SMC Communications Negotiating Power in Groups Questions

Use chapter 6 to answer these questions:

1. What is the difference between ‘power-over,’ ‘power-from-within,’ and ‘power-with’ group dynamics?

2. How do systems of oppression impact the way an individual operates within a group?

3. Is it possible to have a power neutral group? Explain.

4. Name two ethical uses of power (Table 1 will help with this.).

$123(1(‘ 8& $7 Ζ 21$/5 (6285 & (
¤qiiIž{³š
“{qq³sU”­U{s
) RU P LQJ
6XVWD LQLQJ7 HD P V
1(U­1( Ðd¤qUs1žɚiUs žÐɕšQɚ(ɚ
SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
Forming & Sustaining Teams
JASMINE LINABARY, PH.D.
Small Group Communication by Jasmine R. Linabary, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
Each chapter of this open educational resources has its own copyright license. Please follow the copyright for each relevant
chapter.
CONTENTS
About the Book
vii
PART I. GROUP & TEAM COMMUNICATION OVERVIEW
1. Introducing Small Group Communication
2
PART II. FORMING GROUPS
2. Understanding Group Formation
16
3. Identifying Group Roles
30
4. Establishing and Maintaining Group Norms
43
5. Working in Diverse Teams
50
6. Negotiating Power in Groups
61
PART III. SUSTAINING GROUPS
7. Cultivating a Supportive Group Climate
76
8. Navigating Group ConQict
86
9. Confronting and Preventing Social LoaPng
98
10. Making Decisions in Groups
108
11. Engaging in Group Problem-Solving
117
12. Identifying Leaders
125
13. Leading in Groups
133
PART IV. PUTTING GROUP COMMUNICATION SKILLS INTO PRACTICE
14. Facilitating Group Meetings
143
15. Enhancing Creativity in Groups
155
16. Presenting as a Group
165
Appendix A – Professional Communication
177
Appendix B – Citing Sources in APA Style
187
Glossary
189
ABOUT THE BOOK
Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams is an interdisciplinary textbook focused on
communication in groups and teams. The aim of this textbook is to provide students with theories,
concepts, and skills they can put into practice to form and sustain successful groups across a variety
of contexts.
This textbook was specifically designed to cover content relevant to SP 315 Small Group
Communication at Emporia State University in Emporia, KS.
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
• Editor:
◦ Jasmine R. Linabary, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of communication at Emporia State
University. Her research focuses on organizing, new media, and social change. She
teaches classes on topics like small group communication, group leadership,
communication and emerging technology, ethics, and public speaking, among others.
She is also the co-founder and director of the EAT Initiative, an interdisciplinary and
collaborative effort to combat food insecurity.
• Contributor:
◦ Moon Castro is a McNair Scholar and a senior communication major at Emporia State
University. His research interests include peacebuilding, social change, and emerging
technology. Castro is a past winner of the Community Impact Challenge, a grant
competition in which teams of students identify creative and meaningful solutions to
challenges facing the campus or local community.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This open education resource (OER) project was made possible by a Class Resource Affordability
Initiative Grant (CRAIG) from Emporia State University. Special thanks to Dr. Cameron Piercy for
his contributions and insights. Also thanks to ESU librarian Bethanie O’Dell for her support for this
project.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Content in this textbook is adapted and remixed from a variety of open educational resources
including those from OpenStax, University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, The Noba Project, and
ABOUT THE BOOK vii
Wikibooks, among others. Portions of this text were also adapted from Problem Solving in Teams and
Groups by Piercy. Each chapter contains attribution information and has its own Creative Commons
(CC) license at the end of the chapter under the heading “Author & Attribution.”
This adaptation has reformatted original text, replaced or removed some images and figures,
condensed content, and combined related materials but has otherwise not significantly altered the
content from the attributed sources. This textbook as a whole is made available under the terms of
a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license unless otherwise specified in
the individual chapter.
For questions or revisions related to this book, please contact Dr. Linabary (jlinabar@emporia.edu).
TEXTBOOK FORMAT & ADOPTION
In addition to the open web version, this textbook is available in alternative formats, including PDF
versions for electronic use or for printing. Various e-reader versions are also available upon request.
Please contact Dr. Linabary (jlinabar@emporia.edu) for details.
viii SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
PART I.
GROUP & TEAM COMMUNICATION OVERVIEW
This section introduces the basics of small group communication, including key definitions and
theories.
GROUP & TEAM COMMUNICATION OVERVIEW 1
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
Learning Objectives
• DePne small group communication
• Discuss the characteristics of small groups
• Compare and contrast different types of small groups
• Describe the advantages and disadvantages of small groups
Small group communication refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected
through a common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared identity. In this chapter, we will provide
an overview of the characteristics and types of small groups and discuss their advantages and
disadvantages.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL GROUPS
Different groups have different characteristics, serve different purposes, and can lead to positive,
neutral, or negative experiences. While our interpersonal relationships primarily focus on
relationship building, small groups usually focus on some sort of task completion or goal
accomplishment. A college learning community focused on math and science, a campaign team for a
state senator, and a group of local organic farmers are examples of small groups that would all have a
different size, structure, identity, and interaction pattern.
SIZE OF SMALL GROUPS
There is no set number of members for the ideal small group. A small group requires a minimum
of three people (because two people would be a pair or dyad), but the upper range of group size is
contingent on the purpose of the group. When groups grow beyond fifteen to twenty members, it
becomes difficult to consider them a small group based on the previous definition. An analysis of the
number of unique connections between members of small groups shows that they are deceptively
complex. For example, within a six-person group, there are fifteen separate potential dyadic
2 INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
connections, and a twelve-person group would have sixty-six potential dyadic connections (Hargie,
2011). As you can see, when we double the number of group members, we more than double the
number of connections, which shows that network connection points in small groups grow
exponentially as membership increases. So, while there is no set upper limit on the number of group
members, it makes sense that the number of group members should be limited to those necessary
to accomplish the goal or serve the purpose of the group. Small groups that add too many members
increase the potential for group members to feel overwhelmed or disconnected.
STRUCTURE OF SMALL GROUPS
Internal and external influences affect a group’s structure. In terms of internal influences, member
characteristics play a role in initial group formation. For instance, a person who is well informed
about the group’s task and/or highly motivated as a group member may emerge as a leader and set
into motion internal decision-making processes, such as recruiting new members or assigning group
roles, that affect the structure of a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Different members will also gravitate
toward different roles within the group and will advocate for certain procedures and courses of action
over others. External factors such as group size, task, and resources also affect group structure. Some
groups will have more control over these external factors through decision making than others. For
example, a commission that is put together by a legislative body to look into ethical violations in
athletic organizations will likely have less control over its external factors than a self-created weekly
book club.
INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION 3
A self-formed study group is likely to be less structured than other groups. (Credit: Alexis Brown/Students learning together/Unsplash)
Group structure is also formed through formal and informal network connections. In terms of formal
networks, groups may have clearly defined roles and responsibilities or a hierarchy that shows how
members are connected. The group itself may also be a part of an organizational hierarchy that
networks the group into a larger organizational structure. This type of formal network is especially
important in groups that have to report to external stakeholders. These external stakeholders may
influence the group’s formal network, leaving the group little or no control over its structure.
Conversely, groups have more control over their informal networks, which are connections among
individuals within the group and among group members and people outside of the group that aren’t
official. For example, a group member’s friend or relative may be able to secure a space to hold a
fundraiser at a discounted rate, which helps the group achieve its task. Both types of networks are
important because they may help facilitate information exchange within a group and extend a group’s
reach in order to access other resources.
Size and structure also affect communication within a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). In terms of size,
the more people in a group, the more issues with scheduling and coordination of communication.
Remember that time is an important resource in most group interactions and a resource that is usually
strained. Structure can increase or decrease the flow of communication. Reachability refers to the
way in which one member is or isn’t connected to other group members. For example, the “Circle”
group structure in Figure 1 shows that each group member is connected to two other members. This
can make coordination easy when only one or two people need to be brought in for a decision. In this
4 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
case, Erik and Callie are very reachable by Winston, who could easily coordinate with them. However,
if Winston needed to coordinate with Bill or Stephanie, he would have to wait on Erik or Callie to
reach that person, which could create delays. The circle can be a good structure for groups who are
passing along a task and in which each member is expected to progressively build on the others’ work.
