¶ … Group Loss MAIN STUDY QUESTION: If a particular personality trait or component is removed from a group, will the remaining members compensate for that loss?

SUBORDINATE QUESTIONS:

What methods are appropriate for determining the group's locus of control, assuming it has one?

How might this determination influence whether or not the group values a particular personality trait or a specific component?

And, based on that knowledge, what measures could be used to determine if it was necessary to compensate for whatever loss occurred?

As sociology is the study of group behavior, there is an acceptance from the beginning that the existence of a group means something more than just a collection of individuals who each do their own things. This fact is not really disputed. But there are still many questions about the various roles that individuals and circumstance play in making a group function, just as there are questions about whether the group "sees" its members in one way or another based upon the dynamic of internal or external loci of control.

Studies have shown, for example, that many groups develop for various reasons with either "I" or "we" focuses (for a sample study, see Hyldegard, J., 2009). This concept is similar to the psychological construct of locus on control (Neill, J. 2006). In an effort to attribute the reasons for behaviors, a person determines whether he or she controls the elements of destiny in his or her life, or whether that control comes from someplace external. In a similar way, it has been shown that groups operate in ways that depend on whether they view themselves as a collection of "internally controlled" individuals or as a collective of "externally controlled" teammates. In an instance of the former, the purposes of the group may be to facilitate personal or individual achievement...

The group is there to advance those outcomes. In the externally controlled "we" group, however, the tasks are still critical but so too is the existence of the larger body of interconnected persons -- a concept that is becoming more important in this day of online groups of various kinds, as will be discussed below.
This characterizing of issues of control within a group becomes very important for the question at hand. It can directly influence if the personality trait (a type of person who may be one or more persons and/or a small collection of people) or component in question is sufficiently meaningful or has value to the collective. For example, "I" and "we" groups could both have gatekeepers, whose role is to keep extraneous information or factors away from the work. (There are many such roles. See Akins, L.H., 2001). But an "I"-based gatekeeper could weigh certain factors differently than a "we"-based one, which would have direct implications on whether the loss of a personality or component was truly important (at least to anyone other than the gatekeeper him or herself).

In today's society, this issue becomes more relevant for a number of others reasons that could also come into play. Many groups now have roles and characteristics that are greater than the proximity of any individuals (say if they exist virtually), and thus many issues of locus of control may be harder to identify. Not much is known about this yet, nor what it means in the dynamics of online friends, families, support groups, etc. Still, even in these technological groups, it may still be critical to understand the underlying "I" or "we" motivations. These virtual groups are intimately connected to jobs, personal support groups, even political organizing campaigns to quite literally change the world. How groups like these function may say something about the future of collective…