Hypotheses

Author note

This paper was prepared for the subject Group Dynamics and Team Effectiveness which is taught by Prof. Dr. David Chaudron

Introduction

It is wide observed that team-building or group-building has long been known as an indispensable element of leadership and strategic management. Consequently, the relationships between individuals and the group are always concerned by leaders and managers. It could be said that a group is in a state of cohesion when its members possess bonds linking them to one another and to the group as a whole. Although cohesion is a multi-faceted process, it can be broken down into four main components: social relations, task relations, perceived unity, and emotions. Members of strongly cohesive groups are more inclined to participate readily and to stay with the group. On the other hand, personal characteristics are among relationships, in which the particular characteristics of an individual group member that are of interest, but rather the relative characteristics of the various persons who compose the group. “The differential effects of social influence as a function of cohesiveness are shown most clear in studies of conformity” (Shaw, 1981). If there was a good relationship between individuals and group, it would create a group cohesiveness. “Group cohesiveness is defined as a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998; Panina, 2002). As a result, it would explain “how individuals and groups are influenced by their physical environment” and how the groups could create values for the whole, in which “personal space and individual territoriality have important consequences for group behavior, and spatial arrangements in groups are import determinants of status, satisfaction, and performance” (Shaw, 1971). This paper tends not only to review and explain 10 plausible hypotheses about the physical environment of groups, but also to highlight changes of these hypotheses up to now. Moreover, it is hoped that it would be the good literature for probation researchers in leadership and offer knowledge to doctorate students in the future.

Approach

Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis stated that “individuals contribute differently to the group product, depending upon the particular other individuals in the group.” (Shaw, 1981). It means that group specification and individual traits has a direct effect on the success or failure of a social group (Modlmeier, et al., 2014). It is also hypothesized that mission interdependence, a related representative, the special effects of individual and group independence on group effectiveness. There is a chance to be destructive, which could affect between this mixture of two groups (individual and group autonomy). According to Langfred (1998), different kinds of groups are established in the mixture of individual and group independence and high individuals with high group independence could be effective by meditation. On the other hand, a study of an individual and group relevancy of race and gender on a group problem solving based on the socialization and tokenism hypothesis and expectation states theory shows that there is an effect of gender and race over the group decisions at the individual level and is “positively related to their solution acceptance and commitment to their group” (Szumal, 1995). However, in a cross-group studies based on modeling hypothesis and social identity theory on the effects of gender and racial issues on the constructive, passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive group interaction”, it shows that the group interacted, to solution quality, solution acceptance and cohesively. Especially, there was a study with 190 employees in different group’s work that with different organizations, figure out that social networks are linked to individual and group performance in their positive and negative relationships (Sparrowe et al., 2001). Individual job performance as hypothesized, which was positively linked to information networks and negatively linked to importance in networks difficulty of relationships to stop mission behaviors.

When examining the groups at the individual characterization level, some significant differences did emerge” (Witkemper, 2012). There is an evidence concerning the relationship between group cohesiveness and group effectiveness is not altogether consistent. However, laboratory studies have shown only small increments in favor of the high-cohesive group (Schachter, 1951) or no difference in the productivity of high-and low-cohesive groups (Berkowitz, 1954). Another idea is that hypothesis 1 is largely limited (Rosenberg et., 1955) because it gains strengths from the fact that it is intuitively plausible. A given individual may be active and outspoken when being in a group of friends or submissive strangers. However, such variations in behavior obviously mean differences in the amount of contribution to the groups of strangers.

Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis mentioned that “members of high-cohesive groups communicate with each other to a greater extent than members of low-cohesive groups” (Shaw, 1981). It means that the high interpersonal cohesiveness manipulation was designed to create interpersonal attraction within a team by facilitating participant interaction and by generating perceptions of similarity among team members (Kocsis, 1997). To generate perceptions of similarity among a team’s members, in Kocsis’ research, “the experimenter asked each participant to indicate in writing what they thought were the two most important characteristics of a good friend. The experimenter explained to participants during distribution of the characteristics of a good friend questionnaire that their responses would be used to assess the degree of similarity among the members of the team”. Another quantitative study of Schibik (2002) showed that there was a significant correlation between cohesion and communication in a group (p-value < 0.001).

