Search results

Groups have the ability to create something new and novel that does not exist at the individual level. This chapter examines group communication as the driver of this creation process, using the input–process–output model. Group processes are often understudied and consigned to a “black box” between inputs and outputs. How advances in methodology and analysis software have increased the ability to study group communication processes and emergent states within this black box is highlighted. Four different areas of research are then briefly reviewed to showcase ways to focus on process. These four areas include structuration, shared mental models, transactive memory, and collective intelligence. The chapter concludes with a focus on future trends and a call for more interdisciplinary research with a theoretical focus.

Purpose – We outline how research on groups in disrupted environments can advance research on group processes.

Design/Methodology/Approach – We review studies of groups in disrupted environments, drawing mostly on military research to generate understanding of intra- and intergroup dynamics. We also identify new technologies and methods to improve measurement and modeling of groups.

Findings – When consolidated, the research documenting challenges groups operating in disrupted environments face suggests the importance of considering them as a unique set of circumstances for groups. It also identifies methods for objectively measuring and modeling groups in these environments.

Practical Implications – This chapter will help practitioners determine factors pertinent to groups working in disrupted environments, identify group processes that generate success and those that undermine group effectiveness, and point to emerging technologies to better measure and model group processes in disrupted environments.

Social Implications – Group processes affect both individuals and societies. In the context of the disrupted environments, group performance translates to enormous consequences for individuals, as well as national security and humanitarian implications.

Originality/Value of the Chapter – This chapter uniquely consolidates the vast amount of research on groups operating in disrupted environments and also is innovative in emphasizing the disrupted context as a generalizable situation that elucidates key dimensions of group processes and performance in disrupted environments.

Despite the potentially vital implications of time pressure for group performance in general and team effectiveness in particular, research has traditionally neglected the study of time limits and group effectiveness. We examine the small, but growing, body of research addressing the effect of time pressure on group performance and introduce our Attentional Focus Model of group effectiveness (Karau & Kelly, 1992). We examine recent research on the utility of the model and identify selected implications of the model for how time pressure may interact with other factors such as task type, group structure, and personality to influence team performance. Finally, we discuss methodological issues of studying attention, interaction processes, and team performance.

Purpose – This chapter examines how we study group dynamics in the organizational behavior literature, in terms of the past, present, and future potential. The goal is to aid researchers in considering studying group processes in their own work.

Methodology/approach – Examples are given of different approaches used to elucidate how group dynamics can be studied in terms of frequencies, phases, and sequences across a variety of group process domains.

Findings – Results of the review suggest that while there has been more interest in studying group dynamics and examples can be found in the literature, there is still much opportunity for additional research. Advancements in theory and methods provide the means for doing so.

Originality/value – Suggestions are provided for groups researchers on how to put their existing recordings of group processes to work.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to assess the effects of twenty-five years of the Group Processes Conference on advances in the study of group processes that have taken place between 1988 and 2014.

This chapter places the twenty-five years of the Group Processes Conference in the context of the changes that have taken place between small groups research in the 1950s and group processes research in the 1980s and beyond.

Between the 1950s and 1980s small groups research reinvented, reconceptualized, and reinvigorated itself as group processes research. In this period, small groups research, its applied research, and its research programs became increasingly theory-driven, and its concept of the group and its levels increasingly abstract, general, and analytic. As a consequence of these changes, the concept of the field itself became increasingly analytic. The Group Processes Conference was at once a reflection of these changes and a driving force in the subsequent advances in group processes research. It both quickened and amplified the effects of individual-level factors and of thirty years of Advances in Group Processes on the transformation of the field and was also, like Advances in Group Processes, a driving force in the subsequent advances in group processes research. The present chapter concludes with an analysis of the mechanisms of the effects of the Group Processes Conference on group processes research.

The program for the twenty-fifth year of the Group Processes Conference celebrates its effects on the field of group processes research.

Understanding how dyadic negotiations and group decision processes evolve over time requires specifying the basic elements of process, modeling the configuration of those elements over time, and providing a theoretical explanation for that configuration. We propose a bead metaphor for conceptualizing the basic elements of the group negotiation process and then “string” the beads of behavior in a helix framework to model the process by which group negotiations evolve. Our theorizing draws on the group decision development literature (e.g. Bales, 1953; Poole, 1981, 1983a, b; Poole & Roth, 1989a, b) as well as on the negotiation process literature (e.g. Gulliver, 1979; Morley & Stephenson, 1977). Our examples are from our Towers Market studies of negotiating groups.

The aim of this article is to investigate the creative knowledge processes which are often invisible in innovation work.

An ethnographic field study was conducted following three multidisciplinary groups; two groups in an Oil and Gas Company, Statoil and one group in a Research Institute. Data collection included observations, field conversations and formal interviews.

Creative knowledge processes develop over time in six different phases of initial innovation work. The article discusses the characteristics of communication and knowledge work in these phases. It was concluded that the creative processes peak in the three middle phases, and these phases can be seen as a separate “Room of Opportunity”.

This study is limited to three groups, but the pattern of phases is consistent across all groups studied.

This study shows that knowledge diversity in groups does not automatically lead to creativity and underscore that group members’ ability to learn from each other is crucial for the quality of new ideas. To develop innovative ideas, groups must ensure a knowledge platform and challenge present knowledge by balancing alterity and intersubjectivity in a circular movement.

The findings presented in a model “Room of Opportunity” show that creative knowledge processes develop in phases and peak in a separate room. This is a new way to understand early innovation work, and the model is a contribution to how such invisible processes can be visualized and facilitated.