Group Dynamics

P B Paulus and J Kenworthy, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA
H Coskun, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Golkoy Bolu, Turkey
ã 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Glossary discussions with individuals who have similar attitudes or

Additive task A group task in which the contributions of opinions.
individual members are added together to form a group Group socialization The process by which individuals
product. become full-fledged members of groups.
Compensatory task A group task in which the Groupthink Defective decision-making in groups that
contributions of individuals are averaged to form a group results from in-group pressure to reach consensus.
product. In-group identification The degree to which group
Conjunctive task A group task in which all of the group members self-identify with and place subjective value on
members must complete a specific action before it is membership social group or category.
finished. The worst performing group member determines Intellective task Verbal or mathematical tasks for which
group performance. there is a demonstrably correct solution.
Deindividuation A state of decreased self-awareness and a Judgmental task Tasks for which demonstrably correct
lowering of self-control that can occur when individuals are answers do not exist.
actively, and typically anonymously, involved in groups or Media richness The extent to which the means of
crowds. communication involves multiple channels such as video
Disjunctive task A group task in which there is one correct and audio.
solution. As soon as it is discovered by one member and Mixed motive Situations in which group members are
accepted by the group, the task is solved. The best confronted with the choice of whether to cooperate or
performing group member determines group performance. compete with other group members or other groups.
Group Two or more individuals having some common Social comparison The tendency to compare our opinions
bond, goal, or task, and exerting influence on one another. and abilities with those of others when we are uncertain
Group brainstorming Generating as many ideas in groups about them.
as possible without concern for quality or evaluation. Social facilitation A term describing the tendency for easy or
Group norms Consensual expectations for what is correct dominant tasks to be enhanced in the presence of others.
or appropriate group behavior. Social loafing Reduction in effort by individuals in groups
Group polarization The tendency of group members to when their individual performances are not easily
become more extreme in their attitudes or opinions after identified or evaluated.

Group dynamics is the study of the forces or processes that are nationality. It is difficult to use a single description for all
responsible for various group phenomena (e.g., the formation, types of groups, but most would agree that groups consist of
development, interaction processes, social influence, and per- two or more individuals who have some similarity, common
formance of groups). Groups influence individual behavior in bond, goal, or task and who exert influence on one another.
many ways, but individuals can also have an impact on groups.
Groups appear to satisfy many needs, but they often lead
Reasons for Joining Groups
to performance or decision-making that is less than optimal.
Several processes that underlie group behavior and ways of There are many different reasons (i.e., instrumental, personal–
improving group functioning are discussed. emotional, identity, group’s resources, and knowledge-related
reasons) why people join groups. Instrumental reasons refer to
choosing a group because one shares with other members a
Major Characteristics of Groups desire to reach a certain goal (e.g., a political party), to perform
a particular task (e.g., play basketball), or to have social con-
Groups come in many forms and have many different reasons nections. The decision to join a particular group may also be
for existing. Some groups are merely short-term aggregations motivated by a variety of personal or emotional needs, such as
of people with no strong interrelationship, such as groups at needs for belonging, self-esteem, attention, affection, approval,
spectator events, at bus stations, and in elevators. Other groups support, and the reduction of uncertainty about the social
such as clubs, churches, peers, friends, and families have strong world. Individuals who are motivated by such needs are likely
bonds and maintain long-term relationships. Some groups to seek groups that consist of individuals who have similar
develop simply to have a good time, while others are con- values and beliefs. By involvement in groups, individuals can
cerned with accomplishing specific tasks. Other groups are also establish an identity as in the case of joining a fraternity,
based on large-scale identities, such as gender, ethnicity, or sorority, or a political activist group. Individuals may join

276
 Group Dynamics 277

groups for other needs such as achievement and influence, to the most basic impacts is that of degree of arousal. When others
make money, to obtain information, or to learn a skill. They are observing us or working with us and we do know how they
may also join groups for resources such as power, status, and will react to us, we may experience a state of heightened arousal
personal recognition. Finally, they may join groups because or motivation. This may be in part because of a concern
they want to learn new ideas or perspectives that they cannot with how others might react to or judge our behavior. This
obtain by themselves alone. enhanced arousal may increase our ability to do simple tasks or
behaviors but it may hinder the performance of more difficult
tasks or behaviors. When the presence of audiences or cow-
Group Socialization
orkers enhances performance, it is termed social facilitation.
