Chapter 17 Groups

Group Size and Performance

• Optimum group size is five members; groups can be smaller or larger in practice.

• Problems with too-small groups (< 5): difficulties in decision-making and lower creativity.

• Problems with too-large groups: formation of subgroups, time spent on organizational/administrative tasks rather than the task, frustration, and goal obstruction.

• Practical implication: team size affects effectiveness, creativity, coordination, and goal attainment (Tubbs, 2001).

Types of Groups

• Groups fall into three broad categories: primary, secondary, and reference.

Primary Groups

• Regular contact between members; small size (typically 20 or fewer, social psychologists).

• Characteristics: cooperation, shared goals, familiarity with all members, clear understanding of each member’s roles.

• Influence: strong impact on self-concept, attitudes, and personality development, especially in childhood and adolescence (family’s impact on social/work behavior).

Secondary Groups

• Larger circles of association, especially in adulthood (work/professional groups).

• Example: Jane Kerry, RN, belongs to family group, close friends, nursing staff, hospital committees, department memberships, and professional associations.

• Some group memberships are short-term; others long-term; each influences behavior regardless of duration.

Reference Groups

• Concept coined by Herbert Hyman (1942, 1968): groups used as reference points to judge beliefs, preferences, and behavior.

• Influence can be positive or negative; individuals may model themselves after or against the reference group.

• Size can range from a single person (e.g., a movie star) to a large entity (e.g., a political party or religious institution).

Informal vs Formal Group Structure

Informal Groups (Cliques)

• Formed on basis of common interests/goals; voluntary membership; not part of the formal organizational structure.

• Typically short life cycles but can significantly impact current/future operations.

• Influence attitudes, perceptions, norms, and communication networks.

• Example: Nurses at a hospital who form an informal group to address work environment concerns and unionize.

• Informal leadership can lead to higher productivity in some cases due to faster information spread through informal channels.

• Managers can leverage informal groups to drive positive change (e.g., cross-training initiatives) by highlighting benefits to patient care, satisfaction, and financial stability.

Case Study 17-1: Using Informal Groups to Promote Organizational Goals

• CEO known for seeking diverse views, including influence leaders who form a group to provide input and shape ideas.

• Influence leaders help spread information and increase buy-in; site visits and feedback help reduce skepticism about changes such as affiliations with other organizations.

• Positive outcomes reinforce the management–informal group relationship.

• Practical steps for managers to engage informal leaders:

  • Keep informal leaders informed; encourage questions and challenge assumptions.

  • Provide frequent feedback and share results.

  • Get buy-in on which informal leaders should help lead changes.

  • Incorporate feedback and solicit suggestions.

  • Distribute elements of change across multiple formal leaders to avoid domination by a single person.

Formal Groups

• Created by the organization; part of the formal structure.

• Can be long-term (functional or command groups) or short-term (ad hoc committees).

Functional (By Tasks)

• Members grouped by similar tasks (e.g., financial/administrative, human resources, nursing services).

Command Groups

• Subgroups under the leader’s legitimate authority; e.g., laboratory technicians reporting to a lab manager, forming a group to discuss new outpatient clinic support.

Task Groups

• Two or more people focused on a defined target, project, issue, or goal.

• Can be short-term or long-term; can include members from various functional areas and levels.

• Examples: multidisciplinary disaster-preparedness task force; permanent groups for policy making or coordination; ad hoc groups for specific issues (time-bounded).

• Visual: organizational chart example (ABC Hospital and Health System) showing cross-functional collaboration.

Group Development

• Groups go through five sequential stages; speed depends on leadership and prior experience; some groups may skip stages or not experience all five.

The Five Stages

1. Forming: Members determine appropriate behaviors and core values; exchange basic information; define tasks; establish purpose and social niches.

2. Storming: High emotion as members establish group identity and power hierarchy; criticism, scapegoating, and power struggles may occur.

3. Norming: Cohesion and structure develop; standards, values, and roles are accepted; rules for behavior become clear; stronger group membership.

4. Performing: Members know their roles; focus on task completion; group energy directed toward solving problems; approach completion.

5. Adjourning: Dissolution or termination of membership; group ends.

Group Decision Making

• Group decision making integrates feedback from multiple individuals; generally slower than individual decision making but tends to yield more and better solutions due to enhanced communication, coordination, and collaboration (Robbins, 2003).

• Quality of group decisions depends on four key factors: 1) Diversity of the group: differences in experience, knowledge, talents, skills, culture, age. $ext{Diversity} ightarrow ext{better problem solving}.$ 2) Psychological safety: safe environment to express ideas without fear of ridicule or punishment; reduces conformity and groupthink. 3) Task interdependence: higher interdependence enhances information sharing and collaboration; if the task is too simple, individual work suffices. 4) Group potency: belief that the group can be effective; perceived efficacy influences performance.

  • These ideas align with Shea & Guzzo (1987).

Rational Decision-Making Processes (Seven-Stage Model)

• Peterson (1997) and Burn (2004) propose a seven-stage model for group decisions:

• Stage 1: $Problem ext{ Definition}$

• Stage 2: $Identify ext{ Alternatives}$

• Stage 3: $Gather ext{ Information}$

• Stage 4: $Evaluate ext{ Alternatives}$

• Stage 5: $Make ext{ the Decision}$

• Stage 6: $Implementation$

• Stage 7: $Feedback$

Stage Details

• Stage 1 – Problem Definition:

  • Better-informed members lead to better problem formulation;

  • Clarity about the problem is necessary for high-quality decisions.

