Formal and informal groups

A formal group is created by the organisation to perform assigned work: a command group reports to one manager, a task group comes together for a specific job such as a purchase committee. Informal groups arise from friendship and shared interest and are not shown on the organisation chart.

The importance of informal groups was established by the Hawthorne studies. In the Bank Wiring Observation Room (1931–32), workers enforced their own output norm regardless of the incentive scheme, and pressured “rate-busters” (who produced too much), “chiselers” (who produced too little) and “squealers” (who told supervisors).

Stages of group development

Bruce Tuckman proposed four stages in 1965 (forming, storming, norming, performing) in his review “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups”. The fifth stage, adjourning, was added with Mary Ann Jensen in 1977.

Gersick’s punctuated-equilibrium model (1988) is the main alternative for temporary groups with deadlines: a long period of inertia, a burst of change at about the midpoint of the allotted time, then a second phase of inertia.

Groupthink and other decision failures

Irving Janis (1972) defined groupthink as a mode of thinking in which the desire for unanimity in a cohesive group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives. Its symptoms include an illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalisation, belief in the group’s inherent morality, stereotyping of outsiders, direct pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, an illusion of unanimity and self-appointed mindguards who screen out adverse information.

Remedies: an impartial leader who withholds a preference at the start, a designated devil’s advocate, outside experts, and a second-chance meeting before a final decision.

Group polarisation is different from groupthink: discussion pushes members towards a more extreme version of the position they already held. It was first studied by Stoner in 1961 as the “risky shift”, and later shown by Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) to work in either direction.

Social loafing is the tendency to put in less effort when working collectively. Ringelmann’s rope-pulling experiments (published 1913) first showed that average pull per person falls as the group grows. Ingham (1974) separated the motivation loss from coordination loss, and Latané, Williams and Harkins (1979) named it social loafing. It is reduced by making individual contributions identifiable, keeping groups small and making the task meaningful.

Three views of conflict

The traditional view treated all conflict as harmful and a sign of poor management. The human relations view accepted conflict as natural and inevitable. The interactionist view holds that a minimum level of conflict keeps a group self-critical and creative, and that a harmonious, placid group can become static.

The modern distinction is between functional conflict, which supports group goals, and dysfunctional conflict, which hinders them. Task conflict at low to moderate levels tends to help; relationship conflict is almost always dysfunctional; process conflict helps only at low levels.

Thomas–Kilmann conflict modes

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, 1974) classify conflict-handling behaviour on two dimensions: assertiveness (trying to satisfy one’s own concerns) and cooperativeness (trying to satisfy the other party’s concerns). The framework builds on Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid.

Collaborating and compromising are often confused. Collaborating seeks a solution that fully satisfies both parties; compromising splits the difference so that neither is fully satisfied. Competing suits emergencies and unpopular but necessary decisions; avoiding suits trivial issues or situations needing a cooling-off period.

Lewin and Kotter on change

Kurt Lewin (1947) described change in three steps: unfreezing the existing equilibrium, moving (changing) to the new state, and refreezing so that the change is sustained. His force-field analysis treats the status quo as a balance between driving forces and restraining forces. Change requires strengthening the first, weakening the second, or both. Reducing restraining forces generally produces less tension than simply adding pressure.

John Kotter (Harvard Business Review, 1995; book Leading Change, 1996) expanded this into eight steps, in this order:

1. Establish a sense of urgency.
2. Form a powerful guiding coalition.
3. Create a vision.
4. Communicate the vision.
5. Empower others to act on the vision by removing obstacles.
6. Plan for and create short-term wins.
7. Consolidate improvements and produce still more change.
8. Institutionalise the new approaches in the culture.

A common textbook mapping (Robbins): steps 1–4 correspond to unfreezing, steps 5–7 to movement, and step 8 to refreezing.

Resistance to change arises from habit, security, economic fear, fear of the unknown and selective information processing. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) list six ways of dealing with it: education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and explicit and implicit coercion.

Key points to remember

Frequently asked questions

What are Tuckman’s five stages of group development?

Forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Tuckman proposed the first four in 1965 and added adjourning with Mary Ann Jensen in 1977.

What are the symptoms of groupthink?

Irving Janis (1972) listed eight: illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalisation, belief in the group’s inherent morality, stereotyping of outsiders, direct pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity, and self-appointed mindguards.

What is social loafing and how is it reduced?

Social loafing is the tendency to put in less effort when working in a group than alone, first seen in Ringelmann’s rope-pulling experiments. Making individual contributions identifiable, keeping groups small and assigning clear accountability reduce it.

What are the five Thomas–Kilmann conflict modes?

Competing (assertive, uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive, cooperative), avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative), collaborating (assertive, cooperative) and compromising (moderate on both).

What are the steps in Lewin’s and Kotter’s change models?

Lewin: unfreeze, move (change), refreeze. Kotter: establish urgency, form a guiding coalition, create a vision, communicate it, empower action, create short-term wins, consolidate gains, and institutionalise the change in the culture.

Practice: 10 MCQs

Attempt all ten questions, then press Submit. The correct answer and a short explanation appear under every question, followed by your score analysis.

Verification notes

• Tuckman, B. W. (1965), “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups”, Psychological Bulletin 63(6). Tuckman & Jensen (1977), “Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited”, Group & Organization Studies 2(4). Gersick, C. (1988), “Time and Transition in Work Teams”, Academy of Management Journal 31(1).
• Janis, I. L. (1972), Victims of Groupthink. Stoner (1961), MIT thesis. Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969). Ringelmann (1913). Ingham et al. (1974). Latané, Williams & Harkins (1979), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(6).
• Thomas & Kilmann (1974), Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in Group Dynamics”, Human Relations 1(1). Kotter, J. P. (1995), “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail”, Harvard Business Review. Kotter & Schlesinger (1979), “Choosing Strategies for Change”, HBR. Robbins & Judge, Organizational Behavior (views of conflict, sources of resistance).