Structural properties of Group

Although the effects of a group’s structure upon its attractiveness have not been

systematically investigated, there is evidence to suggest that such effects may be substantial.

Research initiated by Baveals shows that the communication structure of a group can affect

member’s satisfaction with participation in the group. Baveals created groups in the laboratory

that were to work on a problem requiring the exchange of information among members, and he

specified for each group the communication network that it could use. He found that the average

level of satisfaction was higher among members of groups with a decentralized network than

among those with a centralized one.

The effectiveness of a group as a function of its structural characteristics includes

following as essential components.

1. Size of group

2. Composition of group

3. Status hierarchy of group

4. The pre-established channels of communication within grou

1. Size of group

The crude question, Are small groups or large groups more effective? can at best yield

crude answers. Changes in group size may influence certain intermediate variables such as

cohesiveness, distribution of participation and leadership, which in turn influence the

effectiveness.

Group size, cohesiveness and satisfaction

Hare (1952) compared 5 and 12-person groups of Boy Scouts who were formed to play a

“camping game”. The boys were told a story about a camping trip which ended in misfortune,

making it necessary for each boy to make his way back to civilization alone. The boys were

asked to rank ten pieces of camping equipment in order of importance for the return trip. Each

group was then asked to decide as a group on the order of importance of the ten pieces of

equipment. After a group discussion, the boys again individually ranked the ten pieces of

equipment.

Hare found that the 5-person groups arrived at a significantly higher level of consensus

after discussion than did the 12-person groups. The larger group was found to limit participation

among the members by leading some members to feel that their individual opinions were not

important and therefore not worth voicing.

Slater (1958) examined some correlates of group size in a sample of 24 “creative” groups

ranging in size from two to seven members. Each group met four times for a discussion of one of

four human-relation problems. After each meeting, the members were asked to indicate whether

they felt the group was too small or too large for most effective work on the task it was assigned.

Members of the five-man group expressed completely satisfaction, no one reporting he

felt his group was too large or too small. Members of groups larger than five persons reported

that they felt their groups were disorderly and wasted time, and that the members were too

pushy, aggressive and competitive.

The members of groups smaller than five persons complained that their groups were too

small. Observations of the interactions of the members of the smaller groups suggested that they

were inhibited from expressing their ideas freely through fear of alienating one another and thus

destroying the group.

Group size and distribution of participation

Bales and his associates (1951), Stephan and Mishler (1952) and others have secured data

on the distribution of participation among members of one kind of creative group-discussion

groups. The similar findings of these studies suggest that as the size of the group increases, the

most frequent contributor assumes a more and more prominent role in the discussion. The bigger

the group, the greater the gap in amount of participation between the most frequent contributor

and the other member s of the group.

How does this affect productivity in creative groups? A study by Carter and his

coworkers (1951) is pertinent to this question. They concluded from their study that in the small

group “each individual has sufficient latitude or space in which to behave and thus the basic

abilities of each individual can be expressed; but n the larger group only the more forceful

individuals are able to express their abilities and ideas, since the amount of freedom in the

situation is not sufficient to accommodate all the group members”. The constraints upon

participation which persons may experience in large groups will tend to stifle crirical evaluation

of the ideas presented by the more self assertive and dominant members. The productivity of

creative members in large groups may suffer because of the silence of majority.

Group size and leadership behavior

It is clear that style of leader behavior can be significantly affected by size or group. In

the study by Carter and his associates (1951) [same as stated above] the correlates between

authoritarianism and leadership behavior was found to increase as the size of the group rose from

four to eight. Similarly, Hemphill (1950) found, when he compared leader behavior in groups of

30 or fewer members with leader behavior in groups of 31 or more, that in the larger groups the

demands upon the leader were greater and leader centered behavior was tolerated more by the

members.

Group size and productivity

Complex relations are found in group size and its effectiveness in terms of group

productivity as being indicated in various researches. Marriott (1949) studied output in relation

to group size in 251 work groups in two automobile factories. He found a negative correlation

between output and group size, groups of less than 10 producing 7 percent more per man than

groups of more than 30. This results, however, may be due to the fact that the group-bonus

system (under which his group worked) becomes ineffective for large groups.

