What Is The Ideal Size For A Small Group

xiii.one Agreement Small Groups

Learning Objectives

Define small group communication.
Discuss the characteristics of pocket-size groups.
Explain the functions of small groups.
Compare and dissimilarity unlike types of small groups.
Discuss advantages and disadvantages of small groups.

Near of the communication skills discussed in this book are directed toward dyadic advice, meaning that they are applied in 2-person interactions. While many of these skills can be transferred to and used in small-scale group contexts, the more than complex nature of grouping interaction necessitates some accommodation and some additional skills. Small group communication refers to interactions among iii or more people who are connected through a common purpose, common influence, and a shared identity. In this section, nosotros will learn about the characteristics, functions, and types of small groups.

Characteristics of Pocket-sized Groups

Different groups have different characteristics, serve dissimilar purposes, and can pb to positive, neutral, or negative experiences. While our interpersonal relationships primarily focus on human relationship building, modest groups usually focus on some sort of task completion or goal accomplishment. A college learning community focused on math and science, a campaign team for a state senator, and a grouping of local organic farmers are examples of small groups that would all have a dissimilar size, structure, identity, and interaction pattern.

Size of Pocket-size Groups

In that location is no set up number of members for the ideal small group. A minor group requires a minimum of iii people (because two people would exist a pair or dyad), only the upper range of group size is contingent on the purpose of the grouping. When groups grow beyond fifteen to twenty members, it becomes hard to consider them a small group based on the previous definition. An analysis of the number of unique connections between members of small groups shows that they are deceptively complex. For example, within a six-person group, there are fifteen separate potential dyadic connections, and a twelve-person group would have sixty-half dozen potential dyadic connections (Hargie, 2011). As you tin see, when we double the number of group members, we more than than double the number of connections, which shows that network connection points in small groups grow exponentially equally membership increases. So, while at that place is no gear up upper limit on the number of group members, it makes sense that the number of grouping members should exist limited to those necessary to attain the goal or serve the purpose of the group. Small-scale groups that add as well many members increase the potential for group members to feel overwhelmed or disconnected.

Structure of Small-scale Groups

Internal and external influences bear upon a group'south structure. In terms of internal influences, member characteristics play a function in initial grouping formation. For instance, a person who is well informed almost the group's job and/or highly motivated as a group member may emerge every bit a leader and set into move internal decision-making processes, such every bit recruiting new members or assigning group roles, that affect the structure of a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Different members volition as well gravitate toward different roles inside the group and volition advocate for sure procedures and courses of action over others. External factors such as grouping size, chore, and resources as well affect grouping construction. Some groups volition have more control over these external factors through decision making than others. For example, a commission that is put together by a legislative body to look into ethical violations in able-bodied organizations will probable have less control over its external factors than a self-created weekly book order.

13.1.0N

A cocky-formed study group probable has a more flexible construction than a city council committee.

William Rotza – Group – CC By-NC-ND 2.0.

Group structure is also formed through formal and informal network connections. In terms of formal networks, groups may accept clearly defined roles and responsibilities or a bureaucracy that shows how members are connected. The group itself may likewise exist a part of an organizational hierarchy that networks the group into a larger organizational structure. This type of formal network is peculiarly of import in groups that have to study to external stakeholders. These external stakeholders may influence the grouping'southward formal network, leaving the group petty or no control over its structure. Conversely, groups take more control over their informal networks, which are connections amongst individuals within the group and amongst group members and people exterior of the grouping that aren't official. For instance, a group member's friend or relative may be able to secure a space to hold a fundraiser at a discounted rate, which helps the group accomplish its task. Both types of networks are of import considering they may help facilitate information exchange within a group and extend a grouping'south reach in guild to access other resource.

