392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx

39
2Group Development
Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Discuss and evaluate Tuckman’s sequential stage theory.
• Contrast sequential stage theory with Gersick’s punctuated
equilibrium theory.
• Assess the practical implications of the team evaluation and
maturation model.
• Identify critical elements in setting the stage for effective
teamwork.
• Correlate commitment, attachment, and trust with shared
leadership, meaningful and measurable perfor-
mance goals, and mutual accountability.
• Describe five major sources of objections to group work and
teamwork, as well as strategies for overcoming
them.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 39 8/19/16 9:36 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.

Introduction
Pretest
1. Performing is the final stage in a group’s development. T/F
2. Teams should be as large as possible to maximize skill
potential. T/F
3. Teams require support from organizational systems in order
to function effectively. T/F
4. Team building is complete once members have been selected
and resources have been
acquired. T/F
5. Lack of positive group or team experience can be a major
obstacle to team
development. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
As senior manager at a large marketing company, Tai has
successfully overseen the
development of several small groups into high-functioning
teams. She was recently asked
to form a new group that will create a marketing campaign for a
struggling product
line. Although past experience tells Tai that this will likely call
for a team, she begins the
team-building process by first confirming that a team best suits
the project’s complexity.
Once she does so, Tai determines that the structural parameters
surrounding the team’s

project, and the essential nature of what it is expected to do,
call for a design team in
which members with problem-solving experience and skills are
particularly desirable. Tai
meets with potential team leaders, both in-house and out-house,
to discuss the resources
they will need. They conclude that understanding and
addressing the issues surrounding
the product’s current market struggles will require the team to
coordinate and exchange
information with a knowledgeable individual or group within
the client organization.
They discuss potential team leader and member combinations
that can skillfully accom-
plish this.
The challenge is to keep the team small but represent enough
KSA combinations so as to
support an effective solution. Tai likes to keep teams as small
as possible because she’s
found that they work more quickly. Furthermore, her company
is busy—wasting human
resources is not an option. After a lively discussion on how
various members might work
together and complement each other’s KSAs, Tai selects a team
leader—Maya—along
with the other members. The discussion also helps clarify the
major issues that need to be
addressed to meet the team’s objective and which activities will
support this. The process
is helpful for Maya because she needs to explain the project to
her new team.
Although Tai will continue to check in on Maya and the team’s
progress, she knows her
role in planning the team is, for the most part, over. Maya will

take over ongoing resource
planning and management and continue the process of team
building. Tai knows that
both Maya and her team members are experienced in this
process and have worked
together in many combinations before. In fact, some of the most
difficult work of develop-
ing the team is already done—the team has a sturdy foundation
of commitment, attach-
ment, and trust thanks to past work experiences, and their
socioemotional interdepen-
dencies are already strong. The team members trust Maya’s
leadership and know the
teamwork process well—she won’t be alone in developing her
team.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 40 8/19/16 9:36 AM
How Do Groups Form?
In Chapter 1 we explored the fundamental qualities of groups
and teams, the reasons
we form work groups and teams, and the practical differences
between them. In Chap-
ter 2, we examine group development and the concepts that
support effective team
building by addressing another set of fundamental questions:
How do groups form?
How do they develop over time? How can we build an effective
team? And, why do
some people avoid groups and teams?

Group development theorists have struggled to answer these
questions ever since
group dynamics emerged as a prominent field of study. We will
seek to gain some
understanding of these questions by exploring major theories of
group development,
methods for building effective groups and teams, and common
obstacles to group
development.
2.1 How Do Groups Form?
We have looked at different types of groups and explored how
their members can have varying
degrees of relatedness, cohesiveness, and interdependence. We
know that informal and for-
mal groups have very different developmental contexts. Despite
these differences, all groups
have some significant elements in common. Groups are
composed of people, and people relate
and interact in specific ways. Group development theories seek
to identify and describe recur-
ring patterns of structural change and interactions throughout a
group’s existence. Although
the basic concepts may be loosely applied to any group, most
developmental theories are cre-
ated in reference to task groups and outline the group’s
formation and progression through
performance, goal attainment, and dissolution. Recall from
Chapter 1 that task groups include
most of the informal and formal groups found in the workplace,
such as social clubs, interest
groups, lunch buddies, boards, committees, work groups, and
teams.
Task groups feature two synergistic elements that evolve over

time (Seers & Woodruff, 1997):
1. The interpersonal dynamics between members as they
develop into a cohesive
group or team
2. The operational dynamics that describe the group’s
progression toward its perfor-
mance goals
Group development theories are numerous and varied. Some
theorists choose to focus on the
progression of interpersonal dynamics (Tuckman, 1965;
Tuckman & Jensen, 1977); others
on the operational dynamics (Gersick, 1988); and a growing
number are coming to view the
process as an integrated whole (Benefield & Utley, 2007;
Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993).
The three theories presented in the following sections were
selected because they represent
each of these perspectives and because they are relevant to
understanding and working in
organizational groups and teams. The first of these, Tuckman’s
sequential stage theory, is
the most well known and represents a large body of accepted
theories that outline group
development as occurring in sequential stages. The second,
Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium
theory, offers an alternate view of the developmental process as
one that occurs in dramatic
leaps at predictable intervals within the performance timeline.
Finally, the team evaluation
and maturation model integrates Tuckman’s and Gersick’s
theories into a new and more com-
prehensive whole. We will examine each of these theories in
turn, beginning with the oldest

