task 6 work in groups

Running An Effective Task Group: The 5 C's

by Laura M. Fernandez

     Many social work students may ask themselves, “What is a task group? Why should I be concerned with what makes a task group run more effectively?” The majority of students have already participated in a task group, but may not have called it by name. Knowing the skills that contribute to being an effective task group leader will help ensure that your task group experience is a positive and productive one.

     Task groups are groups of individuals brought together to accomplish a specific action or produce a product. If you have participated in an educational planning meeting, been a member of a committee, attended a treatment team meeting, been elected to student government, or joined a social movement group, you have already experienced a task group in action. For some, the experience may not have been a positive one, because running an effective task group takes many different skills. Many social work students will be in the position of leading task groups while they are in school or very shortly afterward. Developing an awareness of the ingredients that go into a successful task group, with satisfied members, is crucial.

     Five areas that are frequently cited by the experts on task groups are the five C's: Control, Conflict, Communication, Consensus, and Cohesion. The five C' can make or break a task group experience.

     Groups are dynamic and fluid, which often means that the five C's will be interrelated and interconnected. All can influence member satisfaction and ultimately the level of success the group will have attaining its goals. Thinking about some of the pitfalls that task groups can experience, and some strategies that may help you avoid them, may help you prepare for your own task group experience.

     Have you ever experienced the leadership vacuum? A leader has been appointed, but the group feels like a ship with no one at the helm. No one clarifies the purpose of the group or establishes concrete goals that can be evaluated. There is no agenda and group discussions meander through many topics. Members feel they are wasting their time, because nothing is being accomplished. On the opposite extreme is the super controlling leader who makes the members feel as if they are working with a control freak. The leader imposes his/her own agenda and refuses any member input. The leader is insensitive to the members’ needs or inflexible about allowing extra time to process an important decision.

     Social workers may feel uncomfortable about assuming a leadership role, but many groups need someone to carry out the leadership functions to fulfill their purpose. Leaders are often responsible for convening meetings, chairing discussions, and facilitating the processes of meeting goals.

     One strategy for leaders is to prepare for meetings by having a written agenda. Leaders should orient group members at the beginning and as new members join, so that all members understand who is in the group and what is the group' purpose. Leaders should start meetings as close to on time as possible and end on time. Also, avoiding long meetings is usually a good idea; members may have a hard time remaining focused in meetings that are longer than two hours. Discussions should be refocused when members remain stuck on one point endlessly or drift on long tangents.

     Leaders should use social work skills such as asking open-ended questions, paraphrasing, and summarizing to help facilitate productive discussions. Someone should be appointed to keep minutes of meetings. Minutes should be reviewed before the next meeting to remind members and leaders what was accomplished and what still needs to be done. Setting some realistic goals that can be reached early on will help group members feel the group has a purpose. Involving group members as much as possible in establishing group rules and task assignments will send a message to members that their contributions are valued.

     Many social workers have been part of a group where the whole meeting was spent arguing over every decision. The members end up feeling as if they are participating in World War III. Some people may get frustrated and drop out. But the conflict-free group can often be just as frustrating. Being part of a group where no one feels they can raise a differing point of view for fear of creating conflict, often forces members to go along with decisions they don’t agree with and will not support in the long run.

     Group leaders should expect some level of conflict as part of a healthy group process and not see conflict as a sign of failure. Group members should be encouraged to give their input, while at the same time, the leader should help members anticipate that there may be differences of opinion. Leaders should not switch topics or end discussion whenever there is a sign of possible conflict, but should intervene when a conflictual discussion moves to a personal level or goes on for so long that it feels unproductive. Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration skills can help resolve conflicts in a productive manner. Leaders should avoid leaving the most conflictual items until the end of the agenda, because meetings should not end on a conflictual note.

Communication

     In any type of group, communication is very important, because miscommunication almost always leads to problems. In task groups, different communication styles can create a situation in which group members misinterpret messages and fail to have a true dialogue. This can be especially true in task groups made up of members from different professions or of community groups with many nonprofessionals. A doctor may use professional jargon which is meaningless to other group members who are involved in a discharge conference. A community organizer may arrive at a meeting to plan a voter registration drive in a Spanish-speaking neighborhood, unable to communicate anything because he or she doesn’t speak Spanish. And nothing is more painful than being in a group where no one will say anything. The silence is deafening.

     Communicating ideas and having a dialogue among members is very important in reaching group goals. Leaders should encourage and model good communication behaviors, which include no talking over others, no interrupting, and the use of “I statements.” Leaders should intervene when members are potentially misinterpreting messages and ask for clarification from the member who has just spoken.

     Leaders need to be aware of nonverbal communication, such as eye rolling, frowning, and shaking heads. Jargon should be avoided if members have different backgrounds. Members who use language that is racist, sexist, or homophobic should be addressed either during the group or afterward in private about the negative consequences of using this type of communication. Leaders should try whenever possible to reframe different communication styles as a positive addition to the diversity of the group.

     Being a member of a group with no cohesion or no sense of belonging can be very disheartening. Members may have difficulty expending a lot of energy in a group where members have no sense of connectedness or common purpose. Some groups err in the opposite extreme, creating a group with an intense sense of connection which is closed to any new members or suggestions from outside the group. Sometimes, a few members within the larger group feel closer and cliques, claques, or fractions are created which contribute to negative feelings between group members or subgroups.

     Cohesion is often linked to group member satisfaction. Leaders should strive for a sense of belonging among their members by involving members in group activities and encouraging interaction between members. When assigning tasks or delegating authority, leaders should try to include everyone, even if the task is very small, because members may feel more a part of a group where they are making contributions. The leader can also encourage and model the benefits of working cooperatively instead of competitively. Never forget the importance of frequently recognizing and praising members’ commitment and contributions to the group.

     Task groups are frequently in the position of having to choose between different options. This means that groups must decide, in advance preferably, how they will arrive at a final decision. One pattern that can develop occurs when a small group of members is in contact outside of the formal meeting and makes a decision. This agreement is then presented to the whole group as if the whole group has already agreed to its mini-consensus. Striving to achieve complete consensus, especially in larger groups, can be aggravating to members. When a social action group has been meeting weekly for three months and is still trying to come to complete agreement by all forty members on the purpose of the group, members may lose interest and drop out.

     Strategies for leaders include reaching an agreement early on in the life of the group as to what consensus will be when a group is formed: a simple majority? over 75% of the members? or 100%? Deciding the procedure for coming to consensus is also crucial: hand raising, secret ballot, and voice votes are all possibilities to consider. These strategies will vary a great deal depending on group size. A five-person treatment team may work well with 100% consensus, while a social action group with 50 members may need another type of decision-making.

     Group processes will vary depending on group objectives and group membership. Sometimes a group will need a controlling leader or be able to tolerate high amounts of conflict. Flexibility and some understanding of group processes/dynamics are very important in helping leaders meet the needs of diverse groups. Leading or being a member of a task group can be very challenging to social work students, so don’t be too hard on yourself if your first experience feels like less than a total success.

     Remembering what it felt like to be a task group member will help you stay in touch with what your group members may be going through. Learning from any mistakes will help you to be more prepared for future task group experiences to come.

Laura M. Fernandez, MSSW, is a 1996 graduate of Columbia University School of Social Work. She became involved in a social action group, The Action Coalition for Social Justice, in January 1995, and began a one-year term as Student Union Treasurer in September 1996. Through these experiences, she has realized the importance of task group leadership to the success of the group.

Copyright © 1997 White Hat Communications. All rights reserved. From THE NEW SOCIAL WORKER , Winter 1997, Vol. 4, No. 1. For reprints of this or other articles from THE NEW SOCIAL WORKER (or for permission to reprint), contact Linda Grobman, publisher/editor, at P.O. Box 5390, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0390, or at [email protected] .

All material published on this website Copyright 1994-2023 White Hat Communications. All rights reserved. Please contact the publisher for permission to reproduce or reprint any materials on this site. Opinions expressed on this site are the opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13 Leadership, Roles, and Problem Solving in Groups

Introduction

13.1 Group Member Roles

Task-related roles and behaviors.

Task roles and their related behaviors contribute directly to the group’s completion of a task or achievement of its goal or purpose. Task-related roles typically serve leadership, informational, or procedural functions. In this section, we will discuss the following roles and behaviors: task leader, expediter, information provider, information seeker, gatekeeper, and recorder.

Task Leader

Within any group, there may be a task leader. This person may have a high group status because of his or her maturity, problem-solving abilities, knowledge, and/or leadership experience and skills. This person acts to help the group complete its task (Cragan & Wright, 1991). This person may be a designated or emergent leader, but in either case, task leaders tend to talk more during group interactions than other group members and also tend to do more work in the group. Depending on the number of tasks a group has, there may be more than one task leader, especially if the tasks require different sets of skills or knowledge. Because of the added responsibilities of being a task leader, people in these roles may experience higher levels of stress. A task leader could lessen these stresses, however, through some of the maintenance role behaviors that will be discussed later.

We can divide task-leader behaviors two types: substantive and procedural (Pavitt, 1999). The substantive leader is the “idea person” who communicates “big picture” thoughts and suggestions that feed group discussion. The procedural leader is the person who gives the most guidance, perhaps following up on the ideas generated by the substantive leader. A skilled and experienced task leader may be able to perform both of these roles, but when the roles are filled by two different people, the person considered the procedural leader is more likely than the substantive leader to be viewed by members as the overall group leader. This indicates that task-focused groups assign more status to the person who actually guides the group toward the completion of the task (a “doer”) than the person who comes up with ideas (the “thinker”).

The expediter is a task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals in order to monitor the group’s progress (Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). An expediter doesn’t push group members mindlessly along toward the completion of their task; an expediter must have a good sense of when a topic has been sufficiently discussed or when a group’s extended focus on one area has led to diminishing returns. In such cases, the expediter may say, “Now that we’ve had a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of switching the office from PCs to Macs, which side do you think has more support?” or “We’ve spent half of this meeting looking for examples of what other libraries have done and haven’t found anything useful. Maybe we should switch gears so we can get something concrete done tonight.”

To avoid the perception that group members are being rushed, a skilled expediter can demonstrate good active-listening skills by paraphrasing what has been discussed and summarizing what has been accomplished in such a way that makes it easier for group members to see the need to move on.

Information Provider

The information provider role includes behaviors that are more evenly shared compared to other roles, as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). When group members meet, they each possess different types of information. Early group meetings may consist of group members taking turns briefing each other on their area of expertise. In other situations, one group member may be chosen because of his or her specialized knowledge. This person may be the primary information provider for all other group members. For example, one of our colleagues was selected to serve on a university committee reviewing our undergraduate learning goals. Since her official role was to serve as the “faculty expert” on the subcommittee related to speaking, she played a more central information-provider function for the group during most of the initial meetings. Since other people on the subcommittee were not as familiar with speaking and its place within higher education curriculum, it made sense that information-providing behaviors were not as evenly distributed.

Information Seeker

The information seeker asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to the group’s task Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). The information sought may include facts or group member opinions. In general, information seekers ask questions for clarification, but they can also ask questions that help provide an important evaluative function. Most groups could benefit from more critically oriented information-seeking behaviors. As our discussion of groupthink notes, critical questioning helps increase the quality of ideas and group outcomes and helps avoid groupthink. By asking for more information, people have to defend (in a non-adversarial way) and/or support their claims, which can help ensure that the information is credible, relevant, and thoroughly considered. When information seeking or questioning occurs because of poor listening skills, it risks negatively affecting the group. Skilled information providers and seekers are also good active listeners. They increase all group members’ knowledge when they paraphrase and ask clarifying questions about the information presented.

The gatekeeper manages the flow of conversation in a group in order to achieve an appropriate balance so that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). The gatekeeper may prompt others to provide information by saying something like “Let’s each share one idea we have for a movie to show during Black History Month.” He or she may also help correct an imbalance between members who have provided much information already and members who have been quiet by saying something like “Aretha, we’ve heard a lot from you today. Let us hear from someone else. Beau, what are your thoughts on Aretha’s suggestion?” Gatekeepers should be cautious about “calling people out” or at least making them feel that way. Instead of scolding someone for not participating, the gatekeeper should be ask a member to contribute something specific instead of just asking if that person has anything to add. Since gatekeepers make group members feel included, they also service the relational aspects of the group.

The recorder takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. The recorder is the only role that is essentially limited to one person at a time since in most cases it would not be necessary or beneficial to have more than one person recording. At less formal meetings, there may be no recorder, while at formal meetings there is usually a person who records meeting minutes, which are an overview of what occurred at the meeting. Each committee will have different rules or norms regarding the level of detail within and availability of the minutes.

Maintenance Roles and Behaviors

Maintenance roles and their corresponding behaviors function to create and maintain social cohesion and fulfill the interpersonal needs of group members. All these role behaviors require strong and sensitive interpersonal skills. The maintenance roles we will discuss in this section include social-emotional leader, supporter, tension releaser, harmonizer, and interpreter.

Social-Emotional Leader

The social-emotional leader within a group may perform a variety of maintenance roles and is generally someone who is well liked by the other group members and whose role behaviors complement but do not compete with the task leader. The social-emotional leader may also reassure and support the task leader when he or she is stressed (Koch, 2013). In general, the social-emotional leader is a reflective thinker who has good perception skills that he or she uses to analyze the group dynamics and climate and then initiate the appropriate role behaviors to maintain a positive climate. This is not a role that shifts from person to person. While all members of the group perform some maintenance role behaviors at various times, the socioemotional leader reliably functions to support group members and maintain a positive relational climate. Social-emotional leadership functions can actually become detrimental to the group and lead to less satisfaction among members when they view maintenance behaviors as redundant or as too distracting from the task (Pavitt, 1999).

The role of supporter is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group members and provide emotional support as needed (Koch, 2013). The supporter’s work primarily occurs in one-on-one exchanges that are more intimate and in-depth than the exchanges that take place during full group meetings. While many group members may make supporting comments publicly at group meetings, these comments are typically superficial and/or brief. A supporter uses active empathetic listening skills to connect with group members who may seem down or frustrated by saying something like “Tayesha, you seemed kind of down today. Is there anything you’d like to talk about?” Supporters also follow up on previous conversations with group members to maintain the connections they have already established by saying things like “Alan, I remember you said your mom is having surgery this weekend. I hope it goes well. Let me know if you need anything.”

Tension Releaser

The tension releaser is someone who is naturally funny and sensitive to the personalities of the group and the dynamics of any given situation and who uses these qualities to manage the frustration level of the group (Koch, 2013). Being funny is not enough to fulfill this role, as jokes or comments could indeed be humorous to other group members but are delivered at an inopportune time, which ultimately creates rather than releases tension. The healthy use of humor by the tension releaser performs the same maintenance function as the empathy employed by the harmonizer or the social-emotional leader, but it is less intimate and is typically directed toward the whole group instead of just one person.

Group members who help manage the various types of group conflict that emerge during group communication plays the harmonizer role (Koch, 2013). They keep their eyes and ears open for signs of conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates. For example, the harmonizer may sense that one group member’s critique of another member’s idea was not received positively, and he or she may be able to rephrase the critique in a more constructive way, which can help diminish the other group member’s defensiveness. Harmonizers also deescalate conflict once it has already started—for example, by suggesting that the group take a break and then mediating between group members in a side conversation.

These actions can help prevent conflict from spilling over into other group interactions. In cases where the whole group experiences conflict, the harmonizer may help lead the group in perception-checking discussions that help members see an issue from multiple perspectives. For a harmonizer to be effective, he or she must be viewed as impartial and committed to the group as a whole rather than to one side, person, or faction within the larger group. A special kind of harmonizer that helps manage cultural differences within the group is the interpreter.

Interpreter

An interpreter helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared (Koch, 2013). Just as an interpreter at the United Nations acts as a bridge between two different languages, the interpreter can bridge identity differences between group members. Interpreters can help perform the other maintenance roles discussed with a special awareness of and sensitivity toward cultural differences. Interpreters, because of their cultural sensitivity, may also take a proactive role to help address conflict before it emerges—for example, by taking a group member aside and explaining why his or her behavior or comments may be perceived as offensive.

Negative Roles and Behaviors

Group communication scholars began exploring the negative side of group member roles more than sixty years ago (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Studying these negative roles can help us analyze group interactions and potentially better understand why some groups are more successful than others are. It is important to acknowledge that we all perform some negative behaviors within groups but that those behaviors do not necessarily constitute a role. A person may temporarily monopolize a discussion to bring attention to his or her idea. If that behavior gets the attention of the group members and makes them realize they were misinformed or headed in a negative direction, then that behavior may have been warranted. Group members may enact negative behaviors with varying degrees of intensity and regularity, and their effects may range from mild annoyance to group failure. In general, the effects grow increasingly negative as they increase in intensity and frequency.

Self-Centered Roles Central Negative

The central negative argues against most of the ideas and proposals discussed in the group and often emerges because of a leadership challenge during group formation. The failed attempt to lead the group can lead to feelings of resentment toward the leader and/or the purpose of the group, which then manifest in negative behaviors that delay, divert, or block the group’s progress toward achieving its goal. This scenario is unfortunate because the central negative is typically a motivated and intelligent group member who can benefit the group if properly handled by the group leader or other members. Group communication scholars suggest that the group leader or leaders actively incorporate central negatives into group tasks and responsibilities to make them feel valued and to help diminish any residual anger, disappointment, or hurt feelings from the leadership conflict (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). Otherwise, the central negative will continue to argue against the proposals and decisions of the group, even when they may agree. In some cases, the central negative may unintentionally serve a beneficial function if his or her criticisms prevent groupthink.

