17 Supplement #3: Understanding Small Group Communication

Understanding Small Groups

Most of the communication skills discussed in this book are directed toward dyadic communication, meaning that they are applied in two-person interactions. While many of these skills can be transferred to and used in small group contexts, the more complex nature of group interaction necessitates some adaptation and some additional skills. Small group communication refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a

common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared identity (Evans, 2019). In this section, we will learn about the characteristics, functions, and types of small groups.

Characteristics of Small Groups

Different groups have different characteristics, serve different purposes, and can lead to positive, neutral, or negative experiences. While our interpersonal relationships primarily focus on relationship building, small groups usually focus on some sort of task completion or goal accomplishment (Evans, 2019). A college learning community focused on math and science, a campaign team for a state senator, and a group of local organic farmers are examples of small groups that would all have a different size, structure, identity, and interaction pattern.

Structure of Small Groups

Group structure is influenced by both internal and external factors. Internally, member characteristics play a crucial role in initial group formation. For example, an informed and motivated individual may emerge as a leader, setting internal decision-making processes in motion, such as recruiting members or assigning roles (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Members naturally gravitate toward roles that suit them and advocate for specific procedures. Externally, factors like group size, task, and resources shape the group structure, with some groups having more control over these elements through decision-making.

Formal and informal network connections also define group structure (Evans, 2019). Formal networks involve clearly defined roles and hierarchies within the group and its larger organizational context, especially important for groups reporting to external stakeholders. These stakeholders might influence the group’s formal network, limiting control over its structure. Conversely, informal networks are unofficial connections within the group and with external individuals, offering more flexibility. For instance, a member’s friend might secure a venue for a fundraiser at a discounted rate, aiding the group’s task. Both networks facilitate information exchange and extend the group’s reach for resources.

Size and structure impact group communication (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Larger groups face more scheduling and coordination challenges, straining time as a vital resource. Structure can enhance or hinder communication flow. Reachability, or how members connect, plays a role. In a “Circle” structure, each member connects to two others, simplifying coordination for small decisions. However, reaching distant members may cause delays. This structure suits tasks passed along progressively, like coauthoring research papers, allowing members to build on each other’s work.

The “Wheel” structure offers an alternative, with Tara being highly reachable by all members. This setup benefits groups where Tara is the task expert or leader, reviewing work before passing it on. However, it limits direct collaboration between members like Phillip and Shadow without Tara’s involvement. Centralized structures like the wheel excel in speed and efficiency, while decentralized structures like the circle are better for complex problem-solving (Ellis & Fisher, 1994).

In centralized groups, the most connected member often becomes the leader, holding more status due to their broad perspective. They may act as gatekeepers, controlling information flow. However, in complex tasks, this role can be overwhelming. Decentralized groups, focused on collaboration without strict time constraints, reduce hierarchy and gatekeeping potential. The leader might emerge based on expertise, but equal information access ensures a more balanced structure, fostering cooperation and shared decision-making.

Interdependence

Small groups are characterized by interdependence, meaning they share a common purpose and fate (Bonito & Staggs, 2018). The actions of one or two members can significantly impact the group’s ability to achieve its goals, affecting all members. This interdependence can lead to frustration, especially among college students who dislike group assignments due to perceived loss of control and independence compared to solo work.

This concern is valid, as grades can suffer from negative actions by others, or hard work might unfairly benefit less engaged members. Group meeting attendance exemplifies interdependence. Often, group meetings proceed with only half the members present, necessitating rescheduling due to the inability to accomplish tasks without full participation. Additionally, members who attend but withdraw or don’t participate can derail progress. Despite the frustration of relying on others for job performance, grades, or reputation, interdependence can enhance group performance and output. When members are accountable for their actions, the collaborative nature of groups can lead to higher-quality results, leveraging diverse skills and perspectives for collective success.

Shared Identity

Shared identity within a group manifests in various forms, contributing to the group’s cohesion and sense of belonging. Official charters or mission statements often define a group’s identity. For instance, the Girl Scout mission—”Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place” (Girl Scouts, 2012)—guides the identity of numerous troops within the organization. Such missions shape group identity around shared goals and past achievements, creating a dynamic interplay between the past and future to inform the present.

Group identity is also expressed through names, slogans, songs, handshakes, clothing, and other symbols. At a family reunion, matching t-shirts, traditional dishes, and stories of ancestors help establish a shared identity and social reality. A crucial aspect of forming a shared identity is distinguishing the in-group from the out-group (Greenaway, Wright, Willingham, Reynolds, & Haslam, 2015). The extent to which individuals embrace the in-group identity varies; even within a family, some members might not participate in reunions or feel enthusiastic about matching t-shirts.

