Classifying Groups

Liberty University Defining and Classifying Groups
According to the course text, “A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives” (Robbins & Judge 2009). There are multitudinous types of groups including formal groups, informal groups, command groups, task groups, interest groups, and friendship groups. In the fire department, an engine company is an example of a formal group. There is an officer, a driver, and a paramedic who designated work assignments designed to meet organizational goals. An exemplification of an informal group would be Scott from the IT department, Jared from finance, and myself. We revel in playing pickle ball together after work weekly. This group is more based on the gratification of social interaction than on the fulfillment of organizational ambition.
An illustration of a command group at the fire department where I work would be the four division chiefs. Each of us is the same rank, we direct distinctive areas such as logistics, professional
standards, fire prevention, and operations, and we are accountable to the same supervisor. An example of a task group in the city where I am employed would be the capital improvement program (CIP) review committee. The members of this group work in different departments, are different ranks, and meet for the sole purpose of reviewing the CIP. The local fire department union is a model of an interest group. This group convenes to accomplish a precise objective, such as improved pay, with which they are all concerned. Lastly, friendship groups can form because of the members’ mutual interests or commonalities. For instance, several people in the fire department enjoy going fishing, attending sporting events, or just socializing in general.
The Five-Stage Model
The five-stage model outlines the distinct phases groups advance through including forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. These stages could be descried in a recent assemblage of a large group of firefighters, the facility’s manager, administrative staff, and an architect convened to discuss the construction of a new fire station. The forming stage consisted of a lack of interaction, reclusively, and very little participation. The storming stage brought forth conflicting views amongst the group and some people wandering off topic. The norming phase is when the meeting felt like it was finally on track. The members of the group knew what the objectives were as well as the rules of engagement. Covenant and mutual accountability are effective principles that can be implemented to assist the group in moving through the storming and norming process (Fischer, 2009). This led to the performing stage where participants were productive in generating ideas and constructing a vision for the new fire station. Finally, the adjourning stage entailed going over the next steps in the construction process, how progress would be communicated, and thanking everyone for their contribution.
Goupthink and Groupshift
Two concepts that can affect a group’s ability to assess problems, evaluate alternatives, and make comprehensive decisions are groupthink and groupshift.
Groupthink takes place when pressures for conformity dissuade individuals from presenting opposing points of views (Robbins & Judge 2009). “When faced by a group majority whose preferences are different from theirs, participants assume the majority to be correct and focus on comparing their preference to that of the majority” (Dennis, 1996). In my organization, there are two staff meetings every Monday. The first meeting is larger and consists of approximately a dozen people, while the second meeting has only half that amount. It is evident in the larger meeting that when a preponderant member of the organization takes a stand on a topic, no one feels comfortable contesting it. This can be true, even if the ranking member’s viewpoint is clearly
incorrect.
The second phenomena, groupshift, is defined as “A change in decision risk between a groups decision and an individual decision that a member within the group would make; the shift can be toward either conservatism or greater risk” (Robbins & Judge 2009). I have witnessed groupshift and it appears there is a greater tendency for the group to deviate toward greater risk, however this may be a byproduct of the type of people drawn to the fire service. It almost appears as if the group cultivates a mob mentality. Decisions that individuals would be apprehensive of, the group has no problem making. As if there are power in numbers and the group is stronger together. Unfortunately, often times these exaggerated decisions do not pay off.
It is important for organizations to understand the different kinds of groups that exist as well as the distinct phases groups advance through. Moreover, group members should be au courant of how groupthink and groupshift can affect outcomes at the beginning of the decision-making process. After all, “a team’s success is directly linked to the efforts of the individual players and how well those players get along and work with each other” (Kroeger, Thuesen, & Rutledge, 2002). The Bible reiterates the benefits of working in groups by stating, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17, ESV).