GROUP COHESION

Factors

Whether a group works well or not depends on a whole variety of different factors. The three
classes of variables identified by Davis are:

 person variables - abilities, personality traits, motives

Davis (1969), cited in Burton and Dimbleby (1988)

You'll presumably be aware of that from your own experience of groups.

Person variables

Under 'person variables', for example, it seems quite common for my young adult students to
run into conflicts with their parents, sometimes to the extent that they move out - so their
family group was not particularly cohesive as a result of person variables.

Environmental variables

Under 'environmental variables', you can probably think of a group that stopped meeting
because they couldn't stand meeting in a draughty, unheated church hall any more; in my local
union branch, attendance at meetings has fallen since around half the members were moved to
a different timetable form the others; attendance at evening classes tends to less regular by
those who live far away. Under 'environmental variables' might also be listed the size of the
group.

Some of the observations of management guru, Tom Peters would also fall under
'environmental variables'. Peters (1995 : 127) cites academic evidence which supports his own
findings that the optimum size of a group is somewhere from five to ten. Much above that, and
communication becomes unclear. Peters also claims that a group is more likely to achieve its
goals efficiently if only the principal actors are involved. Note that he is referring here to the
special case of task groups within a commercial company and so his observation does not
necessarily apply to other groups. For example, the local philately club may stand a better
chance of achieving its aims if membership is as large as possible since that would introduce a
larger range of stamps to be swapped, bought and sold as well as increasing the likelihood of
introducing specialist knowledge, held by members with a special interest in the stamps of
Chad, Qatar or wherever. The increased difficulty in managing communication may be an
acceptable price to pay. Note also that Peters points out that restricting group membership to
the principal actors only would not work if there were not a climate of trust in the organization,
since those excluded from the group could not be confident that their interests would be
represented.

As regards optimum group size, Fukuyama (1999 : 213) suggests that it cannot reasonably
exceed fifty to one hundred members, since the various biological mechanisms for detecting
'free-riders' in groups were developed in our evolutionary past in hunter-gatherer societies,
which must have been around that size. This is probably another example of a theorist
attracted by evolutionary psychology finding what works today and concluding that evolution
must have conditioned us for it. The next step is to use that assumption about our evolution as
an explanation of our contemporary behaviour. Somewhat circular, but that probably doesn't
matter, as most of us would probably share his view that fifty to one hundred is somewhere
around the maximum.

Also referred to by Peters is the duration of the group. According to him, a group is likely to be
more successful in realizing its goals if it is of limited duration. It should be borne in mind,
though, that Peters is concerned with groups such as task groups in industrial organizations,
who would benefit from setting themselves a goal of, say, planning the retooling of a
production line by a given date. This obviously doesn't apply to a group whose members just
want to go on collecting and swapping stamps until they drop dead.

Task variables

'Task variables' is perhaps a less obvious term. It refers to factors associated with the tasks or
goals that the group is trying to achieve. At the time of writing, for example, a number of
Conservative MPs, including cabinet ministers, are out of sympathy with the pro-European
goals being officially pursued by the party and the consequences of this disagreement are
potentially disastrous for the party's future prospects.

Stages of Formation

Most writers on the formation and development of groups will refer to the stages identified by
Tuckman (1965) as:

 forming - at this stage, group members will be uncertain of the group's structure and its
goals or a strategy for achieving them; they will as a result be quite dependent on the leader;
 storming - at this stage, conflict and disagreements between the group members and the
leader will arise, as well as between various sub-groups; there will be a tendency to rebel against
the rules which have been established. If you accept the basic premise that membership of a
group is motivated by a desire to achieve one's own ends more effectively than a person could as
an isolated individual, then this 'storming' stage, where each individual competes for the
dominance of his or her ends, should come as no surprise.
 norming - the group becomes more mature and cohesive; group norms develop beyond
any formally established rules
 conforming - conflicts between individuals are resolved; the group works constructively
on problem-solving and energy is directed towards the task.

Of course, not all groups will go through these stages of development, though you can
probably identify them in groups which you have joined, whether formally established groups
such as a committee or informal groups such as a circle of friends.

Mature groups

It is quite possible also for a group to be quite cohesive even though there is plenty of conflict
and disagreement. This is fairly typical of what is often referred to as a mature group,
characterized by positive regard for the members and their opinions, a willingness to adapt to a
point of disagreement and, ultimately, the members'' preparedness to reach a compromise
position.

