Page 157 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

140 Chapter 6

in incremental ways, always in a state of becoming, with communication as the
instrument for this creation and constant re-creation. This incrementalism is often
the reason groups like our medical group can find themselves “off track” long after
the initial changes start happening; the patterns sneak up on you and become
entrenched.
The theory of structuration is quite complex. However, the main point remains:
The communication among members is what creates group rules in the first place;
once rules and structures are in place, communication is also what keeps them there,
or changes them, as the case may be. Here is an example. Suppose a company
appoints a group of several managers to develop a long-range strategy. Two members,
Mauricio and Cary, have worked together before and naturally call each other by first
names. Mauricio introduces Cary to Carol, an acquaintance of his, by his first name,
and pretty soon the rest of the group members are calling each other by first name
instead of Mr., Ms., or Dr. As they wait for the meeting to begin, members talk about
mutual interests such as sports and jazz music, and several find common outside
interests with other members. Norms of informality and friendliness have begun to
develop among these members, and these norms will begin to affect other aspects of
the members’ communication, such as how they deal with disagreement. For
instance, assume that, at a later group meeting, Cary says, in a formal and accusing
tone of voice, “I respectfully disagree with the proposal offered by my esteemed col-
league Mr. Hernandez,” and continues to make a formal speech relating his objec-
tions. The rest of the members will probably say something like: “When did we get so
formal, Cary? What’s the big deal here? Why are you sounding like a prosecutor?”
What they are saying, in another way, is: “We’ve developed norms of informality and
friendliness, which you are violating. Your behavior seems inappropriate to us.” Of
course, Cary can choose to continue in his formal, prosecutorial way; if he does, that
may either change the informality and friendliness norms to ones more formal and
adversarial, or it may cause the other members to ignore Cary and ostracize him
from the group.
A variety of internal and external factors influences the types of structures
groups create, including member characteristics and preferences, the nature of the
group’s task, and such structural dynamics as the interplay between important (but
perhaps conflicting) values. The members of the medical group valued democratic
principles, but the pressure to get the job done and the deference given to a medical
degree led members to encourage controlling leadership. This contradiction pro-
4
Adaptive Structuration duced tension within the group and an eventual split. In a study of jury decision mak-
Theory ing, numerous contradictions existed between internal and external factors. For
5
A version of instance, although the jury was told to use judicial resources should any confusion
structuration theory occur, the jury developed the norm that no jury member could send a note outside the
that focuses on how group asking for help before first securing permission from the group. In addition,
the rules and several members of the jury struggled with reporting inappropriate behavior to the
resources of court. The expectations that the law should be followed clashed with the social rule of
computer technology
are used in the not ratting on your friends.
structuration process. Structuration processes can also be found in a group’s use of computer technol-
ogy. Adaptive structuration theory, a particular version of structuration theory
6

gal37018_ch06_135_168.indd 140 3/28/18 12:35 PM