Groups differ greatly in the process by which individuals join By contrast, when the presence of others hinders performance,
and become full-fledged members of the group. Some groups it is called social inhibition. However, when group members
have stringent entrance requirements while others have few if face some external stress, the presence of group members can
any (e.g., political parties). Most individuals who join groups have a calming effect.
appear to go through some sort of socialization process. At
first, the prospective member and the group will investigate
Diffusion of Responsibility
each other to determine whether group membership should be
considered. Once someone joins a group, groups typically have When one becomes immersed in group activities in which
various procedures and programs to help the newcomer learn one’s individual actions or unique contributions are difficult
group norms and fill social roles. Once this socialization pro- to separate from those of the other group members, group
cess is complete, full acceptance as a member of the group members may experience a diffusion of responsibility. That is
occurs. At this point, the new member typically feels a strong individuals may not feel personably accountable for their
commitment to and identification with the group. This com- actions. In extreme cases, this may take the form of deindivi-
mitment may wane over time because of conflicts, boredom, or duation in which the person loses a sense of self-awareness or
competing interests. The group may attempt to resocialize the experiences a lowering of self-control. In this state, the individ-
individual, but if these efforts are not successful, the individual ual may be very susceptible to the influence of others in the
may exit the group. group. Therefore, if others are exhibiting antisocial behaviors
or behave ambiguously in a helping situation, the individual
may be prone to act in similar ways. However, prosocial norms
Group Development
in groups can increase individual prosocial behavior as well.
Groups go through various stages during their existence. In the Diffusion of responsibility can also take its toll on group task
forming or inclusion stage, individuals get to know each other performance. When individuals work on a task as a group,
and the various group rules. At this stage, behavioral patterns especially if the task is an additive or compensatory one (see
in groups lead to the formation of expectations about task, section ‘Working in Groups’), they may not feel individually
group rules, and interaction processes. Expectation states the- accountable for their performance. The larger the group, the
ory suggests that interactions in groups may follow expecta- less is the accountability and it is more likely that individuals
tions group members have about other group members on the will demonstrate social loafing or reduced efforts. By contrast,
basis of their personal characteristics, such as gender or age, group members tend to increase their collective effort when
and relevant skills or experiences. As a result of such expecta- they feel accountable or responsible to the overall group prod-
tions, this stage is often followed by a storming or control stage uct and value the group task. Diffusion of responsibility in
in which members compete for positions, roles, and leader- groups is not inevitable. It is most likely to occur when it is
ship. Some members tend to take on mostly task related roles difficult to identify individual group members, there is no
whereas others may focus more on socioemotional issues. If individual or external evaluation of performance, the task
the conflicts associated with this stage are resolved effectively, being performed is easy or boring, and members of the group
the group enters the norming or affection stage in which there are all doing the same task. Alternatively, it can be reduced or
is the development of a deeper emotional bond and common eliminated by increasing individual evaluation or identifiabil-
perspective about how the group should function. At this ity, by using tasks that are difficult or interesting, and by having
point, the group can focus on the achievement of its goals individuals in the group doing different tasks.