As groups become cohesive, members identify with and appreciate the group’s tasks and fellow members. Cohesion fosters trust, enhancing productivity and satisfaction among members. This shared identity and trust create a supportive environment where individuals feel connected to the group’s purpose and goals, strengthening the group’s overall effectiveness and unity.

Needs Met By Groups

Instrumental needs have been a fundamental aspect of group dynamics since ancient times, aiding human survival by offering security, protection, and access to resources (Wakefield et al., 2017). Historically, groups were crucial for survival, leveraging increased numbers to ensure safety and resource availability. Although modern groups are less about life and death, they still fulfill vital instrumental functions. For instance, labor unions pool efforts to secure material benefits like pay raises and health benefits, ensuring a stable livelihood for members.

Groups also address informational needs, enriching knowledge and providing information that helps meet instrumental needs. Consumer protection and advocacy groups, for example, offer referrals and advice to individuals affected by fraudulent practices. Whether a group forms to deliver services otherwise unavailable, advocate for impactful changes, or disseminate information, many groups fulfill various instrumental needs. These functions highlight the ongoing importance of groups in providing security, resources, and information, enhancing the well-being and stability of their members.

Interpersonal Needs

Group membership meets interpersonal needs by giving us access to inclusion, control, and support. In terms of inclusion, people have a fundamental drive to be a part of a group and to create and maintain social bonds (Osborne, 2020). As we have learned, humans have always lived and worked in small groups. Family and friendship groups, shared-interest groups, and activity groups all provide us with a sense of belonging and being included in an in-group. People also join groups because they want to have some control over a decision-making process or to influence the outcome of a group. Being a part of a group allows people to share opinions and influence others. Conversely, some people join a group to be controlled, because they do not want to be the sole decision maker or leader and instead want to be given a role to follow.

  Identity Needs

Our affiliations are building blocks for our identities, because group membership allows us to use reference groups for social comparison—in short, identifying us with some groups and characteristics and separating us from others. Some people join 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 Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) because they want to affiliate 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 as a whole are too large to be considered small groups, the work that people do as a part of a religious community—as a lay leader, deacon, member of a prayer group, or committee—may have deep ties to a person’s identity.

Types of Small Groups

Small groups are commonly categorized as task-oriented or relational-oriented (Hargie, 2011). Task-oriented groups focus on solving problems, promoting causes, or generating ideas, with success measured by the quality of the final product (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995). These groups engage in production, discussion, or problem-solving tasks (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Production tasks result in tangible outputs like reports or performances. Discussion tasks involve exploring topics without definitive answers, such as book clubs or support groups. Problem-solving tasks require devising solutions to meet specific needs, incorporating production and discussion elements but aiming for well-thought-out ideas. Task-oriented groups demand structured problem-solving skills and have a more rigid structure than relational-oriented groups.

Relational-oriented groups prioritize interpersonal connections, focusing on interactions that enhance members’ well-being. Decisions aim to strengthen relationships rather than completing tasks or debating ideas. All groups contain task and relational elements, existing on a continuum rather than as exclusive categories.

Groups form based on various reasons, including interpersonal relationships. Primary groups like family and friends are long-lasting, relationship-based groups providing frequent interaction and meeting essential needs. Kinship networks offer support early in life, fulfilling physiological, safety, social, and self-esteem needs. Fictive kinship networks arise when biological family interactions are absent, comprising non-biological individuals fulfilling family roles.

Secondary groups involve less frequent interactions and more task-related communication (Barker, 1991). Participation often stems from self-interest, unlike primary groups’ reciprocal nature. Shared-interest groups include social and leisure groups, like film buffs or bird watchers. Support groups focus on individual needs, such as weight loss groups, while service groups like Habitat for Humanity meet others’ needs and are task-oriented. Advocacy groups address shared needs, such as the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, formed to support AIDS awareness.

Teams are task-oriented groups characterized by loyalty and dedication to tasks and members (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Successful teams share clear goals, collaborative climates, high performance standards, external support, and ethical leadership (Adler & Elmhorst, 2005). Increasingly, small groups and teams engage in virtual interactions, utilizing technology to meet online and achieve goals, sometimes without physical face-to-face meetings.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups

Small groups offer several advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages are shared decision-making, resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. In small groups, crucial decisions that guide our country, influence local laws, and affect family interactions are made. In a democratic society, participating in decision-making is integral to citizenship. Groups help navigate decisions with ethical implications, providing feedback, input, questioning, and alternative proposals that individuals might miss. Additionally, group members expand social networks, granting access to more resources.

