FLDP.org

First, who selects and applies techniques? It might be well to recall the discussion of leadership, particularly regarding the opinion that diffusion of leadership represents the most efficient form of the democratic process.

When “leader” or “leadership” is mentioned or implied in the following discussion, remember that the research evidence indicates that the broader the base of such leadership, the more efficient the group is in accomplishing its goals. The authors are also aware from a practical standpoint that ideal situations are seldom achieved and that in many groups the leadership load must be carried by the few.

To return to eariler outlined concepts, the techniques may be considered the link between the group and its objectives. It is therefore logical that in selecting a technique the leaders look both ways; toward the group and its members and toward the ends desired.

First the group – its individual members, its internal and external dynamics – should be considered. The leader must take into account the membership; their interests, drives, and skills as well as their inhibitions, blocks, and frustrations. The human individual is the unit of raw material with which the group leader must work, and the greater the leader’s knowledge of human behavior in general and of the individual concerned in particular, the more useful choices he can make.

If a person were in a group largely for the security he felt the group gave him, it might be unwise to place him in a totally new situation. It would probably not be wise to throw one who has great difficulty expressing himself into a situation where he had to give a lecture. Some other technique should be used to tap the resources which this person can contribute to the group. Techniques should be tailored to fit the individuals concerned.

Forces at work within and without the group – dynamics of the group – must be considered in any rational selection of a group method. Several, or all, of the following elements of group dynamics should enter into the selection of a technique: size, atmosphere, standards, skills available, social controls, identity, general role definition, functional unit act roles, participation, and evaluation.

Group discussion, for example, works best in a small group in which the atmosphere is democratic and permissive rather than tense and inhibited. When a group is large “buzz groups” may accomplish similar ends. This technique is a waste of time when the group is of manageable size.

The most common of all techniques, the lecture, has a serious fault. It is only one-way communication. A very effective method, “role playing,” is also dangerous when social controls, identity, and objective evaluation are on an insecure basis within the group. Recreational or musical activities are sometimes chosen to break down status stratification in a group, but if injected into the wrong situation may actually increase hostility and tension.

A full knowledge of the forces making up the internal dynamics is the most likely way of avoiding pitfalls in technique selection.

The leader’s choice of a technique will also be affected by what he sees when he looks at the external dynamics. Forces impinging upon the group from the outside may have very significant effects upon the choice of a technique. Some institutions, such as certain churches and schools, frown upon music and dancing, thus placing severe restrictions on recreational methods. Other institutions place certain functionaries above the necessity of answering to the group. It might be unacceptable to involve a member of a church hierarchy in many types of activity, even though it could be very desirable from the standpoint of ends sought.

Community expectations often cause groups to bring in “name” lecturers when a different technique entirely might be more effective. Outside consultants are often used when local people might be expected to do a better job if they were free from community pressures. Choices are affected by the attitude of the community – the external dynamics.

When the method selector looks in the other direction, toward the goals of the group, he will again see a wide and varied assortment of factors influencing his choice. It will be remembered that all goals were divided into those which were strictly informative to the group and those which ostensibly call for action. It is obvious that this division frequently calls for completely different methods. Goals were also divided into long-run and short-run objectives, and again the means of achieving them may be better adapted to one form than another.

If the purpose of a meeting is a straightforward, logical, uninterrupted presentation of a single subject the “symposium” technique might be ideal. If the varying points of view are to be presented by only two people of roughly equal qualifications, the “dialogue” is a useful technique. An interesting combination of several techniques was presented in the Nixon-Kennedy television “debates” in the 1960 presidential campaign. To tap the ideas of as many people as possible, “buzz groups” or “huddle groups” are often used to approximate the benefits of general discussion in small groups. Full group discussion may be the only way to achieve consensus, but to’ free inhibitions and create a permissive atmosphere it may be necessary to precede this with some recreational or relaxing techniques.