and most influential.
Section 2.1
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 41 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?
Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group
development follows a sequen-
tial process in which group members enact a series of five
developmental stages, known as
forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning
(Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen
1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a
period of conflict while
adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group
norms, proceed to perfor-
mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group.
Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s
five stages of development and describes them by their
outcome, associated activities, and
primary interpersonal dynamic.
Mapping the Developmental Processes
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of
interpersonal dynamics
between group members. The five-stage model represents a
simplified outline of the develop-
mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s

existence. By examining the essential
nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion
as the overarching metapro-
cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the
activities within the stages of
forming, norming, storming, and performing.
When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs
over a series of developmen-
tal processes encompassing member identification and the
emergence of group structure. In
relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:
• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the
forming stage, individ-
uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct
group.
• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification.
Represented by the storming
stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes,
status balancing, and role
adjustments also occur.
• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage,
members acknowledge
that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common
good and develops
procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.
• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing
stage, members engage in
cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal
attainment.
When new members join an existing group, they follow a

slightly different identification and
integration process, and group cohesion begins with
socialization. Broadly defined, social-
ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate
the attitudes, behaviors, and
knowledge required to successfully participate as a member
(Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal-
vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely
malleable and open to guidance; in
effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to
norming. However, as they emerge
from this initial period of observation and assimilation and
become more confident in their
ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their
identity and role within the
group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement
back into storming, followed by a
relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The
group as a whole can also expe-
rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift
roles (such as becoming team
Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development
Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic
Forming Individuals come
together and acknowl-
edge membership in a
distinct group.
Task-orienting behav-
iors: Identification of
the group’s objective,
structural parameters,
primary task type, and

method of interaction.
Uncertainty: Members
try to understand the
“ground rules” of belong-
ing to the group, how to
approach group process
and performance, and
what they need to do to
achieve group goals.
Storming Members shift from I
to we thinking; script
clashes, status balanc-
ing, and role adjustment
occur.
Boundary testing and
redefinition: There is con-
flict between members,
role emergence, and task
designation.
Resistance: Members
chafe against new
constraints associated
with the group context,
assigned roles, script dif-
ferences, and perceived
status within the group.
Norming Members acknowledge
that the group works
toward a coordinated
objective or common
good. They develop pro-

cedural and behavioral
norms that support this
outcome.
Script unification: Assimi-
lation and emergence of
group norms.
Task and socioemo-
tional interdependence
increase.
Cooperation: Members
accept the group and seek
acceptance via observa-
tion and open exchange
of information, feedback,
and norms.
Performing Members achieve positive
interdependence and
focus energies toward
goal accomplishment.
Participation in task-
oriented processes and
activities: Behaviors and
activities geared toward
productivity and goal
attainment.
Positive interdepen-
dence: Members engage
in cooperative action,
group energy is chan-
neled toward task work,

and the group becomes
a functional instrument
for accomplishing its
objective.
Adjourning Members physically and
emotionally disengage
from the group as mem-
bership ends.
Physical and emotional
closure: Task activi-
ties and behaviors are
terminated. Members
prepare to resume pre-
group duties and roles
and disengage from their
roles and relationships
within the group. Mem-
bers are recognized for
their participation and
achievement and achieve
emotional closure.
Evaluation and reflec-
tion: Members assess
personal development
within the group, group
process, and performance
outcome.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 42 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group
development follows a sequen-
tial process in which group members enact a series of five
developmental stages, known as
forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning
(Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen
1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a
period of conflict while
adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group
norms, proceed to perfor-
mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group.
Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s
five stages of development and describes them by their
outcome, associated activities, and
primary interpersonal dynamic.
Mapping the Developmental Processes
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of
interpersonal dynamics
between group members. The five-stage model represents a
simplified outline of the develop-
mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s
existence. By examining the essential
nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion
as the overarching metapro-
cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the
activities within the stages of
forming, norming, storming, and performing.
When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs

over a series of developmen-
tal processes encompassing member identification and the
emergence of group structure. In
relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:
• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the
forming stage, individ-
uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct
group.
• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification.
Represented by the storming
stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes,
status balancing, and role
adjustments also occur.
• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage,
members acknowledge
that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common
good and develops
procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.
• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing
stage, members engage in
cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal
attainment.
When new members join an existing group, they follow a
slightly different identification and
integration process, and group cohesion begins with
socialization. Broadly defined, social-
ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate
the attitudes, behaviors, and
knowledge required to successfully participate as a member
(Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal-
vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely

malleable and open to guidance; in
effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to
norming. However, as they emerge
from this initial period of observation and assimilation and
become more confident in their
ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their
identity and role within the
group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement
back into storming, followed by a
relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The
group as a whole can also expe-
rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift
roles (such as becoming team
Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development
Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic
Forming Individuals come
together and acknowl-
edge membership in a
distinct group.
Task-orienting behav-
iors: Identification of
the group’s objective,
structural parameters,
primary task type, and
method of interaction.
Uncertainty: Members
try to understand the
“ground rules” of belong-
ing to the group, how to
approach group process
and performance, and

what they need to do to
achieve group goals.
Storming Members shift from I
to we thinking; script
clashes, status balanc-
ing, and role adjustment
occur.
Boundary testing and
redefinition: There is con-
flict between members,
role emergence, and task
designation.
Resistance: Members
chafe against new
constraints associated
with the group context,
assigned roles, script dif-
ferences, and perceived
status within the group.
Norming Members acknowledge
that the group works
toward a coordinated
objective or common
good. They develop pro-
cedural and behavioral
norms that support this
outcome.
Script unification: Assimi-
lation and emergence of
group norms.

Task and socioemo-
tional interdependence
increase.
Cooperation: Members
accept the group and seek
acceptance via observa-
tion and open exchange
of information, feedback,
and norms.
Performing Members achieve positive
interdependence and
focus energies toward
goal accomplishment.
Participation in task-
oriented processes and
activities: Behaviors and
activities geared toward
productivity and goal
attainment.
Positive interdepen-
dence: Members engage
in cooperative action,
group energy is chan-
neled toward task work,
and the group becomes
a functional instrument
for accomplishing its
objective.
Adjourning Members physically and
emotionally disengage
from the group as mem-

bership ends.
Physical and emotional
closure: Task activi-
ties and behaviors are
terminated. Members
prepare to resume pre-
group duties and roles
and disengage from their
roles and relationships
within the group. Mem-
bers are recognized for
achievement and achieve
emotional closure.
Evaluation and reflec-
tion: Members assess
personal development
within the group, group
process, and performance
outcome.
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 43 8/19/16 9:36 AM
leader or group facilitator) and everyone must resocialize to the
new conditions (Moreland &
Levine, 2002).

Examining Tuckman’s Fifth Stage
Tuckman’s theory suggests that a group will dissipate after
accomplishing its primary task or
objective; however, many collective goals are only temporarily
realized. Or, after achieving its
initial goals, a group may face new goals. A professional
baseball team’s ultimate goal is to win
the World Series, and this goal carries over from season to
season, regardless of whether they
win or lose in any given year. Winning simply confirms the
team’s existence. Although chronic
losses can affect the team’s value and popularity, failure is
more likely to cause changes in
membership or leadership (such as changes in players or
coaches) than total dissolution of
the group. Likewise, an executive team’s primary goal is to
enhance the productivity and via-
bility of the organization as a whole. Measurable by the
company’s quarterly and yearly bot-
tom line, this goal simply “reboots” as the team turns its focus
to supporting and enhancing
that growth over the next fiscal year.
Groups like these may never adjourn. A sports team may change
members, leadership, and
even affiliation without losing its identity as a team. Similarly,
top management, executive
teams, and advisory boards continue to exist as long as their
organization remains intact.
Many manufacturing work groups and teams may for all intents
and purposes do the same.
Members of groups that do not adjourn may instead face a
continuing sequence of group
socialization and resocialization as new members join and
assimilate and established mem-

bers adjust to changing personalities, roles, expectations, and
norms (Moreland & Levine,
1989; 2002).
Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral
All groups have a starting point. Some, especially those in the
workplace, never end. Compa-
nies continually attract new hires, train them, help them fit in,
and encourage them to grow
with the organization. Socializing new group members can be
difficult for both new and exist-
ing members. As they work with new hires, existing employees
may feel like they are reliving
the stages of group development as they adjust to newcomers’
behaviors and beliefs and help
them assimilate into the group, workplace environment, and
organizational culture.
It can also be a struggle for new members to find their place in
a group that already has estab-
lished roles and norms. Newcomers have their own ideas on
how things should be done, based
on their previous experiences. They may hold attitudes or
expectations formed by their expe-
riences in other groups or conversely have no prior group
experience and need to come to
terms with their new role and identity. Existing members may
forget that newcomers need
time to assimilate to group norms and procedures and may thus
view the socialization process
as an unnecessary or annoying setback in their formerly smooth-
running operation.
In ongoing groups in which membership fluctuates over time,
each new member experiences
a miniature spiral of forming, storming, norming, performing,

and possibly adjourning. Tuck-
man’s stages may seem to never stop. This is referred to as the
Tuckman spiral. The average
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 44 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Practical Implications of Tuckman’s Theory
Tuckman’s theory tends to view groups as composed of
strangers coming together for a sin-
gular purpose and dissolving after that objective is
accomplished. Tuckman developed his
theory based on a comprehensive synthesis of his own and 50
other empirical studies on
group development, during a time when study groups tended to
be either artificially com-
posed or short term, chosen specifically so that they could be
observed from beginning to
end. While an organization that is establishing new groups and
teams may do so from scratch,
employees more typically join preexisting groups or form new
groups in which some or all of
the members have worked together before. In these situations,
familiarity with other mem-
bers and preexisting organizational frameworks for group
hierarchy, procedure, and roles
can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming,
and norming phases. This
does not mean that they skip these phases entirely, however.