A group of scholars coauthoring a research paper may work in such a manner, with each person
adding to the paper and then passing it on to the next person in the circle. In this case, they can ask
the previous person questions and write with the next person’s area of expertise in mind. The “Wheel”
group structure in Figure 1 shows an alternative organization pattern. In this structure, Tara is very
reachable by all members of the group. This can be a useful structure when Tara is the person with
the most expertise in the task or the leader who needs to review and approve work at each step before
it is passed along to other group members. But Phillip and Shadow, for example, wouldn’t likely work
together without Tara being involved.
Figure 1: Small Group Structures (Credit: University of Minnesota Press/Small Group Structures/CC
BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Looking at the group structures, we can make some assumptions about the communication that takes
place in them. The wheel is an example of a centralized structure, while the circle is decentralized.
Research has shown that centralized groups are better than decentralized groups in terms of speed
and efficiency (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). But decentralized groups are more effective at solving complex
problems. In centralized groups like the wheel, the person with the most connections, person C, is also
more likely to be the leader of the group or at least have more status among group members, largely
because that person has a broad perspective of what’s going on in the group. The most central person
can also act as a gatekeeper. Since this person has access to the most information, which is usually a
sign of leadership or status, he or she could consciously decide to limit the flow of information. But
in complex tasks, that person could become overwhelmed by the burden of processing and sharing
information with all the other group members. The circle structure is more likely to emerge in groups
where collaboration is the goal and a specific task and course of action isn’t required under time
constraints. While the person who initiated the group or has the most expertise in regards to the task
may emerge as a leader in a decentralized group, the equal access to information lessens the hierarchy
and potential for gatekeeping that is present in the more centralized groups.
INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION 5
INTERDEPENDENCE
Small groups exhibit interdependence, meaning they share a common purpose and a common fate.
If the actions of one or two group members lead to a group deviating from or not achieving their
purpose, then all members of the group are affected. Conversely, if the actions of only a few of the
group members lead to success, then all members of the group benefit. This is a major contributor
to many college students’ dislike of group assignments, because they feel a loss of control and
independence that they have when they complete an assignment alone. This concern is valid in that
their grades might suffer because of the negative actions of someone else or their hard work may
go to benefit the group member who just skated by. Group meeting attendance is a clear example
of the interdependent nature of group interaction. Many of us have arrived at a group meeting only
to find half of the members present. In some cases, the group members who show up have to leave
and reschedule because they can’t accomplish their task without the other members present. Group
members who attend meetings but withdraw or don’t participate can also derail group progress.
Although it can be frustrating to have your job, grade, or reputation partially dependent on the
actions of others, the interdependent nature of groups can also lead to higher-quality performance
and output, especially when group members are accountable for their actions.
SHARED IDENTITY
The shared identity of a group manifests in several ways. Groups may have official charters or mission
and vision statements that lay out the identity of a group. For example, the Girl Scout mission states
that “Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better
place” (Girl Scouts, 2012). The mission for this large organization influences the identities of the
thousands of small groups called troops. Group identity is often formed around a shared goal and/
or previous accomplishments, which adds dynamism to the group as it looks toward the future and
back on the past to inform its present. Shared identity can also be exhibited through group names,
slogans, songs, handshakes, clothing, or other symbols. At a family reunion, for example, matching
t-shirts specially made for the occasion, dishes made from recipes passed down from generation
to generation, and shared stories of family members that have passed away help establish a shared
identity and social reality.
A key element of the formation of a shared identity within a group is the establishment of the in-group
as opposed to the out-group. The degree to which members share in the in-group identity varies
from person to person and group to group. Even within a family, some members may not attend a
reunion or get as excited about the matching t-shirts as others. Shared identity also emerges as groups
become cohesive, meaning they identify with and like the group’s task and other group members.
The presence of cohesion and a shared identity leads to a building of trust, which can also positively
influence productivity and members’ satisfaction.
6 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
TYPES OF SMALL GROUPS
There are many types of small groups, but the most common distinction made between types of
small groups is that of task-oriented and relational-oriented groups (Hargie, 2011). Task-oriented
groups are formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information (McKay,
Davis, & Fanning, 1995). In such groups, like a committee or study group, interactions and decisions
are primarily evaluated based on the quality of the final product or output. The three main types
of tasks are production, discussion, and problem-solving tasks (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Groups faced
with production tasks are asked to produce something tangible from their group interactions such
as a report, design for a playground, musical performance, or fundraiser event. Groups faced with
discussion tasks are asked to talk through something without trying to come up with a right or wrong
answer. Examples of this type of group include a support group for people with HIV/AIDS, a book
club, or a group for new fathers. Groups faced with problem-solving tasks have to devise a course
of action to meet a specific need. These groups also usually include a production and discussion
component, but the end goal isn’t necessarily a tangible product or a shared social reality through
discussion. Instead, the end goal is a well-thought-out idea. Task-oriented groups require honed
problem-solving skills to accomplish goals, and the structure of these groups is more rigid than that
of relational-oriented groups.
Relational-oriented groups are formed to promote interpersonal connections and are more focused
on quality interactions that contribute to the well-being of group members. Decision making is
directed at strengthening or repairing relationships rather than completing discrete tasks or debating
specific ideas or courses of action. All groups include task and relational elements, so it’s best to think
of these orientations as two ends of a continuum rather than as mutually exclusive. For example,
although a family unit works together daily to accomplish tasks like getting the kids ready for school
and friendship groups may plan a surprise party for one of the members, their primary and most
meaningful interactions are still relational. Since other chapters in this book focus specifically on
interpersonal relationships, this chapter focuses more on task-oriented groups and the dynamics that
operate within these groups.
To more specifically look at the types of small groups that exist, we can examine why groups form.
Some groups are formed based on interpersonal relationships. Our family and friends are
considered primary groups, or long-lasting groups that are formed based on relationships and
include significant others. These are the small groups in which we interact most frequently. They
form the basis of our society and our individual social realities. Kinship networks provide important
support early in life and meet physiological and safety needs, which are essential for survival. They
also meet higher-order needs such as social and self-esteem needs. When people do not interact
with their biological family, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they can establish fictive kinship
networks, which are composed of people who are not biologically related but fulfill family roles and
help provide the same support.
We also interact in many secondary groups, which are characterized by less frequent face-to-face
interactions, less emotional and relational communication, and more task-related communication
than primary groups (Barker, 1991). While we are more likely to participate in secondary groups
INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION 7
based on self-interest, our primary-group interactions are often more reciprocal or other oriented.
For example, we may join groups because of a shared interest or need.
Groups formed based on shared interest include social groups and leisure groups such as a group
of independent film buffs, science fiction fans, or bird watchers. Some groups form to meet the
needs of individuals or of a particular group of people. Examples of groups that meet the needs of
individuals include study groups or support groups like a weight loss group. These groups are focused
on individual needs, even though they meet as a group, and they are also often discussion oriented.
Service groups, on the other hand, work to meet the needs of individuals but are task oriented. Service
groups include Habitat for Humanity and Rotary Club chapters, among others. Still, other groups
form around a shared need, and their primary task is advocacy. For example, the Gay Men’s Health
Crisis is a group that was formed by a small group of eight people in the early 1980s to advocate for
resources and support for the still relatively unknown disease that would later be known as AIDS.
Similar groups form to advocate for everything from a stop sign at a neighborhood intersection to the
end of human trafficking.
As we already learned, other groups are formed primarily to accomplish a task. Teams are taskoriented groups in which members are especially loyal and dedicated to the task and other group
members (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). In professional and civic contexts, the word team has become
popularized as a means of drawing on the positive connotations of the term—connotations such
as “high-spirited,” “cooperative,” and “hardworking.” Scholars who have spent years studying highly
effective teams have identified several common factors related to their success. Successful teams have
(Adler & Elmhorst, 2005)
• clear and inspiring shared goals,
• a results-driven structure,
• competent team members,
• a collaborative climate,
• high standards for performance,
• external support and recognition, and
• ethical and accountable leadership.
Increasingly, small groups and teams are engaging in more virtual interaction. Virtual teams take
advantage of new technologies and meet exclusively or primarily online to achieve their purpose or
goal. Some virtual groups may complete their task without ever being physically face-to-face. Virtual
groups bring with them distinct advantages and disadvantages that you can read more about in the
“Getting Plugged In” feature next.
