flowchart LR H[Hidden] -- Self-disclosure --> O[Open] B[Blind] -- Feedback --> O U[Unknown] -. Discovery .-> O style O fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#2E7D32 style H fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#F9A825 style B fill:#FFEBEE,stroke:#C62828 style U fill:#F3E5F5,stroke:#6A1B9A
20 Interpersonal Behaviour and Group Dynamics
This chapter shifts OB’s lens from the individual to the interpersonal — the two-person interaction — and then to the group — the small collection of people who share goals, norms and a sense of identity. Most work happens neither alone nor in crowds; it happens in pairs and small groups. The behavioural science of how those pairs and groups function is the subject of this chapter.
20.1 Interpersonal Behaviour
20.1.1 What is Interpersonal Behaviour?
Interpersonal behaviour is the way two or more individuals act in relation to each other. It is shaped by the personalities, perceptions, attitudes and motives covered in earlier chapters, and by the dynamics that emerge when those individual differences meet. Four classical frameworks dominate OB’s treatment.
20.1.2 The Johari Window
Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham developed the Johari Window — its name a portmanteau of their two first names — as a tool for self-awareness in interpersonal relations (luft1969?). The window has four quadrants formed by two questions: known to self? and known to others?
TipThe Johari Window
| Known to self | Not known to self | |
|---|---|---|
| Known to others | Open / Public area | Blind area |
| Not known to others | Hidden / Façade area | Unknown area |
Two processes change the size of the quadrants. Self-disclosure — sharing what is hidden — moves information from the hidden area to the open area. Feedback — listening to what others see — moves information from the blind area to the open area. A larger open quadrant is associated with more effective interpersonal relations.
20.1.3 Transactional Analysis (TA)
Eric Berne’s 1964 Games People Play introduced TA as a framework for understanding interpersonal communication (berne1964?). The framework has three building blocks.
Three Ego States
Every person carries three internal ego states — a child, an adult and a parent — and any utterance comes from one of them.
TipBerne’s Three Ego States
| Ego state | What it carries | Typical utterance |
|---|---|---|
| Parent (P) | Internalised attitudes from parental figures; nurturing or critical | “You should always …”, “How could you?” |
| Adult (A) | Reality-testing, problem-solving, factual processing | “What does the data show?”, “Let us examine the options” |
| Child (C) | Felt experiences from childhood; natural, adapted or rebellious | “Yay!”, “It’s not fair!”, “I’m sorry” |
Three Types of Transactions
A transaction is an exchange of communication between two ego states.
TipTypes of Transactions
| Type | What happens | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Complementary | Response comes from the ego state addressed | Smooth communication |
| Crossed | Response comes from a different ego state than addressed | Communication breakdown |
| Ulterior | Two messages at once — one explicit, one hidden | Manipulation, “games” |
Four Life Positions
Berne identified four life positions — basic stances people take towards self and others.
- I’m OK – You’re OK. Healthy, adult-to-adult.
- I’m OK – You’re not OK. Critical, blaming, often paranoid.
- I’m not OK – You’re OK. Depressive, deferential.
- I’m not OK – You’re not OK. Hopeless, withdrawn.
The healthy life position is the first; effective interpersonal communication starts from it.
Strokes and Games
A stroke is a unit of recognition — a smile, a nod, a compliment, a complaint. People need strokes; the absence of strokes is more painful than the presence of negative ones. Games are repeated patterns of ulterior transactions that lead to predictable, usually painful, outcomes — Why Don’t You … Yes But, Now I’ve Got You, Kick Me.
20.1.4 Schutz’s FIRO-B Theory
William Schutz’s Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory argues that all interpersonal behaviour serves three needs (schutz1958?). Each need has an expressed dimension (what I do towards others) and a wanted dimension (what I want from others).
TipSchutz’s FIRO-B — Three Interpersonal Needs
| Need | Question it answers |
|---|---|
| Inclusion | “Am I in or am I out?” Belonging, recognition, attention |
| Control | “Am I top or bottom?” Influence, power, structure |
| Affection | “Am I close or distant?” Warmth, intimacy, openness |
The FIRO-B instrument scores six numbers (expressed and wanted on each need). The combination explains a great deal about how a person behaves in groups, in conflict and in close working relationships.
