Group Cohesion AND Development PDF

Preview

Summary

group develpmnt and cohesion...

Description

2-1

SECTION TWO: GROUP COHESION AND DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Introduction A group is not just a set of individuals, but a cohesive whole that joins the members in interlocking interdependencies. This solidarity or unity is called group cohesion and is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a group to exist. A group may begin as a collection of strangers, but, as uncertainty gives way to increasing unity, the members become bound to their group and its goals. As cohesion and commitment ebb and flow with time, the group’s influence over its members rises and falls.

2.2 Nature of Cohesion Cohesion refers to the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group. The word cohesion originates from the from the Latin “haesus,” which means “cling to” (e.g., adhesive, inherit). Cohesion may also mean the solidarity, unity, integrity of a group.

What, precisely, is group cohesion? Intuitively, we know the difference between cohesive groups and groups that are not cohesive. Cohesive groups are unified and morale is high. Members enjoy interacting with one another, and they remain in the group for prolonged periods of time. But what about the group where all the members like one another—they are close friends—but they have no commitment to the group as a whole? The group where members no longer feel emotionally connected to one another but still feel proud of their group? The group whose members fit together like parts in a fine watch—so closely conjoined that they function as a single productive unit—yet they do not like one another? Cohesiveness takes so many different forms and fulfills so many functions that some theorists have complained that the concept, ironically, lacks cohesion. Table 2.1 provides a summary of some of the definitions of cohesion in group dynamics. This diversity of meanings and interpretations reflects the complexity inherent in the concept itself. Cohesion is not a simple, unitary process but a multicomponent process with a variety of indicators. As a result, there is no such thing as a typical cohesive group. Nor is there a single theory of cohesion that group experts agree adequately identifies the core components of cohesion. Some, for example, stress the strength of bonds between members, others highlight the group’s ability to retain its members, and others emphasize the degree of emotional intensity expressed by members during the group’s activities.

2-2 Table 2.1: Sample Definitions of Cohesion

2.2.1 Components of Cohesion

Recognizing that review of cohesion cannot be comprehensive, the following sections examine four interrelated processes—social relations, task relations, perceived unity, emotions and structures (See Table 2.1)—that serve as the glues that hold groups together. A group’s cohesiveness derives on a number of sources, such as attraction, commitment to a task, and so on. The main sources or components of cohesion have been identified to include social cohesion, task cohesion, collective cohesion, emotional cohesion and structural cohesion. Table 2.2 provide a description of these components.

2-3 Table 2.2 Components of Group Cohesion

2.2.2 Antecedents of Group Cohesion

In the last section we realized that the strength of the bonds linking members to one another and their group depends on a number of components, including attraction relations (social cohesion), the degree to which the group members coordinate their efforts to achieve goals (task cohesion), the sense of belonging and unity in group (perceived cohesion), and the intensity of the members’ communal emotions (emotional cohesion). These qualities, in part, define the nature of cohesion, but they also suggest the antecedents of cohesiveness as well. In this section we highlight some of the factors that set the stage for the emergence of cohesion in groups. We should however keep in mind that the review is more illustrative than comprehensive. These antecedent factors include: i)

ii)

Interpersonal Attraction:- Groups often form when individuals develop feelings of attraction for one another. But just as such factors as proximity, frequency of interaction, similarity, complementarity, reciprocity, and rewarding exchanges can prompt a group to form, so too can they turn the rudimentary group into a highly cohesive one. Stability of the Group:- Cohesiveness tends to increase the longer members remain in the group. Groups differ in the extent to which their boundaries and membership rosters are open and fluctuating versus closed and fixed. In open groups, members are voted out of the group, quit the group for personal reasons, or join other groups. Regardless of the reasons for these changes in membership, open groups are especially unlikely to reach a state of equilibrium, since members recognize that they may lose or relinquish their place within the group at any time. In contrast, closed