Size and structure also impact communication within a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). In terms of size, the more people in a group, the more than issues with scheduling and coordination of advice. Remember that time is an of import resource in most group interactions and a resource that is ordinarily strained. Structure can increment or decrease the menstruation of communication. Reachability refers to the way in which 1 fellow member is or isn't connected to other group members. For instance, the "Circle" group structure in Figure thirteen.1 "Pocket-sized Group Structures" shows that each group fellow member is connected to two other members. This can make coordination piece of cake when merely ane or 2 people need to be brought in for a determination. In this case, Erik and Callie are very reachable by Winston, who could easily coordinate with them. Nonetheless, if Winston needed to coordinate with Bill or Stephanie, he would accept to wait on Erik or Callie to reach that person, which could create delays. The circle can be a skilful structure for groups who are passing along a job and in which each member is expected to progressively build on the others' piece of work. A group of scholars coauthoring a inquiry paper may work in such a fashion, with each person calculation to the newspaper and then passing it on to the next person in the circumvolve. In this case, they can inquire the previous person questions and write with the side by side person's area of expertise in mind. The "Wheel" group construction in Figure 13.1 "Minor Group Structures" shows an culling organization blueprint. In this structure, Tara is very reachable past all members of the grouping. This tin exist a useful structure when Tara is the person with the about expertise in the task or the leader who needs to review and approve work at each step before information technology is passed forth to other group members. But Phillip and Shadow, for case, wouldn't likely work together without Tara being involved.

Figure 13.one Minor Grouping Structures

Looking at the group structures, we can make some assumptions well-nigh the communication that takes place in them. The wheel is an example of a centralized structure, while the circle is decentralized. Inquiry has shown that centralized groups are better than decentralized groups in terms of speed and efficiency (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). But decentralized groups are more than effective at solving complex problems. In centralized groups like the wheel, the person with the most connections, person C, is also more likely to be the leader of the group or at to the lowest degree take more status among group members, largely considering that person has a wide perspective of what's going on in the group. The most fundamental person can also act as a gatekeeper. Since this person has admission to the well-nigh information, which is ordinarily a sign of leadership or status, he or she could consciously decide to limit the catamenia of information. But in circuitous tasks, that person could become overwhelmed by the burden of processing and sharing information with all the other group members. The circle structure is more likely to emerge in groups where collaboration is the goal and a specific chore and course of action isn't required under time constraints. While the person who initiated the group or has the most expertise in regards to the task may sally as a leader in a decentralized group, the equal access to information lessens the hierarchy and potential for gatekeeping that is nowadays in the more centralized groups.

Interdependence

Small groups exhibit interdependence, meaning they share a mutual purpose and a common fate. If the actions of one or two grouping members pb to a grouping diffusive from or not achieving their purpose, then all members of the group are affected. Conversely, if the actions of simply a few of the group members lead to success, then all members of the group benefit. This is a major contributor to many higher students' dislike of group assignments, considering they feel a loss of control and independence that they have when they complete an assignment alone. This business organization is valid in that their grades might suffer considering of the negative deportment of someone else or their hard work may go to benefit the grouping fellow member who just skated past. Group meeting attendance is a clear example of the interdependent nature of grouping interaction. Many of us accept arrived at a group meeting simply to find half of the members nowadays. In some cases, the group members who evidence upwards have to leave and reschedule because they can't reach their task without the other members present. Grouping members who attend meetings just withdraw or don't participate can also derail grouping progress. Although it can be frustrating to have your task, grade, or reputation partially dependent on the actions of others, the interdependent nature of groups tin can also lead to college-quality operation and output, especially when grouping members are accountable for their actions.

Shared Identity

The shared identity of a group manifests in several ways. Groups may have official charters or mission and vision statements that lay out the identity of a grouping. For instance, the Girl Watch mission states that "Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and graphic symbol, who make the earth a better place" (Girl Scouts, 2012). The mission for this big organization influences the identities of the thousands of small groups chosen troops. Group identity is often formed around a shared goal and/or previous accomplishments, which adds dynamism to the group as information technology looks toward the future and back on the past to inform its nowadays. Shared identity tin also be exhibited through group names, slogans, songs, handshakes, clothing, or other symbols. At a family reunion, for example, matching t-shirts particularly made for the occasion, dishes made from recipes passed down from generation to generation, and shared stories of family members that have passed away help institute a shared identity and social reality.

