FLDP.org

The term general role is used in this discussion in the sense of the general expectation of the group member’s or subgroup’s role within the group. In contrast, interaction roles will be used in a subsequent section to discuss specific unit acts within the group process. Some expansion may clarify the usage of the term general role.

What is the expectation of group members as contrasted with those of the group leader? Is it the group expectation that the leader has major responsibility for group activation, direction, decisions, and action? Or is there a general expectation on the part of all group members that each has a responsibility to help perform all the functions? When a person becomes a member of the group, is he given any definition of his role in terms of the responsibilities, obligations, and privileges that go with the membership? When members are elected to office is there a clear definition of the role they are expected to perform in their given position? Does the group know what it expects of its members in general and individual members in particular? On the other hand, do the members or subgroups of members know what is expected of them by the group?

Those organizations which specifically identify the roles of group members are likely to be rated higher in goal achievement than are organizations which do not. If roles are not clearly defined, if there are overlapping roles, or if the defined roles leave responsibility for important functions not specified, there is decreased goal achievement. In addition to decreased goal achievement there are also less favorable attitudes toward the organization and the leadership in the organization. The need for more formal definition increases as the organization becomes larger and contacts are less intimate.

The member’s understanding of his role, his perception of how his role relates to other roles in the process of group productivity, and his feeling of the importance of his role all go to determine his sense of responsibility to the group and motivate him to contribute to group productivity. Definitions of roles that evolve from group discussion and participation overtime, or out of election to the role, appear to lead to more productivity than those resulting from assignment or appointment.

If the role of a member is ill-defined and he cannot see how it relates to other roles or contributes to group achievement, he is less likely to be motivated to productive action. The member may not recognize the functions that need be performed or he may be afraid he is usurping the function of someone else. Group member hostility and frustration often results from an unwarranted suspicion of another group member as a threat to his position or as the occupant of a position that is unattainable to him.

But role definitions, as such, do not guarantee group productivity. It should be obvious that roles have real meaning and orientation only when the objectives and standards of operation of the group are clear and common to all members. A lack of clarity or agreement on the ends and the means to attain those ends usually leads to poor definition of roles and lack of motivation for goal fulfillment.

What About Your Group?

1. Does your group give attention to the definition of officer, subgroup, and individual member roles?
2. Is there group involvement in the definition of the various group member roles?
3. Do all group members understand how their roles fit into the over-all organizational structure and group goal attainment?
4. Do all group members understand the importance of their roles and how the performance of their roles contributes to group productivity?
5. Are roles defined by default?
6. Are group members left on their own to determine the direction and bounds of their responsibilities?
7. Is there periodic review and evaluation of designated roles?