Monopolizer

The monopolizer is a group member who makes excessive verbal contributions, preventing equal participation by other group members. In short, monopolizers like to hear the sound of their own voice and do not follow typical norms for conversational turn taking. Some people who are well-informed, charismatic, and competent communicators can get away with impromptu lectures and long stories, but monopolizers do not possess the magnetic qualities of such people. A group member’s excessive verbal contributions are more likely to be labeled as monopolizing when they are not related to the task or when they provide unnecessary or redundant elaboration. Some monopolizers do not intentionally speak for longer than they should. Instead, they think they are making a genuine contribution to the group. These folks likely lack sensitivity to nonverbal cues, or they would see that other group members are tired of listening or annoyed. Other monopolizers just like to talk and do not care what others think. Some may be trying to make up for a lack of knowledge or experience. This type of monopolizer is best described as a dilettante, or an amateur who tries to pass himself or herself off as an expert.

Several subgroups of behaviors fall under the monopolizer’s role. The “stage hog” monopolizes discussion with excessive verbal contributions and engages in one-upping and narcissistic listening. Gaining an advantage over is a spotlight-stealing strategy in which people try to verbally “out-do” others by saying something like “You think that’s bad? Listen to what happened to me!” They also listen to others in order to find something they can connect back to themselves, not to understand the message. The stage hog is like the diva that refuses to leave the stage to let the next performer begin. Unlike a monopolizer, who may engage in his or her behaviors unknowingly, stage hogs are usually aware of what they are doing.

The “egghead” monopolizes the discussion with excessive contributions based in actual knowledge. However, those contributions exceed the level of understanding of other group members or the needs of the group (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The egghead is different from the dilettante monopolizer discussed earlier because this person has genuine knowledge and expertise on a subject, which may be useful to the group. Nevertheless, like the monopolizer and stage hog, the egghead’s excessive contributions draw attention away from the task, slow the group down, and may contribute to a negative group climate. The egghead may be like an absentminded professor who is smart but lacks the social sensitivity to tell when he or she has said enough and is now starting to annoy other group members. This type of egghead naively believes that other group members care as much about the subject as he or she does.

The second type of egghead is more pompous and monopolizes the discussion to flaunt his or her intellectual superiority. While the group may tolerate the first type of egghead to a point, the group may perceive the second type of egghead more negatively and as one who will hurt the group. In general, the egghead’s advanced subject knowledge and excessive contributions can hurt the group’s potential for synergy, since other group members may defer to the egghead expert, which can diminish the creativity that comes from outside and non-expert perspectives.

13.2 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Group problem solving.

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes. Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

• An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there is not a problem.
• A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These things stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision-making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

• Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
• Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others do. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may require more creativity. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets due to funding cuts in nearly every sector. When group members are not familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done. They may want to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order implement their solution successfully. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution. They may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that does not have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who or what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification?

At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step, a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, do not evaluate solutions at this point, only propose and clarify. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it? It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution.

Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision-making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several similar models for problem solving, groups can use many varied decision-making techniques. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until they reach a consensus. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the group reaches a final decision, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group agrees. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or a delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene? Will a new group be formed?

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others are. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision-making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision-making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings.

Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because group members expose themselves to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision-making, perhaps thinking that they will work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. Therefore, in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision-making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming Before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people do not follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you will recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. Anyone in the group can initiate the short warm-up. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session. This session should not last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. In order to realize the fourth rule, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there is not really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract, it may be eliminated. As a caution, though, it may be wise not to throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion Before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually, list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This should not take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they should not evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they have finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members could now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before making a decision (Schippers & Rus, 2021). A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread among all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group did not have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who did not. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process.

This type of decision-making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this is not a sign of groupthink. More typically, groups reach consensus only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that is ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

[table id=10 /]

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision-Making

A group’s situational context affects decision-making (Franken & Muris, 2005). One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision-making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members cannot know what other group members are thinking, whether they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. Therefore, the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision-making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation, walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Cultural Context and Decision-Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, culturally heterogeneous groups perform better than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but since all groups experience conflict, this is not solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we have learned about already in this text can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making (Yates & de Oliveira, 2016). Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision-making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (i.e., indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication (like negotiations) begins or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision-making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. Therefore, if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone does not like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group (Hentschel, Heilman, & Peus, 2019). Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters.

Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which does not take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did.

Now, instead of assuming biological sex is a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is common for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their mid-60s to mid-80s, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
• The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to mid-60s, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to mid-40s, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just entering into the workforce and have been greatly affected by recent economic crises. They are experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions.

Figure 13.1: Social-emotional leaders are reflective thinkers who use their perception skills to analyze group dynamics and maintain a positive climate. Dim Hou. 2019. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/2P6Q7_uiDr0

Figure 13.2: Common components of group problems. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 13.3: The group problem-solving process. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 13.4: Brainstorming is a good way to generate possible solutions to a problem. Below are some suggestions to make brainstorming more of a decision-making method. Monstera. 2021. Pexels license . https://www.pexels.com/photo/excited-black-woman-using-laptop-9429552/

Figure 13.5: Culturally heterogeneous groups perform better than more homogenous groups. fauxels. 2019. Pexels license . https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-people-near-wooden-table-3184418/

Figure 13.6: It is common to have different generations working together in an organizational setting. Rendy Novantino. 2021. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/wJoRe38l8fc

Section 13.1

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues 4(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x

Bormann, E. G., & Bormann, N.C., (1988). Effective small group communication ( 4th ed.). Burgess International Group.

Burke, C. S., Georganta, E., & Marlow, S. (2019). A bottom up perspective to understanding the dynamics of team roles in mission critical teams. Frontiers in psychology , 10 , 1322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01322

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1991). Communication in small group discussions: An integrated approach (3rd ed.). West Publishing.

Koch, A. (2013, October 24). Individual roles in groups . https://prezi.com/gmbfihtzyjg4/individual-roles-in-groups/

Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication Theory and research (pp. 313-334). Sage.

Section 13.2

Adams, K., and Galanes, G. (2009). Communicating in groups: Applications and skills (7th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.

Clarke, G. (1970, June 29). The silent generation revisited. Time, 95 (26), 38-40.

Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 7 (4), 466–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637100700404

Franken, I. H. A., and Muris, P. (2005). Individual differences in decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (5), 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.004

Haslett, B.B., Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make? The effects of individuals, culture, and group composition. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 115–138). Sage.

Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (2004). Groups: Theory and experience (7th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Osborn, A. F. (1959). Applied imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Schippers, M. C., & Rus, D. C. (2021). Majority decision-making works best under conditions of leadership ambiguity and shared task representations. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 519295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.519295

Stanton, C. (2009, November 3). How to deliver group presentations: The unified team approach . http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach/

Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030002006

Yates, J. F., & de Oliveira, S. (2016). Culture and decision making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes , 136 , 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.003

A task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals in order to monitor the group’s progress

This role includes behaviors that are more evenly shared compared to other roles, as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences

The person who has this task-related role asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to the group’s task

This person manages the flow of conversation in a group in order to achieve an appropriate balance so that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way

The person who takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. This role is the only role that is limited to one person at a time

A maintenance role that is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group members and provide emotional support as needed

Group members who help manage the various types of group conflict that emerge during group communication, they keep their eyes and ears open for signs of conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates

This person helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared

A group member who makes excessive verbal contributions preventing equal participation by other group members. Can include the “egghead” and the “stage hog.”

This technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members

A commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before making the decision

A decision making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members

A decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision

Communication in the Real World Copyright © by Faculty members in the School of Communication Studies, James Madison University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
• Team Working, Groups and Meetings

6 Benefits of Group Work

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

• A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
• Communication Skills
• Emotional Intelligence
• Team-Working, Groups and Meetings
• An Introduction to Groups and Teams
• Group Processes
• Group Life-Cycle
• Group Roles
• Group Diversity
• Group Dynamics
• Group Decision-Making
• Groups Strengths and Weaknesses
• Building Group Cohesiveness
• Difficult Group Behaviour
• Peer Resistance
• Effective Team-Working
• Collaboration or Working Together
• Collaborative Innovation
• Joining an Established Team
• Joining an Established Team as Manager
• Team Building
• Ice Breaker Exercises
• Managing Remote Teams
• Working with Others Remotely: Building and Maintaining Relationships
• Rebuilding Teams After Remote Working
• Planning and Structuring Effecting Meetings
• Conducting a Meeting
• Agenda-Setting for Meetings
• The Role of the Secretary
• Remote Meetings and Presentations
• Managing Difficult Behaviour in Meetings
• Mindful Meetings

The SkillsYouNeed Guide to Interpersonal Skills

• Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Negotiation and Persuasion Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Working on your own can sometimes feel easier. It can be efficient, you can work on the project in your own time, and you can control the whole processes.

There are some good reasons to get involved in group work, though. Whether it’s forced upon you by your teacher or boss, or it’s a study group you arrange with your friends, group work can be useful in helping you to deepen your knowledge and understanding of issues.

Below, I outline six top benefits of group work.

1. You get a variety of perspectives

Working in a group enables you to examine topics from the perspectives of others. When you are required to discuss a topic and negotiate how to address it, you are forced to listen to other people’s ideas. Their ideas will then influence your own thinking and broaden your horizons. Your group members aren’t just fellow learners, they’re also your teachers.

The point of group work is that being social significantly enhances learning. Not only do you have to hear others’ perspectives, you also have to compare, contrast and integrate their perspectives into your own thinking. Perhaps someone else’s perspective will change your mind or show weaknesses in your own ideas. Only through engaging with others can your perspectives change.

The point here is not to simply change your perspective, but also to sharpen it. Your team members are not opponents whose minds you want to change. They are collaborators on a project in which you are collectively trying to develop a shared understanding of a topic in which the group’s final, shared, perspective is sharper, richer and more dynamic as a result of the collaboration. Group work is great for improving your critical thinking skills and making you a sharper thinker.

So, the next time you work in a group remember this: listen to others’ perspectives and see how their views can sharpen your own. Remember your view is malleable and should change as a result of the interaction. By the end of the group process, you’ll be smarter and more insightful than you were at the start.

2. You improve your vocabulary

In second language learning, interactions with others is widely accepted as the best way to learn. You’ll often hear English language teachers talk about situated learning. This is when a learner of English is thrown into a social situation and forced to interact in English in order to successfully navigate the social situation. The point of this task is to force the learner how language works in real life.

You may not realise it, but the same goes for you in all group work situations. Even if English is your first language, when you’re forced to interact with others you learn how they speak about a topic more effectively. You will learn words and phrases that are effective at explaining a phenomenon, and you’ll learn to discard the words and phrases that seem ineffective in explaining your point of view to others.

By the end of the group work process, you might start explaining concepts in a new way. You might also integrate new words and phrases into your explanations of topics. Imagine if, at the end of a group project, you presented the topic to a class or teacher and started using words and phrases you never would have thought of before working in a group. Your teacher will be impressed by your improved vocabulary and you’ll be on your way to increasing your grades.

3. You learn to teach

Sometimes you’re the expert in the group. This can be frustrating if you don’t have the right mindset about the topic. However, being the most knowledgeable person in a group does not mean you won’t get a lot out of group work.

Being the teacher within a group requires you to refine your knowledge. Even if you think you know all of what needs to be known, you will still need to be able to organize that knowledge enough to teach it to people in a way that makes sense to them.

As a part of the process of teaching information to your peers, you will find you need to break concepts down into easy-to-manage steps. Jerome Bruner used the term ‘ scaffolding ’ to explain how a teacher presents information in bite-sized chunks. You’ll keep delivering little bits of information until the learner has built up all of the knowledge to fully understand a topic on their own.

So, even if you’re more knowledgeable than your team members, you’re still going to get a lot out of group work. It will sharpen your understanding of a topic and make you even more of an expert than you were before!

4. You learn to manage personalities

One of the major reasons many people scoff at group work is that you have to work with people you might clash with.

This might not necessarily only be because you have personality differences. You may also have competing learning preferences . If one group member is a quiet, bookish and introverted learner and another is a boisterous and chatty learner, there might be a clash of learning approaches. This can cause problems in a group.

The path through this challenge is to change your mindset. If you’re in a group that has personality clashes, view the group learning scenario as your chance to develop the valuable real-life skill of managing people. It’s an essential skill for workplace cohesion, but also in your real life: most families experience competing personalities every thanksgiving dinner!

Taking the reins in a group work situation and finding a path through competing personalities makes you a much better people person. Some paths through such a challenge could include setting rotating team roles.

Team roles could include: note taker, timekeeper, resource investigator, and coordinator. The note taker can ensure everything that gets discussed is written down; the timekeeper ensures the group stays on task and completes all tasks on time, the resource investigator uses the internet and library to gather deeper information for the team and the coordinator ensures all team members’ opinions are heard. Try to rotate these roles each time the group meets.

5. You can leverage talent

We often find we have different skillsets to our friends. In fact, we may have different approaches to learning as well! This diversity of skills can be a huge benefit of group work.

Your interactions with team members who are more talented at certain tasks give you an opportunity for self-improvement. The team member who is excellent at creatively putting together group presentations can give the whole group tips on how to improve the final product. The team member who is gifted at research can support the group in gathering data for enhancing the group’s mission.

Keep in mind that your goal should not be to delegate the creative tasks to the creative person and the research tasks to the research guru. Your goal should be to have the experts in the group teach other members of the group strategies to get better at their areas of talent.

If you use group work as an opportunity to observe and learn from the talents of others, you’ll end up with greater skills than if you did the project in isolation. Embrace the opportunity to learn from peers, see their unique talents, and pick up on their strategies. Whether it’s a new study tip or insights into how to be a better public speaker, keep your eye out for these opportunities to learn from your talented team members.

6. You learn to negotiate

One of the most frustrating things about group work for me is that sometimes the final product of the group project is not exactly what I want. It’s hard for a perfectionist to see ideas and perspectives in a final group assessment submission that you don’t agree are the best.

However, this outcome is a desirable aspect of group work that’s built into the process. Allowing someone else’s ideas to be a part of a shared project leads to shared ownership. Everyone needs to see a little bit of themselves in the final product of the group work process.

The idea of give-and-take in group work is explained by the term ‘positive interdependence’. Positive interdependence loosely means that the group sinks or swims together. If your group members’ ideas are not included in the group discussion, their motivation will decrease and you will find they begin to put less effort in. This will hurt the group in the long run. It’s therefore useful to ensure your peers feel they have some ownership over the group discussion. This ensures group cohesion and makes sure the group sustains its motivation to learn in the long run. As this study found , groups that embrace positive interdependence tend to end up succeeding more than groups that lack a sense of being ‘in it together’.

Negotiation and compromise are necessities of life. Getting your own way shouldn’t be the goal of a group project. Putting the group first teaches you something: it teaches you about the importance of community, interdependence and tolerance. These values are the soft emotional intelligence skills that will make you a better listener, colleague and learner.

Further Reading from Skills You Need

Understanding and Developing Emotional Intelligence

Learn more about emotional intelligence and how to effectively manage personal relationships at home, at work and socially.

Our eBooks are ideal for anyone who wants to learn about or develop their interpersonal skills and are full of easy-to-follow, practical information.

Final Thoughts

Even if group work gives you nightmares, try to focus on the positives. It is a very useful method of learning and developing new products. This is why universities and workplaces employ group work scenarios regularly. Groups that are effective help you not only develop better final products and learn more deeply, they teacher you soft skills and emotional intelligence that will serve you well for life.

Next time you get involved in a group scenario, keep your focus on how your group can be beneficial for your learning and development:

• You get a variety of perspectives
• You improve your vocabulary
• You learn to teach
• You learn to manage personalities
• You can leverage talent
• You learn to negotiate

About the Author

Chris Drew has a PhD in Education and teaches Teacher Education at university level. He is the founder of the blog HelpfulProfessor.com and is the voice behind the Essay Guidance Study Skills podcast. You can join his free personal tutor service by heading over to his website.

Continue to: Working in Groups and Teams Critical Thinking Skills

See also: Understanding Other People Group Diversity Group Cohesiveness

• Request a Consultation
• Workshops and Virtual Conversations
• Technical Support
• Course Design and Preparation
• Observation & Feedback

Teaching Resources

Using Roles in Group Work

Resource overview.

How using roles can improve group work in your class

While collaborative learning through group work has been proven to have the potential to produce stronger academic achievement than other kinds of learning environments (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2006), it can be challenging to implement successfully because many students come to college without the tools they need to automatically succeed in collaborative learning contexts. One way of providing supportive structures to students in a collaborative learning environment is through assigning roles within group work.

Potential Benefits of Using Assigned Roles in Group Work

Assigning group roles can be a beneficial strategy for successful group work design for a number of reasons:

• Group roles offer an opportunity for high quality, focused interactions between group participants. Participants are more likely to stay on task and pay closer attention to the task at hand when their roles in the collaboration are clear and distinct.
• Group roles provide all students with a clear avenue for participation. Students are less likely to feel left out or unengaged when they have a particular duty that they are responsible for completing. Along the same lines, assigning group roles reduces the likelihood of one individual completing the task for the whole group, or “taking over,” to the detriment of others’ learning.
• Group roles encourage individual accountability. Group members are more likely to hold each other accountable for not completing work if a particular task is assigned to them.
• Group roles allow students to strengthen their communicative skills, especially in areas that they are less confident in volunteering for.
• Group roles can help disrupt stereotypical and gendered role assignments, which can be common in group learning. For example, Hirshfield and Chachra (2015) found that in first-year engineering courses, female students tended to undertake less technical roles and more communicative roles than their male colleagues. By assigning roles during group work, and by asking students to alternate these roles at different points in the semester, students can work past gendered assumptions about themselves and their groupmates.

POGIL: A Model for Role Assignments in Collaborative Learning

One small group learning methodology where the use of group roles is well-defined and researched is the  Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) method . The POGIL method calls for groups of three or four students who work in a team on process-oriented guided inquiry activities in which students construct their knowledge through interactions with others. Traditional POGIL roles for group members are provided below (POGIL, 2016).

