What Makes a Quality Group?

 Summary of the "Five Characteristics of a Quality Group"

 "Decision-Making Group Interaction Achieving Quality" discusses important elements of developing quality groups.  These elements are characteristics outlined in the chapter consist of Cohesion, Task, Group Size, Trust and Cooperation and Factors of Diversity.   How well these factors work together to has an impact of the effectiveness of the group in their interaction and problem-solving skills.  The five key characteristics shared by quality groups are outlined below.

Cohesion

Cohesion refers o the concept of attraction of group members to each other.  This can be seen in traits such as the level of teamwork within the group and the morale or spirit that exists among group members.  The concept of cohesion can not be quantified with empirical data and should be examined relative to three related constructs.

The first construct in the evaluation of cohesion is the attraction between individual members of the group.  Members who are attracted to and identify with the group tend to exhibit strong norms of behavior.

The second construct related to the instrumental value of the group.  This refers to the perception that members have regarding the degree to which the individuals feel the group supports their needs.

Risk-taking behaviors that occur in the group completes the three constructs of measuring cohesion.  This construct suggests that a cohesive group exhibits and allows for and supports self-disclosure and expressions of conflict and hostility.  It is presented that the presence of such behavior can lead to a more cohesive group.

Task

            The effectiveness of most groups can be evaluated based on the purpose of the group or the task that is has been organized to perform.  There are four specific types of tasks or work categories described by Steiner in the summary below.

            Additive tasks are described as work where individual contributions have a cumulative effect on the product or output of the group's effort.  An example of an additive task would be snow removal from a parking lot or participation in a fundraising activity for the church.

            Conjunctive tasks refer to work that requires members of the group to rely on each other's performance of similar tasks to achieve success for the group.  Group members can perform no more efficiently than the least efficient member of the group.  An example of this task can be seen in a team of mountain climbers.

            Disjunctive tasks do not depend on a division of labor and the quality of the product is not dependent on the sum to the group's efforts.  In this task, the proficiency of an individual within the group can determine the proficiency of the most skilled member.

            Discretionary tasks refer to work where the input of an individual member may be accepted or rejected and the individual skills of members may be combined in various ways to achieve the goal.  Once a decision to perform a task has been made, a group member or members will be assigned to complete the task.

Group Size

            Quality of interaction and communication participation is impacted by the number of group members.  Size of the group influences the inhibitions or feelings of self-consciousness of group members.  Five person groups report complete satisfaction in the size of the group.  Smaller groups were found to complain that they could not share ideas freely while larger groups reported that the group felt disorderly and given to waste time. 

Trust and Cooperation

            People working within a group to achieve a common goal must rely on and have confidence in the work of one another.  The output depends on the feeling of trust among the members.  When there is confidence that trust between group members will be reciprocated, cooperation will be increased.  Additionally, cooperative behavior is enhanced when the anticipated positive consequences increase in probability compared to negative consequences.  Benefits of trust and cooperation include faster decision making, more effective communication, enhanced productivity and improved interpersonal relationships.  When members cooperate there is there is a greater feeling of security and harmony.  This can be attributed to the absence of competitiveness.

Factors of Diversity

            Diversity of perspectives and opinions contribute to the quality of a group.  Different viewpoints that include experiences for individuals with different cultural, value systems and views enhance the "field of experience" for the group.  This is critical to quality decision making.  Gender is a factor in establishing diversity within a group.  Research shows that men tend to be task oriented while women tend to be more maintenance oriented and express a greater concern for the individual.  Lafferty and Pond conclude that groups of five women working on a survival skills exercise were the most successful groups in terms of accuracy of accomplishment.  Gender is not the only factor in diversity.  Organizational performance is also strongly related to diversity of ethnicity, age and experience.

             In summary, the factors outlined here concerning the evaluation of the effectiveness of quality groups are aspects of groups that should be considered and monitored to increase performance, positive group interactions and the successful achievement of goals.  In addition to the characteristics outlined above, taking time to agree on the procedures of the group prior to engagement enhances success of the group. Validity of information is also important to decisions made by the group.  High quality decisions tend to be fact based and not emotional.  Adaptation is important as each group is unique and will present varying strengths and challenges relative to the factors outlined here.

            I experienced being part of a decision making group where group size was too large and I felt was a waste of time.  As part of this experience, I was asked to participate in an assembly of all the sales and operations managers for my company to discuss ways of improving the customer experience.  The company had assembled nearly 100 employees in a large hotel room and attempted to work on solving issues that were being presented.  My experience was that it seemed difficult for the group to stay on subject and too often degraded into conversations and discussions that were not relevant to the particular topic at hand.  A few members of the group dominated the conversation while some remained silent for the entire time.  This dynamic might have changed over time, but since the duration of the meeting was only a few hours it was not enough time to adequately take everyone's opinions and views into consideration.   It seems to me that smaller breakout groups assigned to resolve specific issues could have produced a better result.