Chapter 3: Building Teams – Inclusivity & Role Identities

Learning Objectives

• Identify and compare the stages of team development.
• Organize a team using knowledge on task and maintenance roles.
• Understand the impact of negative roles on a team.

Think about all the teams and groups you belong to, such as family, friends, work, church, etc. What is your role in each group? How do you communication within the group? Most informal groups rarely make communication rules and formal expectations for members; however, this is a vital step in forming positive group environments. Despite working WITH others in both social and work settings, many have never learned HOW to effectively work with others. And this is an essential skill.

Almost every job posting listed, from social media manager to environmental scientist to architect to even accountant, lists teamwork and effective collaboration among the required skills. Why? Is it because every employer writing a job posting copies other job postings? Maybe in part, but every employer’s business success depends on people working well in teams to get the job done. A high-functioning, cohesive, and efficient team is essential to workplace productivity anywhere you have three or more people working together. Effective teamwork means working together toward a common goal guided by a common vision, and it’s a mighty force.

Compared with several people working independently, teams maximize productivity through collaborative problem solving. When each member brings a unique combination of skills, talents, experience, and education, their combined efforts make the team synergistic—i.e., more than the sum of its parts. Collaboration can motivate and result in creative solutions not possible in single-contractor projects. The range of views and diversity can also energize the process, helping address creative blocks and stalemates.

Credit CC BY 3.0 Mapbox Uncharted ERG

Teamwork is not without its challenges. The work itself may prove to be difficult as members juggle competing assignments and personal commitments. Quality may also be compromised if team members are expected to conform and pressured to follow a plan, perform a procedure, or use a product that they themselves have not developed or don’t support. Teams sometimes perform what Hargreaves and Dawe (1990) identify as “contrived collegiality”, in which everyone works on similar jobs as quickly as possible, don’t discuss anything, make poor judgment decisions, and are more concerned with completion than quality. Personalities, competition, and internal conflict can also factor into a team’s failure to produce, which is why care must be taken in how teams are assembled and managed.

If you experience feelings of fear and dread when you find out you will need to work in a group, you may experience what is called grouphate (Meyers & Goodboy, 2005). This feeling is common in school settings. As one student posted on a teaching blog, “Group work is code for ‘work as a group for a grade less than what you can get if you work alone’” (Weimer, 2008). In your college experience, one of your professors has most likely assigned you to work on a group project. Was it a pleasant experience? Did your grade reflect your effort? Was your project better than something you could have done individually? If not, it may be that your team simply needed more guidance on effective teamwork.

Team Psychology & Social Rewards

One of the first steps in building a successful team is understanding the psychology behind group behavior.

Belonging

Humans consistently seek inclusion over exclusion, membership over isolation, and acceptance over rejection. We have a physical need to belong. Studies show people who are accepted members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied while those facing group rejection feel unhappy, helpless and depressed (Williams, 2007). Researchers also studied the neural responses of exclusion and found that those left out of group activities displayed increased cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical pain sensations (Eisenberger et al., 2003). It hurts, quite literally, to be left out of a group.

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Affiliation

Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, but they also provide members with information, assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger’s theory of social comparison (1950, 1954) suggested that people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes. Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us with reassurance and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer to join with others who are even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend who got a 78%? To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate. This process is known as downward social comparison.

Identity & Membership

Along the lines of affiliation, groups also help us understand the existentially significant question, “Who am I?” People are defined not only by their traits, interests, beliefs, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections, and group memberships. The self is not just a “me,” but also a “we.” Social identity theory, for example, assumes that we don’t just classify other people into such social categories as White, Black, Latinx, elderly, or college student, but we also categorize ourselves. According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), our social identities are influenced by our memberships in particular groups or social categories. If we strongly identify with these categories, then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups to ourselves, essentially stereotyping ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college students are intellectual, then we will assume we, too, are intellectual if we identify with that group (Hogg, 2001).

Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of self-worth, as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our collective self-esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback, we can focus on our group’s success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to other groups, we frequently discover that we are members of the “better” group and so can take pride in our superiority. This allows us to elevate both our personal and our collective self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989).