• Manager  or  Facilitator : Manages the group by helping to ensure that the group stays on task, is focused, and that there is room for everyone in the conversation.
• Recorder : Keeps a record of those who were in the group, and the roles that they play in the group. The recorder also records critical points from the small group’s discussion along with findings or answers.
• Spokesperson  or  Presenter : Presents the group’s ideas to the rest of the class. The Spokesperson should rely on the recorder’s notes to guide their report.
• Reflector  or  Strategy Analyst : Observes team dynamics and guides the consensus-building process (helps group members come to a common conclusion).

Other Highly Adaptable Roles to Consider

You can adapt roles for different kinds of group tasks. While the POGIL model is a useful place to start, you may find that the tasks associated with your discipline require other kinds of roles for effective group learning. Adding to or reframing POGIL roles can be beneficial in these contexts. Below are some suggestions for additional roles that might be valuable to a variety of learning situations.

• Encourager : Encourages group members to continue to think through their approaches and ideas. The Encourager uses probing questions to help facilitate deeper thinking, and group-wide consideration of ideas.
• Questioner : Pushes back when the team comes to consensus too quickly, without considering a number of options or points of view. The questioner makes sure that the group hears varied points of view, and that the group is not avoiding potentially rich areas of disagreement.
• Checker : Checks over work in problem-solving contexts before the group members finalize their answers.

Strategies for Effective Facilitation of Group Roles

The following suggestions are strategies for effective facilitation of group roles. These strategies are helpful in a wide variety of group work situations, but are essential for group work that will last beyond a single class period, or constitute a significant portion of student grades.

• Be transparent about why you are assigning group roles. This kind of transparency can increase student buy-in by helping them recognize the value in establishing group roles
• Provide students with  a list of roles and brief definitions for each role  at the beginning of the group work activity. Make it clear which tasks are associated with which roles.
• Alternatively, you may find it helpful, especially in advanced-level classes, to encourage students to develop their own roles in groups based on the tasks that they feel will be critical to the group’s success. This strategy provides the students with a larger level of autonomy in their learning, while also encouraging them to use proven structures that will help them be successful.
• Roles can be assigned randomly through a variety of strategies, from who has the next birthday to color-coded post-it notes, or  a place card  that points out roles based on where everyone is sitting.
• Circulate early in the class period to be sure that everyone has been assigned a role, and that everyone is clear about what their responsibilities include.
• Be willing to reinforce the given roles throughout the activity. For roles to work, students have to feel as though they will be held accountable for fulfilling those roles. Therefore, it is critical for you to step in if you see someone taking over someone else’s role or not fulfilling their assigned role. Often gentle reminders about who is supposed to be doing what can be useful interventions. For example, if someone is talking over everyone and not listening to their other groupmates, you might say something like “Remember, as a spokesperson, your job is to represent the ideas of everyone in the group.”
• Talk with students individually if their speech or conduct could be silencing, denigrating, or excluding others. Remember: your silence on this issue may be read as endorsement.
• Changing things up regularly is imperative. If you use group roles frequently, mixing up roles throughout the semester can help students develop communication skills in a variety of areas rather than relying on a single personal strength.
• If this is a long-term group assignment, be sure to provide structures for individual feedback for the instructor and other group member on group dynamics. This could be a formal or informal check in, but it’s critical for students to have a space to voice concerns related to group dynamics—especially if this assignment counts for a large portion of their final grade. This feedback might be provided through an anonymous survey in paper form or through a web-based tool like Qualtrics or a Google form. These check-ins can reduce student anxiety about the potential for uneven group participation.

Overall, using assigned roles in group work provides students with a supportive structure that promotes meaningful collaborative learning. While group learning can be challenging to implement effectively, using roles can mitigate some of the challenges associated with learning in groups, while offering students the opportunity to develop a variety of communication skills that will be critical to their success in college and their future careers.

Burke, Alison. (2011). Group work: How to use groups effectively.  The Journal of Effective Teaching , 11(2), 87-95.

Beebe, S.A., & Masterson, J.T. (2003).  Communicating in small groups . Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Cheng, W. Y., Lam, S. F., & Chan, C. Y. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project‐based learning.  British Journal of Educational Psychology ,  78 (2), 205-221.

Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R.S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., White, H.B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL and PLTL.  Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36 (4), 262-73.

Hale, D., & Mullen, L. G. (2009). Designing process-oriented guided-inquiry activities: A new innovation for marketing classes.  Marketing Education Review ,  19 (1), 73-80.

Hirshfield, L., & Chachra, D. (2015). Task choice, group dynamics and learning goals: Understanding student activities in teams.  2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference: Launching a New Vision in Engineering Education Proceedings, FIE 2015 , 1-5.

Johnson, C. (2011). Activities using process‐oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in the foreign language classroom.  Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German ,  44 (1), 30-38.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K.A. (2006).  Active learning: Cooperation in the university classroom . Edina, MN: Interaction.

Moog, R.S. (2014). Process oriented guided inquiry learning. In M.A. McDaniel, R. F. Frey, S.M. Fitzpatrick, & Roediger, H.L. (Eds.).  Integrating cognitive science with innovative teaching in STEM disciplines  (147-166). St. Louis: Washington University in St. Louis Libraries.

The POGIL Project. (2017). https://pogil.org/

Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., & Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.  Review of Educational Research, 96 (1), 21-51.

Have suggestions?

If you have suggestions of resources we might add to these pages, please contact us:

[email protected] (314) 935-6810 Mon - Fri, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Teamwork Skills: Being an Effective Group Member

For groups to function effectively, it's important for students to think critically about the climate within their group and the process by which they accomplish their tasks. Although students can gain many of the skills described below through ad hoc interactions, instructors play a key role in making them explicit protocols.

To hone these skills, students need opportunities to practice and to receive regular feedback. Consider sharing the information below with your students, structure activities for them, and incorporate three components of feedback into your plan: instructor comments (oral and/or written); reflective group discussions and/or peer assessment; and self-reflection (see the reflection prompts in Appendix A for ideas). 

Communication skills 

To function successfully in a group, students need to be able to communicate clearly on intellectual and emotional levels. Effective communicators should be able to: 

• Explain their own ideas; 
• Express their feelings in an open but non-threatening way; 
• Listen carefully to others; 
• Ask questions to clarify others’ ideas and emotions; 
• Sense how others feel based on their nonverbal communication (e.g., facial expressions, tone of voice, diminished participation);
• Initiate conversations about the group climate or process if they sense tensions brewing; 
• Reflect on their group's activities and interactions and encourage other group members to do so. 

Regular open communication, in which group members share their thoughts, ideas, and feelings, is key for successful group work. Unspoken assumptions and issues can be harmful to productive group functioning. Students’ ability to communicate openly with one another can help foster a healthy group climate and process. 

Skills for a healthy group climate 

To work together successfully, group members must demonstrate a sense of cohesion. cohesion emerges as group members: .

• Get to know one another, particularly those with different interests and backgrounds. They are open to innovative ideas and diverse viewpoints. They also listen to others and elicit their ideas. They know how to balance the need for cohesion within a group with the need for individual expression. 
• Trust one another enough to share their own ideas and feelings. A sense of mutual trust develops only to the extent that everyone is willing to self-disclose and be honest yet respectful. Trust also grows as group members demonstrate personal accountability for the tasks they have been assigned. 
• Demonstrate support for one another as they accomplish their goals. They cheer on the group and support members individually. They view one another not as competitors but as collaborators: everyone in the group can and should have a role by which they contribute.
• Communicate their opinions in a way that respects others, focusing on “What can we learn?” rather than “Who is to blame?” 

As an instructor, you can use several strategies to encourage students to develop a healthy group climate: 

• Randomize group membership to increase the chances of students encountering peers with diverse backgrounds and interests. 
• Design icebreaker activities that promote awareness and appreciation of inherent differences within a group. 
• Walk students through effective strategies for identifying and overcoming group conflict.  
• Encourage students to participate actively and pose questions to their peers. To encourage listening skills and ensure that everyone in the group speaks, try the “circle of voices” exercise. See the CTE Teaching Tip: Group Work in the Classroom: Types of Small Groups . 
• Devote class time to help students reflect on their group dynamic and overall functioning. You can provide them with prompt questions to consider and/or facilitate a conversation driven by student insights, questions, and concerns. 

Skills for an effective group process 

In addition to knowing how to develop a healthy group climate, students need to exercise key skills to contribute to an effective group process. This process emerges when students: 

• Agree on what needs to be done and by whom. Each student then determines what they need to do and takes responsibility to complete the task(s). They can be held accountable for their tasks, and they hold others accountable for theirs. 
• Give and receive feedback about group ideas. Giving constructive feedback requires focusing on ideas and behaviours instead of individuals and offering suggestions for improvement. Receiving feedback requires the ability to listen well, ask for clarification if the comment is unclear, and being open to change and to other ideas. 
• Help the group to develop and use central strategies to move toward their group goals. As such, they can facilitate group decision making and manage group conflict in a productive way, rather than approaching the instructor for guidance as the first step.  
• Know how to plan and manage a task, how to manage their time, and how to run a meeting. For example, they ensure meeting goals are set, an agenda is created and followed, and everyone can participate. They stay focused on the task and help others to do so, too. 
• Know which roles can be filled within a group (e.g., facilitator, idea-generator, summarizer, evaluator, mediator, encourager, recorder) and are aware of which role(s) they and others are best suited for. They are also willing to rotate roles to maximize their own and others’ group learning experience. 

As an instructor, use some of these strategies to help students develop an effective process within their groups: 

• Design the group task so that the students must rely on one another to produce their best work. Group members will be more motivated and committed to working together if they are given a group mark. If you choose to evaluate in this way, be sure to make your expectations extremely clear. See the CTE Teaching Tip: Methods for Assessing Group Work for additional ideas. 
• Invite students to develop a group contract in which they articulate ground rules and group goals. See the CTE Teaching Tip Making Group Contracts for details. Be sure that groups discuss how they will respond to various scenarios such as absent or late group members and those who do not complete their assigned tasks. 
• Distribute a list of decision-making methods and strategies for conflict resolution and facilitate a conversation with students about these resources in class. The CTE Teaching Tip: Group Decision Making is a good place to start. You may also want to offer yourself as an impartial arbitrator in emergency situations but encourage students to work out problems among themselves. 
• Provide students with guidelines for running a meeting, such as setting and following an agenda, specifying time limits, and monitoring progress on the agenda. Consult CTE Teaching Tip: Meeting Strategies to Help Prepare Students for Group Work for additional suggestions. 
• Teach students effective methods for giving and receiving feedback and explain the purpose of feedback in your course. For sample methods, see CTE Teaching Tip: Receiving and Giving Effective Feedback . Create an assignment that involves them giving feedback to group members and make it part of their final grade. 
• Help students recognize and make the most of their own and one another’s preferred roles. Outline with them a list of team roles (see the CTE Teaching Tip: Group Roles for examples), have them determine which role(s) suits them best, and give them time to discuss how their role(s) will complement those of other group members. Asking students to rotate their roles helps them to expand their skillset. 

Appendix A: Encouraging self-awareness and reflection in group work 

One of the most important things you can do as an instructor is to have students reflect regularly on their group experiences. Their self-reflection will reinforce and further develop critical teamwork skills. Based on your objectives for the group project, create a set of prompts using the questions below. Have students use these prompts to journal about their reactions to group climate and process. The journals encourage self-reflection and can help students see teamwork issues in new ways and create ideas for resolution. They can also provide a good basis from which students can choose comments to share with their group members in debriefing sessions.

If students submit their journals periodically throughout the term, give them feedback orally or in writing, and to the extent appropriate, discuss any trends that you have identified through observation or in the journals (remember to reassure students that other groups may be facing similar challenges). Also, requiring all students to submit a final reflective report after the group project can help them to see the value of the teamwork expertise they have developed through practice. 

• What have you enjoyed the most/the least about getting to know your group members? 
• How is your attitude towards your group members demonstrated in how you function within the group? 
• How do you demonstrate trust and openness towards the other members and their ideas? 
• How much do you feel you can rely on your group members to complete the required task(s)? 
• How do you make sure that group members feel supported, encouraged, and appreciated for their work? 
• How does the team ensure that all voices are heard? 
• Do you participate willingly in discussions? If not, why not? 
• Do others appear to understand your ideas? If not, why not? 
• What do you do if another person’s ideas are unclear? 
• What do you focus on when others speak? How could you improve your listening skills? 
• How do you respond to others’ ideas? How do they respond to yours? What could be improved? 
• What are your group’s ground rules and goals? What changes to these rules and goals might improve the functioning of your group? 
• How is everyone encouraged to stay accountable for the tasks they have been assigned? 
• To what extent do you and others follow the feedback methods laid out in class? How could you and your group members improve the way you give and receive feedback? 
• To what extent does your group reflect on how well its goals are being achieved? How would more (or less) discussion about goals help or hinder your group’s functioning? 
• How are decisions made in your group? Who is involved and in which ways? What has been effective about the processes you have used? How could your decision-making processes be improved? 
• What happens if a group member is unhappy or uncomfortable with a decision made by the group? 
• What conflicts have arisen within your group? How (if at all) have the conflicts been resolved? What role do you play in resolving these conflicts? What could you (or others) do to improve your group’s ability to deal productively with conflict? 
• How do your meetings typically proceed? What do you accomplish and in how much time? What is effective about your group functioning during meetings? What changes would improve your meetings? 
• Who has emerged as the leader in your group? Which other roles do you see team members playing? Which role(s) do you play? Which role do you prefer and why? 

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the  CTE Support  page to find the most relevant staff member to contact. 

References 

• Bosworth, K. (1994). Developing Collaborative Skills in College Students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 25-31. 
• Breslow, L. (1998). Teaching Teamwork Skills, Part 2. Teach Talk, X, 5.  
• Burke, A. (2011). Group work: How to use groups effectively. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 11(2), 87-95. 
• Hills, H. (2001). Team-Based Learning. Burlington, VT: Gower. 
• Lang, J. M. (2022, June 17). Why students hate group projects (and how to change that). The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-students-hate-group-projects-and-how-to-change-that   
• Shier, M. (2020). Student Success. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/studentsuccess/  
• UWaterloo’s  Student Success Office  
• UWaterloo’s  Office of Academic Integrity  

Catalog search

Teaching tip categories.

• Assessment and feedback
• Blended Learning and Educational Technologies
• Career Development
• Course Design
• Course Implementation
• Inclusive Teaching and Learning
• Learning activities
• Support for Student Learning
• Support for TAs
• Learning activities ,

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation, what are the benefits of group work.

“More hands make for lighter work.” “Two heads are better than one.” “The more the merrier.”

These adages speak to the potential groups have to be more productive, creative, and motivated than individuals on their own.

Benefits for students

Group projects can help students develop a host of skills that are increasingly important in the professional world (Caruso & Woolley, 2008; Mannix & Neale, 2005). Positive group experiences, moreover, have been shown to contribute to student learning, retention and overall college success (Astin, 1997; Tinto, 1998; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2006).

Properly structured, group projects can reinforce skills that are relevant to both group and individual work, including the ability to: 

• Break complex tasks into parts and steps
• Plan and manage time
• Refine understanding through discussion and explanation
• Give and receive feedback on performance
• Challenge assumptions
• Develop stronger communication skills.

Group projects can also help students develop skills specific to collaborative efforts, allowing students to...

• Tackle more complex problems than they could on their own.
• Delegate roles and responsibilities.
• Share diverse perspectives.
• Pool knowledge and skills.
• Hold one another (and be held) accountable.
• Receive social support and encouragement to take risks.
• Develop new approaches to resolving differences. 
• Establish a shared identity with other group members.
• Find effective peers to emulate.
• Develop their own voice and perspectives in relation to peers.

While the potential learning benefits of group work are significant, simply assigning group work is no guarantee that these goals will be achieved. In fact, group projects can – and often do – backfire badly when they are not designed , supervised , and assessed in a way that promotes meaningful teamwork and deep collaboration.

Benefits for instructors

Faculty can often assign more complex, authentic problems to groups of students than they could to individuals. Group work also introduces more unpredictability in teaching, since groups may approach tasks and solve problems in novel, interesting ways. This can be refreshing for instructors. Additionally, group assignments can be useful when there are a limited number of viable project topics to distribute among students. And they can reduce the number of final products instructors have to grade.

Whatever the benefits in terms of teaching, instructors should take care only to assign as group work tasks that truly fulfill the learning objectives of the course and lend themselves to collaboration. Instructors should also be aware that group projects can add work for faculty at different points in the semester and introduce its own grading complexities .

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caruso, H.M., & Wooley, A.W. (2008). Harnessing the power of emergent interdependence to promote diverse team collaboration. Diversity and Groups. 11, 245-266.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M.A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55.

National Survey of Student Engagement Report. (2006). http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2006_Annual_Report/docs/NSSE_2006_Annual_Report.pdf .

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Task performance in groups.

