Much of the research from which the information on group size has been taken has been summarized by A. P. Hare, Laboratory of Social Relations, Harvard University. In many cases little can be done to control the actual number of people in an organization or at a meeting. In other cases, such as committee appointments, control can be exercised.

Size is of particular importance in deciding what group techniques to use under certain conditions to accomplish specific goals. Certain techniques are better suited to smaller groups. Other techniques are better suited for larger groups. Yet other techniques, such as buzz groups, are designed to obtain some of the .mall group advantages when working with larger groups. Size, like other vectors, has relevance mainly in terms of what the group is trying to accomplish.

Size is one variable that may limit the amount and quality of communication that can take place between individual group members. Thus as size increases, each group member has a more complicated set of social relations to fulfill, and as the number increases, he has proportionally less time to maintain them. There is evidence that an increasing proportions of group members report feelings of threat, frustration, tension, and inhibition to participate as group size increases.

As size increases, there is a greater tendency to move to more formal procedure such as regular parliamentary procedure. With increasing size there seems to be a tendency to strive less for consensus or unanimity. Rather, there seems to be a tendency for the group to reach solutions or decisions without exploring the points of view of all group members, and with less concern for whether or not all group members agree with the solution or decision. Unresolved differences seem to be more acceptable or are at least tolerated in larger groups.

It is generally agreed that increased size is usually accompanied by increased difficulty in coordinating group activities. In larger groups there is a tendency for the formation of small subgroups, often with spokesmen emerging as representatives of the smaller groups. There is evidence to suggest that as groups increase in size, it is more difficult for group members to perceive of other group members as distinct individual entities. Rather they are perceived as members of subgroups or cliques and there is a tendency to deal with them on a non particularized basis. Efficient operation in larger groups requires more skill from group members and leaders. However, it does appear that as individuals become more mature, they can more effectively associate in larger groups.

In a study of decision-making groups, with a size range from 4 to 16, the following tentative generalizations were made:

As the size of group is increased from 5 to 12, the degree of member consensus resulting from the discussion decreases when the time for discussion is limited.
Group members in the smaller groups will change their opinions more toward consensus than will those in the groups of 12 or more.

As groups become larger than 12 there seems to be a trend toward factionalism.

In larger groups the group leaders have less influence and group members feel less satisfied with the discussion because of lack of time to express themselves. Primary groups are more satisfying to group members when they are sufficiently small to give each person a chance to take a full part in the discussion. In the larger group the interaction between members is more limited and the group members tend to have an increasing feeling that their individual opinion is not important and not worth presenting to the group.

Some of the studies in industry have shown that employees in small work groups are more satisfied than those in large work groups. It is doubtful that there is any magic number that is associated with the “best” size group. Efficient sizes may vary with the task, the time available, the maturity of the group, or the amount of follow-up action wanted. However, small group research does have some findings that may have importance in making committee appointments or subdividing larger groups for certain tasks. Small groups (four to six) of even numbers have higher rates of disagreement and antagonism than do groups of odd numbers (three, five, and seven). There is some evidence that discussion groups of five are the best size.

The explanation for five as the “best” size may lie in several factors: (1) this size allows sufficient opportunity for each individual to participate and yet enough members are present to draw on for content and to make it worthwhile; (2) there is not the possibility of a strict deadlock (as with even numbers); (3) if the group splits, it tends to split into a majority of three and minority of two, so that being in the minority does not isolate anyone individual; and (4) the group seems large enough for members to shift roles easily and thus any group member may play a role purely for discussion’s sake or withdraw from an awkward position.

While most of the evidence cited seems to indicate that increasing size creates problems in group efficiency, this does not lead to the logical conclusion that all groups should be small. From the very practical point of view we know that many formal groups will continue to be large; 20, 50, 100 or more. However, as the sizes of our groups increase, we should be aware of the fact that different degrees of human relations skills are required and we may have to choose different objectives and techniques and be willing to accept different levels of group standards in some cases. As pointed out by Bales, Hare, and Borgatta:

Many abilities or resources needed in task performance tend to have an additive character. The kinds of resources which are of this order, in respect to tasks, may include such things as the number of items of information which can be absorbed and recalled, the number of critical judgments available to correct errors of information and inference, the number of ideas or suggestions available for solution of problems, the range of values that are likely to be brought to bear, as well a the range of technical skills, abilities, and amount of muscular power that is available to implement decisions.

