|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Self-Organization in Small Groups: A Study of Group Effectiveness Within Non-Equilibrium Conditions
Charles Smith
Debra Comer
Department of Management, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York 11550.
Dissipative self-organization, a theoretical framework with roots in physics and biochemistry, has often been proposed as having relevance to change in social systems. Specifically, the processes and design features associated with dissipative self-organization have been used to describe the dynamics of social groups and organizations, especially in cases where highly turbulent and/or near-chaos conditions are present. A study assessing the usefulness of the self-organization paradigm as applied to the small group is described herein. The study took place within the context of a Tavistock-like group intervention, wherein the necessary condition for self-organization, a situation of turbulence, was induced within experimental groups. Based upon an approach suggested by Ackoff (1981), the general self-organization model served as a hypothetical idealized design of a self-organizing task group. A quasi-experimental design provided a test of whether the presence of self-organizing characteristics made any difference in group effectiveness among experimental groups and in a comparison condition where turbulence was not induced. The study provided preliminary support for the usefulness of the paradigm in understanding small group dynamics within the turbulent or non-equilibrium conditions. Specifically, task effectiveness within the experimental condition was found to correlate significantly with the degree to which groups developed the properties or design features specified by the self-organization paradigm. Consistent with the model, fewer significant relationships were found within the comparison condition between effectiveness and the presence of self-organization design features.
Key Words: self-organization • group effectiveness • group dynamics • social system change
Human Relations, Vol. 47, No. 5,
553-581 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/001872679404700505
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
C. Campbell-Hunt
Complexity in practice
Human Relations,
May 1, 2007;
60(5):
793 - 823.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. M. B. LICHTENSTEIN
Valid or Vacuous?: A Definition and Assessment of New Paradigm Research in Management
American Behavioral Scientist,
May 1, 2000;
43(8):
1334 - 1366.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. M. B. Lichtenstein
Generative Knowledge and Self-Organized Learning: Reflecting on Don Schon's Research
Journal of Management Inquiry,
March 1, 2000;
9(1):
47 - 54.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. W. Langfred
Work-Group Design and Autonomy: A Field Study of the Interaction Between Task Interdependence and Group Autonomy
Small Group Research,
February 1, 2000;
31(1):
54 - 70.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Morel and R. Ramanujam
Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: The Dynamics of Organizations as Adaptive and Evolving Systems
Organization Science,
May 1, 1999;
10(3):
278 - 293.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. M. Mathews, M. C. White, and R. G. Long
Why Study the Complexity Sciences in the Social Sciences?
Human Relations,
April 1, 1999;
52(4):
439 - 462.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Yan and M. R. Louis
The Migration of Organizational Functions to the Work Unit Level: Buffering, Spanning, and Bringing Up Boundaries
Human Relations,
January 1, 1999;
52(1):
25 - 47.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Johnson and B. K. Burton
Chaos and Complexity Theory for Management: Caveat Emptor
Journal of Management Inquiry,
December 1, 1994;
3(4):
320 - 328.
[Abstract]
|
|
|
|
|