GETTING PLUGGED IN
Virtual groups and teams are now common in academic, professional, and personal contexts, as classes meet
8 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
entirely online, work teams interface using webinar or video-conferencing programs, and people connect
around shared interests in a variety of online settings. Virtual groups are popular in professional contexts
because they can bring together people who are geographically dispersed (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). Virtual
groups also increase the possibility for the inclusion of diverse members. The ability to transcend distance
means that people with diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives are more easily accessed than in many
ofQine groups.
One disadvantage of virtual groups stems from the difPculties that technological mediation presents for the
relational and social dimensions of group interactions (Walther & Bunz, 2005). An important part of coming
together as a group is the socialization of group members into the desired norms of the group. Since norms are
implicit, much of this information is learned through observation or conveyed informally from one group
member to another. In fact, in traditional groups, group members passively acquire 50 percent or more of their
knowledge about group norms and procedures, meaning they observe rather than directly ask (Comer, 1991).
Virtual groups experience more difPculty with this part of socialization than copresent traditional groups do,
since any form of electronic mediation takes away some of the richness present in face-to-face interaction.
To help overcome these challenges, members of virtual groups should be prepared to put more time and effort
into building the relational dimensions of their group. Members of virtual groups need to make the social cues
that guide new members’ socialization more explicit than they would in an ofQine group (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003).
Group members should also contribute often, even if just supporting someone else’s contribution, because
increased participation has been shown to increase liking among members of virtual groups (Walther & Bunz,
2005). Virtual group members should also make an effort to put relational content that might otherwise be
conveyed through nonverbal or contextual means into the verbal part of a message, as members who include
little social content in their messages or only communicate about the group’s task are more negatively
evaluated. Virtual groups who do not overcome these challenges will likely struggle to meet deadlines, interact
less frequently, and experience more absenteeism. What follows are some guidelines to help optimize virtual
groups (Walter & Bunz, 2005):
• Get started interacting as a group as early as possible, since it takes longer to build social cohesion.
• Interact frequently to stay on task and avoid having work build up.
• Start working toward completing the task while initial communication about setup, organization, and
procedures are taking place.
• Respond overtly to other people’s messages and contributions.
• Be explicit about your reactions and thoughts since typical nonverbal expressions may not be received
as easily in virtual groups as they would be in colocated groups.
• Set deadlines and stick to them.
Discussion Questions:
1. Make a list of some virtual groups to which you currently belong or have belonged to in the past.
What are some differences between your experiences in virtual groups versus traditional colocated
groups?
2. What are some group tasks or purposes that you think lend themselves to being accomplished in a
virtual setting? What are some group tasks or purposes that you think would be best handled in a
traditional colocated setting? Explain your answers for each.
INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION 9
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SMALL
GROUPS
As with anything, small groups have their advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of small groups
include shared decision making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. It is within
small groups that most of the decisions that guide our country, introduce local laws, and influence
our family interactions are made. In a democratic society, participation in decision making is a
key part of citizenship. Groups also help in making decisions involving judgment calls that have
ethical implications or the potential to negatively affect people. Individuals making such high-stakes
decisions in a vacuum could have negative consequences given the lack of feedback, input,
questioning, and proposals for alternatives that would come from group interaction. Group members
also help expand our social networks, which provide access to more resources. A local communitytheater group may be able to put on a production with a limited budget by drawing on these
connections to get set-building supplies, props, costumes, actors, and publicity in ways that an
individual could not. The increased knowledge, diverse perspectives, and access to resources that
groups possess relates to another advantage of small groups—synergy.
Synergy refers to the potential for gains in performance or heightened quality of interactions when
complementary members or member characteristics are added to existing ones (Larson Jr., 2010).
Because of synergy, the final group product can be better than what any individual could have
produced alone. When I worked in housing and residence life, I helped coordinate a “World Cup
Soccer Tournament” for the international students that lived in my residence hall. As a group, we
created teams representing different countries around the world, made brackets for people to track
progress and predict winners, got sponsors, gathered prizes, and ended up with a very successful
event that would not have been possible without the synergy created by our collective group
membership. The members of this group were also exposed to international diversity that enriched
our experiences, which is also an advantage of group communication.
10 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
Working in groups and teams can have several advantages, including in exposing us to new people and perspectives. (Credit: Jopwell/Group
of People Sitting Inside a Room/Pexels)
Participating in groups can also increase our exposure to diversity and broaden our perspectives.
Although groups vary in the diversity of their members, we can strategically choose groups that
expand our diversity, or we can unintentionally end up in a diverse group. When we participate in
small groups, we expand our social networks, which increase the possibility to interact with people
who have different cultural identities than ourselves. Since group members work together toward a
common goal, shared identification with the task or group can give people with diverse backgrounds
a sense of commonality that they might not have otherwise. Even when group members share cultural
identities, the diversity of experience and opinion within a group can lead to broadened perspectives
as alternative ideas are presented and opinions are challenged and defended. One of my favorite parts
of facilitating class discussion is when students with different identities and/or perspectives teach
one another things in ways that I could not on my own. This example brings together the potential
of synergy and diversity. People who are more introverted or just avoid group communication and
voluntarily distance themselves from groups—or are rejected from groups—risk losing opportunities
to learn more about others and themselves.
There are also disadvantages to small group interaction. In some cases, one person can be just as or
more effective than a group of people. Think about a situation in which a highly specialized skill
or knowledge is needed to get something done. In this situation, one very knowledgeable person is
INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION 11
probably a better fit for the task than a group of less knowledgeable people. Group interaction also
has a tendency to slow down the decision-making process. Individuals connected through a hierarchy
or chain of command often work better in situations where decisions must be made under time
constraints. When group interaction does occur under time constraints, having one “point person”
or leader who coordinates action and gives final approval or disapproval on ideas or suggestions for
actions is best.
Group communication also presents interpersonal challenges. A common problem is coordinating
and planning group meetings due to busy and conflicting schedules. Some people also have difficulty
with the other-centeredness and self-sacrifice that some groups require. The interdependence of
group members that we discussed earlier can also create some disadvantages. Group members may
take advantage of the anonymity of a group and engage in social loafing, meaning they contribute
less to the group than other members or than they would if working alone (Karau & Williams, 1993).
Social loafers expect that no one will notice their behaviors or that others will pick up their slack.
It is this potential for social loafing that makes many students and professionals dread group work,
especially those who have a tendency to cover for other group members to prevent the social loafer
from diminishing the group’s productivity or output.
IMPROVING YOUR GROUP EXPERIENCES
If you experience feelings of fear and dread when an instructor says you will need to work in a group, you may
experience what is called grouphate (Meyers & Goodboy, 2005). Like many of you, I also had some negative
group experiences in college that made me think similarly to a student who posted the following on a teaching
blog: “Group work is code for ‘work as a group for a grade less than what you can get if you work alone’”
(Weimer, 2008).
But then I took a course called “Small Group and Team Communication” with an amazing teacher who later
became one of my most inQuential mentors. She emphasized the fact that we all needed to increase our
knowledge about group communication and group dynamics in order to better our group communication
experiences—and she was right. So the Prst piece of advice to help you start improving your group experiences
is to closely study the group communication chapters in this textbook and to apply what you learn to your group
interactions. Neither students nor faculty are born knowing how to function as a group, yet students and faculty
often think we’re supposed to learn as we go, which increases the likelihood of a negative experience.
A second piece of advice is to meet often with your group (Myers & Goodboy, 2005). Of course, to do this you
have to overcome some scheduling and coordination difPculties, but putting other things aside to work as a
group helps set up a norm that group work is important and worthwhile. Regular meetings also allow members
to interact with each other, which can increase social bonds, build a sense of interdependence that can help
diminish social loaPng, and establish other important rules and norms that will guide future group interaction.
Instead of committing to frequent meetings, many student groups use their Prst meeting to equally divide up
the group’s tasks so they can then go off and work alone (not as a group). While some group work can dePnitely
be done independently, dividing up the work and assigning someone to put it all together doesn’t allow group
members to take advantage of one of the most powerful advantages of group work—synergy.
Last, establish group expectations and follow through with them. I recommend that my students come up with a
group name and create a contract of group guidelines during their Prst meeting (both of which I learned from
12 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
my group communication teacher whom I referenced earlier). The group name helps begin to establish a shared
identity, which then contributes to interdependence and improves performance. The contract of group
guidelines helps make explicit the group norms that might have otherwise been left implicit. Each group
member contributes to the contract and then they all sign it. Groups often make guidelines about how meetings
will be run, what to do about lateness and attendance, the type of climate they’d like for discussion, and other
relevant expectations. If group members end up falling short of these expectations, the other group members
can remind the straying member of the contact and the fact that he or she signed it. If the group encounters
further issues, they can use the contract as a basis for evaluating the other group member or for communicating
with the instructor.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Do you agree with the student’s quote about group work that was included at the beginning? Why
or why not?