Synergy enhances group performance and interaction quality by combining complementary member characteristics (Larson Jr., 2010). This results in superior group products compared to individual efforts. For example, organizing a “World Cup Soccer Tournament” for international students involved creating teams, tracking progress, securing sponsors, and gathering prizes, all possible due to group synergy. This collaboration also exposed members to international diversity, enriching experiences—a clear advantage of group communication.

Groups increase exposure to diversity, broadening perspectives. While group diversity varies, strategic group selection can enhance diversity, or it may occur unintentionally. Small groups expand social networks, facilitating interactions with people of different cultural identities. Shared identification with tasks or groups fosters commonality among diverse backgrounds. Even within shared cultural identities, diverse experiences and opinions lead to broadened perspectives as ideas are presented, challenged, and defended.

However, small group interaction has disadvantages. In situations requiring specialized skills or knowledge, a knowledgeable individual may be more effective than a group. Group interaction can slow decision-making, whereas hierarchical structures often excel under time constraints. In such cases, a “point person” or leader coordinating actions and approving ideas is beneficial.

Group communication poses interpersonal challenges, such as coordinating meetings amid conflicting schedules. Some individuals struggle with the other-centeredness and self-sacrifice groups demand. Interdependence can lead to social loafing, where members contribute less than others or than if working alone (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social loafers rely on anonymity, expecting others to compensate for their lack of effort, causing frustration among students and professionals who often cover for them to maintain productivity.

Small Group Development

Small groups have to start somewhere. Even established groups go through changes as members come and go, as tasks are started and completed, and as relationships change. In this section, we will learn about the stages of group development, which are forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). As with most models of communication phenomena, although we order the stages and discuss them separately, they are not always experienced in a linear fashion. Additionally, some groups do not experience all five stages, may experience stages multiple times, or may experience more than one stage at a time.

Stages of Group Development

Forming

During the forming stage, group members work to reduce uncertainty associated with new relationships and tasks through initial interactions, laying the groundwork for future dynamics (Upwork Staff, 2021). Groups revisit this stage as members come and go, with each change in membership requiring time in the forming phase. While less uncertainty exists with one or two new additions compared to the group’s initial formation, adjustments are still necessary.

In this stage, role negotiation begins, with members determining group goals, rules, and norms. Group cohesion starts to develop, reflecting members’ commitment to the group’s purpose and their attraction to one another (Hargie, 2011). Cohesion sets the group’s trajectory, influenced by members’ feelings about each other and the group’s task. Voluntary membership often leads to high optimism, motivating the group, but unrealistic expectations can lead to disappointment, necessitating a balance of optimism with realism. Conversely, assigned or mandatory membership might include members with resentment toward the group or its goals, potentially hindering cohesion. Success depends on balancing these members with those more committed and positive about the group’s purpose.

Several factors influence the forming stage, including personalities, skills, resources, size, and the group’s charge (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Dominant personalities may assume early leadership roles, impacting decisions. Diverse skill sets and resource access shape role differentiation. Larger groups face bonding challenges, as one-on-one connections become difficult, leading dominant members to assert leadership and form smaller coalitions. This can set the group on a path toward conflict in the upcoming storming stage (Ellis & Fisher, 1994).

Storming

During the storming stage of group development, conflict arises as members begin to perform their roles, express ideas, and negotiate their place within the group’s structure. The uncertainty of the forming stage diminishes as roles, purposes, rules, and norms become clearer. Conflict often emerges when members are dissatisfied with their roles or decisions regarding the group’s purpose or procedures. For instance, if a leader emerges or is assigned during forming, some members may feel the leader is imposing their will on the group. Leaders should anticipate resentment from those who wanted to lead, have interpersonal conflicts with the leader, or simply dislike being led.

Though storming and conflict have negative connotations, they can be positive and productive. Just as storms replenish water supplies and promote growth, storming can lead to group development. While conflict is inevitable and beneficial, a group stuck in the storming stage may struggle to complete tasks or achieve its purpose. External influences can also impact storming-stage conflict. Preexisting interpersonal conflicts may distract from productive idea- or task-oriented conflicts, which can enhance the quality of ideas, decision-making, and output.