To this may be added the point that in terms of motivation to action, participation in the decision-making and planning process seems to lead to greater motivation to action and follow-through. Though the larger group involvement brings with it some problems in group management, it may well be the most efficient means to accomplish desired action in the long run. In many phases of social action, numbers as such may be an important factor in making a desired impact on other interest groups, community or public a better government league of 500 “solid citizens” will probably have greater impact on public opinion and action than a committee of five.

What About Your Group?

1. Does your group take its size into consideration when planning for group involvement and participation?
2. Does your group utilize group techniques that might aid in getting small group intimacy and personal relations?
3. Is your group large enough that special attention should be given to effective group communications?
4. Is your group large enough that special attention should be given to organizational structure?
5. Is your group of the size that there can be a more or less informal role definition or is it large enough that special attention should be given to more formal role definition?
6. Is your group a worshiper of large numbers? With what size group can the group’s purposes really be best served?

The group must serve its members just as the members should serve the group. Specific interests or problems of group members must be known if the group as a unit is to “grow.” We often can understand interest, lack of interest, personally centered activity, or aggression if we recognize the heterogeneous composition of the group. Group heterogeneity may also place limitations on the objectives, techniques, and accomplishments of the group. The crux is that we must recognize that we have some degree of heterogeneity in all groups and learn to understand these differences from the point of view of how they might be harnessed for greatest group productivity.

We tend to group ourselves on both the informal and formal level on a relatively homogeneous basis – a basis of similarities – according to such characteristics as interests, status, intelligence, and occupation. However, even within these relatively homogeneous groups there is a great degree of heterogeneity – differences – when compared on the basis of such characteristics as age, moral standards, formal education, and values. Groups which take the time to analyze their resources from the point of view of both their homogeneity and heterogeneity make better use of their group potential and reach higher productivity. It also seems true that once the group recognizes the uniqueness of individuals they can better integrate those individuals into the group and better utilize their potentials for the common good. Furthermore, group members working together over time tend to become more homogeneous in interests, objectives, and satisfactions.

What About Your Group?

1. Do members of the group have different backgrounds, values, interests, abilities, and skills?
2. Are these differences taken into account in group planning?
3. Are relevant differences harnessed and put to work to aid in group progress?
4. Do differences lead to conflict?
5. Is the group becoming so homogeneous that it is overconservative and tradition-bound?
6. Can new members and different points of view be integrated into the group so as to improve group functioning?

It is recognized that it is the individuals in a group who are the possessors of the human relations skills. Different members in a group possess different levels of understanding and ability in human relations. It should also be obvious that different groups have different average levels of human relations skills. Mature groups, in time, often learn how to work together. They learn what techniques, programs, and divisions of labor work for them as a group and in this sense may be said to have developed a group human relations skill. The degree of such skill possessed by the group may place restrictions on the attainable objectives for the group and the speed with which the group may accomplish those objectives. Of special importance to us in this book is the fact that different levels of human relations skills often place limitations on what techniques may be employed in a given group and on how the techniques that are employed may be used. Thus, the level of human relations skills, actual and potential, is another force that must be taken into account as we work in groups.

For instance, there are certain human relations skills needed to be a good moderator of a panel. First there must be an understanding of what a panel is and what purposes it might serve if used. There must be the skills needed in working with panel members prior to the presentation: to define the problem, set the general limits of discussion, and secure agreement on general procedure. The moderator must quickly define the problem for the audience and set an atmosphere for free and easy exchange of ideas among the panel members. As the panel moves forward, skills are needed to make sure the panel members are communicating with each other and the audience, that the different points of view are being presented, that areas are being summarized and closed off, and new areas opened up. Lack of such a skilled moderator may call for study and training on the part of group members, it may require bringing in someone from outside the group to moderate, or it may necessitate choosing another technique that requires fewer or different human relations skills.

It is accepted that the group has the responsibility of “helping its members grow.” In one sense this means that group members must be aware of the level of the human relations skills of the individuals in the group and help them develop understandings and create social situations in which they may develop these necessary human relations skills.

