Multiplier Effect in Groups (Group Dynamics)

[k_estela]

An emergency situation is often thought of as an individual situation. In this scenario, the only decision maker is the person involved. Motivation is reliant on only one person. Choices are contemplated by one mind. Discussions do not exist except for within the mind of the survivor. What happens when you have two people? When you have 3? When you are with a large group with conflicting personalities?

Who becomes the leader? Who will be the followers? What complications will arise because of the multiplier effect? You have drives, you have fears, you have inner thoughts. Add another person and you have more, add more people and more are multiplied in a single situation or decision. Think about how your positive mental attitude (necessary for a true survivor) will be stretched to its limit as it attempts to pull the weak or convince those with victim mentalities.

In leading various groups on paddling trips, instructing students in survival courses and teaching/coaching at a high school level, I've found group dynamics to be an interesting study. The way a group operates can let an observer predict the outcome of the group. Here are some general tips I've found to help groups perform better. Maybe you can use them in your own life or in an emergency if it ever comes.

1. Be the leader if you're qualified. No sense having an alpha male personality if you can't back it up. It isn't your pride on the line anymore, it is the group's safety.

2. Appoint the best person for the job and trust them to do the work. If one man can tie knots better than anyone else, he is in charge of the task at hand. He can have redundant helpers but he is ultimately responsible at the end of the day.

3. Speak to those interested in proving a point or "rising in rank" in a group to the side before addressing them in the group. Often calling someone out without affording them the decency of a private conversation will isolate them from the group and cause conflict in it.

4. Find a common ground or a common interest. Motivational factors vary but the group all has at least one thing in common. Find it and exploit it for the groups benefit.

5. Never let someone undermine your authority or someone else's. Learn to determine what a playful rib/joke is versus a sincere insult meant to ruin your reputation or someone's in the group. You are a group and everyone is in it together.

6. Be frank and honest explaining you are not superhuman. You will make mistakes like everyone else but be able to back up your decisions with solid logic for making them. As a leader, you will make decisions naturally cutting one group out. These are difficult to make but then again, leading a group isn't easy.

7. Lead by example and keep the morale up. Always keep your head high and be optimistic. You can express your displeasure with a group problem but always find a way to turn it around to keep everyone's mindset positive.


These aren't all the tips to working with a group and having a successful outcome to a situation but they are a start. What have you found to be problematic with groups? Share your thoughts here.


(As a side note and one not intending to bring up arguments from the past)In the last "watered-down" thread, you probably noticed some group problems in the various responses. I'd be (read rule 6 and 7 above) wrong to say I made no mistakes as a moderator since signing on. I'm learning as I go and I've always tried to take this group to the next level by challenging the members and encouraging participation more so than just typed words but with photos and videos. I hope this thread stays more positive than others and let my first thread of 2010 be a good one.

 

[akula83]

I think this a very good topic, no matter what the combined group skill sets are or your tools or supplies at hand, psychology will play the biggest factor in overall success or failure.

 

[siguy]

7. Lead by example and keep the morale up. Always keep your head high and be optimistic. You can express your displeasure with a group problem but always find a way to turn it around to keep everyone's mindset positive.

I do my best to do this in every-day life. It's very important to stay positive and lead by example. It truly pays to follow a "do as I do" vs a "do as I say" type of mentality.

I am not often the leader, but even participating in a group under a leader, it is important to keep morale up and let it be known that you are available to help if need be.

Good topic, interesting suggestions.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Great post Kev!

The people I tend to have a problem with, and not handle well are the type-A personalities that actually don't know what they're doing, but insist on challenging the team leader for position, wanting to be "big man on campus", especially when they are endangering the rest of the group in the process. I tend to use boot-in-face solution paradigm, which probably isn't the best, but is interest of limiting damage to the group.

I actually do like to have a group of type-As if they know what they are doing. Trick, I've found, is to recognize who is best at what, and tell them they are "in charge" of whatever it is, even if it's just something small. I dind such guys tend to buck up and do well, because they feel you've given them a position and they now feel responsible to make sure it's done right, and take it seriously. When you make all the type-As "in charge" of something, a lot, if not all, of the competition to take charge goes away, because they are in charge of something, even if they are a "team" of 1.