Again, taking the example of my local union branch, branch meetings will reflect a
considerable range of views and consequent disagreement, not only as regards policies
currently under discussion, but even as regards what a union ought to be trying to achieve.
These views range from those who feel that the union should concern itself only with its
members' pay and conditions of service to those who feel that it should be in the business of
trying to topple the present government, from those who make it clear that they would never
take industrial action under any circumstances to those who frequently call for strike action.
The branch continues to function nevertheless, despite such fundamental disagreements.
There's a number of reasons for that, I think. Firstly, all members, whatever else they may
believe about the union, share the view that it should concern itself with the pay and conditions
of its members; secondly, there is a clearly established procedure for determining who should
speak, for how long, for calling them to order if they stray from the point and for resolving
conflict by a majority vote - all characteristic of the 'conforming' stage.

Conformity and groupthink

The 'conformity' stage can be far less positive than portrayed above, resulting in rather sterile
groupthink. In such a case, the survival of the group becomes more important than the
achievement of its goals and conflict is deliberately side-stepped in order to avoid any threat to
the group's existence (whereas the 'mature' group can cope with disagreement). (For further
information on group pressures to conform, see the sections on social influence).

Quite why we have this tendency to conform is not very clear, but it might well be related to
the behaviour of animals in herds and birds in flocks. Once a couple of antelopes start running
from a lion, it makes sense for the others to start running as well, rather than hanging around to
check whether there really is a lion. There's also the possibility that a tendency to imitate
others is built into our make-up, since it is an important way of learning (see the section on
Bandura and social learning theory).
Conceivably, we are genetically predisposed towards social conformism and ethnocentrism
(i.e. the tendency to support and conform to our own group). Such a predisposition would be
advantageous in promoting cultural group selection in the same way that in natural selection
sharp teeth or the ability to run fast from danger confer an advantage. Sociobiologists have
found it difficult to account for such behaviours as altruism, co-operation and group loyalty in
terms of Darwin's theory of evolution, which would be expected to lead to primarily egocentric
behaviour. However, it might be possible to demonstrate (theorists disagree over this) that
cultures whose members' behaviour is purely egocentric tend to die out whereas co-operative
cultures survive. If so, then it would follow that the surviving cultures are those with the 'co-
operation gene'. (Further, brief comment on evolutionary psychology)

Not all people conform, of course, and there is evidence that those who don't tend to have a
healthy level of self-esteem and to have mature social relationships, as well as being fairly
flexible and open-minded in their thinking.

Social loafing

Over half a century ago the German psychologist Ringelman identified the phenomenon now
generally known as social loafing. He noticed that, as you added more and more people to a
group pulling on a rope, the total force exerted by the group rose, but the average force exerted
by each group member declined. This social loafing has been identified repeatedly in a variety
of experiments since Ringelman and it now seems to be generally accepted that it is a
widespread phenomenon affecting both sexes, a variety of cultures and a wide range of
different group tasks. Social loafing is naturally a threat to a group's performance (whether a
mature group or not). Tests have shown that it is possible to eliminate social loafing if things
can be arranged so that an individual member's contribution to the group effort is identifiable.
In practice, of course, this can be very difficult.

FACTORS INFLUENCING GROUP COHESIVENESS

The forces that push group members together can be positive (group-based rewards) or
negative (things lost upon leaving the group). The main factors that influence group
cohesiveness are: members’ similarity, group size, entry difficulty, group success and
external competition and threats. Often, these factors work through enhancing the
identification of the individual with the group s/he belongs to as well as their beliefs of
how the group can fulfill their personal needs.

Members’ Similarity The more group members are similar to each other on various
characteristics the easier it would be to reach cohesiveness. Following Social Identity
Theory, we know that people feel closer to those whom they perceive as similar to
themselves in terms of external characteristics (age, ethnicity) or internal ones (values,
attitudes). In addition, similar background makes it more likely that members share
similar views on various issues, including group objectives, how to communicate and the
type of desired leadership. In general, higher agreement among members on group
rules and norms results in greater trust and less dysfunctional conflict. This, in turn,
strengthens both emotional and task cohesiveness.

Group Size Since it is easier for fewer people to agree on goals and to coordinate their
work smaller groups are more cohesive than larger groups. Task cohesiveness may
suffer, though, if the group lacks enough members to perform its tasks well enough.

Entry Difficulty Difficult entry criteria or procedures to a group tend to present it in

Group Success Group success, like exclusive entry, increases the value of group
membership to its members and influences members to identify more strongly with the
team and to want to be actively associated with it.

External Competition and Threats When members perceive active competition with
another group, they become more aware of members’ similarity within their group as
well as seeing their group as a means to overcome the external threat or competition
they are facing. Both these factors increase group cohesiveness; leaders throughout
human history have been aware of this and focused the attention of their followers on
conflicts with external enemies when internal cohesion was threatened. Similar effects
can be brought about by facing an ‘objective’ external threat or challenge (such as
natural disaster).