According to (Langfred & Shanley, 1997), the conceptual of cohesiveness effect and “group norms” on “group effectiveness”, in bureaucratic perspective is going to be different- absolutely informational, interdependence and social support. It is discussed that cohesive groups will be suffer from losses of their performance, if they have only weak path. If their interdependence is high but will be able to maintain group performance if task interdependence is low due to the social and informational support provided by cohesive groups. Group could have cohesiveness effect when they accept the risk, and have motivation in their path (Shaw, 1981; Langfred, 1998). Besides, numerous studies have shown that the amount of interaction is greater in group composed of members who are highly attracted to the group than in groups composed of members who are less attracted to or are repelled by the group (Back, 1951; French, 1941; Lott, 1961). Typically, people who like each other and chat with each other more than individuals who dislike each other. This obvious fact has important implications for group behavior.

Hypothesis 3

The third hypothesis concentrated on the relationships between the pattern and content of interaction, which are supposed to be more positively oriented in high-cohesive than in low-cohesive group (Shaw, 1981). This hypothesis emphasize on the significances of the group background, meaning of self-confidence and groups rising their positive illusions. In other words, it referred to the importance of these illusions, which were copied from confidence founded justifications that why people involve in positive illusions? (Polzer, Kramer & Neale, 1997). As Polzer, Kramer, Neale (1997) and Shaw (1981) stated, high-cohesive people who have positive illusions and they can have high cohesive with those people are close to them, to their pat and ideas. Occasionally, they are very confident, feel positive and have self-esteem. Many researchers also focus on this issue and came to a conclusion where “trust is inherently good and distrust is inherently bad” (Tajfel, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). But there are some recent evidence (face to face) claiming that trust does not always means good it could become detrimental where a distrust could be instrumental group decision making (Stratton, 2007). When the group is highly cohesive, members tend to be friendly, cooperative and easier to engage in behaviors which facilitate group integration. In other words, members of low-cohesive groups tend to function as individuals rather aggressive and uncooperative (Back, 1951; Shaw & Shaw, 1962).

Hypothesis 4

The fourth hypothesis supposed that “high-cohesive group are more effective than low-cohesive groups in achieving their respective goals” (Shaw, 1981). To explain this hypothesis, Yoo and Alavi (2001) raised their example of the media groups, which were stated to be the cohesive groups. Particularly, they are not based on experiences, but using the media to build cohesion. Another example could explain well for this hypothesis, which is in the sport field. “A high level of cohesiveness is necessary for teams to enable athletes to achieve 41 their goals (Straub, 1975; Lan, 2009). In electronic field, EPM (Electronic Performance Monitoring) tracks the performance of the employees in different organization (Panina, 2002). This study is concerned with the relationship between the EPM and performance and stress while the social context variable are being taken into the consideration. Since every organization has their own specific climate with different individuals, therefore a special attention should be given to the organizational climate and social context before using this method of monitoring.

Laboratory studies have shown only small increments in favor of the high-cohesive group (Schachter, 1951) or no difference in the productivity of high-and low-cohesive groups (Berkowitz, 1954). However, such failures to support this hypothesis are probably due to the fact that groups do not always accept the goal specified by the experimenter. Results of field studies and field experiments generally support the hypothesis that the high-cohesive group is effective in achieving whatever goals its members establish, although these may not always be the ones of interest to the investigator (Goodacre, 1951).

Hypothesis 5

The fifth hypothesis stated that “member of high-cohesive groups are generally better satisfied than members of low-cohesive groups” (Shaw, 1981). Results from both field studies in psychology (Van Zelst, 1952a; Van Zelst, 1952b) and laboratory experiments (Exline, 1957) support the proposition that members of high-cohesive groups are better satisfied with the group and with its products than are members of low-cohesive groups, member of high-cohesive groups are motivated to interact to interact with others in their group and to achieve group goals; this motivation leads to effective group functioning and to high member satisfaction. “Improvement in group cohesion, RN-RN interaction, job enjoyment, and turnover was demonstrated. Targeted, unit-based strategies can be an effective means of reducing turnover rates and improving group cohesion and nurse satisfaction.”