Motivation and Performance

Workplaces and classrooms often assign individuals to teams based on the belief that they motivate individuals to work harder. Is this true? Research shows mixed findings due to three main reasons: social facilitation, evaluation apprehension, and social loafing.

When a person is performing dominant responses (i.e., ones that are well-learned or based on instinctive behaviors), studies show being in a team enhances an individual’s performance. However, when performing nondominant responses (i.e., novel, complicated, or untried behaviors that the person is less familiar with, the presence of others inhibits performance. For example, students might write poorer quality essays on complex philosophical questions when they work in teams rather than alone (Allport, 1924) but may make fewer mistakes on solving simple multiplication problems in front of an audience. Social facilitation, then, depends on the task: other people facilitate performance when the task is so simple that it requires only dominant responses, but others interfere when the task requires nondominant responses.

Psychological processes also influence whether audiences/teams enhance or interfere with an individual’s performance. Some may experience evaluation apprehension when we feel others might judge our performance (Bond et. al, 1996). The presence of others can also affect a person’s capacity to concentrate and process information (Harkins, 2006), this is especially true for tasks that require higher order thinking (Huguet et al., 1999).

While the presence of others can interfere with an individual’s performance in certain situations, typically group still outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing a tug-of-war game against a group will lose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, “Many hands make light the work” (Littlepage, 1991; Steiner, 1972).

Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. First, when people work together, they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of efficiency—but they rarely do (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Three people in a tug-of-war competition, for example, invariably pull and pause at slightly different times, so their efforts are uncoordinated. The result is coordination loss: the three-person group is stronger than a single person, but not three times as strong. Second, people just don’t exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor, nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display social loafing (Latané, 1981).

Credit: Marc Dalmulder/Dragon Boat Races

Social loafing is not a rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals, they tend to “take it easy” if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work (George, 1992). People who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each member’s contributions: Some people just don’t work as much as they should to help the group reach its learning goals (Neu, 2012). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf (Karau & Williams, 1993).

Teamwork

Groups can, however, overcome these challenges to performance through teamwork. A group may include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be set, work patterns structured, and a sense of group identity developed. Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved (Salas et al., 2009).

Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental representation of the task and group cohesion. Teams develop a shared mental model over time as they work through different understandings of the tasks, practice skills related to the work, and develop a consensus of how to move forward (Tindale et al., 2008). In addition, the more cohesive the team (a team with integrity, solidarity, social integration, and unity) the more effective they are. In most cases, members of cohesive groups like each other and form collective, group-level goals. Yet, there is an interesting relationship between cohesion and performance. Studies show that while cohesion improves performance and cohesive groups outperform ones that lack cohesion, the performance quality (doing a good job) of a group influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994; Mullen et al., 1998). This means teams without cohesion can be become more cohesive if they produce a good product. But, cohesion is not a recipe for success. Cohesive groups can be spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity (Seashore, 1954).

Team Formation

Knowing the psychology behind group behavior can help supervisors and team members build stronger groups. Understanding how teams develop over time can help in providing support along the way. Working cohesively as a team requires time and input from every team member and rarely happens straight away. There will always be a period while teams are getting to know one another and learning how to work together. Settling into a team and learning how to work with different members can be tricky. Just as an individual moves through developmental stages such as childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, so does a group, although in a much shorter period of time.

Bruce Tuckmans’s Team Development Model explains the different stages of team development, and some of the challenges faced in each stage. Even if a team is working well, this model can be useful in understanding what characterizes success in each stage and the skills teams can benefit from along the way. 

Figure 1: Tuckman’s Model of Group Development

Forming

In the forming stage, the group comes together for the first time. The members may already know each other, or they may be total strangers. In either case, there is a level of formality, some anxiety, and a degree of guardedness as group members are not sure what is going to happen next. Group members may think, “Will I be accepted? What will my role be? Who has the power here?” Because of the large amount of uncertainty, members tend to be polite, conflict avoidant, and observant. They are trying to figure out the ‘rules of the game’ without being too vulnerable. At this point, they may also be quite excited and optimistic about the task at hand, perhaps experiencing a level of pride at being chosen to join a particular group. This stage is often characterized by abstract discussions about issues to be addressed by the group; those who like to get moving can become impatient with this part of the process but groups that take the time to get to know each other socially in the forming stage tend to handle future challenges better because the individuals understand each other’s needs. This phase is usually short in duration, perhaps a meeting or two.