and tasks in the performing stage. As long as groups function
satisfactorily in pursuit of various goals or tasks, they should be
Social Comparison
able maintain their existence rather easily. However, if the
major goals for tasks are achieved or if the group is having Comparison of opinions
difficulties in achieving its goals, the group may adjourn or Groups perform a variety of activities. They make decisions,
disband. solve problems, perform tasks, set goals, make plans, or engage
in social activities. Each of these activities provides opportu-
nities for individuals in groups to compare themselves with
Influence Processes in Groups others. This tendency or drive toward social comparison is seen
as one of the basic social influence processes in group situa-
Arousal
tions. It is motivated by one’s uncertainty about the accuracy of
Although groups differ along many dimensions, there are cer- one’s beliefs or opinions and a desire to evaluate one’s ade-
tain forces that play an important role in most groups. One of quacy or ability along a variety of dimensions. Individuals can
278 Group Dynamics

use this social comparison process to evaluate their opinions, different aspects of their social world. Although certain physi-
attitudes, personal characteristics, and abilities. For opinions cal features of our world are subject to little disagreement (e.g.,
and attitudes, the tendency is to compare oneself with indivi- color, shape, and size of objects), there is potential for sig-
duals who are generally similar to oneself in a variety of char- nificant disagreement about issues for which there are no
acteristics that are salient to the group members such as age, objective or commonly accepted answers (e.g., religion, values,
gender, religion, values, and other opinions or attitudes. This and politics).
implies that individuals will seek out groups consisting of indi- Our social needs are often met in groups. Other group
viduals who already appear to be similar to them on a number members can provide acceptance and approval or help increase
of dimensions. As a result, many groups form on the basis one’s certainty about subjective issues. This fact is the basis for
of similarity of interests, attitudes, and characteristics. Such power of group members over the behavior of other members.
formation or homogeneity, then, creates a pressure for an indi- This power may be exerted to make group members adhere to
vidual or newcomer to conform to the majority of group or social norms of the group. Norms are strong expectations for
group norm. Moreover, interaction among such group mem- behavior that develop and exist in groups. Groups may expect
bers should increase the extent to which the members receive certain types of dress, manners, and beliefs. Individuals who
support for their existing opinions or ideas. Thus, groups do not adhere to the group norms may face disapproval or
should increase the confidence of individual group members possible rejection. To the extent that individuals are concerned
in their collectively shared ideas, opinions, and values. with maintaining positive acceptance by other group members,
the group has normative influence over the individual. The
Comparison of abilities degree to which the individual depends on the group as a
Comparison of abilities among group members involves a basis for deciding subjective or social issues (e.g., how to
slightly different type of process. Comparing one’s ability or vote) is the extent to which the group has informational influ-
characteristics with those of others has potential implications ence. As a result of the social and informational influence
for one’s self-esteem. If one compares favorably, one’s self- processes, group members often adhere closely to arbitrary
esteem is likely to be enhanced. If one compares unfavorably, social norms and share a high degree of similarity in opinions
one’s self-esteem may be reduced. One way to increase the and attitudes. When individuals deviate from the group norms,
probability of a favorable outcome is to use someone who is other group members may exert pressure to have the indivi-
slightly superior to oneself as a basis of comparison. If as a duals change their behavior or opinions to match those of the
result of this upward comparison process (e.g., a game of group more closely. The degree to which individuals match
tennis, a sales contest) this other person is indeed superior to the standards of the group as a result of such pressure is known
oneself, the negative impact on one’s self-esteem should be as conformity. If they do not change their behavior, they may
minimal. That outcome should have been expected. Yet if be rejected or ignored by the group. Ostracism or exclusion
one actually performs in a way superior to that of the compari- from groups may have serious detrimental individual conse-
son person, one’s self-esteem should receive a strong boost. quences, such as low self-esteem, embarrassment, sadness,
Group members can engage in upward comparison processes if anxiety, and helplessness.
there is a strong tendency for competition among group mem-
bers and incentives to show a high performance.
Communication in Groups
Sometimes, individuals engage in downward comparison.