Worthy (1950) has reported that a number of surveys carried out in Sears, Roebuck and

Company suggest that both worker satisfaction and operating efficiency tend to decrease with

increase in the size of administrative units. There is, surprisingly little convincing research

evidence that small work groups have a higher output per man than large groups.

Another possible advantage of a larger problem solving group is indicated in a study by

Taylor and Faust (1952), who compared the efficiency of problem solving in groups of two and

four. The parlor game of “Twenty Questions” was used as the experimental task. Although the

performance of groups of four was not found to be superior to that of groups of two, it is

significant that groups of four had fewer failures to find the answer in twenty questions. The

author suggest that “increasing the number of participants from two to four reduces the

possibility of a persisting wrong set resulting in complete failure.”

2. Composition of Group

The effectiveness of group in reaching its goal is determined by the individual

characteristics of the separate members making up the group. Effective groups are made up of

effective persons. The particular pattern or combination of individuals making up a group is

essential.

Groups and individual characteristics

A study by Haythorn (1953) throws considerable light on how the characteristics of

individual members affect the behavior of the group. In experimental groups assigned discussion

and problem solving tasks, he explored the kinds of individual behavior patterns that facilitate or

depress group functioning. Subjects met in groups of four. Membership was rotated so that each

subject worked successively in each group and thus the influence of the given individual’s

behavior could be isolated from that of a particular group. Correlations were computed between

the ratings by observers of each subject on each of 12 behavioral traits and ratings by group

members of the performance of the subject’s group. The behavioral traits of cooperativeness,

efficiency, and insight were found to be positively related to smooth and productive group

functioning. On the other hand, such individualistic behavior traits as aggressiveness, self

confidence, initiative, interest in individual solution, and authoritarianism tended to reduce group

cohesiveness and friendliness. Sociable behavior was found to lower group motivation and

competition, but to increase friendliness and interest in social interaction.

Personality attributes of the individual members were measured by means of the Cattell

Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Analysis of these personality measures in relation to

the functioning of the group in which the individuals work revealed consistent and meaningful

relations. Maturity, adaptability and acceptance of others were found to be positively related to

effective group functioning; suspiciousness, eccentricity and coolness toward their fellows

tended to impair smooth group functioning.

Membership pattern-Homogeneity

Persons who are similar in their values, attitudes and interest tend to form stable,

enduring groups. There is rather a substantial evidence that such homogeneity of individual

characteristics among the members of a group promotes member satisfaction. In a study by

Carter and Haythorn (1956) creative groups which were homogenous and heterogeneous in

authoritarian attitudes were compared. The homogeneous groups, relative to the heterogeneous

groups, were found to be more friendly and to have higher morale. The members of

heterogeneous groups conversely were observed to exhibit more conflict and competition.

The homogeneity or heterogeneity of a group also determines its productivity. But there it

would appear that the more heterogeneous the group, the better it is. In other words the effect of

the independent variable upon group functioning varies with the nature of the criterion of

effectiveness. Hoffman (1959), for instance, has studied the effect of the degree of homogeneity

in personality of the members of a creative group upon the quality of problem solving. His

results indicated that heterogeneous groups were superior to homogeneous groups in “inventive

solutions.”

Membership pattern-Compatibility

Another crucial factor in group composition is the compatibility of the members in

interpersonal response traits. Shutz (1958) has studied the effect of his factor on group

productivity where time pressure was important. He was led to investigate compatibility by his

assumption that non compatible groups dissipate a great deal of time and energy on interpersonal

problems. Further, the expression of hostility in the form of such obstructive behavior as

unreasonable criticism may greatly reduce group productivity.

3. Status Hierarchy

The members of any group that exist for any appreciatable period of time come to occupy

different status positions in the group. The influence that the resulting status hierarchy has upon

the effectiveness of group functioning is mediated in part by the pattern of communication

established in the group.

A laboratory experiment in which Kelley, created a prestige group hierarchy by giving

some members the authority to tell others what to do and how to do it. He informed some of the

higher status persons that they were secure in their jobs and others that they might be changed to

a lower status later in the experiment. Similarly, some of the lows were told that they would not

be allowed to rise above their low positions, and other lows were informed that they might be

promoted. Kelley found that the high status job with the implied threat of demotion. And the low

status post with the impossibility of promotion, were clearly the most undesirable positions. He

also noted that persons who were secure in their high status were most attracted to the rest of the

members of the group.