These basic understandings and skills needed for good human relations can be learned and communicated. Studies in industry, the classroom, among voluntary leaders, and in workshops and conferences have demonstrated that these understandings and skills can be communicated to individuals and groups and that their application will lead to higher productivity and morale in groups. It also has been demonstrated that certain limited specific human relations principles and skills can be taught in a relatively short time so that individuals may quickly perform some functions with a relatively high degree of proficiency. The successful training of discussion leaders, recorders, resource people, and observers for specific functions in conferences or workshops has been used to secure this type of evidence.

Leaders who understand and facilitate good human relations in their groups are most successful. Some studies suggest that it is more important for leaders to understand and be skillful in human relations, individual motivation, and group process, than to be highly proficient in the subject matter under discussion.

Group member motivation, participation, productivity, and satisfaction are greater when group members possess a relatively high level of human relations skills. There seems to be more group and task oriented activity, rather than personal centered activity when members know and can apply human relations principles.

Industrial studies have shown that from the point of view of both production and worker satisfaction, those supervisors are most successful who give a large proportion of their time to their supervisory function, especially to the interpersonal relations aspect of their jobs. Supervisors in lower producing sections are more likely to spend their time in tasks which men under them should be performing or in the paperwork aspects of their jobs.

It has also been determined that many individuals feel they do not have adequate human relations skills to become members of formal groups. Few people belong to only one organization. They either belong to none (about 40 per cent of the American people) or belong to two or more. Once they cross the threshold and realize they have at least the minimum human relations skills needed, they join several groups. Even among those in groups, one of the important blocks to participation is fear on the part of the individual that he does not have sufficient human relations skills to participate successfully. In some cases this fear and frustration leads to other types of activity – detrimental to group functioning – so that he may get recognition from the group.

Knowledge of human relations is becoming recognized more and more as a science rather than as a group of common sense generalizations. It is also becoming recognized that once people understand the existing principles of human relations they can be taught to apply them with skill rather than learn them in the trial and error method of the past.

What About Your Group?

1. Do group members recognize the need for human relations skills for effective group functioning?
2. Does the group accept the responsibility of helping individual group members improve their human relations skills?
3. Do group members and the group as a whole attempt to improve their human relations skills?
4. Does the group actually set up training situations to help group members improve human relations skills?
5. Is the level of human relations skills taken into account in setting group goals and choosing group techniques?

The encourager praises, agrees with, and accepts the contribution of others. He indicates warmth and solidarity in his attitude toward other group members, offers commendation and praise and in various ways indicates understanding and acceptance of other points of view, ideas and suggestions.

The Harmonizer

The harmonizer mediates the differences between other members, attempts to reconcile disagreements, relieves tension on conflict situations – perhaps through jesting or by pouring oil on the troubled waters.

The compromiser operates from within a conflict in which ideas or position is involved. He may offer compromise by yielding status, admitting his error, by disciplining himself to maintain group harmony, or by “coming halfway” in moving along with the group.

The gatekeeper and expediter attempts to keep communication channels open by encouraging the participation of others(”we haven’t got the ideas of Mr. X yet”) or by proposing regulation of the flow of communication (”why don’t we limit the length of our contributions so that everyone will have a chance to contribute?”)

The standard setter or ego ideal expresses standards for the group to attempt to achieve in its functioning, or applies standards in evaluating the quality of group processes.

The group observer and commentator keeps records of various aspects of group process and feeds such data, with proposed interpretations, into the group’s evaluation of its own procedures.

Follower

The follower goes along with the movement of the group, more or less passively accepting the ideas of others, serving as an audience in group discussion and decision.

“Individual” Roles

Attempts by group members to satisfy individual needs which are irrelevant to the group task and which are non-oriented to group building and maintenance point up the need for group and member training. A high incidence of “individual-centered” as opposed to “group-centered” participation in a group always calls for self-examination by the group. The diagnosis may reveal one or several of a number of conditions – low level of skill-training among members, including the group leader; the prevalence of authoritarian and laissez-faire points of view toward group functioning in the group; a low level of group maturity, discipline and morale; inappropriately chosen and inadequately defined group tasks, etc. Whatever the diagnosis, it is in this setting: that training needs should be defined. The outright “suppression” of individual roles will deprive the group of data: needed for really adequate self-diagnosis and therapy.

Aggressor

The aggressor may work in many ways – deflating the status of others, expressing disapproval of the values, acts, or feelings of others; attacking the group or the problem it is working on; showing envy toward another’s contribution by trying to take credit for it, etc.