Norming

Performing

During the performing stage of group development, members collaborate smoothly to complete tasks or achieve goals (Upwork Staff, 2021). While interactions are primarily task-focused, relational aspects provide essential support for members. Socializing outside official group time offers relief from task demands, enhancing overall group dynamics. In task-related interactions, members ideally develop synergy by pooling skills, ideas, experiences, and resources. This synergy enables the group to exceed expectations and achieve more collectively than individuals could alone.

However, performance glitches can lead the group back to earlier development stages. Changes in membership, roles, or norms may require revisiting aspects of the forming, storming, or norming stages. To maintain cohesion during the performing stage, setting short-term, attainable goals is beneficial. Achieving these goals, even if small, boosts morale, enhancing group cohesion and productivity. This approach ensures continued progress and strengthens the group’s ability to work effectively toward its objectives.

Adjourning

The adjourning stage of group development occurs when a group dissolves due to completing its purpose, declining membership, lack of support, or other internal or external reasons (Upwork Staff, 2021). While some groups persist indefinitely without experiencing adjourning, others may dissolve prematurely due to unresolved conflict during the storming stage, bypassing norming and performing entirely. For groups with high social cohesion, adjourning can be emotionally challenging, though interpersonal relationships formed may continue beyond the group’s dissolution. However, many bonds fade over time, as proximity and shared tasks often drive relationship formation, making maintenance difficult once those forces disappear. Conversely, groups with negative experiences may welcome the adjourning stage.

To maximize the adjourning stage’s benefits, purposeful reflection is essential (Upwork Staff, 2021). Celebrating accomplishments through parties or ceremonies provides closure. Reflection offers valuable insights, even for groups with negative experiences or unmet goals, aiding future interactions. Members often leave with enhanced skills applicable in future group or individual contexts. Relational-focused groups can improve interpersonal, listening, empathetic skills, increase cultural knowledge, and introduce new perspectives, enriching members’ abilities for future endeavors.

Small Group Dynamics

Any time a group of people comes together, new dynamics are put into place that differ from the dynamics present in our typical dyadic interactions (Sidorenkov, 2013). The impressions we form about other people’s likeability and the way we think about a group’s purpose are affected by the climate within a group that is created by all members. Groups also develop norms, and new group members are socialized into a group’s climate and norms just as we are socialized into larger social and cultural norms in our everyday life. The pressure to conform to norms becomes more powerful in group situations, and some groups take advantage of these forces with positive and negative results. Last, the potential for productive and destructive conflict increases as multiple individuals come together to accomplish a task or achieve a purpose. This section explores the dynamics mentioned previously in order to better prepare you for future group interactions.

Group Cohesion and Climate

Cohesion within a group refers to its ability to stick together, establishing an overall group climate—the enduring tone and quality of group interaction experienced similarly by members. Cohesion can be divided into task cohesion and social cohesion. Task cohesion involves members’ commitment to the group’s purpose and activities, while social cohesion refers to attraction and liking among members (Molloy, 2020). Ideally, groups balance these cohesions relative to their purpose, with task-oriented groups having higher task cohesion and relational-oriented groups having higher social cohesion. Even task-focused groups need social cohesion and vice versa, but the balance depends on the group’s purpose and members. For example, a team of car dealership workers might join a softball league due to their friendship and love for the game, showing high social and task cohesion, while faculty members join for socializing and exhibit high social but low task cohesion.

Cohesion benefits groups in various ways, reflected in specific behaviors and characteristics. Groups with appropriate cohesiveness (Hargie, 2011) easily set goals, exhibit high commitment to their purpose, are more productive, face fewer attendance issues, and have members willing to stick through difficulties. Members are satisfied, identify with, promote, and defend the group, listen to each other, offer support and constructive criticism, and experience less anger and tension.

Appropriate cohesion levels foster a positive group climate, akin to group morale, influenced by members’ satisfaction. Qualities contributing to positive climate and morale include participation, where members feel included in discussions and group functioning; confirming messages that build relational dimensions and clear, organized, relevant messages that build task dimensions; positive, constructive, relevant feedback; equity in participation and turn-taking; clear and accepted roles, where members understand status and hierarchy and feel comfortable with their roles; and motivation, activated by perceived connection to and relevance of the group’s goals or purpose (Marston & Hecht, 1988).

