Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Education (D)
Aisle B (Major Theories): Classical Theories (BA) | Org. Behavior – Individual (BB1) | Org. Behavior – Groups & Teams (BB2) | Org. Behavior – Systems & Culture (BB3) | Contingency Theories (BC) | Org. Design (BD) | Org. Development & Change (BG) | Human Relations Theories (BH) | Institution Theories (BI) | Leadership Theories (BL) | Modern Management Perspectives (BM) | Postmodern & Critical Theories (BQ) | Sociological Perspectives (BS)
Rack BB2 (Groups & Teams): Group Relations | Social Identity Theory | Team Roles | Conflict & Other Dysfunctions
Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References
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.
Importance of Group Relations Research in Organization Studies
This page covers some of the origin story about research in meso-level organizational behavior. Group relations, which is an umbrella term we are using to describe formal or informal groups of individuals operating with an organizational setting, emerged from several key intellectual traditions. The Tavistock Institute, founded in 1947, developed groundbreaking insights by combining psychoanalytic theory with systems thinking. We covered some of the work produced by Tavistock including that of one of its founders, Eric Trist, in Episode 34 on the famous study of coal-getting that led to sociotechnical systems theory. There is also Kurt Lewin’s field theory (Episode 55) and group dynamics work at MIT established crucial frameworks for understanding how groups function.
A central contribution was the recognition that organizations operate as complex systems of interconnected groups, rather than just collections of individuals. This seemingly simple insight revolutionized how we understand organizational behavior. When we look at any organizational challenge – whether it’s implementing change, managing conflict, or improving performance – we now know we must consider group-level dynamics, not just individual behaviors.
The concept of the primary task emerged from this tradition. This refers to what a group must do to survive, which often differs from what it says it’s doing. For example, a team might say their task is improving customer service, but their actual primary task might be preserving their own job security. This also led to the exploration of anxiety in groups, such as a study by Isabel Menzies that we covered in Episode 88. Research showed how groups develop defensive routines to manage anxiety, which can either help or hinder their effectiveness. These defenses might include scapegoating, denial, or splitting (dividing the world into “all good” and “all bad”). Understanding these patterns helps leaders work more effectively with group dynamics rather than against them.
The meaning of group boundaries is another important area of study, and refers to both physical (who’s in and who’s out) and psychological boundaries (what topics are discussable, what roles are acceptable). The associated questions become to what extent do the boundaries work to separate one group from another? Are particular boundaries too rigid or too permeable boundaries, thereby creating dysfunctional silos or chaos? Intergroup relations research has explored how groups maintain or span such boundaries such as stereotyping other groups or their members, competing for resources, or managing or exploiting tensions.
Over time, other dynamics around groups emerged as useful areas of study. Authority relations research reveals how groups relate to authority in complex ways, often recreating early family dynamics or societal patterns in organizational settings. Sometimes this might translate into forms of resistance against organizations’ leaders or efforts to change or transform the organization.
Finally, scholars have been interested in how groups form and the subsequent life-cycle. An example is the popular notion of forming, storming, norming, and performing popularized in Tuckman (1965). Are there other ways that groups form, however?
The practical applications of this research are extensive and relevant. Organizations use these insights to design more effective teams (whether that is groups of front-line workers or teams of C-suite or senior leaders), manage and pursue organizational change while overcoming resistance, improving collaboration across and outside the organization, address conflict more productively, and create healthier organizational cultures.
Some Foundational Works on Group Relations in Organization Studies
The key word in the title is “some.” Group relations is a subfield that casts a wide net, and no summary list of foundational works will ever be satisfying to cover this whole area of research. We offer the below in part to present some of the texts that we have covered in our program along with others that are perhaps high on our priority list for the future.
Lewin’s 1947 article “Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change,” was the first of two articles published in the newly established journal Human Relations with the Tavistock Institute, and we covered this in Episode 55. He presented a case for treating the social sciences on the same level with the natural sciences, as previously social science was considered neither rigorous nor valid. Using metaphors from physics, Lewin explains social phenomena in tangible, physical terms through constructs such as “force fields.” In doing so, he explained how individuals within a social space interact in ways that could be measured similarly to physical or chemical phenomenon. And he did so using the results of studies on rather ordinary, mundane phenonena such as training on stitching machines and the crossed interactions between a husband and wife.
Wilfred Bion’s Experiences in groups and other papers (1961) is another Tavistock publication seen as foundational. Drawing from his observations of military psychiatric patients during World War II, Bion developed theories about how groups operate on two levels simultaneously: a rational “work group” focused on tasks, and an emotional “basic assumption group” driven by unconscious needs and anxieties. This dual-level understanding helps explain why groups might behave irrationally despite their members’ best intentions.
A.K. Rice’s Learning for Leadership (1965) and The Enterprise and its Environment (1963). These two books built on Bion’s insights while adding crucial ideas about organizational boundaries and authority. Rice showed how groups must manage both their internal dynamics and their relationships with other groups to function effectively. His work at the Tavistock Institute helped establish the group relations conference model that continues to influence organizational development today (including through the A. K. Rice Institute for the Study of Social Systems that is a non-profit organization dedicated to education on group dynamics according to its website).