Group members are trying to achieve several goals at this stage:

1. Get to know each other: Remember to do this at a social level, not just a work level. For example, learning not about what the team member’s job title is, but what kind of movies they like.
2. Explore group boundaries: Determine what will be considered acceptable behavior. “Can I interrupt? Can I leave when I feel like it?”
3. Trialling Leadership: Teams may test out the style of the appointed leader or see if a leader emerges from the group.
4. Task Development: Groups will determine what needs to be done and who will be responsible for each task.

Storming

Once group members feel sufficiently safe and included, they tend to enter the storming phase. Participants focus less on keeping their guard up, becoming more authentic and argumentative. Group members explore their power and influence, and they often stake out their territory by differentiating themselves from the other group members rather than seeking common ground. Conflict arises as participants raise contending points of view and values, and debate how tasks should be done and who is assigned to them. Feelings of defensiveness or jealously may arise and cliques within the group can form. Questioning and resisting direction from the leader is also quite common. “Why should I have to do this? Who designed this project in the first place? Why do I have to listen to you?” Although little seems to get accomplished at this stage, group members are becoming more authentic as they express their deeper thoughts and feelings. What they are really exploring is “Can I truly be me, have power, and be accepted?” Groups that do not go through the storming phase early on will often return to this stage toward the end of the group process to address unresolved issues.

Because of the amount of conflict, negotiation, and creativity emerging in this stage, it’s common for teams to get stuck in the storming phase. Try the following if you feel your group is not progressing.

Avoid Getting Stuck in the Storming Phase

Normalize conflict. Let members know this is a natural phase in the group-formation process.

Be inclusive. Invite all views and mention how diverse ideas foster creativity and innovation.

Make sure everyone is heard. Facilitate heated discussions to increase understanding.

Support all group members. This is especially important for those who feel more insecure.

Remain positive. This is a key point to remember about the group’s ability to accomplish its goal.

Don’t rush group development. Working through the storming stage can take several meetings.

Norming

Once group members discover that they can be authentic and that the group is capable of handling differences without dissolving, they are ready to enter the next stage, norming. “We survived!” is the common sentiment at the norming stage. Feeling energized by knowing they can handle the “tough stuff” group members find themselves more cohesive, cooperative, and ready to work. Since the group’s energy is running high, this is an ideal time to host a social or team-building event.

Teams accomplish a lot in this stage:

1. Establish ground rules (norms) and define operating procedures and goals
2. Make big decisions as a team, while trusting subgroups or individuals to handle smaller decisions
3. Set-up and use systems to ask for help and feedback with openness to ideas and respectful constructive criticism
4. Continue building interpersonal relationships by forming friendships and sharing more personal information

Performing

Guided by a sense of shared vision and a feeling of unity, the group has matured to become more competent, autonomous, and insightful. At the performing stage, they are getting the work done, while paying greater attention to how they are doing it. They ask questions like, “Do our norms and procedures best support the productivity and quality of what we’re doing? Do we have effective ways to handle differences and conflict while maintaining cohesion and respect?” A good team will adjust their norms, group boundaries, and structure throughout the performing stage based on the needs of team members and project goals. This stage continues until the project is done.

Adjourning

Just as groups form, so do they end. For example, many groups formed in a business context are project-oriented, thus temporary in nature. Alternatively, a working group (an interdisciplinary team working to solve a problem) may dissolve due to organizational restructuring or funding cuts. These endings can be bittersweet, with group members feeling a combination of victory, grief, and insecurity about what is coming next. For those who like routine and bond closely with fellow group members, this transition can be particularly challenging. Group leaders and members alike should be sensitive to handling these endings respectfully and compassionately. An ideal way to close a group is to set aside time to reflect and debrief (“How did it all go? What did we learn?”), acknowledge each other, and celebrate a job well done.

