Site MapHelpFeedbackChapter Summary
Chapter Summary
(See related pages)

In this chapter, we have looked at some of the elements that constitute the internal influences of our model. In systems theory, these elements would be called part of the throughput of small groups. Early in the chapter, we examined physical environment, including territoriality and seating behavior in groups. As suggested by the Vietnam negotiations, different cultures have drastically differing perceptions of how to position furniture or whether to have furniture at all. This illustrates the way in which relevant background factors affect internal influences such as physical environment. For example, in Western culture, we typically place furniture along the walls with open space in the middle of the room. The Japanese tend to cluster furniture in the center of the room, leaving the space along the walls open. Also, imagine conducting a group discussion while seated barefoot on the floor around very low tables. This should help you picture the importance of background factors in relation to seating behaviors.

Probably the most important internal influence in the model is the type of group. Obviously, the procedures, norms, expectations, and outcomes of a work group will be radically different from those of a social group. For example, a norm of openness in both self-disclosure and candid feedback to others exists in many social groups. However, you might find that telling your boss or friend exactly what you do not like about him or her is certainly inappropriate. The type of group has an enormous impact on the way in which a group functions.

We also looked at the literature on communication networks. We saw that the all-channel network was best for group member satisfaction, whereas the wheel produced the fastest results. As our systems approach suggests, determining the "best" network depends, among other things, on the demands of the situation.

When we discussed the issue of group size, we saw the connection between the type of group and the appropriate group size. All other things being equal, five seems to be the optimum size for a problem-solving group. However, the optimum size for a group discussion in a classroom may be radically different from that of a work group on an assembly line or in a large office. Even the idea of the "right" size of family group depends on each of our relevant background factors. Typically, people have quite strong feelings about what the "right" size is for a family. These feelings usually result from a lifetime of attitude formation influenced by parents, friends, and, perhaps, religious affiliation.

Group size is also related to the idea of communication networks. As group size increases, the all-channel network begins to bog down in confusion, and a more controlled network tends to be more appropriate. Group size and the consequences of group interaction are also connected. Larger groups tend to produce lower levels of satisfaction and interpersonal relations among participants. Bostrom's research, cited in this chapter, is very revealing. It showed that most people like to talk far more than they like to listen in groups.

In our examination of problem-solving groups, we looked at different discussion group formats and techniques (for example, panel, symposium, role playing, fishbowl, conference). Obviously, there is a connection between the type of group and the appropriate format. Can you imagine the U.S. president's cabinet engaging in role playing and fishbowl simulations? Certainly, educational groups use these formats and techniques with a great deal of success, but work groups would be more likely to use panels, symposiums, and conferences.

The type of group format is also related to the desired group outcome. If personal growth is the goal, then role playing or fishbowls are helpful. On the other hand, if the group goal is to solve a task-oriented problem, such as how to cut energy consumption by 10 percent, the panel discussion or the use of groupware is probably more appropriate. As usual, it all depends.







Systems ApproachOnline Learning Center

Home > Chapter 4 > Chapter Summary