When we enter a group, we bring with us our own personal
scripts, or procedural and nor-
mative templates for behavior and interaction within groups.
Based on our past experiences
and current expectations, scripts represent our view of how we
and others should act in a
given situation (Dennis, Garfield, & Reinicke, 2003). Members
with similar or shared scripts
tend to progress easily through the initial developmental
processes and move quickly into
the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985).
Within Tuckman’s model, script
unification—the development or assimilation of shared scripts—
occurs during the norm-
ing phase. This is essentially what happens during the initial
phase of socialization as well;
however, once a new member becomes familiar with the group’s
existing scripts, the person
may compare them unfavorably to previously held scripts and
attempt to insert these into the
current group. This results in a renewed cycle of storming and
norming. Although the storm-
ing process can be eased in formal groups by preset
organizational structure and guidelines,
members may still chafe at unsatisfying or ill-fitting roles, and
status balancing will occur as
members establish informal hierarchies based on personal status
within the group. While the
time from the start of socialization to full productivity of
external new hires can range from 8
to 20 weeks for clerical positions and up to 26 weeks for
executives (Williams, 2003). During
this time, organizational group and team members must be
prepared to support joining and
adjourning members and the group’s evolving developmental

needs.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Describe a time that you joined an existing group or were
present in a group that took in
new members. Using your knowledge of Tuckman’s stages and
theory, describe some of
the socialization dynamics that occurred.
2. Did the group experience any of Tuckman’s stages with the
incoming members? If so,
which ones?
3. How did existing members treat the new members? In what
ways did they address the
competing needs for socialization and productivity?
4. Looking back on that situation with the knowledge you have
now, what would you
change if you could? What would you suggest group members in
a similar situation do
to help their group progress more effectively toward productive
performance?
Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral (continued)
cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 45 8/19/16 9:36 AM

process areas represented by Tuckman’s sequential stages are
all present within the social-
ization process, they do not follow the rigid patterning
envisioned in Tuckman’s theory.
Tuckman’s work thus has its limitations, but it remains a
popular and useful developmental
theory. Our modeling of the stages provides practical
descriptors of the outcomes, activities,
and dynamics inherent in the cohesion process and when group
membership adjourns. Our
exploration of these and related concepts also offer some useful
takeaways:
• Incoming members bring procedural and normative scripts
based on past experi-
ences and current expectations (Dennis et al., 2003).
• Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily
through the initial
developmental processes and move quickly into the performing
phase (Bettenhau-
sen & Murnighan, 1985).
• There will always be some degree of storming and norming as
members work to
generate or assimilate shared scripts.
• Storming is essentially a competition of personal status and
scripts; when status
balancing is complete, the group moves toward script
unification, and the norming
process begins.
• New members joining established groups could be initially set
back if their personal

scripts are misaligned with the established shared script.
• Established members could resent the apparent process and
performance loss that
results from incorporating new group members.
• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy,
procedure, and roles can
help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and
norming phases by
speeding the evolution of shared scripts.
• Though not all groups dissolve after performance, adjourning
remains a vital pro-
cess, as even permanent groups lose established members and
welcome new ones.
• The process of group socialization and resocialization can be
continuous if the group
outlasts its original membership.
What does this mean for group members and managers?
Developing group cohesion is the
core purpose behind the forming, storming, and norming stages,
and script unification is their
major outcome. Shared scripts become the primary tools by
which group members effectively
coordinate their performance toward a common purpose or goal.
Support for group cohesion
and script unification can include the following:
• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy,
procedure, and roles
• Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive conflict,
knowledge sharing, and

member feedback
• Encouragement of new and established members to view
socialization and resocial-
ization as an important part of the performance process and as
an opportunity to
reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group
with new KSAs
• Acknowledgment of the importance of adjourning activities
whether the entire
group is dissolving or individual members are moving on
The labels and concepts in Tuckman’s theory are practical and
easy to remember, making
it …
1
1Understanding Groups and Teams
Fuse/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Define groups and basic group types.
• Differentiate between groups, aggregates, and social
categories.
• Identify the basic properties of groups.
• Discuss the influence of group properties on group dynamics

and performance.
• Analyze the relationship between work groups and teams.
• Determine when it is most appropriate to use either a work
group or team.
• Describe significant factors in typing teams.
• Explain the significance of primary task types.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 1 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Introduction
Pretest
1. A group is a collection of people in the same time and place.
T/F
2. The way others perceive us affects the way we perceive
ourselves. T/F
3. Informal groups rarely form within, or have much effect on,
organizations. T/F
4. Work groups are the same as teams. T/F
5. All teams are variations on a single team type. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Ellis is one of nine business analysts at a midsized
manufacturing company. Over the