Another characteristic of group objectives not previously stressed is that almost invariably they are subject to subdivision. Even short-run goals can be broken down into a series of intermediate objectives, and this may also be true of single-meeting goals. Each of the resulting intermediate goals may then be approached with a different technique which would seem to apply more logically to the situation. Combined techniques are really the rule rather than the exception and are particularly used when the objectives can be fragmented.

A general example of this would occur when some group might wish to solve a certain problem – say to improve some item of group process. First, a panel discussion might be set up, with those most concerned presenting the various aspects of the problem. The moderator would have the function of getting the panel under way and of keeping the discussion on the point. An important function of this technique would be to stimulate interest of all participants and to identify essential elements. The panel discussion might end with a general colloquy which in essence would serve to complete the definition of the problem and a crystallization of the essential facts involved. The group might then go into buzz groups to discuss the problem with instructions for each to suggest a solution. Then a general discussion could follow with the aim of achieving consensus. The advantages of such a prepared series of techniques over a desultory general discussion should be obvious as should the fact that combined techniques are often the most effective solution, even to a fairly simple problem.

It should be re-emphasized that to carry out the above program the leadership needs to know much about the individual members and their personalities. Also it is important to understand the “group personality,” its internal and external dynamics, and to have a clear appreciation of the specific objectives of the group. An understanding of the basic techniques and what each might be expected to accomplish can then be applied in the selections eventually made.

It is axiomatic in the discussion of methods that each technique has a definite potential for the mobilization of individual and group forces and for directing them toward group goals. This potential can only be realized, however, when knowledge, understanding, experience, and skill are present.

Groups are as old as mankind. Some sort of technique for securing group action is certainly as old as communication, no doubt antedating oral language. With the development of languages and written history we find many references to group action techniques in religious, pre-historical, and mythological literature. We recognize the “lecture” technique. Many times we read of groups being swayed to action by forms of the lecture; for example the “harangue” or the “exhortation.”

But while group techniques are ancient, their study under scientific methods is relatively new. Revolutions in group methods accompanied the development of spoken language. They were further changed with the advent of printing and the spread of literacy. Today we may be seeing a new revolution centered around mechanical aids: tape, film, television, and amplifiers.

Everything that furthers the group process is a technique. This logically includes coffee breaks, banquets, picnics, and teas. Various types of entertainment serve a similar purpose, and result in group singing, dancing, and talent nights. The difficulty of trying to cover the entire field in detail is apparent.

In Part II, a number of specific group techniques will be discussed in detail. However, those included are rather straightforward, relatively pure types. Social creativity remains the goal of this book, and specific techniques are introduced only to establish a pattern – a study method which will aid the leader as he develops and uses more inventive methods.

The means, or methods, used in group situations to bring about group action are called group techniques. Regardless of the forces inherent in the group, action comes only through the application of some technique. Utilized in the proper manner and social setting, techniques have the power to activate individual drives and motivations, to stimulate the elements of internal and external dynamics, and to move the group toward its goals.

Schematically represented, the technique is the connecting link between the group and its goals. Better still, techniques – or combinations of them – are the vehicles which carry the group toward its goals. A thorough knowledge and understanding of group methods is a necessary concomitant of good group membership and leadership. The more widespread this knowledge is within the group, the more mature and more efficient is the group. This understanding should be basic rather than superficial and a general discussion should precede any consideration of specific techniques.

It is desirable to re-emphasize that good group techniques are not necessarily formal or organized. Our knowledge of specific methods should not blind us to the fact that there are always informal techniques at work within any group. Group process moves by virtue of techniques, however vague, poorly defined, or unrecognized they may be. In small, mature groups with experienced leadership informal methods seem to arise spontaneously and are often the principal techniques used to effect very successful action. Under these circumstances such fluidity of methods may be entirely adequate, but far more often it is necessary to use consciously selected and often time-tried techniques to “get things moving.”

Often it is desirable to set limits on anticipated interaction, or to specify a framework within which such interaction is to be held. Sometimes it may be useful to set up a social situation in which the type of action and interaction will be fairly predictable. A group might desire to create a certain atmosphere, say of spontaneity and freedom from inhibitions. For these and many other situations there are time-tested techniques; there are also hundreds of other means, formal and informal, which can be used. Creative leadership selects proper techniques, combines techniques, or invents totally new ones to fit situations as needed.