A key element of the formation of a shared identity within a group is the establishment of the in-group as opposed to the out-grouping. The degree to which members share in the in-group identity varies from person to person and group to group. Even inside a family, some members may not attend a reunion or get equally excited about the matching t-shirts as others. Shared identity also emerges equally groups become cohesive, significant they identify with and like the grouping'southward job and other group members. The presence of cohesion and a shared identity leads to a building of trust, which can too positively influence productivity and members' satisfaction.

Functions of Small Groups

Why do we join groups? Even with the challenges of group membership that we have all faced, nosotros still seek out and desire to exist a role of numerous groups. In some cases, we bring together a group because we need a service or access to information. Nosotros may also exist drawn to a grouping because we admire the grouping or its members. Whether we are witting of it or not, our identities and self-concepts are built on the groups with which we identify. So, to answer the before question, we join groups because they function to help u.s. meet instrumental, interpersonal, and identity needs.

Groups Meet Instrumental Needs

Groups accept long served the instrumental needs of humans, helping with the most basic elements of survival since ancient humans first evolved. Groups helped humans survive by providing security and protection through increased numbers and access to resources. Today, groups are rarely such a affair of life and death, simply they still serve important instrumental functions. Labor unions, for example, pool efforts and resource to reach material security in the form of pay increases and health benefits for their members, which protects them by providing a stable and dependable livelihood. Individual group members must also work to secure the instrumental needs of the group, creating a reciprocal relationship. Members of labor unions pay ante that help support the grouping'due south efforts. Some groups too see our informational needs. Although they may not provide material resources, they enrich our noesis or provide information that we tin utilize to and so see our ain instrumental needs. Many groups provide referrals to resources or offer advice. For example, several consumer protection and advocacy groups have been formed to offering referrals for people who have been the victim of fraudulent business practices. Whether a group forms to provide services to members that they couldn't get otherwise, advocate for changes that will bear upon members' lives, or provide information, many groups meet some type of instrumental need.

Groups Meet Interpersonal Needs

Group membership meets interpersonal needs by giving us admission to inclusion, control, and support. In terms of inclusion, people have a fundamental drive to be a office of a group and to create and maintain social bonds. Equally nosotros've learned, humans accept ever lived and worked in small groups. Family unit and friendship groups, shared-interest groups, and activity groups all provide u.s.a. with a sense of belonging and being included in an in-group. People also join groups because they want to accept some command over a controlling process or to influence the outcome of a grouping. Being a function of a group allows people to share opinions and influence others. Conversely, some people join a grouping to be controlled, considering they don't want to be the sole decision maker or leader and instead want to be given a role to follow.

Just as we enter into interpersonal relationships because nosotros like someone, we are fatigued toward a group when we are attracted to it and/or its members. Groups likewise provide support for others in ways that supplement the support that we get from significant others in interpersonal relationships. Some groups, like therapy groups for survivors of sexual attack or back up groups for people with cancer, exist primarily to provide emotional support. While these groups may also come across instrumental needs through connections and referrals to resources, they fulfill the interpersonal demand for belonging that is a central human need.

Groups See Identity Needs

Our affiliations are building blocks for our identities, because group membership allows us to apply reference groups for social comparison—in short, identifying us with some groups and characteristics and separating united states from others. Some people bring together groups to be affiliated with people who share similar or desirable characteristics in terms of beliefs, attitudes, values, or cultural identities. For example, people may join the National Organization for Women because they want to affiliate with others who support women's rights or a local chapter of the National Association for the Advocacy of Colored People (NAACP) considering they want to chapter with African Americans, people concerned with civil rights, or a combination of the two. Group memberships vary in terms of how much they affect our identity, as some are more prominent than others at various times in our lives. While religious groups every bit a whole are too large to be considered small groups, the piece of work that people exercise as a role of a religious customs—as a lay leader, deacon, member of a prayer group, or committee—may have deep ties to a person's identity.