Then assign the type-Bs to a team, as needed.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

I do my best to do this in every-day life. It's very important to stay positive and lead by example. It truly pays to follow a "do as I do" vs a "do as I say" type of mentality.

Very true.

That's where I differentiate between someone who is a "leader" and someone who is a "commander".

 

[mymindisamob]

Good thread! I should have my boss read this.

 

[milani74]

Good post Kevin.

I taught small group basics for a bit and the dynamics, are as you said, can make it very difficult to gel any group. With any group, it has to make certain decisions with a consenus to achieve a desired result. While the group members, goals, decisions, and how the group comes to a consenus is different for every group, the basics stay the same. We used the movie 12 Angry Men to teach how a groups develop to accomplish a goal. There are two movies, one with Henry Fond (the orginal) and one with a host of great actors that was done in the 90's.

Some of the tools you can use to lead a group in a positive way are leaderless discussions, brain storming, committee proplem solving, identifying disruptive behaviors, and intervention techniques. Realize that there are no hard or set tools that will work for a group. Some tools might be poor choices due to the envirnment or time constraints.
Here are some of the disruptive behaviors that group members might use to challenge your authority or derail a group and the intervention statagies you can use to deal with the difficult group member:




The Rescuer


People who exhibit this behavior tend to "make nice." They apologize, defend, interpret for others, and explain away their own and other people's feelings. They tend to get frustrated or frightened by conflict, and they protect others as a way of avoiding the conflict situation. They are easy to recognize because they preface statements with phrases like, "I think what she really meant was..." or "You shouldn't feel that way because..." or "You shouldn't say that to Sam because he may take it the wrong way."



The Projector


The projector attributes his or her own thoughts and feelings to other people. Often projectors are unaware that it is they who are experiencing the feeling, probably because it is so uncomfortable for them. Different feelings can be unpleasant for different individuals. Some people are afraid of anger, others are afraid of sadness, and still others are afraid of fear. The feelings we tend to project onto others are the ones with which we are most uncomfortable. Projectors, although they appear to be speaking for other people, are actually speaking for themselves. You can recognize them because they either talk in generalities or talk about other people. They rarely make statements for themselves.


The Passive Aggressor


This kind of behavior can be difficult to notice at first, as it is indirect rather than direct. Passive-aggressive people are hostile or angry, but they express their hostility in subtle and indirect ways. Often they attempt to mobilize group members to express the negative feelings they are experiencing. What usually occurs is that everyone begins to feel uncomfortable. Generally, passive-aggressive people project their anger or uncertainty onto the leader, and the leader may begin to feel defensive. Participants exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior tend to do the following: come a little late to meetings and be mildly disruptive when they arrive; initiate occasional side conversations when someone else (generally the leader) is speaking; and maintain a somewhat unpleasant or disinterested facial expression. They often make mildly hurtful statements to people in the group, particularly the leader. If someone confronts them about their intentions, they retreat and claim they did not mean anything negative by their remarks. They seem to have a knack for sensing the leader's "Achilles heel." A group leader often feels defensive around passive-aggressive people. These people tend to bait the leader, but they back off, act naive, and play victim when the leader attempts to deal with them directly. The leader is often left feeling foolish, and the behavior gets reinstated at a later point. In attempting to eliminate this kind of behavior, it is important that the leader does not get into an argument with the passive-aggressive person and does not make an attempt to confront the behavior directly.


The Apologizer


Apologizers tend to preface their questions or statements with an apology. They often begin with the words, "Maybe I should not say this but..." or "Maybe you have already answered this question but..." or "I'm sorry for taking up so much time but..."Apologizers are not negative or unpleasant people. They can be draining, however, and they generally use up a lot of airtime in a group. Although they tend to speak a good deal, their apologies often reflect deep levels of insecurity.




The Fighter


Fighters are people who exhibit fighting behavior in a group, arguing or disagreeing with most things that are said. They give the impression they want to pick a fight by asking questions or making comments in a provocative way. Their questions are really statements. They often begin by saying, "Don't you think that...." They are easy to recognize as their tone of voice is often belligerent. They seem to be continually looking for an argument. Usually fighters are struggling for power or control. Their questions or disagreements with the leader are the means by which they attempt to assume control.