Team Roles

As a team moves through the stages of development, members will take on one or more group roles, the expected behaviors and functions performed by each individual. These roles may be formally assigned or informal, and can be led by things such as personality traits, short-term moods, relationships or reactions with other team members, or based upon the needs of the group. The same role can even be held by multiple team members or roles may adapt and change as needed to meet the needs of the team or project.

Three categories of common group roles were identified by early group communication scholars including: task-related roles, maintenance roles, and negative roles (ones considered self-centered or unproductive for the group) (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Keep in mind, these roles are not neatly bounded all-inclusive categories. Most individuals assume multiple roles within a group and must draw on multiple communication behaviors to successfully play each role.

Task-Related Roles and Behaviors

Task-related roles typically revolve around leadership, information sharing, or processes and procedures and include: task leader, expediter, information provider, information seeker, gatekeeper, and recorder.

Task Leader

Task leaders tend to be good problem-solvers, often have knowledge or skills related to the project that surpasses their teammates, and/or previous leadership experience (Cragan & Wright, 1991). Their main role is to help the team complete its task, thus they often find themselves talking more in meetings and taking on more work than others. Depending on the number of tasks a group has, there may be more than one task leader, especially if the tasks require different sets of skills or knowledge.

Task-leader behaviors can be divided into two types: substantive and procedural (Pavitt, 1999). The substantive leader is the “idea person” who communicates “big picture” thoughts and suggestions that feed group discussion. The procedural leader is the “doer” who gives the most guidance on how to put those ideas into action. An experienced task leader may be able to perform both roles, but when the roles are filled by two different people, the person considered the procedural leader is more likely to be viewed by members as the overall group leader.

Expediter

The expediter keeps the group on track by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals to monitor the group’s progress. If you’ve ever worked in a restaurant, you’re probably familiar with an expediter’s role. The person working “expo” helps make sure that the timing on all the dishes for a meal works out and that each plate is correct before it goes out to the table. This is by no means an easy job since some entrées cook quicker than others and not everyone orders their burger the same way. The expediter helps make order out of chaos by calling the food out to the kitchen in a particular order that logically works so that all the food will come up at the same time.

Expediters in groups follow the same concepts to keep the group on an agenda. They must have a good sense of when a topic has been sufficiently discussed or when a group’s extended focus on one area has led to diminishing returns. In such cases, the expediter may say, “Now that we’ve had a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of switching the office from PCs to Macs, which side do you think has more support?” or “We’ve spent half of this meeting looking for examples of what other libraries have done and haven’t found anything useful. Maybe we should switch gears so we can get something concrete done tonight.” A skilled expediter can demonstrate good active-listening skills by paraphrasing what has been discussed and summarizing what has been accomplished in such a way that makes it easier for group members to see the need to move on.

Credit: Lester Guijarro/chefs/CC BY-SA 2.0

Information Provider

All group members act as information providers when they present new ideas, initiate discussions, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences. In some situations, one team member may be chosen to be the primary information provider when meeting with other teams to discuss progress or if teammates are unfamiliar with a particular concept or topic. For example, if your team is working with a computer science company on public relations outreach and only one person on your team has a background in computer science, they may become the information providers for their team to be sure everyone understands their client’s terminology and needs.

Information Seeker

The information seeker engages in critical questioning to increase the quality of ideas and outcomes within your team. This might look like paraphrasing to ensure understanding of others’ ideas, or asking for more information, research, elaboration, or clarification of ideas, data, and timelines. They may focus on factual information or group member opinions. These questions provide an important evaluative function and ensure the team develops credible content, relevant to the project, and that ideas and decisions are thoroughly considered.