13.1.2N

Group membership helps meet our interpersonal needs by providing an opportunity for amore and inclusion.

The prestige of a group can initially attract usa considering we want that group's identity to "rub off" on our ain identity. Besides, the achievements we brand as a grouping fellow member can heighten our self-esteem, add together to our reputation, and permit us to create or project certain identity characteristics to appoint in impression management. For example, a person may accept numerous tests to become a function of Mensa, which is an organization for people with high IQs, for no cloth gain but for the recognition or sense of achievement that the affiliation may bring. Likewise, people may join sports teams, professional organizations, and honour societies for the sense of achievement and affiliation. Such groups permit us opportunities to amend ourselves by encouraging further evolution of skills or knowledge. For example, a person who used to play the oboe in loftier school may join the community band to continue to improve on his or her power.

Types of Small-scale Groups

At that place are many types of small groups, only the most common distinction made between types of small groups is that of chore-oriented and relational-oriented groups (Hargie, 2011). Chore-oriented groups are formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995). In such groups, similar a committee or study grouping, interactions and decisions are primarily evaluated based on the quality of the final product or output. The three main types of tasks are production, discussion, and problem-solving tasks (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Groups faced with production tasks are asked to produce something tangible from their group interactions such as a report, design for a playground, musical performance, or fundraiser consequence. Groups faced with discussion tasks are asked to talk through something without trying to come up with a right or incorrect reply. Examples of this blazon of group include a back up grouping for people with HIV/AIDS, a book gild, or a group for new fathers. Groups faced with trouble-solving tasks take to devise a course of activeness to meet a specific need. These groups also unremarkably include a product and discussion component, just the end goal isn't necessarily a tangible product or a shared social reality through discussion. Instead, the cease goal is a well-thought-out idea. Task-oriented groups require honed problem-solving skills to accomplish goals, and the structure of these groups is more rigid than that of relational-oriented groups.

Relational-oriented groups are formed to promote interpersonal connections and are more focused on quality interactions that contribute to the well-being of group members. Decision making is directed at strengthening or repairing relationships rather than completing discrete tasks or debating specific ideas or courses of activity. All groups include job and relational elements, so it'south best to think of these orientations equally two ends of a continuum rather than as mutually exclusive. For case, although a family unit works together daily to attain tasks like getting the kids fix for school and friendship groups may program a surprise party for one of the members, their primary and most meaningful interactions are nevertheless relational. Since other chapters in this volume focus specifically on interpersonal relationships, this chapter focuses more on task-oriented groups and the dynamics that operate within these groups.

To more specifically look at the types of small groups that be, we tin can examine why groups form. Some groups are formed based on interpersonal relationships. Our family and friends are considered principal groups, or long-lasting groups that are formed based on relationships and include significant others. These are the pocket-sized groups in which we interact nearly oftentimes. They course the basis of our society and our private social realities. Kinship networks provide important support early in life and meet physiological and prophylactic needs, which are essential for survival. They also come across college-guild needs such as social and self-esteem needs. When people practise not interact with their biological family, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they tin can establish fictive kinship networks, which are composed of people who are not biologically related only fulfill family roles and help provide the same support.

We also interact in many secondary groups, which are characterized by less frequent face-to-face up interactions, less emotional and relational communication, and more task-related communication than primary groups (Barker, 1991). While we are more than probable to participate in secondary groups based on cocky-interest, our main-group interactions are often more reciprocal or other oriented. For instance, nosotros may join groups because of a shared interest or need.