It should again be pointed out that techniques constitute a means to an end. Individuals and whole groups occasionally fall into the error of behaving as though their methods were ends in themselves. Situations are created for the sole purpose of demonstrating a facility with a technique.

Ritual, an ancient and still common technique in certain organizations, has often become an end in itself for some individuals. The fallacy of becoming so enamored of one technique that it is used regardless of the situation is also common.

Another error often seen is the use of varied means and methods by leaders who seem to have mastered the application of the methods without understanding their true character or purpose. These leaders have learned that certain techniques work at certain times, but with little idea why.

It should be obvious by this point that while there are many time-tested techniques, good group leadership does not depend upon a “bag of tricks.” The whole basic philosophy of this book holds that there are rational processes by which good techniques can be selected and used, but that such use requires basic knowledge, a willingness to diagnose the social situation, and imagination and creativity in the ultimate application.

How then do we make choices and judgments from which good group process derives? It must be done by applying the basic knowledge of all the facets of group behavior discussed up to this point.

We have seen how each individual brings certain characteristics which are peculiarly his own to the group. These include his interests, his abilities, his desires or wishes, as well as his blocks and frustrations and his adjustments to them – in other words his “personality.” We have come to think of all these items of individuality as forces which contribute to the dynamics of the group. In addition to these forces (which may be said to be the property of the persons involved), certain other forces seem to develop as a result of interaction between individuals. These are a property of the group as a whole. The summation, integration, and resolution of all these forces have been labeled the internal dynamics of the group.

If use of the term dynamics tends to become repetitious it is because it has developed as the only word which connotes all the things implied in its use – that is, the energies and forces derived, both from the individuals and from their interaction with each other, and the summation and resolution of these forces into active as opposed to static behavior.

It will be remembered where the outline of ideas concerning group behavior was discussed, that these ideas were divided into those involving the group, the goals, and the means. The internal dynamics, under that framework, was regarded as a function of the group and will continue to be so regarded. However, much of what will later be considered under goals and techniques also comes under the heading of internal dynamics. The dynamic qualities which go to make up group action are not solely the property of the group but also are an essential part of goal selection and orientation as well as of methods.

These ideas cannot be neatly pigeonholed into specific compartments. No matter how the various components are labeled, there will always be cross-reacting, overlapping, and spill-over. For that reason the forces of the group which go to make up the internal dynamics will be discussed under a series of subheads which do not necessarily carry equal value or at times even seem to be related. Certainly they will not be mutually exclusive. The list will be far from exhaustive, but will be detailed enough to point the way for the reader to create his own concept for its expansion. We will consider group size, group atmosphere, group identification, and qualities of homogeneous or heterogeneous composition. Also under study will be communication within the group, participation, the leadership pattern, and the kind of human relation skills present. The definition of roles, the kinds of roles needed for productivity, the objectives sought, and the activities chosen will all come under discussion in this chapter. All these will be influenced by the standards of operation and the degrees of social controls under which the group functions. Finally, the matter of group evaluation, while a specific force, will need to encompass all the foregoing aspects.

These various factors exist in all groups and many of them are immediately apparent. At any given time certain of them may be so obscure as to be considered latent, if present at all. Often they will be operating at such a low level of consciousness that only definitive objective consideration of the part they play will bring them into observable focus. For that reason a series of questions to be asked regarding any group has been included under each of the several subheads.

The forces which will be described are at the disposal of all group members as well as specified group leaders. Recalling our concept of leadership and recognizing that in the democratic group all members carry both responsibility and capacity for leadership, this subject will not be specifically discussed further in this chapter. Along with goals and techniques its elaboration is carried out elsewhere.