The Flighter


This person seems to be in another world. He or she often "tunes out," misses directions, or just does not seem to grasp the material. Often flighters play dumb, rather than admit their attention is elsewhere. They are annoying in groups because they ask leaders to repeat directions or points everyone else understood. Their investment in the group seems low. When asked for an opinion, they often respond by saying, "I don't care" or "Whatever you want" or "It makes no difference to me." During the class, they often have blank expressions on their faces.

The Questioner

The questioner can cause you difficulty because he or she is repeatedly stopping the flow of your presentation by asking questions. These questions may be about the content, the procedure, or about your style of leading the group. Questioners often ask a lot of "why" questions that you may begin to find difficult to answer and which can make you feel defensive. You will probably feel irritated by these



persistent interruptions. Often questioners have trouble thinking by themselves. Rather than finding their own answer to a thought or question, they will ask you to figure out the answer for them.


The Withdrawer


The withdrawer sits quietly in the group but looks miserable. He or she calls attention to himself or herself by looking pained, blank, or even disgusted. The group is generally aware of this person's feelings even though he or she is quiet. The withdrawer's facial expression clearly communicates displeasure, but the rest of the body gestures are quite still and withdrawn. Other members of the group generally feel awkward when they notice this person's quiet, but obvious discomfort.


The Monopolizer


The monopolizer takes up a great amount of air time in a class. As a result, sometimes other group members begin to withdraw rather than fight for the right to speak. The monopolizer is generally a poor listener who usually manages to turn the conversation back to himself or herself. People exhibiting this behavior are often long-winded and tend to interrupt others to state a personal opinion or relate an experience. This person seems unaware that there are other people who might want to speak. Almost always when there is a pause in the conversation, he or she jumps right in, attempting to relate personally to the topic.



The Know-It-All

The know-it-all is the person who is the expert on everything. Regardless of what you say, he or she either adds something or corrects what you have said. Know-it-alls have ideas about almost everything and are very quick to offer their opinions, whether someone solicits them or not. They want to feel important and show they are knowledgeable. Therefore, know-it-alls attempt to get recognition and power by taking the role of the resident expert.


The Complainer


The complainer continually finds fault with all aspects of the class. His or her criticism can include everything from dissatisfaction with the environment to dissatisfaction with the material being presented or with the structure. Therefore, you are likely to hear complaints like the following, "this workshop is not what I expected" or "the seats are uncomfortable" or "I hate role-playing." Complainers begrudgingly participate while letting you and everyone else know how they feel. They do not always express their feelings orally; rather they tend to moan and groan and make grimaces.


The Distractor


The distractor often asks questions or makes comments that have nothing to do with the material currently being discussed. Distractors change the topic by bringing up extraneous material, but they are usually unaware they are doing so. Their questions and comments divert attention from what is being discussed. These irrelevant comments often cause discomfort as well as annoyance to the leader and to the group members. Responding to the comments and questions means getting sidetracked. It is difficult not to respond, however, because distractors are usually enthusiastic participants who do not consciously intend to cause trouble.


The Pollyanna


A Pollyanna can initially be a delight to have in a group. The individual is always smiling, and his or her attitude is that everything is always wonderful and satisfying. Pollyannas rarely, if ever, express a preference or make a critical comment. They almost always go along with what someone says or what the majority of the group wants. Nothing is ever a problem for them. A Pollyanna will avoid conflict or disharmony at any cost. He or she refuses to engage in any activity that might cause discomfort.


The Intellectualizer


Intellectualizers tend to be quite verbose and provide a lot of explanations for why they think or feel a certain way. An intellectualizer attempts to make sense out of everything. When speaking, he or she uses many rationalizations and justifications for his or her beliefs. This person often becomes lost in his or her own theory. One way to recognize intellectualizers is by the way they often translate a very simple thought or idea into a complex theory. The more the intellectualizers talk, the more complicated the simple thought becomes.

 

[ROCK6]

Great topic Kev...I'm sure you've seen some good examples of all I've been on both sides, both from a Commander and "leader" perspective to being the "follower". Team Player is essential and leading by example imperative. My success has been to determine what people do well or have a good level of expertise and then let them run with it with MINIMAL micro-management.

