Group Dynamics in the Workplace: Teams, Decisions & Conflict

Introduction: The Precarious Nature of Group Dynamics

With the advent of the new millennium has come an increased focus on the workplace and the impact of sociological concepts within it, such as leadership and group dynamics. A study of group dynamics in the workplace reveals that the theory is significantly relevant to the workings of organizations, posing several important implications for managers, owners, and employees. However, Brown (2000) points out that groups have traditionally been associated with negative outcomes both in popular Western culture and in sociological studies. Brown (2000) notes that "groupthink" is generally the concept most often associated with group behavior, "rather than the more positive aspects of team spirit, intergroup cooperation, group productivity and collective problem solving" (p. xiv). The groups studied in social psychology and sociology may be more malevolently oriented — such as gangs — whereas in the workplace, groups are perceived by management as positive, using collective problem solving and diversity to create innovative solutions.

This difference points not only to the divergent treatment of groups across disciplines, but also to the fact that group dynamics can elicit both positive and negative results in the workplace. In his introduction to Group Dynamics for Teams, Levi (2007) writes that two traditional schools studying group dynamics have been historically separated: the psychological and social scientist schools, who have collected substantial data on the subject, and those who have attempted to apply such methods and reasoning to workplace dynamics. Levi (2007) declares that his goal is to unite these two schools, making scholarly research applicable to "the ways in which teams operate in organizations" (p. xvii). In keeping with Levi's (2007) goal, this paper considers both the traditional psychological and social research regarding group dynamics and the more modern research that has dealt with group dynamics specifically in the workplace. Through an examination of group dynamics and their relationship to decision-making, motivational patterns, conflict and competition, and task functions, a better understanding of how this traditional psychological concept can be applied to the workplace can be gained.

Group vs. Individual Decision-Making

Although it was traditionally a term among psychologists and sociologists, groupthink has begun to make its way into popular discourse. Developed in 1982 following Janis's influential study of American foreign policy decisions made by groups, the term was coined to express "concurrence-seeking tendencies that lead to defective decision making" (Brown, 2000, p. 213). When Janis (1982) coined the term, Brown (2000) argues she was attempting to assess the quality of groups' decision-making — a perilously difficult task, as it is nearly impossible to evaluate, after the fact, how good a decision truly was. However, in her study of American foreign policy decisions, Janis (1982) found that those decisions which did not go the way the decision-makers had wanted were marked by several features. The group was "cohesive" and unable to access input from outside, in addition to being "dominated by a very directive leader" (Brown, 2000, p. 213). Furthermore, Janis (1982) found that groups who made "bad" decisions did not "search systematically" through a variety of options — perhaps because those groups were almost always faced with a fast-approaching deadline (Brown, 2000, p. 213).

Based on this study, Janis (1982) isolated a number of groupthink symptoms, including the tendency for cohesion in groups to suppress dissenting opinions. A lack of creativity and the use of negative stereotypes to address those outside of the group can also be symptoms (Brown, 2000, p. 213). Groupthink is therefore a serious problem associated with group decision-making in the workplace. While an individual decision-maker may draw on creativity and external resources to arrive at an innovative idea, groupthink can stifle that individual once placed in a group. It is important to note, however, that groupthink has been observed primarily in highly cohesive groups. Incorporating diversity into workplace groups is thus an effective solution, allowing groups to be formed in which difference is valued and in which each member works together to positively influence the end result.

When these kinds of groups are formed, workplace group decision-making can yield genuinely positive outcomes. According to Levi (2007), group decision-making can be beneficial because it draws on multiple sources of knowledge and points of view, and makes the rejection of unproductive solutions more likely. Levi (2007) argues that group decision-making is superior to individual decision-making because the collaborative component rules out the possibility of any single person arriving at the same solution alone. Thus, the effects of groups on the decision-making process can be both positive and negative — but they are more likely to be positive when the group rejects cohesion and embraces diversity.

Motivational Patterns in Workplace Groups

Although groups are capable of making decisions, they cannot do so without proper motivation, making motivational patterns an important area of study in workplace dynamics. In adolescents, the peer group has traditionally been viewed as a source of group motivation — a dynamic with both positive and negative implications that is widely studied in developmental psychology. Peer pressure can encourage teenagers toward a wide range of behaviors, from substance use to academic engagement and community involvement. This concept is readily applicable to the peer group in the workplace. Working together as peers, employees are motivated by their colleagues to remain productive, or face the social consequence of being perceived as a less valuable group member. Drawing on competition, this encourages workers to stay on task and generate innovative solutions.

However, Levi (2007) notes that group dynamics can also be the impetus for reduced motivation through social loafing. The concept refers to the ease with which individuals can become free riders in a group setting. While group membership may motivate some to distinguish themselves as exceptional contributors, this dynamic operates only for a portion of the workforce. Others are content to "loaf," allowing other members to bear primary responsibility, which decreases overall motivation and might suggest that individual work arrangements are preferable to group work.

Our earlier discussion of group decision-making, however, supports the view that group work is better suited to the workplace than individual work. With effective strategies for managing social loafing, groups can remain primary agents in organizational settings. Levi (2007) writes that motivation can be improved by focusing on a group's task, goals, and "team members' sense of commitment or belonging" (p. 59). Baumeister and Leary (1995) confirmed the belongingness hypothesis by finding that most people need to form social attachments in order to experience positive benefits to their health and well-being — characterizing these ties as essential for "fundamental human motivation." Just as peer group motivation applies to the workplace, so does Baumeister and Leary's (1995) study, which complements Levi's (2007) position. With stronger interpersonal bonds, groups can function at higher motivational levels. Members who share a positive intrapersonal connection can hold each other accountable through encouragement rather than coercion, so that the recognition of the group becomes sufficient reward for individual effort.

It is equally important, however, that these groups not become overly cohesive — even if they are interpersonally bonded. While a group must be close enough to prevent motivational lapses, it must also maintain sufficient independence of thought to critique unproductive ideas, thereby avoiding groupthink. Achieving this balance requires time and careful matching of group members whose strengths and perspectives complement one another.

Conclusion

Exploring group dynamics from both the psychological and social fields, as well as from the occupational and management perspective, reveals the precarious nature of groups in the workplace. While groups can be a beneficial addition to any organization, they require optimal conditions in order to function correctly. Decision-making must be structured to prevent groupthink, motivation must be sustained through belonging and accountability, conflict must be balanced rather than eliminated, and task completion must be understood as an opportunity for individual growth.

These conditions should not, however, deter managers from implementing group structures in their workplaces. The benefits — holistically considered — for both workers and the organization far outweigh the costs, producing employees who make better decisions, sustain higher levels of motivation, and contribute to an organization's progress in ways that individual work alone cannot achieve.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Brown, R. (2000). Group processes. Wiley-Blackwell.

Cole, M. B. (2005). Group dynamics in occupational therapy. SLACK.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group dynamics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

Levi, D. (2007). Group dynamics for teams. Sage.