Group Relations

TAOP Episodes and Journal of Management Learning articles


Curated reading list on the topic of ‘Groups’ and ‘Group Relations’ in management and organization studies

A collaboration between the Management Learning journal and the Talking About Organizations Podcast!

The list below is another of our curated collections of episodes and accompanying readings courtesy of the Management Learning journal. The aim of these collections is to pair our episodes with external thematic readings in order to augment gaps in our portfolio, provide quick ‘crash courses’, as well as offer more in depth bibliographies on selected topics.

Group relations research examines how behavior are influenced not only by a person’s own traits but also by their needs or desires to conform to social demands and expectations. It addresses questions about how groups are defined or define themselves, how the welcome or remove members, how they are structured, and how they collectively deal with internal conflict and external threats.

Follow Management Learning on Twitter
Other curated reading lists: Care | Emotions | Gender & Feminism | Group Relations | Historical Approaches | Learning in Organizations | Sociomateriality | Return to Resources Page

Resources from the Management Learning Journal

Mowles, C. (2017) ‘Experiencing uncertainty: On the potential of groups and a group analytic approach for making management education more critical’, Management Learning, 48(5), pp. 505–519. doi: 10.1177/1350507617697868.

This article points to the potential of methods derived from group analytic practice for making management education more critical. It draws on the experience of running a professional doctorate for more experienced managers in a university in the United Kingdom over a 16-year period. Group analysis is informed by the highly social theories of S.H. Foulkes and draws heavily on psychoanalytic theory as well as sociology. First and foremost, though, it places our interdependence at the heart of the process of inquiry and suggests that the most potent place for learning about groups, where we spend most of our lives, is in a group. The article prioritises three areas of management practice for which group analytic methods, as adapted for research environment, are most helpful: coping with uncertainty and the feelings of anxiety which this often arouses; thinking about leadership as a relational and negotiated activity, and encouraging reflexivity in managers. The article also points to some of the differences between the idea of the learning community and psychodynamic perspectives more generally and the limitations of group analytic methods in particular, which may pathologise resistance in the workplace.

Gray, D. E. and Gabriel, Y. (2018) ‘A community of practice or a working psychological group? Group dynamics in core and peripheral community participation’, Management Learning, 49(4), pp. 395–412. doi: 10.1177/1350507618761774.

The concept of communities of practice has become increasingly influential in management literature. Yet, many scholars regard the term as too homogeneous and lacking in empirical support. Our study explores the Silver Academy, a project involving over 100 unemployed and self-employed managers over the age of 50, who came together with the purpose of sharing knowledge and experience in starting up their own businesses. The study shows how the Academy matches the notion of community of practice, including mutual relationships, shared engagement and a common consensus of membership. However, applying Bion’s theory of groups, we challenge the homogeneous and consensual notion of a community of practice, illustrating how, through unconscious group processes, some group members exhibit work-group mentality and the capacity for realistic hard work (and leadership), while others are caught in a basic-assumption mentality, prone to feelings of anxiety, guilt and depression. This is particularly so for a group that has gone through the recent trauma of unemployment.

Mughal, F., Gatrell, C. and Stead, V. (2018) ‘Cultural politics and the role of the action learning facilitator: Analysing the negotiation of critical action learning in the Pakistani MBA through a Bourdieusian lens’, Management Learning, 49(1), pp. 69–85. doi: 10.1177/1350507617740273.

This empirical study contributes to critical action learning research by theorizing the role of an action learning facilitator from a cultural perspective. Our article adds to critical action learning by conceptualizing the dynamics of facilitation in managing interpersonal politics within action learning sets. Employing Bourdieu’s notion of habitus as a theoretical lens, we explore both participant and facilitator accounts of action learning at three Pakistani business schools, shedding light on the culturally influenced social practices that shape their learning interactions. Through a critical interpretation of our data, we illuminate the challenges of facilitation by revealing how deeply ingrained power relations, within the context of gender and asymmetric relationships, influence participants’ ability to organize reflection. We contribute to critical action learning by theorizing the critical role of facilitator mediation in managing interpersonal and intra-group relations within the Pakistani MBA context, outlining the implications for the dynamics and facilitation of action learning.

