Decision Making
Communication and the Group Process
Second Edition
This book was set in Times Roman by Black Dot, Inc. (ECU). The editors were
Richard R. Wright and Susan Gamer; the cover was designed by Saiki & Sprung
Design; the production supervisor was Diane Renda.
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company was printer and binder.
166
CHAPTER 6
[ . . . ]
ROLES
167
must not conform too closely to this analogy _if we are to capture the
richer meaning of the social role. The stage actor does create a role but is
limited by the playwright's lines and the foreknowledge of the play's
conclusion. The actor must also divorce the self, to a large extent, from
the character portrayed. One's social role, on the other hand, is a direct
reflection of one's self, and the specific behaviors that constitute the
social role are much more spontaneous. And, of course, one cannot
rehearse most of these behaviors beforehand.
Roles Defined
The sociologist Erving Goffman (1961, p. 87) refers to role as "the basic
unit of socialization." As each individual member of any social system (a
group, a culture, a society, etc.) identifies with and becomes identified
with that system, the member assumes a role in that system. Goffman
suggests, "It is through roles that tasks in society are allocated and
arrangements made to enforce their performance." Role, for our purposes, may be defined as a position in an interlocking network of roles which
make up the group. But to define role solely in terms of "position,"
relative to the "positions" of other members of a group, is to fail to
comprehend fully how members function in their performance of roles
and, ultimately, how the group functions as a decision-making system.
Hare (1976, p. 131) defines role as the "set of expectations which
group members share concerning the behavior of a person who occupies a
given position in the group." According to Hare, then, the role involves
the behaviors performed by one member in light of the expectations
which other members hold toward those behaviors. Hare's definition also
includes, to some extent, the tendencies to behave which emanate from
the person's own personality, but which may or may not be expressed in
actual role behaviors.
Considering role in terms of the expectations of other members, we
can understand that the behavior of each individual member can be either
consistent with the member's role or inconsistent with it. In other words,
if the behavior of the member is similar to what other members expect,
that behavior can be considered to be role behavior. Surely you know
certain persons who create within you certain expectations that they will
behave in a specific way. But if one of those persons were to do
something which you didn't expect, you would probably describe such
behavior as being "out of character." In other words, the behavior was
not consistent with your expectations of that person's role.
To think of role solely in terms of "position" in a group network of
roles is to provide only a partial picture of a group's social structure.
Often a group which is subject to external pressures (e.g., a group within a
larger organization) is also subject to a network of roles (within the larger
168
CHAPTER 6
169
170
CHAPTER 6
more easily identified. The identity of each member's role becomes more
apparent to the group, and each member is increasingly seen as different
from the other group members. Often the group's expectations and the
role networks develop without the individual members' being aware of
the role each is performing in the group. Nor are they necessarily aware
of the expectations which other members have of them while the process
of role emergence is taking place.
One member of a classroom decision-making group was informed by
her fellow group members that they believed her role to be that of
"blocker." She responded in her report of the group meeting, "I was
considered a blocker. I can't figure out why." Her role behaviors during
past group meetings, even though she was apparently unaware of them,
were consistently critical of the group's directions and its potential
decisions. She consistently characterized the progress made during
previous meetings as "Not much." Hence, the role consists not only of
the behaviors performed by each individual, but of those behaviors in
conjunction with other group members' behaviors and expectations.
After the fact, then, the members are able to discern the behaviors that
are "typical" (that is, consistent with the role) and come to expect them.
Each member's role "belongs" less to the individual member than to
the group as a whole. Each person's role i: a product of the entire group
interaction-the combination of the behaviors performed by the individual member and the behaviors performed by other members. The result of
such group interaction is that the group as a whole works out the role,
both in terms of behaviors and expectations, of each individual member.
A specific person's unique personality may affect his or her behavioral
contributions to the group interaction. But this effect is limited.
One member of a classroom group, in her diary of group meetings,
wrote the following about her own role: "It is really nice to know that
I have a role now, so that I can play it. Everyone says that I am a
supporter and harmonizer .... I really enjoy my group, and this has
really helped me to understand people in groups. Before, I have been so
scared of interacting. This class [group] has helped me come out of my
shell more than usual." While a person's private tendencies will affect
behavior to some extent, every person's behavior in a group is more the
product of the group interaction, taken as a whole, than it is a product of
the person's own tendency to behave in a certain way.
Each individual member develops that pattern of behaviors which
constitutes his or her role in conjunction with fellow group members.
Thus, the role-the behavior pattern-that a person develops in one
group may be quite different from that same person's role in another
group. A role, then, is not wholly determined by someone's innate
personality traits. The human being does not carry a role from one group
171
to another. A role is more like a suit of clothes which is put on or taken off
to suit the occasion. The group's demands on the individual member's
behaviors change because the group itself changes.