You mentioned pulling "problems" off to the side...that's sage advice as nobody wants to be corrected or "disciplined" in front of their peers. Also, the most knowledgeable are not always the best leaders. I've found individuals that know very little (but have a desire to learn) but can organize, plan, motivate and who are willing to get their "hands dirty" can be very effective group leaders. Personality has more to do with it then most realize...I don't want to say it's a popularity contest, but people need to see confidence, competence, respect and know their leader is truly concerned for them and willing to be an active leader instead of a dictatorial manager.

Working with Boy Scouts has always been fun as you can rotate the "leadership" roles and see how people react. We use to call those that excel in a leadership role, yet suck as a team player, a "spotlight Ranger". Only look good when you have to and screw those that need support. Putting other members in a "teacher" role when it comes to their expertise is a very effective method to both give them some real sense of value and importance as well as letting them get some very good experience as a "leader". Being a leader is much harder than directing traffic and telling others what to do...much harder!

ROCK6

 

[abo4ster]

Great topic Kevin.

If my memory serves me correctly, I read an article somewhere from Tamarack Song or RedWolfReturns on the subject that it takes about 13 years to adjust from our modern-life to living primitive. When I first heard that I thought, OK, I can see how it would take many years to learn the flora, fauna, seasonal rythms, etc., i.e., takes four summers to get a years worth of experience in the summer as an example.

But that was not the case. Turns out that was the easy stuff. The hardest aspect of adjusting to primitive living are the social dynamics. Having to live and work in a tribe. Albeit a different example of what you brought up in being in a group survival situation, it lends creedence to the importance of the social aspect.

 

[Zaner01]

One thing to bear in mind is that unless you've been appointed as such -- e.g., you're the guide on a whitewater trip -- you don't have any authority for people to challenge.

Groups choose their leaders. Expecting to take that position simply because you have skills is just going to alienate people. Leadership in most settings is more about trust than authority.

The series Les Stroud made with a bunch of teenagers, Survive This, offers a really good look at group dynamics and poor leadership skills in practice.

 

[dawsonbob]

Good post, Kev.

As one of my instructors in basic school once said, "I don't care who the leader is, as long as they follow me." It took awhile for us to realize what that meant.

In my time I have seen people in command who had absolutely no leadership qualities whatsoever, only rank. I have seen true leaders who had no rank, but tons of leadership ability. Sometimes, very rarely, I have seen both in a single individual:command presence and leadership. WTSHTF, that's who I want with me.

In a survival situation, I want the most qualified person guiding the group, but not necessarily leading it. I've run across far too many people who were competent and knowledgeable, but just didn't have the leadership to get anything done, nor the ability to make decisions for the group. A good leader will find that knowledgeable person in a group and use them to make the group better, and possibly save their lives.

I need to come back to this thread when I have little more time, because it really is an interesting one.

Thanks, Kev, for a good one.


PS: I led and commanded men in combat for quite awhile in the military, and observed a lot of “group dynamics” first hand. Most of what I observed transfer fairly well to a group survival situation, too. The leaders and the most competent are not necessarily the same, but there’s a synergy that can form that benefits the group. Just a few thoughts on leadership.

 

[mcjhrobinson]

social group dynamics is an interesting topic. i agree with all that you said kevin. one thing i learned in being a foreman is to always observe and dont assume. one analogy i use is i tell the people im like the quarterback of the team (its usually easy for most guys to understand that one). they are all my teammates and we are all playing to win...oh and i ALWAYS encouraged communication.

 

[Snow]

Great post Kev!

The people I tend to have a problem with, and not handle well are the type-A personalities that actually don't know what they're doing, but insist on challenging the team leader for position, wanting to be "big man on campus", especially when they are endangering the rest of the group in the process. I tend to use boot-in-face solution paradigm, which probably isn't the best, but is interest of limiting damage to the group.

I actually do like to have a group of type-As if they know what they are doing. Trick, I've found, is to recognize who is best at what, and tell them they are "in charge" of whatever it is, even if it's just something small. I dind such guys tend to buck up and do well, because they feel you've given them a position and they now feel responsible to make sure it's done right, and take it seriously. When you make all the type-As "in charge" of something, a lot, if not all, of the competition to take charge goes away, because they are in charge of something, even if they are a "team" of 1.