2-4

iii)

iv)

v)

groups are often more cohesive, because competition for membership is irrelevant and group members anticipate future collaborations. Thus, in closed groups, individuals tend to focus on the collective nature of the group and are more likely to identify with their group as they work together to accomplish a collective goal. Thus, open groups, by their very nature, are less cohesive. Group Size: - Group size determines sense of community. As groups increase in size, a larger proportion of the members no longer take part in all the group activities. The impact of group size on cohesion is, in part, a consequence of the sheer number of interpersonal demands that larger networks make of their members. As a group increases in size the number of possible relations among individuals increases so rapidly that members can no longer maintain strong, positive ties with all group members. Maintaining such relationships becomes burdensome as groups increase in size, and in consequence the common features that fuse its members into a social unit become ever fewer while the variety of persons, interests, events becomes too large to be regulated by the center. Structural Features:- Cohesion is related to group structure in two basic ways. First, cohesive groups tend to be relatively more structured ones. As groups become more and more structured—in the socially organized sense rather than the bureaucratic sense—they tend to become more cohesive as well. Second, certain types of group structures are associated with higher levels of cohesion than are others. The members of one group, for example, may be linked primarily to other group members, rather than to outsiders. It is important to note that The patterning of relations within the group itself may also be more or less conducive for the development of cohesion. Other structural patterns, besides cliques, that influence cohesion include the centrality, density, and the number of isolates within the group. Initiations:- Many groups require prospective members to pass an initiation test before they join the group. Sports teams often test new players in various ways, both physically and mentally, as do military units. Many religious groups require new members to pass through a period of review before they gain acceptance as full members. Initiations—formal and informal requirements that must be met before an individual can gain membership in a group—contribute to a group’s cohesion by strengthening the bond between the individual and the group. Groups with initiation policies may also be more attractive to members, since their exclusiveness may make them seem more prestigious. Since membership must be earned, people who join do so more intentionally and therefore will more likely be active, contributing members. Groups with less stringent requirements are hampered by the unevenness of the contributions of members: some may contribute a great deal to the group, but others may actually draw out more resources than they contribute. Groups with strict membership policies, including initiations, avoid this problem by screening and monitoring members closely and dismissing those individuals who do not demonstrate their worth. People who join emotionally involving groups such as fraternities, social movements, or cults may also become more committed to the group as a result of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refers to an adverse psychological state that occurs when an individual simultaneously holds two conflicting cognitions. Initiations force the prospective members to invest in the group, and that these investments will increase their commitment. Because the two

2-5

cognitions, “I have invested in the group” and “The group is loathsome” are dissonant, these beliefs cause the members psychological discomfort. Although people can reduce cognitive dissonance in many ways, one frequent method is to emphasize the rewarding features of the group while minimizing its costly characteristics.

2.3 Development of Groups Groups develop over time they exhibit predictable patterns of change. Two theories emerge to explain the process of group development. These are cyclical and stage theories. 2.3.1 Stage Theories of Group Development

The number and names of the stages vary among theorists. Many models, however, highlight certain interpersonal outcomes that must be achieved in any group that exists for a prolonged period. Members of most groups must, for example, discover who the other members are, achieve a degree of interdependence, and deal with conflict. Therefore, most models include the basic stages illustrated in Figure YY. First, the group members must become oriented toward one another. Second, they often find themselves in conflict, and some solution is sought to improve the group environment. In the third phase, norms and roles develop that regulate behavior, and the group achieves greater unity. In the fourth phase, the group can perform as a unit to achieve desired goals. The final stage ends the sequence of development with the group’s adjournment. Bruce Tuckman (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) labeled these five stages forming (orientation), storming (conflict), norming (structure development), performing (work), and adjourning (dissolution). Tuckman theorizes that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. This model has become the basis for subsequent models. The five stages are described

2-6 Table YY: Description of the major stages of group development

Figure YY: Tuckman’s stages of Group development

2-7 2.3.2 Cyclic Models

The Cyclic Models assume groups repeatedly cycle through periods or phases during their lifetimes. Many theorists believe that groups repeatedly cycle through stages during their lifetime, rather than just moving through each stage once. These cyclical models agree that certain issues tend to dominate group interaction during the various phases of a group’s development, but they add that these issues can recur later in the life of the group. Very longterm groups, such as teams of software engineers who work on products for many years, show signs of shifting from task focused stages back to conflict (re-storming) and norming (renorming) stages. Equilibrium Model This theory has been advanced by Robert Bales. The equilibrium model of group development therefore assumes that group members strive to maintain a balance between accomplishing the task and enhancing the quality of the interpersonal relationships within the group. In consequence, groups cycle back and forth between what Tuckman called the norming and performing stages: A period of prolonged group effort must be followed by a period of cohesioncreating, interpersonal activity. Punctuated Equilibrium Model Punctuated equilibrium model is a group development theory that assumes groups change gradually over time but that the periods of slow growth are punctuated by brief periods of relatively rapid change. Punctuated equilibrium models agree with Bales’s view, but they add that groups often go through periods of relatively rapid change. These changes may be precipitated by some internal crisis, such as the loss of a leader, or by changes in the type of task the group is attempting. The halfway point in the group’s life, too, can trigger dramatic changes in the group, as members realize that the time they have available to them is dwindling.

2.4 Consequences of Group Cohesiveness A cohesive group is an intense group, and this intensity affects the members, the group’s dynamics, and the group’s performance in both positive and negative ways. Cohesion leads to a range of consequences—not all of them desirable. 1. Members’ satisfaction and Adjustment People are usually much more satisfied with their groups when the group is cohesive rather than non-cohesive. Across a range of groups in industrial, athletic, and educational settings, people who are members of highly compatible, cohesive groups report more satisfaction and enjoyment than members of non-cohesive groups. A cohesive group creates a healthier workplace, at least at the psychological level. Because people in cohesive groups respond to one another in a more positive fashion than the members of non-cohesive groups, people experience less anxiety and

2-8

tension in such groups. In industrial set ups employees reported less anxiety and nervousness when they worked in cohesive groups. Moreover, people also cope more effectively with stress when they are in cohesive groups. Cohesive groups can, however, be emotionally demanding. The old sergeant syndrome, for example, is more common in cohesive military squads. Old sergeant syndrome refers to symptoms of psychological disturbance, including depression, anxiety, and guilt, exhibited by noncommissioned officers in cohesive units that suffer heavy casualties. Strongly loyal to their unit and its members, these leaders feel so responsible for their unit’s losses that they withdraw psychologically from the group. Although the cohesiveness of the unit initially provides psychological support for the individual, the loss of comrades during battle causes severe distress. Some highly cohesive groups may also purposefully sequester members from other groups in an attempt to seal members off from competing interests. Individuals who leave high-demand religious groups due to changes in beliefs or social mobility may experience loneliness, chronic guilt and isolation, a lingering distrust of other people and groups, and anxiety about intimate relationships. 2. Group Dynamics and Influence As cohesion increases, the internal dynamics of the group intensify. In consequence, the pressure to conform is greater in cohesive groups, and individuals’ resistance to these pressures is weaker. When the group norms emphasize the value of cooperation and agreement members of highly cohesive groups avoid disagreement more than members of non-cohesive groups. Irving Janis’s (1982) theory of groupthink suggests that these pressures undermine a group’s willingness to critically analyze its decisions. This breakdown in decision-making effectiveness can be disastrous. Drug use and illegal activities are often traced back to conformity pressures of adolescents’ peer groups. Cults may demand extreme sacrifices from members, including suicide. Even sports teams, if highly cohesive, may extract both compliance and sacrifice from members. Cohesion can also increase negative group processes, including hostility and scapegoating. In one study, cohesive and non-cohesive groups worked on a series of unsolvable problems. Although all the groups seemed frustrated, coalitions tended to form in non-cohesive groups, whereas cohesive groups vented their frustrations through interpersonal aggression: overt hostility, joking hostility, scapegoating, and domination of subordinate members. The level of hostility became so intense in one group that observers lost track of how many offensive remarks were made; they estimated that the number surpassed 600 comments during the 45-minute work period.

2-9

3. Group Productivity Most people consider cohesion to be a key ingredient for group success. The cohesive, unified group has, throughout history, been lauded as the most productive, the most likely to win in battle, and the most creative. Cohesive groups tend to outperform less unified groups. But a series of meta-analytic studies, in which researchers combined the results of all available research, statistically, suggests that the relationship does not emerge in all studies and in all groups. This cohesion–performance relationship was stronger (1) in bona fide groups than in ad hoc laboratory groups, (2) in correlational studies than in experimental studies, and (3) in smaller groups than in larger groups. The relationship between cohesion and performance was also strongest in studies of sports teams, somewhat weaker in military squads, weaker still in nonmilitary bona fide groups, and weakest overall in ad hoc, artificial groups. When a group performs well at its identified task, the level of cohesion in the group increases, but should it fail, disharmony, disappointment, and a loss of esprit de corps are typically observed. These effects of performance on cohesion occur even when groups are identical in all respects except one—when some are arbitrarily told they performed well, but others are told they did not do well....