TAKING OUR PLACE IN THE GROUP
Almost all groups are structured into specific roles. People move in and out of roles, and in and out of groups. Groups are dynamic in terms of their structure and their membership. But first of all, of course, people need to join groups.
Joining groups
We join groups for all sorts of reasons, but in many cases we are looking for company (e.g. friendships and hobby groups) or to get things done that we cannot do on our own (e.g. therapy
groups, work groups and professional organizations). We also tend to identify with large groups (social categories) that we belong to – national or ethnic groups, political parties, religions, and so forth.
Research on group formation generally examines the process, not the reasons. One view is that joining a group is a matter of establishing bonds of attraction to the group, its goals and its members. So a group is a collection of people who are attracted to one another in such a way as to form a cohesive entity (Festinger et al., 1950). This approach has been used extensively to study the cohesiveness of military groups, organizational units and sports teams (Widmeyer, Brawley & Carron, 1985).Another perspective, based on social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), is that we affiliate with similar others in order to obtain support and consensus for our own perceptions, opinions and attitudes.
A third approach rests on social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to this framework, group formation involves a process of defining ourselves as group members, and conforming to what we see as the stereotype of our group, as distinct from other groups. We categorize ourselves in terms of our group’s defining features (Hogg, 1993) – e.g. ‘we are psychology students, we are studying a useful subject’. This process describes and evaluates who we are and is responsible for group phenomena such as group cohesion, conformity to norms, discrimination between different groups, and so forth.
Group development
The process of joining and being influenced by a group doesn’t generally happen all at once. It is an ongoing process. The relevant mechanisms have been investigated by many social psychologists interested in group development, or how groups change over time. One very well established general model of group development is Tuckman’s five-stage model (1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977):
forming – initially people orient themselves to one another;
Almost all groups are structured into specific roles. People move in and out of roles, and in and out of groups. Groups are dynamic in terms of their structure and their membership. But first of all, of course, people need to join groups.
Joining groups
We join groups for all sorts of reasons, but in many cases we are looking for company (e.g. friendships and hobby groups) or to get things done that we cannot do on our own (e.g. therapy
groups, work groups and professional organizations). We also tend to identify with large groups (social categories) that we belong to – national or ethnic groups, political parties, religions, and so forth.
Research on group formation generally examines the process, not the reasons. One view is that joining a group is a matter of establishing bonds of attraction to the group, its goals and its members. So a group is a collection of people who are attracted to one another in such a way as to form a cohesive entity (Festinger et al., 1950). This approach has been used extensively to study the cohesiveness of military groups, organizational units and sports teams (Widmeyer, Brawley & Carron, 1985).Another perspective, based on social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), is that we affiliate with similar others in order to obtain support and consensus for our own perceptions, opinions and attitudes.
A third approach rests on social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to this framework, group formation involves a process of defining ourselves as group members, and conforming to what we see as the stereotype of our group, as distinct from other groups. We categorize ourselves in terms of our group’s defining features (Hogg, 1993) – e.g. ‘we are psychology students, we are studying a useful subject’. This process describes and evaluates who we are and is responsible for group phenomena such as group cohesion, conformity to norms, discrimination between different groups, and so forth.
Group development
The process of joining and being influenced by a group doesn’t generally happen all at once. It is an ongoing process. The relevant mechanisms have been investigated by many social psychologists interested in group development, or how groups change over time. One very well established general model of group development is Tuckman’s five-stage model (1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977):
forming – initially people orient themselves to one another;
storming – they then struggle with one another over leadership and group definition;
norming – this leads into agreement on norms and roles;
performing – the group is now well regulated internally and can perform smoothly and efficiently;
adjourning – this final stage involves issues of independence within the group, and possible group dissolution.
More recently, Levine and Moreland (1994) have provided a detailed account of group socialization – how groups and their members adapt to one another, and how people join groups,
maintain their membership and leave groups. According to this account, groups and their members engage in an ongoing cost–benefit analysis of membership (similar to the kinds of analyses that we have already discussed as being relevant in regulating dyadic interpersonal relationships). If the benefits of the group membership outweigh the costs, the group and its members become committed to one another.
This approach highlights five generic roles that people occupy in groups:
prospective member – potential members reconnoitre the group to decide whether to commit;
new member – members learn the norms and practices of the group;
full member – members are fully socialized, and can now negotiate more specific roles within the group;
marginal member – members can drift out of step with group life, but may be re-socialized if they drift back again; andex-member – members have left the group, but previous commitment has an enduring effect on the group and on the ex-member.
norming – this leads into agreement on norms and roles;
performing – the group is now well regulated internally and can perform smoothly and efficiently;
adjourning – this final stage involves issues of independence within the group, and possible group dissolution.
