Groups Under Stress: The Influence of Group Structure and Environment on Process and Performance

Abstract

The study examined how group structure affects group process and performance in stressful and nonstressful environments. Research suggests that clear structure should facilitate group process and performance, but reactance theory suggests that prearranged group structure may reduce individual freedom, thereby reducing group satisfaction and performance. A 2 x 4 factorial design involved groups that were either given structure or left unstructured before working on a task. Groups worked in either positive, crowded, or noisy environmental conditions. A perceived negative environment condition in which subjects were informed that the environment would inhibit performance was also included. The results indicated that the predetermined structure facilitated interpersonal relations and performance in the positive environment and the perceived negative environment. However, the predetermined structure had a negative effect when the groups faced a stressful environment (crowded or noisy). The results suggest that the environmental setting influences the type of group structure that will be most effective in promoting process and performance.

Death of a Guild, Birth of a Network

“…A miscommunication, which resulted in a scheduling mishap, then led to one overly dramatic person starting a small flame war that blew apart the group. Research has shown that social structure can work against group cohesion under certain types of stress (Worchel & Shackelford, 1991), suggestive of the events here. The important factors were not just in-game issues but involved real-world issues and out-game, web-based communication.…”

Bridging intragroup processes and intergroup relations: Needing the twain to meet

“…Structure is a defining element of a group (e.g., as compared to the simultaneous presence of individuals), and there are a number of forces that tend to maintain and reinforce this structure. Studies of animal societies (e.g., Wittemyer & Getz, ) as well as of human groups (e.g., Worchel & Shakelford, ) demonstrate the critical value of differentiated roles to effective group functioning. Groups with members who have well‐defined, accepted, and complementary roles are better able to manage scarce resources (Harris, ), more effective in routine activities (Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson, & Burr, ), and better able to respond to unexpected situations (Firestone, Lichtman, & Colamosca, ).…”

Cooperation and Conflict within Groups: Bridging Intragroup and Intergroup Processes

“…Structure is a defining element of a group (e.g., as compared to the simultaneous presence of individuals), and there are a number of forces that tend to maintain and reinforce this structure. Studies of animal societies (e.g., Wittemyer & Getz, 2007) as well as of human groups (e.g., Worchel & Shackelford, 1991) demonstrate the critical value of differentiated roles to effective group functioning. Groups whose members have well‐defined, accepted, and complementary roles are better able to manage scarce resources (Harris, 2006), more effective in routine activities (Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson, & Burr, 2000), and better able to respond to unexpected situations (Firestone, Lichtman, & Colamosca, 1975).…”