With the above qualifications we can now consider a selected battery of forces. Their general nature can be indicated by a commonly understood word or phrase expounded and extended for our purposes by the discussion. This somewhat detailed discussion has two purposes: (1) reporting the general principles regarding each as modern research has revealed them; and (2) the establishment of a framework for the analysis of groups such as our own.

Atmosphere

Group atmosphere is the pervading mood, tone, or feeling that permeates the group.

To begin with, the actual physical setting in which the group operates is important in helping determine the group atmosphere. The lighting, ventilation, or even the drabness or brightness of the room may be contributing factors to group atmosphere. The seating arrangement is also important. Seating in a circular or elliptical pattern where everyone can be seen and no persons are in physically dominant positions may be valuable in creating a friendly, permissive atmosphere.

Such a simple consideration as making sure that each member of the group has not only met each of the other members but has had opportunity to know a little about them is important. Addressing people by their preferred names can improve group atmosphere.

When individuals meet and work together they no longer behave only as individual units but respond as a collective whole to the prevailing group atmosphere. In the groups with warm, permissive, democratic atmosphere, there seems to be greater work motivation and greater satisfaction and the individuals and groups are more productive. There seems to be less discontent, frustration, and aggression in these groups. There is more friendliness, cordiality, cooperation, and “we-feeling.” There also seems to be more individual thinking, more creativeness, and better motivation. Participation in decision making in this democratic permissive atmosphere seems to facilitate the development of the individual motivations that serve to increase member productivity and morale.

A group member’s behavior is determined to a considerable extent by his perception of the reaction of the group toward him. The individual who feels secure, who perceives himself as having adequate group skills, more often takes the lead in group activities. The total resources of the group can be tapped more adequately when all individuals feel free to contribute and question as the group moves toward its goals. Motivation and morale reach high levels in a democratic permissive atmosphere where there is active participation of both the leaders and members of the group.

The atmosphere may be one of fear or suspicion; fear of being ridiculed, made fun of, or rejected. There may be a feeling of suspicion in the sense that people distrust each other, their motives, or their willingness to really say what they think. The group atmosphere may be aggressive everyone at each other’s throat. The atmosphere may be apathetic – no life or vitality, with everyone waiting for someone else to do or say something.

On the other hand, the atmosphere of a group can be friendly and warm. It can be permissive – where everyone feels free to express himself honestly and participate in group activity for a free and open exchange of ideas and feelings.

There can be an authoritarian atmosphere. The responsibility is with the authority and no one may participate or initiate action except at the dictate of the authoritarian leader. It is presumed that the authority knows best what the group should believe and do. Group member behavior is directed toward the authority’s predetermined ends.

There can be a democratic atmosphere. Leadership is shared by all, and individuals strive to recognize and play roles needed for group productivity. The responsibility of the formal leader and other group members is that of creating conditions – including group atmosphere – under which group members are best able to work together to accomplish chosen ends.

A crucial stage of atmosphere creation is the opening of a meeting. The way the leader introduces himself and the subject, the length of time he speaks, how dogmatically he speaks, and the spelling out of the general role expectations of group members can all be important factors contributing to a good group atmosphere.

Underlying the establishment of a warm, friendly, permissive feeling are certain fundamental considerations that all group members should have. There must be a basic belief in the value of the individual – a sincere belief in the dignity of man and an honest respect for each man’s point of view. Along with this basic belief, group members should develop a social sensitivity toward the group and its members. This social sensitivity (the understanding of individual personality traits and social interactions) should enable group members to determine and respond to the concerns, desires, and needs of the group and its members. The ability to see beyond one’s own needs to the wider range of needs of other group members and the group as a whole may well be the most important step in the establishment of a permissive group atmosphere.

What About Your Group?

1. Is the physical setting, room arrangement, lighting, and ventilation that which will contribute to a good social atmosphere?
2. Is there an atmosphere of permissiveness, warmth, and good feeling, or hostility, suspicion, aggression, and apathy?
3. Are people helped to feel a part of the group, or are they forced to feel isolated?
4. Does your group understand the difference between authoritarianism, democratic, and laissez-faire atmosphere and leadership?
5. Is there cooperative sharing among the members?
6. Do you try to imagine yourselves in the other fellow’s shoes?
7. Is discussion on a rational and objective basis or subjective and emotional?