More recently, Levine and Moreland (1994) have provided a detailed account of group socialization – how groups and their members adapt to one another, and how people join groups,
maintain their membership and leave groups. According to this account, groups and their members engage in an ongoing cost–benefit analysis of membership (similar to the kinds of analyses that we have already discussed as being relevant in regulating dyadic interpersonal relationships). If the benefits of the group membership outweigh the costs, the group and its members become committed to one another.
This approach highlights five generic roles that people occupy in groups:
prospective member – potential members reconnoitre the group to decide whether to commit;
new member – members learn the norms and practices of the group;
full member – members are fully socialized, and can now negotiate more specific roles within the group;
marginal member – members can drift out of step with group life, but may be re-socialized if they drift back again; andex-member – members have left the group, but previous commitment has an enduring effect on the group and on the ex-member.
Levine and Moreland believe that people move through these different roles during the lifetime of the group.
Roles
Almost all groups are internally structured into roles. These prescribe different activities that exist in relation to one another to facilitate overall group functioning. In addition to task-specific roles, there are also general roles that describe each member’s place in the life of the group (e.g. newcomer, old-timer). Rites of passage, such as initiation rites, often mark movement between generic roles, which are characterized by varying degrees of mutual commitment between member and group. Roles can be very real in their consequences. In the famous Stanford Prison Study (Zimbardo et al., 1982), researchers randomly assigned students to play the roles of prisoners or guards in a simulated prison set-up. The ‘prison’ was located in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University.
Before the study began, all participants were carefully screened to ensure they were psychologically stable. Zimbardo and his team planned to run the study for two weeks, while observing the participants. In fact, they had to terminate it after six days because the participants were conforming so extremely to their roles. The guards harassed, humiliated and intimidated the prisoners, often quite brutally, and the prisoners increasingly showed signs of individual and group disintegration, including severe emotional disturbance and some psychosomatic problems. The importance of this classic study was shown recently by the appalling treatment of Iraqi prisoners recorded inside Abu Ghraib jail in 2003.
Roles also define functions within a group, and the different parts of the group normally need to communicate with one another. Research on communication networks (Bavelas, 1968; Leavitt, 1951) focuses on centralization as the critical factor. More centralized networks have a hub person or group that regulates communication flow, whereas less centralized networks allow free communication among all roles. Centralized networks work well for simple tasks (they liberate peripheral members to perform their role) but not for more complex tasks – the hub becomes overwhelmed, delays and mis-communications occur, frustration and stress increase, and peripheral members feel loss of autonomy.
Leadership
The most basic role differentiation within groups is into leaders and followers. Are some people ‘born to lead’ (think of Lady Margaret Thatcher, Sir Ernest Shackleton or Sir Alex Ferguson), or do they acquire leadership personalities that predispose them to leadership in many situations?Extensive research has revealed that there are almost no personality traits that are reliably associated with effective leadership in all situations (Yukl, 1998). This finding suggests that many of us can be effective leaders, given the right match between our leadership style and the situation. For example, leader categorization theory (Lord & Maher, 1991) states that we have leadership schemas (concerning what the leader should do and how) for different group tasks, and that we categorize people as effective leaders on the basis of their ‘fit’ to the task-activated schema. Avariant of this idea, based on social identity theory, is that in some groups what really matters is that you fit the group’s defining attributes and norms and that, if you are categorized
as a good fit, you will be endorsed as an effective leader (Hogg, 2001).
Perhaps the most enduring leadership theory in social psychology is Fiedler’s (1965) contingency theory. Fiedler believed that the effectiveness of a particular leadership style was contingent (or dependent) on situational and task demands. He distinguished between two general types of leadership style (people differ in terms of which style they naturally adopt):
a relationship-oriented style that focuses on the quality of people’s relationships and their satisfaction with group life; and
a task-oriented style that focuses on getting the task done efficiently and well.
Relationship-oriented leaders are relaxed, friendly and sociable, and derive satisfaction from harmonious group relations. Taskoriented leaders are more aloof and directive, are not concerned with whether the group likes them, and derive satisfaction from task accomplishment. Fiedler measured leadership style using his ‘least preferred coworker’ (LPC) scale. The idea is to measure how positively a leader views the co-worker that they hold in lowest esteem. He predicted that relationship-oriented leaders would be much more positive about their least preferred co-worker than task-oriented leaders. So, for relationship-oriented leaders, even the least-liked group member is still quite liked.