Then assign the type-Bs to a team, as needed.

I have found this to be a challenge as well.

I am about to graduate from medical school. Most of my classmates are Type As. We rarely have had group projects, but when we have, it was a nightmare. Everyone is used to being in charge and doing the project EXACTLY their own way.

I had one project in particular where one group member was intent on doing it her way no matter what. Even though the rest of the group all agreed it needed to be done another way, she would not budge. We basically ended up just letting her do her own thing, and heavily editing her portion at the end without telling her. Our group got the best grade in the class on this project, and to this day, she thinks it was because we did it her way.

I really wish it could have been handled differently, but I don't know how. I am always in favor of compromise and I try not to force myself into a leadership role. I guess sometimes there is someone in the group who must do it their way. Cpl Punishment's idea of directing these people to a specific task seems like a good way to handle that.

 

[Tballetta]

Kevin, once again you bring such thoughtful insight to the discussions here. I have long been a study of group dynamics and leadership as I have been the CEO of several companies simultaneously for the past 17 years. One thing I can say is the more I learn the more I need to learn.

That said there are several things I have noticed consistently over the years.

First, and I know this will not be received popularly here, Know how and skills are highly overrated as a leadership qualification. In my companies everyone is more skillful than I in every aspect of my businesses. My bookkeeper is absolutely top notch and can run 30 different checking accounts in her sleep. She could not lead anyone anywhere. Same goes for most of my best people.

I have found leadership is an entirely different animal. The most important ingredient to leading people is the ability to communicate effectively the desired outcome in any situation. The communication has to be authentic, committed and unwavering no matter what. The team is looking to see if the leaders commitment to the outcome is strong and confident, not wether it is right or wrong. In a group there will be all manner of opinion about any given decision. There will always be some level of dissent and complaining. The trick is for the leader to have a high tolerance for other people pain.

Leaders cannot afford to succumb to the weakest of the group by being affected by their whining, complaining or argument. The leader, however has the absolute responsibility to take into consideration all the input he can get dispassionately. It would be a serious mistake no to listen to all sides. The key to this is for the leader to keep his ego in check. I like to call the ego the inner terrorist whose sole purpose is to sabotage the intended outcome.

Finally, The leaders job is to lead, to go first and pull everyone else along with him. Not to push them from behind.

Columbus was often thought of as completely crazy by his own crew as were most of the early explorers. The one thing nobody questioned about him was his unwavering commitment to prove the earth was round when everyone around him knew it was flat. So they followed him anyway even though they knew better.

Tom

 

[BlackHills]

First, and I know this will not be received popularly here, Know how and skills are highly overrated as a leadership qualification.

Hmmmm....I'm not sure why you'd think that wouldn't be received well. You're absolutely right. Being a leader isn't about knowing the skills, it's more about knowing how to best use those who do have the skills.

To lead people, walk beside them ...
As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence.
The next best, the people honor and praise.
The next, the people fear;
and the next, the people hate ...
When the best leader's work is done the people say,
"We did it ourselves!" - Lao-tsu

 

[fnc]

Tballetta,
Thank you for your post.

Your post, taken at a very general level, makes sense. However, I would not
be at all surprised to find some lower employees who could run a company
better than the CEO. If a human being is freed from his emersion in technical
details, he can adapt and show skills that would surprise a CEO. Eric Hoffer
talked at length about this human adaptability.

Maybe you cherry-picked your check-writer and she may not be representative;
if so, that is a hazardous habit, good for emphasizing communication, and playing
on emotions, but not an accurate representation of "employees".
I do this, all the time, and am constantly trying to find a balance.

On related subject:
CEO's and top managers are not immune from missing the big picture.
In Flight of the Buffalo and elsewhere, James Belasco talks of his inability to
let go: "micro-managing" or "doing a subordinates job" or "rescuing that department".
It is almost painful to read. His books are in most libraries.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/04..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0RJ92YT66MR8X82AZ61A

I have found leadership is an entirely different animal. The most important ingredient to leading people is the ability to communicate effectively the desired outcome in any situation.

I disagree here. The "desired outcome" may be agreed on, by all.
The devil is in the details. What are your means to the end (=desired outcome)?

