CHAPTER 5

Social Groups and Organizations

The study and understanding of social groups is central to sociology. We live

SOCIAL GROUPS
The term group has a specific definition in sociology that differs from
everyday usage. In everyday language, almost any collection of people might be
called a group. However, two or more people being in close physical proximity
does not constitute a group in the sociological meaning of the word. Sociologi-
Sociologi-
cally speaking, a group is a collection of people who interact regularly based on
some shared interest and who develop some sense of belonging that sets them
apart from other gatherings of people.. They
T form a social relationship. This is
sometimes referred to as developing a sense of “we-ness.” All A groups share this
factor of interdependence (Lewin 1948).
People who just happen to be in the same place at the same time are not
a group. RRather, they are an aggregate. Individuals riding the bus or walking
their dogs in a park are examples of aggregates. Iff these people interact and de-
velop some sort of shared interests or sense of themselves as a group, then they
become a group by definition. For example, the individual dog walkers might
begin to talk with each other about their pets, start to walk their dogs on the same
schedule, and even plan events together, such as an obedience class. Through
these shared interests and interactions, the dog walkers may begin to identify
The Basics of Sociology

themselves as members of a group. They might even adopt some sort of name to
identify themselves. Another, albeit tragic, example of an aggregate developing
very quickly into a group was on September 11, 2001, when hijackers flew air-
planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The passengers on United Air-
lines Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania started as an aggregate and became
a group when they joined together to fight the hijackers.
Another term that is often confused with group is category. A category
c
refers to people who share some common characteristic or status. Categories are
often used byy sociologists and other researchers interested in studying social life.
Age, race, gender, income level, religious affiliation, being a musician, owning
People in a category do not nec-
a pet, or living in a apartment are all categories. P
essarily interact or share any sense of belonging, and may not even know each
other.
Researchers have also pointed out that sometimes categorizations are as
basic in our minds as those groups with which we identify and feel a sense of be-
longing and loyalty, in-groups, and those with which we do not identify or to-
ward which we may even feel animosity, out-groups. We also tend to develop a
bias in which we favor our in-groups, perceiving them in a better light than those
“others” (Sumner 1906). We often prefer our fraternity or sorority, our church,
or people from our ethnic group, for example, over others for this reason.
This in-group/out-group distinction works to build group identity and
solidarity. Groups use a variety of means to distinguish who is “in” and who is
“out.” Rituals such as secret handshakes (Collins 1989) or symbols such as team
uniforms, gang colors, or awards honoring member’s accomplishments are all
ways to exhibit group identity and reinforce membership.
Conflict with another group (or groups) can also strengthen group soli-
darity (Coser 1956). The members of one group draw together to challenge a
enemy—the age-old idea of “us” against “them.” Thus, having an out-
common enemy—
group to focus on can strengthen that sense of belonging and support the devel-
opment of a sense of group identity as members tend to focus on differences
between groups rather than any similarities (Coser 1956; Sherif 1966; Quattrane
1986). Street gangs or racist groups such as skinheads or the Ku Klux Klan il-
lustrate this concept in action.
This group identity can even overpower and eliminate any previously
existing relationships members held with those of the “other” group. Well-
known research conducted by Sherif and associates demonstrate this process in
their Robbers Cave Experiment. A number of boys participated in a camping trip
during which they were closely observed by the researchers. The research team
set up and manipulated various situations involving group membership and com-
petition. After the boys had participated in camp activities and formed friend-
ships for a week, researchers divided the boys into two competitive groups,
purposely putting best friends into different groups. The resulting in-group/out-
group conflict became stronger than the previous friendship ties (Sherif and
Sherif 1953). A more recent example of this dynamic occurred in the former Yu-
goslavia, where an emphasis on in-group/out-group conflict led to horrible

84
 S i G
Social Groups and O
Organizations
i i

bloodshed between Serbs and Muslims, some of whom had individually been
friends previously.

Reference Groups
Sociologists are also interested in how we use groups to judge ourselves
and our attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and actions (Hyman 1942; Hyman and
Singer 1968; Singer 1981). The groups we use for this purpose are reference
groups. Reference groups are those with which we compare ourselves. Any
group can become a reference group if we use them to judge something about
ourselves. Considering what best friends will think about your new boyfriend or
girlfriend or how to dress to fit in with your new colleagues on your first day of
work are both ways of using reference groups.
We can also have negative reference groups that we do not want to be
like. Dressing
D in hip-hop, punk, or goth styles sets children apart from their par-
ents and a conservative establishment. Reference groups do not even have to be
real. Girls and women who judge their bodies against the apparently flawless,
thin, air-brushed models shown on the cover of women’s magazines or adver-
tisements are measuring themselves against a fictional, and unattainable, refer-
ence group (Kilbourne 2000). Children who compare their parents to parents on
television sitcoms are making a similar fictional reference-group comparison.

