When studying group communication we start by looking for people who are connected by a common goal or a common set of circumstances. A group is simply defined as 3 or more people working or socializing together as a means to an end. This might be a family group, a neighborhood group, a group of friends, or a team or workplace group focused on a specific task. In either case, the way that all of the members of the group communicate with each other will be affected by several variables unique to that group and the circumstances, such as leadership and communication styles that are brought into the groups dynamic. It's important to note that group communication may have its challenges but can be very gratifying and necessary.
We treat group communication differently than interpersonal communication because we are dealing with more people than we do in the standard dyad of interpersonal communication. While there are no specific rules, generally we are referring to between 3 and 10 people. Again, our focus is on the group having set goals or a set of circumstances that brought them together. General gatherings of people are not treated as groups in group communication studies.
Systems Approaches to Group Communication
There are two basic approaches to group communication studies. The first we will discuss is a systems theory approach. In this approach, we look at groups as systems and focus on how all of the members are parts of the collective whole. The second approach we will discuss is the naturalistic or cultural approach to group communication. This approach views the members of groups as individuals, each with unique needs and values. From a systems approach most of the models are behavioral and focused on predicting and controlling behaviors with the ultimate goals of the system in mind. This is particularly useful for monitoring how effective and efficient particular teams can be, and predicting the best means of achieving group task goals. The bona fide or cultural approach generally utilizes ethnographic methods, similar to those we discussed in the culture chapter.
The majority of small group communication theories and methods developed with grounding in Systems Theory. This approach, grounded in the work of biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, looks at the components of a system in relation to the whole (von Bertalanffy, 1968). In terms of group communication, what we are interested in investigating are how the components interact and communicate with each other and the system itself. This approach, sometimes also referred to as cybernetic theory, allows us to view group functions, development, processes, and roles as features of a structure or organization meant to function as a complete unit. However, systems theory can only give us a part of the picture of how groups function and communicate.
Cybernetics and Systems Theory in group communication has echoes of the Mathematical Theory of Communication; the focus is on how communication processes flow within and between groups.
From a Systems perspective, we focus primarily on how communication and functionality work within a group's organizational structure. The component parts or elements of that system are viewed as connected aspects of the whole unit. This means rather than looking at each group member as an individual, we look at them as part of the collective whole. A group's productivity is tied to its ability to function as a whole. Therefore, for studies focused on management, process, and functionality of a group, this is a very beneficial perspective (Griffin, 2000). Systems approaches can help to predict whether a group will function effectively, and help to monitor effective communication patterns in group processes.
Group studies from this perspective also help to illustrate potential systems failures and means of establishing management controls within the group. This is because the systems perspective takes a cybernetic approach focused on communication processes and the control of feedback in the system.* Cybernetic approaches look at the production and consumption of communication transmission within a system. This approach does not ignore environment. In fact, von Bertalanffy's (1968) model emphasizes the role of the environment on a system, and the system as an environment impacting its parts. However, it's important to note that these theories don't look at environmental impact on the individuals within the system, rather focusing on the system working within the environment. Therefore, while systems theory helps us understand an overall process view, it doesn't help us understand how outside forces can influence the individuals within a system.
Additionally, Systems approaches favor stability and limiting change, which becomes another dominant critique of the theory. In particular, this is because limiting change implies limiting innovation, which can be very necessary for group maintenance and functionality.For these reasons, the field of group studies has moved away from the dominance of systems theory, even as the textbooks in the field still utilize it as a good means of explaining the basics of group process. This complex attitude toward groups as systems may seem confusing, but consider how much it helps us understand task management approaches and achieving end goals while it simultaneously ignores individual characteristics and adaptability.
Aspects of Group Communication
When we start to look at how groups function, and the process of group communication, we first need to consider the dynamics of groups. Group dynamics are behaviors, communication patterns, and psychological motivations associated with group process. Group dynamics are influenced by societal and rhetorical norms, and result in patterns and forms of communication and behavior between group members. Group dynamics occur because groups are actually part of larger groups, or larger systems. Take for example the image of nested systems. All groups are influenced by their members' larger groups, cultures, and institutions.
Once these individuals get together, they go through stages of group development, based on task and membership goals. Group members can benefit from the development stages, and ideally the group itself will function more effectively when group development is complete. However, there are challenges and restrictions to good group process. Looking at a group's processes and functions in Communication Studies means looking at how a group is organized, how group members interact, and how communication flows within the group. One of the primary lenses we use to view group communicative process is Functional or Structural Theory. This body of theory evolved from an epistemological theory or "grand theory" called Structuralism. This larger body of theory is concerned with the creation of meaning, or how meaning is assigned to structural processes. From this perspective, we are primarily concerned with the building blocks of structure: signs, communication, and social forms.
