2.2 – Synergy
Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups1
As with anything, small groups have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of small groups include shared decision-making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. It is within small groups that most of the decisions that guide our country, introduce local laws, and influence our family interactions are made. In a democratic society, participation in decision-making is a key part of citizenship. Groups also help in making decisions involving judgment calls that have ethical implications or the potential to negatively affect people. Individuals making such high-stakes decisions in a vacuum could have negative consequences given the lack of feedback, input, questioning, and proposals for alternatives that would come from group interaction. Group members also help expand our social networks, which provide access to more resources. A local community theater group may be able to put on a production with a limited budget by drawing on these connections to get set-building supplies, props, costumes, actors, and publicity in ways that an individual could not. The increased knowledge, diverse perspectives, and access to resources that groups possess relate to another advantage of small groups—synergy.
Synergy refers to the potential for gains in performance or heightened quality of interactions when complementary members or member characteristics are added to existing ones. James R. Larson Jr., In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance (New York: Psychology Press, 2010). Because of synergy, the final group product can be better than any individual could have produced alone. When I worked in housing and residence life, I helped coordinate a “World Cup Soccer Tournament” for the international students who lived in my residence hall. As a group, we created teams representing different countries around the world, made brackets for people to track progress and predict winners, got sponsors, gathered prizes, and ended up with a very successful event that would not have been possible without the synergy created by our collective group membership. The members of this group were also exposed to international diversity which enriched our experiences, which is also an advantage of group communication.
Participating in groups can also increase our exposure to diversity and broaden our perspectives. Although groups vary in the diversity of their members, we can strategically choose groups that expand our diversity, or we can unintentionally end up in a diverse group. When we participate in small groups, we expand our social networks, which increases the possibility of interacting with people who have different cultural identities than ourselves. Since group members work together toward a common goal, shared identification with the task or group can give people with diverse backgrounds a sense of commonality that they might not have otherwise. Even when group members share cultural identities, the diversity of experience and opinion within a group can lead to broadened perspectives as alternative ideas are presented and opinions are challenged and defended. One of my favorite parts of facilitating a class discussion is when students with different identities and/or perspectives teach one another things in ways that I could not do on my own. This example brings together the potential of synergy and diversity. People who are more introverted or just avoid group communication and voluntarily distance themselves from groups—or are rejected from groups—risk losing opportunities to learn more about others and themselves.
There are also disadvantages to small group interaction. In some cases, one person can be just as or more effective than a group of people. Think about a situation in which a highly specialized skill or knowledge is needed to get something done. In this situation, one very knowledgeable person is probably a better fit for the task than a group of less knowledgeable people. Group interaction also has a tendency to slow down the decision-making process. Individuals connected through a hierarchy or chain of command often work better when decisions must be made under time constraints. When group interaction does occur under time constraints, having one “point person” or leader who coordinates action and gives final approval or disapproval on ideas or suggestions for actions is best.
Group communication also presents interpersonal challenges. A common problem is coordinating and planning group meetings due to busy and conflicting schedules. Some people also have difficulty with the other-centeredness and self-sacrifice that some groups require. The interdependence of group members that we discussed earlier can also create some disadvantages. Group members may take advantage of the anonymity of a group and engage in social loafing, meaning they contribute less to the group than other members or than they would if working alone. Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams, “Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, no. 4 (1993): 681. Social loafers expect that no one will notice their behaviors or that others will pick up their slack. It is this potential for social loafing that makes many students and professionals dread group work, especially those who have a tendency to cover for other group members to prevent the social loafer from diminishing the group’s productivity or output.
Negative Synergy2
Negative synergy is alive and (not) well. Smart individuals gather and produce a bad result. It happens often, and it wastes time, money, and people. There are, however, things I.T. managers can and should do about it.
Synergy is when several people gather and do something that’s better than what they could do individually. The term has been used and misused enough to create cynicism, but synergy is real.
Negative synergy is that inexplicable phenomenon that can happen in meetings. I have seen it too often. Smart, hardworking, conscientious people gather, waste time, and make a bad decision. Afterward, the participants admitted individually that the result of the meeting was a bad decision. How can every individual know that the decision was terrible, yet as a group agree to it?
There are many causes of negative synergy. One is poor meeting fundamentals. The people involved don’t have an agenda, are not sure why they are in a meeting, and attempt to tackle complex issues without preparation. Another cause is a lack of safety in the meeting. The participants don’t feel safe to say what they truly feel and vote their conscience. Their desire to be part of the group pushes them to agree with what they think the group will decide. Finally, the meeting may be based on a false foundation. The people are deciding something over which they have neither the authority to decide nor the ability to execute. The resulting decision is meaningless, and it’s probably a bad decision.
The result of negative synergy is waste. The meeting is a waste of time for everyone involved, and time is money (literally, that’s not just a cliche). If a bad decision is implemented, look out. The worst part is the waste of people. People leave these meetings frustrated. They know something is wrong with how they conduct meetings and make decisions, but cannot see it and fix it. They cannot stand to participate in it, so they quit. Some quit and leave, while others quit and stay.
There are things we can do to help fight negative synergy. We should start by addressing basic meeting practices. Would it be best for an individual to handle the item the meeting is about to address? If so, don’t hold a meeting — problem solved. If it is appropriate for a group, employ time-proven meeting techniques. Have an agenda everyone agrees to ahead of time, prepare all participants, use an impartial facilitator, use ground rules, stay focused, do your business, make your decision, and move on.
Second, hold safe meetings. The facilitator should poll the participants in an anonymous manner to determine if they feel safe to speak and vote. If not, stop the meeting. Address the issues of safety and trust first. If people at work are afraid, nothing else they try to do will matter or work properly.
