The Effectiveness of Small Groups - Essay Example

Group Socialization, Groupthink, and Conflict March 10, Small groups have both potentials and drawbacks in terms of providing quality decisions and attaining organizational goals. The effectiveness of small groups, furthermore, is a product of numerous, sometimes interconnected, factors and influences, which makes it harder to examine and understand group success and challenges. My experience with a small group helped me explore small group communication concepts and models. I will discuss the concept of group socialization, groupthink, and conflict in relation to my group experiences. I learned that patterns of group socialization are products of group rules and norms, where norms are more dynamic, hidden, and forceful than rules in influencing groupthink and conflict management. The paper proceeds to definitions of concepts. Group socialization refers to the social process and influences by which new members and old members become used to one another (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.153). The phases of group socialization are antecedent, anticipatory, encounter, assimilation, and exit phases. Groupthink refers to the quick way of group thinking mode, as members engage in concurrence or conformity which becomes dominant because of in-group cohesiveness that overrides the evaluation of alternative courses of action (Janis, 1972, p.158). Group rules are statements that guide members on how they may, or, should behave, which may be expressed in writing or informally, such as what happens for group norms (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). Group norms are unspoken formal rules that peer pressure implements and which affect the actions of group members (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). Norms also reflect cultural beliefs that are connected to what is considered as acceptable or unacceptable behaviors (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). Conflict is defined as the manifested struggles among interdependent members that happen due to differences in perceptions of and implementation of goals and other sources of disagreements (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.305). From these definitions, group members, because of their interdependence and because they are human beings with individual and social differences, are bound by group goals, but can be divided by groupthink and conflict. The theory regarding the process of group socialization is criticized next. Group socialization starts with the antecedent phase, where members’ characteristics, listening styles, cultural differences, and feelings about group responsibilities shape throughput and output variables (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). Indeed, this is the antecedent phase because it is the start of knowing one another for members who are complete strangers. However, not all throughput is new for members who are already familiar with each other, including those who have previously worked with other group members in the past. The next phase of group socialization is the anticipatory phase, where members and their expectations of each other and the group affect the succeeding stages of socialization (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). These expectations are agreed as laying the foundation for what individuals expect to happen over the group’s life (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). These anticipations are valid in relation to the setting of group goals, as well as rules and norms. These expectations are also important to group satisfaction and conflict. Unmet expectations can produce conflicts, as well as dissatisfied members. The succeeding phase of group socialization is the encounter phase where expectations become tested in reality and members are adjusting to each other (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). The group is creating and applying group roles and norms, as well as group culture, status, and hierarchy (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.154). This may be one of the longest duration of the group process because the activities of the group are already taking place. The encounter phase is labeled too neutrally though, as if conflict does not exist. Then again, encounters can be conflict-embedded, depending on how members defined and respond to these encounters. The next phase of group socialization is the assimilation phase which pertains to the complete integration into the group and its structures and systems (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.155). New members are seen as comfortable with each other at this point and are actively participating in the group. With conflicts, this phase may not be attained and groups may be stuck in the encounter phase or anticipatory phase (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.155). The assimilation phase is more of normative; it is what groups should turn into next. In reality, when conflicts abound, groups may be floating in the encounter phase or anticipatory phase for a long time. Negotiation toward assimilation phase is important for the group to attain goals effectively and efficiently without groupthink. The final phase is exit phase which refers to the moment of disbanding of groups (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.155). The experiences have individual and social levels and can have different impacts on these levels too (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.155). The exit phase seems to be a good “end” for groups, but one that may not always be seamlessly attained. Some concerns are for groups that disbanded because of lack of resources or sudden management changes. The model of group socialization is seen as too linear and will not withstand turbulent organizational cultures and changing conditions. The reflection on the model and said concepts is described next. As a group, we are now in the assimilation stage, though sometimes, we go back to encounter stages. We already formulated our group rules at the beginning of our team meetings, including giving each other enough time to present ideas, arriving at meetings on time, respecting each other’s opinions and ideas, explaining ideas and opinions, and providing constructive criticism to avoid groupthink. For instance, in our first meeting, we already discussed and wrote about our formal group rules. We did not define our group norms, perhaps because we expected for the norms to follow the rules. I believe that these group rules helped a great deal in setting a cohesive direction for the group because we started with a common understanding on how we