4. Channels of Communication

In the 1950s and 196Os, Bavelas and Leavitt and their colleagues at MIT conducted a series of

experiments on small group networks. They manipulated the pattern of communication among

the members of small groups by controlling who could send messages to whom, and measured

the impact of various patterns on group functionin,u and performance (Bavelas, 1950; Bavelas &

Barrett, 195 1; Leavitt, 195 1).The researchers found that centralization-the extent to which one

person served as a hub of communication-had a significant impact on individual and group

functioning. The complexity of the task proved to be a critical moderating variable:

Centralization was beneficial when the task was simple and detrimental for complex tasks. A

decentralized structure was also best when information was distributed unevenly among group

members, or when the information was ambiguous (Leavitt, 195 1; Shaw. 1954, 1964, 1971).

Studies have shown that decentralized networks outperformed the centralized one. Marvin

Shaw related this to information saturation. That is when the communication pattern has one

centralized person who becomes saturated when the optimum level is exceeded. As the system has one

person in the information transfer, too much information will interfere. It sometimes forces the weakest

person in the group to function in the leadership role. Note worthy is studies have found or at least

suggest that employees who are not satisfied with their jobs are more likely to distort information.

Bavelas has shown that communication patterns, or networks, influence groups in several

important ways. Communication networks may affect the group's completion of the assigned

task on time, the position of the de facto leader in the group, or they may affect the group

members' satisfaction from occupying certain positions in the network. These findings are based

on laboratory experiments.

A social network consists of a set of actors (“nodes”) and the relations (“ties” or “edges”)

between these actors (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The nodes may be individuals, groups,

organizations, or societies. The ties may fall within a level of analysis (e.g.. individual-to-

individual ties) or may cross levels of analysis (e.g., individual-to-group ties). There are different

types of network of communication. Communication Network means the channels by which

information flows. Networks can be of two types:

(A) Formal Network and

(B) Informal Network.

(A) Formal Networks:

Formal network are used for task-related communication. These are generally vertical type and

follow the authority chain. There are several patterns of communication. Widely used formal

networks are as follows:

Wheel/Star Network

Y Network

Line/Chain Network

Circle Network

All-Channel network,

(B) Informal Network:

Informal Networks do not follow authority chain. Here information can move to any direction

freely. There are four informal networks:

Single strand chain

Gossip chain

Probability chain

Cluster chain

Formal Networks

Wheel /Star Network

The wheel network concentrates on the available channels around one central position placing

the other people in peripheral positions.

Centralized network,

It is time saving.

Members can’t communicate with each other, hence perhaps low overall satisfaction.

Leader is very clear, and so is only satisfied.

Effective in simple task if, members accept the leader’s authority.

Y Network

It is very similar to the ‘wheel’ structure. Everyone can interact with all Leadership is unclear as

it is shared by all members

Completely connected

Decentralized network

Superior on complex tasks

More democratic, but can be very slow

Performance in simple task is low, as it takes longer time than normal.

Line/Chain Network

When the communication is restricted only to certain group members, but all are somehow

connected. Chain is like a broken circle and thus a set to occupy peripheral position in the

communication.

Leader is not clear, may be 2 or more.

Members satisfaction is better than the ‘wheel’ pattern.

Works moderately well for both simple and complex tasks.

Major drawbacks are

I. Do not work as a team

II. Weak leadership

III. Lack of Coordinated effort

Circle

Quite similar to the chain pattern with end 2 members also connected. Hence in the circle

pattern each participant can communicate with only two others.

Members are highly connected

Positions are equally centered

Circle groups work faster than wheel groups

Superior for complex tasks

All members are equally satisfied

All Channel Network

This network allows all group members to communicate with each other freely in group decision

process. There is no specified pattern of communication. Any member can communicate with

any other member of the group.

Require less time in problem solving

Yields fewer errors than networks of lower connectivity

Permits free communication

Decentralized network

All members are equally satisfied