Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(1): 223-229, 2019 http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2019.070128
Group Dynamics and Behaviour
Hüseyin Gençer
Maritime Higher Vocational School, Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
Copyright©2019 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License
Abstract Individuals are always in interaction with
other individuals outside, as well as in the group and with
the group itself. This is why the social sciences emphasize
the importance of group dynamics. After the 1990’s, with
the globalization, digitalization, changing political systems,
goal or result-oriented approaches in many western
countries, new items such as cross cultural differences and
impacts, migration, social status and identity,
demographic diversities, leadership, job performance,
motivation, dynamics in sport teams, organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB), ethics, healthcare have been
investigated in the studies on the groups and group
dynamics. This study provides general information about
the studies on the groups and group dynamics.
Keywords Groups, Group Dynamics, Intergroup
Dynamics
1. Introduction
Individuals are always in interaction with other
individuals outside, as well as in the group and with the
group itself. This is why the social sciences emphasize the
importance of group dynamics. In this study, group
dynamics were reviewed within the scope of the most
accepted concepts and theories in the literature, and
international studies done until 2013. The structures and
formations of the groups were not examined in detail in
order not to confuse and deviate from the target subject.
Essentially, all generally accepted approaches about group
structure and formation are old theories. Namely, no new
approaches about the group structure and formation have
emerged in the recent years.
This study was structured according to the subjects in
recent researches and basic concepts in the literature. In the
first chapter of the study, groups and history of the group
researches were shortly explained, and group dynamics
were discussed. Additionally, influence of the group and
group norms on the individual, and relations between
group and changes of the individual’s attitude were
covered.
In the second chapter, intergroup dynamics were
mentioned very briefly and causes of intergroup conflict
were discussed.
Third chapter of the study expresses the benefits of the
groups to organizations that have also been supported by
recent studies in the literature.
Final chapter summarizes the concepts and subjects
explained in the previous chapters within the light of new
trends in group dynamics, and concludes the study with
some suggestions.
2. Groups and Group Dynamics
A Group is a formation of at least two people who come
together in a given purpose, communicate with each other,
affect each other and are dependent on each other. To be a
group, a crowd should have common objectives and norms,
but also they should be feeling themselves as a group[1].
Groups that are worked on by sociologists, social and
organizational psychologists are mostly the small groups.
Like older studies, recent studies in the literature have also
been conducted on small groups.
What can be the reasons for examining small groups?
We spend a significant part of our lives in small groups
such as family, group of friends, work groups etc. Small
groups reflect society as a whole. Besides, the identities of
individuals and their effects reveal better in small groups.
Moreover, it is also easier and more appropriate to practice
the small groups in a laboratory environment.
Kurt Lewin stated that groups are dynamic and powerful
beings which have power to influence individuals and
communities. The concept “group dynamics” refers to
changes that may occur in any part of the group and bring
out actions and reactions in the group structure that affects
group members. In order to understand the groups, their
dynamics need to be analyzed. Lewin made significant
contributions to studies of group dynamics - attitudes and
behaviors within the small groups. In his group dynamics
theory, he describes groups as open and complex systems,
and characterize as internal and external forces that affect
224 Group Dynamics and Behaviour
the behavior of the group[2]. Contemporarily, according to
the needs and developments, new items are participating in
these forces. Nevertheless, recent studies also investigate
interaction of these forces with themselves and each other.
2.1. Development of Groups Related Studies
First studies about groups began in the 1850’s. These
studies mostly focused on the concept of “group spirit”
that maintained its importance until 1930’s. However,
since “group spirit” was being considered as a feature of
metaphysic, it did not seem like a proper subject of
scientific research. Floyd Allport (1924) rejected the
concept of “group spirit” and expressed group as an
alteration and acceleration of individual’s behavior
because of the presence of others. Likewise, previous
studies of Triplett (1897), Moede (1920) were also
supporting Allport’s approach and revealed that the
behavior of an individual differs when he is alone than
within the group [3].