The work of Elliott Jaques. Elliott Jaques is one author who bridged psychoanalytic insights about groups with practical organizational design. Among his best known works are two books — The Changing culture of a factory (1951) and A general theory of bureaucracy (1976) — that introduced the concept of requisite organization – the idea that organizational structures need to match the complexity of their tasks. The latter contributed to his stratified systems theory that contributed to leadership (Rack BL) and organizational design studies (Rack BD) along with understanding group dynamics through common roles, common frames of reference within organizations, and common skills and competencies required at echelon. Stratified systems theory was explored in Episode 48.
Isabel Menzies Lyth’s “The Functioning of Social Systems as a Defence Against Anxiety” (1960) revealed how organizations develop structural defenses against anxiety that can become dysfunctional over time. Her study of hospitals showed how organizational structures often evolve to protect people from the emotional demands of their work, sometimes at the cost of effectiveness. We covered this paper in Episode 88.
Contemporary Areas of Research
The study of group relations in organizations has evolved to address contemporary challenges and incorporate new theoretical perspectives in several areas.
Impacts of digital transformation. Also see Rack CD. Researchers are examining how virtual and hybrid work arrangements change how groups form bonds, manage boundaries, and handle authority relations. This research explores how traditional group relations concepts apply when people interact primarily through technology. For instance, scholars are finding that virtual teams often struggle with establishing psychological safety and managing anxiety in ways that differ from in-person groups. While technology can facilitate collaboration across distances, it can also introduce challenges related to communication and relationship-building (Willebois, 2023).
There is also the related topic of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning integration into group settings, a topic that is so broad that it may be deserving of its own page at some point. Nearly every variable in group relations theory is being challenged when looking into groups that have AIs or algorithms as “members.” Researchers are examining how groups adapt and how human groups respond psychologically to increasing automation. For instance, when does a group treat an AI system as part of the team versus as a tool? This includes studying how groups manage anxiety about AI and how traditional concepts like containment and projection work in human-AI interactions.
Group composition and diversity. Another important area involves studying how groups handle increasing diversity and inclusion. Contemporary researchers are integrating intersectional perspectives with traditional group relations theory to understand how different identities and power dynamics affect group functioning. For example, research is providing evidence that diverse teams can lead to more innovative solutions and improved performance, as they bring together varied perspectives and experiences (Tanaka et al., 2022). This body of work examines how unconscious biases may manifest in group settings and how organizations can create more inclusive group environments while managing the anxieties that often arise around diversity initiatives.
Global and cross-cultural group dynamics. This area of research can be seen as an intersection of the above two, plus more. As organizations become more international, researchers are investigating how cultural differences affect group formation, leadership, and conflict resolution. This work is particularly interested in how groups manage the tensions between global integration and local adaptation, especially through social media and global social networks. A specific example is research into the relationships between social media content creators and distributors within trending topic communities, emphasizing the importance of understanding group interactions and the dynamics of information dissemination (e.g., Recalde et al., 2017).
Leadership, power and authority in groups. This area of study has evolved to examine new forms of organizing. Researchers are investigating how traditional hierarchical structures interact with newer, more fluid organizational forms. This includes studying how groups function in platform organizations, temporary project teams, and other emerging organizational structures. This has led to re-examination of traditional leadership paradigms. For example, recent scholarship into transformational leadership has developed stronger linkages with positive group dynamics as leaders who inspire and motivate their teams can enhance collaboration and commitment among group members (Rudd et al., 2020).
Collective trauma and resilience. This is an area of increased interest since the COVID-19 pandemic (also see Rack CE). Collective trauma and resilience is the shared experiences of significant negative events felt across group members and the capacity to develop strong group systems of defense against anxiety. This research examines emerging ways that groups respond to today’s crises, whether environmental, social, or economic, and how they develop capabilities for collective recovery and adaptation.
Conflict and resolution. The examination of conflict, its negotiation within groups, and ultimate resolution remains an active area of interest. Understanding how groups navigate conflicts and reach consensus helps enable effective collaboration. Constructive conflict, for example, is a framework where differences of perspectives can be presented, discussed, and used to enable better decision-making and innovation, provided that groups have the necessary skills and frameworks to manage disagreements effectively (Mogahed et al., 2020). This area of study has practical implications for organizations needed effective conflict resolution strategies that promote healthy group interactions and enhance overall group performance.
Curated List of Articles from the Management Learning Journal
This is a curated list of resources originated provided by the Management Learning Journal for the TAOP website. Many thanks to Jarryd Daymond and Cara Reed for assembling this.
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.
Related Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast
88: Social Defenses Against Anxiety — Isabel Menzies
55: Group Dynamics and Foundations of Organizational Change – Kurt Lewin
25: Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities — Joseph Porac
24: Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms — Bill Starbuck
References
Bion, W. R. (1969). Experiences in Groups and Other Papers. London: Tavistock Publication. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203359075.
Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References
Rack BB2 (Groups & Teams): Group Relations | Social Identity Theory | Team Roles | Conflict & Other Dysfunctions
Aisle B (Major Theories): Classical Theories (BA) | Org. Behavior – Individual (BB1) | Org. Behavior – Groups & Teams (BB2) | Org. Behavior – Systems & Culture (BB3) | Contingency Theories (BC) | Org. Design (BD) | Org. Development & Change (BG) | Human Relations Theories (BH) | Institution Theories (BI) | Leadership Theories (BL) | Modern Management Perspectives (BM) | Postmodern & Critical Theories (BQ) | Sociological Perspectives (BS)
Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Education (D)