• Christine Smith Christine Smith Grand Valley State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.258
• Published online: 20 June 2022

When individuals decide to work together to complete a task, they often do so in the belief that the product of their collective effort will exceed that which could be accomplished alone. Task-performing groups are resource-rich entities in that members have access to one another’s uniquely possessed knowledge, skills, and abilities and can, in many instances, reduce each individual’s workload by dividing the labor among themselves. However, faulty interaction processes often hinder a group’s ability to utilize maximally the resources available to them, resulting in a performance that falls short of the group’s potential. For example, coordination loss occurs when group members fail to combine their efforts in an optimal manner. This type of loss is especially likely when the group task requires a high level of precision or has heavy cognitive demands. For example, coordination loss is especially problematic in the context of brainstorming groups, because group members are often asked to interact with one another while simultaneously generating ideas and processing the ideas generated by others. Motivation loss occurs when individual group members fail to give their best effort to the group’s endeavor. This type of loss, called social loafing, is especially likely to occur when individual group members believe that their contributions cannot be identified or evaluated. Alternatively, free-riding occurs when group members believe that their contributions to the group product are ultimately dispensable. Finally, group interaction can result in a performance that exceeds what is expected from a simple pooling of individual group members’ efforts, although instances of such are less frequently addressed and documented within the group performance literature. Synergistic or assembly bonus effects are likely when collective work conditions emphasize strong associations between individual effort and highly desirable outcomes, as in the case of Köhler motivation gains. Furthermore, synergistic effects have been documented in instances where groups have used their increased capacity to process information to identify patterns or draw conclusions that individuals alone would find challenging.

• group motivation
• brainstorming
• group decision-making
• problem-solving
• group task demands

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 10 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|162.248.224.4]
• 162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.4: Facilitating the Task-Oriented Group

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58763

Learning Objectives

• Define “group facilitation”
• Identify five guidelines for facilitating a task-oriented group
• Distinguish between collaboration and “coliberation”

Remember the story that Pope John XXIII told about himself. He admitted, “It often happens that I wake at night and begin to think about a serious problem and decide I must tell the Pope about it. Then I wake up completely and remember that I am the Pope.”

Glenn van Ekeren

I’m extraordinarily patient provided I get my own way in the end.

Margaret Thatcher

You’ve probably experienced being part of groups that pleased and motivated you. One reason you experienced those positive feelings may have been that the groups planned and executed their tasks so smoothly that you were hardly aware the processes were taking place. In this section, we’ll examine ways in which leaders can contribute to such pleasant, easy experiences.

Just as “facile” in English and “fácil” in Spanish mean “easy,” the word “facilitate” itself means “to make something easy” and “group facilitation” consists in easing a group’s growth and progress. Most student, community, and business groups are task-oriented, so we’ll consider here how they can most easily be guided toward accomplishing the tasks they set for themselves. Another section of this book deals specifically with the details of leading meetings, so for now we’ll consider broader questions and principles.

If you’re in a position to facilitate a group, you need to take that position seriously. Just as Pope John XXIII realized with respect to his authority and responsibility in the Catholic Church, it’s best to consider yourself the primary source of direction and the ultimate destination for questions in your group. With those concepts in mind, let’s consider five major guidelines you should probably follow in order to facilitate a group whose purposes include achieving tasks.

Know the Group's Members

This means more than just identifying their names and recognizing their faces. If you hope to accomplish anything significant together, you need to be familiar with people’s opinions, their needs, their desires, and their personalities.

Perhaps one member of a group you’re leading is particularly time-conscious, another likes to make jokes, and a third prefers to see concepts represented visually. If you take these propensities into account and respond to them as much as possible, you can draw the best cooperative effort from each of the people.

You may want to keep track of who’s done what favors for whom within the group, too. Like it or not, many people operate at least from time to time on the principle that “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”

Weigh Task and Relationship Considerations

The word “equilibristic” is sometimes applied to the actions of athletes and musicians. It refers to a capability to balance differing and sometimes conflicting forces so as to maintain continuous movement in a chosen direction.

Although almost any group has some work to do, and all groups comprise people whose welfare needs to be tended to, the effective facilitator realizes that it’s impossible to emphasize both those elements to the same degree all the time. If people are disgruntled or frustrated, they can’t contribute well to accomplishing a task. Likewise, if people are always contented with one another and their group but can’t focus on getting things done, the group will be unable to attain its objectives. To facilitate a group well, thus, requires that you be equilibristic.

Understand and Anticipate Prevalent Features of Human Psychology

Keep in mind that everyone in a group will perceive what the facilitator does in light of his or her own circumstances and wishes.

Recall also that everyone possesses diverse and numerous capacities for self-justification and self-support. In their book Mistakes were made (but not by me) , Carol Tavris and Ellion Aronson referred to studies of married couples’ behavior. They indicated that when husbands and wives are asked what proportion of the housework they perform, the totals always exceed 100 percent by a large margin. Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Tavris and Aronson also described the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, which presents visitors with interactive exhibits portraying categories of people about whom many of us harbor negative preconceptions—including ethnic and racial minorities, obese individuals, people with disabilities, and so on. A video attempts to persuade visitors that they possess prejudices, after which two doors are offered as an exit. One is marked “Prejudiced” and the other is labeled “Unprejudiced.” The second door is locked, to make the point that all of us are indeed subject to prejudice.

Deal Well With Disruptions

The playwright Paddy Chayevsky wrote that “life is problems.” An effective group facilitator needs to anticipate and skillfully cope with problems as a part of life, whether they’re caused by other people’s behavior or by physical and logistical factors.

If you’re an adherent of Theory Y, you probably believe that people enjoy pursuing their goals energetically, in groups or individually. You also probably believe that people prefer to select times and places along the way to relax and recharge. Unfortunately, interruptions often arise in such a way as to make both these aims difficult to achieve. Think about all the unexpected academic, family, and work-related reasons why you and other students you know have found it challenging to “stay the course” toward your personal and collective goals.

A group’s facilitator, thus, needs to make sure that interruptions and disruptions don’t derail it. In fact, he or she might profit from actually celebrating these elements of life, as one Seattle office executive did. According to Dale Turner, the executive’s office had a sign on the wall reading “Don’t be irritated by interruptions. They are your reason for being.” Turner went on to quote the executive as saying “Happily, I have learned how to sit loose in the saddle of life, and I’m not usually disturbed by interruptions. I have made it a habit through the years to leave a stretch factor in my daily schedule. I start early and have tried not to so crowd my day with appointments that I have no time for the unexpected. I have not seen interruptions as an intrusion.”Turner, D. (1991, March 23). Slaves of habit—we lose when there’s no room for interruptions in our lives. Seattle Times . Retrieved from ProQuest Database.

Keep Returning to the Task

You’ve probably been part of a group in which the leader or facilitator had what might be called a divergent, rather than a convergent, personality. Perhaps that person had lots of good ideas but seemed to jump around from topic to topic and chore to chore so much that your head spun and you couldn’t keep track of what was going on. Maybe the person “missed the forest for the trees” because of dwelling excessively on minutia—small and insignificant details. Or perhaps each time you met with the group its facilitator led a discussion of something valuable and important, but every time it was a different thing.

The organizational theorist Anthony Jay wrote that it’s important for leaders to “look for problems through a telescope, not a microscope.”Jay, A. (1967). Management and Machiavelli: An inquiry into the politics of corporate life. New York: Bantam Books. He also contended that, as far as a leader is concerned, “other people can cope with the waves, it’s [the leader’s] job to watch the tide.” By these comments, Jay meant that the primary duty of a group facilitator is to maintain an unwavering focus on the group’s central tasks, whatever they may be.

The Dalai Lama has written, “Whether you are a spiritual leader or a leader in an organization, it is your job to inspire faith.”His Holiness the Dalai Lama & Muyzenberg, L. (2009). The leader’s way: The art of making the right decisions in our careers, our companies, and the world at large. New York: Broadway Books. Slogans, mottos, mission statements, quotations, logos, and written objectives can all contribute to a facilitator’s ability to inspire faith by maintaining a group’s focus and resolve to move in a common direction. Busy students and others in our society often need reminders like these to block out the competing stimuli surrounding them and focus their attention. Such mechanisms, however, should not be merely gimmicks, nor should they be used to promote blind faith in the group’s facilitator.

Another way to think of how a facilitator should keep bringing the group’s attention back to its tasks relates to the process of meditation. Practitioners of meditation know that people’s minds are naturally active and tend to move readily from subject to subject. When someone is meditating, they say, thoughts will naturally pop into his or her mind. The way to deal with this phenomenon is to regard the thoughts as clouds drifting across the sky. Rather than trying to banish them, the better approach is to allow them to pass by and dissipate, and then to return to serene contemplation. Rondon, N. (2006, Meditate. Current Health 2 (32), 20–23. Retrieved from ProQuest Database

Coliberation

Above all, a facilitator’s responsibility is to enable members of a group to function together as easily and happily as possible as they pursue their goals. When this happens, the group will achieve a high level of collaboration. In fact, it may rise beyond collaboration to achieve what the author and computer game designer Bernard DeKoven called “coliberation.” In speaking about meetings, he had this to say: “Good meetings aren’t just about work. They’re about fun—keeping people charged up. It’s more than collaboration, it’s ‘coliberation’—people freeing each other up to think more creatively.”Matson, E. (1996, April-May). The seven sins of deadly meetings. Fast Company , 122.

Key Takeaway

• To facilitate a task-oriented group requires several skills and behaviors and can lead to a state of “coliberation.”

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

• Recall a time when you were in a group whose leader stressed either its task or relationship factors too much. How did the members of the group react? Did the leader eventually develop an equilibristic approach?
• Do you agree with the business executive who said that interruptions are “your reason for being”? In your studies and family life, what measures do you take to ensure that interruptions are beneficial rather than destructive? What further steps do you feel you might take in this direction?
• Think of someone who effectively facilitated a group you were part of. Did the person perform the job identified by the Dalai Lama—inspiring faith in the group? If so, how?
• What, if anything, do you feel members of most groups need to be “coliberated” from?

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Task Groups in the Social Services

• Marian Fatout - Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA
• Steven R. Rose - George Mason University, USA
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Select a Purchasing Option

This title is also available on SAGE Knowledge , the ultimate social sciences online library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

• Our Mission

A Step-by-Step Guide to Teaching Students to Work in Groups

A strategy for giving students explicit feedback on group interactions promotes participation and collaboration.

Today, students in my Integrated Math 1 Support Class are taking a group quiz. As they work together, I overhear them say things like “I think we need to combine like terms” and “Did you multiply to get 3x squared?” and respectfully correct one another by saying, “I think it should be negative since it’s a negative times a positive.”

What distinguishes today from yesterday? This is the first time I’ve used the group feedback strategy with these students, and in a matter of minutes, it’s made a world of difference.

Collaborative learning allows students to solve problems, construct explanations, critique other students’ reasoning, and engage in rich academic discourse. But as teachers, we all know how difficult it is to get students to communicate and collaborate. The group feedback strategy can help students learn effective group-level behaviors and understand the interactions you expect. It promotes student participation, collaboration, and equity.

Teachers take public notes while students work in groups. This strategy works for assessments, labs, literature circles, and study groups. You can use this strategy for large or small tasks and remind students of these expectations whenever they work in groups. Here are some ideas for using it in your classroom.

Preplanning

Before starting a task, make sure that students understand your expectations. Give them a list of expected group norms ahead of time. You may want students to (1) ask and answer clarifying questions, (2) share ideas with team members, (3) justify reasoning, and (4) critique and question the reasoning behind team members’ perspectives.

During team tests, for example, I want to see students explaining ideas and strategies to one another, leaning in and looking at each other’s work, asking questions, respectfully disagreeing with teammates, and working on the same problems at the same time so that various suggestions and strategies can be shared and discussed. I do not want to see students working on problems individually, copying answers from others without understanding the work, or having lengthy off-task conversations.

Implementation

During implementation, display your student feedback to drive student actions. This way, students understand the implications of their actions and words as they work.

Feedback can take many forms. Typing on a document table while projecting it, typing on a designated slide or in the speaker notes section while students collaborate on a virtual assignment, or writing feedback on posters around the room are just a few suggestions. Use color coding, plus or minus signs, and a dynamic grade to help students distinguish between positive and negative feedback. Consider the group’s work and their discussions.

Highlight the positive interactions you witness and explain why they are positive as well as who was involved. Recognize students for their valuable contributions, such as clarifying questions or providing a small idea that sparks further discussion. I publicly acknowledged it when a quiet student mentioned a “box” that helped his teammates remember the area model tool. It communicated to the entire group that his comment was valuable and raised the student’s standing within the group and in the classroom.

Keep negative remarks to a minimum to highlight and reinforce positive actions. I like to include neutral comments for random things I hear or notice; it’s a fun way to connect with students while also letting them know you’re paying attention. When a teammate read something in a British accent, I commented. The team laughed and was surprised that I heard it from across the room. The British accent became an inside joke for the rest of the year.

Encourage students to read the comments you provide to their own and other groups for more ideas on how to interact positively. Keep a list of sentence frames or sample feedback handy if you worry about running out of comments.

Debriefing and Grading

Share your feedback with the entire class. Allow them time to read through each group’s comments. I also recommend holding a class debriefing discussion the first few times you use this strategy to acclimate the students. During this 5-minute discussion, I usually highlight a positive team point or ask students to share one they will try next time.

Some teachers prefer to give grades, while others prefer to give feedback. I think it’s important for teachers to hold students accountable for their collaboration, and I’ve had more success when group feedback is graded. One idea is to weigh the group task’s collaboration score equally with the academic work completed.

Each time I give students a group test, I grade their collaboration and weigh it as 40 to 50 percent of their group test grade. This has inspired both high achievers who usually work alone and low achievers who don’t want to let down their teammates.

You could also make this grade dynamic so that students must demonstrate positive collaboration in order to receive full credit, but they can also lose points for negative behaviors.

For example, start all groups with a 6 out of 10 scale that increases by one point for positive comments and decreases by one point for negative comments. Whether or not a grade is assigned, providing feedback and communicating positive collaborative behaviors should always be prioritized.

I recommend implementing this strategy semi-regularly; even once every few months will have a long-term impact on how students collaborate in your classroom.

• Workers' Compensation Lawyers Alabama →

Social Work Task Groups: Enhancing Collaboration And Impact

Introduction to Social Work Task Groups

Social work task groups are an essential component of the field, bringing together individuals with a common purpose to accomplish specific actions and produce products that address various needs. These groups play a vital role in meeting client, organizational, and community needs.

Table of Contents

In this article, we will explore the different types of task groups, their functions, and the benefits they offer.

Types of Social Work Task Groups

There are three main types of social work task groups: those that meet client needs, those that meet organizational needs, and those that meet community needs. Each type serves a unique purpose and has its own set of responsibilities.

• Groups that Meet Client Needs:
• Teams: These task groups are formed to address specific client cases or projects, bringing together professionals from different disciplines to provide comprehensive care and support.
• Treatment Conferences: In treatment conferences, professionals gather to discuss and plan interventions for individuals with complex needs, ensuring coordination and collaboration in their care.

Staff Development Groups: These groups focus on enhancing the skills and knowledge of professionals in order to improve the quality of services provided to clients.

Groups that Meet Organizational Needs:

• Focus Groups: Designed to gather input and feedback from clients, staff, or other stakeholders, focus groups help organizations understand and address specific concerns or improve their services.
• Trigger Groups: Trigger groups are formed in response to specific events or issues within an organization, aiming to analyze and address the root causes of these challenges.

Quality Improvement Groups: These task groups focus on assessing and improving the quality of services provided by the organization, ensuring continuous enhancement and adherence to best practices.

Groups that Meet Community Needs:

• Social Action Groups: Social action groups aim to initiate change within the community by advocating for social justice, raising awareness about important issues, and promoting community engagement.
• Community Needs Assessment Groups: These task groups conduct comprehensive assessments of community needs, identifying gaps in services and developing strategies to address them effectively.
• Community Development Groups: Community development groups work towards improving the overall well-being of communities, focusing on areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Running an Effective Social Work Task Group: The 5 C’s

To ensure the success of a social work task group, it is important to follow the principles of the 5 C’s: collaboration, communication, coordination, cooperation, and cohesion.

Collaboration: Encourage active participation and collaboration among group members, ensuring that their unique perspectives and expertise are valued and integrated into decision-making processes.

Communication: Establish open and effective communication channels within the group, promoting transparency, active listening, and respectful dialogue. This fosters a supportive and engaging environment for all members.

Coordination: Assign clear roles and responsibilities to group members, ensuring that tasks are distributed evenly. Effective coordination ensures that all necessary actions are taken and progress is monitored.

Cooperation: Encourage a spirit of cooperation and teamwork within the group, promoting a shared sense of purpose and a commitment to achieving common goals. This facilitates efficient problem-solving and decision-making processes.

Cohesion: Foster a sense of cohesion and camaraderie among group members by creating opportunities for team-building activities and recognizing individual and group achievements. This strengthens the bond within the group and enhances overall group effectiveness.

Amazon Product Recommendations for Social Work Task Groups

During the course of your work in social work task groups, it is important to have the right tools and resources to support your efforts. Here are some recommended products from Amazon that can enhance the effectiveness of your task groups:

Amazon Product 1 : This product is specifically designed to streamline collaboration and communication among group members. It offers features such as shared task management, file sharing, and real-time communication tools, making it easier to stay organized and connected.

Amazon Product 2 : This product is a practical guidebook that provides valuable insights and strategies for running effective task groups. It offers step-by-step instructions, case examples, and helpful tips to enhance your group facilitation skills.

Amazon Product 3 : This product is a comprehensive resource that addresses the unique needs of social work task groups. It covers topics such as group dynamics, conflict resolution, and ethical considerations, providing valuable guidance for both novice and experienced group facilitators.

Social work task groups play a crucial role in addressing client, organizational, and community needs. By bringing together individuals with a common purpose, these groups contribute to the achievement of specific actions and the production of meaningful outcomes. To ensure the effectiveness of task groups, it is important to follow the principles of collaboration, communication, coordination, cooperation, and cohesion. Additionally, utilizing recommended products can further enhance the efficiency and productivity of these groups. Based on our research, the best product for social work task groups is Amazon Product 1 , which offers a wide range of features to support collaboration and communication within the group. Don’t hesitate to explore these products and implement them in your social work practice to optimize the outcomes of your task groups.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the factors necessary for effective functioning of a task group, what factors determine whether teams are successful, what are teamwork skills required to be an effective group member, what are the elements that make a group or team function effectively, what are examples of task groups in social work, related posts.

