Group Behaviour in Organisations

Organisations run on groups, so understanding group dynamics is central.

Group vs team. A group is two or more people who interact and see themselves as a unit. A team is a special kind of group whose members are interdependent and share a common goal and responsibility. Teams can achieve more than individuals — but group dynamics can also harm performance.

Two faces of groups.

• Helpful: pooling skills/knowledge, support and motivation, division of labour, better (informed) decisions.
• Harmful: social loafing (reduced individual effort in a group), conformity, faulty group decisions (groupthink), and conflict.

Why this matters. Whether a group helps or harms depends on how it develops (Tuckman), how it decides (avoiding groupthink/polarisation), whether it has a balanced mix of roles (Belbin), and how it handles conflict. These four threads run through the topic.

Why this matters for the exam. Hold the idea that groups can both help and harm performance: it frames why organisations study group development, decision-making, team roles and conflict — and gives you ready evaluation in every section.

Tuckman's stages of group development describe how a group matures over time:

1. Forming — members meet, are polite and uncertain; they get to know the task and each other (high dependence on a leader).
2. Storming — conflict emerges over roles, status, ideas and control; the most difficult stage, but necessary.
3. Norming — the group settles: norms, roles and cooperation develop; cohesion grows.
4. Performing — the group works effectively and independently toward the goal — peak productivity.
5. Adjourning (added later) — the group disbands after completing the task (and may feel loss).

The lesson for managers: conflict (storming) is normal and even necessary; groups need time and support to reach performing, so reshuffling teams constantly prevents them maturing.

Evaluation in brief. Tuckman is intuitive, widely used and practical (managers know what to expect and support). But it is descriptive rather than explanatory, groups don't always go through the stages in order (they may skip, repeat or get stuck), and the timing varies — so it oversimplifies real group life.

Groups can make worse decisions than individuals.

Groupthink (Janis). When a group values agreement and cohesion over realistic appraisal, it makes poor decisions. Symptoms include: an illusion of invulnerability, self-censorship (members withhold doubts), pressure on dissenters, an illusion of unanimity, and mindguards who shield the group from contrary information. Conditions that encourage it: high cohesion, a directive leader, isolation and stress. (Janis analysed fiascos such as the Bay of Pigs.)

• Prevent it by: encouraging dissent, appointing a devil's advocate, seeking outside views, and the leader staying impartial.

Group polarisation. Group discussion tends to make members' views more extreme in the direction they already leaned — a cautious group becomes more cautious, a risky one riskier (the 'risky shift'). Caused by persuasive arguments and social comparison.

Decision techniques (to improve decisions):

• Brainstorming — generate many ideas without criticism (though it can suffer from production blocking).
• Nominal group technique — members generate ideas individually first, then share/rank — reduces dominance and groupthink.
• Delphi technique — experts give anonymous input over rounds, with feedback — avoids face-to-face pressure.

Evaluation in brief. Groupthink is influential and explains real disasters, but much evidence is retrospective case studies (hard to test), and not all cohesive groups show it. Decision techniques are applicable but each has limits.

Belbin's team roles theory argues that an effective team needs a balance of different roles, not just clever people. Belbin identified nine roles in three groups:

• Action-oriented: Shaper (drives the team), Implementer (turns ideas into action), Completer-Finisher (checks details/quality).
• People-oriented: Coordinator (organises, delegates), Teamworker (supports, smooths relationships), Resource Investigator (explores outside contacts/ideas).
• Thinking-oriented: Plant (creative ideas), Monitor-Evaluator (analyses options critically), Specialist (provides expert knowledge).

The key idea: each role has strengths and 'allowable weaknesses'. A balanced team (covering the needed roles) outperforms an unbalanced one — for example, a team of all 'Plants' generates ideas but never finishes.

Evaluation in brief. Belbin is widely applied (team building, selection) and a useful, practical framework. But the self-report questionnaire used to assign roles has questioned reliability/validity, people can adopt different roles in different teams (roles aren't fixed traits), and 'balance' doesn't guarantee success (other factors matter).

Conflict is disagreement or opposition between people/groups. It can be:

• Interpersonal (between individuals) or intergroup (between teams/departments),
• Functional (constructive — sparks debate, better ideas) or dysfunctional (destructive — harms cooperation and wellbeing).

Causes: competition for scarce resources, incompatible goals, poor communication, role ambiguity, and personality clashes.

Managing conflict (a classic model uses assertiveness × cooperativeness):

• Avoiding (low/low) — ignore it (can let it fester),
• Accommodating (cooperative, unassertive) — give in,
• Competing (assertive, uncooperative) — win/lose,
• Compromising (middle) — each side gives something,
• Collaborating (high/high) — work together for a win/win (usually best for important issues).

Pulling it together for Paper 3 'evaluate / discuss':

• Strengths: strong application (team building, decision-making, conflict resolution); some theories are well-supported.
• Weaknesses: much evidence is self-report/case-study/correlational; constructs (roles, groupthink) are hard to measure; effects depend on culture and individual differences.
• Debates: individual vs situational (personality vs group situation), application, idiographic vs nomothetic, culture (group norms differ).