Self-Organization in Small Groups: A Study of Group Effectiveness Within Non-Equilibrium Conditions

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.

[1]  Charles Smith,et al.  Transformation and regeneration in social systems: A dissipative structure perspective , 1986 .

[2]  C. Gersick,et al.  Habitual routines in task-performing groups. , 1990, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[3]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .

[4]  C. Schriesheim,et al.  Exploring Individual and Organizational Boundaries: A Tavistock Open Systems Approach , 1979 .

[5]  Richard Leifer,et al.  Understanding Organizational Transformation Using a Dissipative Structure Model , 1989 .

[6]  Donald O. Walter,et al.  Self-Organizing Systems , 1987, Life Science Monographs.

[7]  D. Bohm,et al.  Wholeness and the Implicate Order , 1981 .

[8]  New concepts in the evolution of complexity , 1974 .

[9]  Robert T. Golembiewski,et al.  Measuring Change and Persistence in Human Affairs: Types of Change Generated by OD Designs , 1976 .

[10]  Howard H. Greenbaum,et al.  Evaluation of Problem-Solving Groups , 1988 .

[11]  P. Nystrom,et al.  Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization , 1976 .

[12]  D. Loye,et al.  Chaos and transformation: implications of nonequilibrium theory for social science and society. , 1987, Behavioral science.

[13]  P. Slater,et al.  Microcosm: Structural, Psychological and Religious Evolution in Groups. , 1966 .

[14]  W. Bion Experiences in groups and other papers , 1963 .

[15]  G. Kreweras Creating the corporate future: Russell L. ACKOFF Wiley, New York, 1981, xi + 297 pages, £10.85 , 1982 .

[16]  Charles Smith,et al.  Change in the Small Group: A Dissipative Structure Perspective , 1991 .

[17]  Peter B. Vaill,et al.  Managing as a Performing Art: New Ideas for a World of Chaotic Change , 1989 .

[18]  C. Gersick REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE THEORIES: A MULTILEVEL EXPLORATION OF THE PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM PARADIGM , 1991 .

[19]  K. Lewin Frontiers in Group Dynamics , 1947 .

[20]  H. Haken Synergetics: an Introduction, Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self-organization in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology , 1977 .

[21]  W. Ashby Design for a Brain , 1954 .

[22]  E. Shostrom An Inventory for the Measurement of Self-Actualization , 1964 .

[23]  Erich Jantsch,et al.  The self-organizing universe , 1980 .