Happy Social Worker Week: Celebrating The Unsung Heroes

Social Work Jobs Birmingham Al – Find The Perfect Opportunity Today!

Dock Worker Jobs Near Me: Find Lucrative Opportunities

Montgomery Alabama Workers’ Compensation Lawyers

Mobile Alabama Workers’ Compensation Lawyers

Huntsville Alabama Workers’ Compensation Lawyers

Birmingham Alabama Workers’ Compensation Lawyers

Lora Turner

Lora Turner is an Experienced HR professional worked with the large organizations and holding 15 years of experience dealing with employee benefits. She holds expertise in simplifying the leave for the employee benefits. Contact us at: [email protected]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2 Understanding Group Formation and roles

Learning Objectives

• Explain the reasons why people join groups
• Identify what makes groups most effective
• Discuss the utility of descriptive models of group development
• Identify and discuss task-related group roles and behaviors
• Identify and discuss maintenance group roles and behaviors
• Identify and discuss negative group roles and behaviors

This chapter assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough understanding of groups. Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own objectives, yet we are also members of groups—groups that constrain us, guide us, and sustain us. Just as each of us influences the group and the people in the group, so, too, do groups change each one of us. Joining groups satisfies our need to belong, gain information and understanding through social comparison, define our sense of self and social identity, and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone. Groups are also practically significant, for much of the world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals. Success sometimes eludes our groups, but when group members learn to work together as a cohesive team their success becomes more certain.

Psychologists study groups because nearly all human activities—working, learning, worshiping, relaxing, playing, and even sleeping—occur in groups. The lone individual who is cut off from all groups is a rarity. Most of us live out our lives in groups, and these groups have a profound impact on our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Many psychologists focus their attention on single individuals, but social psychologists expand their analysis to include groups, organizations, communities, and even cultures.

This chapter examines the psychology of groups and group membership. It begins with a basic question: What is the psychological significance of groups? This chapter then reviews some of the key findings from studies of groups. Researchers have asked many questions about people and groups: Do people work as hard as they can when they are in groups? Are groups more cautious than individuals? Do groups make wiser decisions than single individuals? In many cases, the answers are not what common sense and folk wisdom might suggest. Finally, we will explore the three categories of common group roles that were identified by early group communication scholars. These role categories include task-related roles, maintenance roles, and negative roles that are considered to be self-centered or unproductive for the group (Benne & Sheats, 1948).

The Psychological Significance of Groups

The need to belong.

Across individuals, societies, and even eras, humans consistently seek inclusion over exclusion, membership over isolation, and acceptance over rejection. As Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995) conclude, humans have a need to belong: “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). And most of us satisfy this need by joining groups. When surveyed, 87.3% of Americans reported that they lived with other people, including family members, partners, and roommates (Davis & Smith, 2007). The majority, ranging from 50% to 80%, reported regularly doing things in groups, such as attending a sports event together, visiting one another for the evening, sharing a meal together, or going out as a group to see a movie (Putnam, 2000).

People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled. People who are accepted members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied. But should they be rejected by a group, they feel unhappy, helpless, and depressed. Studies of  ostracism —the deliberate exclusion from groups—indicate this experience is highly stressful and can lead to depression, confused thinking, and even aggression (Williams, 2007). When researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner to track neural responses to exclusion, they found that people who were left out of a group activity displayed heightened cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical pain sensations (Eisenberger et al., 2003). It hurts, quite literally, to be left out of a group.

Affiliation in Groups

Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, but they also provide members with information, assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger’s theory of social comparison   (1950, 1954) suggested that in many cases people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes. Stanley Schachter (1959) explored this process by putting individuals in ambiguous, stressful situations and asking them if they wished to wait alone or with others. He found that people  affiliate  in such situations—they seek the company of others.

Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us with reassurance and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer to join with others who are even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend who got a 78%? To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate. This process is known as  downward social comparison .

Identity and Membership

Groups are not only founts of information during times of ambiguity, they also help us answer the existentially significant question, “Who am I?” People are defined not only by their traits, preferences, interests, likes, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections, and group memberships. The self is not just a “me,” but also a “we.”

Even demographic qualities such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize ourselves based on these qualities. Social identity theory, for example, assumes that we don’t just classify  other people into such social categories as man, woman, White, Black, Latinx, elderly, or college student, but we also categorize ourselves. According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), social identities are directed by our memberships in particular groups. or social categories. If we strongly identify with these categories, then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups to ourselves, and so stereotype ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college students are intellectual, then we will assume we, too, are intellectual if we identify with that group (Hogg, 2001).

Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of self-worth, as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our  collective self-esteem  (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback, we can focus on our group’s success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to other groups, we frequently discover that we are members of the better group, and so can take pride in our superiority. By denigrating other groups, we elevate both our personal and our collective self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989).

Mark Leary’s (2007) sociometer model   goes so far as to suggest that “self-esteem is part of a sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people’s eyes” (p. 328). He maintains self-esteem is not just an index of one’s sense of personal value, but also an indicator of acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates how much fuel is left in the tank, a dip in self-esteem indicates exclusion from our group is likely. Disquieting feelings of self-worth, then, prompt us to search for and correct characteristics and qualities that put us at risk of social exclusion. Self-esteem is not just high self-regard, but the self-approbation that we feel when included in groups (Leary & Baumeister, 2000).

Evolutionary Advantages of Group Living

Groups may be humans’ most useful invention, for they provide us with the means to reach goals that would elude us if we remained alone. Individuals in groups can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individuals. In his theory of social integration, Moreland (1987) concludes that groups tend to form whenever “people become dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs” (p. 104). The advantages of group life may be so great that humans are biologically prepared to seek membership and avoid isolation. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, because groups have increased humans’ overall fitness for countless generations, individuals who carried genes that promoted solitude-seeking were less likely to survive and procreate compared to those with genes that prompted them to join groups (Darwin, 1859/1963). This process of natural selection culminated in the creation of a modern human who seeks out membership in groups instinctively, for most of us are descendants of “joiners” rather than “loners.”

Motivation and Performance

Social facilitation in groups.

Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Norman Triplett (1898) examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology. While watching bicycle races, Triplett noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against other racers than when they raced alone against the clock. To determine if the presence of others leads to the psychological stimulation that enhances performance, he arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turning a small reel as quickly as possible (see Figure 1). When he measured how quickly they turned the reel, he confirmed that children performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs compared to when they played alone (see Stroebe, 2012; Strube, 2005).

Triplett succeeded in sparking interest in a phenomenon now known as  social facilitation: the enhancement of an individual’s performance when that person works in the presence of other people. However, it remained for Robert Zajonc (1965) to specify when social facilitation does and does not occur. After reviewing prior research, Zajonc noted that the facilitating effects of an audience usually only occur when the task requires the person to perform dominant responses (i.e., ones that are well-learned or based on instinctive behaviors). If the task requires nondominant responses (i.e., novel, complicated, or untried behaviors that the organism has never performed before or has performed only infrequently) then the presence of others inhibits performance. Hence, students write poorer quality essays on complex philosophical questions when they labor in a group rather than alone (Allport, 1924), but they make fewer mistakes in solving simple, low-level multiplication problems with an audience or a co-actor than when they work in isolation (Dashiell, 1930).

Social facilitation, then, depends on the task: other people facilitate performance when the task is so simple that it requires only dominant responses, but others interfere when the task requires nondominant responses. However, a number of psychological processes combine to influence when social facilitation, not social interference, occurs. Studies of the challenge-threat response and brain imaging, for example, confirm that we respond physiologically and neurologically to the presence of others (Blascovich et al., 1999). Other people also can trigger evaluation apprehension,  particularly when we feel that our individual performance will be known to others, and those others might judge it negatively (Bond et al., 1996). The presence of other people can also cause perturbations in our capacity to concentrate on and process information (Harkins, 2006). Distractions due to the presence of other people have been shown to improve performance on certain tasks, such as the Stroop task , but undermine performance on more cognitively demanding tasks (Huguet et al., 1999).

Social Loafing

Groups usually outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing a tug-of-war game against a group will lose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, “Many hands make light the work” (Littlepage, 1991; Steiner, 1972).

Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. Studies of social facilitation confirmed the positive motivational benefits of working with other people on well-practiced tasks in which each member’s contribution to the collective enterprise can be identified and evaluated. But what happens when tasks require a truly collective effort? First, when people work together they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of efficiency—but they rarely do (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Three people in a tug-of-war competition, for example, invariably pull and pause at slightly different times, so their efforts are uncoordinated. The result is  coordination loss : the three-person group is stronger than a single person, but not three times as strong . Second, people just don’t exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor, nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display  social loafing (Latané, 1981).

Bibb Latané, Kip Williams, and Stephen Harkins (1979) examined both coordination losses and social loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of varying sizes. The students cheered alone or in 2- or 6-person groups, or they were lead to believe they were in 2- or 6-person groups (those in the “pseudo-groups” wore blindfolds and headsets that played masking sound). Groups generated more noise than solitary subjects, but the productivity dropped as the groups became larger in size. In dyads, each subject worked at only 66% of capacity, and in 6-person groups at 36%. Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups. If subjects thought that one other person was shouting with them, they shouted 82% as intensely, and if they thought five other people were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity. These losses in productivity were not due to coordination problems; this decline in production could be attributed only to a reduction in effort—to social loafing (Latané et al., 1979, Experiment 2).

Social loafing is not a rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals, they tend to “take it easy” if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work (George, 1992). People who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each member’s contributions: Some people just don’t work as much as they should to help the group reach its learning goals (Neu, 2012). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf (Karau & Williams, 1993).

Groups can, however, overcome this impediment to performance through  teamwork . A group may include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be set, work patterns structured, and a sense of group identity developed. Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved (Salas et al., 2009).

Researchers have identified three key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental representation of the task and group cohesion. Teams improve their performance over time as they develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting. Some semblance of this shared mental model , is present nearly from its inception, but as the team practices, differences among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation and their team diminish as a consensus becomes implicitly accepted (Tindale et al., 2008). Effective teams are also, in most cases, cohesive groups (Dion, 2000). Group cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, social integration, or unity of a group. In most cases, members of cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are united in their pursuit of collective, group-level goals. Members tend to enjoy their groups more when they are cohesive, and cohesive groups usually outperform ones that lack cohesion. This cohesion-performance relationship, however, is a complex one. Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion improves teamwork among members, but that performance quality influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994; Mullen et al., 1998). Cohesive groups also can be spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity (Seashore, 1954). Group cohesion will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter. Mutuality of Concern   is when group members develop a strong concern for one another and the success of the group.

GROUP DEVELOPMENT

From the time they are formed, groups evolve and can go through a variety of changes over the course of their life cycles. Researchers have sought to identify common patterns in group development. These are referred to as descriptive models (Beebe & Masterson, 2015). Descriptive models can help us make sense of our group experiences by describing what might be ‘normal’ or ‘typical’ group processes. In the following sections, we will discuss two examples of descriptive models of group development — Tuckman’s model and punctuated equilibrium.

TUCKMAN MODEL OF Group Development

American organizational psychologist Bruce Tuckman presented a robust model in 1965 that is still widely used today. Based on his observations of group behavior in a variety of settings, he proposed a four-stage map of group evolution, also known as Tuckman's model of group development (Tuckman, 1965). Later he enhanced the model by adding a fifth and final stage, the adjourning phase. Interestingly enough, just as an individual moves through developmental stages such as childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, so does a group, although in a much shorter period of time. According to this theory, in order to successfully facilitate a group, the leader needs to move through various leadership styles over time. Generally, this is accomplished by first being more directive, eventually serving as a coach, and later, once the group is able to assume more power and responsibility for itself, shifting to a delegator. While research has not confirmed that this is descriptive of how groups progress, knowing and following these steps can help groups be more effective. For example, groups that do not go through the storming phase early on will often return to this stage toward the end of the group process to address unresolved issues. Another example of the validity of the group development model involves groups that take the time to get to know each other socially in the forming stage. When this occurs, groups tend to handle future challenges better because the individuals have an understanding of each other’s needs.

In the forming stage , the group comes together for the first time. The members may already know each other or they may be total strangers. In either case, there is a level of formality, some anxiety, and a degree of guardedness as group members are not sure what is going to happen next. “Will I be accepted? What will my role be? Who has the power here?” These are some of the questions participants think about during this stage of group formation. Because of the large amount of uncertainty, members tend to be polite, conflict avoidant, and observant. They are trying to figure out the “rules of the game” without being too vulnerable. At this point, they may also be quite excited and optimistic about the task at hand, perhaps experiencing a level of pride at being chosen to join a particular group. Group members are trying to achieve several goals at this stage, although this may not necessarily be done consciously. First, they are trying to get to know each other. Often this can be accomplished by finding some common ground. Members also begin to explore group boundaries to determine what will be considered acceptable behavior. “Can I interrupt? Can I leave when I feel like it?” This trial phase may also involve testing the appointed leader or seeing if a leader emerges from the group. At this point, group members are also discovering how the group will work in terms of what needs to be done and who will be responsible for each task. This stage is often characterized by abstract discussions about issues to be addressed by the group; those who like to get moving can become impatient with this part of the process. This phase is usually short in duration, perhaps a meeting or two.

Once group members feel sufficiently safe and included, they tend to enter the storming phase . Participants focus less on keeping their guard up as they shed social facades, becoming more authentic and more argumentative. Group members begin to explore their power and influence, and they often stake out their territory by differentiating themselves from the other group members rather than seeking common ground. Discussions can become heated as participants raise contending points of view and values, or argue over how tasks should be done and who is assigned to them. It is not unusual for group members to become defensive, competitive, or jealous. They may even take sides or begin to form cliques within the group. Questioning and resisting direction from the leader is also quite common. “Why should I have to do this? Who designed this project in the first place? Why do I have to listen to you?” Although little seems to get accomplished at this stage, group members are becoming more authentic as they express their deeper thoughts and feelings. What they are really exploring is “Can I truly be me, have power, and be accepted?” During this chaotic stage, a great deal of creative energy that was previously buried is released and available for use, but it takes skill to move the group from storming to norming. In many cases, the group gets stuck in the storming phase.

Avoid Getting Stuck in the Storming Phase

There are several steps you can take to avoid getting stuck in the storming phase of group development. Try the following if you feel the group process you are involved in is not progressing:

• Normalize conflict . Let members know this is a natural phase in the group-formation process.
• Be inclusive . Continue to make all members feel included and invite all views into the room. Mention how diverse ideas and opinions help foster creativity and innovation.
• Make sure everyone is heard . Facilitate heated discussions and help participants understand each other.
• Support all group members . This is especially important for those who feel more insecure.
• Remain positive . This is a key point to remember about the group’s ability to accomplish its goal.
• Don’t rush the group’s development . Remember that working through the storming stage can take several meetings.

Once group members discover that they can be authentic and that the group is capable of handling differences without dissolving, they are ready to enter the next stage, norming.

“We survived!” is the common sentiment at the norming stage . Group members often feel elated at this point, and they are much more committed to each other and the group’s goal. Feeling energized by knowing they can handle the “tough stuff,” group members are now ready to get to work. Finding themselves more cohesive and cooperative, participants find it easy to establish their own ground rules (or norms ) and define their operating procedures and goals. The group tends to make big decisions, while subgroups or individuals handle the smaller decisions. Hopefully, at this point, the group is more open and respectful toward each other, and members ask each other for both help and feedback. They may even begin to form friendships and share more personal information with each other. At this point, the leader should become more of a facilitator by stepping back and letting the group assume more responsibility for its goal. Since the group’s energy is running high, this is an ideal time to host a social or team-building event.

Galvanized by a sense of shared vision and a feeling of unity, the group is ready to go into high gear. Members are more interdependent, individuality and differences are respected, and group members feel themselves to be part of a greater entity. At the performing stage , participants are not only getting the work done, but they also pay greater attention to how they are doing it. They ask questions like, “Do our operating procedures best support productivity and quality assurance? Do we have suitable means for addressing differences that arise so we can preempt destructive conflicts? Are we relating to and communicating with each other in ways that enhance group dynamics and help us achieve our goals? How can I further develop as a person to become more effective?” By now, the group has matured, becoming more competent, autonomous, and insightful. Group leaders can finally move into coaching roles and help members grow in skill and leadership.

Just as groups form, so do they end. For example, many groups or teams formed in a business context are project-oriented and therefore are temporary in nature. Alternatively, a working group may dissolve due to organizational restructuring. Just as when we graduate from school or leave home for the first time, these endings can be bittersweet, with group members feeling a combination of victory, grief, and insecurity about what is coming next. For those who like routine and bond closely with fellow group members, this transition can be particularly challenging. Group leaders and members alike should be sensitive to handling these endings respectfully and compassionately. An ideal way to close a group is to set aside time to debrief (“How did it all go? What did we learn?”), acknowledge each other, and celebrate a job well done.

The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

As you may have noted, the five-stage model we have just reviewed is a linear process. According to the model, a group progresses to the performing stage, at which point it finds itself in an ongoing, smooth-sailing situation until the group dissolves. In reality, subsequent researchers, most notably Joy H. Karriker, have found that the life of a group is much more dynamic and cyclical in nature (Karriker, 2005). For example, a group may operate in the performing stage for several months. Then, because of a disruption, such as a competing emerging technology that changes the rules of the game or the introduction of a new CEO, the group may move back into the storming phase before returning to performing. Ideally, any regression in the linear group progression will ultimately result in a higher level of functioning. Proponents of this cyclical model draw from behavioral scientist Connie Gersick’s study of punctuated equilibrium (Gersick, 1991).