Groups formed based on shared interest include social groups and leisure groups such as a group of independent film buffs, science fiction fans, or bird watchers. Some groups grade to encounter the needs of individuals or of a item group of people. Examples of groups that meet the needs of individuals include study groups or back up groups like a weight loss group. These groups are focused on private needs, even though they run into as a group, and they are also oft give-and-take oriented. Service groups, on the other hand, work to meet the needs of individuals only are task oriented. Service groups include Habitat for Humanity and Rotary Society chapters, among others. Still other groups course around a shared need, and their primary chore is advocacy. For example, the Gay Men's Health Crisis is a group that was formed by a modest group of 8 people in the early on 1980s to abet for resources and support for the however relatively unknown illness that would later be known as AIDS. Similar groups form to advocate for everything from a stop sign at a neighborhood intersection to the end of human trafficking.

As we already learned, other groups are formed primarily to attain a chore. Teams are task-oriented groups in which members are especially loyal and defended to the task and other group members (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). In professional and borough contexts, the discussion team has become popularized as a means of drawing on the positive connotations of the term—connotations such as "loftier-spirited," "cooperative," and "hardworking." Scholars who have spent years studying highly effective teams have identified several common factors related to their success. Successful teams accept (Adler & Elmhorst, 2005)

clear and inspiring shared goals,
a results-driven construction,
competent team members,
a collaborative climate,
high standards for performance,
external support and recognition, and
ethical and answerable leadership.

Increasingly, small groups and teams are engaging in more than virtual interaction. Virtual groups have reward of new technologies and meet exclusively or primarily online to achieve their purpose or goal. Some virtual groups may complete their task without ever being physically contiguous. Virtual groups bring with them singled-out advantages and disadvantages that you can read more about in the "Getting Plugged In" feature adjacent.

"Getting Plugged In"

Virtual Groups

Virtual groups are now mutual in academic, professional, and personal contexts, as classes encounter entirely online, work teams interface using webinar or video-conferencing programs, and people connect around shared interests in a variety of online settings. Virtual groups are pop in professional contexts because they tin bring together people who are geographically dispersed (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). Virtual groups also increment the possibility for the inclusion of diverse members. The power to transcend distance means that people with diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives are more hands accessed than in many offline groups.

1 disadvantage of virtual groups stems from the difficulties that technological mediation presents for the relational and social dimensions of grouping interactions (Walther & Bunz, 2005). Every bit we will learn later in this chapter, an important part of coming together as a grouping is the socialization of group members into the desired norms of the grouping. Since norms are implicit, much of this information is learned through ascertainment or conveyed informally from one group member to another. In fact, in traditional groups, group members passively learn fifty percent or more of their knowledge nearly group norms and procedures, meaning they find rather than directly ask (Comer, 1991). Virtual groups experience more difficulty with this role of socialization than copresent traditional groups do, since any form of electronic mediation takes abroad some of the richness nowadays in face-to-face interaction.

To help overcome these challenges, members of virtual groups should be prepared to put more than fourth dimension and effort into edifice the relational dimensions of their grouping. Members of virtual groups demand to make the social cues that guide new members' socialization more explicit than they would in an offline group (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). Grouping members should also contribute often, even if just supporting someone else's contribution, considering increased participation has been shown to increase liking among members of virtual groups (Walther & Bunz, 2005). Virtual grouping members should also make an effort to put relational content that might otherwise be conveyed through nonverbal or contextual means into the exact part of a message, every bit members who include little social content in their messages or only communicate virtually the group's task are more negatively evaluated. Virtual groups who exercise not overcome these challenges will likely struggle to meet deadlines, interact less frequently, and feel more absence. What follows are some guidelines to aid optimize virtual groups (Walter & Bunz, 2005):

Get started interacting as a group as early as possible, since it takes longer to build social cohesion.
Interact oftentimes to stay on task and avoid having work build up.
Showtime working toward completing the task while initial advice most setup, system, and procedures are taking place.
Respond overtly to other people'southward messages and contributions.
Be explicit about your reactions and thoughts since typical nonverbal expressions may non be received as easily in virtual groups as they would be in colocated groups.
Fix deadlines and stick to them.