Hypothesis 6 and Hypothesis 7

The sixth hypothesis asserted that “compatible groups are more effective in achieving group goals than are incompatible groups” (Shaw, 1981). “The effective coach who leads the behavior can let the player adapt to all kinds of sport situations and to the competitive environment” (Lan, 2009). Groups are compatible with respect to needs and personality characteristics are able to function more smoothly, devote less of their energy to group maintenance, and thus achieve their goals more effectively than groups whose members are incompatible with respect to needs and personality characteristics (Schutz, 1955; Haythorn et al., 1956a; Haythorn et al., 1956b; Schutz, 1958; Sapolsky, 1960). However, much more theoretical work is required to determine which individual characteristics may be expected to be compatible and which; only then can empirical work establish valid hypotheses about specific aspects of group compatibility in sensitivity training in compatibility group yielded contradictory results (Lundgren, 1975; Lundgren & Knight, 1977).

On the other hand, based on the seventh hypothesis, member of compatible groups are supposed to be better satisfied than members of incompatible groups (Shaw, 1981). “The proposed model of identity change hypothesizes that students who see the new group of university students to be compatible with their existing identities should be more likely to identify as a university student.” (Iyer, A. et al., 2009). Hypothesis 7 seems to provide some support for Hypothesis 6. In addition, fry groups experience anxiety and general dissatisfaction with the group (Smelser, 1961). It seems inevitable that such factors will eventually interfere with effective group functioning.

Hypothesis 8

Another hypothesis showed that “other things being equal, groups composed of members having diverse, relevant abilities perform more effectively than groups composed of members having similar abilities” (Shaw, 1981). In other words, an effective group should have enough gender, abilities, ethnics… and especially diverse to obtain the most benefits. Moreover, “within the context of an individual’s perception of themselves as a group member, awareness of ones’ role was essential to group function” (Mugfor, 2004). Typically, “women and minority self-efficacy was posited to be lower than Caucasian males when they are tokens, and greater than Caucasian males in solo situations” (Brittain, 2005). Or “minorities and females were also predicted to experience lower levels of self-efficacy when they were tokens than when they were solos or in heterogeneous group associated with affirmative action” (Brittain, 2005). It is obvious that, in the modern organizations, work groups and diversity could be considered as an essensial factor. Researchers have tried to approach this project by using different type of diversity and heterogeneity to see if the individual would approach differently. For 15 years, researchers have investigated the effects of a diverse workforce and come to a conclusion that a diverse workplace will improve decision making, process which in turn it will lead to a more creativities and hence more productivity (Roberge, 2007). Some researchers believe that diversity could reduce intra-group cohesiveness, create conflict and misunderstanding. It has the potential risk of creating chaos in a work place and the paradox in diversity literature still exist.

Hypothesis 9 and Hypothesis 10

Regarding the gender, the ninth hypothesis and the tenth one have a good correlation with each other. While the ninth hypothesis mentioned that “the interaction styles of men and women are affected differently by the sex composition of the group” (Shaw, 1981), the tenth one argued that “sexually heterogeneous groups are more effective than sexually homogeneous group” (Shaw, 1981).

Regarding gender, these hypotheses were supported by the research of Aries (1976) showing that men are more personally oriented, address individuals more often, and speak about themselves more frequently in mixed-sex than in same-sex groups, whereas women become less dominant in mixed-sex groups. While Eskilson and Wiley (1976) found that leaders of both sexes address more directive behavior toward members of their own sex, and Dyson et al. (1976) found that a leader is more likely to emerge in sexually heterogeneous groups than in sexually homogeneous groups. Another research of Randel (2002) examined that the salience of a gender can serve as a moderator between the workforce and the group gender composition and work group conflict. It also found that “the numerical distinctiveness of gender group composition was found to trigger the salience of group members’ gender identities for men in the group”; “identity salience was found to affect work group conflict beyond what one would predict on the basis of gender diversity alone” and “support was found for gender identity salience as a moderator variable with respect to the linkage between numerical distinctiveness in gender work group composition and relationship conflict in work group for men”.