The Blocker

The blocker tends to be negativistic and stubbornly resistant, disagreeing and opposing without or beyond reason, and attempting to maintain or re-open an issue after the group has rejected it.

The recognition seeker works in various ways to call attention to himself, often by boasting, reporting on personal achievements, acting in unusual ways, struggling to prevent his being placed in an “inferior” position, etc.

The self confessor uses the audience opportunity which the group setting provides to express personal, non group oriented “feeling,” “insight,” “ideology,” etc.

The Playboy

The playboy makes a display of his lack of involvement in the group’s processes. This may take the form of cynicism, nonchalance, horseplay, and other more or less studied forms of inappropriate behavior.

The Dominator

The dominator tries to assert authority or superiority in manipulating the group or certain members. This domination may take the form of flattery, of the assertion of a superior status or right to attention, authoritative behavior, downgrading contributions of others, etc.

The help seeker attempts to call forth “sympathy” response from other group members or from the whole group, through expressions of insecurity, personal confusion, or depreciation of himself.

Interest Pleader

The special interest pleader speaks for the “small business man,” the “grass roots,” the “community,” the “housewife,” “labor,” etc., usually cloaking his own prejudices or biases in the stereotype which best fits his individual need.

What About Your Group?

1. Do the group members have an understanding of functional unit act member roles?
2. Have group members developed understandings and skills in role analysis and role playing so that they more or less automatically analyze group discussion as it moves forward and act to see that needed roles are performed?
3. Is the framework of functional unit act roles utilized by the group to analyze and evaluate group process?
4. Do group members often forget about task or group building roles and center their activity on individually centered roles?
5. Do members become so interested in task roles that they neglect group-building roles?
6. Are members versatile in using the necessary task and group-building roles?
7. Do group members consciously work at expanding their ability to perform needed task or group-building roles?

The Initiator-Contributor

The initiator-contributor suggests or proposes to the group new ideas or changed ways of regarding group problems or goals. The proposal may take the form of suggestions of a new group goal or a new definition of the problem. It may take the form of a suggested solution or of some way of handling a difficulty that the group has encountered. Or it may take the form of a proposed new procedure for the group, a new way of organizing the group for the task ahead.

The Information Seeker

The information seeker asks for clarification of suggestions made in terms of their factual adequacy, for authoritative information, and facts pertinent to the problem being discussed.

The opinion seeker asks not primarily for the facts of the case but for a clarification of the values pertinent to what the group is undertaking or of values involved in a suggestion made or in alternative suggestions.

The Information Giver

The information giver offers facts or generalizations which are “authoritative” or relates his own experiences pertinently to the group problem.

The Opinion Giver

The opinion giver states his belief or opinion pertinently to a suggestion made or to alternative suggestions. The emphasis is on his proposal of what should become the group’s view of pertinent values, not primarily upon relevant facts or information.

The elaborator spells out suggestions in terms of examples or developed meanings, offers a rationale for suggestions previously made, and tries to deduce how any idea or suggestion would work out if adopted by the group.

The summarizer pulls together ideas, suggestions and comments of group members, and group decisions (decisions of the group) to help determine where the group is in its thinking or action process.

The coordinator-integrator clarifies the relationships between various ideas and suggestions, tries to extract key pertinent ideas from member contributions and integrate them into a meaningful whole. He also may try to coordinate and integrate the activities of various members or subgroups.

The orienter defines the position of the group with respect to its goals, points to departures from agreed upon directions or goals, or raises questions about the direction which the group discussion is taking.

The disagreer takes a different point of view, argues against, implies error in fact or reasoning. He may disagree with opinions, values, sentiments, decisions, or procedure.

The evaluator-critic subjects the accomplishment of the group to some set of standards of group-functioning in the context of the group task. Thus, he may evaluate or question the “practicality,” the “logic,” the “facts,” or the “procedure” of a suggestion or of some unit of group discussion.

The energizer prods the group to action or decision, attempts to stimulate the group to “greater” or “higher quality” activity.

The procedural technician expedites group movement by doing things for the group – performing routine tasks; e.g., distributing materials, manipulating objects, rearranging the seating, running the recording machines, etc.

The recorder writes down suggestions, group decisions” or the product of discussion. The recorder role is, the “group memory.”