Brand a list of some virtual groups to which yous currently belong or accept belonged to in the by. What are some differences betwixt your experiences in virtual groups versus traditional colocated groups?
What are some group tasks or purposes that you think lend themselves to being accomplished in a virtual setting? What are some group tasks or purposes that you think would be best handled in a traditional colocated setting? Explain your answers for each.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups

Equally with annihilation, small groups have their advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of small groups include shared decision making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. It is inside small groups that well-nigh of the decisions that guide our country, introduce local laws, and influence our family unit interactions are made. In a autonomous order, participation in decision making is a key part of citizenship. Groups also help in making decisions involving judgment calls that have ethical implications or the potential to negatively bear on people. Individuals making such loftier-stakes decisions in a vacuum could accept negative consequences given the lack of feedback, input, questioning, and proposals for alternatives that would come from group interaction. Group members also assist aggrandize our social networks, which provide access to more resources. A local community-theater group may be able to put on a production with a limited upkeep by drawing on these connections to go set-building supplies, props, costumes, actors, and publicity in means that an individual could not. The increased noesis, diverse perspectives, and access to resources that groups possess relates to another advantage of small groups—synergy.

Synergy refers to the potential for gains in functioning or heightened quality of interactions when complementary members or member characteristics are added to existing ones (Larson Jr., 2010). Because of synergy, the final group product can be better than what whatever private could have produced lone. When I worked in housing and residence life, I helped coordinate a "World Cup Soccer Tournament" for the international students that lived in my residence hall. Every bit a grouping, we created teams representing different countries around the world, made brackets for people to rails progress and predict winners, got sponsors, gathered prizes, and ended up with a very successful event that would not have been possible without the synergy created by our commonage group membership. The members of this group were also exposed to international diverseness that enriched our experiences, which is besides an reward of group communication.

Participating in groups can also increment our exposure to diversity and broaden our perspectives. Although groups vary in the diversity of their members, we tin can strategically choose groups that aggrandize our diverseness, or we can unintentionally end upwardly in a diverse group. When we participate in small groups, we expand our social networks, which increase the possibility to collaborate with people who accept different cultural identities than ourselves. Since group members work together toward a common goal, shared identification with the job or group can requite people with various backgrounds a sense of commonality that they might not have otherwise. Even when group members share cultural identities, the diversity of experience and stance within a group tin lead to broadened perspectives as alternative ideas are presented and opinions are challenged and dedicated. One of my favorite parts of facilitating class discussion is when students with dissimilar identities and/or perspectives teach i another things in ways that I could not on my ain. This example brings together the potential of synergy and variety. People who are more introverted or but avoid group communication and voluntarily distance themselves from groups—or are rejected from groups—run a risk losing opportunities to learn more almost others and themselves.

13.1.3N

A social loafer is a dreaded group member who doesn't do his or her share of the work, expecting that others on the group won't find or volition choice upwards the slack.

At that place are also disadvantages to small group interaction. In some cases, ane person can exist just as or more than effective than a group of people. Remember nearly a state of affairs in which a highly specialized skill or knowledge is needed to get something done. In this state of affairs, one very knowledgeable person is probably a better fit for the task than a group of less knowledgeable people. Grouping interaction also has a tendency to slow down the determination-making process. Individuals connected through a hierarchy or concatenation of command oft work improve in situations where decisions must exist made under time constraints. When grouping interaction does occur under fourth dimension constraints, having one "betoken person" or leader who coordinates action and gives last approving or disapproval on ideas or suggestions for actions is best.

Group advice also presents interpersonal challenges. A common problem is coordinating and planning group meetings due to busy and alien schedules. Some people also have difficulty with the other-centeredness and self-sacrifice that some groups crave. The interdependence of group members that we discussed before can also create some disadvantages. Grouping members may take advantage of the anonymity of a group and engage in social loafing, significant they contribute less to the group than other members or than they would if working lone (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social loafers look that no 1 will notice their behaviors or that others volition pick upward their slack. Information technology is this potential for social loafing that makes many students and professionals dread group work, especially those who take a tendency to cover for other group members to prevent the social loafer from diminishing the group's productivity or output.