We may think of communication as the process whereby we convey ideas, sentiments, or beliefs to others. Though we usually envision communication in terms of speech or language we may also communicate by visual representations, gestures, and imitation. Language, however, constitutes the chief form of social interaction between humans. Through this medium we learn to know people, share experiences, ideas, sentiments, and beliefs. Hence we define, diagnose, and solve our common problems.

Many group problems result from the inability of leaders or group members to communicate with other group members. We mean to say one thing but perhaps say quite another. We assume everyone understands us or our point of view. The same words may mean different things to different people. A slight inflection or emphasis may be interpreted by others much differently than was intended. The meaning of a facial expression or a body gesture may be completely misinterpreted. It seems that the old axiom about army orders applies equally well to group communication, “If it can be misunderstood, it will be misunderstood.”

In heterogeneous groups – where there are people with different backgrounds, occupations, formal education, and levels of communication skills – it is particularly important that each group member makes sure he is communicating with all other group members.

Group members tend to feel left out and unsure of themselves when they do not have two-way communication. Even when acts of hostility are communicated, there seems to be less resentment between the sender and the receiver when there is firm understanding on both sides.

Where there is the desire to change the attitudes and subsequent behavior of group members, two-way communication in formal or informal discussions tends to be more effective than lecture or direct order from above.

A group member is more productive when he feels that he has access to relevant information. Of special importance is communication on matters that directly affect him and the definition of his role.

Those groups that are most productive have a more adequate communication network set up than those that are less productive. There is higher group participation, productivity, and satisfaction when members feel they have the right to enter into discussion and where means are provided for adequate give and take between leaders and other group members.

Successful supervisors and leaders often achieve their results by paying attention not only to the members as individuals, but to the relationships, interactions, and communications within the group.

When formal communications are suppressed or ignored, informal lines of communication usually appear. In organizations where there is dominating leadership the informal organization structures that arise often have goals that conflict with the goals of the formal group structure. For instance, a subgroup that feels its lines of communication are blocked may take up the goal of making it difficult for the leader or getting rid of him.

In most group situations a decrease of interaction will bring about a decrease in the strength of interpersonal feelings and sentiments and will decrease member identity with the group. In groups that have a rigid status system, communication between status levels seems to serve as a substitute for real mobility toward higher levels. The results of many studies show the necessity of trying to communicate in the language that other group members can understand and accept.

What About Your Group?

1. Does your group really work at insuring good communication within the group?
2. Are there definite means of communication that involve group members in goal setting, determination of means, and ongoing group activities?
3. Are there definite means of communication for sharing knowledge, plans, administrative decisions, etc.?
4. Is there really two-way communication or just one-way communication?
5. Does your group depend mainly on grapevine or informal communication?
6. Have weaknesses of the formal communication system encouraged the development of cliques with non group goal orientation?
7. Has enough information and knowledge been communicated to individuals and subgroups so that they may coordinate their activities with others effectively?
8. Do the formal leaders of your group have only a “the door is always open” policy or do they actively seek communication opportunities?
9. Do you often overestimate how much other group members really know or understand?
10. Do you depend heavily on written communication rather than personal communication?
11. How are you attempting to interpret your group and its activities to the parent organization or community?

One of the most important internal forces in group participation is the personal and psychological involvement of individuals in the affairs of the group. We generally think of group participation as an overt, observable expression through speech or actions. However, there are many subtler behavior patterns in terms of gestures, attitudes, or manners that constitute participation. We often think of participation as member involvement through speaking and entering into the discussion. We may think in terms of the breadth of participation – how many group members take part. We may think again of the intensity of participation – how often various individuals take part or how emotionally involved they become.

We may think of participation patterns – how people respond to each other. When one person enters the discussion, is he usually followed by certain others? Do a few people monopolize the discussion, or is there opportunity for all to participate? Do we help everyone participate? Is the participation pattern leader-centered or distributed throughout the group?