This involves comparing with someone of less ability, or lower Communication involves the exchange of information in
status, or who is less fortunate than oneself. This is most likely groups. Most groups or organizations have both formal and
among people of low self-esteem or people who have low informal means of communication. Formal communication
expectations or self-confidence. Because these people do not networks can vary in degree of centralization. In centralized
expect to compare favorably with others of superior ability or networks, information from all group members goes through
status, this can be seen as a way in which they can ensure one individual. This is an effective structure when transmission
maintenance of their self-esteem or positive perceptions of of information is the primary group task. These networks are
their performance or situation. In group situations, group associated with less satisfaction for peripheral members but
members tend to display downward comparison even in per- may be very efficient for relatively simple tasks. In decentra-
formance if contribution to the overall group product is costly, lized networks group members freely communicate with one
motivation of group members is low, and proportion of least another. Decentralized networks are best when the group is
productive individuals in groups is high. confronted with complex problems that require full exchange
Comparison processes often occur between groups as well of information. Downward communication in an organization
as within them. Intergroup comparisons can produce higher or group goes from the top to the bottom of the organizational
in-group identification among group members, and conse- hierarchy and typically involves directives and information
quently greater cooperation and group performance, in an related to performance of tasks. Upward communication goes
effort to compare favorably to another group. from the lower levels of the hierarchy to higher ones and often
is used to provide feedback about performance and effective-
ness of procedures or policies. Lateral communication is the
Conformity and Independence
exchange of information among members or subgroups at a
Individuals in groups have a variety of social needs. Most have similar level of the hierarchy. Effective functioning of groups
a need to be accepted by others and to be seen in a favorable requires accurate and efficient communication throughout the
light. People also have a strong desire to have certainty about organization using all available channels.
 Group Dynamics 279

Groups also have various informal means of communica- of the members must complete a certain action before that task
tion. For example, grapevines are informal communication is completed. This is exemplified by a mountain-climbing
networks based on interpersonal relationships. They are often team. Here, the performance of the group is determined by
involved in the transmission of rumors. Informal communica- its least able member.
tion can take various forms such as verbal, nonverbal, written, Group tasks can also vary in the extent to which it is
or electronic. Communication appears to be most effective if possible to demonstrate that there is a correct answer. There
multiple channels are employed. Verbal messages followed up are no demonstrably correct answers for judgmental tasks
by written ones may optimize both impact and clarity. When that involve evaluations such as the attractiveness of art or
messages are delivered in person, the receivers have access to the appropriateness of social positions. Intellective tasks in-
nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, eye contact, and volve verbal or mathematical problems for which demonstra-
bodily movements. These may allow individuals to look for bly correct solutions do exist. On judgmental tasks, group
hidden meanings in the verbal message. For example, bodily consensus is the main determinant of the group judgment.
cues may be helpful in assessing whether someone’s verbal For intellective tasks, the correct answer will be chosen if it is
message reflects this person’s true feelings. Electronic commu- recognized by one or more of the group members. In fact,
nication is becoming increasingly important in many organi- groups appear to be quite good at detecting errors or wrong
zations. It can be very efficient and may facilitate high levels of solutions in the process of determining the correct answers
communication across different levels of the group hierarchy. on such problems.
Such communication can vary in media richness, which is the
extent to which it involves multiple channels (e.g., audio only
Group Brainstorming
vs. audio and visual). As tasks become more complex or subject
to differing interpretations, richer media may be required. Perception of group performance
Although groups may excel in some situations, they often
perform below expectations. Individuals seem to believe that
Working in Groups groups will be quite productive, as in the case of group brain-
storming. This involves the generation of ideas in groups under
Types of Group Tasks
a set of rules designed to encourage free exchange of novel
Many of our daily tasks are done in group situations. We may ideas. Group members are encouraged to generate as many
prepare meals at home with family members, fix a car with a ideas as possible and instructed not to criticize or evaluate
friend, play basketball with our neighbors, and work in an the ideas of others in the group. While most individuals expect
office with our coworkers. While some tasks can be done this to be an effective procedure, brainstorming groups actually
only with groups, in other cases individuals can do them in generate fewer ideas than do a comparable group of solitary
isolation. One interest has been to determine to what extent individuals (nominal groups).