"Getting Competent"

Improving Your Group Experiences

Like many of you, I also had some negative group experiences in higher that made me recollect similarly to a student who posted the following on a educational activity web log: "Grouping piece of work is code for 'work as a grouping for a class less than what you can get if yous work alone'" (Weimer, 2008). Just and so I took a course called "Pocket-size Grouping and Team Communication" with an amazing teacher who after became one of my nearly influential mentors. She emphasized the fact that nosotros all needed to increase our knowledge about grouping advice and grouping dynamics in order to better our grouping communication experiences—and she was right. Then the first piece of advice to aid you showtime improving your group experiences is to closely written report the group communication capacity in this textbook and to apply what you learn to your group interactions. Neither students nor kinesthesia are born knowing how to function as a group, yet students and faculty often recall we're supposed to larn as we get, which increases the likelihood of a negative feel.

A second piece of advice is to meet often with your group (Myers & Goodboy, 2005). Of class, to do this you have to overcome some scheduling and coordination difficulties, just putting other things aside to work as a group helps fix a norm that group piece of work is of import and worthwhile. Regular meetings also permit members to interact with each other, which can increase social bonds, build a sense of interdependence that can help diminish social loafing, and establish other important rules and norms that will guide hereafter group interaction. Instead of committing to frequent meetings, many student groups use their kickoff meeting to every bit split up up the group'southward tasks and so they can then go off and work alone (not as a group). While some group work can definitely be done independently, dividing up the piece of work and assigning someone to put it all together doesn't allow group members to take reward of one of the most powerful advantages of grouping piece of work—synergy.

Last, establish group expectations and follow through with them. I recommend that my students come up up with a grouping name and create a contract of group guidelines during their first meeting (both of which I learned from my group communication instructor whom I referenced earlier). The group proper name helps begin to establish a shared identity, which then contributes to interdependence and improves performance. The contract of group guidelines helps make explicit the group norms that might have otherwise been left implicit. Each group member contributes to the contract and then they all sign it. Groups often make guidelines about how meetings volition be run, what to practice nearly lateness and attendance, the type of climate they'd like for discussion, and other relevant expectations. If group members end upwards falling curt of these expectations, the other grouping members can remind the straying member of the contact and the fact that he or she signed it. If the group encounters farther issues, they tin use the contract as a basis for evaluating the other grouping fellow member or for communicating with the instructor.

Do you lot hold with the student'south quote nigh grouping work that was included at the outset? Why or why not?
The second recommendation is to come across more with your grouping. Acknowledging that schedules are difficult to coordinate and that that is non really going to change, what are some strategies that yous could use to overcome that challenge in order to get time together as a group?
What are some guidelines that you lot think yous'd like to include in your contract with a future grouping?