2. The second recommendation is to meet more with your group. Acknowledging that schedules are
difPcult to coordinate and that that is not really going to change, what are some strategies that you
could use to overcome that challenge in order to get time together as a group?
3. What are some guidelines that you think you’d like to include in your contract with a future group?
Review & ReQection Questions
• What are the key characteristics of small groups?
• List some groups to which you have belonged that focused primarily on tasks and then list some that
focused primarily on relationships. Compare and contrast your experiences in these groups.
• Synergy is one of the main advantages of small group communication. Explain a time when a group you
were in benePted from or failed to achieve synergy. What contributed to your success/failure?
• Do you experience grouphate? If so, why might that be the case? What strategies could you use to have
better group experiences in the future?
REFERENCES
• Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2005). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for
businesses and the professions. (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management, 29,
161-185.
• Barker, D. B. (1991). The behavioral analysis of interpersonal intimacy in group development.
Small Group Research, 22(1), 76-91.
• Comer, D. R., (1991). Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from peers.
Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 64–89.
INTRODUCING SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION 13
• Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision Making: Communication and the group
process. (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Girl Scouts. (2012, July 15). Facts. Retrieved from http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/
facts.
• Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice. (5th ed.).
Routledge.
• Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.
• Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). TeamWork: What must go right/what must go wrong.
Sage.
• Larson Jr., J. R. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. Psychology Press.
• McKay, M., Davis, M. & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: Communication skills book. (2nd ed.). New
Harbinger Publications.
• Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2005). A study of grouphate in a course on small group
communication. Psychological Reports, 97(2), 381-386.
• Walther, J. B., Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in
computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828-846.
• Weimer, M. (2008, July 1). Why students hate groups. The Teaching Professor. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingprofessor.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/why-students-hategroups.
AUTHORS & ATTRIBUTION
The chapter is adapted from “Understanding Small Groups” in Communication in the Real World from
the University of Minnesota. The book was adapted from a work produced and distributed under
a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA) by a publisher who has requested that they and the
original author not receive attribution. This work is made available under the terms of a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.
Small Group Communication by Jasmine R. Linabary, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
14 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
PART II.
FORMING GROUPS
This section provides information on the key processes and practices in the initial stages of group
formation.
FORMING GROUPS 15
CHAPTER 2.
UNDERSTANDING GROUP FORMATION
Learning Objectives
• Explain the reasons why people join groups
• Describe how groups impact task performance
• Identify what makes groups most effective
• Discuss the utility of descriptive models of group development
This chapter assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough understanding of
groups. Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own objectives, yet we are also members
of groups—groups that constrain us, guide us, and sustain us. Just as each of us influences the group
and the people in the group, so, too, do groups change each one of us. Joining groups satisfies our
need to belong, gain information and understanding through social comparison, define our sense of
self and social identity, and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone. Groups are also
practically significant, for much of the world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals.
Success sometimes eludes our groups, but when group members learn to work together as a cohesive
team their success becomes more certain.
Psychologists study groups because nearly all human activities—working, learning, worshiping,
relaxing, playing, and even sleeping—occur in groups. The lone individual who is cut off from all
groups is a rarity. Most of us live out our lives in groups, and these groups have a profound impact on
our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Many psychologists focus their attention on single individuals, but
social psychologists expand their analysis to include groups, organizations, communities, and even
cultures.
This chapter examines the psychology of groups and group membership. It begins with a basic
question: What is the psychological significance of groups? This chapter then reviews some of the key
findings from studies of groups. Researchers have asked many questions about people and groups: Do
people work as hard as they can when they are in groups? Are groups more cautious than individuals?
16 UNDERSTANDING GROUP FORMATION
Do groups make wiser decisions than single individuals? In many cases, the answers are not what
common sense and folk wisdom might suggest.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF GROUPS
Many people loudly proclaim their autonomy and independence. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson (1903/
2004), they avow, “I must be myself. I will not hide my tastes or aversions . . . . I will seek my own” (p.
127). Even though people are capable of living separately and apart from others, they join with others
because groups meet their psychological and social needs.
THE NEED TO BELONG
Across individuals, societies, and even eras,
humans consistently seek inclusion over
exclusion, membership over isolation, and
acceptance over rejection. As Roy Baumeister
and Mark Leary (1995) conclude, humans have
a need to belong: “a pervasive drive to form and
maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting,
positive,
and
impactful
interpersonal
relationships” (p. 497). And most of us satisfy
this need by joining groups. When surveyed,
87.3% of Americans reported that they lived
with other people, including family members,
partners, and roommates (Davis & Smith, 2007).
The majority, ranging from 50% to 80%,
reported regularly doing things in groups, such
as attending a sports event together, visiting one The need to belong is a strong psychological motivation. (Credit: CC0
Public Domain)
another for the evening, sharing a meal together,
or going out as a group to see a movie (Putnam,
2000).
People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled. People who are accepted members
of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied. But should they be rejected by a group, they
feel unhappy, helpless, and depressed. Studies of ostracism—the deliberate exclusion from
groups—indicate this experience is highly stressful and can lead to depression, confused thinking, and
even aggression (Williams, 2007). When researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging
scanner to track neural responses to exclusion, they found that people who were left out of a group
activity displayed heightened cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior
cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of
physical pain sensations (Eisenberger et al., 2003). It hurts, quite literally, to be left out of a group.
AFFILIATION IN GROUPS
Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, but they also provide members with information,
assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger’s theory of social comparison (1950, 1954) suggested
UNDERSTANDING GROUP FORMATION 17
that in many cases people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and
attitudes. Stanley Schachter (1959) explored this process by putting individuals in ambiguous,
stressful situations and asking them if they wished to wait alone or with others. He found that
people affiliate in such situations—they seek the company of others.
Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us with reassurance
and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer to join with others who are
even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you would respond when the teacher hands
back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend
who got a 78%? To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less
fortunate. This process is known as downward social comparison.
IDENTITY AND MEMBERSHIP
Groups are not only founts of information during times of ambiguity, they also help us answer the
existentially significant question, “Who am I?” People are defined not only by their traits, preferences,
interests, likes, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections, and group
memberships. The self is not just a “me,” but also a “we.”
Even demographic qualities such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize ourselves based on
these qualities. Social identity theory, for example, assumes that we don’t just classify other people
into such social categories as man, woman, White, Black, Latinx, elderly, or college student, but we
also categorize ourselves. According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), social identities are directed by our
memberships in particular groups. or social categories. If we strongly identify with these categories,
then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups to ourselves, and so
stereotype ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college students are intellectual, then we will
assume we, too, are intellectual if we identify with that group (Hogg, 2001).
Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of self-worth, as our
assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our collective self-esteem (Crocker &
Luhtanen, 1990). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback, we can focus on our group’s
success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to other groups, we frequently discover that
we are members of the better group, and so can take pride in our superiority. By denigrating other
groups, we elevate both our personal and our collective self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989).
Mark Leary’s (2007) sociometer model goes so far as to suggest that “self-esteem is part of a
sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people’s eyes” (p. 328). He maintains selfesteem is not just an index of one’s sense of personal value, but also an indicator of acceptance into
groups. Like a gauge that indicates how much fuel is left in the tank, a dip in self-esteem indicates
exclusion from our group is likely. Disquieting feelings of self-worth, then, prompt us to search for
and correct characteristics and qualities that put us at risk of social exclusion. Self-esteem is not just
high self-regard, but the self-approbation that we feel when included in groups (Leary & Baumeister,
2000).
18 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGES OF GROUP LIVING
Groups may be humans’ most useful invention, for they provide us with the means to reach goals
that would elude us if we remained alone. Individuals in groups can secure advantages and avoid
disadvantages that would plague the lone individuals. In his theory of social integration, Moreland
(1987) concludes that groups tend to form whenever “people become dependent on one another for
the satisfaction of their needs” (p. 104). The advantages of group life may be so great that humans
are biologically prepared to seek membership and avoid isolation. From an evolutionary psychology
perspective, because groups have increased humans’ overall fitness for countless generations,
individuals who carried genes that promoted solitude-seeking were less likely to survive and
procreate compared to those with genes that prompted them to join groups (Darwin, 1859/1963).