Fiedler was also able to classify situations in terms of how much control was required for the group task to be effectively executed. A substantial amount of research has shown that taskoriented leaders are superior to relationship-oriented leaders when situational control is very low (i.e. poorly structured task, disorganized group) or very high (i.e. clearly structured task, highly organized group). But relationship-oriented leaders do better in situations with intermediate levels of control (Strube & Garcia, 1981).
Fiedler’s model of leadership is, however, a little static. Other approaches have focused instead on the dynamic transactional relationship between leaders and followers (Hollander, 1985).
According to these approaches, people who are disproportionately responsible for helping a group achieve its goals are subsequently rewarded by the group with the trappings of leadership, in order to restore equity. Hollander (1958) suggested that part of the reward for such individuals is their being able to be relatively idiosyncratic and innovative. So, people who are highlyconformist and attain leadership in a democratic manner tend to accumulate significant idiosyncrasy credits that they can then expend on innovation once they achieve leadership. In other words, you first have to conform before you can innovate. (For a different view to this one, see the section below on ‘minority influence’.)
Leadership
The most basic role differentiation within groups is into leaders and followers. Are some people ‘born to lead’ (think of Lady Margaret Thatcher, Sir Ernest Shackleton or Sir Alex Ferguson), or do they acquire leadership personalities that predispose them to leadership in many situations?Extensive research has revealed that there are almost no personality traits that are reliably associated with effective leadership in all situations (Yukl, 1998). This finding suggests that many of us can be effective leaders, given the right match between our leadership style and the situation. For example, leader categorization theory (Lord & Maher, 1991) states that we have leadership schemas (concerning what the leader should do and how) for different group tasks, and that we categorize people as effective leaders on the basis of their ‘fit’ to the task-activated schema. Avariant of this idea, based on social identity theory, is that in some groups what really matters is that you fit the group’s defining attributes and norms and that, if you are categorized
as a good fit, you will be endorsed as an effective leader (Hogg, 2001).
Perhaps the most enduring leadership theory in social psychology is Fiedler’s (1965) contingency theory. Fiedler believed that the effectiveness of a particular leadership style was contingent (or dependent) on situational and task demands. He distinguished between two general types of leadership style (people differ in terms of which style they naturally adopt):
a relationship-oriented style that focuses on the quality of people’s relationships and their satisfaction with group life; and
a task-oriented style that focuses on getting the task done efficiently and well.
Relationship-oriented leaders are relaxed, friendly and sociable, and derive satisfaction from harmonious group relations. Taskoriented leaders are more aloof and directive, are not concerned with whether the group likes them, and derive satisfaction from task accomplishment. Fiedler measured leadership style using his ‘least preferred coworker’ (LPC) scale. The idea is to measure how positively a leader views the co-worker that they hold in lowest esteem. He predicted that relationship-oriented leaders would be much more positive about their least preferred co-worker than task-oriented leaders. So, for relationship-oriented leaders, even the least-liked group member is still quite liked.
Fiedler was also able to classify situations in terms of how much control was required for the group task to be effectively executed. A substantial amount of research has shown that taskoriented leaders are superior to relationship-oriented leaders when situational control is very low (i.e. poorly structured task, disorganized group) or very high (i.e. clearly structured task, highly organized group). But relationship-oriented leaders do better in situations with intermediate levels of control (Strube & Garcia, 1981).
Fiedler’s model of leadership is, however, a little static. Other approaches have focused instead on the dynamic transactional relationship between leaders and followers (Hollander, 1985).
According to these approaches, people who are disproportionately responsible for helping a group achieve its goals are subsequently rewarded by the group with the trappings of leadership, in order to restore equity. Hollander (1958) suggested that part of the reward for such individuals is their being able to be relatively idiosyncratic and innovative. So, people who are highlyconformist and attain leadership in a democratic manner tend to accumulate significant idiosyncrasy credits that they can then expend on innovation once they achieve leadership. In other words, you first have to conform before you can innovate. (For a different view to this one, see the section below on ‘minority influence’.)
Leaders who have a high idiosyncrasy credit rating are imbued with charisma by the group, and may be able to function as transformational leaders.
Charismatic transformational leaders are able to motivate followers to work for collective goals that transcend self-interest and transform organizations (Bass, 1998; Bryman, 1992). They are
proactive, change-orientated, innovative, motivating and inspiring and have a vision or mission with which they infuse the group. Transformational leaders are also interested in others, able to create commitment to the group and can extract extra effort from (and generally empower) members of the group.
proactive, change-orientated, innovative, motivating and inspiring and have a vision or mission with which they infuse the group. Transformational leaders are also interested in others, able to create commitment to the group and can extract extra effort from (and generally empower) members of the group.
No comments:
Post a Comment