Gatekeeper

The gatekeeper manages the flow of conversation in a group, helping achieve a balance of meaningful participation. This might look like prompts such as “Let’s each share one idea about…...” It could also take the form of acknowledging when some team members have contributed a lot and asking them to step back so others have more time to share their ideas or volunteer for tasks. Gatekeepers should be cautious about “calling people out” in a negative way and never scold or put team members in an uncomfortable spotlight. Their goal is to invite everyone into the conversation. Since gatekeepers make group members feel included, they also service the relational aspects of the group.

Recorder

The recorder takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. At less formal meetings there may be no recorder, while at formal meetings there is almost always a person who takes meeting minutes, an overview of what occurred. Each group will have different rules about the level of detail within and availability of the minutes. While some group’s minutes are required by law to be public, others may be confidential. Even though meeting minutes are valuable, the recorder is often viewed as a low-status position and may feel or be viewed as subservient to other members who can more actively contribute during meetings. Because of this, it may be desirable to have the role of the recorder rotate among members (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

Maintenance Roles and Behaviors

Maintenance roles help create and maintain social cohesion and fulfill the interpersonal needs of group members and include social-emotional leader, supporter, tension releaser, harmonizer, and interpreter.

Social-Emotional Leader

The social-emotional leader continually strives to support group members and maintain a positive relational climate. As such, one member typically stays in this role and is generally someone who is well-liked by the other group members and supportive of the task leader. They may perform a variety of maintenance roles depending on the needs of the team. Someone in this role typically is a reflective thinker with good perception skills and able to analyze group dynamics and overall team climate, offering reassurance and support to all.

Supporter

The supporter’s role occurs in one-on-one exchanges that are more intimate and in-depth than those seen during full group meetings. A supporter uses active empathetic listening skills to connect with team members which aids in developing group cohesion. They may notice changes in a teammate’s demeanor and ask, “Tayesha, you seemed kind of down today. Is there anything you’d like to talk about?” They also maintain established connections by following up with teammates, saying things like, “Alan, I hope your mom’s surgery goes well this weekend. Let me know if you need anything.” These communication behaviors are probably the least noticeable of maintenance roles, which may make this group member’s efforts seem overlooked. Leaders and other group members can help support the supporter by acknowledging their contributions.

Tension Releaser

The tension releaser balances humor and situational dynamics to manage the frustration level of their team. Being funny is not enough to fulfill the role, as sharing a joke too often, at the wrong time, or one that clashes with the personalities of teammates, can create rather than release tension. The tension releaser often appears during the forming stage of team development when tensions are high due to increased uncertainty and may “break the ice” and make others feel at ease during more socially awkward first meetings.

Harmonizer

The harmonizer aims to intervene in unhelpful conflict that emerges during team communications before it escalates. For example, they may sense that Isaiah’s critique of Chandra’s idea wasn’t received positively, then rephrase that critique in a more constructive way, helping to diminish Chandra’s defensiveness. They also deescalate unhelpful conflict that’s already started by suggesting cool-off breaks, mediating conversations, and engaging in perception-checking discussions to help team members seen an issue from multiple perspectives. Harmonizers need to be seen as impartial and committed to the group to be effective and respected by their team.

Interpreter

An interpreter helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between differences, and creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than something to be feared. Interpreters can help perform the other maintenance roles discussed with a special awareness of and sensitivity toward cultural differences. For example, interpreters may help support someone feeling left out because their cultural identity is different than the majority of the group, act as allies, or take a group member aside to explain why their behavior or comments may be perceived as offensive and educate about alternatives.

Negative Roles and Behaviors

Negative behaviors in a team can occur with varying degrees of intensity and regularity, and their effects may range from mild annoyance to group failure. Increased intensity and regularity typically lead to increased negative effects for your team. We all perform some negative behaviors within groups. For example, a person may temporarily monopolize a discussion to bring attention to their idea or use a badly timed joke. The hope is we learn from these instances and grow. While these single negative behaviors may still harm the group, regular enactment of such behaviors would constitute a role, and playing that role is guaranteed to negatively impact the group. There are two types of negative roles: self-centered and unproductive roles.