are supposed to behave as individuals and as members of our group. I realized that group rules establish a formal atmosphere that can ironically actually help increase the informality in the group because we already discussed in the open what we expect from each other. In other words, a participatory approach to group formation by creating democratic rules can produce a more relaxed group environment in the long run. As for our group norms, I realized that, though we have these group roles that promote individual participation and cohesion, there are still times when conformity and groupthinking exist, depending on who is the emerging leader for a certain task and how people react to them. An example is when a group member suggested something, and she became quite aggressive about her idea, in other words, she became “dominating.” I felt that other members, not wanting to argue anymore because of concern for disrupting peace and harmony in the group, just agreed and followed the idea without presenting other options, or at least, asking questions that can improve the idea better. This is what it means when people enforce norms on themselves- when they accept other people’s behaviors without questioning them. Some norms are good, if they promote group effort, but some are bad, if they hinder individuality and critical thinking. This is also what it means when people are already in the assimilation stage, and then they go back to the encounter stage because of conflicts. Norms are then hidden, but they can be more powerful than rules in shaping group interactions and behaviors. Thankfully, we slowly changed the norms of conformity, as each member started to participate more in the meetings and offer alternative ideas and opinions. Group rules that foster respect and equality helped in building norms that promote creativity and group collaboration. The next reflection is about groupthink. Janis (1972) mentioned that the symptoms of groupthink are when people avoid critical discussions and prefer group harmony over group critical thinking and decision-making (p.158). This is what Surowiecki (2004) was saying about bad group decisions because judgments “tend to be more volatile and extreme” (p.176). An example of groupthink happened when we met last February 24 at Lizs house. Kathy and Natalie were the observers who took notes. Kelsey and Elizabeth dominated the discussion, as if they talked only to one another. Members felt left out, which is evident from oculesics (study of eye movement and nonverbal communication through eye movements). For instance, my observations are the following: (1) “Kelsey and Elizabeth also looked more on each other than other members also enhanced the feeling of removing us from the discussion”; and (2) “some members’ eyes [were] spacing out, evidently thinking about something else. When they did look at Kelsey or Elizabeth, they looked straight right through them, or they seemed to be looking at something else” (PRL1). Another example is a meeting with Sprout Up group leader Kelsey. Kelsey had a one-way communication system with her members, and she lacked the ability to include us in the discussions. Groupthink is apparent when members did not add or question her ideas, and answered mostly in “Yes” form. From these examples, it is clear what groupthink looks like, the absence of resistance to dominant thinkers and leaders. Finally, conflict is not something quite evident or prevalent in our group. Still, one unmentioned incident in my reports is when Amedea recommended something, and Chase did not agree with it. I believe that there was some tension, but it was quickly brushed under the rug, so to speak, when Aaron agreed with Amedea and went on to the next meeting’s agenda. I believe that because the conflict was not explored in the open, we missed on its benefits of producing better understanding of people and issues and discussion of alternative ideas and solutions (Galanes, & Adams, 2006, p.308). We work well as a group now because we know each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and are open to job delegation, but we should also learn how to deal with conflict more proactively. As for the evaluation of the group, I am satisfied with how our group handles conflict in a way that tensions do not escalate. However, like I mentioned, we can do better in letting conflict unravel, in order for us to be compelled to think analytically and creatively, and not emotionally. It would help to have rules regarding encouraging conflict that is not group-destructive, but group-developing. For example, we can have rules of devil’s advocate for every meeting. The devil’s advocate will be in charge of challenging ideas, but challenges must be logical and based on reason and evidence. Group members must also not be too emotional and be prepared for “mental sparring” of ideas and enjoy the learning process that comes from it. These rules and norms will not only maximize the benefits of conflict, but will also reduce groupthink in teams. As for myself, I believe I could have done more with stronger speech and writing skills. I worked hard in doing my part of the group work. I also did my best to participate in team meetings by asking more about their ideas and sharing my own insights about group work. Moreover, I learned that patterns of group socialization are products of group rules and norms, where norms are more dynamic, hidden, and forceful than rules in influencing groupthink and conflict management. As someone who is also quite conflict-averse, I should start with myself, practicing on how to engage conflict without resulting to personal conflicts. I should also learn more about responding to conflicts in a systematic and critical manner, where I can counter ideas and support my claims. To conclude, group decision-making and stages of group performance opened my eyes to the beauty and challenges of groups. On the one hand, groups are truly beneficial in creating brilliant outcomes and enhancing creativity. On the other hand, these benefits cannot be attained if groups are stuck in anticipatory or encounter stage and are unable to use conflict to prevent groupthink and other sources of group hindrances. Groups should then have rules and norms for conflict and groupthink, while individual members must be mentally, emotionally, and socially prepared in tackling conflicts to maximize its positive effects on group interactions and outcomes. References Galanes, G.J., & Adams, K. (2006). Effective group discussion: Theory and practice (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Janis, I.L. (1972). Groupthink. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Random House. PRL 1 logs Read More