Role Performance
172
CHAPTER 6
173
These students, although not typical of most group members, discovered that the group's expectations of their role performances were not
consistent with their own perceived capabilities and self-concepts. Therefore, they experienced some role conflict between their own selfperceptions ahd their group's expectations of their role performance.
One student in a classroom group apparently experienced a similar
feeling. She was the member delegated by her group to confront another
frequently absent member with the group's ultimatum: "Put up or shut
up." She wrote in her diary of her reaction to the group's decision to
appoint her as the confronter. She considered herself a friendly and
amiable person-one who was unable to perform such an aggressive task.
Nevertheless, she did just that during the next group meeting. Her diary,
written at the conclusion of that meeting, included the following comment: "I felt that my role [as confronter] in the group meeting had a
stifling effect on me, but I felt that we accomplished a lot." Her successful
performance, then, evidently compensated for her internal struggle with
the role .
.A more likely and perhaps more typical strategy of a person who is
placed in an incongruent role is to modify perceptions of that role. Such a
strategy may result in perceiving the role as something it is not or in
percetvmg the self in a different rol~. Another classroom group may
provide a classic example of role-self perceptions that were quite
unrealistiC and quite inaccurate in terms of the individual member's
perception of his role in the group. Bob, as I shall call him, perceived
himself as a natural leader and certainly the leader of his classroom group.
After one meeting he wrote his personal reactions to that meeting in his
diary (a class requirement): "I sort of felt insecure in my role as leader. I
let John take it mostly, and he finally came to terms with the task and
analyzed it well. However, everyone was unanimous in their support of
me, so I guess they feel good about me as leader."
John's reactions to that same meeting appeared in his diary: "I do not
object to Bob's trying to control every meeting. But if he slips or does
something I do not agree with, I jump in and take control." Another
member, after that same group meeting, wrote, "Bob tried to dictate to us
again today, but I thought John handled him very well, under the
circumstances." A meeting two weeks later brought the following comments from two other group members. One member wrote, "The meeting
was short, but we accomplished everything we needed. I guess I'm feeling
a little less annoyed with Bob." The other member wrote, "I was
especially pleased with this meeting because Bob and I did not conflict as
we did in the past. Perhaps this is due to two factors. First, he realized my
right to have an opinion and respected my opinions more. Second, though,
I might have been too tired to assert myself." Bob's reaction to that same
174
CHAPTER 6
175
starting member of the football team, an officer in his fraternity, handsome, and loaded with personal charm. It was impossible to dislike Steve.
Everyone liked him from the first meeting, including his fellow
classroom-group members. Steve was used to being a leader and seemed
to have the knack of exerting the forcefulness of his personality on
whomever he came in contact with. But as the pressure of time to
complete their task impinged upon the group members, they became
increasingly disenchanted with Steve's role behaviors. He discovered that
his personality and charm were insufficient to meet the demands of task
accomplishment. Bewildered by the social ostracism from his fellow
group members and frustrated because his contributions were consistently rejected or ignored, he uncharacteristically remained silent and became
a habitual absentee. For Steve, the experience of being in that group was
obviously socially painful.
Role conflict can certainly occur, as it apparently did in Steve's case.
Generally, hovever, a person is able to keep the role in one group quite
distinct from that in another group. At a commonsense level, your
behavior at home with your family group is different from your behavior
with a gtoup of your close friends. And both behavior patterns are
different from your behavior in a classroom. You behave differently at a
football game an(j a fancy restaurant. If role strain or role conflict does
occur, the LGD (leaderless group discussion) irons out the problems with
a minimum of difficulty. Implicitly, and often without consciously doing
so, we make changes in our role patterns and performances as we move
from group to group. And we do so as easily as we change shirts. This is
the nature of social roles.
Baird and Weinberg (1977, pp. 164-168) summarize three different
types of role conflict: "intrarole conflict, where someone experiences
conflict while playing a single role; interrole conflict, where one person is
-simultaneously required to play two different roles; and interpersonal role
conflict, where two or more individuals compete for the same role." The
problems of role conflict, particularly those of intrarole 2nd interrole
conflict, are most pronounced in the network of formal role positions
imposed by external sources dn a group. The informal network of roles,
developed by a group in its capacity as an LGD, typically avoids the
intense role conflicts. The individual person and the group are able to
devise their own role network and expectations in a form that is
comfortable for most group members. In other words, role conflict is
rarely a problem, except in the structure of formal roles. Any problems of
role conflict that are evident in the formal structure are often ameliorated
in the informal role structure worked out by the group members during
the process of group development.
The problem of interpersonal role conflict, in which two or more
persons attempt to perform the same role, is more evident in the
176
CHAPTER 6
177
Individual roles
Aggressor
Blocker
Recognition seeker
Self-confessor
Playboy
Dominator
Help seeker
Special interest pleader
This list of roles, formulated by Benne and Sheats, certainly does not
exhaust the list of all possible roles that can occur in groups performing
178
CHAPTER 6
179
180
CHAPTER 6
. . .