In 1996, I took a course in group dynamics while earning the BA degree in Communication. The course description addressed principles of group function including types of group structure, communication leadership, membership, methods of studying groups, and techniques of working in groups and with groups. The course was designed for students who wish to study group processes as related to work in education, recreation, and the fields. The material in this article has been abstracted from my work as produced for the course.

Prior to taking the course, I already had a variety of experiences with group dynamics. During my nine-year real estate career, I was involved in group meetings and I taught groups of new-comers to the real estate field. During my employment at AlliedSignal I served as group leader of two successful groups and I attended a plethora of focus groups. I also attended numerous communication and leadership seminars that dealt heavily with group dynamics. I have been a member of many different types of groups, such as Woman’s Professional Business Association (WPBA), my local historical society, my local Chamber of Commerce, Woman’s Business Exchange (WBE), and I was an assistant cheerleader coach. In addition, I have independently studied about group dynamics from a variety of materials and I have written narratives on related subjects such as presentation skills, listening, motivation, persuasion, communication, interviewing, team leader training, and sales. As a result, I have acquired extensive knowledge about group functions and group structures; communication leadership; membership; methods of studying groups; and techniques of working in groups and with groups in a variety of purposes.

Something outstanding that I learned in the group dynamics course was about a phenomenon known as “group polarization.” But, putting first things first, it can be helpful to understand the complications of group dynamics, which includes the forces that work on any group of persons and determine what it does. The group can be as small as two individuals or as large as an entire nation. Attempts have been made to translate the findings of basic research in group dynamics into practical principles and techniques. This applied group dynamics has produced new training programs for group members and leaders.

In the 1900s, sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and educators began using the tools of science to probe the mysteries of group life. Beginning in the 1930s, group dynamics became a recognized field of study for scholars in the social sciences. Several universities have established special research groups to study group dynamics. This study has shed light on such aspects of group life as the nature and requirements of leadership, the different roles of members of a group, the factors that affect organization and operation, and the process of making decisions in a group. The research also has provided information on communications and relationships among members in a group, and the hidden forces that influence what people do in groups. For example, one such program involves people living together for a few days to several weeks. The people observe their own behavior and gain new insights about how their actions affect others. This basic research has led to new ideas about what makes a good group and a good group leader.

Defining a group is not easy. A group can be thought of as a collection of people. It is not a random assemblage of independent individuals; rather it is composed of individuals who interact verbally and non-verbally, occupy certain roles with respect to one another, cooperate to accomplish a definite goal; and are somewhat interdependent and stable. Every group establishes its own goals, structure, and pattern of communication; its own norms; and its own climate. Every member of the group usually has a steak in the outcome. An effective group climate can be characterized by supportiveness, participative decision making, trust among group members, openness and candor, and high performance goals. The healthier the climate, the more cohesive is the group. Some characteristics of effective and well-functioning groups include:

1. The atmosphere tends to be informal, comfortable, and relaxed.
2. There is a lot of discussion in which virtually everyone participates, but remains pertinent to the task. If the discussion gets off track, someone brings it back.
3. The task or objective is well understood and accepted by the members. There will have been free discussion of the objective at some point, until it was formulated in such a way that the group members could commit themselves to it.
4. The members listen to each other. Every idea is given a hearing. People do not appear to be afraid of being foolish; they will offer a creative thought even if it seems fairly extreme.
5. There is disagreement. Disagreements are not suppressed or overridden by premature action. The reasons are carefully examined, and the group seeks to resolve disagreements rather than dominate dissenters.
6. Most decisions are reached by a kind of consensus in which it is clear that everyone is in general agreement and willing to go along. Formal voting is at a minimum; the group does not accept a simple majority as a proper basis for action.
7. Criticism is frequent, frank, and relatively comfortable. There is little evidence of personal attack, either overt or hidden.
8. People are free to express their feelings and their ideas about the problem and the group’s operation.
9. When action is taken, clear assignments are made and accepted.
10. The chairperson of the group does not dominate it, nor does the group defer unduly to him or her. Leadership shifts from time to time, depending on the circumstances. The issue is not who controls but how to get the job done.
11. The group is self-conscious of its own operation.

Kurt Lewin, a German refugee, focused attention on the behavior of groups; the forces that help to explain the actions of groups; and how group processes changed individual functioning. Lewin’s work led to the development of the group dynamics field of study. His unique contribution was called force field analysis, and it helped us understand what people can do to increase the effectiveness of teams.

Team Players

In Lewin’s view, a team is an open social system with a series of forces or vectors applied to it from two sides. If the forces are equal, the team will remain in a state of equilibrium. It will not change. When forces on a side increase or decrease then the balance point will likely change.