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was first proposed in 1972 by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, who both believed that evolution occurred in rapid, radical spurts rather than gradually over time. Identifying numerous examples of this pattern in social behavior, Gersick found that the concept applied to organizational change. She proposed that groups remain fairly static, maintaining a certain equilibrium for long periods of time. Change during these periods is incremental, largely due to the resistance to change that arises when systems take root and processes become institutionalized. In this model, revolutionary change occurs in brief, punctuated bursts, generally catalyzed by a crisis or problem that breaks through the systemic inertia and shakes up the deep organizational structures in place. At this point, the organization or group has the opportunity to learn and create new structures that are better aligned with current realities. Whether the group does this is not guaranteed. In sum, in Gersick’s model, groups can repeatedly cycle through the storming and performing stages, with revolutionary change taking place during short transitional windows. For organizations and groups who understand that disruption, conflict, and chaos are inevitable in the life of a social system, these disruptions represent opportunities for innovation and creativity.

Review & Reflection Questions

• Why do people often join groups? What are some reasons you have joined groups in the past?
• Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Under what conditions?
• If you were a college professor, what would you do to increase the success of in-class groups and teams?
• What do descriptive models do for us? How might they be useful to groups?
• Have you observed a group going through these phases in the past? What can you learn from those experiences?

Task-Related Roles and Behaviors

Task roles and their related behaviors contribute directly to the group’s completion of a task or achievement of its goal or purpose. Task-related roles typically serve leadership, informational, or procedural functions. In this section, we will discuss the following roles and behaviors: task leader, expediter, information provider, information seeker, gatekeeper, and recorder.

Task Leader

Within any group, there may be a task leader who has a high group status because of his or her maturity, problem-solving abilities, knowledge, and/or leadership experience and skills and functions primarily to help the group complete its task (Cragan & Wright, 1991). This person may be a designated or emergent leader, but in either case, task leaders tend to talk more during group interactions than other group members and also tend to do more work in the group. Depending on the number of tasks a group has, there may be more than one task leader, especially if the tasks require different sets of skills or knowledge. Because of the added responsibilities of being a task leader, people in these roles may experience higher levels of stress. A task leader’s stresses, however, may be lessened through some of the maintenance role behaviors that we will discuss later.

Task-leader behaviors can be further divided into two types: substantive and procedural (Pavitt, 1999). The substantive leader is the “idea person” who communicates “big picture” thoughts and suggestions that feed group discussion. The procedural leader is the person who gives the most guidance, perhaps following up on the ideas generated by the substantive leader. A skilled and experienced task leader may be able to perform both of these roles, but when the roles are filled by two different people, the person considered the procedural leader is more likely than the substantive leader to be viewed by members as the overall group leader. This indicates that task-focused groups assign more status to the person who actually guides the group toward the completion of the task (a “doer”) than the person who comes up with ideas (the “thinker”).

The expediter is a task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals to monitor the group’s progress. An expediter doesn’t push group members mindlessly along toward the completion of their task; an expediter must have a good sense of when a topic has been sufficiently discussed or when a group’s extended focus on one area has led to diminishing returns. In such cases, the expediter may say, “Now that we’ve had a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of switching the office from PCs to Macs, which side do you think has more support?” or “We’ve spent half of this meeting looking for examples of what other libraries have done and haven’t found anything useful. Maybe we should switch gears so we can get something concrete done tonight.”

If you’ve ever worked in a restaurant, you’re probably familiar with an expediter’s role in the kitchen. The person working “expo” helps make sure that the timing on all the dishes for a meal works out and that each plate is correct before it goes out to the table. This is by no means an easy job since some entrées cook quicker than others and not everyone orders their burger the same way. So the expediter helps make order out of chaos by calling the food out to the kitchen in a particular order that logically works so that all the food will come up at the same time. Once the food is up, he or she also checks what’s on the plate against what’s on the ticket to make sure it matches. Expediting in a restaurant and a small group is like a dance that requires some flexible and creative thinking and an ability to stick to a time frame and assess progress. To avoid the perception that group members are being rushed, a skilled expediter can demonstrate good active-listening skills by paraphrasing what has been discussed and summarizing what has been accomplished in such a way that makes it easier for group members to see the need to move on.

Information Provider

The role of information provider includes behaviors that are more evenly shared than in other roles, as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences. When group members are brought together because they each have different types of information, early group meetings may consist of group members taking turns briefing each other on their area of expertise. In other situations, only one person in the group may be chosen because of his or her specialized knowledge and this person may be expected to be the primary information provider for all other group members. For example, I was asked to serve on a university committee that is reviewing our undergraduate learning goals. Since my official role is to serve as the “faculty expert” on the subcommittee related to speaking, I played a more central information-provider function for our group during most of our initial meetings. Since other people on the subcommittee weren’t as familiar with speaking and its place within higher education curriculum, it made sense that information-providing behaviors were not as evenly distributed in this case.

Information Seeker

The information seeker asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to the group’s task. The information sought may include factual information or group member opinions. In general, information seekers ask questions for clarification, but they can also ask questions that help provide an important evaluative function. Most groups could benefit from more critically oriented information-seeking behaviors. Critical questioning helps increase the quality of ideas and group outcomes and helps avoid groupthink. By asking for more information, people have to defend (in a nonadversarial way) and/or support their claims, which can help ensure that the information being discussed is credible, relevant, and thoroughly considered. When information seeking or questioning occurs as a result of poor listening skills, it risks negatively impacting the group. Skilled information providers and seekers are also good active listeners. They increase all group members’ knowledge when they paraphrase and ask clarifying questions about the information presented.

The gatekeeper manages the flow of conversation in a group to achieve an appropriate balance so that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way. The gatekeeper may prompt others to provide information by saying something like “Let’s each share one idea we have for a movie to show during Black History Month.” He or she may also help correct an imbalance between members who have provided much information already and members who have been quiet by saying something like “Aretha, we’ve heard a lot from you today. Let’s hear from someone else. Beau, what are your thoughts on Aretha’s suggestion?” Gatekeepers should be cautious about “calling people out” or at least making them feel that way. Instead of scolding someone for not participating, they should be invitational and ask a member to contribute to something specific instead of just asking if they have anything to add. Since gatekeepers make group members feel included, they also service the relational aspects of the group.

The recorder takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. The recorder is the only role that is essentially limited to one person at a time since in most cases it wouldn’t be necessary or beneficial to have more than one person recording. At less formal meetings there may be no recorder, while at formal meetings there is almost always a person who records meeting minutes, which are an overview of what occurred at the meeting. Each committee will have different rules or norms regarding the level of detail within and availability of the minutes. While some group’s minutes are required by law to be public, others may be strictly confidential. Even though a record of a group meeting may be valuable, the role of the recorder is often regarded as a low-status position, since the person in the role may feel or be viewed as subservient to the other members who can more actively contribute to the group’s functioning. Because of this, it may be desirable to have the role of the recorder rotate among members (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

Maintenance Roles and Behaviors

Maintenance roles and their corresponding behaviors function to create and maintain social cohesion and fulfill the interpersonal needs of group members. All these role behaviors require strong and sensitive interpersonal skills. The maintenance roles we will discuss in this section include social-emotional leader, supporter, tension releaser, harmonizer, and interpreter.

Social-Emotional Leader

The social-emotional leader within a group may perform a variety of maintenance roles and is generally someone who is well-liked by the other group members and whose role behaviors complement but don’t compete with the task leader. The social-emotional leader may also reassure and support the task leader when he or she becomes stressed. In general, the social-emotional leader is a reflective thinker who has good perception skills that he or she uses to analyze the group dynamics and climate and then initiate the appropriate role behaviors to maintain a positive climate. Unlike the role of task leader, this isn’t a role that typically shifts from one person to another. While all members of the group perform some maintenance role behaviors at various times, the social-emotional leader reliably functions to support group members and maintain a positive relational climate. Social-emotional leadership functions can actually become detrimental to the group and lead to less satisfaction among members when the maintenance behaviors being performed are seen as redundant or as too distracting from the task (Pavitt, 1999).

The role of supporter is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group members and provide emotional support as needed. The supporter’s work primarily occurs in one-on-one exchanges that are more intimate and in-depth than the exchanges that take place during full group meetings. While many group members may make supporting comments publicly at group meetings, these comments are typically superficial and/or brief. A supporter uses active empathetic listening skills to connect with group members who may seem down or frustrated by saying something like “Tayesha, you seemed kind of down today. Is there anything you’d like to talk about?” Supporters also follow up on previous conversations with group members to maintain the connections they’ve already established by saying things like “Alan, I remember you said your mom is having surgery this weekend. I hope it goes well. Let me know if you need anything.” The supporter’s communication behaviors are probably the least noticeable of any of the other maintenance roles, which may make this group member’s efforts seem overlooked. Leaders and other group members can help support the supporter by acknowledging his or her contributions.

Tension Releaser

Th e tension releaser is someone who is naturally funny and sensitive to the personalities of the group and the dynamics of any given situation and who uses these qualities to manage the frustration level of the group. Being funny is not enough to fulfill this role, as jokes or comments could indeed be humorous to other group members but be delivered at an inopportune time, which ultimately creates rather than releases tension. The healthy use of humor by the tension releaser performs the same maintenance function as the empathy employed by the harmonizer or the social-emotional leader, but it is less intimate and is typically directed toward the whole group instead of just one person. The tension releaser may start serving his or her function during the forming stage of group development when primary tensions are present due to the typical uncertainties present during initial interactions. The tension releaser may help “break the ice” or make others feel at ease during the group’s more socially awkward first meetings. When people make a failed attempt to release tension, they may be viewed as a joker, which is a self-interested role we will learn more about later.

The harmonizer role is played by group members who help manage the various types of group conflict that emerge during group communication. They keep their eyes and ears open for signs of conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates. For example, the harmonizer may sense that one group member’s critique of another member’s idea wasn’t received positively, and he or she may be able to rephrase the critique in a more constructive way, which can help diminish the other group member’s defensiveness. Harmonizers also deescalate conflict once it has already started—for example, by suggesting that the group take a break and then mediating between group members in a side conversation. These actions can help prevent conflict from spilling over into other group interactions. In cases where the whole group experiences conflict, the harmonizer may help lead the group in perception-checking discussions that help members see an issue from multiple perspectives. For harmonizers to be effective, it’s important that they be viewed as impartial and committed to the group as a whole rather than to one side of an issue or one person or faction within the larger group. A special kind of harmonizer that helps manage cultural differences within the group is the interpreter.

Interpreter

An interpreter helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared. Just as an interpreter at the United Nations acts as a bridge between two different languages, the interpreter can bridge identity differences between group members. Interpreters can help perform the other maintenance roles discussed with a special awareness of and sensitivity toward cultural differences. While a literal interpreter would serve a task-related function within a group, this type of interpreter may help support a person who feels left out of the group because he or she has a different cultural identity than the majority of the group. Interpreters often act as allies to people who are different even though the interpreter doesn’t share the specific cultural identity. The interpreter may help manage conflict that arises as a result of diversity, in this case, acting as an ambassador or mediator. Interpreters, because of their cultural sensitivity, may also take a proactive role to help address conflict before it emerges—for example, by taking a group member aside and explaining why his or her behavior or comments may be perceived as offensive.

Negative Roles and Behaviors

Group communication scholars began exploring the negative side of group member roles more than sixty years ago (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Studying these negative roles can help us analyze group interactions and potentially better understand why some groups are more successful than others. It’s important to acknowledge that we all perform some negative behaviors within groups but that those behaviors do not necessarily constitute a role. A person may temporarily monopolize a discussion to bring attention to his or her idea. If that behavior gets the attention of the group members and makes them realize they were misinformed or headed in a negative direction, then that behavior may have been warranted. Negative behaviors can be enacted with varying degrees of intensity and regularity, and their effects may range from mild annoyance to group failure. In general, the effects grow increasingly negative as they increase in intensity and frequency. While a single enactment of a negative role behavior may still harm the group, regular enactment of such behaviors would constitute a role, and playing that role is guaranteed to negatively impact the group. We will divide our discussion of negative roles into self-centered and unproductive roles.

Self-Centered Roles

The behaviors associated with all the self-centered roles divert attention from the task to the group member exhibiting the behavior. Although all these roles share in their quest to divert attention, they do it in different ways and for different reasons. The self-centered roles we will discuss are the central negative, monopolizer, self-confessor, insecure compliment seeker, and joker (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

Central Negative

The central negative argues against most of the ideas and proposals discussed in the group and often emerges as a result of a leadership challenge during group formation. The failed attempt to lead the group can lead to feelings of resentment toward the leader and/or the purpose of the group, which then manifest in negative behaviors that delay, divert, or block the group’s progress toward achieving its goal. This scenario is unfortunate because the central negative is typically a motivated and intelligent group member who can benefit the group if properly handled by the group leader or other members. Group communication scholars suggest that the group leader or leaders actively incorporate central negatives into group tasks and responsibilities to make them feel valued and to help diminish any residual anger, disappointment, or hurt feelings from the leadership conflict (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). Otherwise the central negative will continue to argue against the proposals and decisions of the group, even when they may be in agreement. In some cases, the central negative may unintentionally serve a beneficial function if his or her criticisms prevent groupthink.

Monopolizer

The monopolizer is a group member who makes excessive verbal contributions, preventing equal participation by other group members. In short, monopolizers like to hear the sound of their own voice and do not follow typical norms for conversational turn-taking. Some people are well-informed, charismatic, and competent communicators who can get away with impromptu lectures and long stories, but monopolizers do not possess the magnetic qualities of such people. A group member’s excessive verbal contributions are more likely to be labeled as monopolizing when they are not related to the task or when they provide unnecessary or redundant elaboration. Some monopolizers do not intentionally speak for longer than they should. Instead, they think they are making a genuine contribution to the group. These folks likely lack sensitivity to nonverbal cues, or they would see that other group members are tired of listening or annoyed. Other monopolizers just like to talk and don’t care what others think. Some may be trying to make up for a lack of knowledge or experience. This type of monopolizer is best described as a dilettante, or an amateur who tries to pass himself or herself off as an expert.

There are some subgroups of behaviors that fall under the monopolizer’s role. The “stage hog” monopolizes discussion with excessive verbal contributions and engages in one-upping and narcissistic listening. One-upping is a spotlight-stealing strategy in which people try to verbally “out-do” others by saying something like “You think that’s bad? Listen to what happened to me!” They also listen to others to find something they can connect back to themselves, not to understand the message. The stage hog is like the diva that refuses to leave the stage to let the next performer begin. Unlike a monopolizer, who may engage in his or her behaviors unknowingly, stage hogs are usually aware of what they’re doing.

The “egghead” monopolizes the discussion with excessive contributions that are based in actual knowledge but that exceed the level of understanding of other group members or the needs of the group (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The egghead is different from the dilettante monopolizer discussed earlier because this person has genuine knowledge and expertise on a subject, which may be useful to the group. But like the monopolizer and stage hog, the egghead’s excessive contributions draw attention away from the task, slow the group down, and may contribute to a negative group climate. The egghead may be like an absentminded professor who is smart but lacks the social sensitivity to tell when he or she has said enough and is now starting to annoy other group members. This type of egghead naively believes that other group members care as much about the subject as he or she does. The second type of egghead is more pompous and monopolizes the discussion to flaunt his or her intellectual superiority. While the first type of egghead may be tolerated to a point by the group and seen as eccentric but valuable, the second type of egghead is perceived more negatively and more quickly hurts the group. In general, the egghead’s advanced knowledge of a subject and excessive contributions can hurt the group’s potential for synergy, since other group members may defer to the egghead expert, which can diminish the creativity that comes from outside and non-expert perspectives.

Self-Confessor

The self-confessor is a group member who tries to use group meetings as therapy sessions for issues not related to the group’s task. Self-confessors tend to make personal self-disclosures that are unnecessarily intimate. While it is reasonable to expect that someone experiencing a personal problem may want to consult with the group, especially if that person has formed close relationships with other group members, a self-confessor consistently comes to meetings with drama or a personal problem. A supporter or gatekeeper may be able to manage some degree of self-confessor behavior, but a chronic self-confessor is likely to build frustration among other group members that can lead to interpersonal conflict and a lack of cohesion and productivity. Most groups develop a norm regarding how much personal information is discussed during group meetings, and some limit such disclosures to the time before or after the meeting, which may help deter the self-confessor.

Insecure Compliment Seeker

The insecure compliment seeker wants to know that he or she is valued by the group and seeks recognition that is often not task related. For example, they don’t want to be told they did a good job compiling a report; they want to know that they’re a good person or attractive or smart—even though they might not be any of those things. In short, they try to get validation from their relationships with group members—validation that they may be lacking in relationships outside the group. Or they may be someone who continually seeks the approval of others or tries to overcompensate for insecurity through excessive behaviors aimed at eliciting compliments. For example, if a group member wears a tight-fitting t-shirt in hopes of drawing attention to his physique but doesn’t receive any compliments from the group, he may say, “My girlfriend said she could tell I’ve been working out. What do you think?”

The joker is a person who consistently uses sarcasm, plays pranks, or tells jokes, which distracts from the overall functioning of the group. In short, the joker is an incompetent tension releaser. Rather than being seen as the witty group member with good timing, the joker is seen as the “class clown.” Like the insecure compliment seeker, the joker usually seeks attention and approval because of an underlying insecurity. A group’s leader may have to intervene and privately meet with a person engaging in joker behavior to help prevent a toxic or unsafe climate from forming. This may be ineffective, though, if a joker’s behaviors are targeted toward the group leader, which could indicate that the joker has a general problem with authority. In the worst-case scenario, a joker may have to be expelled from the group if his or her behavior becomes violent, offensive, illegal, or otherwise unethical.

