neither challenges nor corrections from other group members or from outsiders. Problems may be ignored or glossed over. The group is now on a one-way trip to bad decision-making. Group failures become interpreted as enmity from the outside environment (e.g., "the deep state") and the cycle continues.
Irving Janis coined the term "Groupthink" to decribe this process and cycle of "bad decision-making." Bad decisions occur because group members are only exposed to limited and asymmetric information, typically information that supports the groups' outward decisions. Opposition from within is effectively stifled. Opposition from without is never referenced. Disaster occurs, leaving group members to shake their heads, wondering what went wrong.
The first sign that something has gone wrong (aside from dramatic disasters such as the Challenger or Columbia explosions) may be that members begin to leave the group without signifying their intentions or even giving an explanation. There are simply fewer and fewer people at group meetings and, in voluntary organizations, the group coffers begin to dip precipitously low. Group productivity may drop and outside authorities are called in (e.g., principals or higher level bosses), while the remaining members refuse to even acknowledge that there are any problems. One congregation I studied was affiliated with a major African-American, highly centralized denomination. The church was down to 35 people, most of them relatives of the elderly pastor. The Sunday School was so small that all grades were held in one room. The pastor and members refused to acknowledge that any problems even existed and the pastor stubbornly rejected any invitations to events from other churches. Ultimately, the pastor was retired by the denomination, which sent down a much more energetic pastor to revitalize the church. (And he did.)
Some other consequences of high cohesion that many would call negative:
OVERVIEW |
 |
This page was built with
Netscape Composer.
Susan Carol Losh February
12 2018
YES, INDEED. TIME REALLY FLIES.