The communication has to be authentic, committed and unwavering no matter what. The team is looking to see if the leaders commitment to the outcome is strong and confident, not wether it is right or wrong.

Here "authentic" is a little bit at odds with "not wether it is right or wrong".

Sometimes, the "right or wrong" makes all the difference of live or die.
Sometimes, there are several paths to salvation; and "working together"
and staying "mentally positive" makes The Difference.

Again, I appreciate that you posted, and hope I did not criticize the post unfairly.

 

[Watchful]

This is really an essential and under-explored topic.

Lots of us have been through various leadership experiences, team building exercises, motivational training, and the like. But what's great about this topic is that it addresses the dynamics of a group in a survival-type situation. And that's a unique animal.

Here's what I've observed: leadership of a group in a survival situation is unlike any other--it's different from corporate leadership, military leadership, or even scouting for the following reasons:

1. In a survival situation, none of you want to be there. Even in the military, you mostly signed up with a reasonably common goal or evolved expectations. In the working world, you're all equally dumb enough to work for your current employer. In scouting, the kids at least are expecting something fun. There's a willingness to take part. In a survival situation, that's lacking. All of you want out, and you want out now. As a result, you're already in a situation where the facts need to be spelled out, hostility and defenses are up, and there's no obvious hierarchy ready to build on. Someone needs to take charge and take charge fast, and make it very clear what's at stake.

2. In a survival situation, you might be the only person with a skill. Again, in the other situations, somebody always knows something. You can always expect someone to know something valuable. In a survival situation, you might be stuck with people who have no freaking clue how to take care of themselves. As a result, you need to inventory skills fast, delegate tasks to those who have skills, and assign the rest to do grunt work or to learn skills from those who have them. It's easy to say, but tough to enforce this fact: buddy, you might not like the job I've given you, but until you can contribute a life-saving skill right now, you're doing what you've been asked to do. Too often, the skill-less become parasites on the skilled, and productivity slows down or stops when the skill-less need to take charge of themselves.

3. In survival situations, there is a greater tendency to rebel, resist, and segregate. Those with skills tend to stick together and treat the skill-less with disdain. The skill-less resent their situation and often stop listening or get distracted. If you elect yourself leader, you need to enforce and encourage support, as the skill-less are more likely to try to vote you out if they see something that benefits their own interest.

4. Survival groups may need to shift leaders fast. I might elect myself in charge of everyone to get us out of immediate danger...but if someone else has got the skills to get us shelter and food and knows the local terrain better, I'm willing to step back and be a second in command. This can be risky, and can encourage dissention among those without skills, but sometimes the smartest leader is the guy who steps aside for a bit.

 

[fnc]

4. Survival groups may need to shift leaders fast. I might elect myself in charge of everyone to get us out of immediate danger...but if someone else has got the skills to get us shelter and food and knows the local terrain better, I'm willing to step back and be a second in command. This can be risky, and can encourage dissention among those without skills, but sometimes the smartest leader is the guy who steps aside for a bit.

It would be nice if a leader could shift roles, with no hard feelings, to anyone.
There can be a lot of pressure on a leader and he might welcome a change.

For clubs, a leader is a volunteer who knows the route, and is willing to put out the effort.
Leaders may have to scout the route a few weeks ahead or rely on other's reports.
Maybe a first-aid cert is required. If extensive leader-school certs are required, then
there will be very few leaders. There are few enough in any case.

A designated "sweep" to assist stragglers can be a more pivotal than the leader.

 

[Raisedby wolves]

Just because you have "skills" doesn't mean YOU should be the leader by default.

As an example, who would be the leader if all the posters from this thread were "the group"?????

Each one of you in their own heart probably feels they would make a good leader, and you may be a good leader, but "the group" needs to elect and follow ONE, with discussion on some points, but not questioning the decisions in the end.

The book "The Patriots" is a very good example of how it should work.

Carl-

 

[Watchful]

A designated "sweep" to assist stragglers can be a more pivotal than the leader.

Agreed, and an excellent point/idea/suggestion! I must remember that.

As an example, who would be the leader if all the posters from this thread were "the group"?????

I vote Kevin! Not only does he have the training and background, but if the group of us in the wild suddenly had a thread that needed moving, he'd be the only guy with the admin rights.