groups are a help or hindrance to the solution of problems or
performance of various tasks. This, of course, depends on the Processes in group brainstorming
type of task or activity. Much research has investigated tasks The relatively poor performance of brainstorming groups is
that simply involve the addition of individual products such caused in part by the blocking or interfering effects of the
as counting money or generating ideas. These are additive activity of other group members that occurs when one is trying
tasks. Although groups obviously will produce more than any to generate ideas in a group. In addition, group members may
single individual, they may not out-produce a similar number be concerned about others’ reactions and inhibit the number
of individuals performing alone. On the other hand, if the of ideas they contribute. Because the task is additive, group
group members are in competition with one another or there members may also reduce their efforts or loaf in the group
is evaluation of individual performance, individuals in groups because they typically are not held accountable for individual
may outperform solitary individuals. These patterns of results ideas. All of these factors tend to inhibit performance of indi-
hold only for relatively simple tasks in which motivation is viduals in groups. Furthermore, group members may be
closely related to performance level. On relatively complex, inclined to match their level of performance to that of the
learning, or conjunctive tasks, the individuals in groups may less productive members.
perform more poorly than solitary individuals because of
increased anxiety associated with accountability or evaluation Procedures for effective brainstorming
in groups. Various techniques may help counteract and overcome some
Some tasks involve averaging the contributions of group of the problems of brainstorming groups. Group brainstorm-
members, such as estimating the number of beans in a jar. ing should be used only with individuals who are comfortable
These are called compensatory tasks because the biases in working in groups. The group should be given a challenging
judgment of a specific member can compensate for the biases goal and held accountable for it. Moreover, some procedural
of the other members. Disjunctive tasks require members of a techniques can greatly facilitate performance. When groups
group to discover a correct solution to a problem. As soon as exchange ideas on pieces of paper without talking (brainwrit-
one member comes up with a correct solution that is accepted ing) or by means of computers, the performance of groups can
by the group, the task is complete. However, unless the solu- exceed the performance of nominal groups. It is also useful to
tion is fairly obvious, groups may sometimes not accept correct have an incubation session immediately after group brain-
solutions and therefore function more poorly than comparable storming in which participants can reflect on the shared ideas
groups of individuals working alone. On a conjunctive task, all and build on those ideas.
280 Group Dynamics

Group Decision-Making group’s attitudes in more extreme directions. It is therefore

not surprising that there is so much conflict between groups
The Nature of the Process that are divided along political, religious, and ethnic lines or
Much decision-making occurs in groups. Committees, task any other dimension that is related to strong differences in
forces, legislatures, and social organizations are just a few values (e.g., management vs. labor, environmentalist vs. devel-
examples of groups that often have to make group decisions. oper). To minimize such polarization tendencies, it may be
The advantage of group decisions is the opportunity for input useful to increase interaction in cooperative activities among
from a wide variety of members. This also helps distribute members of the different groups.
responsibility for the decision among the group members.
Unless formal procedures are in place, groups often do not Groupthink
effectively organize their decision-making process. For exam-
ple, groups tend to go along with the first plausible idea. Also, The nature of groupthink
when the majority of the group has accepted a particular idea Even if members in a group have a broad range of opinions, it
or solution, the group consensus rarely changes. The direction does not guarantee that these will be carefully examined in a
of the group decision in juries and other similar groups can be group discussion. Sometimes decision-making groups have
predicted quite well from a knowledge of the prior support for strong pressures to come to agreement. This pressure may
a position among group members. The direction of influence come from competitors, from crises that demand quick solu-
typically goes in the direction of the largest faction. So, if a tions, or from arbitrary deadlines. Groups that are under such
plurality of a group initially favors a particular position, the pressures may come to decisions without carefully evaluating
final group decision is likely to be consistent with that posi- alternative courses of actions. The processes related to such
tion. This strength-in-numbers effect may reflect both norma- defective decision-making are known as groupthink.
