A Communication-Based Model of a Small-Group Dysfunction

Abstract

This article presents an initial formulation of a dysfunctional group dynamic, the farrago. Farrago, literally meaning mixed fodder for cattle, figuratively is used to describe a medley or a confused group. It was decided to call our focal actor a farrago because (a) interactions with this type of problematic person often result in confusion as to responsibilities, group tasks, decision-making procedures, and so on, and (b) these interactions cause the group itself to become confused. In this model, the interplay between the focal actor and other group members mutually creates and evokes multiple inhibiting influences associated with interaction norms, authority relations, status distribution, and so on. Two types of antecedent conditions-habits of individuals (interpretive omnipotence, heroic stance, and undifferentiated passion) and properties of systems (weak socialization practices, high task interdependence, participatory decision making, and ambiguity of rules)-are identified. The interactional dynamics posited to constitute and sustain the farrago are presented and three types of interventions are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bales, R. , Cohen, S. , & Williamson, S. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.

Benne, K. , & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41-49.

Bramson, R. (1981). Coping with difficult people. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.

Fisher, A. (1980). Small group decision making (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Gouran, D. (1982). Making decisions in groups: Choices and consequences. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Gouran, D. (1988). Principles of counteractive influence in decision making and problem solving groups. In R. Cathcart & L. Samovar (Eds.). Small group communication: A reader (5th ed., pp. 192-208). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

10.

Hare, P. (1982). Creativity in small groups. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

11.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

12.

Janis, I. , & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. New York: Free Press.

13.

Kanter, R. (1983). The changemasters. New York: Touchstone.

14.

Kets de Vries, M. , & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

15.

Laing, R. (1969). The politics of the family. New York: Vintage.

16.

Lawler, E. (1986). High involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Shaw, M. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw hill.

18.

Smith, K. , & Berg, D. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Solomon, M. (1990). Working with difficult people. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

20.

Tucker, T. (1987). Fighting it out with difficult-if not impossible-people. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

21.

Van Maanen, J. (1978). The asshole. In P. Manning & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Policing: A view from the streets (pp. 221-238). New York: Random House.

22.

Van Maanen, J. , & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

23.

Zander, A. (1981). Groups at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.