This process of natural selection culminated in the creation of a modern human who seeks out
membership in groups instinctively, for most of us are descendants of “joiners” rather than “loners.”
MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE
SOCIAL FACILITATION IN GROUPS
Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Norman Triplett (1898)
examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology. While watching bicycle races,
Triplett noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against other racers than when they
raced alone against the clock. To determine if the presence of others leads to the psychological
stimulation that enhances performance, he arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved
turning a small reel as quickly as possible (see Figure 1). When he measured how quickly they turned
the reel, he confirmed that children performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs
compared to when they played alone (see Stroebe, 2012; Strube, 2005).
Triplett succeeded in sparking interest in a phenomenon now known as social facilitation: the
enhancement of an individual’s performance when that person works in the presence of other people.
However, it remained for Robert Zajonc (1965) to specify when social facilitation does and does
not occur. After reviewing prior research, Zajonc noted that the facilitating effects of an audience
usually only occur when the task requires the person to perform dominant responses (i.e., ones that are
well-learned or based on instinctive behaviors). If the task requires nondominant responses (i.e., novel,
complicated, or untried behaviors that the organism has never performed before or has performed
only infrequently) then the presence of others inhibits performance. Hence, students write poorer
quality essays on complex philosophical questions when they labor in a group rather than alone
(Allport, 1924), but they make fewer mistakes in solving simple, low-level multiplication problems
with an audience or a co-actor than when they work in isolation (Dashiell, 1930).
Social facilitation, then, depends on the task: other people facilitate performance when the task is so simple
that it requires only dominant responses, but others interfere when the task requires nondominant responses.
However, a number of psychological processes combine to influence when social facilitation, not
social interference, occurs. Studies of the challenge-threat response and brain imaging, for example,
confirm that we respond physiologically and neurologically to the presence of others (Blascovich et
al., 1999). Other people also can trigger evaluation apprehension, particularly when we feel that our
individual performance will be known to others, and those others might judge it negatively (Bond et
UNDERSTANDING GROUP FORMATION 19
al., 1996). The presence of other people can also cause perturbations in our capacity to concentrate on
and process information (Harkins, 2006). Distractions due to the presence of other people have been
shown to improve performance on certain tasks, such as the Stroop task, but undermine performance
on more cognitively demanding tasks (Huguet et al., 1999).
SOCIAL LOAFING
Groups usually outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get less done
in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing a tug-of-war game
against a group will lose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings
faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, “Many hands make light the work” (Littlepage,
1991; Steiner, 1972).
Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. Studies of social facilitation confirmed the positive
motivational benefits of working with other people on well-practiced tasks in which each member’s
contribution to the collective enterprise can be identified and evaluated. But what happens when
tasks require a truly collective effort? First, when people work together they must coordinate their
individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of efficiency—but they rarely do
(Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Three people in a tug-of-war competition, for example, invariably pull and
pause at slightly different times, so their efforts are uncoordinated. The result is coordination loss: the
three-person group is stronger than a single person, but not three times as strong. Second, people
just don’t exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor, nor do they expend as much
cognitive effort trying to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display social loafing
(Latané, 1981).
Bibb Latané, Kip Williams, and Stephen Harkins (1979) examined both coordination losses and social
loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of varying sizes. The
students cheered alone or in 2- or 6-person groups, or they were lead to believe they were in 2or 6-person groups (those in the “pseudo-groups” wore blindfolds and headsets that played masking
sound). Groups generated more noise than solitary subjects, but the productivity dropped as the
groups became larger in size. In dyads, each subject worked at only 66% of capacity, and in 6-person
groups at 36%. Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups. If
subjects thought that one other person was shouting with them, they shouted 82% as intensely, and if
they thought five other people were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity. These losses in
productivity were not due to coordination problems; this decline in production could be attributed
only to a reduction in effort—to social loafing (Latané et al., 1979, Experiment 2).
TEAMWORK
Social loafing is not a rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals, they
tend to “take it easy” if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work (George, 1992). People
who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less
effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually (Paulus &
Brown, 2007). Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity
of each member’s contributions: Some people just don’t work as much as they should to help the
20 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
group reach its learning goals (Neu, 2012). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks
expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf (Karau &
Williams, 1993).
Groups can, however, overcome this impediment to performance through teamwork. A group may
include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and
energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be set, work patterns structured, and
a sense of group identity developed. Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions,
and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved (Salas et al.,
2009).
Social loaNng can be a problem. One way to overcome it is by recognizing that each group member has an
important part to play in the success of the group and engaging in teamwork. (Credit: Marc
Dalmulder/Dragon Boat Races/CC BY 2.0)
Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental
representation of the task and group cohesion. Teams improve their performance over time as they
develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting. Some semblance of
this shared mental model, is present nearly from its inception, but as the team practices, differences
among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation and their team diminish as a
UNDERSTANDING GROUP FORMATION 21
consensus becomes implicitly accepted (Tindale et al., 2008). Effective teams are also, in most cases,
cohesive groups (Dion, 2000). Group cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, social integration, or unity
of a group. In most cases, members of cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are
united in their pursuit of collective, group-level goals. Members tend to enjoy their groups more when
they are cohesive, and cohesive groups usually outperform ones that lack cohesion. This cohesionperformance relationship, however, is a complex one. Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion
improves teamwork among members, but that performance quality influences cohesion more than
cohesion influences performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994; Mullen et al., 1998). Cohesive groups
also can be spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress low productivity rather than high
productivity (Seashore, 1954). Group cohesion will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter.
GROUP DEVELOPMENT
From the time they are formed, groups evolve and can go through a variety of changes over the course
of their life cycles. Researchers have sought to identify common patterns in group development.
These are referred to as descriptive models (Beebe & Masterson, 2015). Descriptive models can
help us make sense of our group experiences by describing what might be ‘normal’ or ‘typical’ group
processes. In the following sections, we will discuss two examples of descriptive models of group
development — Tuckman’s model and punctuated equilibrium.
TUCKMAN MODEL OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT
American organizational psychologist Bruce Tuckman presented a robust model in 1965 that is still
widely used today. Based on his observations of group behavior in a variety of settings, he proposed
a four-stage map of group evolution, also known as Tuckman’s model of group development
(Tuckman, 1965). Later he enhanced the model by adding a fifth and final stage, the adjourning phase.
Interestingly enough, just as an individual moves through developmental stages such as childhood,
adolescence, and adulthood, so does a group, although in a much shorter period of time. According
to this theory, in order to successfully facilitate a group, the leader needs to move through various
leadership styles over time. Generally, this is accomplished by first being more directive, eventually
serving as a coach, and later, once the group is able to assume more power and responsibility for
itself, shifting to a delegator. While research has not confirmed that this is descriptive of how groups
progress, knowing and following these steps can help groups be more effective. For example, groups
that do not go through the storming phase early on will often return to this stage toward the end of the
group process to address unresolved issues. Another example of the validity of the group development
model involves groups that take the time to get to know each other socially in the forming stage.
When this occurs, groups tend to handle future challenges better because the individuals have an
understanding of each other’s needs.
22 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
Figure 1: Tuckman’s Model of Group Development
Forming
In the forming stage, the group comes together for the first time. The members may already know
each other or they may be total strangers. In either case, there is a level of formality, some anxiety,
and a degree of guardedness as group members are not sure what is going to happen next. “Will
I be accepted? What will my role be? Who has the power here?” These are some of the questions
participants think about during this stage of group formation. Because of the large amount of
uncertainty, members tend to be polite, conflict avoidant, and observant. They are trying to figure
out the “rules of the game” without being too vulnerable. At this point, they may also be quite excited
and optimistic about the task at hand, perhaps experiencing a level of pride at being chosen to join a
particular group. Group members are trying to achieve several goals at this stage, although this may
not necessarily be done consciously. First, they are trying to get to know each other. Often this can
be accomplished by finding some common ground. Members also begin to explore group boundaries
to determine what will be considered acceptable behavior. “Can I interrupt? Can I leave when I feel
like it?” This trial phase may also involve testing the appointed leader or seeing if a leader emerges
from the group. At this point, group members are also discovering how the group will work in terms
of what needs to be done and who will be responsible for each task. This stage is often characterized
by abstract discussions about issues to be addressed by the group; those who like to get moving can
become impatient with this part of the process. This phase is usually short in duration, perhaps a
meeting or two.
