Search results

Muzafer and Carolyn Wood Sherif are among the founders of social psychology. Their theoretical and empirical findings made important contributions to the management literature. This paper aims to attempt to underline these contributions and highlights the Sherifs’ interdisciplinary work and their impact on management research specifically.

Using a citation content analysis, the influence of the Sherifs on management research is detailed by examining how their work has contributed to research published in top management journals.

The Sherifs’ work has influenced numerous research streams related to organisational groups, social norms, assimilation contrast theory and a combination of various other topics. Additionally, these works helped originate team and workgroup research in organisation theory.

This is the first manuscript of its type to examine the influence of the Sherifs on management research. Their story is a testament to the impact that social psychology researchers have had in developing modern thought about organisational issues. This work also addresses potential areas for future research building on the Sherifs’ work.

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to explore possible mechanisms that could be employed by members of a distribution channel to increase the level of meaningful communication among them, especially in actual or potential conflict situations. Pragmatically, our concern is with achieving the establishment within a channel of superordinate goals—goals greatly desired by all those caught in dispute or conflict which cannot be attained by the resources and energies of each of the parties separately, but which require the concerted efforts of all parties involved. It is proposed here that channel members approach the state where they can adopt such goals as communication and interaction between them increase.

The relationship between intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion is a longstanding concern in sociology and related disciplines. Past work suggests that intergroup conflict shapes emotional bonds between group members, promotes in-group and out-group stereotyping, encourages self-sacrifice for the group, and changes the social structure of groups. Conflict thus plays an important structural role in organizing social interaction. Although sociologists contributed much to the beginnings of this research tradition, sociological attention to the conflict–cohesion link has waned in recent decades. We contend that despite advances in our understanding of the conflict–cohesion hypothesis, more remains to be done, and sociologists are especially equipped to tackle these unanswered questions. As such, we encourage sociologists to revisit the study of intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion and offer some possibilities for furthering our understanding of this phenomenon. After reviewing and evaluating the relevant literatures on the conflict–cohesion hypothesis, we consider ways in which a broad range of current theories from the group process tradition – including theories of status, exchange, justice, identity, and emotion – could contribute to understanding the conflict–cohesion hypothesis and how those theories could benefit from considering the conflict–cohesion hypothesis. In doing so, we make a case for the continuing importance of sociology in explaining the link between intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion.

The purpose of this study is to explore whether a group dynamics perspective still exists in the scientific study of groups and what factors may account for the current situation.

Alongside reflections based on my professional experience, I have analyzed the main academic journals that publish group research.

A group dynamics perspective is almost totally absent in the scientific study of groups. Contributing factors to this state of affairs are disciplinary developments in psychology (e.g. individualization, experimentalization and specialization), the demise of the status of psychoanalysis, changes in the meaning and manifestation of the “group,” and effects of New Public Management.

The study offers a critical perspective on current group research practices and considers these in a larger (social and historical) context. It advocates a group dynamics perspective for the study of groups, based on systems-psychodynamic insights.

A principal should expect to get no more out of his staff than he puts into it. Recent leadership theory stresses the importance of involving the staff group in decision making and action taking. The involvement of a staff group in an Australian rural high school was investigated and it was found that little communication took place on school matters, that there was little involvement in decision making, that the goals of the group were confused. Although the power of the group was not being released there was a considerable interest by the staff in the possibility of their being given a share in decision making. There appear to be strong arguments, in the interests of the education of children and of staff morale, for the maximum involvement of staff members in all phases of the operation of the school.

This study examined the impact of perceived threat and cohesion on the ability of groups to solve problems in a situation of social conflict. The self‐reports and behaviors of 31 groups of college males were studied within a comprehensive, strategic simulation of intergroup conflict. The simulation was based on both a value conflict and an economic competition over scarce resources. A coding scheme for group problem solving was created based in part on Janis' seven symptoms of groupthink. Change scores were calculated over different points in time to assess the relationships among perceived threat, group cohesion, and dysfunctional group problem solving. Large increases in perceived threat were significantly related to decrements in problem‐solving effectiveness regardless of whether cohesion was stable or increased. Groups who reported high and increasing levels of cohesion experienced a decrement in problem solving regardless of the increase in perceived threat, while groups who showed small changes in cohesion demonstrated decreased problem solving under high perceived threat. The results were consistent with Janis' model of groupthink, and Fisher's eclectic model of intergroup conflict.

Behaviour resulting from work group normative processes can be examined and changed to increase the productivity of an organisation. A model for exploring the process of work group norm diagnosis that can be used by organisational consultants is developed. Examples of its use are also presented.

Teamworking is a multi‐dimensional concept which has gained recent popularity and some success in manufacturing, but there is little evidence that large numbers of firms in the service sector have espoused teamworking methods. This paper explores this dilemma by comparing academic perceptions of teamworking, through a review of the literature, with a study of the perceptions of practitioners. Although much has been written about group behaviour, the more recent literature on teamworking is inconclusive and is often derived from anecdotal rather than empirical research. Using information obtained from a recent study, this article suggests that the richness of the teamworking experience is not captured by some of the academic literature. It argues for a view of teamworking that is both grounded in the literature and which represents the views of managers and employees in the service sector.