This chapter dealt with the consequences of group interaction. In Chapter 1, our model indicated that all the other variables tend to culminate in the consequences. However, in ongoing groups, the outcomes or consequences of earlier group interactions tend to have a continuing influence on subsequent activities.
In this chapter we looked at four potential consequences of group interaction: (1) solutions to problems, (2) changes in interpersonal relations, (3) improved information flow, and (4) organizational change. Each of these potential consequences may vary considerably depending on the particular combination of the other variables depicted in the model. For example, the quality and acceptance of solutions will vary depending on the degree of group member participation.
A great deal of material has been written about member acceptance of group-derived solutions. The term consensus is typically used in this context. Consensus means unanimous agreement with the solution. Conceptually, consensus and acceptance of the solution appear to be roughly equivalent.
All the studies cited in this chapter confirm our thesis that small group interaction must be viewed as a system of interrelated variables in which a change in any one variable creates changes in the other variables in the system.
The second section of this chapter dealt with interpersonal relations. We saw that group member relations may be improved as a result of group interaction. However, groups composed of members with highly incompatible personalities or value systems may, in fact, become even more polarized as a result of small group interaction. This outcome would depend on the style of leadership and quality of conflict resolution in the group. Information flow may be improved as a result of interaction; but with a highly structured communication network and authoritarian leadership, communication flow might actually diminish. Similar points also can be made regarding organizational change. Each of the potential consequences depends to a considerable degree on the quality of the mix of other relevant variables in the model.
Hackman (1990) has identified three consequences for measuring the effectiveness of groups. He writes:
First, is the degree to which the group's productive output . . . meets the standards of quantity, quality, and timeliness of the people who receive . . . that output.
. . . The second dimension is the degree to which the [group] process . . . enhances the capability of members to work together interdependently in the future.
. . . The third dimension is the degree to which the group experience contributes to the growth and personal well-being of team members. (pp. 6-7)
This seems a good way to measure the ultimate success or effectiveness of the groups to which you belong.
Numerous studies have shown that it takes a comprehensive (systems) approach to successfully create large-scale organizational change. Pfeffer (1998) and Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) found that there are seven practices of successful organizations: (1) employment security, (2) selective hiring of new personnel, (3) self-managed teams and decentralized decision making, (4) comparatively high compensation based on organizational performance, (5) extensive training, (6) reduced status distinctions including dress, language, and office arrangements, and (7) extensive sharing of financial and performance information. As you can see, the use of teams, extensive training, and reduction of status barriers are just a few of the issues covered in this book.
What we have attempted to do in this chapter and throughout the book is to indicate ways to better understand and improve your functioning in small groups. The considerable research cited earlier leads us to believe there is a distinct probability that you can and will become a more effective group participant if you are able to implement the ideas we have discussed. Keep in mind that to be an effective participant or leader you should "choose exploration over exploitation, rallying others over ruling, imagination over inventory, achievement over compliance, and giving over taking" (Patler, 1999, p. 217).
The readings for this chapter help show how you can improve several small group consequences. Directly or indirectly, these articles touch on how to improve all four consequences discussed in this chapter. The article by Norman Maier even proposes a contingency model consistent with systems theory that suggests which types of problems are more likely to be solved using group decisions and which can be solved by the leader acting alone.