Lewin developed three experimental groups to assess the effects of different leadership styles: 1) autocratic leaders, 2) democratic leaders, and 3) laissez-fair leaders. The results of this field experiment suggested a number of generalizations. Autocratic leaders produced mostly aggression, similar to fascists, democratic leaders worked steadily and were most efficient, and laissez-fair leaders were the most inefficient of all. Generally, leadership style proved more important than the specific personality of individual leaders.

Effective teams also require effective team players. The characteristics of the effective team player are described and linked to the success of the team. Characteristics that stand out include having a: 

Source: Parker, 1990, p. 65

1. A Contributor is a task-oriented team member who enjoys providing the team with good technical information and data, does his or her homework, and pushes the team to set high performance standards and to use their resources wisely. Most people see the Contributor as dependable. With no Contributor, the team will lack task focus.
2. A Collaborator is a goal-directed member who sees the vision, mission, or goal of the team as paramount, but is flexible and open to new ideas; is willing to pitch in and work outside his or her defined role; and is able to share the limelight with other team members.  Most people see the Collaborator as a “big-picture” person. With no Collaborator, the team will lack clarity about perspective and purpose.
3. A Communicator is a process-oriented member who is an effective listener and facilitator of involvement, conflict resolution, consensus building, feedback, and the building of an information, relaxed climate. Most people see the Communicator as a positive people person. With no Communicator, the team will lack interpersonal comfort.
4. A Challenger is a member who questions the goals, methods, and even the ethics of the team; is willing to disagree with the leader or higher authority; and encourages the team to take well-conceived risks. Most people appreciate the value of the Challenger’s candor and openness. With no Challenger, the team will lack “groupthink.”

Groupthink tends to occur when groups let the desire for consensus override careful analysis and reasoned decision making.  It is a process that renders group members unable to evaluate new options and decisions realistically.  Groupthink is likely when three conditions exist:

1. the group is very cohesive and feels isolated from outside forces
2. the group is experiencing intense stressors, especially time pressure
3. the leader is not impartial

When these three conditions are met, groups tend to become very closed-minded and become increasingly certain that their view cannot possibly be wrong. Groupthink combined with obedience to their leader can result in violent behavior against anyone or other group in opposition.

Groupthink is an extreme way of avoiding conflict. Conflict is an inevitable part of the life of any group. A group experiences conflict whenever a member’s thoughts or acts limit, prevent, or interfere with his or her own thoughts or acts or with those of another member. Whereas cohesiveness is normally a desirable group characteristic, when carried to an extreme it can become dysfunctional or even destructive. 

After taking part in a group discussion, group members often shift to views that are more extreme (in the same general direction) than the ones they held initially. Such shifts are known as group polarization. Although several explanations for group polarization have been proposed, two views have received much support:

1. social comparison - prior to group discussion, most persons assume that they hold “better” views than the other members
2. persuasive arguments - gradually members convince themselves of the correctness of their initial views and come to adopt these even more strongly

The following is how group polarization occurs:

The tendency of many decision-making groups to drift toward polarization is serious and can interfere with their ability to make accurate decisions. This process is not the only one that can exert such negative effects.

Distinctions between groups are common and are referred to as in-group/out-group distinctions. The in-group consists of one’s own peers, whereas the out-groups are those whom one considers to be outside the bounds of intimacy. Group distinctions are often based on such qualities as income, race, religion, or purpose.

A group that an individual uses as a frame of reference for self-evaluation and attitude formation is known as a reference group. Some reference groups set and enforce certain values and norms, while others serve as a standard for comparison.

The simplest of all groups is the dyad, or two-member group. In a dyad, one is able to achieve a special level of intimacy that cannot be duplicated in larger groups. When the group becomes three members, it is referred to as a triad. The new member has at least three basic ways of interacting with and influencing the dynamics of the group:

As groups become the size of triads or larger, coalitions are expected to develop. A coalition is a temporary or permanent alliance toward a common goal.

Social scientists have identified certain principles of interaction that help explain both stability and change in groups:

1. The pleasure principle - people seek pleasure and avoid pain. Over time, people will continue to interact in a group in which they experience the pleasure of reward but will withdraw from groups in which the pain they experience outweighs their pleasure.
2. The rationality principle - people change their behavior according to whether they think they will be worse or better off as a consequence.  Direction of the individual group member depends on what other members of the group are doing.
3. The reciprocity principle - in group interactions people usually adhere to a norm stating that what others do for you, you should try to do for others. 
4. The fairness principle - people and groups come to expect certain rewards for certain efforts. If some receive these rewards and others do not, a condition known as relative deprivation occurs. 

Group structure can be understood by studying diagrams that indicate the balance of group bonds and sociograms, which chart individuals’ preferences in groups. This form of studying groups is known as sociometry. Group diagrams show the number of members in a group; a line indicates the presence of a relationship between two members of the group and how many relationships exist within the group. The following are three examples: