OPENING THE BLACKBOX OF GROUP DYNAMICS:
THE PARTICIPATION/REIFICATION DUALITY AS GENERATIVE MECHANISM
Stéphanie Dameron [email protected] Emmanuel Josserand [email protected] CREPA-DRM Université Paris-Dauphine Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny
75775 Paris cedex 16 Phone: 33 1 44 05 43 54
Abstract
This study proposes exploring the generative mechanisms at play behind group dynamics by offering a longitudinal analysis of the development of a self-organized group composed of city dentists. By adopting a longitudinal perspective we shed light on the relational and organizational mechanisms which explain how the group evolves over time. To do so, we use the participation/reification framework introduced by Wenger (1998) so as to integrate the necessary connection between the two streams of group dynamics: the development stream and the problem solving stream. Data were collected through a two-year participant observation, with two sets of interviews, social network analysis and document analysis. The results show that groups have to balance over time three dimensions: the identity, the affective and the instrumental. These three dimensions are characterized by specific participation/reification combinations connected with the organizational characteristics of the group.
The question of the existence of predictable developmental stages in groups is an enduring one (Gersick, 1988, 1989; Lim & Murningham, 1994; Seers & Woodruff, 1997; Chan, Bordia & Duck, 2003). One explanation of the controversy lies on the distinction between the development stream and the problem solving stream (Seers & Woodruff, 1997; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). On the one hand, the development stream studies the dynamics of the group as a social system, focusing on the pattern of interpersonal relationships, on the way individuals participate in the group and socialize. It elaborates models of sequential development (e.g., Heinen & Jacobson, 1977; Wanous, Reichers & Malik, 1984; Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan, 1994). On the other hand, the problem solving stream is interested in the finding of solutions to a single problem (Seers & Woodruff, 1997); the content of interactions is referred to as task activity (e.g., Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951; Gersick, 1988, 1989; Labianca, Moon & Watt, 2005; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). Since Seeger’s (1983) work and especially Gersick’s (1988, 1989) “punctuated equilibrium” model, researches on task progression in groups have given up the traditional Bales and Strodtbeck’s (1951) sequential phase model to focus on time pacing (e.g., Gersick, 1988, 1989; Labianca, Moon & Watt, 2005; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). The main conclusion of this second stream is that, instead of gradually developing over time, task groups progress through an alternation of stasis and sudden change with midpoint transitions.
We position our research at the very crossroad of these two streams, this is where new insights can be gained in going beyond three important shortcomings of existing literature. First, the interpersonal and task aspects of group development seem to be interconnected (Chang, Bordia & Duck, 2003). Even if some research take into account the two faces of group dynamics in a complementary way (e.g., Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan, 1994), they are still studied disconnectedly, and 'models of the complex processes that integrate social structure with task activity, especially task pacing, are needed' (Seers & Woodruff, 1997:186). We
argue that one should deal not with the dichotomy but with the duality of task activities and interpersonal relationships to understand the dynamic underlying the group development. This is what guided our choice of theoretical lens.
Second, because of the time cost of a longitudinal research and the difficulty to observe 'real groups' in real conditions, most of the research on group dynamics is heuristic (e.g., Heinen & Jacobson, 1977; Seeger, 1983; Tuckman, 1965). When empirical studies are conducted, data are drawn from experimental groups, which last only a few hours (Bales, 1951; Gersick, 1989), sometimes from secondary sources (Chang, Bordia & Duck, 2003) or at best from groups of students artificially gathered for a few weeks (Gersick, 1988; Seers & Woodruff, 1997; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). The lack of grounded research on group dynamics impedes the renewal of our understanding of the dynamic underlying the development of groups. We accordingly decided to draw the data from the observation of the development of a non-experimental group.
Third, both streams, view group dynamics in a deterministic way – e.g., a recurring phase model with midpoint transitions for Gersick (1988, 1989), four or five developmental stages for Tuckman (1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). The assumption that all group dynamics can be predetermined by a phase model discourages new research (Seeger, 1983). More than trying to catch a developmental stage model, we are looking for the generative mechanisms (Tsoukas, 1989) underlying group dynamics. As defined by Tsoukas (1989:552), generative mechanisms mean 'causal powers at work independent of the events they generate'. Those causal mechanisms may be either active or dormant for a while, they can also be counteracted by opposing mechanisms and lead to no events (Tsoukas, 1989:553). Notably, the type of group is one criterion of contingency, and until then research on group dynamics tries to generalize their determinist models to all types of groups (e.g., Gersick, 1991; Tuckman,
1965). In accordance with Tsoukas (1989) perspective on management research, we argue that generative mechanisms can be generalized, not a pattern of events.
Our objective in this article is to explore the generative mechanisms at play behind group dynamics by offering a longitudinal analysis of the development of a self-organized group composed of city dentists. By adopting a longitudinal perspective we will shed light on the relational and organizational mechanisms, which explain how the group evolves over time. To do so, we use the participation/reification framework introduced by Wenger (1998) so as to integrate the necessary connection between the group development stream and the problem solving stream. Data were collected through a two-year participant observation, with two sets of interviews, social network analysis and document analysis. The results show that groups have to balance over time three dimensions: the identity, the affective and the instrumental. These three dimensions are characterized by specific participation/reification combinations connected with the organizational characteristics of the group.
OUR THEORETICAL LENS: THE PARTICIPATION/REIFICATION DUALITY Wenger (1998) provides in his study of communities of practice an adequate theoretical lens to renew our understanding of the generative mechanisms underlying groups’development. His framework is based on the idea that the participation/reification duality is the foundation of the negotiation of meaning within communities. We argue that this is a very useful way to study group dynamics by integrating task progress and inter-individual relationships.
Negotiation of meaning can be understood as the permanent process by which members negotiate the meaning of their common activity. This continuous interaction historically and contextually grounded gradually leads to the development of the group identity; but it is also the source of – and is highly dependent on – the concrete productions of the group and thus indissociable from the task(s). The participation/reification duality is core to this emergence
(Wenger, 1998) and both terms are connected to relationship and task aspects of the group development.
In this process, participation corresponds to the identifiable commitment of individuals into the group. It includes action and connection and is thus a direct determinant of the achievement of the task(s) by the members who are doing together. Participation is social by nature, it shows the involvement of members within the community, even in actions that are not synchronically associated with a social interaction. It is deeply linked to identity: 'a defining characteristic of participation is the possibility of developing an "identity of participation", that is, an identity constituted through relations of participation.' (Wenger, 1998:56). Analyzing participation as the manifestation of involvement in the group will imply tracking actions and interactions characterizing this involvement but also understanding how members live their participation and develop their identity of participation.
Reification is both a process and the result of a process, by which community members give sense to their experience 'by producing objects that congeal this experience into "thingness".' (Wenger, 1998:58). Reification is thus both connected to the construction of objects and the projection of meaning that result in the 'excessive concreteness' (Wenger, 1998:59) that emerges when: ‘We project our meanings into the world and then we perceive them as existing in the world, as having a reality.’ (Wenger, 1998:58). Reifications refer to the use of tangible elements produced by the community – and thus closely related to the task – that can serve as 'proof' of the existence of this community – and are thus contributing to identity building and consolidating the relationships between members. Reifications cover a wide range of elements, they can be, for instance objects, concepts or even rituals. These focal points are necessary in order to reinforce the confidence of the community on the solidity and consistence of its existence, it thus plays a major role in consolidating and focusing participation.
The negotiation of meaning thus appears as a permanent process in which the participation/reification duality is at play in a self-reinforcing loop. Because both terms of the duality transcend the task/relationship dichotomy, it constitutes a promising theoretical lens in order to observe group dynamics and reveal underlying generative mechanisms.
METHOD
The purpose of this research was not to test a predetermined developmental stage model but to explore the generative mechanisms underlying group dynamic. Our stance is interpretativist and relies on in-depth qualitative methodology to generate a theoretical framework; this corresponds to the exploratory nature of the research question and to our research objective, understanding generative mechanisms. Indeed, “Interpretive researchers seek to describe and understand members’ meanings and the implications that divergent meanings hold for social interaction” (Gephart, 2004). Interpretative research allows to “inductively construct social science concepts using concepts of social actors as the foundations for analytic induction” (Gephart, 2004). By using and comparing different stories of the development of a group, we built a rich account on which we draw in order to gain theoretical insight on the generative mechanisms of group development. Thus the longitudinal case study method, which involves thick descriptions of verbal and non verbal actions in specific setting, appeared appropriate to gain an in-depth understanding of the generative mechanisms at work. This led us to carry out the two-year participant observation of Dencom.
DenCom
At the end of 2001 a group of city dentists contacted us to follow their attempt to constitute a ‘network’. Francois, the very energetic leader of the group convinced us to become the assessment agency reporting to the national health insurance body on the progress of the 'network'. It was for us a unique opportunity, to follow from the beginning the development of a group and to analyze its progress and difficulties. Rather than putting the accent on our role
as evaluating the 'network', we positioned ourselves as academic observers trying to understand its dynamics, this induced a positive attitude from participants.
The creation of DenCom originated in a former association of dental surgeon in the 15th district of Paris. In parallel, three members of the association, including Francois, created a commercial website, allowing a direct management of patients' information, a dialogue with the patients and online follow up: DenWeb. When the association started to be perceived as lacking a real capacity for action, the co-founders of DenWeb, together with five other members, split-up and created DenCom. Their objective was to develop common practices so as to minimize and eventually mutualize their risks. At this stage, they negotiate the funding of the 'network' with the national health insurance body. 41 dentists are subsequently recruited by the steering committee to join the 'network'. The first meeting was held in September 2001 and this is when we started the observation.
Data Collection
Two-year participant observation was necessary to gain an understanding of the developmental process of the group. Without observing and participating in Dencom activities, we could not reveal the generative mechanisms underlying the different manifestations of the participation/ reification duality. We attended four general assembly and 17 plenary sessions during which we took notes. We thus followed the evolution of the group as things were happening. Attending the meetings gave us the opportunity of informal interactions that helped us make more sense of our observations. All throughout the project, we also conducted informal interviews with the leader of the project. At least six of these interviews lasted more than two hours.
We also organized a first set of interviews with the members of the group during the first six months of the group's activity. At this stage, some dentists had already left the network and we thus completed interviews with a total of 28 members, including the 17 that will stay until
the end of observation. These interviews lasted at least 45 minutes and had an average duration of one and a half hours. We started by asking the interviewees how they became involved in the network. We then broached the following subjects: general background of the member, first impressions of the group, objectives in participating, their contribution to the network and relationships with other members.
At the end of the observation – i.e. when the group was stabilized and a medical experiment launched – we conducted a second set of interviews with 13 members of the group and seven people who had left. These interviews were more directive, lasting on average 45 minutes. Composed of a combination of closed and open questions, the interview guide focused on the evaluation of the network, especially its objectives, achievements and impact on members’ practices. We elaborated five drafts of this interview guide before reaching a consensus with the steering committee on the exact terms.
We integrated all the documents (contracts, charts, experiment protocol) and other artifacts (website, training videos) produced by the group. When the website was launched, we had access to the log-files which gave us some information on the involvement of each member. We also included a detailed written account of the group history by François.
In order to seize the evolution of the social structure of the network we decided to conduct sociometric surveys at the beginning of the observation and after each of three formal stages initially defined by the steering committee: November 2001, March 2002, September 2002 and July 2003. We used Scott’s (1991) distinction of seven different kinds of relationships as a starting point. These relationships are: information, influence, control, help, advice, trust and friendship. In order to reduce the number of questions for the respondents, we decided to address in one single question the help and advice network. We also decided to narrow the information network to the frequent contact network as used by Bovasso (1992). After a first test of the questionnaires and a debriefing with the steering committee, we delaminated the
control and influence questions, as they were irrelevant to the kind of relationships that took place within the network. We stopped the reformulation/testing process when all the remarks made by the respondents were addressed. Network data proved very insightful in order to assess the nature and scope of participation in terms of interactions.
Data Treatment
Data treatment first relied on the analysis of the first set of interviews. This led us to elaborate a first categorization of the data, which we used in order to operationalize participation and reification. According to interpretativist principles, our categorization was thus directly rooted in the history of the group as it was lived by its members. By feeding this first categorization with other data sources, we elaborated a dense account of the story of the group. This 59-page document was used in an iterative process that led us to reveal the generative mechanisms at play behind the group dynamic we were observing.
Initial interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using Nvivo software. A first open coding allows for the identification of recurring themes in the actors' discourse. Those categories were refined as we progressed in our coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Our objective was to gain a thorough understanding of the reasons for members' participation and of the importance and emergence of reified elements. Some of the final items thus concern more directly participation while others are more direct manifestations of reification (categories are listed on table 1). This coding allowed for the operationalization of the participation and reification concept. It was subsequently used to analyze the other data sources and to articulate the story of the group in terms of participation/reification. The final insights in terms of generative mechanisms of group dynamic are drawn from the story.
Sociometric questionnaires were used to assess the evolution of the structure of the group and thus to put individual participation into a broader perspective. We first computed general scores on the group network structure as a whole: average size of individual networks (i.e. the average number of members with which members are in contact) and density of the network (number of existing links / number of possible links). We also computed individual scores: size of individual networks, density of individual networks and individual betweenness. We finally compared the average scores of two groups: the practitioners who left the group and those who remained until the end of the observation period.
As regards the last set of interviews, closed and open questions were consolidated separately. Answers to closed questions were summarized into tables assessing the impact of the communities' concrete realizations on individual practices (see extracts on appendix 4). Answers to open questions allowed us to focus on major events, as members perceived them. The interviews being more directive, we consolidated directly the answers for each open ended question. The answers were then fed into the story of DentCom and helped us to enrich our understanding of members' meaning.
Our experience as observer-participants, notes taken during observation and secondary sources were essential in order to make sense of the development of the group. This helped us to consolidate other sources of evidence into a rich narration of the development of the group (Langley, 1999). This narration process was driven by a constant interrogation and examination of our data helping us to make sense of intricate sources of evidence and particularly dense data. We systematically confronted the various sources in order to isolate the successive phases in the evolution of the group. Each source of data was telling its own story, with a special focus on some of the transitions and key events of the group history. We consolidated these stories into a common three-phase account through which the expression of the participation/reification duality was systematically tracked. We produced a
fifty-nine-page document, a condensed version of which is presented above. Our model for opening the black box of group dynamics emerged from this process.
PARTICIPATION AND REIFICATION AT DENCOM
We identified three phases in the history of the group, a condensed narration of which is given below. Each phase is broken into two main sections on participation and reification followed by a preliminary discussion. Depending of the unfolding of the participation/reification in time, we chose either to present first the elements relating to participation (phase one and three) or those relating to reification (phase two).
Phase 1: Working Together, Building Social Links and Identity (Sept. 2001 – April 02) Phase 1 is that of the building up of the group identity based on pre-existing relationships. Participation. The first general meeting of DenCom is held in September 2001 with 41 dentists. Some of them are eager to change their world, other are here to see what exactly is going on. For many members, following a friend was an important driver and for some members the sole drive. Their participation is also concretely translated into financial terms: each participant must pay the first contribution of 3000 Euros for the first year.
Members vote on the topics the group should work on and then split-up in four subgroups that will be responsible for developing one topic each: two groups on gum disease (a topic for which the group had received a subsidy), one the treatment plan and one on the communication of DenCom. Two members of the core group of founders and a scientific expert are present in each group. François also assigned informally a member to facilitate each group. DenCom members meet formally once a month from October 2001. Each meeting starts by a plenary session and is then followed by work sessions in the four working groups. Thus each member, whatever group he/she belongs to, can interact with all the other participants. Plenary sessions present the current situation of DenCom and give regular updates on the work of the groups. Steering committee members and group facilitators meet
weekly. These meetings are focused on managing current affairs, preparing plenary sessions and capitalizing on the work of the groups. The steering committee also works the development of a first version of DenCom website.
During this period, meeting attendance, the first obvious determinant of participation, felt from 41 at the first meeting to approximately 25 members on the subsequent meetings. Membership was also reduced from 41 to 27. 7 of the 9 drop offs belonged to the gum disease groups. Nevertheless, this factor appears as only a catalyst and accelerator of departure. More broadly during the period, members that quit have a much lower social embeddedness: the average size of their networks is much lower than the average size of the "stayer's" networks for the four relationships tested (contact, friendship, trust and help/advice, see appendix 1). All members were recruited on the basis of former relationships: friends, university pals, colleagues or acquaintances. This resulted in a pre-existing social structure with strong friendship or advice links. This was important in bringing the members together and talking them into participating. The first phase is characterized by the consolidation of these networks. Average group member network sizes increase for contact, trust and advice despite the reduction of membership (graphs presenting the size and density of the network are displayed in appendix 2); the trust network especially, reaches a very high level within this relatively short period of time. Interestingly, the size of friendship networks decreased due to the departure of several members who had a large friendship network. This shows that, even though friendship was an important factor, it was not enough to maintain the members into DenCom. The overall density of the network increases dramatically during this period for the four relationships analyzed. This was thus an important phase in the network development in order to build participation on the development of social network.
Reification. The launch of DenCom was carefully orchestrated. The fact that the national health insurance subsidized the network was an important sign. Collective productions of the
four working groups were presented regularly in plenary sessions so as to demonstrate progress. The final presentations were done on March 2002 with the objective of launching an experimental protocol and a support website. The group working on the communication of a treatment plan produces a detailed guideline on the subject, a prototype of file and forms to follow the patient during the treatment. The group working on the communication of DenCom elaborates an identity chart, a graphical chart and a logo.
Things proved more difficult in the two other groups. One of the groups produced the guidelines on the training of patients on gum disease, the other developed a guide to help dentist to follow the patients' status and the first version of a medical questionnaire. Nevertheless, in both groups the debates with the experts and between members were difficult, while some members were not very concerned. No real consensus was reached on the assessment of patients' risks. One committee member ended up finalizing some of the guidelines based on the group work. The presentation of the gum disease guidelines raised a wide debate and was not well received.
During this period, the steering committee tries hard to consolidate the production of the various groups, integrating the remarks of the members. New artifacts are introduced. A new format is proposed for the monthly meeting and a weekly email is sent to all members. A mentoring system is also proposed in order to favor the exchange of best practices within the group. People who were particularly engaged in the working groups are distinguished by the steering committee. Hearts in crystal from a famous jewelry are offered to seven members of DenCom. An offer to tender is launched in order to develop DenCom website, a provider is chosen. An important contribution to reification is the presentation of a first draft of the website on 11 April 2002.
Preliminary discussion: the still water of identity building. This first phase of the development of DenCom has benefited from the reinforcement of pre-exiting social links. The
activity of the working groups maintains during this first phase an on-going process of participation while offering possibilities of reification. Meanwhile, the work on the experiment corresponds to the first difficulties in the reification/participation process.
Reification is an important aspect of the life of the group. Together with a participation grounded on the quality of the social structure, reification is carefully orchestrated at key stages by group leaders in order to favor the emergence of a common identity. This is essential in order to secure the personal involvement and participation of the members. The construction of a common identity builds on the pre-existing social structure, on the participation in group activities and on the production of concrete artifacts that can be considered as proof of the consistence of the development of the group.
As a result, members were able to describe common values and to identify the differences between DenCom and alternative collective actions undertaken by other groups (such as unions, activities at the hospital or training). At this stage, common values as described by members included: respect of the patient, innovation and quality. The atmosphere was also crucial and members insisted on the importance of friendly relations. The consensus reached around reifications and socially involving participation allowed for the elusion of dissention on the technical dimension of practices and on actual objectives of members.
Phase 2: Crisis, Distant Participation and De-reification (April 2002 – February 2003) In phase 2, the group loses some of its cohesiveness, the reification/participation dynamic is no more carrying its development. The period ends by a crisis.
Reification. Most of the new productions are realized by the steering committee. The committee tries to better structure the guidelines to create a protocol in order to allow for their implementation in the surgeries. The formalization of the process drags on with disagreement even among committee members. A first version is abandoned and the final version is voted
in February 2003. More positively, the committee pilots the realization of training video-clips in order to raise patients' awareness and to train them. The clips arouse members' interest. The experiment protocols and the training clips were both to be included in an Intranet/Internet meant to be a place of exchange between dentists and their patients and between the dentists and service providers. These tools were supposed to be available from September 2002 in a test phase; they will be in fact implemented only in April 2003.
A governance issue also affected two other concrete foundations of DenCom. Upon learning about a connection between DenCom and DenWeb (the commercial website launched by the founders of the group), the funding body decides to freeze the funds until the situation is clarified. This puts a serious and concrete threat on the financial survival of the network, but it also damages two pillars of the reality of the group: its leader and the reassurance drawn from the involvement of the health insurance body. The president, treasurer and general secretary have to resign at the end of this period.
The reification process is blocked or even going backwards. This phase is characterized by a destruction of reified material, one could even talk of de-reification.
Participation. This major shift in the reification process goes with a strong change in the logics of DenCom participation. This phase is characterized by a shift from direct to indirect participation. Members are invited to meetings were they are informed of the developments and delays of the network but they are not involved actively in the actual developments. Enthusiasm and commitment are low; this is translated for instance in the failure of a recruiting campaign launched in April 2002. Each member was meant to recruit one or two new members and none was recruited. After the protocols have been finally stabilized, they are not implemented in the surgeries. Members quote their lack of time or even of interest and the difficulties to reorganize their practices. One committee member who has different precise guidelines in his surgery even questions the treatment presentation guideline.
Expectations of participation are thus lowered. The call for membership fees is delayed until November 2002. At this stage the diversity of members' objectives starts to resurface as the initial enthusiasm wanes. These objectives are in fact very diverse, we could distinguish five broad categories: defense of the profession, standardization of practices, reinvention of the philosophy of the trade, sharing of practices and improving the surgery management. These objectives are far from being completely covered by the activities of DenCom and members find it hard to understand the delays in the implementation. They also start to put into perspective the fact that implementing the group protocol might answer some of their objectives but would also imply a vast reorganization of their practices, a risk many are not willing to take. The lack of involvement results in seven resignations after the general meeting of November 2002. The decision of not asking for the November fee is taken so as not to provoke other resignations. From now on, if DenCom still counts 24 members, the attendance to meetings averages ten persons.
The difficulties of the group are manifested in its relational structure. The average size of individual network is reduced (Appendix 2). The reduction of the overall group size can be an explanation but a reduction of participation is another possible cause. The only relationship for which the average size of individual networks is increasing is the friendship one, building up on the quality of the links established during the first phase. Still, all networks become denser, which means a further consolidation of the structure; nevertheless this evolution is much less significant as that of the first period (Appendix 2). Structural embeddedness appears as an important discriminating factor between the stayers and the ones who leave: the average size of network is much higher in the stayers’ group (Appendix 1).
Preliminary discussion: from action/identity euphoria to rational disillusion. Both reification and participation processes were deeply affected during the second phase of the group development. De-reification dominated while participation became less involving. In
this context, the friendship relationships, even though they are strengthening, are not sufficient to hold the group together. This was even more so as the divergence in the objectives of members resurfaces. In fact the profound motivation for participating in the group had never been discussed or exposed. Confronted by a situation where the reification/participation dynamics are blocked, the members question the objectives of the network and fall from some form of action/identity euphoria into rational disillusion.
This situation creates an electroshock, which entails a reorganization of the network. Phase 3: On the Road Again (February 2003 - January 2004)
A complete reorganization will put the network back on track.
Participation. After the necessary changes are made to the steering committee, new members are brought on stage. New modalities of participation are fixed. Especially, a fair compensation for the preventive procedures was obtained from national health insurance. The stakes of the network and thus the modalities of participation tend to change; the important point is no longer to attend meetings systematically but rather to recruit patients in order to launch the experiment. If 24 dentists are still registered, attendance at meeting falls dramatically and fluctuates, between 6 to 12 participants. In fact, as financial participation is not required anymore, membership and participation are now less directly connected and the perimeter of the group is somehow blurred. By consolidating several indicators of participation, we obtained a nucleus of 17 active members, that is to say members who have contributed to at least one of the group activities between July 2003 and January 2004.
In order to better understand the evolution of this group of 17 stayers, we isolated a network composed only of these individuals; we calculated for each period on this sub-network: the density of the network, the average size of individual networks and the average density of individual networks (Appendix 3). Trust and friendship networks’ size tend to fall as contact and advice networks progress. This can be interpreted as a shift in participation
from affective towards efficiency in changing practices, and pursuing the experiment. This is confirmed by the density curves. The overall density of the survivors' network decreases, except for the contact network. Also, the average individual density falls for the trust and friendship network but raises for both the advice and contact network. This confirms the idea of a participation anchored in the evolution of practices where practitioners who have learned to know each another exchange directly and no longer only through the formal meetings. This phase is that of a real modification of the practices within the participants’ surgery. As they really start the experiment, they must integrate the prevention protocols in their treatment plans and mostly stimulate the enrolment of patients in the experiment. The interviews realized at this stage (Appendix 4) shows a real impact on the practices of the members. Each of them considers that there was a positive impact on practices in at least one of the following field: surgery management, relationships with other practitioners, relationship with the patient, undertaking prevention and exercise of periodontology.
Reification. Several concrete products are finally achieved that reinforce the sense of reality of the group and allow for building on the final experiment protocols approved in February. In April 2003, a dental tele-maintenance system is presented to the members. The prevention protocol is also finalized and the first patients are recruited. A webmaster is hired and she presents at least once a month in "DenCom news" the progress of the group and the status of the recruitment of new patients. Even though recruitment of patients is uneven, 14 of the 17 active members enroll new patients and altogether 216 patients are recruited. A marketing study is done by a subcontractor in order to analyze how the group could help and change the practices of the patients. Also, a press release is launched to make DenCom known to both patients and to future members. The final survey on the utility of the formal tools created by the network is very positive. The training video-clips are judged as especially useful, but the other tools are also on average judged positively (Appendix 4). Last important sign, despite
the difficulties in assessing the actual progress in prevention, the financing institution renews and extends the financing.
Preliminary discussion: a new dynamic emerges. With the implementation of the experiment in each surgery, each surgeon is now involved in practice change and the participation and the reification process have become much more individual. It is also distributed in the sense that it takes place in different places and it is directly connected to every day practice. Individual and distributed participation/reification stimulate a new dynamic of involvement of the remaining members. Each dentist is now involved in practice change. The role of the steering committee has shifted from central to support. A clear functional division of the contribution of the members and the committee is now possible and it helps to give a new meaning to the group’s activity. The reification process has also contributed greatly to the consolidation of the group. Now that the objectives of the group have been clarified and members with ambiguous and peripheral participation have left, the identity artifacts recover all their meaning. Friendship and trust are no longer the core of the cohesion of the network. Functional interaction through contact and advice local small sub-networks appear as essential in an activity where affective links are now less important than the achievement of rational objectives attained within a common identity.
A MODEL FOR OPENING THE BLACKBOX OF GROUP DYNAMICS
The difficult story of DenCom gives us a very dense account of the development of the group. This allows us to gain new insight into the generative mechanisms at play behind group dynamics. We first determine three dimensions that balance the development of a group: the identity, the affective and the instrumental. Our argument is that there are different forms of participation and reification associated with these three dimensions. Thus, balance or imbalance in the development of a group is to be found in a complex equilibrium combining these three forms taken by the participation/reification duality. Second, we discuss the
fundamental organizational mechanisms that are associated with the translation of the participation/reification duality into a balanced development of the three dimensions.
Three Fundamental Dimensions: Identity, Affect and Instrumentalism
This section discusses the nature of the three dimensions and the specific modalities undertaken by the participation/reification duality for each dimension (cf. Table 2).
Insert Table 2 about here
Identity. The first fundamental dimension of the construction of the group is that of identity. This is one of the important points of anchorage in phase 1 and certainly one of the achievements of this phase. Building on participation and former social links, members are able to develop a sense of belonging. The group is perceived by its members as gathering young, competent practitioners that share innovative capacities. A dynamic of social comparison recurs throughout the interviews. On the one hand, the positive differentiation relies on the intrinsic qualities of the group and is supported by the specificity of participation: interaction within a participative network. On the other hand, negative differentiation towards reified outgroups is also very clear. Training programs, unions, academic activities and private insurance affiliated networks are perceived at best as old fashioned, inefficient and even threatening to the profession. Participation and reification are both intimately bound together in the double social mechanism of identity construction (Gioia et al., 2000): auto-categorization and social comparison (Turner, 1987 ; Hogg & Abrams, 1988 ; Hogg &Terry, 2000 ; Turner & Haslam, 2001). Auto-categorization corresponds to the development of a sense of belonging to the 'ingroup'. Social comparison is the process by which individuals tend to maximize the distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup. Participation takes the specific form of an engagement in the group that results from a feeling of belonging to the group, belonging by doing together. Core to this dynamic is the
belong because I participate. In that sense, the simple fact of participating creates the feeling of belonging (Tajfel, 1978, 1982). Participation is thus the primary source of auto-categorization, and, at the same time, in forging the sense of belonging, it drives social comparison.
Reification obviously plays a major role in both auto-categorization and distinction. The symbolic dimension of the production of the group is determinant in consolidating the attributes of the group, reinforcing the group and its distinction from the outgroup. The manifestations of reification are to be found in classic symbolic artifacts such as the logos, names, brands, video clips but also in a common vocabulary, vision and values.
Affect. One of the cement of DenCom is affective. Many members where already acquainted, the pre-existing structure being one of 'friends of friends' characterized by an important affective content. This proximity resulted right from the beginning in a warm and friendly ambiance. The group enjoyed being together. Opportunities to interact in an empathic manner, such as breaks of meals, were very appreciated by participants, at least in phase 1. Further on, new friendships developed that were no longer confined to the formal meetings. This form of empathic interactions is essential in order to understand group structuring.
If identity relationship can be associated with some form of depersonalization to the benefit of identification to the group, the affective dimension rests on interpersonal relationships confined to a more limited number of persons. Social attractiveness is fundamentally distinct from personal attractiveness; the latter is deeply rooted in the elective affinities of inter-individual relationships (Hogg & Hains, 1998). Despite its central importance in the constitution of a group, the affective and friendship dimension of social interaction is scarcely taken into account as a dimension of organizational life (Styrhe, 2000). This means that organizational theories mainly negate the fact that reason does not give access to others; the perception of others implies a relation to the world grounded on feelings and emotions
(Merleau-Ponty, 1985). As argued by Styrhe (2000) friendship is 'open-ended, mutually maintained, and that is not aimed at personal benefit at the expense of the other’ Styrhe (2000: 416): friendship does not include the pursuit of self-interest (Schonsheck, 2000).
Affective relationships maintain a recursive relationship well illustrated by the story of DenCom. In that case, friendship is a first base for participation, a reason for people to integrate the group but participation creates opportunities for other affective encounters depending on elective affinities. Also, dentists are isolated in their practice and the chance to develop affective links with colleagues was one of the motives of participation, members wanted to feel less alone.
We witnessed tangible manifestations of affective interactions during the meetings and the breaks. Social interactions took place outside of the group meetings, these included sports matches, dinners and evenings spent together. Also the ambiance of the group was very important for members, many members stated that they felt a form of empathy and consideration and that otherwise they wouldn't have stayed. This is the kind of signs that shows ones appreciation along with other simple gestures such as a phone call or 'token gifts' (Joy, 2001). The nature of the gift or giving depends on the nature of the relationship, going from a simple sign to the 'right' gift of the Hong Kong close family circle (Joy, 2001). The gift or the giving can also be metaphorical but this does not make it less of a reification. Participation by some of the members was such a gift, their coming was a sign of friendship towards one of the members. Hence participation could be reified and considered as a token. Instrumentalism. The heterogeneity of members' individual objectives only resurfaced in phase 2. The lack of concern during phase 1 for the convergence of individual interests did put in danger the development of the group and provoked its abrupt coalescing.
Instrumental participation is linked to the reciprocity of contributions, it is oriented towards tangible benefits. Participation thus becomes contingent on the stakes perceived by the actors
and the link to their own individual objectives. Belonging is no more the question but participation is rather lived from a strategic and functional perspective. Participation will thus be focused on insuring the applicability of the results of the group work. Instrumental participation can take the form of influencing the group, for example, in phase 2, when one of the steering committee members tried to influence the development of the experiment protocol so as to better fit his own practice. Also, a better balance of the group was found in phase 3 when members started to implement the experiment protocols in each surgery. The participation in the group is reinforced if they perceive it as the means to pursue their strategy (Crozier and Friedberg, 1977). This was already expressed in the organic solidarity of Durkheim (1930) where cooperation is linked to the complementarity of resources leading to an exchange that could also be described as a positive sum game (Axelrod, 1984).
As seen in the case, the concreteness of the actions undertaken is essential as an indication of the rational development of the group towards reaching a level of contribution judged as sufficient by the members. In order to launch such a dynamic, the clear enunciation of the rational objectives of the group is essential. This reification will indeed reinforce participation and limit ambiguity. Ambiguity can maintain the development of the group for a while but with the risk of what Linblom (1959) called disjointed incrementalism, a situation in which members contribute only as long as they think it can serve their personal rational objectives but are not committed in the long run. Thus, maintaining individuals in a group without the appropriate enunciation of the objective is a risk as far as long-term participation is concerned. This is what happened at the end of phase 2. Reification also concerns the affirmation of concrete results, thus proving the reality of the instrumental value of the group activities. Concretely, these results must become emblematic of the capacity of the group to meet individuals' objectives. Even in cases where the stakes are not about solving only one
task or finalizing a project, there must be a task orientation associated with the activities of the group and these must be in accordance with the objectives of the participants.
Balancing the Three Dimensions. Our findings indicate the importance of a balance between the three fundamental dimensions of identity, affect and instrumentalism. In this particular case, the affective dimension was an important element in the pre-existing network. This eased the development of the identity dimension, which became in phase 1 the central concern of the group. But the participation/reification circle is fruitless if it does not lead to concrete results, if the instrumental dimension is not taken into account. The negotiation of meaning was thus stuck in what could be called an ‘identity trap’. This corresponds to the situation described by Gongla & Rizzuto (2001) about communities of practice when the group 'struggles to define their collective identity but never actually accomplish their goal' (Gongla & Rizzuto, 2001:857). The balance between the three dimensions is not obtained from scratch and must be put in perspective as regards the different manifestations of the participation/reification duality. Thus, it has to be understood not as the mere coherent development of independent dimensions. We found various illustrations about the interweaving of dimensions. This balance is a dynamic one in which dimensions loosely co-evolve within a fringe of tolerance that allow for the sustainable development of the group. This co-evolution rests on specific expressions of the participation/reification duality for each dimension. This constitutes our first theoretical insight about the generative mechanisms of group dynamics. It provides an understanding, if not a deterministically causal explanation, of the particular cycles or phases followed by the development of a specific group.
Organization of the Group and Expression of the Participation/Reification Duality The expression of the three dimensions of the participation/reification duality – affective, instrumental and identitary – are themselves related to the organization of the group. Each dimension of the duality can be associated with organizational characteristics that facilitate its
expression more than that of the other dualities. By analyzing such organizational characteristics we give a more fine-grained perspective on group dynamics and thus contribute to a better understanding of the generative mechanisms described above.
Insert Figure 1 about here
The organization of a group. The organization of a group can be understood as a combination of modalities that we mapped according to two axis (Figure 1).
The first axis is that of the formalization of the collective. A strong formalization of the collective corresponds to a formal group of actors working closely together. At the lower end of this axis, low collective formalization corresponds to individuals being active on their own. An intermediary situation corresponds to that of networks of locally connected members. The second axis is that of the proportion of passive members. Active members are involved in the activities of the group and the production of tangible artifacts; their involvement also reinforces the appropriation of the elements that are being reified. Reification for passive members is indirect. It does not mean that they cannot appropriate the artifacts produced by the group but this appropriation is distant and thus not as straightforward. There is of course a continuum between active and passive membership. Also, members can be involved for some of the activities of the group and passive for other aspects. Nonetheless, at a point in time and about a specific subject addressed by the group, some members can be considered as passive with direct consequences on reification.
The combination of both axis leads to an infinite possibilities of organizational modalities that can be adopted to deal with a specific topic or activity of the group. That is to say that several of these modalities are combined at a moment in time in the same group. For a better understanding, we will discuss some of the key modalities that existed in DenCom. The concentrated organization is that of a formalized collective in which all members are involved. This is what was experienced by members, when they were directly involved in the
group during the general meetings, especially in phase 1. The nuclear organization is characterized by an important proportion of passive members and a formalized collective. This is what happened in phase 2 when most of the productions of the group were done at the steering committee level in relation to subcontractors. Thus, participation and reification happened through the intermediary of committee members. Members still participate in the sense of contributing and coming to the meeting but they are reduced to passive participants no more involved in concrete production. Reification is still possible but it is distant and the appropriation of the concrete productions of the group is more difficult. An intermediary position between nuclear and concentrated corresponds to phase 1 where members also participated to the collective production through work groups. In that case, even though all members were active, they were active only on one of the four subjects of the group. This means that their perception was indirect and partial on the three other subjects. A distributed organization was that which took place during phase 3 when members were implementing the protocols and guidelines in their own surgery. It required an important effort of translation and appropriation of the group activities at the individual level. For some subject, individuals did take some useful initiatives corresponding to the piloted organization. This is the case of several of the committee members but also of some other members. For instance one member did a pre-development of a web application that proved useful for the network as a whole, while another one did an especially advanced adaptation of the protocols developed by the group. Another very notable organizational modality corresponds to an intermediary level of formalization of the collective. This is the case of help and advice relationships in small dense networks that played a key role in phase 3.
Connecting the Organization and the Three Dimensions. Each dimension of the participation/reification duality – identity, affect and instrumentalism – can be associated with configurations that are more likely to favor their expression (cf Figure 1). This association is
not a determinist one, neither is it an exclusive one, but it underlines nonetheless main effects that are likely to appear when an organizational modality is dominant within a group. This takes us one step further in our understanding of generative mechanisms.
The organizational modalities associated with the identity dimension are those that will bring members together in order to reinforce their sense of belonging to the group. There are of course other opportunities for identification with reified production of the group; also, as argued by Wenger (1998), distributed participation is social. Nonetheless, co-presence and collective participation are necessary to reinforce and maintain shared categorization and social comparison. The identity manifestations of the participation/reification duality are thus more likely to happen in situation when the collective is formalized and the proportion of passive members is low (upper left half of Figure 1).
The affective dimension is associated with modalities that will favor the blossoming of elective affinities into more enduring affective relationships. This corresponds to the upper zone of Figure 1. The concentrated modality is that of the first encounters or re-encounters. The affective dimension exists but is more focused on the pleasure to be with the group as a whole than to be with someone in particular. Hence, elective affinities are more likely to be brought to the next level in small groups such as working groups, committees or local networks. It is even more likely to happen in informal collectives. Hence, a key organizational form for the development of affective and friendship relationships is that of local networks. The instrumental dimension is oriented toward the achievement of concrete results associated with the individual objectives of members (or their organization). One could argue that the ultimate instrumentalist will be a free rider, hence perfectly satisfied with a situation such as the piloted one. Indeed in the piloted situation, passive members gain the benefit of their belonging to the group without having to put real efforts into it. Nonetheless, some form or translation of the collective efforts into individual practices is necessary as in the distributed
form. We also identified cases where steering committee members tried to influence the decision making so as to serve their own purpose, something easier to achieve in the nuclear than in the concentrated modality. Hence, organizational modalities associated with the instrumental dimensions are those corresponding to an important proportion of passive members and a low level of collective formalization (lower right half on figure 1).
Of course, any group is likely to combine different organizational modalities. Each modality gives an account on how the group develops on a specific topic at a moment in time. It is the combination of modalities in time and space that can ensure a balanced development of the group. The crafting of such a balance and its impact on the development of the group is highly contingent. Adopting Tsoukas (1989) approach on generative mechanisms, we argue that there is no such thing as a determinist connection between generative mechanisms and group dynamics. Still, revealing the connection between the development of each of the three dimensions and corresponding organizational modalities can help to avoid situations where only one dimension is developed to the detriment of the others.
CONCLUSION
Our objective was to explore the generative mechanisms at play behind group dynamics. This implied to go beyond the three main shortfalls of traditional group dynamics theories. First, by adopting Wenger (1998) participation/reification framework, we were able to integrate the task and the relationship aspects of group dynamics. Second, we decided to study longitudinally a non-experimental group so as to observe the development of a group within context. Third, instead of trying to generalize determinist models to all kind of groups, we focused on revealing the generative mechanisms at play (Tsoukas, 1989).
We analyzed the generative mechanisms of group dynamics at two levels of observation: that of underlying dimensions and that of the organizational modalities at play. We identified three dimensions that were to be balanced for the group to pursue its development: identity, the
affect and the instrumentalism. This can be observed at a global level and correspond to the general balance of the group. At a finer level of observation, we revealed the dominant associative effects between the three dimensions and the organizational modalities of the group. This corresponds to another way to look at the unfolding in time of the dynamic of a group. That is not to say that the organizational modalities are the causal determinant of the expression of the dimensions. They can rather be considered as mechanisms facilitating the revealing of a potential in terms of identity, affect or instrumentalism. There is no way known that organization by itself can generate a common identity or favor the articulation of individual objectives. A group can thus be regarded as comprising a dormant potential that the organizational modalities will help to express. The emergence of the actual dynamic of a group and its connection with the organizational modalities and the three dimensions is highly contingent. Nonetheless, the generative mechanisms we identified can be useful so as to make the context more amenable to the development of the group. The stakes for a group leader – or for the group itself in the case of self-organized group – thus appear to be in constructing through time and space specific combinations or the generative mechanisms so as to favor the dynamic of the group and to avoid the risks associated with cases of imbalance between the dimensions. This constitutes a direct managerial contribution. Also it contributes to the objective set by Tsoukas (1989) to management research. Applied to group dynamic research it means revealing generative mechanisms rather than trying to generalize patterns of events. In that sense our research contributes to filling an important gap in group dynamic research. It gives a deep understanding of the actual pattern of events that can be observed in a specific group and helps understand why some group do develop their potential while others don't. We contribute to opening the black box of group dynamics; nonetheless, we leave several aspects to be researched by further work. We chose to work on a specific group with a unique case study design. Its size is relatively important, at least more important than the groups
usually studied in group dynamics research (e.g., Gersick, 1988, 1989). This choice was deliberate, as we think that the development of big project teams or communities of practice in recent years appeals for more research on important groups. Also, the group was a self-organized one that corresponds to the challenges faces by some cross-functional teams or task forces but also by communities of practices connected with virtual communities. Nonetheless, it is clear that this choice, even if coherent with an interpretativist perspective and reinforcing the internal validity of the research, limits its transferability. Even though we argue with Tsoukas (1989) that generative mechanisms can be generalizable, future research should focus on exploring the possible differences in generative mechanisms observed in all types of groups: self-organized or hierarchically controlled, from various sizes, with objectives different in nature, inter- or intra-organizational and with different meeting agendas.
Second, leadership is a major theme in order to better understand group dynamics. Once generative mechanisms are revealed, the role of the leader in helping to reveal the potential of the group and help its development is essential. Hence research studying how leaders can use generative mechanisms and on the quality required in order to do so in various contexts is essential.
REFERENCES
Axelrod R.M. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basics Books. Bales, R. F., & Strodbeck, F. L. 1951. Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485:495.
Bovasso G. 1992. A structural analysis of the formation of a network organization. Group & Organization Management, 17(1).
Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. 2003. Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: toward a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1): 106-117.
Crozier M. & Friedberg E. 1977. L’acteur et le système, Seuil, Essais. Durkheim, E. 1930. De la division du travail social. Paris: PUF.
Gephart, R. 2004. From the editors: qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4):454-462.
Gersick, C. 1988. Time and transition in work team: toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1): 9-41.
Gersick, C. 1989. Marking time : predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 274-309.
Gersick, C. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A mulilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 10-36.
Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz, and K. G. Corley. 2000. Organizational Identity, Image, and Adaptive Instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 63-81.
Gongla, P., & Rizzuto, C.R. 2001. Evolving communities of practice, IBM Global Services experience. IBM Systems Journal 40(4): 842-862.
Heinen, S. & Jacobson, E. 1976. A model of task group development in complex organizations and a strategy of implementation. The Academy Of Management Review, 98-111.
Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. 1988. Social identification : a social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge.
Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 121-141.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. 1998. Friendship and group identification: a new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3): 323-342. Joy, A. 2001. Gift giving in Hong Kong and the continuum of social ties. Journal of Consumer Research, Sep, 28(2): 239-256.
Labianca, G., Moon, H., & Watt, I. 2005. When is an hour not 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal schemata, and individual and task group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4): 677-694.
Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.
Lim, S., & Murnighan, J. 1994. Phases, Deadlines, and the Bargaining Process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(2): 153-171.
Linblom, C. 1959. The science of "muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19:79-88. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1985. Phénoménologie de la perception. Tel-Gallimard.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Waller M. J. 2002. Focusing on midpoint transitions: an analysis of boundary conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 1056-1065.
Schonsheck, J. 2000. Business friends: Aritstotle, Kant and other management theorists on the practice of networking. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(4): 897-911.
Scott J. 1991. Social Network Analysis, Sage Pub.
Seeger, J. A. 1983. No Innate Phases in Group Problem Solving. Academy of Management Review, 8(4): 683-689.
deadline pressure ? Journal of Management, 23(2): 169-187.
Strauss, J & Corbin, A. 1998. Basic of Qualitative Research, 2d edition, Sage Publications. Styhre, A. 2000. The organization of friendship. Human Resource Development
International, 3(4).
Tajfel, H. 1978. Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparisons, in Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups : Studies in the Social Psychology of intergroup relations, London: Academic Press, 61-76.
Tajfel, H. 1982. Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33: 1-39.
Tsoukas, H. 1989. The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management Review. 14(4): 551-561.
Tuckman, B.W. 1965. Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384-399.
Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M. A. 1977. Stages in small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2:419-427.
Turner, J. C. (Ed.) 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group – A self Categorization Theory, Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.
Turner, J.C. & A. Haslam, A. 2001. Social Identity, Organizations and Leadership, in M. E. Turner (Ed.) Groups at Work – Theory and Research, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 25-65.
Wanous, J., Reichers, A. & Malik, S. 1984. Organizational socialization and group development: toward an integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9(4): 670-683.
Wheelan, S.A. 1994. Groups processes: a developmental perspective. Sydney: Ally & Bacon. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX 1
COMPARIZON BETWEEN STAYERS AND LEAVERS
Average individual network size
January 2002 March 2002 September 2002
Average Leavers Average Stayers Average Leavers Average Stayers Average Leavers Average Stayers Contact 2,62 6,62 3,83 7,47 2,25 4,76 Trust 1,85 6,84 5,17 7,91 3,00 6,82 Frienship 2,54 8,22 3,00 6,57 4,25 6,76 Help/advice in 2,85 7,24 5,50 6,31 4,00 5,47 Help/advice out 3,15 7,11 3,50 6,84 2,75 5,76
Position in the initial network
Network size Betweenness
Contact Advice Trust Friendship Contact Advice Trust Friendship
Average stayers 7,47 11,35 7,82 9,18 0,07 0,02 0,05 0,05