On the other hand, indirect support also comes from a study showing that same-sex and mixed-sex dyads are affected differently by social context (face-to-face versus apart) in bargaining situation (Vallacher et al., 1979). Another idea showed that “team performance will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous leadership teams will perform better than homogeneous leadership teams” (Rath & Conchie, 2008; Witkemper, 2012). By testing some of the competing hypotheses regarding the effects of gender and race composition on member influence and group interaction styles and then testing effects of influence and interaction on indicators of group effectiveness, Szumal (1995) “not only attempted to substantiate some of the outcomes associated with gender and race composition, but also some of the reasons underlying why these effects occur”. And with the research of Severance (2012) female groups were supposed to be “less backlash toward dissenting women in the case of mixed-gender groups” and “a strong male presence makes status violations salient, while a strong female presence makes similarity and rationality violations salient” (Mager, 2003). “The study compared the effectiveness of groups in which all members had conduct problems (“homogeneous” or “pure” group condition) with groups in which only a minority of members had conduct problems (“heterogeneous” or “mixed” group condition)”. On the other hand, as Mager (2003) stated “the mixed-group condition will be more effective for high-risk youth than the pure group condition” or even “intervention processes of peer modeling and reinforcement will be more adaptive in the mixed-group condition than in the pure-group condition” and “group processes will mediate the effects of group composition on outcomes”. It is obvious that all of these researches strongly proved for the significance of these hypotheses.

Hypothesis 11

Another aspect of the physical environment of groups could be racial heterogeneity, which was supposed to create “interpersonal tension which is reflected in the felling and behaviors of group members” (Shaw, 1981). Evidence concerning the effects of racial composition upon group behavior is very limited. There are several studies, which revealed black-white differences in racially heterogeneous groups that do not appear in racially homogeneous groups. In racially mixed groups, blacks talk less than whites, they often show less self-assertion and greater expectancy of failure, and often are less efficient than whites (Lefcourt & Ladwig, 1965a; Lefcourt & Ladwig, 1965b; Delbecq & Kaplan, 1968). These effect may or may not adversely affect group performance (Ruhe & Allen, 1977). Especially, Cheek (2007) implemented a study to investigate the effect of two independent variables, race and racial perception, on ratings of choral performances attributed to racially homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. This could be consider as a secondary research with an objective to examine relationships between adjudicators’ choral performance ratings and their self-reported ethnic social encounter preferences. In practical, Samuel and Douglas (2001) studied the social issues and racial heterogeneity in advertisements and retail environment, which were stated to have more complex social groups (heterogeneous). However, “it is unclear how same-sex presences may impact heterogeneity status and reward seeking behavior”. Additionally, while Yamaguchi (2001) focused on how the motivational context influences the emergence of leadership in children’s collaborative learning racial groups, Witkemper (2012) assigned to either a mastery (focus on learning and improving) or performance (focus on racial comparison and competition) goal orientation induction. Generally, all of these strongly supported for hypothesis 11 and opened it to various aspect in the life.

Hypothesis 12

To expand more about the issues of heterogeneity, the hypothesis 12 focused on the personality. It referred that “groups whose member are heterogeneous with respect to personality profiles perform more effectively than groups whose members are homogeneous with respect to personality profiles” (Shaw, 1981). As global virtual teams become more common, the need to better understand how groups composed of individuals from different cultural backgrounds perform has never been more pressing (Anderson, 2000). Anderson also applied this hypothesis to conduct a research, which compared groups from the same cultural background with groups from various cultural backgrounds using two different communication media (face-to-face and an asynchronous conferencing system. Although the evidence supporting this hypothesis is relatively good (Hoffman, 1959; Hoffman & Maier, 1961), there is also some reason to believe that certain composition effects may be obscured by limiting attention to profiles. For example, Fiedler (1966) found little difference between the performance of homo-cultural and hetero-cultural groups, a finding which probably resulted from the combination of attributes which heterogeneous (opinions, perspectives) for effective group functioning. He also stated that “group dynamism is the theoretical analysis of interpersonal relations so that compatibility-incompatibility of individual characteristics can be identified”.

