Explain how a specific group process (such as a behavior, procedure, or norm) affected synergy in the group, either positively or negatively.

Submission Requirements

1. 400 to about 650 words, but certainly no more than 800 words.
2. Include the word count at the end of your response, like this: Words: 582
3. Submit to the relevant dropbox as a Word Document (doc or docx) or a PDF file.
4. Write the response in Standard American English.  This includes using full sentences, indented paragraphs, and proper spelling and punctuation.  Be sure to double space your submission.
5. Place course concepts you use in bold. Example: “Early on our group developed an unusual normabout taking turns in conversation…”  (Note that your goal is still to demonstrate a rich understanding of the course material, though, and not merely to “spam vocabulary.”)
6. If the only source you use is the textbook, you do not need to submit a works cited list.

Prompt

For this first writing assignment, you’ll need to explain your answers in light of a group to which you’ve belonged.  Once you’ve read through the rest of the prompt, select a group that helps you illustrate your responses.  (You might review Table 1.2 in the reading to see the range of groups you could consider.)

Part 1: Explain how a specific group process (such as a behavior, procedure, or norm) affected synergy in the group, either positively or negatively.  Draw upon the lesson explanations about systems, social facilitation, social interference, or process losses to develop your explanation, although you also are free to reference other concepts from the textbook and lesson to justify your answer.

Part 2:  Explain two specific things that happened early on in the group’s history; use these to illustrate two early stages of Tuckman’s Model of Group Development. (Select from the forming, storming, or norming stages.)  In addition to correctly labeling the stage, your answer should clearly reference specific course concepts from the textbook and lesson.

Part 3: Explain one norm that has changed over time.  Be sure to explain which type of norm it is, as outlined in the textbook, and what led the norm to change.

TYPES of Groups: 1.2.2: Types of Groups

Like their individual members, groups have diverse characteristics and goals. Although a basketball team, a study group, a corporate board of directors, and a homecoming committee are groups in which interdependent members collaborate with one another to achieve a common goal, each one has unique features and functions.

The most common types of groups fall into eight categories that span a wide range of groups, from the most personal and informal types of groups to more formal, structured types. You can identify each type of group (primary, social, self-help, learning, service, civic, organizational, and public) by observing its purpose (why the group meets) and examples of membership (who is in the group), as shown in Table 1.1.

L01 Social Facilitation

We’ve thus far looked at a variety of ways in which small groups can effectively approach collaborative tasks.  This includes:

1. Approaching task types correctly, whether additive, disjunctive, or conjunctive.
2. Balancing group dialectics to fit the needs of the situation and the group members.
3. Monitoring the norm development process, and interceding when unproductive norms emerge.
4. Attending to the complex interconnections in small group systems, recognizing that changing the system may require both direct and indirect interventions, that these changes may have additional (sometimes unforeseen) effects on the system, and that it may take a while before balance is again reached after changes are implemented.
5. Managing information flows from outside the group, both to ensure accuracy of the group’s work and to develop the social connections within the group.

Increasing Synergy through Social Facilitation

Social facilitation is another means of increasing a group’s synergy, one which affects each of these five areas.  The concept was first explored by Norman Triplett in 1898, who examined time trials for cyclists.  He observed that times for cyclists were faster when they were on a course with someone else, as opposed to by themselves.  While this is fairly obvious to us today–competition is used as a motivational device in a variety of sports, for instance–it was surprising at the time, since people assumed the upper limit on effort was set by physiological conditions alone.  The key finding of social facilitation research, that effort could be facilitated by the presence of others, was a novel one at the time.

Research throughout the 20th century established that social facilitation affects a variety of tasks, from manual tasks like winding string on a spool to cognitive ones like doing multiplication problems.  While competition is one specific force by which social facilitation occurs, things like behavioral modeling, social support, a sense of belonging, awareness of evaluation, and increased attentiveness may be dominant forces in other situations.

Co-Action and Audience Effect

Social facilitation works through two similar channels: the co-action effect occurs when others are doing a task alongside someone, even when not directly cooperating.  For instance, even just studying around–but not with–other people who are studying, such as in a coffee shop or library, can help people work better.  Similarly, the audience effect occurs when others are observing someone complete a task, but are not participating in it.