Storming
Once group members feel sufficiently safe and included, they tend to enter the storming phase.
Participants focus less on keeping their guard up as they shed social facades, becoming more authentic
and more argumentative. Group members begin to explore their power and influence, and they often
stake out their territory by differentiating themselves from the other group members rather than
seeking common ground. Discussions can become heated as participants raise contending points of
view and values, or argue over how tasks should be done and who is assigned to them. It is not unusual
for group members to become defensive, competitive, or jealous. They may even take sides or begin
to form cliques within the group. Questioning and resisting direction from the leader is also quite
common. “Why should I have to do this? Who designed this project in the first place? Why do I have to
listen to you?” Although little seems to get accomplished at this stage, group members are becoming
more authentic as they express their deeper thoughts and feelings. What they are really exploring is
“Can I truly be me, have power, and be accepted?” During this chaotic stage, a great deal of creative
energy that was previously buried is released and available for use, but it takes skill to move the group
from storming to norming. In many cases, the group gets stuck in the storming phase.
23
AVOID GETTING STUCK IN THE STORMING PHASE
There are several steps you can take to avoid getting stuck in the storming phase of group
development. Try the following if you feel the group process you are involved in is not progressing:
• Normalize conOict. Let members know this is a natural phase in the group-formation process.
• Be inclusive. Continue to make all members feel included and invite all views into the room.
Mention how diverse ideas and opinions help foster creativity and innovation.
• Make sure everyone is heard. Facilitate heated discussions and help participants understand
each other.
• Support all group members. This is especially important for those who feel more insecure.
• Remain positive. This is a key point to remember about the group’s ability to accomplish its goal.
• Don’t rush the group’s development. Remember that working through the storming stage can
take several meetings.
Once group members discover that they can be authentic and that the group is capable of handling
differences without dissolving, they are ready to enter the next stage, norming.
Norming
“We survived!” is the common sentiment at the norming stage. Group members often feel elated at
this point, and they are much more committed to each other and the group’s goal. Feeling energized
by knowing they can handle the “tough stuff,” group members are now ready to get to work. Finding
themselves more cohesive and cooperative, participants find it easy to establish their own ground
rules (or norms) and define their operating procedures and goals. The group tends to make big
decisions, while subgroups or individuals handle the smaller decisions. Hopefully, at this point, the
group is more open and respectful toward each other, and members ask each other for both help and
feedback. They may even begin to form friendships and share more personal information with each
other. At this point, the leader should become more of a facilitator by stepping back and letting the
group assume more responsibility for its goal. Since the group’s energy is running high, this is an ideal
time to host a social or team-building event.
Performing
Galvanized by a sense of shared vision and a feeling of unity, the group is ready to go into high gear.
Members are more interdependent, individuality and differences are respected, and group members
feel themselves to be part of a greater entity. At the performing stage, participants are not only
getting the work done, but they also pay greater attention to how they are doing it. They ask questions
like, “Do our operating procedures best support productivity and quality assurance? Do we have
suitable means for addressing differences that arise so we can preempt destructive conflicts? Are we
relating to and communicating with each other in ways that enhance group dynamics and help us
24 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
achieve our goals? How can I further develop as a person to become more effective?” By now, the
group has matured, becoming more competent, autonomous, and insightful. Group leaders can finally
move into coaching roles and help members grow in skill and leadership.
Adjourning
Just as groups form, so do they end. For example, many groups or teams formed in a business context
are project-oriented and therefore are temporary in nature. Alternatively, a working group may
dissolve due to organizational restructuring. Just as when we graduate from school or leave home for
the first time, these endings can be bittersweet, with group members feeling a combination of victory,
grief, and insecurity about what is coming next. For those who like routine and bond closely with
fellow group members, this transition can be particularly challenging. Group leaders and members
alike should be sensitive to handling these endings respectfully and compassionately. An ideal way to
close a group is to set aside time to debrief (“How did it all go? What did we learn?”), acknowledge
each other, and celebrate a job well done.
THE PUNCTUATED-EQUILIBRIUM MODEL
As you may have noted, the five-stage model we have just reviewed is a linear process. According to
the model, a group progresses to the performing stage, at which point it finds itself in an ongoing,
smooth-sailing situation until the group dissolves. In reality, subsequent researchers, most notably
Joy H. Karriker, have found that the life of a group is much more dynamic and cyclical in nature
(Karriker, 2005). For example, a group may operate in the performing stage for several months. Then,
because of a disruption, such as a competing emerging technology that changes the rules of the
game or the introduction of a new CEO, the group may move back into the storming phase before
returning to performing. Ideally, any regression in the linear group progression will ultimately result
in a higher level of functioning. Proponents of this cyclical model draw from behavioral scientist
Connie Gersick’s study of punctuated equilibrium (Gersick, 1991).
The concept of punctuated equilibrium was first proposed in 1972 by paleontologists Niles Eldredge
and Stephen Jay Gould, who both believed that evolution occurred in rapid, radical spurts rather
than gradually over time. Identifying numerous examples of this pattern in social behavior, Gersick
found that the concept applied to organizational change. She proposed that groups remain fairly
static, maintaining a certain equilibrium for long periods of time. Change during these periods is
incremental, largely due to the resistance to change that arises when systems take root and processes
become institutionalized. In this model, revolutionary change occurs in brief, punctuated bursts,
generally catalyzed by a crisis or problem that breaks through the systemic inertia and shakes up the
deep organizational structures in place. At this point, the organization or group has the opportunity to
learn and create new structures that are better aligned with current realities. Whether the group does
this is not guaranteed. In sum, in Gersick’s model, groups can repeatedly cycle through the storming
and performing stages, with revolutionary change taking place during short transitional windows.
For organizations and groups who understand that disruption, conflict, and chaos are inevitable in
the life of a social system, these disruptions represent opportunities for innovation and creativity.
25
Figure 2: The Punctuated Equilibrium Model
Review & ReQection Questions
• Why do people often join groups? What are some reasons you have joined groups in the past?
• Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Under what conditions?
• If you were a college professor, what would you do to increase the success of in-class groups and
teams?
• What do descriptive models do for us? How might they be useful to groups?
• Have you observed a group going through these phases in the past? What can you learn from those
experiences?
REFERENCES
• Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Houghton Mifflin.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
• Beebe, S.A., & Masterson, J.T. (2015). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices
(11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as
challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 68–77.
• Bond, C. F., Atoum, A. O., & VanLeeuwen, M. D. (1996). Social impairment of complex
learning in the wake of public embarrassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 31–44.
• Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of
26 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60–67.
• Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
• Darwin, C. (1859/1963). The origin of species. Washington Square Press.
• Dashiell, J. F. (1930). An experimental analysis of some group effects. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 25, 190–199.
• Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (2007). General social surveys (1972–2006). [machine-readable data
file]. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center & Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public
Opinion Research. Retrieved from http://www.norc.uchicago.edu
• Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the
solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.
• Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional
construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7–26.
• Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI
study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.
• Emerson, R. W. (2004). Essays and poems by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Barnes & Noble. (originally
published 1903).
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
• Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
• George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191–202.
• Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the
punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10–36.
• Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance
relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 436–455.
• Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A.
Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 56–85).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the
Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1011–1025.
• Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.
• Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership
emergence in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11, 54–64.
• Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
27
• Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes
and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
• Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 317–344.
• Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer
theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62.
• Littlepage, G. E. (1991). Effects of group size and task characteristics on group performance: A
test of Steiner’s model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 449–456.
• Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. Review of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8, 80–110.
• Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance:
An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
• Mullen, B., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis and the study of group
dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 213–229.
• Neu, W. A. (2012). Unintended cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of group
assignments. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 67–81.
• Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea
generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 248–265.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon &
Schuster.
• Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in
organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S.
Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and
approaches (pp. 39–79). Routledge.
• Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford University Press.
• Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Institute for Social
Research.
• Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Academic Press.
• Stroebe, W. (2012). The truth about Triplett (1898), but nobody seems to care. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7(1), 54–57.
• Strube, M. J. (2005). What did Triplett really find? A contemporary analysis of the first
experiment in social psychology. American Journal of Psychology, 118, 271–286.
• Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In
S. Worchel & L.W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations.(pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall
• Tindale, R. S., Stawiski, S., & Jacobs, E. (2008). Shared cognition and group learning. In V. I.
Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how
28 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
groups learn in organizations (pp. 73–90). Taylor & Francis Group.
• Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal
of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
• Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384–399.
• Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
• Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
AUTHORS & ATTRIBUTION
The sections “The Psychological Significance of Groups” and “Motivation and Performance” are
adapted and condensed from: Forsyth, D. R. (2019). The psychology of groups. In R. Biswas-Diener
& E. Diener (Eds.), Noba textbook series: Psychology. DEF publishers. nobaproject.com. This content
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
License.
The section “Group Development” is adapted from “Group Dynamics” in Organizational Behaviour
from the University of Minnesota. The book was adapted from a work produced and distributed
under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA) by a publisher who has requested that they and
the original author not receive attribution. This work is made available under the terms of a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.
Small Group Communication by Jasmine R. Linabary, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
29
CHAPTER 3.
IDENTIFYING GROUP ROLES
Learning Objectives
• Identify and discuss task-related group roles and behaviors
• Identify and discuss maintenance group roles and behaviors
• Identify and discuss negative group roles and behaviors
Group roles, or the expected behaviors or functions of group members, can be formal or informal
and played by more than one group member. Additionally, one group member may exhibit various
role behaviors within a single group meeting or play a few consistent roles over the course of his
or her involvement with a group. Some people’s role behaviors result from their personality traits,
while other people act out a certain role because of a short-term mood, as a reaction to another
group member, or out of necessity. Group communication scholars have cautioned us to not always
think of these roles as neatly bounded all-inclusive categories. After all, we all play multiple roles
within a group and must draw on multiple communication behaviors to successfully play them. When
someone continually exhibits a particular behavior, it may be labeled as a role, but even isolated
behaviors can impact group functioning.
In this chapter, we will discuss the three categories of common group roles that were identified by
early group communication scholars. These role categories include task-related roles, maintenance
roles, and negative roles that are considered to be self-centered or unproductive for the group (Benne
& Sheats, 1948).
TASK-RELATED ROLES AND BEHAVIORS
Task roles and their related behaviors contribute directly to the group’s completion of a task or
achievement of its goal or purpose. Task-related roles typically serve leadership, informational, or
procedural functions. In this section, we will discuss the following roles and behaviors: task leader,
expediter, information provider, information seeker, gatekeeper, and recorder.
30 IDENTIFYING GROUP ROLES
TASK LEADER
Within any group, there may be a task leader who has a high group status because of his or her
maturity, problem-solving abilities, knowledge, and/or leadership experience and skills and functions
primarily to help the group complete its task (Cragan & Wright, 1991). This person may be a
designated or emergent leader, but in either case, task leaders tend to talk more during group
interactions than other group members and also tend to do more work in the group. Depending on
the number of tasks a group has, there may be more than one task leader, especially if the tasks require
different sets of skills or knowledge. Because of the added responsibilities of being a task leader,
people in these roles may experience higher levels of stress. A task leader’s stresses, however, may be
lessened through some of the maintenance role behaviors that we will discuss later.
Task-leader behaviors can be further divided into two types: substantive and procedural (Pavitt,
1999). The substantive leader is the “idea person” who communicates “big picture” thoughts and
suggestions that feed group discussion. The procedural leader is the person who gives the most
guidance, perhaps following up on the ideas generated by the substantive leader. A skilled and
experienced task leader may be able to perform both of these roles, but when the roles are filled by
two different people, the person considered the procedural leader is more likely than the substantive
leader to be viewed by members as the overall group leader. This indicates that task-focused groups
assign more status to the person who actually guides the group toward the completion of the task (a
“doer”) than the person who comes up with ideas (the “thinker”).
EXPEDITER
The expediter is a task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing
its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals to monitor the group’s progress.
An expediter doesn’t push group members mindlessly along toward the completion of their task; an
expediter must have a good sense of when a topic has been sufficiently discussed or when a group’s
extended focus on one area has led to diminishing returns. In such cases, the expediter may say, “Now
that we’ve had a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of switching the office from PCs to Macs,
which side do you think has more support?” or “We’ve spent half of this meeting looking for examples
of what other libraries have done and haven’t found anything useful. Maybe we should switch gears
so we can get something concrete done tonight.”
IDENTIFYING GROUP ROLES 31
An expediter in a restaurant keeps the food Oowing from the kitchen to the diners in a timely and orderly
fashion, just as the expediter in a group keeps the group on an agenda. (Credit: Lester Guijarro/chefs/CC
BY-SA 2.0)
If you’ve ever worked in a restaurant, you’re probably familiar with an expediter’s role in the kitchen.
The person working “expo” helps make sure that the timing on all the dishes for a meal works out
and that each plate is correct before it goes out to the table. This is by no means an easy job since
some entrées cook quicker than others and not everyone orders their burger the same way. So the
expediter helps make order out of chaos by calling the food out to the kitchen in a particular order
that logically works so that all the food will come up at the same time. Once the food is up, he or she
also checks what’s on the plate against what’s on the ticket to make sure it matches. Expediting in a
restaurant and a small group is like a dance that requires some flexible and creative thinking and an
ability to stick to a time frame and assess progress. To avoid the perception that group members are
being rushed, a skilled expediter can demonstrate good active-listening skills by paraphrasing what
has been discussed and summarizing what has been accomplished in such a way that makes it easier
for group members to see the need to move on.
INFORMATION PROVIDER
The role of information provider includes behaviors that are more evenly shared than in other roles,
as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute
their own relevant knowledge and experiences. When group members are brought together because
they each have different types of information, early group meetings may consist of group members
taking turns briefing each other on their area of expertise. In other situations, only one person in the
group may be chosen because of his or her specialized knowledge and this person may be expected
to be the primary information provider for all other group members. For example, I was asked to
serve on a university committee that is reviewing our undergraduate learning goals. Since my official
role is to serve as the “faculty expert” on the subcommittee related to speaking, I played a more
32 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
central information-provider function for our group during most of our initial meetings. Since other
people on the subcommittee weren’t as familiar with speaking and its place within higher education
curriculum, it made sense that information-providing behaviors were not as evenly distributed in this
case.
INFORMATION SEEKER
The information seeker asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to
the group’s task. The information sought may include factual information or group member opinions.
In general, information seekers ask questions for clarification, but they can also ask questions that
help provide an important evaluative function. Most groups could benefit from more critically
oriented information-seeking behaviors. Critical questioning helps increase the quality of ideas and
group outcomes and helps avoid groupthink. By asking for more information, people have to defend
(in a nonadversarial way) and/or support their claims, which can help ensure that the information
being discussed is credible, relevant, and thoroughly considered. When information seeking or
questioning occurs as a result of poor listening skills, it risks negatively impacting the group. Skilled
information providers and seekers are also good active listeners. They increase all group members’
knowledge when they paraphrase and ask clarifying questions about the information presented.
GATEKEEPER
The gatekeeper manages the flow of conversation in a group to achieve an appropriate balance so
that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way. The gatekeeper may prompt others to
provide information by saying something like “Let’s each share one idea we have for a movie to show
during Black History Month.” He or she may also help correct an imbalance between members who
have provided much information already and members who have been quiet by saying something like
“Aretha, we’ve heard a lot from you today. Let’s hear from someone else. Beau, what are your thoughts
on Aretha’s suggestion?” Gatekeepers should be cautious about “calling people out” or at least making
them feel that way. Instead of scolding someone for not participating, they should be invitational and
ask a member to contribute to something specific instead of just asking if they have anything to add.
Since gatekeepers make group members feel included, they also service the relational aspects of the
group.
RECORDER
The recorder takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. The
recorder is the only role that is essentially limited to one person at a time since in most cases it
wouldn’t be necessary or beneficial to have more than one person recording. At less formal meetings
there may be no recorder, while at formal meetings there is almost always a person who records
meeting minutes, which are an overview of what occurred at the meeting. Each committee will have
different rules or norms regarding the level of detail within and availability of the minutes. While
some group’s minutes are required by law to be public, others may be strictly confidential. Even
though a record of a group meeting may be valuable, the role of the recorder is often regarded as a
low-status position, since the person in the role may feel or be viewed as subservient to the other
IDENTIFYING GROUP ROLES 33
members who can more actively contribute to the group’s functioning. Because of this, it may be
desirable to have the role of the recorder rotate among members (Cragan & Wright, 1991).
The recorder writes and/or types notes during group meetings to document the discussion and other
interactions. (Credit: Chung Ho Leung/Note Taking/CC BY-ND 2.0)
MAINTENANCE ROLES AND BEHAVIORS
Maintenance roles and their corresponding behaviors function to create and maintain social
cohesion and fulfill the interpersonal needs of group members. All these role behaviors require strong
and sensitive interpersonal skills. The maintenance roles we will discuss in this section include socialemotional leader, supporter, tension releaser, harmonizer, and interpreter.