With the establishment of group formation norms
experimented by Sherif (1936), “group” has been
accepted as a concrete fact. After that, since the late
1930’s, the guiding effect of Kurt Lewin about group
studies has started. After the 1960’s, it can be seen that
the studies have scattered and covered a wide range of
groups, and application has gained much more importance
[4]. Studies on groups have been made in the fields of
industrial and organizational psychology, education,
mental health, military and so on. Studies made in the
laboratory were applied in all these areas.
After the 1990’s, with the globalization, digitalization,
changing political systems, goal or result-oriented
approaches in many western countries, new items such as
cross cultural differences and impacts, migration, social
status and identity, demographic diversities, leadership,
job performance, motivation, dynamics in sport teams,
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), ethics,
healthcare have been investigated in the studies on the
groups and group dynamics. Moreover, groups consisting
of virtual (online) environment is noteworthy in recent
years, especially in international organizations.
Considering the business meetings via tele-conferences,
carrying out the job only with Emails, it is not clear who
is within the group or who is out. There are some work
groups in international companies consist of a dozen
people who do not see each other for many years. Some
researchers have already started to examine these entities
and their effects on group dynamics [5].
2.2. Group Norms and Group’s Normative Effect
Group norms can be defined as rules that specify what
kind of behavior is appropriate or unwanted within the
group. These rules provide guidance for the behavior of
group members and are adopted by them. Members who
want to stay in the group must adapt to the rules, otherwise
they would be removed from the group. Norms are the
components of a group that hold the members together,
supervise them, and make a strong and lasting group.
Formation of the norms is performed by a leader or any
member. However, continuity of the norms is provided by
the group and it is difficult to change them. After the
adaptation, norms are seen as means of social pressure. In
case of deviation from the norms, members are made to
feel this in a variety of ways [6].
According to researches, an individual behaves in a
group differently than being alone. Considering the norms
and hierarchy in groups, members who observe the rules
in the group are usually called as middle level ones. These
individuals mostly follow the rules even when they are
alone in order to secure their places in the group [7].
There are also members in the group who are in the
lower levels. Those observe the rules only within the
group. Such a behavior is materialized not by adopting but
by submission. This kind of members believe that their
group is better than other groups in the environment and
show the behavior of keeping the rules only not to be
removed from the group. On the other hand, those in the
upper levels of group remained tied to the rules in the
beginning. These members liked and adopted for a period
of time, and gain high esteem within the group. After
becoming leader they may violate the group rules to some
extent [8].
In recent years, the effect of group norms and their
relations with other group activities and values such as
justice, ethics, knowledge transfering, performance,
innovation etc. have often been investigated in the
literature [9,10,11].
Kivlighan Jr. and Cole [12] examined the relationship
between absenteeism and commitment in terms of group
norms. As expected, this study exhibited that employees
who are more committed to the group are more influenced
by the group’s absences norms than are employees less
committed to the group. Generally, it can be said that
commitment and compliance with group norms have a
positive relationship. But for the norms of other
counterproductive behaviors such as turnover, substance
use, ineffective performance, accidents etc. the results
might be different.
Tauber and Sassenberg [13] viewed a football team
over a season in order to examine the impact of
identification to group norms. In their study, they found
that strongly identified group members are more likely to
deviate from group norms in some situations. According
to this study, members who show stronger identification
are more concerned with success and favor of the group.
Attitudes of those strongly identified members deviate
from the group norms when they perceive that group
norms may be harmful for the group. Those members
raise their individual goals by ignoring the group goals
and show better performance with their ambitions. This
Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(1): 223-229, 2019 225
mostly increases group’s performance too. On the other
hand, weakly identified players adhered to potentially
harmful group norms by adjusting their individual goals to
unambitious group goals. This may reduce the
performance of the group and strongly identified members
tend to leave the team consequently. This study has shown
that a group also needs dissidents, who deviate from the
group norms, since those uplift the group with their
individual high performance. Additionally,
non-compliance with the group norms may sometimes
lead to better and more effective results.
2.3. Roles in the Group
The Role refers to the attitude and beahavior of
individuals in accordance with the expectations from each
other. In other words, “roles are patterns of behaviors in
any social unit”[6]. The attitudes and behaviors form the
role identity of individuals. Roles are shaped and
developed according to the individual’s or group’s needs
and preferences. In the organizational psychology, roles
have been examined according to the general tasks and
behaviors within the group. Nowadays, the role is
represented by identity by taking into account the impact of
social life outside of the group as well. Likewise recent
studies mostly focus on the concept of identity that also
includes personal characteristics of individual and
influences his/her social status outside of the group.