We may also think of participation in the sense of attending meetings, being on committees, being officers, helping finance, being on work groups, washing dishes, or writing publicity.

Research seems to indicate that individual and group productivity is related to the opportunities provided for member participation. These may include setting goals, deciding on means of attaining goals, and other aspects of discussion and decision making. Even when an individual’s ideas do not agree with the final group decision, he is much happier when he has had an opportunity to participate and express himself in the decision-making process.

Participation in the analysis and decision-making process results in less resistance to change, lower turnover in group members, greater productivity, and greater satisfaction with the group and group membership. Decision making by representatives from the group or careful explanation of decisions made by others is not acceptable substitutes for member participation in decisions. The more a member participates, the more favorable are his attitudes toward the group and the greater his feeling of concern for and identity with the group.

Those members who participate the most are those who understand the basic purposes and function of the group, have clearly in mind the group’s expectations of its members, feel secure in playing their member roles, and can see how their member roles contribute to the over-all purpose and functioning of the group. They also derive satisfaction from their participation.

What About Your Group?

1. What per cent of your members are really participating – attending meetings, serving on committees, taking part in group activities, sneaking up in meetings, etc.?
2. Do you often decide it is easier to do it yourselves than to involve other people in helping?
3. How much attention are you paying to group participation in goal setting and other major group decisions?
4. Do you try consciously to find opportunity to involve people in meaningful group work situations?
5. Do you analyze your meeting procedures and activities from the point of view of the degree of meaningful member participation you may expect? Might other techniques accomplish your goals better and also facilitate much higher member participation?
6. Are you really willing to let members participate in policy decisions – or would you rather have a little less participation and feel in greater control of the situation?
7. Have you ever plotted the participation patterns in your group?
8. Do those people that participate too much realize what effect they are having on the group or other group members?
9. Have you really looked for alternative techniques you might use for solving your participation problems?

Group standards may be defined as the level of performance acceptable to the group itself. Certain groups may be known for their high standards in relation to qualifications required to become a member. They may also set high standards of member conduct participation in group activities, democratic decision making, and successful work completion. Other groups may be known for their sloppy meeting procedure, inept discussion, and jobs poorly or only partially done.

Group standards may be either implied or clearly stated.

Nevertheless every group has its standards which, when enforced by social control, become important factors in determining the performance level of each member as well as the group as a whole. These standards become the group’s expectations of its members and also determine the member’s expectations of his group. Certain levels of expectations of other groups often then are judged in terms of the standards associated with the group.

Standards must be realistic – within the level of attainment of the group. They should be understood by all group members. Deviation from these expected performance standards, either above or below, is frowned on by the members, and the group sets up ways of securing conformance. If a member does not conform he is rejected. In most cases group members are more clearly in agreement on what the group norms or standards are than their observable behavior would indicate. Behavior is seldom in strict conformance to the ideal standard, but the limits of toleration are fairly well understood.

Some groups have found it advantageous to make both their expectations and their violations more explicit. For example, they might levy a small fine on a member for being late to meetings to make explicit the standard of prompt attendance. A frank discussion of what the chairman of a committee has a right to expect of his committeemen, or vice versa, may lead to more clearly understood standards of committee operation.

In some cases failure to live up to group standards results from poor definition of the standards themselves. More frequently it is due to individuals not being aware of the standards or not understanding them.

Group standards can be made more explicit and in many cases raised by looking objectively at either past performance or contemplated action and asking the group members if it is an acceptable level of performance.

In most cases, higher group standards are set when the entire group is involved in setting the standards as compared with standards being SEC by a small clique or an individual. Members have greater motivation to conduct themselves in keeping with those standards – to maintain their own conduct and to see that other group members maintain their conduct.

In terms of individual frustration or satisfaction, it is important that the standards are consistent – not rigidly enforced at one meeting and loosely at the next. This seems more important than the actual level at which the standards are set.

In general, the closer the individual comes to living up to all group standards or norms, the higher will be the group status of that individual, and his sense of satisfaction with his relationship.

