17/03/2015

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

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

Group

What is a 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

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

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.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Forming Dependency and inclusion

Storming Counterdependency and fight
Norming Trust and structure
Performing Working
Adjourning Termination

17/03/2015

Five-Stage Model of
Group Development
1. Forming

(Tuckman & Jensen, 1997)

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

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 offtask 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

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

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

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

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

10

17/03/2015

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)

11

17/03/2015

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 subgroups (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).

12

17/03/2015

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.

13

17/03/2015

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

14

17/03/2015

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 selfmanagement 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

15

17/03/2015

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..

16

17/03/2015

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

17/03/2015

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

Characteristics of
Groupthink

High cohesiveness
Illusion of
invulnerability

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

Groupthink Leads
to Defective
Decision Making
in Terms of

Collective
rationalization

ConformitySeeking Tendency
of Group

Belief inherent
morality of the
group
Stereotypes of
other groups
Direct pressure on
dissenters
Self-censorship
Illusion of
unanimity
Self-appointed
mind guards

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

18

17/03/2015

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)

19

17/03/2015

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.

20

17/03/2015

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.)

21

17/03/2015

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.

22