What Is The Theory Of Small Group Interaction

Small Groups: Background and Structure

Interactions in small groups, are the result of the influence inputs, throughputs and outputs have on a group. In order to create the best output possible, small groups must be able to overcome challenges presented by diversity of group, structure and team traps. According to Tubbs (2012), influence and its multiple causations can be outlined by the “Tubbs Model of Small Group Interaction” (p. 16). One of the three sources for influence in the “Tubbs Model” is relevant background factors. These factors consist of: personality, gender, age, health, attitudes and values. Tubbs (2012), states its important to note, all behavior has context (p. 113), so by understanding the relevant background factors of a

Tubbs (2012) states “Most experts agree that our behavior is a result of a combination of nature and nurture” (p. 113). Tubbs statement sheds a light on a need to understand how relevant background factors, affect group interactions. In a day and time where the make up of universities and businesses have become more diverse, the need to harness the influence of diverse inputs on positive consequences has arisen. “Research has shown that social diversity in a group can cause discomfort, rougher interactions, a lack of trust, greater perceived interpersonal conflict, lower communication, less cohesion, more concern about disrespect, and other problems” (Philips,

These differences are the result of cultural values, which become engrafted with an individuals’ identity. This makes it important for each member of the group to understand cultural differences. In a task group, where individuals have significant value difference, balance should be established between: the intuitive and empirical; the need to move quickly versus that of thoroughly and a micro versus macro perspective to discussions. The ability to manage these differences can greatly influence the discussions of a group. Beyond relevant background factors, another key component to small group interactions is structure. “Numerous experts advise that the optimum group size appears to five. This size seems to be small enough for meaningful interaction yet large enough to generate an adequate number of ideas (Kameda et al., 1992)” (Tubbs, 2012, p. 179). Groups larger than five tend to suffer in participation and struggle with sub groups forming, while groups smaller in number do not generate an adequate amount of group