Unproductive Roles

There are some negative roles in group communication that do not primarily function to divert attention away from the group’s task to a specific group member. Instead, these unproductive roles just prevent or make it more difficult for the group to make progress. These roles include the blocker, withdrawer, aggressor, and doormat.

The blocker intentionally or unintentionally keeps things from getting done in the group. Intentionally, a person may suggest that the group look into a matter further or explore another option before making a final decision even though the group has already thoroughly considered the matter. They may cite a procedural rule or suggest that input be sought from additional people to delay progress. Behaviors that lead to more information gathering can be good for the group, but when they are unnecessary they are blocking behaviors. Unintentionally, a group member may set blocking behaviors into motion by missing a meeting or not getting his or her work done on time. People can also block progress by playing the ‘airhead’ role, which is the opposite of the egghead role discussed earlier. An ‘airhead’ skirts his or her responsibilities by claiming ignorance when he or she actually understands or intentionally performs poorly on a task so the other group members question his or her intellectual abilities to handle other tasks (Cragan & Wright, 1999). Since exhibiting airhead behaviors gets a person out of performing tasks, they can also be a tactic of a withdrawer, which we will discuss next.

Social Loafer

A social loafer , also known as a withdrawer, mentally and/or physically removes herself or himself from group activities and only participates when forced to. When groups exceed five members, the likelihood of having a member exhibit social loafing behaviors increases. For example, a member may attend meetings and seemingly pay attention but not contribute to discussions or not volunteer to take on tasks, instead waiting on other members to volunteer first. Social loafers often make other group members dread group work. A member may also avoid eye contact with other group members, sit apart from the group, or orient his or her body away from the group to avoid participation. Social loafers generally do not exhibit active listening behaviors. At the extreme, a group member may stop attending group meetings completely. Adopting a problem-solving model that requires equal participation, starting to build social cohesion early, and choosing a meeting space and seating arrangement that encourages interactivity can help minimize withdrawing behaviors. Gatekeepers, supporters, and group leaders can also intervene after early signs of withdrawing to try to reengage the group member.

An aggressor exhibits negative behaviors such as putting others’ ideas down, attacking others personally when they feel confronted or insecure, competing unnecessarily to “win” at the expense of others within the group, and being outspoken to the point of distraction. An aggressor’s behaviors can quickly cross the fine line between being abrasive or dominant and being unethical. For example, a person vigorously defending a position that is relevant and valid is different from a person who claims others’ ideas are stupid but has nothing to contribute. As with most behaviors, the aggressors fall into a continuum based on their intensity. On the more benign end of the continuum is assertive behavior, toward the middle is aggressive behavior, and on the unethical side is bullying behavior. At their worst, an aggressor’s behaviors can lead to shouting matches or even physical violence within a group. Establishing group rules and norms that set up a safe climate for discussion and include mechanisms for temporarily or permanently removing a group member who violates that safe space may proactively prevent such behaviors.

While we all need to take one for the team sometimes or compromise for the sake of the group, the doormat is a person who is chronically submissive to the point that it hurts the group’s progress (Cragan & Wright, 1999). Doormat behaviors include quickly giving in when challenged, self-criticism, and claims of inadequacy. Some people who exhibit doormat behaviors may have difficulty being self-assured and assertive, may be conflict-avoidant, or may even feel that their behaviors will make other group members like them. Other people play the martyr and make sure to publicly note their “sacrifices” for the group, hoping to elicit praise or attention. If their sacrifices aren’t recognized, they may engage in further negative behaviors such as whining and/or insecure compliment seeking.

• Which of the task-related roles do you think has the greatest potential of going wrong and causing conflict within the group and why?
• Which maintenance role do you think you’ve performed the best in previous group experiences? How did your communication and behaviors help you perform the role’s functions? Which maintenance role have you had the most difficulty or least interest in performing? Why?
• Describe a situation in which you have witnessed a person playing one of the self-centered roles in a group. How did the person communicate? What were the effects? Now describe a situation in which you have witnessed a person playing one of the unproductive roles in a group. How did the person communicate? What were the effects?
• Allport, F. H. (1924).  Social psychology . Houghton Mifflin.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.  Psychological Bulletin, 117 , 497–529.
• Beebe, S.A., & Masterson, J.T. (2015).  Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49.
• Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 68–77.
• Bond, C. F., Atoum, A. O., & VanLeeuwen, M. D. (1996). Social impairment of complex learning in the wake of public embarrassment.  Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18 , 31–44.
• Bormann, E. G., & Bormann, N. C. (1998). Effective Small Group Communication ( 4th ed.). Burgess Intl Group.
• Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1991). Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach ( 3rd ed.) West Publishing.
• Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 , 60–67.
• Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma.  Psychological Review, 96 , 608–630.
• Darwin, C. (1859/1963).  The origin of species . Washington Square Press.
• Dashiell, J. F. (1930). An experimental analysis of some group effects.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25 , 190–199.
• Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (2007).  General social surveys (1972–2006) . [machine-readable data file]. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center & Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Retrieved from http://www.norc.uchicago.edu
• Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 497–509.
• Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct.  Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4 , 7–26.
• Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion.  Science, 302 , 290–292.
• Emerson, R. W. (2004).  Essays and poems by Ralph Waldo Emerson . Barnes & Noble. (originally published 1903).
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes.  Human Relations, 7 , 117–140.
• Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication.  Psychological Review, 57 , 271–282.
• George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations.  Academy of Management Journal, 35 , 191–202.
• Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review , 16 , 10–36.
• Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance relationship.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3) , 436–455.
• Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.),  Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes  (pp. 56–85). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 1011–1025.
• Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 , 681–706.
• Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 11 , 54–64.
• Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact.  American Psychologist, 36 , 343–356.
• Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 822–832.
• Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self.  Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 317–344.
• Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory.  Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32 , 1–62.
• Littlepage, G. E. (1991). Effects of group size and task characteristics on group performance: A test of Steiner’s model.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 , 449–456.
• Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups.  Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 , 80–110.
• Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.  Psychological Bulletin, 115 , 210–227.
• Mullen, B., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics.  Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2 , 213–229.
• Neu, W. A. (2012). Unintended cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of group assignments.  Journal of Marketing Education, 34 (1), 67–81.
• Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1 , 248–265.
• Pavitt, C.. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. Sage.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000).  Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community . Simon & Schuster.
• Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.),  Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 39–79). Routledge.
• Schachter, S. (1959).  The psychology of affiliation . Stanford University Press.
• Seashore, S. E. (1954).  Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group . Institute for Social Research.
• Steiner, I. D. (1972).  Group process and productivity . Academic Press.
• Stroebe, W. (2012). The truth about Triplett (1898), but nobody seems to care.  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (1), 54–57.
• Strube, M. J. (2005). What did Triplett really find? A contemporary analysis of the first experiment in social psychology.  American Journal of Psychology, 118 , 271–286.
• Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L.W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall
• Tindale, R. S., Stawiski, S., & Jacobs, E. (2008). Shared cognition and group learning. In V. I. Sessa & M. London (Eds.),  Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 73–90). Taylor & Francis Group.
• Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition.  American Journal of Psychology, 9 , 507–533.
• Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin , 63 , 384–399.
• Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism.  Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 425–452.
• Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation.  Science, 149 , 269–274.

Authors & Attribution

The sections “The Psychological Significance of Groups” and “Motivation and Performance” are adapted and condensed from: Forsyth, D. R. (2019). The psychology of groups . In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds.), Noba textbook series: Psychology. DEF publishers. nobaproject.com. This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The section “Group Development” is adapted from “ Group Dynamics ” in Organizational Behaviour from the University of Minnesota. The book was adapted from a work produced and distributed under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA) by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution. This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license .

The section “roles”  is adapted from “ Group Member Roles ” in Communication in the Real World from the University of Minnesota. The book was adapted from a work produced and distributed under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA) by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution. This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license .

the deliberate exclusion from groups

the theory that people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes

feelings of self-worth that are based on evaluation of relationships with others and membership in social groups

a conceptual analysis of self-evaluation processes that theorizes self-esteem functions to psychologically monitor of one’s degree of inclusion and exclusion in social groups

the enhancement of an individual’s performance when that person works in the presence of other people

members who contribute less to the group than other members or than they would if working alone. Social loafers expect that no one will notice their behaviors or that others will pick up their slack

the process by which members of the team combine their knowledge, skills, abilities, and other resources through a coordinated series of actions to produce an outcome

knowledge, expectations, conceptualizations, and other cognitive representations that members of a group have in common pertaining to the group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources

the degree to which group members identify with and like the group’s task and other group members

models of group development help us make sense of our group experiences by describing what might be 'normal' or 'typical' group processes. They reflect common patterns researchers have observed in groups

a descriptive model of group development developed by Tuckman that proposes groups move through five stages —forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning

a stage of group development in which group members experience uncertainty and seek to get to know each other

a phase of group development marked by conflict as group members struggle to explore their power and influence within the group

a phase of group development when groups start to reach agreements, become more cohesive and establish ground rules (norms)

a phase in group development when groups are operating at their peak with increased task effectiveness and problem solving

a model of group development that suggests that in groups remain relatively static for long periods of time and then change occurs in brief, punctuated bursts, generally catalyzed by a crisis or problem that breaks through the systemic inertia

expected behaviors or functions of group members

group roles that contribute directly to the group’s completion of a task or achievement of its goal or purpose. Task-related roles typically serve leadership, informational, or procedural functions

roles that function to create and maintain social cohesion and fulfill the interpersonal needs of group members

roles that can harm the group by either diverting attention away from the task at hand or making it difficult for the group to make progress

roles that divert attention from the task to the group member exhibiting the behavior. Examples include the central negative, monopolizer, self-confessor, insecure compliment seeker, and joker

group roles that prevent or make it more difficult for the group to make progress. Examples of these roles include the blocker, withdrawer, aggressor, and doormat

Working in Small Groups Copyright © 2020 by Jasmine R. Linabary, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Module 9: Group Dynamics

Types of groups, learning outcomes.

• Describe various types of groups

If you went to high school, then you already know more about groups than you think! Were you one of the cool kids? One of the brainy, studious ones? Did you join the chess club? French club? The football team? All of these, the clubs and cliques you were a part of, and the ones you weren’t, are groups. And they can be classified in a number of ways. Let’s talk about the types of groups one might encounter, in life and especially in the workplace.

A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve a particular objective. Groups are either formal or informal. A formal group is a designated work group, one that is defined by an organization based on its hierarchical structure, with designated tasks related to its function. In the workplace, that might be the finance group or the human resources group.

Practice Question

Formal groups are relatively permanent and usually work under a single supervisor, although the structure of the formal group may vary. For example, the finance group works under the chief financial officer at an organization. There may be groups within the finance group, like the accounts payable group and the treasury group, each with their own supervisor as well.

Task forces and committees are also formal groups, because they’ve been created with formal authority within an organization. Task forces are usually temporary and set up for a particular purpose, while committees can be more permanent in nature, like a planning committee or a finance committee, and can be an integral part of an organization’s operation.

Informal groups are important in that they exist outside the formal hierarchy of an organization but are the structure of personal and social interactions that managers are wise to respect and understand. Employees motivate one another, informally (and formally) train one another and support one another in times of stress by providing guidance and sharing burdens. In fact, if one employee in an informal group is subject to an action by the organization that the others see as unfair, strikes can happen until that situation is corrected.

Within the group categories of formal and informal, there are sub-classifications:

• Command group. This is a formal group, determined by the organization’s hierarchal chart and composed of the individuals that report to a particular manager. For instance, the manager of training has a command group of his employees, the training group.
• Task group. This is also a type of formal group, and the term is used to describe those groups that have been brought together to complete a task. This does not mean, though, that it’s just a group of people reporting to a single supervisor. The training group, used in the last example, is not the same as the task group that provides onboarding training for a new employee. The training department might provide the outline for how a new employee is brought into the company, but an onboarding task group would include that employee’s manager, an IT manager who equips the new employee with a computer and phone, and so on.
• Interest group. An interest group is usually informal, and is a group of people who band together to attain a specific objective with which each member is concerned. Within an organization, this might be a group of people who come together to demand better working conditions or a better employee evaluation process. Outside of an organization, this term is frequently used in political situations to describe groups that give a point of view a voice. This includes groups like the National Rifle Association, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP.
• Friendship group. These are groups of people who have come together because they share common ideals, common interests or other similarities, like age or ethnic background.

People join groups for a number of reasons. They might be looking for affiliation, a fulfillment of social needs. Groups also add to an individual’s sense of security, status or self-esteem. Or perhaps a goal is easier to accomplish if a group of people concentrate on achieving it, pooling their talents and knowledge. Or, the sheer size of the group might provide the power and influence needed to accomplish the goal.

Groups are an inevitability in the workplace. Understanding how and why they come together is the first step in understanding how they function and how they can function well. However, there are plenty of arguments out there for individual work, and understanding the individual’s need to succeed in the workplace independent of others. Which is right? We’ll discuss that next.

• Types of Groups. Authored by : Freedom Learning Group. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• All Hands On Deck. Authored by : Perry Grone. Provided by : Unsplash. Located at : https://unsplash.com/photos/lbLgFFlADrY . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved . License Terms : Unsplash License

9.3 Managing Effective Work Groups

• How do managers develop group cohesiveness, which facilitates organizational goal attainment?

We have examined in detail the nature and structure of work groups, noting that work groups differ along such dimensions as size, norms, and roles. Some groups are more cohesive than others. In view of these differences, it is interesting to ask how managers can facilitate increased work group effectiveness. To answer this question, we will make use of Hackman’s model of group effectiveness. 26 According to this model, illustrated in Exhibit 9.9 , the effectiveness of a work group is influenced by environmental factors, design factors, and task-related interpersonal processes. These three factors combine to influence what are called intermediate criteria, which, in turn, combine with the nature of the work technology to determine ultimate group effectiveness.

What Is Work Group Effectiveness?

The first question to raise concerning work group effectiveness is what we mean by the concept itself. According to Hackman’s model, effectiveness is defined in terms of three criteria:

• Productive output . The productive output of the group must meet or exceed the quantitative and qualitative standards defined by the organization.
• Personal need satisfaction . Groups are effective if membership facilitates employee need satisfaction.
• Capacity for future cooperation . Effective groups employ social processes that maintain or enhance the capacity of their members to work together on subsequent tasks. Destructive social processes are avoided so members can develop long-term cohesiveness and effectiveness.

Determinants of Work-Group Effectiveness

Group effectiveness is largely determined by three factors that have been called intermediate criteria . These factors are as follows:

• Group effort . The amount of effort group members exert toward task accomplishment.
• Group knowledge and skill . The amount of knowledge and skills possessed by group members that are available for group effort and performance.
• Task performance strategies . The extent to which the group’s strategies for task performance (that is, how it analyzes and attempts to solve problems) are appropriate.

Although the relative importance of each of these three intermediate factors may vary, all three are important. Without considerable group effort, appropriate skills and knowledge, and a clear strategy for task completion, groups are unlikely to be effective.

An important influence on the relative importance of these three variables is the nature of work technology . This includes the equipment and materials used in manufacture, the prescribed work procedures, and the physical layout of the work site. For example, if jobs are highly routinized, individual skills and knowledge may be somewhat less important than simple effort. On more complex tasks, however, such as research and development, effort alone will be of little help without concomitant skills and knowledge. Hence, although the relative importance of these three variables may vary with the job technology, all should be considered in any effort to understand determinants of work group effectiveness in a particular situation.

Finally, it must be recognized that these determinants of effectiveness are themselves influenced by three sets of factors (shown at the left-hand side of Exhibit 9.9 ). First, we must recognize a series of environmental context factors, such as the company’s reward system, training programs, job descriptions, and so forth. Second are several design factors, including group structure, member composition, and performance norms. Finally, the role of interpersonal processes —such as efforts among group members and management to reduce conflict, foster commitment, and share knowledge—must be recognized. These three sets of factors, then, are largely responsible for determining the so-called intermediate criteria that, in turn, combine with appropriate job technologies to determine work group effectiveness.

Implications for Group Management

On the basis of this analysis of group processes in work organizations, we can identify several actions managers can take in order to help groups to be more effective.

Increased Managerial Awareness. To begin, managers can make themselves more aware of the nature of groups and the functions groups perform for individuals. By learning why individuals join groups, for example, managers should be able to better understand the motivational implications of group dynamics. Is high group cohesiveness in a particular group a result of high commitment to the organization and its goals, or is it a result of alienation from the organization?

Sensitivity to Group Norms. Managers can be sensitive to group norms and the extent to which they facilitate or inhibit group and organizational performance. The potency of group norms has been clearly established. It has also been shown that company actions can increase or decrease the likelihood that norms will work to the benefit of the organization. Much of the thrust of current organizational development efforts is to use process consultation techniques to develop group norms that are compatible with company goals.

Understanding Pressures for Conformity. Much has been said in the research literature about the effects of groups on individual conformity and deviance. Groups often place significant pressures on individuals to conform, and they punish deviants by such means as ostracism. From a managerial standpoint, conformity can represent a mixed blessing. On one hand, there are many work situations in which managers typically want workers to conform to standard operating procedures (this is called dependable role performance ). On the other hand, employees must be sufficiently free to take advantage of what they believe to be unique or important opportunities on behalf of the organization ( innovative and spontaneous behavior ). If pressures toward conformity are too strong, this spontaneity may be lost, along with unique opportunities for the organization.

Harnessing Group Cohesiveness. Where it is desirable to develop highly cohesive groups, managers can show employees how group members can help one another by working together. It is important to note, however, that group cohesiveness by itself does not guarantee increased group effectiveness. Instead, managers must take the lead in showing group members why they benefit from working toward organizational goals. One way to accomplish this is through the reward systems used by the organization.

In short, there are several lessons for managers here concerning the effects of group dynamics on performance and effectiveness. The lesson is clear: managers must be sensitive to and deal with group processes in the workplace. Without doing so, the manager and the company are destined at best to achieve mediocre results.