• Stage 2 – Identify Alternatives:

  • Groups may limit options to a few ideas; need inclusivity to expand problem-solving options.

  • Risk: choosing the first viable alternative due to time or information constraints.

• Stage 3 – Gather Information:

  • Collect information on consequences of each alternative; ensure all members contribute; avoid information gaps.

• Stage 4 – Evaluate Alternatives:

  • Objectively analyze alternatives and consequences; prevent dominance by higher-status members; avoid outcomes driven by personal gain; use objective criteria.

• Stage 5 – Make the Decision:

  • Decision-making method is critical; risks include dominant ideas without evidence; secret ballots can differ from show-of-hands results.

• Stage 6 – Implementation:

  • Resolve tasks and resources needed to implement the decision; coordinate across units.

• Stage 7 – Evaluate the Outcome:

  • Assess whether goals were met; determine relevance and success; learn from results.

Structured Techniques to Enhance Collective Information Processing

• Groups often need structured participation to ensure equal input and constructive interaction; common techniques include:

Brainstorming

• Defined as generating as many ideas as possible within a time limit (typically $5-7$ minutes) with no discussion of feasibility.

• Originator: Osborn (1957); idea was that more ideas yield higher-quality outcomes.

• Empirical findings: brainstorming groups do not produce more or higher-quality ideas than individuals working alone (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991).

• Performance limitations: social loafing, fear of judgment, dominance by extroverted members, and difficulty in listening while sharing ideas.

• Computer-based brainstorming (group decision support systems):

  • Often anonymous and simultaneous; reduces evaluation apprehension and may improve idea generation; written contributions provide a record and can be revisited; may reduce groupthink.

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

• An individual-based, nonverbal brainstorming method with a group pooling the results.

• Five-step process:
  1) Silence for idea generation (individual).
  2) Round-robin sharing of ideas without discussion.
  3) Leader records each idea for all to view.
  4) Group discusses and clarifies ideas.
  5) Individuals privately rank ideas, vote, and the highest-ranked idea is chosen.

• Advantages: efficient; minimizes leadership bias and emotional argumentation; controlled idea generation.

Delphi Technique

• Designed for groups with limited experience or diverse expertise; relies on a series of written communications to collect and synthesize expert opinions.

• Process:

  • Leader sends a problem definition and asks for expert advice.

  • Responses are collected, analyzed, and redistributed for comment and additional solutions.

  • Repeats until consensus emerges; if consensus is not reached, the process may continue or a face-to-face meeting may achieve the same outcome.

• Trade-off: time-consuming; may yield similar results to expert meetings but with less direct interaction.

Irrational Decision-Making Processes: The Garbage Can Model

• Contrasts with the rational model; decisions emerge from loosely coupled streams rather than a linear problem-to-solution path.

• Concept: oppositional to orderly problem-solving; decisions are outcomes of several relatively independent streams:
  1) Problems identified (performance gaps) – Ps
  2) Solutions identified (ideas to solve problems) – Ss
  3) Participants (people involved; levels of involvement vary) – PARS
  4) Choices (decisions) – COS

• Alignment occurs when problems, solutions, and participants come together at the right moment; often after the opportunity to decide has passed or before the problem is even recognized.

• Purpose: illustrate nonrational, real-world decision dynamics in organizations (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972).

• This model helps explain why organizations sometimes seem to “survive” without clear, rational decision-making.

Discussion Points and Exercises

• Common questions to reflect on group decision making and dynamics:

  • What factors hinder or enhance a group’s decision-making effectiveness?

  • How do you ensure diverse input and psychological safety in a group setting?

  • How can you actively prevent groupthink during decision making?

Exercise 17-1

• Analyze a recent poor group decision you were part of.

• Consider contributed factors: were alternatives considered? did the group skip development stages? did poor communication or lack of cooperation occur?

Exercise 17-2

• Quick brainstorming exercise: in groups of four or five, within 10 minutes brainstorm as many solutions as possible for a funding challenge (e.g., raise $$$ for a nonprofit).

• Afterward, reflect on group interactions and identify performance-reducing factors (e.g., social loafing, criticism, dominance).

References and Core Readings

• Foundational sources and authors cited include: Blackler & Shimmin (1984); Burns (2004); Butterfield & Bailey (1996); Cohen, March, & Olsen (1972); Daft (2004); Dennis (1996); Hyman (1942); Lovata (1987); Marion et al. (2016); Mullen et al. (1991); Nour & Yen (1992); Osborn (1957); Peterson (1997); Robbins (2003); Schmid et al. (1987); Shea & Guzzo (1987); Tubbs (2001).

• Case studies and practical notes reference real-world organizational behavior in healthcare and other settings.

Key Takeaways

• Group size matters: optimal around five; both smaller and larger sizes have distinct challenges.

• There are three broad group types (primary, secondary, reference) and two structural forms (informal vs formal).

• Informal groups can drive change; formal groups provide structure, but must balance efficiency with inclusion.

• Group development follows stages; awareness of these stages helps manage transitions.

• Decision quality improves with diversity, safety, interdependence, and group efficacy, but rational models must be supported by structured processes (NGT, Delphi) to mitigate bias.

• Be mindful of nonrational decision-making processes (Garbage Can Model) that reflect real organizational dynamics.