years, Ellis and his coworkers have learned to work
collaboratively to analyze business
processes and make suggestions for improvements. Learning to
work in a collaborative
manner has enabled the division to collectively decide what its
goals are and how work
should be shared among the employees.
When collaborating across several projects, it is not uncommon
for Ellis and his cowork-
ers to rotate between leadership and support roles. For example,
on one project that
examined current manufacturing processes for a specific
product line, Ellis led the team
members as they looked for process improvements. On another
project, Ellis served as one
of the people who collected data, and in this instance he worked
under the direction of a
coworker. Under this arrangement, the designated project leader
is not solely account-
able for the division’s results; members of the entire division
hold themselves accountable,
since they are more than just a department or group—they are a
team.
Occasionally, members of the business analysis team are
assigned to work with others on
special projects. Ellis has recently been assigned to work on
such a project with members
of several different departments, and he’s noticed some
differences between working
with his usual team and working in this new configuration.
While those working on this
project get along well and are committed to achieving their
goal, they had no say in what
their goal was—the organization decided their goal for them, as

well as steps to take and
the timeline for reaching it. Ellis is not used to having such
decisions made for him.
Ellis has noticed other differences as well. In this new
configuration, he has only one func-
tion for this project. On his usual team, however, he usually
collaborates or consults on
several aspects of a project. With only one function to perform,
Ellis is only held account-
able for his specific contribution instead of feeling mutually
accountable for the entire
project. The final difference Ellis has noticed is that the project
leader was chosen by the
organization, rather than those working on the project. Although
the leader may be well
suited to lead the project, she was designated by someone
external instead of emerging as
the natural leader through interactions. In contrast, when
working on his team, Ellis and
his coworkers are able to select the best person to lead the
project, and they can change
leadership when necessary to meet the project’s demands.
Ellis has come to realize that for this special project, he is part
of a work group rather
than a team. In work groups, the designated group leader
determines the goal, how it
will be achieved, and task assignments. Group members are
only accountable for their
individually assigned activities—the leader assigned by the
organization is ultimately
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 2 8/19/16 9:36 AM

responsible for the group’s performance. The business analysis
team Ellis usually works
with functions differently. Team members collaborate to
determine their goal, task
assignments, and steps for achieving the desired outcome. The
work, accountability, and
leadership for the project are shared amongst the team members.
Ellis realizes that there
are many ways to work together within the organization, and
that being part of a work
group can expand his flexibility and value as an employee. He
decides to put aside his
team-based expectations, and invest his energy into becoming
an effective member of the
work group.
From birth to death, we hold membership within a wide range of
collectivities and
groups. This begins with those we are literally born into—
family, community, culture—
and continues through a lifetime of groups in which membership
is attained through
our personal choices, qualities, situations, or achievements.
These groups simultane-
ously energize us, support us, and even frustrate us, in part
because we cannot escape
their influence.
Among the many groups we associate with throughout our
lifetime, most of us will
eventually find ourselves members of a particularly challenging,

and rewarding, varia-
tion—the team. Teams may well be the defining characteristic
of business in the new
millennium. Whereas they were once only a desirable element,
teams have become
almost universally acknowledged as required in organizations
that want to remain
competitive. The shift in management focus toward facilitating
effective coordination,
collaboration, and teamwork places a very tangible value on
understanding groups and
how they function. Moving beyond material gains, this
knowledge enriches our social
interactions and our external and internal experience of the
world.
Most of us intuitively recognize groups and teams and the value
they have in our lives.
The groups we choose, and that choose us, impact what we say,
how we act, and what
we think as we incorporate feedback from family, friends,
employers, and others in our
self-identities and self-descriptions (Hogg, 2005) and integrate
the opinions and per-
spectives of others into how we perceive and conceptualize
reality (Gaertner, Iuzzini,
Witt, & Orina, 2006).
• We think and speak the language (and jargon) created by our
groups: “That’s so cool!”
• We consciously and subconsciously adjust our moods to the
emotional tone of our
groups and react to our perception of group moods.
• We compare our performances—good or bad—with those of
others and evalu-

ate our own performances based on perceived group reaction: “I
blew that
presentation.”
• We base many of our values and ethics on group expectations
and values; our “shoulds,”
“oughts,” and “to-dos” are often determined by the groups we
associate with.
Recognizing and gravitating toward groups is an instinctual
phenomenon that is so
wholly natural and unconscious for most of us that we often
find it hard to explain how
we recognize different types of groups and why we value them.
Chapter 1 explores the
fundamental questions: What are groups? How do their basic
dynamics and properties
impact us in our workplace and in our lives? What are teams—
and why are they held
uniquely valuable among the other types of groups?
Introduction
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 3 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 1.1 What Are Groups?
1.1 What Are Groups?
Consider a construction crew, a carpool club, a theater
audience, and the participants in an

online chat forum. Some of these are groups and some are not.
A group is more than a collec-
tion of people who share some characteristic or circumstance.
Elements, objects, and even
people can be categorized into groupings, or sets based on
shared qualities, including physical
location or activity. However, in the social sciences the term
group refers to cohesive social
units in which people share emotional and social connections as
well as other characteristics.
Although many people casually refer to any collection of people
as a group, most of us intui-
tively recognize the difference between a set of people who
share some categorical quality
and people who are meaningfully interconnected (Ip, Chiu, &
Wan, 2006; Lickel, Hamilton, &
Sherman, 2000; Magee & Tiedens, 2006).
Still, even the experts find it hard to agree on a clear definition
for group (Forsyth, 2014).
Common ground emerges when we examine the specific
qualities that groups exhibit:
• Identification as a social unit
• Interdependence between members
• Cohesion around some common interest or purpose
• Meaningful interaction between and among members
Using these as a foundation, we can define a group as an
identifiable social unit in which mem-
bers of an interdependent collective share some common
interest or purpose and engage in
meaningful interactions (Brown, 2000; Frey & Konieczka, 2010;
Gould, 2004; Hackman &
Katz, 2010).