tive and informational influence processes. Of course, this
effect is most likely to occur on judgmental tasks where there Characteristics of groupthink
is no objective right or wrong decision. There are a number of features that appear to facilitate the
occurrence of groupthink. Consistent with the polarization
effect, groupthink is most likely to occur if the group is fairly
Group Polarization
homogeneous in member characteristics and is insulated from
Groups often come together to discuss issues or opinions. other groups. In addition, a directive leader who champions
Although there is typically a wide range of opinions among a particular point of view and exerts pressures for consensus is
individuals, sometimes group members have similar attitudes likely to lead to groupthink.
or opinions about a topic. This is particularly true in the case of Moreover, groupthink is most likely to occur in groups
groups that form on the basis of that agreement (special inter- where conformity to group norms are desired or expected. In
est groups, political groups). When groups of individuals who groups that are prone to groupthink there is pressure toward
are biased to a particular side of an issue discuss the issue, they uniformity of opinion, with direct pressure being applied on
tend to move their opinions further in the already-favored dissenters. Group members may also rationalize away infor-
direction after the group discussion. This shift toward more mation inconsistent with their decision. In such groups, mem-
extreme opinions in groups is termed group polarization. It bers are unlikely to make well-informed decisions and to
appears to be caused by three different processes – social carefully examine a broad range of alternatives or information.
comparison, information exchange, and intergroup social They will tend to overlook the risks of the favored alternative or
categorization. fail to develop contingency plans. Information in support of
Individuals in a group who perceive themselves as favoring the impending decision will be given more weight than infor-
a particular side of an issue may discover during the group mation inconsistent with it. Decisions approached in this fash-
discussion that others more strongly endorse that position ion may be disastrous for businesses and governments. The Bay
than they do. As a result, they may feel some pressure to change of Pigs invasion under the direction of president Kennedy, the
their opinions to more strongly reflect the valued direction. In decision to escalate the war in Vietnam, and the Challenger
addition, most of the ideas exchanged in such a group would disaster are among some of the highly publicized instances of
tend to support the favored direction, especially in the absence groupthink. Detailed analyses of the decision-making involved
of input from outsiders. Moreover, polarization can be due to in these events have revealed much evidence for symptoms
group members’ conforming to in-group norms in contrast of groupthink and the related defective decision-making pro-
to out-group norms. When an out-group or intergroup rela- cess. Both experimental and field studies have demonstrated
tionship is made salient, in-group members are likely to take that leadership style is one of the strongest predictors of
more extreme positions as to be more clearly differentiated groupthink.
from out-group norms, which provides additional support
for the individual taking a more extreme position. Preventing groupthink
The group polarization phenomenon applies to groups that A number of procedures may minimize or eliminate the occur-
have a fair degree of homogeneity of opinions, attitudes, or rence of groupthink. The group should set a goal of making the
values. Because people tend to select groups on the basis of best possible decision rather than simply developing consen-
similarity of interests and beliefs, many groups are fairly homo- sus quickly with a minimum of conflict. Group leaders can
geneous. The social comparison, information exchange, and play an important role by promoting this goal and not pressur-
categorization processes in such a group tend to move the ing the group in a particular direction or plan early in
 Group Dynamics 281

discussion. They may make their groups and their members the group’s activities. They may be informal or temporary
more openly accountable or responsible for their role (e.g., leaders who derive their status from actively contributing to
devil’s advocate) in the decision. Procedures should be devel- the welfare of the group. Those who dominate the discussion
oped to assure a wide-ranging and full discussion of the alter- in a group are often seen as leaders. Leaders may also attain
natives. Breaking the group into small subgroups at various more formal positions of leadership by means of election or
points in the decision-making process may increase the appointment.