Randy Hirokawa (1985) outlines a functional perspective on group decision-making. Functional theory focuses on how groups make decisions, and how those decisions are a necessary task of a group. Groups generally begin decision-making processes by addressing a problem: the probable entry. Then they assess the situation by gathering information. Next, they identify alternatives and objectives by discussing possible solutions and proposals to address the problem. Next, groups make a choice on what solution to use, based on their assessment and possible solutions list.
Other theories focus on group membership styles and formation. In 1965 Bruce Tuckman outlined a structuralist process through which a groups or team becomes a collective whole. Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development model delineates five stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Forming is the initial stage of the group or team members coming together and initiating a shared task. Storming is the conflict stage, when different team members outline their own goals and conflicting values and priorities emerge. Tuckman argued that approximately 50% of groups fall apart at this stage.
Norming is when the social norms of the group are established. This is done to avoid further conflict and put an end to the storming stage. Often this is when group constitutions or rules and standards are formalized. All active group members participate in this process, and it helps to solidify the group as a collective. Performing was the final stage of development in Tuckman’s original outline. This is the stage where the collective goal of the group is met, when the process is completed.
In 1977 Tuckman added the adjourning stage to explain how groups end after a task is completed (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). Not all groups go through this stage, only those that were designed with a specific task and timeline requirement. Though relationships between the group members after this stage may continue, the reasons that brought them together as a group no longer dominates, and the group ceases to function in the same way.
One of the most significant ways those questions can be answered is to look at models that reflect Structuration Theory. Structuration Theory evolved from Structuralist and Systems theories as a means of illustrating how systems such as small groups reflect structural norms from larger social systems. Small groups, viewed within this framework, communicate through structural processes that both reflect the group and create it. The theory, as framed by Anthony Giddens (1984) argues that systems interact in ways to create products or outcomes. A group (or structure) is simultaneously producing a system while it is an outcome of a system. Those products or outcomes then become the basis for further interaction and communication within the groups.
Desanctis and Poole (1994) generated Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) as a means of explaining how groups are continually reframing themselves. As groups develop, they also either choose or have leaders who emerge. Groups have many different kinds of leaders, based on both the personalities involved and the type of group concerned.
In the 1930’s psychologist Kurt Lewin identified three basic types of leaders: authoritarian, laissez-faire and democratic. Authoritarian leaders are controlling of the group, laissez-faire leaders take a very relaxed attitude, and democratic leaders encourage everyone to make decisions collectively. This concept led communication studies scholars to investigate the communication flow in team and group decision-making processes (Lewin, 1947).
Building on Lewin's understanding, scholars focus on how individual members within groups function as part of the structural whole. They focus on the roles and boundaries within and between groups, development patterns, communication patterns, and leadership and power dynamics. Studies of group dynamics, particularly those focused on leadership and task roles in groups take a variety of approaches. Most studies evolve from a Systems perspective, though some do consciously address issues from the cultural or bona fide epistemologies. The various approaches to leadership and task models are tied to the political, social, or task-oriented and efficiency concerns that scholars investigate. Some studies focus on the attributes or characteristics that make a good leader or team member, usually with some sense of predicting good leadership in mind. Others models look at leadership styles and how group members respond in different situations. Still others look at sources of power associated with members in various group contexts. All of these theories are designed to investigate how and why leadership and roles work or fail to work and how these patterns can be recognized and addressed in order to better manage groups.
Teams
Teams are distinguished as a special type of group because they have a collective goal that usually includes time restrictions on accomplishing that goal. When we discuss teams we could be discussing a basketball team or a group working together on a class project. This category does not generally refer to families or groups of friends, unless they are acting as a team to achieve a collective goal.
Groups have specific characteristics and communication styles. All groups have interdependence between the group members: they all have to work together for the collective good of the group. Groups also produce group synergy, which is the ability to accomplish tasks more efficiently than if the individual members were working alone on the tasks. Groups have common goals, and they also experience shared norms or patterns of behavior based on group expectations. Groups also build cohesiveness as they come together and work through their shared tasks and communicate and build their collective group identity.
Teams are primarily task-oriented in nature. When scholars investigate team roles, what they are looking at is how and why people take on the specific jobs and functions they do as members of a group. Group roles theories and models are looked at primarily from a systems perspective, with one of two character attributes or trait aspects used to interpret these roles: positive or negative roles. Positive roles are those that support the function of the group system. Negative roles detract from system functionality. Thus, group roles are, in a sense, types of leadership roles. They are the characteristics that can make a group function, or tear it apart.