20.1.5 Communication Styles — Assertive, Aggressive, Passive
A practical typology of interpersonal style underlies much of modern interpersonal-skills training.
TipThree Interpersonal Communication Styles
| Style | Towards self | Towards others | Long-term effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Passive | Suppresses own rights and needs | Defers to others | Resentment, low self-esteem |
| Aggressive | Asserts own rights at others’ expense | Disrespects others | Damaged relationships, isolation |
| Assertive | Expresses own rights with respect for others’ | Respects others | Healthy relationships, mutual respect |
| Passive-aggressive | Suppresses outwardly, retaliates indirectly | Punishes through delay or sabotage | Erosion of trust |
The assertive style is the trainable target — it lets a person say “no” without guilt and “yes” without resentment.
20.2 Groups
20.2.1 What is a Group?
A group is two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. The definition contains four elements: a small number of people, interaction, interdependence and shared objectives.
20.2.2 Types of Groups
TipMajor Classifications of Groups
| Classification | Categories |
|---|---|
| Formal vs informal | Formal: created by the firm with clear charter; Informal: emerges spontaneously |
| Formal sub-types | Command (boss + direct reports); Task (project teams) |
| Informal sub-types | Interest (shared concern); Friendship (shared affinity) |
| Open vs closed | Open: porous membership; Closed: stable, restricted |
| In-group vs out-group | The “we” we belong to vs the “they” we contrast with |
| Reference group | The group whose values and norms a person uses to evaluate herself |
| Membership group | The group the person actually belongs to |
20.2.3 Why People Join Groups
The classical reasons are easy to remember: security, status, self-esteem, affiliation, power, goal achievement. People join groups they cannot replicate alone — for the protection, the company, the influence, the meaning.
20.2.4 Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development
Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 review of small-group research distilled a five-stage sequence that every group passes through (the fifth was added in 1977) (tuckman1965?).
TipTuckman’s Five Stages of Group Development
| Stage | What happens | Working concern |
|---|---|---|
| Forming | Members get acquainted; uncertainty about purpose, structure, leadership | “Why are we here?” |
| Storming | Conflict over goals, roles, leadership, control | “Who is in charge?” |
| Norming | Cohesion forms; norms emerge; relationships settle | “How do we work together?” |
| Performing | Group functions effectively; energy goes to the task | “Let us deliver” |
| Adjourning | Wrap up; recognition; transition to new groups | “What did we learn?” |
flowchart LR F[Forming<br/>Get acquainted] --> S[Storming<br/>Conflict over roles] S --> N[Norming<br/>Cohesion & norms] N --> P[Performing<br/>Effective work] P --> A[Adjourning<br/>Wrap up] style F fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1565C0 style S fill:#FFEBEE,stroke:#C62828 style N fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#F9A825 style P fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#2E7D32 style A fill:#F3E5F5,stroke:#6A1B9A
The model is descriptive, not prescriptive — many groups skip stages, oscillate, or never reach performing. But the storming stage is consistently the most under-managed; an experienced facilitator surfaces conflict early rather than letting it fester.
20.2.5 The Punctuated Equilibrium Model
Connie Gersick’s later model — punctuated equilibrium — argued that task forces with deadlines do not move smoothly through Tuckman’s stages but show long periods of inactivity broken by sharp transitions, especially around the temporal mid-point of the project.
20.2.6 Group Structure
Groups develop a structure — a stable pattern of relationships among members — characterised by five elements.
TipFive Elements of Group Structure
| Element | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Roles | Expected behaviour patterns associated with positions in the group; role expectations, role identity, role conflict, role ambiguity |
| Norms | Shared standards of acceptable behaviour |
| Status | Socially defined position or rank within the group |
| Size | Number of members; smaller groups are faster, larger are more diverse |
| Cohesiveness | Degree to which members are attracted to and committed to the group |
A Note on Norms — the Asch Conformity Experiments
Solomon Asch’s classical line-judgment experiments showed that under pressure of unanimous group opinion, about a third of subjects conformed to a clearly wrong answer. The experiments are the foundation of OB’s interest in normative and informational social influence.