chances of diverse perspectives being carefully considered. If The types of skills, traits, and interpersonal styles required
these groups come to similar decisions, confidence in the of leaders will depend greatly on the type of group. Certainly,
correctness of the decision is increased. Groups should have military units and research teams require different types of lea-
‘second chance’ meetings in order to reconsider the wisdom ders. However, there are some characteristics that appear to be
of the initial decision. Input from knowledgeable outsiders or generally important for successful leadership. Leaders must desire
experts who are not subject to the pressures of the groups may to have influence over others, need to be motivated to achieve
also be helpful in providing some assessment of the reason- goals, and should have the determination to persist in this pro-
ableness of the decision. cess. Successful leaders tend to be self-confident, honest, and
flexible. Intelligence, creativity, and relevant knowledge are also
important. Although it makes a great deal of sense that leaders
Influence of Individuals on Groups should be motivated and capable, these characteristics do not
ensure attainment of positions of leadership or leadership effec-
Minority Influence
tiveness. The behavioral style of leaders and situational factors
There are many forces within the group that constrain or limit often appear to be more influential than personal characteristics.
the behavior of its members. Groups generally do not respond
favorably to those who disagree with the majority consensus or Behavioral style
position. This fact often inhibits individuals from expressing Analyses of leadership behavior have revealed the existence of
deviant opinions. When individuals have the courage to devi- two distinct styles. Some leaders are consideration- or person-
ate, other group members typically attempt to persuade them oriented. They are concerned primarily with maintaining good
that they are wrong and to move them in the direction of the relationships among group members. Their approach to group
majority. If these attempts are unsuccessful, opinion deviants members is one of interpersonal warmth and trust and in-
are often rejected or ignored. While opinion deviants are not volves open communication between leader and followers.
liked, they do have some potential positive impact on groups. A second type of leader is known as production or structure
Because of their distinctive position, they gain the attention of oriented. Their main concern is structuring the situation so that
group members and may stimulate them to rethink the issue, if the task is done well and efficiently. This involves developing
not publicly. The fact that someone is willing to dissent may ways for the group members to function more effectively
give them some additional credibility and influence because of without concern for developing positive interpersonal relation-
their low perceived self-interest in the issue. This is particularly ships. It is possible for leaders to exhibit a wide variety of
true if this person persists forcefully and consistently in the face combinations of degree of concern for people and concern for
of attempts by the majority faction to produce compliance productivity. A hybrid leader or team manager who is able
with their position. As a result, majority members may actually to exhibit both a concern for people and who has the ability
change their opinion on the main issue or related ones in the to structure the work environment for productivity may be ideal.
direction of the minority position. This change tends to be
genuine, in the sense that it is an actual change in their per- Situational factors
sonal opinions that may not be expressed during group inter- The effectiveness of a particular style of leadership appears to
action but is evident in anonymous measures of beliefs taken depend on characteristics of the situation such as follower
after exposure to minority influence. In contrast, individuals support of the leader, degree of task structure or clarity, and
who change their position in response to majority influence leader power over followers. These features influence the
typically are only complying publicly with the group norm. degree of control the leader has over the situation. With low
Assessments of private beliefs often indicate little personal degrees of situational control, production-oriented leadership
change. The ability of minority factions to stimulate cognitive may be required for effective group performance. Under these
reevaluation on the part of members of the majority may be conditions, group members need direction and structure, and
one reason that exposure to minority positions in groups can attempts at improving interpersonal relations may have little
produce subsequent increased creativity in individual problem impact. With moderate degrees of situational control, a person-
solving. Exposure to minority perspectives can also increase the oriented style may yield more positive group relations and
subsequent generation of novel ideas or divergent thinking in motivation to perform. A task-oriented leader may alienate
groups, especially if group members are able to fully participate group members by using a directive or autocratic approach
in the group interaction process. and as a result further weaken the situational control. With
high degrees of interpersonal control, a person-oriented style
is not necessary and the group may respond positively to
Leadership in Groups
the task- or production-oriented behaviors of the leader.
