I just recently spent some time learning about groups, teams and how people work together in general. It was pretty interesting to have light shed on these common topics, especially since they’re relatively universal. I mean, we all have some friends, or have had a job or done a group project at some point, right?
By now we have learned that all groups have their quirks, their leaders, their followers, their haters and wanna-be’s. What we don’t know so much about is how they work. How are groups made? How do they function? What brings people together? The answers to those questions are actually relatively simple and straightforward.
Normally groups consist of people with similar interests, beliefs, values, personalities and goals (Gruman 2016). The rest of the questions are answered by Tuckman’s (1965) group life cycle. He found that the majority of groups go through a predictable pattern of 4 parts: forming, storming, norming and performing.
The forming stage is when individuals come together and are getting to know each other, this is when members are unofficially and unconsciously established. Also during this time, leaders of the group emerge. The storming portion overlaps part of this stage. Conflict within the group arises as the individuals find their roles. After this comes norming, everyone has found their niche and things are running smoothly. Following this is performing, the group is operating at its best, achieving goals (whether explicitly stated or not). In some instances there is a 5th stage, adjourning. After the group has achieved everything it set out to do, it adjourns, breaks apart. Then everyone moves on to a new group and the process repeats.
By now you’ve probably thought of a couple of times you’ve witnessed this in your own life. I know I did after I read about Tuckman’s (1965) developmental stages of groups. So, why did it take me 20 years to learn of such a thing? If this is such a common process, why isn’t it taught sooner? Even if it is simplified. Personally, I think such knowledge could prove to be quite valuable in relationship building. Therefore it should be share at a younger age.
References:
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W. , &. Coutts, L.M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems 3rd edition. SAGE Publications.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 (6). 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100
Thank you for diving into this other facet of my research! I agree with much of what you’ve said. It is well worded, well put together and very informative. Honestly, I simply was not feeling up to the task to address this other aspect of the research, but I am very thankful you took the time to do so. Great work!
When reading this post, it struck me that though this is a thoughtful post, it left a lot of the concepts of groups or teams out when it talked about only friend groups and not other types of collaborative groups. Much of what the blog post says is true about friend groups, but not all of it translates to workgroups, club groups, and other organized groups where there are set goals and true aspirations. I would like to discuss the very real and distinct differences between friend groups and collaborative groups with expected goals and outcomes.
When we talk about a friend group, the members are generally drawn together by a common set of interests, beliefs, neighborhood history, or some other unifying concept. There is a reason these people are together, perhaps they all cheer for the same sports team, they grew up just down the street from each other or they all love action movies or comic books. It could be anything that draws them together. However organized collaborative groups, such as workgroups and club groups sometimes miss out on that common theme or thread that unites a friend group.
In a friend group, the inclusivity is a chosen factor, they can be as inclusive or exclusive as they choose. However, in an organized group, for which the members have no control over the membership, there is often a diversity that is not of their choosing. Shore and colleagues established the idea that “As a result of social identification, people become attached to one another through their common connection to the social group.” (Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G., 2011). This explains how a friend group is united by the common connections, but what about structured working/collaborative groups without those types of common connections?
These types of structured collaborative groups are united in another way. According to Shore, Randel, and their associates, “social identities contribute to less individuation as people incorporate group aspects into their self-concepts.” (Shore et al,. 2011). So, even as people in the group are more distinctly individual, being part of the group becomes part of their individuality therefore making them more connected to the group.
Often in these more diverse groups, there is also an added commonality, a shared reward, such as continued employment, club membership, a cash prize, or something of the sort which creates a risk/reward dynamic that makes it worth joining despite an apparent lack of shared interests. However, there can also be tensions in such a group, because “Individuals attribute positive characteristics to other members of their in-groups and display in-group favoritism.” (Shores et al, 2011). Workgroups can be rife with favoritism and pressures to out-do each other which can lead to tension that can threaten to destroy the collaborative nature of the group. However, according to Horton, McLelland, and Griffin, “Organizational identification is a sense of oneness and belongingness with one’s organization and is central to defining oneself at work.” (Horton, McLelland, and Griffin ,2014) and this work identity can be unifying.
Another big difference between friend groups and work/collaborative groups is that in a friend group, who is a leader, who is a follower, and where people fall in between, the basic group hierarchy is established more naturally by people’s actions and personalities. Some members are natural leaders and others are natural followers. However, in a structured collaborative group, like a workgroup, hierarchy is not established naturally, but rather it is imposed on the group when it is established. So, how is it that the group dynamics, the balance of leaders and followers, and the hierarchy within generally work out despite the positions being assigned rather than naturally assumed? According to Horton and her associates, “The structure of workplace identities range from personal, concrete, exclusive and proximal identities, such as a local workgroup identity, to collective, abstract, inclusive and distant identities, such as a corporate identity.” (Horton, K. E., McClelland, C. R., & Griffin, M. A., 2014). So, the structure of workplace identities is vast, changeable, and connected to the position. Therefore, even though hierarchy is imposed in such groups, position in the company will contribute and perhaps even determine one’s position in the group. That hierarchical position provides an important basis for the concept supported by Horton and colleagues who reported that “self-categorization, also defining the values, expectations, and interests held by workers at different hierarchical levels.” (Horton, K. E., et. al., 2014).
According to chapter 6 of our textbook, “Chemistry is an often-cited notion within sports. Although fans, athletes, coaches, and sports psychologists all seem to recognize it, chemistry is a vague concept.” (Gruman, Schneider and Coutts, 2016). Such chemistry is often at work in other structured collaborative groups as well. In these groups, we do not always get to choose what groups/subgroups we are a part of, or who else is in the group, but most often the results in how a team or group operates, is much the same, even though the stages as outlined by Tuckman are not always present. Unity of purpose can create unity of individuals even if it is the only real commonality they share.
References
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., &. Coutts, L.M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems 3rd edition. SAGE Publications.
Horton, K. E., McClelland, C. R., & Griffin, M. A. (2014). Defined by our hierarchy? How hierarchical positions shape our identifications and well-being at work. human relations, 67(10), 1167-1188.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1262-1289.