2.4. Adherence to the Group
One of the most important features that identifies the
structure of the group is members’ adherences to the
group. Adherence can be described as the desire of the
individual to be a member of the group. In a group in
which the adherence is high, the group members are
pleased with each other and motivated to stay in the group.
Moreover, individuals in such groups adopt norms and
goals easily, and help each other to achieve the goals. On
the other hand, in the groups consisting of members who
are not connected to each other, the situation is
completely the opposite. To put it clear, adherence to the
group is a positive fact. Groups with high adherence do
not escape from work, work well together, are more
efficient and productive, and in such groups turnover is
low and intra-group confidence and motivation of the
members is high[14,15]. Moreover, decision making in
such groups is of good quality, stronger and more efficient
than in other groups. However, there might emerge some
problems in relation with other groups [16].
2.5. The Effect of the Group on Individual’s Attitude
Group has a role in the direction of empowering or
changing the attitude of individual. If the individual
attitude is compatible with the group norms, this
reinforces the attitude. If the individual’s attitude is
contrary to the group norms, there begins pressure to
change this attitude. Moreover, if the group norms are
composed from the debate of members, complying with
these norms would be more powerful [7]. Many
researches (studies of Kelly, Woodruff, Thibaut and
Lewin) in the classical social psychology literature have
already supported those judgements [3].
Dreu et al.[17] investigated creativity and innovation in
the groups. As many earlier studies revealed, their study
also showed that individuals with high epistemic
motivation are more creative than individuals with low
epistemic motivation are. When the members with high
epistemic motivation increase within the group, the
performance of the group in terms of creativity would also
increase. Their study demonstrated that the increase of the
average level of epistemic motivation and creativity in the
group, would also raise the mental (cognitive) motivation
and creativity of the individuals.
Groups can sometimes help those members who have
counter-productive behaviors or run against the
organizational goals, by reducing or completely
eliminating the counterproductive behaviors [8]. This can
be seen as a positive impact of the group’s effect. On the
other hand, a hard-working member in a low-effort group
might feel himself as an offset due to possible pressure on
him and consequently, either decreases his work effort or
leaves the group.
2.6. The Effect of the Group on the Efficiency of the
Individual
Researches have shown that a group may have a positive
or negative effect on the efficiency of its members.
According to many social psychologists, the presence of
others increases the motivation and action level of the
individual. In that case dominant dispositions of the
individual play an important role. This means that if the
individual has a dominant tendency to make mistakes, his
mistakes would increase; if the individual has a dominant
tendency to make the right, his deal of doing the right jobs
increases [3]. Several studies have shown that the total
productivity of the group is greater than the sum of the
productivity of its members. This is usually called as
“sinergy effect” [18]. Some recent studies about the effect
of group on the efficiency and productivity of its members
will be mentioned in the sub-title of “The Importance of
Groups for Organizations”.
It is also possible that individuals will make less effort
while they are in the group than equal to their normal
individual effort. This is called as “social loafing”. In that
case, individual acts quite free in the group. Hence, this is
also known as “free riding”. For example, in a group of 10
members, given that each member’s contribution is 1,
group’s output is expected to be greater than 10. But in
social loafing occurrences, the output of the group might be
9 or even less. Especially, as the number of group members
increases, the proportion of contribution of some members
226 Group Dynamics and Behaviour
decreases [1]. Many researchers claim that social loafing
usually occurs in the individualistic cultures where
personal achievement and rewarding are important. On the
other hand, one may argue that individuals would work
harder if they know that they would be rewarded.
Therefore, it would be wrong to look at social loafing from
only one approach of the culture. Other factors such as job
ethic, organizational norms and values, social preferences
may also play an important role in the occurence of social
loafing.
Kalay and Oğrak[19] analyzed social loafing tendency
and behaviors of those engage in social loafing in the
groups. The authors stated that some group members, who
engage in social loafing, treat their co-workers and
supervisors politely, and try to look like helping them.