Discussion and Findings

This study tends to analyze and review 12 hypotheses with modern viewpoints both in practical and in theory. It is commonly observed that these 12 hypotheses could be considered as basic paradigms or theories for the probation leaders nowadays, which could widely deployed in various fields in the life such as leadership, finance, sport, education… These hypotheses seem to have a strong correlation with each other as a comprehensive whole. Particularly, some hypotheses could be combined with each other such as hypotheses 9 and 10; hypotheses 6 and 7. It appears that the next hypotheses have the task to expand the meaningful values for the next ones. Generally, all of them focus on the values and the importance of the group and individuals inside. Should these hypotheses be flexibly taken advantage of by leaders and managers, the groups would receive long-term, solid and group cohesiveness benefits. Especially, these hypotheses meet the demands of “group cohesiveness both theoretically and empirically to numerous process variables” such as interaction, social influence, group productivity, and satisfaction (Shaw, 1981). First of all, every hypothesis is an interaction relationship between two variables, which also seems to create the interaction inside the problems. For example, group versus individuals; high-cohesive groups versus low-cohesive groups; compatible groups versus incompatible groups; men versus women; heterogeneous groups versus sexually homogeneous group… Secondly, every hypothesis satisfy the requirements of the cohesiveness with social influences. There is no point in characterizing groups by “friendliness, cooperation, profiles, interpersonal attraction, and similar indicators”, which could “exert strong influences upon members in accordance with group expectations” (Shaw, 1981). Moreover, these hypotheses reflected the census of social aspects in the life such genders, inside and outside (group and individuals, social issues or even ethnics… “When group members are attracted to the group, they are motivated to behave in accordance with the wishes of other group members and in ways that facilitate group functioning” (Shaw, 1981). As a result, understanding and applying these hypotheses to be suitable with the social issues could be regarded to be very essential for leaders. Thirdly, these hypotheses have the same tasks to obtain the general productivity for the groups. In other words, they support the effectiveness and considered elements, which have “considerable influences on the performance of the group as motivational factors” (Shaw, 1981). Typically, these hypotheses tend to offer paradigms to balance elements and boost the relationships among individuals in a group. Finally, these hypotheses appear to be converging all of satisfactions of members in the groups with “the general theoretical expectation is greater satisfaction with increasing cohesiveness” (Shaw, 1981). Generally, it is obvious that these hypotheses are very necessary for “dealing with group composition effects to reduce the number of plausible hypotheses concerning relations among group member characteristics and group process” (Shaw, 1981).

Being an Iranian-American political and human rights activist, made me realize that in order to be able to serve my people more efficiently in achieving democracy in Iran, I had to acquire all knowledge’s and tools needed for building an inclusive democratic organization which could help the nation to a path which could end up to a democratic society. Especially, as far as I am concerned, these hypotheses play a very important role in harmonizing individuals and groups in my country. First of all, this knowledge would help me to harmonize the conflicts of not only religions in Iran but also spontaneous groups to unify every Iranian to have a higher voice. Iran is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and diverse society but weak leadership. The government is in desperate need of people would be helpful in solving these issues. Secondly, it would help me to understand smaller conflicts among small groups such as genders, racism, ethnic, profiles… to meet satisfactions of members. As a result, Iran could have the same idea and democratially elect for the right leader to make my country better. I could be a very strong leader as an Iranian-American political and human right activiest should I could utilize these hypotheses well. I have a plan for my future, to get a position at the United Nations human right section and UNESCO could be as a part of it. I need to get there in order to be able to try to help the people in the developing countries to achieve their God-given rights (freedom) and this is not achieved unless we equipped them with the tools that are nothing but the education. The best international tool can use to do that is through UNESCO.

Conclusion

It is widely observed that nobody could deny values of these hypotheses for leadership in all of the fields in the life. It shed a light on building and managing teams better and more effectively. It also opened more comprehensive aspects in obtaining the cohesiveness in the groups. This study could be considered as a good literature for the probation researchers about the 12 plausible hypotheses about the physical environment of groups. In a contemporary organization, a leadership should be able to assess the organizational climate and the social context of the group members in order to produce a cohesive, dynamic group. He or she should be able to understand the effects of culture, gender, race on the performance of a work group, and what could be done to improve their effectiveness of the workforce. .

This study could be regarded as a part of a presentation, hence there are some minor limitations such as not too much literature sources and not too deep analysis. However, with good references and a modern viewpoint of 2010s, this paper tends to devote their contributions to the leadership literature for probation researchers and doctorate students. Especially, owing to the limit of the time, this paper also opened a new direction to research on practical and empirical cases so as to test these hypotheses in applied leadership. On the other hand, it is very important and valuable for leaders as recommendations and reminders in the future.

References