Characteristics of leaders Group member satisfaction and performance tend to be high-
Most groups have leaders. As discussed earlier, these are indi- est in groups with the appropriate match of situation with
viduals who have the capability or responsibility of directing leadership style.
282 Group Dynamics

Transformational leaders Further Reading

Sometimes, leaders excite the imaginations of their followers
and are able to motivate them to perform at high levels or Abrams D, Hogg MA, and Marques JM (eds.) (2005) The Social Psychology of
Inclusion and Exclusion. New York: Psychology Press.
make extreme sacrifices. Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Arrow H, Poole MS, Henry KB, Wheelan S, and Moreland RL (2004) Time, change, and
and Martin Luther King, Jr. are examples of leaders who fall development: Temporal perspectives on groups. Small Group Research 35: 73–105.
into this category. These types of leaders have a vision, act in a Baron RS and Kerr RL (2003) Group Processes, Group Decision, Group Action,
confident manner, and are good communicators who have a 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Brown R (2000) Group Processes, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
dynamic personal style. They are also skilled in judging others
De Dreu KW and West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The
and manipulating their own attractiveness and appeal to their importance of participation in decision-making teams. The Journal of Applied
followers. Transformational leaders tend to emerge when Psychology 86: 1191–1201.
groups face crisis situations and need both a strong and vision- Fisek MH, Berger J, and Norman RZ (1991) Participation in heteregenous and
ary leadership and an emotional commitment to a cause by the homogenous groups: A theoretical integration. The American Journal of Sociology
97: 114–142.
followers. These types of leaders are not necessary and proba- Forsyth DR (2010) Group Dynamics. Belmonth, CA: Wadworth/Cengage.
bly not useful when groups are focused primarily on routine Hogg MA (2007) Uncertainty-identity theory. In: Zanna MP (ed.) Advances in
activities. Experimental Social Psychology. vol. 39, pp. 69–126. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Hogg MA and Tindale S (eds.) (2001) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group
Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Summary Janis IL (1982) Groupthink, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Moreland RL and Levine JM (1989) Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In:
We have learned much about group dynamics. Groups are Paulus PB (ed.) Psychology of Group Influence, pp. 143–186. Hillsdale, NJ:
subject to a wide range of processes as they go about their Erlbaum.
Nemeth CJ and Nemeth-Brown B (2003) Better than individuals? The potential of
various tasks. Our present state of knowledge can aid us in dissent and diversity for group creativity. In: Paulus PB and Nijstad BA (eds.) Group
getting the most out of these groups. However, there is still Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, pp. 63–84. New York: Oxford
much to learn and there are many interesting new issues on the University Press.
horizon. Electronic technology allows for new ways of organiz- Nijstad BA (2009) Group Performance. New York: Psychology Press.
Paulus PB (2008) Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In: Zhou J and Shalley CE
ing group interaction and structuring group tasks. These inter-
(eds.) Handbook of Organizational Creativity, pp. 165–188. New York: Taylor &
actions and tasks will be mostly cognitive or informational in Francis.
nature. New developments in cognitive psychology may allow Paulus PB (ed.) (1989) Psychology of Group Influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
for the development of more sophisticated understanding of Paulus PB and Nijstad BA (eds.) (2003) Group Creativity: Innovation Through
such cognitive interactions among group members. However, Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suls J, Martin R, and Wheeler L (2002) Social comparison: Why, with whom and with
it seems likely that many of the principles of group dynamics what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 159–163.
discovered with face to face interacting groups will be applica- Van Knippenberg D and Hogg MA (eds.) (2005) Leadership and Power: Identity
ble to understanding the interactions of electronic groups. Processes in Groups and Organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Williams KD, Cheung CKT, and Choi W (2000) Cyberostracism: Effects of being
ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
79: 746–762.
See also: Conformity and Obedience; Creativity; Decision Making
(Individuals); Interpersonal Perception and Communication;
Leadership; Social Comparison; Social Values (Influence on Behavior).