A Note on Cohesiveness — the Curvilinear Effect
Cohesiveness has a curvilinear effect on productivity. Highly cohesive groups with pro-organisational norms outperform; highly cohesive groups with anti-organisational norms under-perform — they bind tightly to a counter-productive norm.
20.2.7 Group Size — Working Rules
- Smaller groups complete tasks faster.
- Larger groups are better at problem-solving and idea generation.
- Five to seven is a common sweet spot for decision groups.
- Social loafing — Ringelmann’s finding that effort per person falls as group size grows — is a recurring problem.
20.3 Group Decision-Making
20.3.1 Group Decisions vs Individual Decisions
TipGroup vs Individual Decision-Making
| Dimension | Group | Individual |
|---|---|---|
| Information available | More | Less |
| Diversity of perspectives | More | Less |
| Acceptance of decision | Higher | Lower |
| Time taken | More | Less |
| Conflict | More | Less |
| Pressure to conform | More | Absent |
| Diffusion of responsibility | More | Absent |
20.3.2 Groupthink
Irving Janis’s 1972 study of foreign-policy fiascos — Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Pearl Harbor — identified the phenomenon of groupthink: a pattern of thinking in cohesive groups in which the desire for harmony overrides realistic evaluation of alternatives (janis1972?).
TipSymptoms of Groupthink (Janis)
| Symptom | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| Illusion of invulnerability | “We can’t fail” |
| Collective rationalisation | Discounting warnings |
| Belief in inherent morality | “Our cause is just” |
| Stereotyping out-groups | Opponents painted as evil or incompetent |
| Direct pressure on dissenters | Loyalty pressure on doubters |
| Self-censorship | Members keep doubts to themselves |
| Illusion of unanimity | Silence read as agreement |
| Self-appointed mind-guards | Members shield the group from contrary information |
Janis’s prescriptions: a leader who actively invites criticism, the routine use of a devil’s advocate, second-chance meetings, and inviting outside experts to challenge the consensus.
20.3.3 Groupshift
A related phenomenon: groups tend to amplify the initial leanings of their members. Risk-prone groups become more risk-prone (the risky shift); cautious groups become more cautious. The polarising effect makes group decisions less moderate than individual decisions.
20.3.4 Group Decision-Making Techniques
TipFour Common Group Decision-Making Techniques
| Technique | How it works | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Interacting groups | Conventional face-to-face meetings | Rich interaction; low control of dynamics |
| Brainstorming (Osborn) | Members generate ideas without criticism; quantity first, quality later | Generates quantity of ideas |
| Nominal Group Technique (Delbecq) | Members independently write ideas, present in turn, discuss, then vote | Reduces dominance, conformity |
| Delphi technique | Anonymous, iterative expert input through structured rounds | Combines expertise across geography; reduces social pressure |
| Electronic / virtual brainstorming | Networked anonymous typing | Solves social loafing; maintains anonymity |
20.4 Teams
20.4.1 Team vs Group
A team is a special kind of group — one with complementary skills, a common purpose, shared performance goals and mutual accountability. Katzenbach and Smith’s The Wisdom of Teams (1993) is the classic statement of the distinction (katzenbach1993?).
TipGroup vs Team (Katzenbach & Smith)
| Dimension | Working group | Team |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Share information; help each other | Collective performance goal |
| Synergy | Neutral or negative | Positive |
| Accountability | Individual | Individual + mutual |
| Skills | Random and varied | Complementary |
| Performance metric | Sum of individual contributions | Outcomes that members produce together |
20.4.2 Types of Teams
TipFour Common Team Types
| Type | Defining feature |
|---|---|
| Problem-solving teams | Members share ideas to improve a process; advisory only |
| Self-managed work teams | Members do the work and manage themselves; no external supervisor |
| Cross-functional teams | Members from different functions or expertise areas, working on a shared problem |
| Virtual teams | Members work across geography using technology |
20.4.3 What Makes a Team Effective?
The classic Hackman model of team effectiveness — and Katzenbach & Smith’s team performance curve — converge on five conditions.