Such situations make it difficult to determine the less effort
of those individuals, but still have a negative impact on the
group’s total performance. For that purpose, groups will be
concentrating on the active monitoring in the future.
2.7. Other Factors in Group Dynamics
Features, knowledge, skills, communication abilities
and behaviors of the members determine who will be the
leader in the group. According to the changes of group’s
desired goals, contingency of being leader of the members
also varies. Leadership within the group occurs depending
on the interactions of the group, group’s goals and
characters of the members. According to general
leadership approaches, a person who has leadership
qualities, regardless in which group, would be the leader
[20]. In the literature, situational leadership approach is
prominent and mostly highlighted in group dynamics.
According to this approach, the environment or group’s
atmosphere creates the leader within the group. In other
words, the leader arises in accordance with needs and
features of the group. This approach is similar to the
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory. In this leadership theory,
leader strengthens relationships and adherence between
group members, as well as enables the job done in a best
way. Consequently, the leader raises his/her reputation and
efficiency in the group [1].
Studies have shown that leaders, who are more suited to
the group norms, give their group members more
confidence. Additionally, leader’s fairness is accepted and
understood by the group members more effectively.
Leaders who do not meet the group’s norms have less
control and effectiveness over the group. In such cases,
some members are getting more close to each other.
Nevertheless, such cases mostly affect relationships of the
members negatively [21].
An interesting study made by Kivlighan and Miles [22]
showed that members are more satisfied in the groups
where a second leader (co-leader) exists than the groups
with an individual leader. The commitment among
members is also stronger in such groups. So in the future,
approaches of shared leadership might be more important
rather than one person’s leadership.
Another topic investigated in recent years and has
significant impact on group dynamics is cross-cultural
influences[23]. Considering the steadily increased mobility
of people, countries, cities, organizations and consequently
the groups will be more heterogeneous in the future. Thus,
cultural elements will be more examined in group
dynamics. For that matter, the importance of the effect of
national culture will be decreasing and mixed-multicultural
groups will come to the fore rather than pure groups.
As mentioned in the first chapter, online aggregation is
now the trend in the business environment, in many public
services and even in education. Face to face
communication or relationships have always been one of
the most effective and valid factors in group dynamics.
Nevertheless, increasing technology, changing
requirements, time constraints have led people to online
communication. Therefore, a lot of new elements and
approaches will arise that may affect group dynamics
especially in the groups coming from online together [5].
With the increasing importance of self-interest, ambition
and gaining, people have also changed their point of view
against the groups. That is to say people began to look from
a more hedonistic point of view. This has led the
researchers to examine the group dynamics in terms of
game theory. Chen and Li [24] studied individuals’
behaviors in the groups by considering group identity and
social preferences. This study was conducted in laboratory
and it has revealed that group members keep the social
welfare maximized when they are matched with another
group member. They also show more charity when they
have a higher punishment. When there is lower payoff, the
members that are matched with each other show less
jealousy. In contrast, members tend to keep the losses at a
minimum level when they are not matched with another
group member.
Social identity and its effects have also been studied
within the group dynamics. However, those are mostly
discussed in intergroup dynamics.
3. Intergroup Dynamics
We encounter a lot of intergroup interactions in every
moment of life. Political relations between countries,
mutual relations of fans of sport teams, communication
with other departments in the companies can be examples
for the intergroup behaviors in our everyday lives.
While people have social relationships with the
individuals from many different social groups, they also
may engage in interpersonal behaviors with those
invidiuals. Eventhough advancing personal relationships,
those people may engage in intergroup behaviors due to
being a supporter of different sport teams or political
parties.
Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(1): 223-229, 2019 227
There are different theories explaining group dynamics
but only two most widely accepted theories – Intergroup
Conflict and Social Identity – will be discussed here.
3.1. Intergroup Conflict
The most famous theory in intergroup conflicts was put
forward by Sherif. According to him, one of the main
causes of the conflict is the struggle to achieve limited
sources. In other words, the quality of the relations
between two groups depends on whether the conflict of
interests exists. In a context where resources are limited,
competition leads to biases among the groups. As a first
result of the conflict between groups, the communication
channels of the groups are impaired. After that conflicting
groups throw the opponent group in a negative pattern[8].