As well as interpreting roles in relation to these character attributes, models of group theories have formed that discuss how members function in task-oriented or social-oriented groups (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). These models are designed to illustrate primarily those positive roles that help groups achieve their goals. Positive roles in these models include task- and social-oriented roles. Task-oriented roles are the roles that help to get the job done. These are necessary roles in teams and groups. Social-oriented roles are another category of roles often studied in group communication. These roles are also visible from a systems perspective, as roles that focus on the emotional status or activity within a group. These are sometimes referred to as maintenance roles. They apply to both social and task-oriented groups, sometimes illustrated simultaneously with task-oriented roles.
Negative roles that can impact both social and task-oriented groups are illustrated as a third model. These roles disrupt or break down the group system. These can interfere with both the task-orientation of the group or work to disrupt a group's emotional health. These roles are often labeled as hindering roles. Another label for these roles is individualistic roles, so named because people exhibiting these characteristics are often looking out for themselves at the expense of the group, or illustrating "me, not we" attitudes.
Further, when an individual chooses to join a group of their own volition, their resulting motivation for joining has an impact on how they choose to communicate with group members. Voluntary group members generally are motivated to join because of either task or social motivations that generate a positive entry into the group. Membership is not always voluntary, however, and group membership can be assigned. This also impacts motivational aspects of member communication. Involuntary group members can sometimes bring negative energy into the group, causing the group dynamic to initiate (in the case of new groups) or alter (when new involuntary members are introduced) in a problematic way (Schimmel & Jacobs, 2011). Some of the most commonly studied involuntary member groups are groups assigned to a group by legal or other authorities in order to seek counseling or aid, such as mandatory addictions recovery groups. Social workers are often assigned as leaders in groups like this. Small work groups and social groups can also have involuntary members, and they share many of the characteristics and communication conflicts associated with these Social Work groups, yet leadership is not always mandated from the outside in the same way. Therefore, the members themselves have to negotiate the negative atmosphere as an aspect of diverse motivations.
Groupthink
Successful groups and teams maintain a balance of individual and collective goals. If a group becomes too focused on collectivity, or becomes too focused on getting along, this can lead to groupthink. Groupthink occurs when groups become so focused on reaching a consensus that their individual expertise and values are overshadowed by the need to stay in agreement. In this case, the attributes that were valuable and brought the group together in the first place are no longer at play.
Groupthink often convinces group members that things are going well because, on the surface, everyone seems to be getting along. But, why is it that people are interacting without issues? Is it because of open communication, or are people being discouraged from speaking up about their individual concerns? The discouragement might not be direct. Groupthink creates an illusion that things are fine, while hiding real issues and distracting members from realizing that something is wrong. A lot of scholars discuss groupthink in terms of cult-like mentalities, particularly insular thinking, restrictive outreach, and a lack of idea inflow. Groups suffering from groupthink might look very successful to themselves and to outsiders, but they are actually stagnating. It's a case of the structure of the group working too well, with limited feedback and reflexivity.
A number of theories and models have emerged to encourage the avoidance of groupthink and other structural problems and to boost reflexivity. Functional Group Communication Theory is one of the most aggressive of these. Developed by Gouran and Hirokawa (1983), this theory makes the argument that decision-making is most effective when communication is focused on questioning the task that needs to be completed and seeking the best answer from a broad range of alternatives. This means group members need to critically examine possible solutions and outcomes, and compare new or original possibilities against standardized measures.
From this perspective, as groups reach toward their goals, communication can benefit, reinforce, or block the success of the process. If communication is beneficial, it plays a promotive role, allowing successful accomplishment of group goals. This means that multiple possible solutions have been analyzed and the most effective outcome was chosen by the group. In this case, groupthink was successfully avoided.
Communication can also play a disruptive role, blocking the group from successful decision making. In this case, obstacles such as distracting stereotypes and limited interactions get in the way of the group process. Groupthink often causes this disruption. A third possibility is that communication will play a counteractive role, negating the disruption and groupthink. In this case, individual group members speak up and voice their concerns, ensuring that all possible outcomes are fairly weighted and valued. Counteractive communication means producing counter-arguments in support of claims that would be ignored by groupthink. Good decision making helps to reduce groupthink, and encourages more full participation from all group members.
If individual needs are voiced and addressed by the group, and if communication with the outside is maintained, groupthink can be avoided. Leadership in the group can help with this by not voicing their own opinions about a task assignment and let the member assigned the task develop her or his own opinion. Group members should also take on critical evaluative roles and critique whether the group has the most updated and complete information to work from. At least one group member should actively play the role of Devil’s Advocate, and question collective decisions in a manner similar to that of Socratic method. And outsiders should be invited to contribute ideas and commentary to the group. These steps will ensure that group cohesiveness and process does not degenerate into groupthink.
