Group Dynamics: Back to the Basics?
Learning From the Past to Inform the Future
I recently read a trio of pieces which got me seriously thinking about the “level” at which we do research and provide interventions in organizations. We often look at organizations through an individual lens, at least here in the United States, and especially those of us with a Psychology background. But what about the system, and overall group dynamics?
Ed Schein
The first piece I read was “Organizational Psychology Then and Now: Some Observations” by Dr Edgar H. Schein. Then I re-read it to let it soak in further. This Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior article is full of truth bombs and provocative observations. I won’t attempt to summarize it in its entirety, but I will pull out a few key points as Dr Schein looks over the years 1965 to 2015.
“The biggest change has been the decline of work on group dynamics and group interventions reflecting Western cultures of individualism”.
And it is difficult to disagree. There has been a massive amount of work done on pre-employment assessment, leadership development, coaching, training etc. But work on group dynamics has taken a back seat to the assessment and development of individuals in organizational psychology. Schein notes the rise of coaching in his article, but observes this has been predominantly coaching for individuals, not groups.
There have also been great strides in teamwork research and practitioners trying to do team building. However, Schein’s view is that team research and practice is part of a larger world of group dynamics. Essentially overall group dynamics is downplayed, ignored, or given lip service as opposed to studied and worked with by people in the organization.
Dr Schein also laments how the divide between what the academics are researching and what the practitioners are doing is truly huge. For sure, he does point out a few notable exceptions, such as the “teaming” work by Amy Edmondson. But in general he sees the two halves of academia and practitioners as not being in alignment.
He does not mince his words on what, in his view, is behind the problem in understanding Group Dynamics:
I have always wondered whether our earlier preoccupation with teams was a reflection not of their importance but of the fact that we were culturally not very good at teaming. The jokes and complaints about committees and meetings, the headlines that tout teamwork in sports but always feature the quarterback or star performer, and the obsession with individual accountability and reward systems all suggest that what is driving our attention are the deep cultural assumptions that, in the end, (a) it is the individual who makes the difference and (b) getting the job done is much more important than relationship building and teamwork.
I am sure we have all seen examples of this obsession with individual reward systems when teams are discussed as important. But how we are compensated plays a huge role in how we execute our job tasks when the rubber hits the road.
Overall, Schein urges us to “look at all parts of organizations and to develop a systemic view.” Of course, a reductionist view is needed to understand and research behavior. But unless it is put in the context of a system then it is of limited use. In fact one could argue that, with the workplace growing more complex as it shifted from the industrial age to the knowledge age and whatever comes next, a systems view is much more important than it was in the 1900s.
We, as a culture, are hooked on individual accountability. Many of my clients have told me about how their companies are now espousing teamwork, but I have yet to find one that pays groups or that lets groups decide whom to promote.
We will find exceptions to this and in fact there are those who will hire a team instead of an individual. But this is the exception, not the norm.
Breakthrough in Organization Development
The second piece was an HBR article by Blake, Mouton, Barnes and Greiner — very long for the HBR (more than 12,000 words). I read it in chunks of time, but would estimate my total time was an hour to read and digest it. But the striking thing was not how long it was… it was truly fascinating to read a large scale intervention in a factory that dates back 5 decades ago. Yes, the article was published in 1964 (!)
There was a bit of outdated terminology and of course all personal pronouns were male-centric. But the thrust of the effort was to improve the organization through team led individual learning.
It may have been a top down effort, but with the line managers owning the effort, it was in many ways also a bottom up organization intervention. I do not know that “participatory leadership” or the “managerial grid” (see image to left)are on everyone’s tip of the tongue nowadays but…
If you have an hour to spare, and want to see how far we have come, as well as how much we have forgotten, I would encourage you to give it a read. One of the key take aways …One of the conditions under which (behavioural science and) human relations education can help with large-scale OD is an “Educational strategy that effectively and continuously builds team problem solving and mutual support into work-related issues.”
Competition in organizations: good or bad?
The last of the trio was a post by Niels Pflaeging. Although the article mostly focused on competition, what caught my eye in particular was this bold statement:
Individual performance, in organizations, does not even exist. The notion of individual performance is a crude over-simplification of organizational reality: Performance is not something that individuals within an organization can do, or create by themselves, individually.
So it sounds to me that it is time to embrace (once again) the study of group dynamics in the workplace. And more importantly, to work on translating that research into effective and efficient methods for managers. No more stupid kumbaya in the forest. If you are going to work on teamwork, actually facilitate teams how to become high performing teams. Skip the trust falls or ropes courses to do the hard work of delineating roles, rules, and responsibilities. Teach real conflict management and decision making skills. Help teams, groups, inter group, and inter-organizations with collaboration and communication.
Stop playing around and get to work on group dynamics.
(written by Paul Thoresen and Koen Smets)