Some researchers examined the relation between
personal characteristics and intergroup dynamics. It has
been found that individual differences in terms of
cognitive activities also cause intergroup biases and
wrong perception, and consequently intergroup
conflict[25].
Regardless of how it reveals, intergroup conflicts lead
to deviations in achieving the group goals and affects
groups’s performance negatively, especially in the
beginning of occurrence of the conflicts. Despite the
negative impacts, there are also positive impacts of
intergroup conflicts such as increasing the solidarity and
unity in the groups themselves. Especially, organizations
gain a lot of experiences through intergroup conflicts.
Intergroup conflicts can be hindered by diagnosing and
abolishing the causes of the conflict, increasing the
communication among groups and individuals in these
groups, and especially eliminating the trend of win/loss.
McPherson and Parks made a study which have had
gratifying results. According to their findings, groups
have stronger tendency to eliminate the conflicts with
other groups than individuals do, and at the same time, are
more likely faster than the individuals in eliminating the
conflicts[26]. This can be seen as another benefit of
operating with and within the groups.
3.2. Social Identity
Individuals define and evaluate themselves by taking
into account the social groups which they belong to. In
other words, individuals identify and categorize
themselves according to their social groups (as we and
they, or in-group and out-group) so that their social
identities arise. Other groups in the environment provide a
basis in the assessment of the position of individual.
Namely, individuals compare their own groups to other
groups and mostly favor their own groups[7].
Many studies have shown that individuals who have
similar social identities cooperate more comfortable and
easily. Moreover, efficiency of cooperation of the
members in the same group also changes according to the
degree of social ties, mostly directly proportional.
Referring to the study done in the laboratory by Chen
and Li[24] which was mentioned in the previous pages;
when individuals from different groups are matched with
an in-group member (who is from a different work group
but from a similar social group) are more likely to show
more charity when they have a higher payoff. Conversely,
those individuals show less jealousy when they have a
lower payoff. This study has also exhibited that
individuals tend to reward ingroup match for good
behavior, compared to an outgroup match. On the other
hand, they are less likely to punish an ingroup match for
misbehavior. Furthermore, the individuals pay more
attention on payoffs rather than rewards.
4. The Importance of Groups for
Organizations
Groups are part of the organizations and cannot be
excluded because the best way to overcome problems is to
work within groups. As many studies have shown, it is
possible to increase the efficiency of production by
working in groups. Proficiency of problem solving and
process improvement is greater in groups than separate
individuals. The aim of working in groups is to increase
the contribution of human resources further to the
organization. If the right conditions and sinergy are
created to achieve important and challenging tasks, a
significant difference between group’s - and individual’s
effort emerge accordingly; individuals work more
effectively within groups. This is one of the key elements
to provide a competitive advantage and being long-lasting
organization.
Some researchers claim that group formation is
extremely important in the development of attitudes and
behaviors of individuals. For example, helping is a
spontaneous behavior that may ocur in a group. The
formation of a group is a critical element in facilitating
such behaviors [27]. According to the study of Yee and
Dyne[28], helping behavior is higher in groups in which
the cohesion between members is strong, task confusion is
low and strong institutional norms exist.
In a similar study carried out by Kidwell and
Valentine[29], it has been proved that groups have
positive characteristics such us developing the attitude of
helping each other, providing cohesion between
individuals and support for peer leadership, facilitating
interaction between individuals, so that they affect job
satisfaction and performance of employees in a positive
way.
Kleingeld et al.[30] examined the effect of goal setting
on group performance and found that group goals have a
robust effect on group performance in the organizations.
Individual goals may also have a positive contribution on
group performance. Nevertheless, goals embraced by a lot
228 Group Dynamics and Behaviour
of individuals have a better effect on group performance.
In brief, benefits of the groups to organizations are as
follows [31,32,33]:
− alleviating the workload
− developing the creativity
− eliminating the weakness of supervisor
− creating communication channels for individuals
− helping employees to feel better emotionally
− providing an effective decision-making in case the
decision-making process operated accurately
− allowing individuals to control each other which may
be more effective than the control of supervisors
− ensuring job satisfaction and stability
− reducing problems especially in large-scale
organizations.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
In the organizations, beside the importance of
characteristics and management of the individuals,
formation of the groups by those individuals, and their
interactions within the groups are also crucial. Since this is
very well known, researches have being done on this topic
for decades. First studies sought to answer the question of
how an individual affected from being in a group.