Cultural Approaches to Group and Team Communication
When approaching Small Group Communication studies the dominant perspective is social scientific or behavioral in nature, and focuses on how a group functions as a system. A more recent approach to group studies derives from the idea that the people within a group system are themselves unique individuals with cultures and identities that may, in fact, clash with a group's systemic goals. Therefore, a new approach was designed that draws from the academic fields of Cultural Studies, Intercultural Communication, Feminist Communication, and Critical Race Theory to look at new ways of understanding how individuals, with their own unique performances of identity and culture, function within a group setting.
This approach further took a look at what came to be called "naturally occurring" or "bona fide" groups, distinguishing these from task-oriented groups and teams. Teams that are "put together" to complete a task form through very different processes than groups that form around cultural and social concerns. Bona fide groups can include families, groups of friends, and other social groups that don't necessarily have a specific goal in mind when they organize (Putnam & Stohl, 1990). Should these groups be looked at differently from task-oriented groups? In the field of Group Communication studies, these teams are primarily viewed from the culture and identity lens.
The individual identities that form a group ultimately come together to form a group identity or group culture. How effectively these identity merge directly impacts the overall tone of the group culture. That cultural tone is referred to as group climate (Lewin, Lippet, & White, 1939). Lewin's leadership studies are one of the first times group climate was investigated. Group climate is the emotional tone or atmosphere of the group and greatly impacts communication processes. The climate exists through perceptions of the group members. When group members perceive that they and their identities are respected, supported, and valued by the group and group process then a positive climate results. In contrast, a negative climate occurs when members perceive a lack of group respect, support, and value.
Epistemological conflicts between group members are one of the core causes of a negative climate. This is particularly significant when dominant members or dominant ideological values discount minority perspectives and diversity. This shares some similarities with the issues associated with groupthink. The resulting oppressive climate creates marginalized or silenced group members and emotional discomfort.
Gibb's theory of communication climates...Negative or defensive group climate generally results in competitive communication among members. Competition in groups occurs when members seek to promote themselves, often at expense of other members. Such a tendency is not an uncommon situation in individualistic cultures, such as the dominant culture of the United States, that promote individual freedom and success. This creates a "winner-takes-all" attitude that further disrupts the emotional tone of the group culture. In contrast positive or supportive group climate results in cooperative communication. Cooperation results when group members work together to achieve shared goals. In order for this to occur, either members much share epistemological concerns, or a process of constructing a new epistemology such as symbolic convergence needs to have been successful.
You may wonder just how much of our communication involves communicating identity. A person’s identity is expressed and maintained as part of their social life. How we self-identify, and how we express our identity to others, is something that is constantly communicated. As humans, we have a tendency to define ourselves, and others, by placing people into categories of expected behaviors and stereotyped characterizations. We then label ourselves and others as determined by these categories. Once we’ve self-identified in this manner, we begin to act out the characteristics of the categories.
At this point, we start to look for other people who act out their identities in similar ways. In part, this is because our epistemological view, or way of knowing and understanding the world based on experience, upbringing, and personal standpoint. We form groups based on this perspective because it is often more easily shared with people who are somewhat like-minded. Consider the view or standpoint you take to abortion, politics, religion, or even something like baseball. Is this influenced by your experience?
This standpoint approach, which comes to be labeled Standpoint Theory, can be applied to how individuals within groups deal with other individuals who come from different standpoints or other social statuses. This is particularly significant when dealing with those belonging to different social rank statuses, and how this impacts group communication practices. Does having a privilege from outside the group itself impact how someone will respond to the structure in a group?
Cross-cultural communication within groups happens when two members of the group are speaking from different epistemological standpoints. This can greatly impact the communication patterns of a group. Bona fide groups often draw members with similar standpoints. Task groups do not have that tendency. Further, all groups contain members who are also members of other groups, and carry some of the identity, perspective, and standpoint they wear in each of their groups with them at all times. So consider how standpoint and privilege will play out in a group, how stereotypes can influence group process and group decision making, and how many groups involve each individual member.
References
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization science, 5(2), 121-147.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Griffin, E. (2000). A First Look at Communication Theory, 4th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
Gouran, D. S. , & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1983). The Role of Communication in Decision-Making Groups: A functional perspective. In M. S. Mander (Ed.), Communications in Transition (pp. 168–185). New York: Praeger.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1985). Discussion procedures and decision‐making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 203-224.
Jose Diez. (2016, January 4). Leadership and effective collaboration. [Video file.]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ZnjJpa1LBOY
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept method, and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of social psychology, 10(2), 269-299.
Malinowski, B. (1944). A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41(3), 248-265.
Radcliffe-Browne, A. (1957). A Natural Science of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schimmel, C.J., and Jacobs, E. (2011). When leaders are challenged: Dealing with involuntary members in groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 36 (2), 144-158.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, New York: George Braziller.