Self-Centered Roles

All self-centered roles divert attention from the task to the group member exhibiting the behavior, though they do it in different ways and for different reasons. Self-centered roles include the central negative, monopolizer, self-confessor, insecure compliment seeker, and joker (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

Central Negative

The central negative often emerges as a result of a leadership challenge during group formation. Feelings of resentment can emerge leading to negative behaviors such as arguing against most of the ideas and proposals discussed in the group; delaying, diverting, or blocking the group’s progress toward achieving its goals. Group communication scholars suggest to actively incorporate central negatives into group tasks and responsibilities to make them feel valued and to help diminish any residual anger, disappointment, or hurt feelings from the leadership conflict (Bormann & Bormann, 1988).

Monopolizer

The monopolizer makes excessive contributions, preventing equal participation and failing to follow norms for conversational turn-taking (note: these are Western norms). These contributions are more likely to be labeled as monopolizing when they are not related to the task or when they provide unnecessary or redundant elaboration. Some monopolizers feel they are making a genuine contribution to the group but have missed the nonverbal cues suggesting otherwise, other monopolizers enjoy sharing and ignore what other’s think, and some (known as dilettante, or an amateur who tries to pass themselves off as an expert) speak to try to make up for a lack of knowledge or experience.

Two sub-groups of behaviors that fall under the monopolizer’s role are the “stage hog”, who engages in one-upping and narcissistic listening and the “egghead”, who excessively shares knowledge related to the project at a level of understanding above the needs of the group. You might have a stage hog in your group if a team member listens to find connections back to themselves rather than understanding the message, then seeks to “out-do” others such as saying, “You think that’s bad? Listen to what happened to me!” Two sorts of eggheads include the absent-minded professor style who believes team members care as much about the subject as they do and lack the social sensitivity to notice when they’ve said enough or are starting to annoy team members, or the pompous egghead who enjoys flaunting their intellectual superiority. Both can hurt the group’s potential for synergy, since group members may defer to the egg head expert, diminishing the creativity that comes from outside and non-expert perspectives.

Self-Confessor

The self-confessor makes personal self-disclosures during group meetings that are unnecessarily intimate and not related to group tasks. While it is reasonable for individuals experiencing personal problems to consult their group, especially if they’ve formed close relationships with teammates, consistently bringing drama or personal problems to meetings is likely to build frustration among other group members, leading to interpersonal conflict and a lack of cohesion and productivity. Most groups develop a norm regarding how much personal information is discussed during group meetings, and some limit such disclosures to the time before or after the meeting, which may help deter the self-confessor.

Insecure Compliment Seeker

The insecure compliment seeker wants to know they are valued by the group and seeks recognition that is often not task related. For example, they don’t want to be told they did a good job compiling a report; they want to know that they’re a good person or attractive or smart—even though they might not be any of those things. They may also overcompensate for insecurity through excessive behaviors aimed at eliciting compliments. For example, if a group member wears a tight-fitting t-shirt in hopes of drawing attention to their physique but doesn’t receive any compliments, they may say, “My girlfriend said she could tell I’ve been working out. What do you think?”

Joker

The joker is an incompetent tension releaser who consistently uses sarcasm, plays pranks, or tells jokes, distracting from the overall functioning of the group. Often seen as the “class clown” the joker usually seeks attention and approval because of an underlying insecurity. A group’s leader may have to intervene and privately meet with the person to prevent a toxic or unsafe climate from forming. A joker may have to be expelled from the group if their behavior is violent, offensive, illegal, or otherwise unethical.

Unproductive Roles

Some negative roles don’t explicitly divert attention away from group tasks. Instead, these unproductive roles make it more difficult for the group to progress. These negative roles include the blocker, withdrawer, aggressor, and doormat.

Blocker

A blocker intentionally or unintentionally keeps things from getting done. Intentionally, a person may suggest further exploration of options before making a final decision, cite a procedural rule, or suggest that input be sought from additional people with the intention to delay progress, even though the group has already thoroughly considered the matter. Unintentionally, a person can become a blocker by missing a meeting or not getting their work done on time. People can also block progress by playing the ‘airhead’ role, skirting their responsibilities by claiming ignorance when they actually understand or intentionally performing poorly so other group members question their ability to handle additional tasks (Cragan & Wright, 1999). Since exhibiting airhead behaviors gets a person out of performing tasks, they can also be a tactic of a social loafer, which we will discuss next.