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEADER
The social-emotional leader within a group may perform a variety of maintenance roles and is
generally someone who is well-liked by the other group members and whose role behaviors
complement but don’t compete with the task leader. The social-emotional leader may also reassure
and support the task leader when he or she becomes stressed. In general, the social-emotional leader
is a reflective thinker who has good perception skills that he or she uses to analyze the group
dynamics and climate and then initiate the appropriate role behaviors to maintain a positive climate.
Unlike the role of task leader, this isn’t a role that typically shifts from one person to another. While
all members of the group perform some maintenance role behaviors at various times, the socialemotional leader reliably functions to support group members and maintain a positive relational
climate. Social-emotional leadership functions can actually become detrimental to the group and lead
to less satisfaction among members when the maintenance behaviors being performed are seen as
redundant or as too distracting from the task (Pavitt, 1999).
34 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
SUPPORTER
The role of supporter is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group
members and provide emotional support as needed. The supporter’s work primarily occurs in oneon-one exchanges that are more intimate and in-depth than the exchanges that take place during
full group meetings. While many group members may make supporting comments publicly at group
meetings, these comments are typically superficial and/or brief. A supporter uses active empathetic
listening skills to connect with group members who may seem down or frustrated by saying
something like “Tayesha, you seemed kind of down today. Is there anything you’d like to talk about?”
Supporters also follow up on previous conversations with group members to maintain the
connections they’ve already established by saying things like “Alan, I remember you said your mom is
having surgery this weekend. I hope it goes well. Let me know if you need anything.” The supporter’s
communication behaviors are probably the least noticeable of any of the other maintenance roles,
which may make this group member’s efforts seem overlooked. Leaders and other group members
can help support the supporter by acknowledging his or her contributions.
TENSION RELEASER
The tension releaser is someone who is naturally funny and sensitive to the personalities of the group
and the dynamics of any given situation and who uses these qualities to manage the frustration level
of the group. Being funny is not enough to fulfill this role, as jokes or comments could indeed be
humorous to other group members but be delivered at an inopportune time, which ultimately creates
rather than releases tension. The healthy use of humor by the tension releaser performs the same
maintenance function as the empathy employed by the harmonizer or the social-emotional leader,
but it is less intimate and is typically directed toward the whole group instead of just one person. The
tension releaser may start serving his or her function during the forming stage of group development
when primary tensions are present due to the typical uncertainties present during initial interactions.
The tension releaser may help “break the ice” or make others feel at ease during the group’s more
socially awkward first meetings. When people make a failed attempt to release tension, they may be
viewed as a joker, which is a self-interested role we will learn more about later.
HARMONIZER
The harmonizer role is played by group members who help manage the various types of group
conflict that emerge during group communication. They keep their eyes and ears open for signs of
conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates. For example, the harmonizer
may sense that one group member’s critique of another member’s idea wasn’t received positively, and
he or she may be able to rephrase the critique in a more constructive way, which can help diminish
the other group member’s defensiveness. Harmonizers also deescalate conflict once it has already
started—for example, by suggesting that the group take a break and then mediating between group
members in a side conversation. These actions can help prevent conflict from spilling over into other
group interactions. In cases where the whole group experiences conflict, the harmonizer may help
lead the group in perception-checking discussions that help members see an issue from multiple
perspectives. For harmonizers to be effective, it’s important that they be viewed as impartial and
committed to the group as a whole rather than to one side of an issue or one person or faction within
IDENTIFYING GROUP ROLES 35
the larger group. A special kind of harmonizer that helps manage cultural differences within the group
is the interpreter.
An interpreter is a group member who has cultural sensitivity and experience interacting with multiple
cultures and can help facilitate intercultural interactions within a group. (Credit: Laura/Estrenando
cabina/CC BY 2.0)
INTERPRETER
An interpreter helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict,
articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where
difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared. Just as an interpreter
at the United Nations acts as a bridge between two different languages, the interpreter can bridge
identity differences between group members. Interpreters can help perform the other maintenance
roles discussed with a special awareness of and sensitivity toward cultural differences. While a literal
interpreter would serve a task-related function within a group, this type of interpreter may help
support a person who feels left out of the group because he or she has a different cultural identity than
the majority of the group. Interpreters often act as allies to people who are different even though the
interpreter doesn’t share the specific cultural identity. The interpreter may help manage conflict that
arises as a result of diversity, in this case, acting as an ambassador or mediator. Interpreters, because of
their cultural sensitivity, may also take a proactive role to help address conflict before it emerges—for
example, by taking a group member aside and explaining why his or her behavior or comments may
be perceived as offensive.
NEGATIVE ROLES AND BEHAVIORS
Group communication scholars began exploring the negative side of group member roles more than
36 SMALL GROUP COMMUNICATION
sixty years ago (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Studying these negative roles can help us analyze group
interactions and potentially better understand why some groups are more successful than others. It’s
important to acknowledge that we all perform some negative behaviors within groups but that those
behaviors do not necessarily constitute a role. A person may temporarily monopolize a discussion
to bring attention to his or her idea. If that behavior gets the attention of the group members and
makes them realize they were misinformed or headed in a negative direction, then that behavior
may have been warranted. Negative behaviors can be enacted with varying degrees of intensity and
regularity, and their effects may range from mild annoyance to group failure. In general, the effects
grow increasingly negative as they increase in intensity and frequency. While a single enactment
of a negative role behavior may still harm the group, regular enactment of such behaviors would
constitute a role, and playing that role is guaranteed to negatively impact the group. We will divide
our discussion of negative roles into self-centered and unproductive roles.
SELF-CENTERED ROLES
The behaviors associated with all the self-centered roles divert attention from the task to the group
member exhibiting the behavior. Although all these roles share in their quest to divert attention,
they do it in different ways and for different reasons. The self-centered roles we will discuss are
the central negative, monopolizer, self-confessor, insecure compliment seeker, and joker (Cragan &
Wright, 1991).
Central Negative
The central negative argues against most of the ideas and proposals discussed in the group and
often emerges as a result of a leadership challenge during group formation. The failed attempt to
lead the group can lead to feelings of resentment toward the leader and/or the purpose of the group,
which then manifest in negative behaviors that delay, divert, or block the group’s progress toward
achieving its goal. This scenario is unfortunate because the central negative is typically a motivated
and intelligent group member who can benefit the group if properly handled by the group leader
or other members. Group communication scholars suggest that the group leader or leaders actively
incorporate central negatives into group tasks and responsibilities to make them feel valued and
to help diminish any residual anger, disappointment, or hurt feelings from the leadership conflict
(Bormann & Bormann, 1988). Otherwise the central negative will continue to argue against the
proposals and decisions of the group, even when they may be in agreement. In some cases, the central
negative may unintentionally serve a beneficial function if his or her criticisms prevent groupthink.
Monopolizer
The monopolizer is a group member who makes excessive verbal contributions, preventing equal
participation by other group members. In short, monopolizers like to hear the sound of their own
voice and do not follow typical norms for conversational turn-taking. Some people are well-informed,
charismatic, and competent communicators who can get away with impromptu lectures and long
stories, but monopolizers do not possess the magnetic qualities of such people. A group member’s
excessive verbal contributions are more likely to be labeled as monopolizing when they are not related
to the task or when they provide unnecessary or redundant elaboration. Some monopolizers do
not intentionally speak for longer than they should. Instead, they think they are making a genuine
IDENTIFYING GROUP ROLES 37
contribution to the group. These folks likely lack sensitivity to nonverbal cues, or they would see that
other group members are tired of listening or annoyed. Other monopolizers just like to talk and don’t
care what others think. Some may be trying to make up for a lack of knowledge or experience. This
type of monopolizer is best described as a dilettante, or an amateur who tries to pass himself or herself
off as an expert.
There are some subgroups of behaviors that fall under the monopolizer’s role. The “stage hog”
monopolizes discussion with excessive verbal contributions and engages in one-upping and
narcissistic listening. One-upping is a spotlight-stealing strategy in which people try to verbally “outdo” others by saying something like “You think that’s bad? Listen to what happened to me!” They also
listen to others to find something they can connect back to themselves, not to understand the message.
The stage hog is like the diva that refuses to leave the stage to let the next performer begin. Unlike a
monopolizer, who may engage in h…