UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 10.9 Free with a free account
Group Dynamics and Organizational Team Development
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 10: Teams ModuleSection 10.9 · lesson 73 of 9012 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Workplace Conflict: Perspectives, Types, and Sources →← Team Communication and Collaboration StrategiesNext lesson: Workplace Conflict: Perspectives, Types, and Sources →
In this lesson
The forces that shape groups, and the deliberate work of building teams over time.
- Explain what group dynamics adds to individual analysis
- Apply Lewin's field theory to team problems
- Recognise and counter the four principal group pressures
- Treat team development as a continuing capability
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,628 words). Read along, or search it.
Teams Module
Group Dynamics and Team Development
Groups behave in ways that individuals do not. A group decision can be wiser than the judgement of its best member. It can also be markedly worse. People in groups conform to standards they would privately reject. They hold positions more extreme than the ones they arrived with. And they stay silent on concerns they consider important. The systematic study of this began with Kurt Lewin in the mid-twentieth century. This final section covers those forces, and the countermeasures for each. It revisits Tuckman's stages as mature teams actually experience them. And it closes the unit where it began, with the weight of the armband.
The Term
Groups Have Properties Their Members Do Not
The term group dynamics was coined by the psychologist Kurt Lewin in the nineteen forties. He developed it at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and later at the National Training Laboratories. His central insight was deceptively simple. Groups have properties that are not reducible to the individuals who compose them. A group can be cohesive or fragmented. Productive or unproductive. Candid or guarded. Those are properties of the group itself, and not simply of its members. Consider three familiar situations. The team meeting where members are present but withdrawn. The project where competent individuals produce incoherent collective output. The committee whose decisions are uniformly worse than any single member would have proposed alone. None of those can be diagnosed at the individual level. A leader who attends only to members, and never to the group's collective state, misses most of it.
Field Theory
Change the Field, and the Behaviour Changes
Lewin's theoretical contribution went beyond observation. He called it field theory. Behaviour, he proposed, is a function of the person and their psychological environment, in interaction. Applied to groups, that framework redirects attention. Away from the dispositions of individuals, and toward the forces operating on them. Social pressures. Organisational expectations. Perceived rewards and punishments. And the relationships among members. Here is the practical payoff. A behaviour that looks like a personal trait is often, instead, a response to the field. Change the field, and the behaviour changes. So before concluding that a member is difficult or disengaged, ask what the field is asking of them. That question resolves a surprising proportion of apparent personality problems.
Lewin's Legacy
Three Ideas Still in Daily Use
Lewin's practical work left three ideas that are still in daily use. The first is action research. The method in which a researcher participates in change while studying it, rather than observing from outside. The second is his three-stage model of change. Unfreezing, changing, and refreezing, which remains influential in change management today. The third concerns how decisions produce lasting change. People commit more reliably to decisions they have participated in making. Than to decisions that were imposed on them. That finding underwrites most of what we now call participative leadership. Contemporary team development draws heavily on these foundations. Usually without any acknowledgement of where they came from.
Four Pressures
What Groups Reliably Do to Their Members
Four robust findings describe the pressures groups exert on their members. The first is conformity, demonstrated by Solomon Asch in the nineteen fifties. Individuals align with majority views even when those views are demonstrably incorrect. Asch's subjects gave wrong answers on perceptual judgements, matching confederates who answered wrongly on purpose. The second is groupthink, named by Irving Janis. Decision quality deteriorates in cohesive groups whose members suppress dissent to maintain unanimity. The third is group polarisation. Groups tend to reach decisions more extreme than the initial positions of their members. Risky decisions become riskier. Cautious decisions become more cautious. The fourth is social loafing, identified by Ringelmann in the nineteen tens. And confirmed by Latane and others in the nineteen seventies. Individuals exert less effort in group settings than they would working alone.
Groupthink
Seven Symptoms of a Group Protecting Its Unanimity
Groupthink deserves the closest look, because it disguises itself as health. Irving Janis published Victims of Groupthink in nineteen seventy-two. He examined a series of disastrous foreign policy decisions. The Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the failure to anticipate Pearl Harbour. A common pattern ran through all of them. Cohesive decision-making groups had suppressed dissent in order to preserve unanimity. So critical concerns were never aired, and alternative options were never considered. Janis named the symptoms. Illusions of invulnerability, and collective rationalisation of warning signs. Stereotyped views of opponents, and direct pressure on dissenters. Self-censorship by members holding private doubts, which then produces an illusion of unanimity. And self-appointed mindguards, who shield the group from contrary information. Notice that cohesion was the cause here, not the cure.