For most of us, family is the first group. As we move beyond
the immediate social relation-
ships of our family unit, we begin to associate with other small
groups, made up of our friends
and peers. We also become aware of our affiliation with larger
categories and collectives,
such as community, nationality, religious and ethnic
background, and social class. This is our
initiation into a lifetime of group membership. Affiliations are
unavoidable and necessary
in today’s society. The groups we grow up with influence our
worldview, or our underlying
assumptions of what the world is and how it should be. They
guide our thought and behav-
ioral patterns, shape our decision making, and help us assimilate
and interact within the soci-
ety in which we are raised.
Pause for moment and make a mental list of the all the groups
of which you are currently a
part. Are family and friends on that list? How about classmates
or coworkers, people in your
apartment complex, or the people you have friended online?
What about religious, political, or
ethnic associations? Are U.S. citizens a group? How about
people you interact with on a daily
basis but never meet face-to-face? Are the students in your
online class a group? Although we
have a definition to refer to, our habit of categorizing people,
places, and things into groupings
and the malleable nature of groups can make identifying
groups—and types of groups—a
surprisingly difficult task.
Groups can take on almost any form and function. They are as
much shaped by their setting

and purpose as by the people within them. Groups can exist and
perform in a multiplicity
of settings and are similarly flexible in composition, structure,
and leadership. Because of
this, social psychologists have had to look far beyond the
surface to find stable characteristics
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 4 8/19/16 9:36 AM
to use in categorizing these collective entities. It is within the
relationships group members
forge with each other, and with the group as a whole, that we
find a basis for the scientific
classification of groups and other group-like collectives. Our
own examination will focus on
those that are most relevant to our study of workplace groups.
Basic Social Groups
Primary groups represent long-standing, meaningful
associations among members of a
small, tight-knit group of people, such as close friends and
family, who frequently interact
and influence each other and maintain association regardless of
physical location. Common
purpose within primary groups revolves around maintaining
member relationships and
well-being. Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1909) coined
the term primary groups on the
basis that these associations are of prime importance in our

lives, offering both physical and
psychological care and protection and fundamentally shaping
our social nature and ideals.
Primary groups have a profound impact on all our interactions,
because they represent our
foundational model for interpersonal relations.
Primitive man spent generations clustered into primary groups
encompassing small com-
munities and tribes that members rarely traveled away from. As
human population and
sophistication grew, societies became more dispersed and
complex, as did the groups within
them. Secondary groups, larger, less intimate, and more
deliberately organized than primary
groups, became common as people began to interact and work
cooperatively with those out-
side their primary sphere of intimacy. Although members can
form strong bonds and commit-
ment within secondary groups, these are generally sustained at
lower levels of intensity and
permanence than in primary groups. Members join and
disengage from secondary groups
relatively easily, and they typically associate concurrently in a
variety of these groups in dif-
ferent areas of their lives.
Secondary groups are also known as task groups (Lickel et al.,
2001) because member inter-
actions typically center on the performance of specific tasks or
activities. Common examples
of task groups include social clubs, dance troupes, bands,
religious congregations, student
groups, guilds, boards, committees, crews, work groups, and
teams. Although the interper-
sonal relations between members in secondary groups

significantly impact the group experi-
ence, common purpose revolves around the performance of tasks
and activities rather than
social relations and well-being. Although primary groups can
sometimes emerge from rela-
tionships formed in professional settings, most of the groups we
engage with in the work-
place are secondary groups.
Next, we take a look at social collections and categories. These
are often mislabeled as groups,
and the following section examines how we mistake them for
groups and why they do not
qualify.
Social Collections and Categories
In order to better understand what groups are, we will now take
a closer look at the social
collections and categories that represent what groups are not
and why they tend to confuse
our group identification skills. Aggregates represent a
collection of people who are in the
same place at the same time. They are often engaged in the
same general activity but are
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 5 8/19/16 9:36 AM
otherwise unassociated. A collection of people riding a bus
together, waiting in line for tickets,