Afterwards researches have been focused on group
dynamics – interactions between group and its members –
which are also being studied today. As it can be understood
from the theories and researches in the literature, group
dynamics was examined first in the social psychology.
Later, the importance of the groups in organizations have
been comprehended and started to be investigated in
organizational psychology. Nevertheless almost all the
theories or infrastructural studies still used in
organizational psychology have been taken from social
psychology. Likewise, most of the researchers studying the
group dynamics have the origin of psychology science. The
biggest reason of moving towards the organizational
psychology is probably the effect of high return money in
that area.
As seen in the first chapter of this study, subjects
examined in recent group dynamics studies are mostly
similar to the past researches. The main difference is some
topics – such as characteristics of individuals and groups –
are being examined in more detail. Moreover, an important
fact stands out; in an environment where the
competitiveness is imposed, studies are progressing in the
direction of how to achieve the maximum benefit and best
results. In that respect, some subjects brought by
competitiveness such as leadership, cross-cultural
interaction and online/virtual aggregation are getting more
important in group dynamics. Sport industry is and will be
attracting more attention since it always grows and attracts
money. At the same time, it is simple and visible to
measure the performance and results in sport teams. Thus,
group dynamics might be studied more in sports.
Unfortunately, it must be highlighted that a group consisted
of individuals is being considered like a machine and this
may cause the disregard of some human values.
The main reason of the intergroup conflict is also the
competitive environment; the greater competition, the
greater conflict or hostility. Conflict leads to prejudice
among the groups and this abandons the communication
between the groups. In order to make positive intergroup
perceptions and behaviors, co-operation should be
encouraged among the groups.
As mentioned in the third chapter, groups contribute
positively to organizations such as creating collaboration
among employees, providing an effective communication,
increasing job satisfaction and motivation, and gaining
competitive advantage. On the other hand, intergroup
conflict may cause negative effects such as decrease in
productivity and power of competition. To prevent or
minimize the occurrence of adverse effects, organizations
should be aware of the functioning of the groups, group
dynamics, characteristics of the individuals, and use
correct methods and techniques.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Kreitner, A. Kinicki. Organizational Behavior, 9th edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2010.
[2] T. S. O’Connell, B. Cuthbertson. Group Dynamics in
Recreation and Leisure, Human Kinetics, Illinois, 2009.
[3] Ç. Kağıtçıbaşı. Sosyal Psikolojiye Giriş, Duran Ofset
Matbaaclık Sanayii A.Ş., Istanbul, 205-209, 1977.
[4] D. Grandberg, G. Sarup, Social Judgement and Intergroup
Relations: Essays in Honor of Muzafer Sherif,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
[5] R. Wageman, H. Gardner, M. Mortensen. The changing
ecology of teams: New directions for teams research,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 301–315, 2012.
[6] H. Can, Ö. Aşan, E. M. Aydın. Örgütsel Davranış, Yaylacık,
Istanbul, 2006.
[7] N. Bilgin. Sosyal Psikoloji, Ege Üniversitesi, Izmir, 2013.
[8] S. M. Jex, T. W. Britt. Organizational Psychology: A
Scientist-Practioner Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey, 2008.
[9] P. Lau, Y. Y. Wong. Direct and Multiplicative Effects of
Ethical Dispositions and Ethical Climates on Personal
Justice Norms: A Virtue Ethics Perspective, Journal of
Business Ethics, 90, 279-294, 2009.
[10] R. Burg. Deliberative Business Ethics, Journal of Business
Ethics, 88, 665-683, 2010.
[11] M. Millar, C. J. Choi. Networks, Social Norms and
Knowledge Sub-Network, Journal of Business Ethics, 90,
565-577, 2010.
Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(1): 223-229, 2019 229
[12] D. M. Kivlighan Jr, D. O. Cole. The Group’s Absence Norm
and Commitment to the Group as Predictors of Group
Member Absence in the Next Session: An Actor–Partner
Analysis, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 41– 49,
2012.
