(02 May 2013)
Introduction
Humans are born into social groups such as the family (Owen & Dickson, 2006) and thus people join together in groups to accomplish a wide range of activities that could not otherwise be completed individually. (Giddens, 2009) Hence, the formation of groups starts at an early stage of people’s livelihoods and evolves with humans as they grow older. For example, at an early childhood socialisation, children find themselves in playgroups (Owen & Dickson, 2006) while men and women form personal relationships to produce and rise children. These are the basic types of groups that branches out from the family, the nature of the group however changes and reconfigures over time. (ibid, 2006) In schools for instance, children play for sport teams, belong to social groups and in university, they form groups to undertake a particular assignments. Shifting from universities to workplaces, groups play prominent role as individuals become staff groups and join political parties. (ibid, 2006) Groups are therefore a fundamental part of social life.

This essay will examine some of the key issues in defining group and its underpinning theories. Clear cut divining line between small and big groups. The paper will then discuss about the different types of groups that exist, its interdependence and the relation between parties and how this influences and creates conflicts among the members.

The text then looks into how interdependence becomes conflict and whether conflict is always a bad thing…..

Definition of groups
Defining the concept of group itself and it is consistence has been more difficult than it might initially seem. (Owen & Dickson, 2006) For instance, Homans (1950) defines a group as ‘a number of people who communicate with one another often over a span of time, and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all the others, not at second-hand, through other people, but face-to-face’. (Homans, 1950)

According to this definition, in order for groupness to occur, group members must be in each other’s presence. This argument however does not reflect the growth in modern day’s technology mediated interaction and the long-term ‘online’ relationships between people. In fact, as discovered by Walther et el. (2000) there are unfamiliar computer-mediated groups that communicate via the internet and expresses high levels of affinity and affection upon seeing the photographs of their partners.

Another definition is that of Bormann (1990) who distinguishes groups between small and large groups. Bormann for example defines small groups purely in terms of size. His definition is based on a common perception that a group involves of a collection of individuals. (Bormann, 1990) Although this is true to some extend nonetheless, the question casts, is size alone that counts the most? If so, can crowd or religious congregations or gathering be considered to be a group? What about an audience? How small is a small group and how big is big? Is there a precise agreed group membership numbers?

Unfortunately, Bormann’s theory is blurred and uncertain as he fails to differentiate between the acceptable numeric specifications of small and big groups. A rather more simple definition is being given by Schein (1988) who defines a group as ‘any number who (1) interact with one another, (2) are psychologically aware of one another and (3) perceive themselves to be a group’.

This definition distinguishes between groups and bunch of people (i.e. crowds or gathering) who don’t consider themselves as members-of-a-group rather as individuals-within-a-group. The definition also helps us form the creation and classifications of groupness.

Types of groups
Typically, groups are under two categories – formal and informal groups. Formal groups (also known as primary groups) are often typified by those that are usually being set-up by the management team for some identifiable purpose. (Cole, 2005) Thus their existence is to serve the aims and objectives of the organisation. There is however a common misconception among people that organisations are mainly or solely composed of just formal groups. (Ibid, 2005) Although such perception is relevant to some extent, within the workplace, there is however the so-called the informal (secondary) groups.

Informal groups are people like families and friends who have face-to-face and intimate interaction. There are also a high level of interpersonal relationships and interdependence between members while group loyalties due to frequent socialisation enables members to choose their leader (s) on the basis of charismatic rather than legitimacy. In workplace, these groups often form their own Code of Conduct (rules) of behaviour and such conduct may not necessarily reflect that of the organisation. In addition, informal groups generally decide their goal based on their perception of what is right for them rather than that which is being laid down by the management. (Cole, 2005)

Group influence & interdependence
As stated by Shaw (1981) not only should group members interact with one another, rather, they should be able to influence each other in a manner that makes a difference to the way that others think, feel and behave. In other words, members should influence one another and be influenced in return. Northhouse & Northouse for instance, emphasised the link between group influence and interaction. He goes on to say that to have a small group, one must have two or more individuals who interact with one another and whose relationships make them in some way interdependence. He argues that, because a common fate is shared by members, there should also be a common outcome. In other words, the outcomes of group members interdependence on each other and that if a groups fails the assigned task, then no one member is successful. It is therefore clear that group members’ outcome depends on group actions. The social interdependence that group outcomes will be felt and affected by each individual member is based on the assumption that the feelings, experience and actions of one group member could influence the whole or part of the group project or goals.

Purpose of group 06/05/2013
As stated by Lewin () ‘it is not similarity or dissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group, but interdependence of fate”. In other words, groups come together because they realise that they are ‘in the same boat’. Hence, those who belong to a group feel a sense of belongingness and thus, groups come about in order to (a) complete group project (b) and to fulfil member needs. (McGrath et al, 2000) These felt needs could be material, interpersonal or informational needs which would either be more difficult or impossible to satisfy alone. (Owen & Dickson, 2006)