or watching a game at a sports center are considered aggregates.
Many aggregates are tempo-
rary and unique, but some, like regulars at a bus stop, may come
together frequently, know
each other by sight, and share daily greetings yet otherwise
remain strangers. Members of an
aggregate do not share the interdependence, common purpose,
and relational bonds needed
to identify and act as a group, but they can engage in collective
behavior.
Of interest across multiple fields
since the 1920s, collective behav-
ior refers to the spontaneously and
temporarily coordinated activities
or actions of people influenced by a
common impulse (Park & Burgess,
1921; Miller, 2000). Collective behav-
ior can manifest within aggregates
in many ways. This might include
sports fans spontaneously partici-
pating in a “wave” cheer, mass excite-
ment or panic in the face of a shared
event, or taking part in fashion or
consumer fads (Miller, 2000). Alter-
natively, aggregates may engage in
noncooperative coaction, perform-
ing similar activities or tasks along-
side others but not together. Coac-
tion might include when we fuel our
cars at a gas station or sit and use the
Wi-Fi at a coffee shop.
Social categories are another “collection” often mistaken for
groups. Also known as cohorts,
social categories are scientifically or socially imposed

collections of individuals who share at
least one characteristic but can otherwise be quite diverse.
Typical examples include people
who perform a specific type of job, alumni of a particular
college, or individuals who share
traits such as gender, age, or ethnicity. Social categories can
encompass a select few (for
example, female centenarians currently living in France) or a
multitude (for example, adult
males or natural citizens of China). Many cohort members will
never meet each other or even
be gathered together in the same place, and though they may
voluntarily identify with their
cohort, they generally do not think of themselves as group
members.
Take, for example, people who have served through live combat
in the armed forces. These
individuals identify with the social category of veterans, but
when asked to which groups they
belong, they tend to recall the particular units or comrades with
whom they served (Hender-
son, 1985; Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). If members
of a social category do meet and
become meaningfully connected, they can form groups, such as
veterans clubs, or friendship
circles initiated through alumni connections. However, lacking
frequent interaction, interde-
pendence, common purpose, and meaningful social relations,
social categories do not repre-
sent true groups.
DGLimages/iStock/Thinkstock
These bus passengers are an aggregate. They are
engaged in the same activity but lack the collective

purpose or interdependence that characterizes
groups.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 6 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Section 1.2 Group Dynamics
Recognizing these nongroups is important to our growing
understanding of what groups are.
In Chapter 8, we will take a look at two other significant
nongroups: social networks and
online communities. We have only scratched the surface by
defining groups; next we will take
a deeper look into the nature of groups.
1.2 Group Dynamics
All groups share certain dynamic properties. They have a
purpose to exist, a composition of
members with individual qualities and needs, structure for
interrelations, leadership from
within and without, and a context in which they are embedded.
As groups come together,
members develop patterns for behavior and interaction,
engaging in developmental and
task-oriented processes. Group dynamics encompass the
complex forces that act internally
and externally on groups, from development to dispersion,
emergent behavior and interac-
tion patterns among group members, and the processes they
engage in (Knowles & Knowles,
1972). Researchers in this field study the nature of groups, their

development over time, the
mutual influence of members on the group and vice versa, and
interactions between groups
within the larger context of organizations. In this section, we
examine the significance and
interrelatedness of essential dynamic properties, including
group purpose, composition,
structure, leadership, and context.
Purpose: Identification and Cohesiveness
People form groups to feel a sense of purpose or achieve goals
that are difficult or impos-
sible to realize alone. Although group members often have
individual interests at play within
the group, these will align on some level with the group’s
purpose and goals. Whether in the
form of concrete tasks or simply a collective desire to belong
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995),
common interest motivates members to join the group and acts
as a cohesive factor keeping
it together. Individuals who perceive themselves as collectively
engaged toward a common
purpose identify as a group. Likewise, through the processes
that foster identification and
cohesion, group members form attachments that are both social
and emotional; these socio-
emotional attachments motivate recognition and commitment to
collective well-being and
purpose.
Identification
Identification within groups is multidimensional, encompassing
the extent to which group
membership influences our self-perception and the sense of
shared social identity or “us-ness”
within the group (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Social identity

theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
assumes that social categories and groups influence the self-
concept and self-esteem of their
members, encouraging them to enhance the positive value of
their groups and to join groups
held in high esteem. This only proves true, however, in the
categories and groups that we
perceive as meaningful (Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002). For
example, Tamara may be a left-
handed, hazel-eyed, female product engineer, a Green Party
adherent, and a member of the
company’s LGBT club, but she will perceive meaningful
membership within only some of
these associations.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 7 8/19/16 9:37 AM
When social identification occurs, members identify themselves
as part of a collective with
shared qualities, attributes, and ways of relating that mark them
as distinct from other indi-
viduals and groups. Internally, they accept the group as an
extension of self and a legitimate
influence on self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005). The
decision to do so is not always
conscious. Identification is both a cognitive and affective
process. That is, it involves our
thoughts and perceptions on a given subject or circumstance, as
well as our emotional expe-

rience and reactions to these stimuli.
Although we are more likely to self-associate and identify with
groups we perceive as attrac-
tive or valuable (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000),
the way others perceive us
affects the way we perceive ourselves. Whether others place us
in categories or groups per-
ceived as positive or negative, this influences our own
perception and acceptance of member-
ship, even if we do not openly acknowledge it (Gaertner et al.,
2006). High school cliques offer
a classic example of this: Those labeled as geeks, freaks, jocks,
skaters, and so on will often,
over time, accept and even describe themselves in such terms,
regardless of whether they
originally desired these associations (Bennett & Sani, 2008).
The meaningfulness of a membership or association is also
largely subjective, based on our
personal experiences, worldview, values, and context. Tamara,
from our earlier example, may
personally value her left-handedness, for instance, based on its
associations with creativity
and her own admiration for the engineering feats of famous left-
hander Leonardo da Vinci.
Identification can also be activated by changes in circumstances
that highlight collective simi-
larities and differences. For example, an executive stepping into
an elevator with unassociated
lower level employees can activate a sense of identification
among the other riders based on
the perceived difference in status and power. If the elevator
were then stuck between floors,
the emergence of a common problem and fate would activate a
shared social identity among