Socializing Group Members

Group socialization is the process through which norms, rules, and expectations are taught and learned, shaping group interaction and member behavior. Socialization is crucial for creating and maintaining group norms, rules, and cohesion (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). It fosters a shared identity and social reality among members, influenced by factors like cohesion levels. Groups with strong cohesion often see members readily adopting rules and norms, enhancing socialization. The need for socialization varies throughout a group’s lifespan. Stable groups with long-term members require less socialization, while new groups or groups with new members engage in ongoing socialization to negotiate rules, develop norms, and build shared history.

Information exchanged during socialization falls into two categories: technical and social knowledge (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). Technical knowledge involves skills and information needed for tasks, conveyed through formal means like orientations, trainings, manuals, and documents. Social knowledge, focusing on behavioral norms guiding interaction, is more ambiguous and often learned informally or passively through observation. Technical knowledge aligns with group rules, while social knowledge relates to group norms.

Socialization continues beyond initial membership through rule and norm enforcement. Deviations from rules or norms serve as reminders, reinforcing socialization. Rule deviations, being explicit, can lead to consequences like warnings, separation, or fines. Norm deviations, though implicit, may result in self-consciousness, embarrassment, or awkwardness, prompting corrective actions. Norms can be so ingrained that they operate subconsciously among members.

Group rules and norms offer predictability, reducing uncertainty and increasing security within the group. They guide member involvement, create shared social reality, and enable group functioning without constant monitoring and correction (Hargie, 2011). Success depends on member buy-in, ensuring smooth operation and cohesion within the group.

Group Pressures

There must be some kind of motivating force present within groups in order for the rules and norms to help govern and guide a group. Without such pressure, group members would have no incentive to
conform to group norms or buy into the group’s identity and values. In this section, we will discuss how rules and norms gain their power through internal and external pressures and how these pressures can have positive and negative effects.

Conformity

Groupthink

Groupthink is a detrimental group phenomenon marked by a lack of critical evaluation of ideas or actions, stemming from high cohesion and conformity pressures (Janis, 1972). It results in uncritical acceptance of decisions or plans, often perceived as smooth, positive interactions among agreeable members, but these may indicate groupthink (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Groupthink arises when members rush to agreement or fear conflict, leading to poorly considered decisions, from ineffective presentation methods to catastrophic mechanical failures.

High levels of cohesion are a primary cause of groupthink. Social cohesion may deter members from questioning ideas to avoid damaging relationships. Task cohesion can create a sense of invincibility, reducing critical evaluation. While high cohesion might lessen conformity pressures, members identifying strongly with the group may not question decisions. However, internal conformity pressures may still lead members to defer to decisions by leaders or the majority. External pressures, such as impending rewards or punishments, time constraints, or aggressive leadership, also contribute to groupthink. These factors combine to suppress dissent, hindering effective decision-making and potentially leading to adverse outcomes. Balancing cohesion and encouraging critical evaluation are crucial to preventing groupthink and fostering a healthy, productive group environment.

Group Conflict

Conflict within group interactions can manifest directly, through open questioning and expressions of anger or dislike, or indirectly, via innuendo, joking, or passive-aggressive behavior. While often viewed negatively, conflict can be beneficial, helping groups break out of ruts, regain creativity, and avoid complacency. However, it can also reduce productivity by straining task and social dimensions. Procedural, substantive, and interpersonal conflicts are the three main types, each varying in intensity and impact on the group (Fujishin, 2001).

Procedural conflict arises from disagreements over group operations mechanics (Burnett, 1993). Members may have differing beliefs on how tasks should be accomplished. A group leader can often resolve procedural conflict, especially if they established the procedures or have the authority to change them. Alternatively, voting to reach consensus or a majority decision can help resolve procedural disagreements.

Substantive conflict involves differing beliefs, attitudes, values, or ideas related to the group’s purpose or task (Burnett, 1993). These conflicts focus on what should be done rather than how. As groups determine their mission or decide on tasks, differences in opinion about meanings, supporting evidence, or performance standards can arise. Leaders and members should avoid rushing to close substantive conflicts, as open discussion and debate can lead to higher-quality outcomes and prevent groupthink. Resolving substantive conflict may involve researching similar situations, weighing proposals, and finding common ground. Civil discussions that debate ideas are preferable to climates where members feel personally judged.