Social Loafer

A social loafer, also known as a withdrawer, mentally and/or physically removes themselves from group activities and only participates when forced to. When groups exceed five members, the likelihood of having a member exhibit social loafing behaviors increases. For example, a member may attend meetings and seemingly pay attention but not contribute to discussions nor volunteer to take on tasks, instead waiting on other members to volunteer first. A member may avoid eye contact, focus on their technology, task-switch, sit apart from the group, or orient their body away from the group with the intention of avoiding participation. Intention is key here! Be sure your team is engaging in inclusive communication practices as discussed in the first two chapters.

Adopting a team model that requires equal participation, building social cohesion early, and choosing a meeting space and seating arrangement that encourages interactivity can help minimize withdrawing behaviors.

Aggressor

An aggressor exhibits negative behaviors such as putting others’ ideas down, attacking others personally when they feel confronted or insecure, competing unnecessarily to “win” at the expense of others within the group, and being outspoken to the point of distraction. It is important to note the difference between being assertive and being an aggressor, and this may vary across different cultures. For example, in most Western cultures, a person vigorously defending a position that is relevant and valid (assertive) is different from a person who claims others’ ideas are stupid but has nothing to contribute (aggressor). Establishing group rules that set up a safe climate for discussion and include mechanisms for temporarily or permanently removing a group member who violates that safe space may proactively prevent such behaviors.

Doormat

While compromise is essential in building strong teams, the doormat is chronically submissive to the point that it hurts the group’s progress (Cragan & Wright, 1999). Doormat behaviors include quickly giving in when challenged, self-criticism, and claims of inadequacy. Some people who exhibit doormat behaviors may have difficulty being self-assured and assertive and may be conflict-avoidant. Other doormats may play the martyr and make sure to publicly note their “sacrifices” for the group, hoping to elicit praise or attention. If their sacrifices aren’t recognized, they may engage in further negative behaviors such as whining and/or insecure compliment seeking.

Key Takeaways & Summary

Now that you’ve read the chapter, write a summative conclusion with your key takeaways below. What information do you want to remember? How does it all tie together, and why does this information matter? You will thank yourself when it’s time for the exam.

Authors & Attribution

The content in this chapter was remixed, adapted and/or authored by Seroka, L. (2025) from:

• Chapter 8: Teams in the Workplace, found within Organizational Communication – Theory, Research, and Practice by Anonymous on LibreTexts licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license
• Chapter 2: Understanding Group Formation and Chapter 3: Identifying Group Roles, found within Small Group Communication by Jasmine R. Linabary (2020) licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Houghton Mifflin.

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49.

Bond, C. F., Atoum, A. O., & VanLeeuwen, M. D. (1996). Social impairment of complex learning in the wake of public embarrassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 31–44.

Bormann, E. G., & Bormann, N. C. (1998). Effective Small Group Communication (4th ed.). Burgess Intl Group.

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1991). Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach (3rd ed.) West Publishing.

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60–67.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.

George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191–202.

Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 436–455.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 56–85). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1011–1025.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.

Littlepage, G. E. (1991). Effects of group size and task characteristics on group performance: A test of Steiner’s model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 449–456.

Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2005). A study of grouphate in a course on small group communication. Psychological Reports, 97(2), 381-386.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.

Mullen, B., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 213–229.

Neu, W. A. (2012). Unintended cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of group assignments. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 67–81.

Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 248–265.

Pavitt, C.. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. Sage.

Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 39–79). Routledge.

Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Institute for Social Research.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L.W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall

Tindale, R. S., Stawiski, S., & Jacobs, E. (2008). Shared cognition and group learning. In V. I. Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 73–90). Taylor & Francis Group.

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

Weimer, M. (2008, July 1). Why students hate groups. The Teaching Professor. Retrieved from  http://www.teachingprofessor.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/why-students-hate-groups.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.