An experimental study compared two types of group maintenance: maintenance-by-expression, which manages interaction by discussing it openly, and maintenance-by-suppression, which manages interaction without examining it explicitly. It was predicted that these two types would have differential effects on group outcomes, specifically, that expressive maintenance would result in superior task performance, a more rewarding experience, greater knowledge about the social process, as well as higher emotional costs. These hypotheses were tested in a laboratory experiment in which 4-person mixed-sex groups worked on a series of human relations problems over a 4-hour period. Of the four hypotheses, two received strong support but the one pertaining to performance was not confirmed. The implications of these findings were examined with particular attention to the lack of evidence in this study, and in the literature, that expressive maintenance (process work) improves performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alderfer, C., & Lodahl, T. M.A quasi experiment on the use of experiential methods in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7,43-69.
Argyris, C.Organization and innovation. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin and Dorsey, 1965.
4.
Argyris, C.The incompleteness of social-psychological theory: Examples from small group, cognitive consistency, and attribution research. American Psychologist, 1969, 24,893-908.
5.
Argyris, C.Intervention theory and method. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970.
6.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D.Theory in Practice. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
7.
Argyris, C.Dangers in applying results from experimental social psychology. American Psychologist, 1975,469-485.
8.
Bales, R. F.The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, and E. A Shils, Working papers in the theory of action. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1953.
9.
Bales, R. F.Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. E. Macoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley, (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1958.
10.
Bass, B. M.The anarchist movement and the T group. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1967, 3, 211-226.
11.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T.The social construction of reality. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1967.
12.
Bunker, D. R.The effect of laboratory education upon individual behavior. In E. H. Schein and W. G. Bennis, Personal and organizational change through group methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.
13.
Campbell, J. P., & Dunnette, M. D.Effectiveness of T-group experiences in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 73-104.
14.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A.Group dynamics. (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1968.
15.
Cattell, R. B.New concepts for measuring leadership, in terms of group syntality. In D. Cartwright, and A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson Publishing, 1953.
16.
Clark, J. V.Task group therapy (II): Intervention and problems of practice. Human Relations, 1970, 23, 383-403.
17.
Davis, S. A.Building more effective teams. Innovation, 1970, 32-42.
18.
Dunnette, M. D.People feeling: More joy and the "Slough of Despond."Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1969, 5, 25-44.
19.
Dunnette, M.D., & Campbell, J. P.Laboratory education: Impact on people and organizations. Industrial Relations, 1968, 8, 1-40.
20.
Friedlander, F.The impact of organizational training laboratories upon the effectiveness and interaction of ongoing work groups. Personnel Psychology, 1967, 20, 289-308.
21.
Hays, W. L.Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
22.
Kaplan, R. E. Maintaining interpersonal relations in task groups: A study of two contrasting strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Administrative Sciences, Yale University, 1973.
23.
Kaplan, R. E.Maintaining interpersonal relationships: A bipolar theory. Interpersonal Development, 1976, 6, 106-119.
24.
Kaplan, R. E.Open interaction: Form, function, and feasibility. In Cooper, C. and Alderfer, C. P.Advances in Experiential Social Processes, New York: Wiley, 1978a.
25.
Kaplan, R. E.Maintaining relationships openly: Case study of a "total openness" in a communal organization. Human Relations, 1978b.
26.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L.The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.
27.
Kuriloff, A. H., & Atkins, S.T-Group for a work team. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1966, 2, 63-93.
28.
Lipshitz, R., & Sherwood, J.The effectiveness of third-party consultation as a function of the consultant's prestige and style of intervention. Journal of Applied Be havioral Science, 1978, 14 (4), 493-509.
29.
Miles, M. B.Learning processes and outcomes in human relations training: A clinical experimental study. In E. H. Schein and W. G. Bennis, (Eds.) Personal and organizational change through group methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.
30.
Parsons, T.The social system. New York: The Free Press, 1951.
31.
Perrow, C.Complex Organizations. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1972.
32.
Schein, E. H.Process consultation: Its role in organization development. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.
33.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robber's cave experiment. Norman, Okla.: University Book Exchange, 1961.
34.
Smith, P. B.Controlled studies of the outcome of sensitivity training. Psychological Bulletin,82, 4, 597-622.
35.
Strauss, G.Organization development. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization, and society. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
36.
Walton, R. E.Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third-party consultation. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.