Group Sizee
Group size
sizze influences
nfluences the interactions that take place within the group.
Sociologist Georg Simmel (profiled below) addressed the importance of this
concept. Simmel notes thatt the smallest possible group is composed of two per-
sons. This group of two is called a dyad. These are oftenn our strongest, most in-
timate relationships, such as a marriage. The existence of the dyad depends on
both people. If one leaves, the group ceases to exist. As Simmel says, “for its
life, [the dyad] needs both, but for its death, only one” (1964,
( 124). Each person
holds full responsibility for group accomplishment orr failure,
faillure, since there are no
additional members to which to shift the blame or effort. Because of the impor-
tance of marriage to society and the instability of the dyad as a group, cultural,
religious, and legal guidance are often provided to support
suppo t marriages and en-
hance the dyad’s stability.
A three-person group is a triad. The addition of the third person
changes the group dynamics considerably. The addition of just this one person
also makes the group more stable. Simmel noted that this third person adds the
possibility of mediator when two members disagree. Iff one person takes some at-
tention away from maintaining group relationships, the group continues to exist
with the effort of the other two members. However,
However, the addition of the third per-
son also adds the possibility of a coalition forming against one person. Another
possibility is that this third personn might instigate trouble between the other two
for personal benefit.

85
The Basics of Sociology

Simmel also noted that as groups become larger in size, they generally
become more stable and less intimate, with less required of each member. Larger
groups can lose members and still exist. F Forr example, owners regularly trade
members of sports teams, and a military unit can lose members in battle but still
exist. Although the relationships between individuals in the unit may have been
somewhat intense, the lost members are replaced by new arrivals, and the unit
continues to function. Interaction with members outside the group may also in-
crease as the group gets larger (Blau 1977; Carley 1991). As groups become
larger, they also tend to develop formal structures such as bureaucracies that are
discussed later in this chapter.

NETWORKS
Sociologists have also demonstrated the importance of our relationships
that occur outside of defined groups in networks, the patterned relationships
that connect us with those outside of our established groups. Network relation-
ships are ever changing as people come and go from our lives. Sociologist Barry
Wellman (profiled in chapter 8) offers a good illustration of networks when ex-
plaining that it would have been impossible to make a membership list of New
York City gangs when he was growing up there during the 1950s: “My New York
consisted of unbounded networks of friends and of friends of friends. When a
fight was coming up, groups of friends would call each other and come together
to be a gang for that night. On another night, when other friends would call,
some of the same teens would become members of another gang” (1999a, 94).
Although these network ties are weaker than those within our defined groups,
they are nonetheless very important in our everyday lives (Granovetter 1973,
1982).
Social networks exist across society. They are important aspects of kin-
ship ties (Lai 2001), providing advice (Cross, Borgatti, and Parker 2001), orga-
nized crime (Chambliss 1988), drug use and prevention of HIV/AIDS (Friedman
1999), finding a job (Lin, Ensel, and Vaughn 1981), and the deal making be-
tween business and politicians that takes place at social events (Domhoff 1974).
Networks also form among Internet users in cyberspace (Wellman 1999b;
Kendall 2002). Sociological research on how networks link people in diverse
places (Milgram 1967; White 1970) was even the basis for the popular Holly-
wood movie Six Degrees of Separation.

GROUP DYNAMICS
An entire field of study known as group dynamics has developed
around the scientific study of groups and group processes. Drawing from both
sociology and psychology, group dynamics includes studying the influences
groups have on our behavior (Johnson and Johnson 2000, 37–44; Forsyth 1990).
Areas of interest include how groups form and develop, the socialization that

86
 Social Groups and Organizations

takes place within groups, power structures, conformity to group ideas, conflict,
leadership, and decision making. Kurt Lewin, profiled below, is generally con-
sidered the founder of group dynamics as a field of study.

Group Formation
Many groups aree formed to accomplish some task. This requires that the
members work together somewhat as a team. Groups coming together to design
a military action, plan a golf tournament, or decide on annual fund-raising ac-
tivities for the local school Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) all go through
some group-formation process. Researchers have identified over 100 various
models of group development (Forsyth 1990, 77).
Following on the work of Bruce Tuckman (1965), perhaps the best-
known model depicts four stages of group development that are often termed
forming, storming, norming, and performing. As groups come together and try to
accomplish goals as a team, they evolve through each of these four stages. They
come together, work out differences, get to work on the task at hand, and then get
the task done. Some models of team development also add a fifth stage, called
adjourning or mourning, during which the group disbands. These stages of team
building apply to all types of groups.
When individuals are first together as a group, they enter the forming
(or orientation) stage. TThey learn about the other members, explore the group
goal, and share their backgrounds and expertise. As issues become contentious,
the group moves into the storming (or conflict) stage. Members may express dis-
satisfaction, criticism, hostility, or even drop out of the group. Most groups do
experience conflict at some point. Although it may at first appear destructive,
this storming stage can actually be constructive if differences are presented and
resolved openly. When members start to resolve their issues and work together,
they are norming (or building cohesion). They
T y begin to form a cohesive unit, es-
tablish rules and roles to get their job done, and start to think of the group as
“we.” Then the group performs by “getting down to business” and working to-
ward their goals. TThere may also be a dissolution stage, in which the group wraps
up their tasks and terminates their roles. This stage can be planned, such as when
the group accomplishes its goal (e.g., completing a fund-raising event), or spon-
taneous (e.g., a budget cut ends a project before its completion).
Donelson Forsyth (1990) uses the Beatles as an example to illustrate the
applicability of this model to a familiar real-life group. When the musicians who
would achieve world fame during the 1960s as the Beatles first came together as
a band, they formed by getting to know each other and explore each other’s
strengths and weaknesses. They experienced conflict as John and Paul argued
over talent, the drummer changed, and tempers flared. The members began to
settle their differences and norm by writing songs and working together. They
performed, literally and figuratively; then, finally, they dissolved as a team amid
controversies and rumors (as discussed in chapter 9).

87