[13] S. Tauber, K. Sassenberg. The Impact of Identification on
Adherence to Group Norms in Team Sports: Who Is Going
the Extra Mile?, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 16(4), 231–240, 2012.
[14] S. H. Heap, D. Zizzo. The Value of Groups, American
Economic Review, 99(1), 295-323, 2009.
[15] S. Valentine, L. Godkin, G. M. Fleichman, R. Kidwell.
Corporate Ethical Values, Group Creativity, Job Satisfaction
and Turnover Intention: The Impact of Work Context on
Work Response, Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 353-372,
2011.
[16] B. L. Bonner, S. D. Sillito. Leveraging Member Knowledge
in Group Decision-Making: Expertise, Extroversion, and
Feedback, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Vol. 15, No. 3, 233–245, 2011.
[17] C. K. W. De Dreu, B. A. Nijstad, M. N. Bechtoldt, M. Baas.
Group Creativity and Innovation: A Motivated Information
Processing Perspective, Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 81– 89, 2011.
[18] J. W. Slocum., D. Hellriegel. Principles of Organizational
Behavior, 12th edition, China: Cengage Learning, 345-350,
2009.
[19] F. Kalay, S. Oğrak. Free Riders in the Organizational
Environment, Report of Management and Organization
Conference, Izmir, 2012.
[20] F. P. Morgeson, D. S. DeRue, D. E. P. Karam. Leadership in
teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership
structures and processes, Journal of Management, 36, 5–39,
2010.
[21] T. Seppala, J. Lipponen. Leader Fairness and Employees’
Trust in Coworkers: The Moderating Role of Leader Group
Prototypicality, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 16(1), 35–49, 2012.
[22] D. M. Kivlighan, K. London, J. R. Miles. Are Two Heads
Better Than One? The Relationship Between Number of
Group Leaders and Group Members, and Group Climate and
Group Member Benefit From Therapy, Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(1), 1–13, 2012.
[23] D. Man, S. S. Lam. The effects of job complexity and
autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and
individualistic work groups: a cross-cultural analysis,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 979-1001, 2003.
[24] Y. Chen, X. S. Li. Group Identity and Social Preferences,
American Economic Review 2, 99(1), 431-457, 2009.
[25] A. K. Newheiser, J. F. Dovidio. Individual differences and
intergroup bias: Divergent Dynamics associated with
prejudice and stereotyping, Personality and Individual
Differences, Yale University, 70–74, 2012.
[26] S. McPherson, D.P. Craig. Intergroup and Interindividual
Resource Competition Escalating Into Conflict: The
Elimination Option, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 15(4), 285–296, 2011.
[27] A. Klep, B. Wisse, H. Van Der Flier. Interactive affective
sharing versus non-interactive affective sharing in
workgroups: Comparative effects of group effect on work
group performance and dynamics, European Journal of
Social Psychology, 41, 312–323, 2011.
[28] K. Yee Ng, L. Van Dyne. Antecedents and Performance
Consequences of Helping Behavior in Work Groups, Group
and Organization Management, 30(5), 514- 540, 2005.
[29] R. E. Kidwell, S. R. Valentine. Positive Group Context,
Work Attitudes, and Organizational Misbehavior: The Case
of Witholding Job Effort, Journal of Business Ethics, 86(1),
15-28, 2009.
[30] A. Kleingeld, H. van Mierlo, L. Arends. The Effect of Goal
Setting on Group Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304, 2011.
[31] N. J. Choi. Collective Dynamics of Citizenship Behaviour:
What Group Characteristics Promote Group-Level Helping?,
Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 2009.
[32] W. M. Davies. (2009).Group work as a form of assessment:
common problems and recommended solutions, High
Educ., 58:563-584, Springer Science -Business Media B.V. ,
Online available fromhttp://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/assessme
ntresources/pdf/Link10.pdf
[33] L. Goette, D. Huffman, S. Meier. The Impact of Social Ties
on Group Interactions: Evidence from Minimal Groups and
Randomly Assigned Real Groups, American Economic
Journal:Microeconomics, 4 (1), 2012.