Third, use the false foundation test. We do this last because we can have an agenda and safety, but still have a meeting based on a false foundation. Apply this test after the meeting basics are in place and the facilitator has established a safe environment.
- State: “We are here to do (fill in the blank).”
- Ask: “Do we possess the necessary knowledge and authority to do (fill in the blank)?”
If the answer to 2 is no, go back to 1 and change (fill in the blank). If the answer is yes, conduct the meeting and allow positive synergy to work.
Negative synergy is real; we’ve all seen it. It is our own fault (there is no monster lurking in the halls tricking us into this practice). We all have the authority to eliminate it, or we can continue to complain quietly and allow it to continue.
“GETTING COMPETENT”- Improving Your Group Experiences
Like many of you, I also had some negative group experiences in college that made me think similarly to a student who posted the following on a teaching blog: “Group work is code for ‘work as a group for a grade less than what you can get if you work alone.’”iii But then I took a course called “Small Group and Team Communication” with an amazing teacher who later became one of my most influential mentors. She emphasized the fact that we all needed to increase our knowledge about group communication and group dynamics in order to better our group communication experiences—and she was right. So the first piece of advice to help you start improving your group experiences is to closely study the group communication chapters in this textbook and to apply what you learn to your group interactions. Neither students, nor faculty are born knowing how to function as a group, yet students and faculty often think we’re supposed to learn as we go, which increases the likelihood of a negative experience.
The second piece of advice is to meet often with your group. Scott A. Myers and Alan K. Goodboy, “A Study of Grouphate in a Course on Small Group Communication,” Psychological Reports 97, no. 2 (2005): 385. Of course, to do this you have to overcome some scheduling and coordination difficulties, but putting other things aside to work as a group helps set up a norm that group work is important and worthwhile. Regular meetings also allow members to interact with each other, which can increase social bonds, build a sense of interdependence that can help diminish social loafing, and establish other important rules and norms that will guide future group interaction. Instead of committing to frequent meetings, many student groups use their first meeting to equally divide up the group’s tasks so they can then go off and work alone (not as a group). While some group work can definitely be done independently, dividing up the work and assigning someone to put it all together doesn’t allow group members to take advantage of one of the most powerful advantages of group work—synergy.
Last, establish group expectations and follow through with them. I recommend that my students come up with a group name and create a contract of group guidelines during their first meeting (both of which I learned from my group communication teacher whom I referenced earlier). The group name helps begin to establish a shared identity, which then contributes to interdependence and improves performance. The contract of group guidelines helps make explicit the group norms that might have otherwise been left implicit. Each group member contributes to the contract and then they all sign it. Groups often make guidelines about how meetings will be run, what to do about lateness and attendance, the type of climate they’d like for discussion, and other relevant expectations. If group members end up falling short of these expectations, the other group members can remind the straying member of the contract and the fact that he or she signed it. If the group encounters further issues, they can use the contract as a basis for evaluating the other group members or for communicating with the instructor.
- Do you agree with the student’s quote about group work that was included at the beginning? Why or why not?
- The second recommendation is to meet more with your group. Acknowledging that schedules are difficult to coordinate and that that is not really going to change, what are some strategies that you could use to overcome that challenge in order to get time together as a group?
- What are some guidelines that you think you’d like to include in your contract with a future group?
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Getting integrated: Small group communication refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared identity. Small groups are important communication units in academic, professional, civic, and personal contexts.
- Several characteristics influence small groups, including size, structure, interdependence, and shared identity.
o In terms of size, small groups must consist of at least three people, but there is no set upper limit on the number of group members. The ideal number of group members is the smallest number needed to competently complete the group’s task or achieve the group’s purpose.
o Internal influences such as member characteristics and external factors such as the group’s size, task, and access to resources affect a group’s structure. A group’s structure also affects how group members communicate, as some structures are more centralized and hierarchical and other structures are more decentralized and equal.
o Groups are interdependent in that they have a shared purpose and a shared fate, meaning that each group member’s actions affect every other group member.
o Groups develop a shared identity based on their task or purpose, previous accomplishments, future goals, and an identity that sets their members apart from other groups.
- Small groups serve several functions as they meet instrumental, interpersonal, and identity needs.
o Groups meet instrumental needs, as they allow us to pool resources and provide access to information to better help us survive and succeed.
o Groups meet interpersonal needs, as they provide a sense of belonging (inclusion), an opportunity to participate in decision-making and influence others (control), and emotional support.
o Groups meet identity needs, as they offer us a chance to affiliate ourselves with others whom we perceive to be like us or whom we admire and would like to be associated with.
- There are various types of groups, including task-oriented, relational-oriented, primary, and secondary groups, as well as teams.
o Task-oriented groups are formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information, while relational-oriented groups are formed to promote interpersonal connections. While there are elements of both in every group, the overall purpose of a group can usually be categorized as primarily task or relational-oriented.
o Primary groups are long-lasting groups that are formed based on interpersonal relationships and include family and friendship groups, and secondary groups are characterized by less frequent interaction and less emotional and relational communication than in primary groups. Our communication in primary groups is more frequently other-oriented than our communication in secondary groups, which is often self-oriented.
o Teams are similar to task-oriented groups, but they are characterized by a high degree of loyalty and dedication to the group’s task and to other group members.
- Advantages of group communication include shared decision-making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. Disadvantages of group communication include unnecessary group formation (when the task would be better performed by one person), difficulty coordinating schedules, and difficulty with accountability and social loafing.
A combined effect greater than the simple sum total of individual components in a process or entity.