Interpersonal conflict emerges from personal differences between group members, focusing on who rather than how or what. It may stem from unresolved procedural or substantive conflicts, differences in beliefs, attitudes, values, personalities, or communication styles. Interpersonal conflict can build slowly if members avoid confronting issues directly, with passive-aggressive behavior indicating underlying tension. Intervention by group members or private mediation by leaders can help prevent escalation. While procedural and substantive initiators may be seen as concerned and competent, those who initiate interpersonal conflict are often viewed unfavorably by others (Ellis & Fisher, 1994).

Managing Conflict in Small Groups

Some common ways to manage conflict include clear decision-making procedures, third-party mediation, and leader facilitation (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Decision-making is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14 “Leadership, Roles, and Problem Solving in Groups”, but commonly used methods such as majority vote can help or hurt conflict management efforts. While an up-and- down vote can allow a group to finalize a decision and move on, members whose vote fell on the minority side may feel resentment toward other group members. This can create a win/lose climate that leads to further conflict. Having a leader who makes ultimate decisions can also help move a group toward completion of a task, but conflict may only be pushed to the side and left not fully addressed. Third-party mediation can help move a group past a conflict and may create less feelings of animosity, since the person mediating and perhaps making a decision is not a member of the group. In some cases, the leader can act as an internal third-party mediator to help other group members work productively through their conflict.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Conflict

A complete absence of conflict in a group is often a negative indicator, suggesting either inactivity or a lack of member commitment (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Properly managed conflict can enhance understanding of the issues a group faces. Substantive conflict introduces alternative perspectives that might otherwise remain unheard, enriching the group’s decision-making process. Viewing conflict as healthy, necessary, and productive allows members to approach it with an open mind, aiming to learn and grow. When initiators of substantive conflict share and defend their views competently and civilly, the group benefits from diverse insights and increased cohesion.

Well-managed conflict fosters a sense of accomplishment, reducing dread and boosting confidence in handling future conflicts. However, prolonged or poorly managed conflict can decrease cohesiveness. Members avoiding conflict may still experience anger or frustration if it persists. Those who escalate task-oriented conflicts to interpersonal ones are often unpopular, as they hinder group dynamics. Mishandled or chronic conflict can ultimately lead to group dissolution or member loss, as individuals reassess the costs and rewards of participation (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Balancing conflict management with open dialogue is crucial for maintaining a healthy, productive group environment.

Attribution

This supplemental chapter was adapted from Communication in the Real World, copyright © 2022 by Faculty members in the School of Communication Studies ,James Madison University, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, except where otherwise noted.

We acknowledge that UMD’s TerpAI tool was used to adapt some of the contents of this chapter.

References

Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2005). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for businesses and the professions (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management 29(2), 161-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900203

Barker, D. B. (1991). The behavioral analysis of interpersonal intimacy in group development.
Small Group Research, 22(1), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491221005

Bonito, J. A., & Staggs, S. M. (2018). Interdependence in small group discussion. In E. Brauner, M. Boos, & M. Kolbe (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 354–369).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.018

Burnett, R. E. (1993). Conflict in collaborative decision making. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.),
Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 144-163). Sage.

Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Evans, M. (2019, March 4). Types of small group communication. https://careertrend.com/ info-8048059-types-small-group-communication.html

Forsyth, D. R. (2021). The psychology of groups. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. DEF publishers. Retrieved from http://noba.to/trfxbkhm

Fujishin, R. (2001). Creating effective groups: The art of small group communication. Acada Books.

Girl Scouts of the United States of America. (n.d.). About us. https://www.girlscouts.org/en/ discover/about-us.html

Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214559709

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice (5th ed.).Routledge.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.65.4.681

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what must go wrong. Sage. Larson, J. R., Jr. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. Psychology Press.

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: Communication skills book (2nd ed.). New Harbinger Publications.

Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2005). A study of grouphate in a course on small group communication. Psychological Reports 97(2), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.2.381-386

Osborne, K. (2020, May 20). Why people join groups. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/ College_of_the_Canyons/ COMS_120%3A_Small_Group_Communication_(Osborn)/02%3A_Reading_Group_Development/ 2.3%3A_Why_People_Join_Groups

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
Upwork Staff. (2021, April 28). The 5 stages of team development (including examples). https://www.upwork.com/resources/stages-of-team-development

Wakefield, J. R. H., Sani, F., Madhok, V., Norbury, M., Dugard, P., Gabbanelli, C., Arnetoli, M., Beconcini, G., Botindari, L., Grifoni, F., Paoli, P., & Poggesi, F. (2017). The relationship between group identification and satisfaction with life in a cross-cultural community sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 785–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9735-z