Cardinal Takeaways

Getting integrated: Small-scale group communication refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a mutual purpose, common influence, and a shared identity. Minor groups are important communication units in bookish, professional person, borough, and personal contexts.
Several characteristics influence small groups, including size, structure, interdependence, and shared identity.
- In terms of size, small groups must consist of at least three people, only there is no fix upper limit on the number of group members. The ideal number of grouping members is the smallest number needed to competently complete the group'south job or achieve the grouping'southward purpose.
- Internal influences such equally member characteristics and external factors such equally the group's size, task, and admission to resource bear on a group'south structure. A grouping's construction also affects how group members communicate, as some structures are more centralized and hierarchical and other structures are more than decentralized and equal.
- Groups are interdependent in that they have a shared purpose and a shared fate, meaning that each group member's actions affect every other group fellow member.
- Groups develop a shared identity based on their task or purpose, previous accomplishments, future goals, and an identity that sets their members apart from other groups.
Minor groups serve several functions as they meet instrumental, interpersonal, and identity needs.
- Groups meet instrumental needs, every bit they allow us to puddle resources and provide access to data to better aid the states survive and succeed.
- Groups run across interpersonal needs, every bit they provide a sense of belonging (inclusion), an opportunity to participate in conclusion making and influence others (command), and emotional support.
- Groups encounter identity needs, as they offering us a run a risk to affiliate ourselves with others whom nosotros perceive to be similar u.s.a. or whom we admire and would similar to exist associated with.
There are various types of groups, including task-oriented, relational-oriented, principal, and secondary groups, equally well as teams.
- Job-oriented groups are formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information, while relational-oriented groups are formed to promote interpersonal connections. While in that location are elements of both in every grouping, the overall purpose of a grouping tin usually be categorized as primarily task or relational oriented.
- Chief groups are long-lasting groups that are formed based on interpersonal relationships and include family and friendship groups, and secondary groups are characterized by less frequent interaction and less emotional and relational advice than in main groups. Our advice in principal groups is more frequently other oriented than our communication in secondary groups, which is frequently self-oriented.
- Teams are similar to task-oriented groups, simply they are characterized by a loftier degree of loyalty and dedication to the grouping's task and to other grouping members.
Advantages of group communication include shared decision making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to multifariousness. Disadvantages of group advice include unnecessary group formation (when the task would be meliorate performed past 1 person), difficulty coordinating schedules, and difficulty with accountability and social loafing.

Exercises

Getting integrated: For each of the follow examples of a small group context, signal what you think would be the ideal size of the group and why. Also indicate who the ideal grouping members would be (in terms of their occupation/major, role, level of expertise, or other characteristics) and what structure would work all-time.
- A study grouping for this class
- A committee to decide on library renovation plans
- An upper-level college class in your major
- A group to advocate for more than awareness of and back up for abandoned animals
Listing some groups to which you have belonged that focused primarily on tasks and and then listing some that focused primarily on relationships. Compare and contrast your experiences in these groups.
Synergy is one of the master advantages of modest grouping communication. Explicate a fourth dimension when a group yous were in benefited from or failed to achieve synergy. What contributed to your success/failure?

References

Adler, R. B., and Jeanne Marquardt Elmhorst, Communicating at Work: Principles and Practices for Businesses and the Professions, eighth ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2005), 248–50.

Ahuja, G. K., and John E. Galvin, "Socialization in Virtual Groups," Journal of Direction 29, no. two (2003): 163.

Barker, D. B., "The Behavioral Analysis of Interpersonal Intimacy in Group Development," Small Grouping Enquiry 22, no. 1 (1991): 79.

Comer, D. R., "Organizational Newcomers' Acquisition of Information from Peers," Management Advice Quarterly 5, no. i (1991): 64–89.

Ellis, D. G., and B. Aubrey Fisher, Minor Group Decision Making: Advice and the Grouping Procedure, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 57.

Girl Scouts, "Facts," accessed July 15, 2012, http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/facts.

Hargie, O., Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice, 5th ed. (London: Routledge, 2011), 452–53.

Karau, S. J., and Kipling D. Williams, "Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, no. 4 (1993): 681.

Larson, C. E., and Frank M. J. LaFasto, TeamWork: What Must Go Right/What Must Go Wrong (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), 73.

Larson Jr., J. R., In Search of Synergy in Small Group Functioning (New York: Psychology Press, 2010).

McKay, M., Martha Davis, and Patrick Fanning, Messages: Communication Skills Book, 2nd ed. (Oakland, CA: New Straw Publications, 1995), 254.

Myers, Due south. A., and Alan M. Goodboy, "A Written report of Grouphate in a Course on Small Group Communication," Psychological Reports 97, no. ii (2005): 385.

Walther, J. B., and Ulla Bunz, "The Rules of Virtual Groups: Trust, Liking, and Performance in Computer-Mediated Communication," Journal of Advice 55, no. 4 (2005): 830.

Weimer, M., "Why Students Hate Groups," The Teaching Professor, July 1, 2008, accessed July fifteen, 2012, http://world wide web.teachingprofessor.com/articles/educational activity-and-learning/why-students-detest-groups.