Social Group
Example of Social Groups
In the society, groups play a significant role in influencing behavioral patterns and upholding mainstream values adopted by that society. This means that just as the cell functions as a building block for the body, so a social group is the basic unit of the society. Typical groups within conventional settings include trade unions, families, villages and social classes. In this case, family members will interact with each other frequently because they are staying within the same household. On the other hand, trade union members share similar economic motives; hence are constantly in pursuit of similar goals. According to (Tajfel 2009), the similarity in motives stimulates a dire need for intense and frequent interactions between a group’s members. The similarity in values and objectives are responsible for holding a group together, hence giving it distinct elements of group dynamics like structure, norms and group processes (Haynes and Norris 2012).
My Church Group
In order to acknowledge the nature and position of social units within the society, we will evaluate various aspects a church group, which I was a member until I joining college. The group comprised of 10 young members, all below the age of 25 years. Its main objectives involved encouraging more young people to join the church choir, and organizing social events for the youth population within my society. In this regard, we were motivated by a willingness to pull together individuals ready to participate in church activities and to encourage them to invite more friends to the church. In the context of categorizing social units, I can say that we had a secondary group of a cabal nature. During formation of the group, we were not motivated by personal and emotional ties. Rather, it was an institutional unit formed in order to promote interests of the church. The secondary nature of our group is responsible for the manner in which it broke up shortly after its formation. Lack of emotional ties hindered sharing of personal knowledge between individuals, thus reducing the intensity and frequency of interaction between members (Haynes and Norris 2012).
Group Structure
In an attempt to achieve a sense of directionality, members of a given group will naturally conform to principles of an organizational structure. Apart from directionality, the right group structure will enhance legitimacy and position of a given group within a multi-group setting (Haynes and Norris 2012). In the case of my church group, we will evaluate its structure based on the pattern employed by members during their interactions. I can say that we had a democratic form of governance where we would flexibly elect the chairperson, treasurer and secretary. These three officials were responsible for outlining and assigning roles to every member. The chairperson would organize for regular meetings aimed at briefing members on the deliverables met by the group. In an event that the chair was absent, the secretary would take the leadership position. Therefore, we adopted a formal and democratic mode of structure, which played a significant role in fostering cohesiveness among the group’s members.
Internal and External Systems
Despite presence of a leader, the group derived its motivation from both internal and external systems. In most cases, members would perform respective duties based on prevailing atmosphere within the group. In case the leader sounded authoritative in assigning roles, members would display reluctance in ensuring quality performance. Good communication between members and the leadership serves the purpose of enhancing individual’s motivation in attending to their duties (Zimmerman 2007). In most cases, momentary lapse in the leader’s emotional control would spill over to the group’s membership.
On a specific instance, the chairperson had conflicting interests concerning election of new officials, and wanted to stubbornly hold on to the group’s leadership. As a result, members were angry with the leader, and ended up creating a situation filled with conflict and lack of objective co-ordination. In this case, I can say that the internal systems within my group influenced members’ motivation and morale in collective participation. On the contrary, external systems like formation of new and more effective youth units within the church influenced the structure of my group. Actually, it was such external changes like emergence of competing youth groups within the church that initiated my group’s adjournment.
Just like any other social unit, my church group adopted strict adherence to some pre-stipulated norms and behavioral standards. As one of the active youth groups in church, we ought to demonstrate good conduct and reverence to the entire youth population. In practice, good personal behaviors like profound self-control, deterrence from drug abuse and use of graceful language during communication were among the acceptable norms. In relation to performance, members were encouraged to be responsive in attending meetings punctually, and performing their respective duties willingly. Luckily, every individual within the group would carry out any assignment in time, and achieve the highest level of outcome possible. Upon completion of duties, the chair would hold semi-annual meetings for rewarding members who displayed exemplary conduct during that period. During these reward meetings, equality norms would prevail in awarding presents and compliments to the group. In case of monetary compensation, rewards were distributed equally to all members of the group, irrespective of the level of output during the preceding period.
Group Processes
Within my church group, transference influenced the manner in which new members were treated. New members who displayed deviant behaviors like tendency to use drugs and engage in immoral activities were shunned away. Based on the works of Maya (2009), this move was subjective because members of my church group would judge individuals based on their outward appearance and manners rather than strive to reform that person. On the contrary, groupthink influenced the manner in which the group would react to changes within the external environment. Any attempt by church leadership to merge my group with any other youth association would result in deviant behaviors. During one instance, we intentionally failed to attend a regional meeting because we would be forced to join hands with a group dealing with reforming drug addicts and alcoholics. In this case, the threat of partaking with a group dealing with drug addicts led to the deviant decision to boycott the regional rendezvous.
Stages of Development
In actual sense, it is undeniable that social groups form more frequently as compared to political coalitions and economic associations. After formation, every group goes through some basic developmental stages until it adjourns. The five basic stages include storming, norming, forming, adjourning, and performing (Tajfel 2009). Forming of a group is that instance where individual members with similar interests comes together and gets to know each other. Storming is a subsequent stage immediately after forming, and involves trial and error in selecting a group’s leadership and adopting the right group processes. Norming is the point where a group agrees on norms and standards which members are expected to follow. Performing is the second last stage and the most important point in the group development. It is where members collectively participate in meeting a group’s objectives. Finally, adjourning marks the end of a social unit whereby a group’s structure dissolves and the group’s membership part ways. As a church group, we went through all the five stages until we adjourned shortly before I joined college. The most important stage was performing, whereby we pulled together many young people into the church, thus fulfilling underlying objectives.
Social Conformity and Role Theory
After understanding the major concepts of a social group, additional theories like social conformity and role theory would be instrumental in enhancing further comprehension of organized social units. Social conformity entails changing one’s beliefs and values in order to fit into a social group (Zimmerman 2007). In the case of my church group, new members would yield to the prevailing social pressure inside the group; hence ending up conforming to the group’s norms. On the other hand, role theory determines individual’s conduct within specific contexts. As a member of a church youth group, one would be forced by the context to display substantial propriety and gently norms in relating to the external environment. According to role theory, actors within a social group play contextual roles, which are guided by pre-conceived norms and expectations.
Conclusion
At this juncture, we have developed a comprehensive understanding on group development within any given social setting. It is true groups are essential in society, and that members of a given group are influenced by factors like conformity and role theory in adjusting their personal behavioral patterns. In addition, one will fit well into a group once he or she gets a good grasp on the basic developmental stages that create the different group processes witnessed in practical contexts.
Reference List
Haynes, M. & Norris. L. P. (2012). Group Dynamics: Basics and Pragmatics for Practitioners. Indianapolis: Cengage Learning Publishers.
Maya, A. (2009). Understanding Group Process. Holden leadership Center. Retrieved from http://leadership.uoregon.edu/resources/exercises_tips/skills/understanding_group_process
Tajfel, H. (2009). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. New York: CUP Archive Publishing.
Zimmerman, E. D. (2007). A Multivariate Role Theory and Social Conformity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
