Group Processes in Organizational Contexts (Joseph E. McGrath and Linda Argote): Formation Processes

Brief yet helpful explanation about Forces in Group Formation and Types of Groups.

Forces in Group Formation

Both external and internal forces operate in the formation of groups, and both “top-down” and “bottom-up” (or planning and emergent) forces operate as well. This suggests four prototypical forms of groups: Concocted groups are top-down or designed groups impelled by outside forces (e.g., a manager); Founded groups are top-down or designed groups impelled by inside forces (i.e., one or more people who themselves will be members of the new group); Self-organized groups are impelled by bottom-up or emergent forces and internal forces; Circumstantial groups are impelled by the situation, an external force, and the formation of a group is emergent or bottom-up.

All four kinds of group formation apply to work organizations but with different frequencies. Most work groups are concocted, that is, created by someone outside the group who has the power to reassign people and resources. Sometimes top management members found groups of which they will be (high-status) members. Sometimes “informal” groups arise as self-organized groups (e.g., those groups that plagued the Hawthorne plant’s incentive plan). And probably circumstantial groups sometimes form within organizations, especially in the face of catastrophes or perceived threats.

Types of Groups

For all of these forms of groups, we can think of “group types” in terms of two factors: (a) whether the group gives priority to group projects or to member needs; and (b) the importance given to, and the timing with which, different aspects of the group (members, tasks, tools) are selected and different sets of relations (member-task, member-tool, task-tool) are established. We can consider three types of group project-oriented groups (which Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000, call work groups) and three types of member needs-oriented groups (which those authors call clubs).

The three types of work groups, that emphasize completion of group projects are:

1.       Teams, in which the members and the member—tool relations are primary, and the sets of relations are expected to last for a long (indefinite) time;

2.       Task Forces, in which the project and the member—task relations are primary, and where the group is expected to continue only until that project is completed; and

3.       Crews, in which the technology and the task—tool relations are primary, and the sets of relations are expected to continue only for a “shift” of relatively brief duration.

These different forms of groups (all of which are plentiful in work organizations) have major implications for how, and how effectively, groups can accomplish their purposes, and for how vulnerable the group is to changes in different aspects of the group. Task forces are very vulnerable to changes in the assigned project; teams to changes in members; and crews to changes in technology.

                The three kinds of groups or clubs that focus on fulfillment of member needs are:

4.       Economic clubs which focus on the material resources and power/control needs that members can fulfill from group membership;

5.       Social clubs which focus on the affiliative needs that members can fulfill from group membership; and

6.       Activity clubs which focus on the activity/achievement needs that members can fulfill from group membership.

From the point of view of management, only groups that focus on completion of group projects jave legitimate status, although sometimes management is aware of the existence of member-oriented groups (as in the informal  groups of the Hawthorne studies). From the point of view of an individual member, membership in an organization and in groups within that organization must always, to some degree, entail expectations of need fulfillment. Thus, any given member may be associated with one or more of these types of “clubs,” as well as with one or another of the group project-oriented types of work groups listed above.

                Of course, these types are prototypes or exemplars, not mutually exclusive categories. Any given group is likely to be a blend of all six types. But most groups are liable to be uneven mixes of these various aspects, hence more of some kinds than of others.

(Source: Brewer, Marilynn B. & Hewstone, Miles. 2004. Applied Social Psychology. UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pg. 324-326)

× 『rui@96yR』【butterflyuu】 ×