While social facilitation can be a powerful set of forces for improving group interactions, being around other people sometimes has negative effects.  We’ll examine the idea of social interference next.

L01 Social Interference

Not all group interactions lead to synergy.  Social facilitation occurs most often with simple tasks (including dexterity tasks, like an assembly line, or simple math problems), or with moderately complex tasks–but only when someone has expertise in the task.  People can tend to perform worse around others, experiencing social interference, when dealing with complex mental tasks (like solving mazes or writing poetry), or with moderately complex tasks when the person has little expertise.

So if someone has experience with public speaking, a moderately complex task, then having an audience can actually help them perform better than, say, just video recording themselves.  But if someone is new to public speaking, having an audience may make them perform worse.

Several theories have been proposed as to why people perform differently around others.

• Some of the variance is due to how we feel about being evaluated. For example, if we think we’re likely to create a favorable impression, that can motivate us to work harder. (Keep in mind that this can be a favorable impression about relatively inane things, like winding string on a spool; it doesn’t take much to cause slight changes in performance.)
• Some of the variance is due to whether our dominant response is the correct one. For example, if we have confidence that our next action will be correct because the task is simple (pedal the bicycle, wind the string, add the numbers) or because of our expertise, then an audience will likely increase our motivation. But if our dominant response is not automatically correct (should I turn left at the next fork in the maze? which word should I use to finish this line of the poem?) then we may second guess ourselves and perform worse overall.
• Some variance is due to a psychological principle called arousal. Essentially, this refers to how alert someone is in a particular moment.  Being around others tends to make people more attentive to the task at hand, and, up to a point, that social awareness facilitates performance.  However, if someone is tooattuned to the social dynamic because they’re in a keyed up state, then their performance will suffer from social interference.

The Yerkes-Dodson Law (1908) examines this connection between stimulation and performance, as represented in this graphic.

Image Credit: Yerks Dodson Law,
via Safety Institute of Australia, Ltd.,
Psychosocial Hazards and Occupational Stress (Links to an external site.), p. 6

How can we maximize social facilitation in groups, while minimizing social interference?

1. Meet often enough to allow the audience and co-action effects to take place.
2. Be “present” when in group meetings, avoiding distractions like smartphones or laptops.
3. Provide supportive evaluation, rather than judging 
4. Rehearse moderately complex tasks to improve at them over time.
5. Complete very complex portions of the task individually, unless the group is composed of experts at the task.

L01 Process Losses in Groups

Ivan Steiner (1972) proposed that all groups experience process losses, where a group loses efficiency due to both how they are interacting, and just the fact that they areinteracting at all.  Other researchers have identified specific key causes of process losses, including:

1. Social Loafing:Also known as free riding, this is the tendency of individuals to put forth less effort in a group, either because they are unmotivated, or because it seems like the group is doing “well enough” without additional effort on the individual’s part.
2. Evaluation Apprehension:Individuals may sometimes fear negative judgments from others in a group, which keeps them from contributing as much or as often as they might otherwise.
3. Production Blocking:The “production” of ideas can be limited because of the social demands of a group.  For instance, people sometimes forget ideas during a group conversation, while waiting for their turn to speak.  Or, by the time they get a chance to speak, they might decide that the idea is no longer as relevant, or that the group has “moved on.”  Or, an individual may stop generating new ideas because they have to hang onto the one idea they came up with but have yet to share.

Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe (1987, 1991) found that idea-generating groups (i.e., brainstorming groups) suffered from all three, but that production blocking was by far the most harmful in group brainstorming sessions.  Instead, they recommend using the nominal group technique, where individuals do the brainstorming on their own, and then bring those ideas to the group to discuss.  (In other words, first, treat it as an additive task, and then treat it as a conjunctive task.)

Of course, groups do more in discussion than just brainstorm, so be attentive to how any of these factors might be affecting the specific task at hand.

References:

https://losspreventionmedia.com/process-loss-and-cross-functional-loss-prevention-teams/

http://www.psyking.net/HTMLobj-3674/Summary_Notes_and_Overview_of_Social_Psychology.pdf