Concept Check

• Why must managers be sensitive to and deal with group processes in the workplace

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: J. Stewart Black, David S. Bright
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Organizational Behavior
• Publication date: Jun 5, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/9-3-managing-effective-work-groups

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

21 Group Roles for Students (List of Examples)

Group roles help to distribute tasks fairly. They may also prevent duplication of work, achieve efficiency, and ensure group member accountability .

For students, group tasks are assigned to help students develop soft skills like teamwork and collaboration . These skills are important for workplace readiness.

Examples of group roles for students include: facilitator, arbitrator, monitor, note-taker, and timekeeper. Below, 21 different types of group roles are outlined for you to pick from for your own group tasks.

Group Roles for Students

1. Facilitator – The facilitator is a person who guides the group’s discussions. They may come to the group discussion with a set of discussion questions to ask, prompt quieter team members to see what their opinions are, and ask ‘devil’s advocate’ questions to help improve the group discussion and achieve a better outcome.

2. Arbitrator/Haromonizer – The arbitrator steps up to ensure the group achieves common consensus. Once group members have presented their ideas and opinions, the arbitrator will help the group to find shared consensus on a way forward. They might ask team members to come to compromise, find ways to include all viewpoints, or identify ways team members’ views are congruent. A good strategy for the arbitrator is to draw up a venn diagram to visualize points of overlap between team members’ views.

3. Monitor – The monitor keeps account of objects, supplies, and other items within the team. They will know who owns what items, and which items are shared team items. They may have a check-in/check-out sheet to ensure all items are accounted for. Because this is a mostly accounting role, the monitor may also have another group role at the same time.

4. Notetaker – The notetaker will take minutes in all meetings. They should be accountable for sharing those notes after the meeting and cleaning them up so they are easy for all team members to read. It’s a good idea for the notetaker to also write down what the outcome of the meeting was, what actions will take place after the meeting, and who is responsible for which action.

5. Time Keeper – The timekeeper ensures that everything in the meeting gets enough time to be discussed. This may mean that they encourage the team to get started instead of socializing at the start, or encourage the team to move on if one topic is being dwelled upon at the expense of others. The time keeper can also keep track of how long each task will take so the entire team project is completed in time. In other words, they will set milestones for different tasks to be completed.

6. Devil’s advocate – The devil’s advocate’s entire role is to pick holes in the current project and identify weaknesses. This is a hard role because you’re going to be being critical of others. Make sure you’re not too harsh, and let people know when you’re wearing your “devil’s advocate” hat so they know you’re playing a role and not just being snarky!

7. IT Guru – The IT guru is in charge of all things technology. They might make sure there is space booked in the library with the right IT equipment, organize the electronic equipment for a class presentation, and create the animations for the team’s slide deck.

8. Reporter – The reporter is the designated person who gives the final presentation to the teacher or class. They might be the best speaker or presentor of the group. However, they need to be a representative of the whole group and not just say what they want. Sometimes, every group member is expected to take this role in equal measure during a presentation.

9. Researcher – Sometimes, a group may decide to allocate one person the role of ‘researcher’. This person is tasked with going away and gathering further information on a topic that they team has identified as an area wher emore knowledge is required. They will come back to team meetings later on with what they found. To be good at this role, you need to have strong media literacy skills.

10. Mentor – The mentor is usually a team member who is more experienced and able to guide the team through their project. This mentor should be there to provide support but allow the team members to lead. Mentors encourage and help without being overly intrusive. They might know the right questions to ask or have great advice during times of adversity.

11. Leader – Some teams assign a leader who will be the designated ‘head’ of the task. There are many different types of leadership that the group will have to figure out. For example, can the leader overrule the group or would you prefer a democratic leadership style ? The leader might also be expected to delegate tasks to the rest of the team.

12. Servant Leader – Another type of leadership role in the group could be the ‘servant leader’. This is a hard-working leader whose every task is focused on serving the team and the group goals.

13. Autocratic Leader – The autocratic leader is a firm authority figure whose job is to make all the final decisions. The buck stops with them, but they might have to overrule their team members if they disagree with them.

14. Pacesetting Leader – The pacesetting leader is the type of leader whose role is to set high expectations for the team. Like the lead runner in a marathon, the pacesetting leader moves the fastest and works the hardest to show the team how it’s done.

15. Charismatic Leader (Motivator) – The charismatic leader is a motivator. Your group might assign a charismatic leader if there’s one person everyone respects for their ability to motivate a team and the whole group knows this leader will get the most out of the team.

16. Prioritizer – The prioritizer’s role is to make sure the group is focused on the things that matter and will achieve progress. In a meeting, the prioritizer will choose which tasks should be raised, and at the end of the meeting, they may create a hirearchy of to-do tasks so the group knows which tasks need to be done most urgency.

17. Diverger – The diverger’s role is to put on a ‘ divergent thinking ’ hat. Divergent thinking is all about thinking about multiple possible solutions to a single problem. If there’s a task that requires divergent thinking ( such as brainstorming ), the diverger will take the lead in the discussion.

18. Converger – The converger’s role is to put on a ‘convergent thinking’ hat. Once the team has gathered a bunch of data points, the converger tries to bring those data points together to find a single best solution to the problem.

19. Runner – The runner’s role is to run tasks for the team. This role is often given to the intern or assistant who works on the periphery of the group. They are not as required in group discussion and while their input is welcome, they can also leave the group to run tasks in the middle of sessions if needed.

20. Wildcard – The wildcard steps in when another group member is missing. One day they might be the note taker and the next they might be the IT Guru. While they don’t have one clear role, they need to be skilled enough to step into any role at short notice, so they’re a valuable asset.

21. Checker – The checker reviews everyone else’s work to make sure it meets a minimum standard. They might be the best at grammar and spelling, for example, or they might peer review others’ work to make sure it’s factually accurate and doesn’t have flaws in their arguments.

How to Assign Group Roles

The group dynamics of every group is different, so there is no best way to assign group roles. Negotiate with your team and solicit advice from your teacher.

Below are some suggested strategies for assigning roles:

• Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each group member: Simply assigning a title is not enough. List 5 to 10 responsibilities for each role and state when those responsibilities should be exercised. This gives group members clarity on what they need to do. It may also ensure transparency and performance standards.
• Assign roles based on group members’ strengths (and weaknesses): If you have a group member who is particularly good at computers, it makes sense to make them the IT guru. If there’s a group member with great organizational skills , they might be a natural fit for the timekeeper. If you’ve got a group member who is an excellent speaker, it makes sense to make them the ‘reporter’, and so on. Group members may also nominate roles that they know are their weaknesses to avoid being placed in positions where they may not be comfortable. 
• Allow all members to have input: Too often, a domineering group member will assign roles without fully consulting group members or asking for their input.
• Consider rotating roles: To prevent burnout and ensure group members get a chance at a variety of roles, you may want to rotate roles between group members. For example, if you have three projects to complete, rotate roles after each project. This can help resolve disputes if multiple members want the same roles.
• Be flexible: Be open to adjusting roles and even sharing roles between group members. Remember that you’ll never always get your own way. Furthermore, part-way through the tasks, you may find changes on-the-fly are necessary. Be open to this.

If there is one piece of advice I can give to my students, it’s to remind them that you’ll never get your own way when completing group tasks. In fact, you might need to put aside the idea of getting A+ grades and focus on the intrinsic value of the task: to learn the social skills of working with people who have different perspectives, skills, and motivations to you. Remember that this is practice for the workplace where you’ll be working in groups with interpersonal conflicts on a daily basis.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social-Emotional Learning (Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is IQ? (Intelligence Quotient)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

BUS603: Managing People

Work Groups

Work groups: basic considerations, types of groups.

There are two primary types of groups: formal and informal. Moreover, within these two types, groups can be further differentiated on the basis of their relative degree of permanence. The resulting four types are shown in Table 9.1.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Manage a Cross-Functional Team

• David Burkus

Start by getting clear on how you’ll communicate.

Cross-functional teams — those with people from different departments who have varied expertise — are becoming more common, as is the rise of project-based work arrangements.  Early in your career, you may even find that your first “real” leadership role is managing a newly formed, cross-functional team for a specific and short-term project. There are a few key actions new leaders can take to get their team off to a great start.

• Establish goals and roles. Each member has different knowledge, skills, abilities, and past experiences. As the team leader, it’s important to establish the scope of the project quickly, deliberate on the tasks required, and facilitate a discussion around who on the team would be best suited for different tasks. Resist the urge to assign tasks to whomever volunteers first, instead think who fits the task best.
• Set communication norms. Just as your team members will bring different knowledge, skills, and abilities, they’ll also bring their own unique work and communication preferences. Take some time during the initial project kickoff to discuss those work and communication preferences. Failure to establish collaboration norms tells teammates they can work and communicate however they want, making it more likely for messages to get missed.
• Build safety and candor. To generate ideas and solve problems, we need to lower inhibitions and create a culture where each member can be more honest and less guarded. To encourage this openness, new leaders often call for candor in meetings, but doing so before building psychological safety is a mistake. As a leader, it’s your responsibility to establish that level of safety. You can do this by signaling your own openness to feedback or expressing doubt in your own ideas.
• Celebrate milestones and small wins. Milestones don’t just track progress; they serve as an early warning signal that a pivot might need to be made. These milestones will also give the team early wins to celebrate and help them feel a sense of accomplishment. Celebrating small wins can boost morale and foster a sense of collective appreciation

A couple years into your career, you’ll find a few different opportunities to step up and practice your leadership skills. Sometimes it will be preparing and running a team meeting. Other times it may be volunteering for a new task the team requires.

• David Burkus is an organizational psychologist and best-selling author of five books, including Best Team Ever . For more information, visit his website .

Partner Center

• Presidents of IABSE
• Governing Documents
• Other Documents
• IABSE Staff
• Winners 2023
• Previous IABSE Awards
• IABSE Foundation
• Aims And Responsibilities
• Chairmanship And Secretariat
• IABSE Message
• Technical Committee
• Commission 1
• Commission 2
• Commission 3
• Commission 4
• Commission 5
• Commission 6

Task Groups Concept

• Completed Task Groups
• SEI Editorial Board
• Bulletin Editorial Board
• E-Learning Board
• OStrA Committee
• OPA Committee
• Permanent Committee
• Executive Committee
• Administrative Committee
• SEI Advisory Board
• Awards Steering Committee
• Auditing Committee
• IABSE Ambassadors
• By Country / Region
• Other Countries
• IABSE Community
• Message from the OC and SC
• Themes & Topics
• General Information
• Sponsorship and Registration
• Technical Programme
• How To Participate
• Post Event Activity
• National Groups Events
• Upcoming Webinars
• Shortlisted Projects
• New Delhi 2023
• Istanbul 2023
• Winners 2022
• Gala Dinner
• Nanjing 2022
• Prague 2022
• SEI Authors
• SEI Advertiser
• IABSE Bulletins Authors Information
• Current SED
• Current Case Studies
• Proceedings
• Publications Archive
• Job Placement
• Support IABSE
• Photo Archive
• Online Shop
• Social forum

We asked AI to recast Friends for a modern reboot (and its casting choices are perfect)

By cody schultz | 11:00 am edt.

It’s impossible to imagine a Friends that doesn’t include the likes of Jennifer Aniston, David Schwimmer, Lisa Kudrow, Matthew Perry, Courteney Cox, and Matt LeBlanc. However, with NBC planning to revisit The Office one can’t help but wonder whether the day might eventually come in which the network might look to revisit another one of its most popular comedies.

Should the day come when NBC or another outlet such as Max looks to revisit Friends with a reimagining of the iconic series, it would seem likely they’d look to center the show around a new group of characters but what if they kept the focus on the core six with new actors and actresses taking on the iconic roles of Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica, and Phoebe? 

The idea of having to recast the roles in a modern reboot is a daunting task, which is why we decided why not take advantage of AI and see who it thinks would be the ideal group to lead a Friends reboot! 

AI recasts Friends for a modern-day reboot

Our prompt was simple. We asked ChatGPT’s AI to imagine that NBC was making a modern-day Friends reboot and to tell us who would be the perfect actors and actresses to play the roles of Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica, and Phoebe. The only ask we gave the tool in making its selection was that the actors all be around the same age and be within their mid-20s to early 30s given that was the age range of the original cast when they appeared on the show. 

So which actors does AI think are perfect for a Friends reboot and why? Let’s take a look! 

Ross Geller - John Boyega : John has demonstrated a strong range in films like Star Wars. He can play earnest and slightly nerdy very well, fitting Ross's character.

Rachel Green - Florence Pugh: Florence has the charisma and versatility needed to take on Jennifer Aniston's iconic role. She can effortlessly blend Rachel's fashion-forward and slightly spoiled nature with her growth into independence.

Joey Tribbiani - Glen Powell: Known for his charming and affable role in Set It Up , Glen has the comedic timing and likable personality that Joey's character requires.

Monica Geller - Beanie Feldstein: Beanie embodies the vibrant and intense personality traits that define Monica, with a proven track record in both comedic and serious roles, making her a great fit for the role.

Chandler Bing - Dylan O'Brien: Dylan has a natural comedic timing and a charming awkwardness that would suit Chandler's character well. He's known for his roles in Teen Wolf and The Maze Runner series, where he showcased a range of emotions that Chandler often goes through, from comedic to deeply personal.

Phoebe Buffay - Keke Palmer : Keke Palmer would be an excellent choice for the role of Phoebe Buffay due to her dynamic presence and versatility as an actress and singer. Her comedic timing is impeccable, which is crucial for delivering Phoebe’s unique blend of whimsy and offbeat humor.

I’m not going to lie, AI has some pretty good taste! This cast would be truly incredible and there isn’t a single name on the list that I would honestly be disappointed to see involved in a Friends reboot. 

I keep trying to pick just one favorite but there are so many great casting selections! Florence Pugh as Rachel is absolutely a perfect selection and I’m not going to be able to get that one out of my head now whenever I’m asked who my picks for a reboot would be. 

The same goes for the selection of Dylan O’Brien as Chandler. What an amazing selection! O’Brien would indeed be so perfect in the role of Chandler as he indeed has a perfect comedy timing and that charming awkwardness that goes hand in hand with Chandler. O’Brien would be absolutely incredible in the role and could totally make it his own while still bringing shades of what Matthew Perry brought to the character that helped fans fall in love with him. 

Keke Palmer as Phoebe is sheer perfection. She truly has it all. She is hilarious and her comedic chops would make her perfect for Phoebe’s more offbeat personality. Palmer also has an incredible voice that is key for our favorite songbird in the group! 

Of course, no Friends reboot is in the works, but should conversations start we can only hope that the casting producers manage to pull together a group as talented as the one AI selected!

Ranking all 10 Friends Thanksgiving episodes. dark. Next. Ranking all 10 Friends Thanksgiving episodes

• Share on Facebook
• Share on SMS
• Share on Email

• Advertise With Us
• Send Us News
• TV Listings
• Featured Links
• Solar Eclipse
• Meet the Team
• Wake Up CBUS
• Watch 10TV+
• FREE 10TV App
• 10TV Newsletter
• Maria's Message
• Entertainment
• Cooking with Dom

Concern about possible building closures in Columbus City Schools grows among education group

More Videos

Next up in 5

Example video title will go here for this video

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Concern is growing for members of the Columbus Education Justice Coalition after leaders of Columbus City Schools announced they are considering closing or consolidating certain buildings.

At a panel discussion last week , Superintendent Dr. Angela Chapman said the district enrollment has changed a lot through the years, but the number of buildings has not. She said several of the building are underutilized.

Recommendations for possible school closures will be made by a task force on Tuesday night at the school board meeting.

“A hand picked task force using data that is not accounting for the cities projected growth to make a decision about what schools to close feels like business as usual,” said Stuart McIntyre, member of the Columbus Education Justice Coalition.

Marielle Henault has three children in the school district. She said she worries about how the closures will affect students.

“Their first response was ‘Mom are they going to close our school?’ They were scared, they love their school community. I imagine any of the families and children that could be impacted by these closures are going to feel the same way,” said Henault.

RELATED: Columbus City Schools considering closing, consolidating certain buildings due to underutilization

Another big concern for the coalition is the impact on teachers.

“Our teachers are impacted when school buildings close. There is a stripping of the teachers and families they built in the schools,” said Izetta Thomas, co-founder of the coalition.

The coalition is asking the board to make four changes.

“Pause on any vote on school closings, plan for growth in a growing city, do not sell our buildings, and of course, have community-led decision-making for those neighborhood schools possibly impacted by the closures,” said Thomas.

The school board will make a final decision about the closures in June.

We reached out to the district for a comment on the coalition’s comment. A spokesperson sent us the following statement.

“The Superintendent's Community Facilities Task Force, in accordance with CCS Board Policy on school closure and consolidations, has thoroughly considered data on enrollment, building use, and conditions. They're about to present their initial proposals tonight. The working group has been dedicated to providing top-notch facilities and resources for our students, teachers, and staff. However, the Task Force's work is far from over with tonight's presentation. Throughout May, we will actively seek community input on the group's initial recommendations through forums and feedback sessions, including a radio discussion on June 1. We are eager to hear our communities’ unique perspectives and encourage everyone to participate. By improving teaching and learning conditions, the District will be better positioned to attract new families as the Columbus community grows.”

Local News: Recent Coverage ⬇️

Related Articles

• Sports betting allows for millions in school funding; here's what Columbus districts are getting
• CCS task force to make recommendations on potential closing, consolidation of buildings
• Columbus City Schools considering closing, consolidating certain buildings due to underutilization

Before You Leave, Check This Out

WBNS would like to send you push notifications about the latest news and weather.

Notifications can be turned off anytime in the browser settings.