Countermeasures
Each Pressure Has a Known Antidote
Each pressure has identified countermeasures, and none of them is difficult. Conformity is reduced by surfacing individual judgements before group discussion. In writing, so that nobody's view is anchored by whoever spoke first. It also falls with explicit invitations to disagree, and when one ally breaks the apparent unanimity. Groupthink is reduced by assigning a member to challenge the consensus. By inviting external perspectives, and by separating the leader from the initial discussion. A second-chance meeting, to revisit a decision before it is finalised, helps too. Polarisation is reduced by exposure to opposing views before consensus consolidates. Social loafing is reduced by making individual contributions visible. These countermeasures are well established and widely available. Their use is limited by the leader's awareness of the phenomena, not by any real difficulty in applying them. Thirty extra minutes of design before a significant decision reliably improves the choice that follows.
Tuckman Revisited
The Stages Return in Mature Teams
Tuckman's stages, introduced earlier in this unit, take on more nuance in mature teams. A mature team is never permanently in a single stage. It revisits forming when a new member joins, when it is reorganised, or when its mandate changes. The leader's job there is to re-orient explicitly, rather than assume continuity from the prior state. It revisits storming under disagreement about direction, stress, or contests over roles. The response is to treat that as productive surfacing, and resist the urge to suppress the conflict. It revisits norming after a period of storming, or when norms are explicitly renegotiated. Here the leader codifies the renewed agreements, and makes them visible to everyone. It returns to performing after a completed cycle on some new issue. And the response then is to protect the conditions, and resist tinkering with what is working. Adjourning arrives at completion or restructuring, and the discipline is carrying the learning deliberately forward.
Posture
Cyclical, Not Linear
The cyclical view is more accurate than the linear one for the teams most managers lead. Members come and go. Stakes rise and fall. The work shifts in character. Each of those can return a team to an earlier stage, sometimes briefly, sometimes for months. Why does this distinction matter in practice? Because treating storming as failure rather than as a predictable revisitation changes the leader. It produces an anxious leadership style. One that reads normal team friction as decline, and reacts accordingly. Treating it as part of the cycle produces a more confident posture. This is simply what teams do, and the work is to navigate it well rather than prevent it.
Case
The Investment Committee That Could Not Disagree
An investment committee at a mid-sized asset management firm shows the cost of unexamined cohesion. It had a strong record over many years, and a collegial culture that members described with pride. Over eighteen months spanning a significant market turn, its decisions deteriorated sharply. Several positions that, in retrospect, should have been challenged were waved through unanimously. Members with private doubts admitted afterwards they had stayed quiet, because everyone else seemed confident. An external review identified classic groupthink. Cohesion had become more important than scrutiny. Dissent had become socially costly. And the committee held shared rationalisations that no individual member fully endorsed. The remediation was straightforward, and uncomfortable. A rotating designated dissenter, whose explicit charge was to argue against the consensus. One external advisor invited to each meeting. And a chair who required every member to state their independent view before group discussion. Decision quality improved measurably within two quarters.
Capability
Not a Retreat, a Standing Investment
In many organisations, team development has moved from an occasional retreat to a continuing capability. The shift reflects a recognition that effectiveness is built incrementally. It cannot be created in a workshop, however good the workshop is. Organisations that take this seriously invest in several practices together. Training for team leaders in the practices covered across this unit. Coaching for teams at moments of formation, transition and difficulty. Regular team diagnostics, using frameworks such as Hackman's or Lencioni's. And treating team performance as an organisational responsibility. Rather than something left entirely to whichever individual happens to be leading. The investment pays out over years rather than weeks. Such organisations produce more innovation, retain talent more reliably, and absorb change with less disruption. And the effect is self-reinforcing. Leaders who have experienced a well-developed team build others. Leaders who have only experienced indifferent ones do not know what they are missing.
Consolidate
The Armband, Returned To
This concludes the unit, and the themes have run consistently through all of it. Team leadership is a distinct role, not a senior version of individual contribution. High-performing teams are designed rather than discovered. Virtual work, cultural difference and emotional complexity require deliberate practice rather than improvisation. Communication is the medium through which everything else operates. And group dynamics shape behaviour in ways that leaders ignore at their cost. None of this is exotic. Very little of it is automatic. The leader who treats teams as a discipline to be learned and continuously improved produces results. Results that the leader who treats teams as background context simply cannot match. Which brings us back to the captain's armband, where the unit began. The weight of the armband is the weight of holding together what the work alone does not produce. The leader who has learned to carry it does so neither effortlessly nor without cost. But with the satisfaction of watching capable people become a team. One that consistently produces more than the sum of its parts.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Group Dynamics and Organizational Team Development
Who coined the term group dynamics?
What is groupthink and what are its symptoms?
What is the difference between conformity, group polarization, and social loafing?
How can a leader prevent groupthink in team decisions?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →