As noted in Chapter 1, small group interactions are the result of influences that can be labeled inputs, throughputs, and outputs. These factors are in a constant state of simultaneous and reciprocal influence. This chapter has focused on some of the inputs—namely, the relevant background factors of the group members. Through the discussion of personality, we illustrated the role personality plays in shaping individual behavior. For example, those high on inclusion will probably be more inclined to join groups in the first place (if we assume that membership is voluntary). Those high on affection are very likely to smile more; express more feelings, both verbally and nonverbally, than low affiliators; give more direct eye contact to more members of the group; and agree more than low affiliators. We would expect that high-affection members would have higher satisfaction resulting from harmonious group experiences, and greater dissatisfaction with groups that experience a high degree of conflict and disagreement. The person low on need for inclusion would tend to avoid meetings and group memberships whenever possible and would avoid talking in the groups he or she was forced to join. Group interaction would generally be viewed by the introvert as threatening and therefore less satisfying than engaging in the same activity alone. However, if the group were conducted by a supportive and nonthreatening leader, the introvert's satisfaction level would increase dramatically.
High-control members tend to enjoy working on task-oriented projects, because they are more task-oriented than most others and find that the group tends to slow down their progress. The exception, of course, would be a group composed of a lot of high controllers. In this case, high cohesion or high conflict might result, depending on the way in which the members decided to reward their efforts. Thus, group norms, leadership style, and communication patterns all tend to influence the satisfaction level of group members.
The three organismic factors discussed in this chapter were gender, age, and health. A group with both sexes tends to have more socially oriented communication patterns and fewer task-oriented comments.
Age seems to be somewhat similar to attitudes and values in that the more similar group members are (in age, attitudes, and values), the easier it is for them to communicate (i.e., they work more efficiently). However, research on creativity in groups has shown that diversity of age, backgrounds, viewpoint, etc., all lead to greater creativity (Leonard & Swap, 1999; Amabile, 1996). Diversity tends to increase a group's divergent thinking (important at the early stages of problem-solving) and may retard a group's convergent thinking (important at the latter stages of problem-solving) when the group has to come to agreement.
Even organizations can promote certain values. Saturn Corporation includes the following in the company values that it advertises (Stoney, 1993).
TEAMWORK
We are dedicated to singleness of purpose through the effective involvement of members [employees], suppliers, dealers, neighbors, and other stakeholders. A fundamental tenet of our philosophy is the belief that effective teams engage the talents of individual members while encouraging team growth.
Small wonder that Saturn has become one of the major organizational success stories of the 20th century.
In the first reading at the end of this chapter, Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger discuss ways that people with different personality types can communicate more effectively. The second selection, by Gamble and Gamble, examines the communication patterns between men and women.