all the riders.
Shared social identity goes beyond social identification as
members intuitively acknowledge
their interdependence within a collective entity with a common
purpose and shared fate.
When this occurs, groups develop entitativity, or an internal and
external perception that
the group operates as a collective entity and that actions and
influences that affect any of its
members have consequences for all. An effect of identification,
entitativity changes the way
members perceive and relate to the group. Entitativity
intensifies members’ socioemotional
attachment to the group, its members’ collective goals and well-
being, and the sense of value
in their membership and interrelations (Castano, Yzerbyt, &
Bourguignon, 2003; Jans, Post-
mes, & Van der Zee, 2011).
Cohesion
Group cohesion is a critical element, defined by the total
strength of members’ socioemo-
tional identification and attachment to the group, entitativity in
thought and action, valuation
and commitment to group goals, and the group’s structural
integrity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001;
Moody & White, 2003). Cohesion, and its myriad effects on
group dynamics, has been avidly
studied, both inside and outside the workplace. We will
investigate the development of cohe-
sion in workplace groups in Chapter 2, and we explore both
positive and negative effects of
group cohesion as we journey through the text. For now, it is
important to understand that all
groups must have some degree of cohesiveness or they fall

apart, either splitting into smaller
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 8 8/19/16 9:37 AM
units or disbanding entirely. However, the level of cohesion
within a group can vary from high
to low.
The strength of a group’s cohesion can be relative to the group
type. Primary groups, for
example, are inherently higher in cohesion than secondary
groups, although there is a slid-
ing scale within this guideline as well. Because team members
work in collaboration, teams
require a significantly higher level of cohesiveness than other
secondary groups. High and
low cohesion also depends on the unique member relations and
dynamics within any given
group. Group composition defines the membership within which
these relations and dynam-
ics occur, and group structure gives shape to their interactions.
We will examine group com-
position and structure in the next two subsections.
Composition: Diversity and Size
Group composition, or the characteristics and size of a
membership, can be viewed as both
a consequence of the social and psychological processes
occurring as groups develop and as

a context that influences social and behavioral phenomena,
group structure, and processes
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Consider the fact that Americans
who meet by chance in a foreign
country often feel an immediate sense of camaraderie attached
to their comparative similar-
ity in birthplace, language, and culture. Though they may be
different in every other way and
would not form a group in any other setting, the contrast of a
foreign culture and landscape
against their shared experience and background creates a
heightened sense of identifica-
tion. As a consequence, they tend to socialize, forming small,
temporary groups, sometimes
even sightseeing or traveling together. Social psychologists call
this the “American abroad”
phenomenon. Composition becomes a context influencing group
structure and processes as
member similarities and differences come into play during
interactions within the group.
Diversity
Groups are composed of members with individual qualities,
interests, and needs. Groups
in which membership is primarily based on similarity are
considered homogenous, though
in reality no two people possess the same exact qualities.
Whether the degree of variation
among members runs high or low, all groups have some level of
diversity. As shown in
Figure 1.1, member qualities can be separated into two basic
categories: individual attributes
and demographic characteristics.
Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, nationality,
and ethnic background can

affect the way members perceive each other and interact,
particularly when these character-
istics are associated with stereotyping. Individual attributes
affect the ways we contribute,
interact, and interrelate in groups. These include qualities such
as expertise, worldview, per-
sonality, and cognitive and behavioral styles. Although groups
unite around some common
interest or purpose, each member also has his or her own
individual interests and needs, and
these can have both overt and subtle effects on member
interactions. In Chapter 4 we will
examine the positive and negative effects of diversity, its
expression within workplace groups,
and techniques for managing diversity.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 9 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• Gender
• Age
• Culture
• Nationality
• Language
• Social class
• Social position
• Sexual orientation
• Ethnicity
• Religion
• Education Level
• Handicapping conditions

Demographic Characteristics
• Expertise: Knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSA), and
relevant experience.
• Worldview: Values, attitudes,
and beliefs.
• Personality: Characteristic
patterns of thinking, feeling, and
behaving based on individual
cognitive and behavioral styles.
• Individual interests and needs:
Personal objectives and
motivations apart from those
of the group as a whole.
Individual Attributes
In general, research depicts diversity as a double-edged sword,
having potentially positive
and negative consequences (see Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, &
Van Dierendonck, 2013; Podsi-
adlowski, Gröschke, Kogler, Springer, …

392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx

Similar to 392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx (20)

More from BHANU281672

More from BHANU281672 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

392Group Development JupiterimagesStockbyteThinkstoc.docx