What About Your Group?

1. Is there group involvement in setting your group standards?
2. Are the group standards well understood by all members?
3. As new group standard-setting situations arise, does the group attempt to make those standards explicit?
4. Are group discussion, human relations, participation, techniques, and progress evaluated against group standards?
5. Do your group members make known their expectations of the group – the standards expected from the group as a whole?
6. Are your group standards realistic?
7. Are your group standards evaluated periodically?
8. Is your group attempting to up-grade group standards realistically as it becomes more mature?
9. Does your group consider the expectations of the parent organization or community in setting its own group standards?
10. What sort of an example in living up to group standards is set by formal leaders and other key people in your group?

The means whereby the group secures conformity to the expectations of its group members is termed social control. This may take the form of rewards to group members for meeting group standards. Such rewards may include recognition before the group, election to office, being accorded a certain status, or being given some other tangible recognition such as a perfect-attendance pin. Other rewards are less tangible and may take the form of being accepted by the group, a feeling of response from other group members, a smile, a word, or a pat on the back.

Control may also be in the form of punishments. Censure, ridicule, rejection, destitution, taking away privileges, or actual physical acts against the offender are examples of this type of control.

Every group has its group standards and enforces them by varying degrees of social control. Some groups rely mostly on incentives or rewards for control, others more on fear or punishment. If groups are to be productive, members need to know what the standards of the group are and the means used to enforce those standards – the methods of control. As pointed out, it seems to be important that the methods of control are recognized by group members and uniformly enforced – not rigidly enforced one time and very loosely enforced the next.

It is also important that social controls apply equally to all group members. This creates problems since there is seldom absolute conformity to any social norm. Thus control is brought into play, not so much by deviation from a norm, but by departure from the existing degree of obedience to the norm. The group, or the leader, must always face the problem of when to invoke the control.

Many groups have formal sanctions that they may invoke against their members. These formal controls automatically call into operation many informal sanctions, both social and internalized. For instance, the placing of a group member on the inactive list may formally restrict him from holding office and participating in certain group functions. It may also informally restrict the amount of association that group members may want to have with him. In addition, other members may set up certain sanctions against him in that they may consider him a “poor group member,” one who doesn’t take group responsibilities seriously, a person who is not reliable, etc. These informal sanctions give real force to the formal sanction. Controls are most effective when, for a single departure from the existing standards, not one but many separate controls are brought to bear on the individual. When such a complex system of controls is activated, future violations from the group norms are reduced.

The degree of control and the effectiveness of control are related to the importance the group member attaches to being accepted by the group. The identity or “we” feeling the member feels for the group and the relative importance of this group will help determine the effectiveness of the social controls. If there are easy psychological, social, or physical opportunities for group members to withdraw, controls will not be very effective. (The effectiveness of controls upon any member is directly related to the importance assigned by the member to maintaining his membership and status in the group.)

In many cases deviant behavior from group norms may be understood by recognizing that members in a specific group are also members of many other groups that also have standards or norms. Members may not conform to a given group’s norms because conforming to the norms of some other reference group is more important to them. For instance, winning may be a vitally important standard to a team group, and this team may place many controls on its members to assure maximum effort toward winning. Some members of the team, however, will not conform to this norm if they must employ unfair tactics to win. Winning by unfair tactics many conflict with standards of other more important groups, perhaps the family or church, and the urge to conform to these standards may be much stronger.

In some cases members may feel they cannot get recognition through the accepted channels of behavior. They may flaunt group standards to get recognition of another kind. A committee member may come to the committee meeting without fulfilling his responsibility of gathering data for presentation and thereby make light of the assignment. (At this stage, the other committee members may convert him to living up to the group standards of a good committee member or invoke additional social pressures upon him to motivate him to live up to the group standard.)

What About Your Group?

