How does a having a large number of people in a group affect the group's dynamics?
The
distinction made earlier between small primary groups and larger
secondary groups reflects the importance of group size for the
functioning of a group, the nature of its members’ attachments, and the
group’s stability. If you have ever taken a very small class, say fewer
than 15 students, you probably noticed that the class atmosphere
differed markedly from that of a large lecture class you may have been
in. In the small class, you got to know the professor better, and the
students in the room got to know each other better. Attendance in the
small class was probably more regular than in the large lecture class.
Over
the years, sociologists and other scholars have studied the effects of
group size on group dynamics. One of the first to do so was German
sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918), who discussed the effects of
groups of different sizes. The smallest group, of course, is the
two-person group, or dyad,
such as a married couple or two people engaged to be married or at
least dating steadily. In this smallest of groups, Simmel noted,
relationships can be very intense emotionally (as you might know from
personal experience) but also very unstable and short lived: if one
person ends the relationship, the dyad ends as well.
A triad,
or three-person group, involves relationships that are still fairly
intense, but it is also more stable than a dyad. A major reason for
this, said Simmel, is that if two people in a triad have a dispute, the
third member can help them reach some compromise that will satisfy all
the triad members. The downside of a triad is that two of its members
may become very close and increasingly disregard the third member. As
one example, some overcrowded college dorms are forced to house students
in triples, or three to a room. In such a situation, suppose that two
of the roommates are night owls and like to stay up very late, while the
third wants lights out by 11:00 p.m. If majority rules, as well it
might, the third roommate will feel very dissatisfied and may decide to
try to find other roommates.
As
groups become larger, the intensity of their interaction and bonding
decreases, but their stability increases. The major reason for this is
the sheer number of relationships that can exist in a larger group. As the number of possible relationships rises, the amount of time a
group member can spend with any other group member must decline, and
with this decline comes less intense interaction and weaker emotional
bonds. But as group size increases, the group also becomes more stable
because it is large enough to survive any one member’s departure from
the group. When you graduate from your college or university, any clubs,
organizations, or sports teams to which you belong will continue
despite your exit, no matter how important you were to the group, as the
remaining members of the group and new recruits will carry on in your
absence.
Most
groups have leaders. In the family, of course, the parents are the
leaders, as much as their children sometimes might not like that. Even
some close friendship groups have a leader or two who emerge over time.
Virtually all secondary groups have leaders. These groups often have a
charter, operations manual, or similar document that stipulates how
leaders are appointed or elected and what their duties are.
Sociologists commonly distinguish two types of leaders, instrumental and expressive. An instrumental leader
is a leader whose main focus is to achieve group goals and accomplish
group tasks. Often instrumental leaders try to carry out their role even
if they alienate other members of the group. The second type is the expressive leader,
whose main focus is to maintain and improve the quality of
relationships among group members and more generally to ensure group
harmony. Some groups may have both types of leaders.
Related to the leader types is leadership style. Three such styles are commonly distinguished. The first, authoritarian leadership,
involves a primary focus on achieving group goals and on rigorous
compliance with group rules and penalties for noncompliance.
Authoritarian leaders typically make decisions on their own and tell
other group members what to do and how to do it. The second style, democratic leadership,
involves extensive consultation with group members on decisions and
less emphasis on rule compliance. Democratic leaders still make the
final decision but do so only after carefully considering what other
group members have said, and usually their decision will agree with the
views of a majority of the members. The final style is laissez-faire leadership. Here the leader more or less sits back and lets the group function on its own and really exerts no leadership role.
When
a decision must be reached, laissez-faire leadership is less effective
than the other two in helping a group get things done. Whether
authoritarian or democratic leadership is better for a group depends on
the group’s priorities. If the group values task accomplishment more
than anything else, including how well group members get along and how
much they like their leader, then authoritarian leadership is preferable
to democratic leadership, as it is better able to achieve group goals
quickly and efficiently. But if group members place their highest
priority on their satisfaction with decisions and decision making in the
group, then they would want to have a lot of input in decisions. In
this case, democratic leadership is preferable to authoritarian
leadership.
Some small groups shun leadership and instead try to operate by consensus. In this model of decision making popularized by Quakers (Brown, 2009),
no decision is made unless all group members agree with it. If even one
member disagrees, the group keeps discussing the issue until it reaches
a compromise that satisfies everyone. If the person disagreeing does
not feel very strongly about the issue or does not wish to prolong the
discussion, she or he may agree to “stand aside” and let the group make
the decision despite the lack of total consensus. But if this person
refuses to stand aside, no decision may be possible.
Comentarii