Means, A. and Mackenzie Davey, K. (2022) ‘‘Maybe it’s culture and maybe it isn’t’: An ethnographic study of sensemaking, culture and performance in a multicultural team’, Management Learning. doi: 10.1177/13505076211070358.

Links between cultural diversity and team performance remain unclear despite extensive research. This study critiques essentialist ‘Input-Process-Output’ logics to focus on team members’ sensemaking. Using observation and interview data from an ethnographic study of an Indian-German team over an 18-month high-pressure project, we used thematic analysis and event sequencing to map sensemaking of culture and performance over time. Team members initially constructed a prospective frame linking stereotypes of cultural difference to performance, which plausibly explained problems while protecting identity. This frame proved resistant to updating. While overt conflict was avoided, the failure to confront difficulties closed down alternative explanations and prevented innovation and learning. Team performance was evaluated both positively and negatively reflecting ongoing ambiguity around performance. The role of culture in performance was only challenged post-project after time for reflection. The longitudinal, ethnographic approach enables this research to contribute to sensemaking by demonstrating the importance of prospective framing and highlighting the role of identity and plausibility in resisting updating frames. We argue that essentialist conceptions of the unequivocal positive or negative outcome of cultural diversity as ‘double-edged sword’ should be reframed to stress agency and the importance of facilitating conditions for learning in multicultural teams.

Jones, O. and Giordano, B. (2021) ‘Family entrepreneurial teams: The role of learning in business model evolution’, Management Learning, 52(3), pp. 267–293. doi: 10.1177/1350507620934092.

There is limited research linking entrepreneurial learning and business models in start-up businesses. Business models are important cognitive devices that link entrepreneurial thinking and engagement with customers and suppliers during business start-up. This research examines business model evolution during the first 6 years of a family-based start-up, which was formed in 2008 by 2 young brothers. The business grew quickly and achieved a turnover of £4.5 million with 15 staff members by 2014. The case study contributes a better understanding of ways in which team-based learning in a family business links experiential and cognitive learning during business model evolution.

Other curated reading lists: Care | Emotions | Gender & Feminism | Group Relations | Historical Approaches | Learning in Organizations | Sociomateriality | Return to Resources Page

Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast

  • 88: Social Defenses Against Anxiety — Isabel Menzies
    This month’s episode examines one of the classic studies from the Tavistock Institute, Isabel Menzies’ “A Case-Study in the Functioning of Social Systems as a Defence Against Anxiety.” This famous study of how a teaching hospital developed odd and somewhat dysfunctional methods for protecting its nurses from anxiety and stress by effectively isolating nurses from the patients to prevent emotional attachment. Nursing students witnessing these methods in practice found them in violation of their expectations regarding care and their professional calling, and were quitting. What were these methods and why did they come about?
  • 55: Group Dynamics and Foundations of Organizational Change – Kurt Lewin
    We discuss Kurt Lewin’s article, “Frontiers in Group Dynamics,” that makes a strong case for treating the social sciences on the same level with the natural sciences–previously, social science was considered neither rigorous nor valid. Using metaphors from physics, Lewin explains social phenomena in tangible, physical terms and explains how individuals within a social space interact in ways that could be measured similarly to physical or chemical phenomenon.
  • 25: Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities — Joseph Porac
    We discuss another JMS classic, “Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities the case of Scottish Knitwear Manufacturers” by Porac, Thomas, and Baden-Fuller from 1989. Employing an approach based on the ‘interpretive’ side of organizations, the Authors propose that a key mechanism in competition and strategy is given by the “mental models used by key decision-makers to interpret the task environment of their organization”. These, in turn, emerge out of material and cognitive exchanges among customers, suppliers, and producers.
  • 24: Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms — Bill Starbuck
    We discuss another of the classics from the Journal of Management Studies, a paper from 1992 by William Starbuck, entitled “Learning by knowledge-intensive firms”. This time, we are very happy to be joined by the author of the work, Professor William Starbuck, one of the leading experts in Organization Theory, whose research covers an incredible number of areas of expertise, as shown in his biography. This paper is the first to discuss knowledge intensive firms, concept based on the economists’ notions of capital and labour intensive firms, and which are defined as those firms where “knowledge has more importance than other inputs” (p.715).

*a special thank you to Jarryd Daymond and Cara Reed for curating this collection on behalf of TAOP and Management Learning respectively!