1. Are group members involved in determining the means – social controls – to enforce group standards?
2. Are the group members aware of the degree of deviation from group standards allowed before social controls are brought into play?
3. Are group standards enforced relatively uniformly over time and on all members?
4. Are rewards and incentives utilized as means of social control?
5. Are both formal and informal controls and pressures used to maintain group standards?
6. Are there various controls that can be brought into play against deviation from important group standards?
7. Is there a recognition that group members may have group standards of several different groups as their referents in a given group situation?
8. Are the means of social control reviewed periodically by the group?
9. Is consideration given to making social controls explicit on specific group standards that the group is having difficulty enforcing?

“We-feeling” or identity in a group implies a certain common bond, a common sympathy, and a definite consciousness of being united in some way. This force is sometimes discussed in terms of group solidarity, morale, or esprit de corps, the individuals feel a common concern a stake in ‘what happens to the other members of the group and the group as a whole. The individual feels he belongs, is a part of, and has a common concern with the group. It may be said that these feelings involve the sort of sympathy and mutual identification for which the word “we” is the natural expression.

This “we-feeling” is often manifested by group members when they speak in terms of “we feel,” “we believe,” “we want,” “we demand,” “we contend,” or speak of “our group,” “our problem,” and “our achievement.” This may be contrasted with other verbalizations such as “they think” or “they do.” Usually the pronouns are used as the basis of distinguishing the group to which the individual belongs from some other group – “in-group” versus “out-group.”

However, inside any given group there is a wide range of the degree of “we-feeling” or identity with the group. With widely different intensity, members may feel that this is my group – “the group whose members I know, whose purposes I share, whose traditions I respect, whose goals I will strive for, and whose prestige I will work to maintain.”

Identity is largely emotional, and hence often difficult to account for on any rational grounds. While it may be based on the ideals, philosophy, or objectives of the group, it may be built equally well around feelings toward certain individuals. It may also involve past experiences with the group or perhaps some symbolic meaning which the group conveys to the individual. Any or all of these factors plus many more may be combined in almost any way to produce the feeling of identity between a member and his group.
It is an important point that a member may identify on one basis but not on another. He may identify to a very great degree with the fundamental purpose of the group, but poorly indeed with the group itself. He might feel completely at home and happy with the members but have no feeling toward the goals and aspirations of the group. The strongest and most enduring feelings of identity appear to be those founded upon a combination of several bases.

People are often identified with several groups. Sometimes either the ends or means of these may be in conflict with each other. For example, a laborer may identify with both his company and his union, even though their interests may clash at times. A business man who identifies with his trade association, his social club, and his church may find that at times his actions in one conflict with the philosophy or ethics of another.

There is a high relationship between identity with a group and participation in that same group and its activities. This is a reciprocal relationship, since greater identification encourages participation and activity within the group is one of the most important sources of identity. Within the group frequent, highly charged interaction – especially under conditions which seem to threaten the group – often leads to exceptionally high identity and solidarity. It has been noted in military organizations especially that esprit de corps reaches its peak under conditions of danger or hazard.

Physical conditions which place group members in proximity to each other encourage interaction and hence the feeling of identity. As there is lack of intimacy and greater physical separation, interaction slows down.

The manner in which the ego of the member is rewarded by the group activity has a great deal to do with his ability to identify. It helps if the group goals coincide with his own. It also helps if he feels he has something to say about the operation of the group and the methods it chooses. All the complexities of human behavior enter into identification as it applies to the individual in a group setting.

As pointed out previously, the more group members identify with the group, the greater pressure there is to conform to group standards. Members will be more willing to compromise to secure total agreement. It also seems true that members having a high sense of identity with the group are more willing to sacrifice and work for group goals.

What About Your Group?

1. To what degree do the members of your group really identify with the group?
2. Does the group recognize that members may identify with the group in the following ways:
3. Identity with basic philosophy and purpose of the group?
4. Identity through common experiences with other members?
5. Identity with group activities and accomplishments?
6. Identity with group leaders and other group members?
7. Identity with symbols that are representative of the group?
8. Is our group providing opportunities and help toward identification?
9. Do members recognize that other group members may identify strongly with other groups?

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?