TipFive Conditions for High-Performing Teams
| Condition | What it means |
|---|---|
| Real team | Bounded membership, stable over time, interdependent work |
| Compelling direction | Clear, challenging, consequential purpose |
| Enabling structure | Right size, mix of skills, clear roles, sound processes |
| Supportive context | Information, resources, rewards, training |
| Expert coaching | Help with effort, strategy and skill at the right moments |
Google’s Project Aristotle later identified psychological safety — the shared belief that the team is safe for inter-personal risk-taking — as the strongest predictor of team performance, ahead of dependability, structure-clarity, meaning and impact.
20.4.4 The Katzenbach–Smith Performance Curve
Katzenbach and Smith plotted teams along a performance curve with five points:
TipThe Team Performance Curve
| Stage | Description |
|---|---|
| Working group | Members interact only to share information; no shared product |
| Pseudo-team | Could become a team but does not yet take collective accountability |
| Potential team | Effort is real but performance still individual-level |
| Real team | Complementary skills, shared purpose, mutual accountability |
| High-performance team | Real team plus deep commitment to one another’s growth |
The fifth stage — the high-performance team — is rare; the practical aim is the fourth.
20.5 Practice Questions
Eight questions to test the chapter. Each card hides the answer — click Show answer to reveal it.
Q1
The Johari Window has four quadrants
The Johari Window has four quadrants. Self-disclosure moves information from:
AOpen to hidden
BHidden to open
CBlind to open
DUnknown to blind
Show answer
Correct answer
B. Self-disclosure reduces the hidden area; feedback reduces the blind area.
Q2
Match the framework with its lead
Match the framework with its lead author:
| Framework | Author | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) | Johari Window | (a) | Eric Berne |
| (ii) | Transactional Analysis | (b) | William Schutz |
| (iii) | FIRO-B | (c) | Bruce Tuckman |
| (iv) | Five-stage group development | (d) | Joseph Luft & Harry Ingham |
A(i)-(d), (ii)-(a), (iii)-(b), (iv)-(c)
B(i)-(a), (ii)-(b), (iii)-(c), (iv)-(d)
C(i)-(c), (ii)-(d), (iii)-(b), (iv)-(a)
D(i)-(b), (ii)-(c), (iii)-(d), (iv)-(a)
Show answer
Correct answer
A. (i)-(d), (ii)-(a), (iii)-(b), (iv)-(c)
Q3
In Berne's transactional analysis, an ulterior
In Berne's transactional analysis, an ulterior transaction is one in which:
AThe response comes from the ego state addressed
BThe response comes from a different ego state than addressed
CThere are two messages at once — one explicit and one hidden
DThe transaction is conducted in writing
Show answer
Correct answer
C. Ulterior transactions carry a hidden message alongside the explicit one — the basis of "games".
Q4
Groupthink, as described by Janis, is
Groupthink, as described by Janis, is characterised by which of the following?
AExcessive criticism of the leader
BIllusion of invulnerability and self-censorship of doubts
CDiversity of viewpoints
DOpen challenge to consensus
Show answer
Correct answer
B. Illusion of invulnerability and self-censorship are core symptoms.
Q5
Tuckman's stage in which conflict over
Tuckman's stage in which conflict over roles, goals and leadership is most likely to occur is:
AForming
BStorming
CNorming
DPerforming
Show answer
Correct answer
B. Storming is the conflict-laden second stage.
Q6
Schutz's FIRO-B identifies three interpersonal ...
Schutz's FIRO-B identifies three interpersonal needs. They are:
AAchievement, Affiliation, Power
BInclusion, Control, Affection
CExistence, Relatedness, Growth
DAutonomy, Competence, Relatedness
Show answer
Correct answer
B. The three FIRO-B needs.
Q7
A Nominal Group Technique meeting differs
A Nominal Group Technique meeting differs from a regular meeting in that members:
AUse anonymous online inputs only
BFirst write down their ideas independently before group discussion and voting
CAre allowed only one idea per person
DVote without any discussion
Show answer
Correct answer
B. Independent generation precedes structured discussion and ranking.
Q8
The strongest empirical predictor of team
The strongest empirical predictor of team performance, identified in Google's Project Aristotle, is:
AAverage IQ of members
BPsychological safety
CNumber of team members
DLength of meetings
Show answer
Correct answer
B. Psychological safety — the shared belief that the team is safe for inter-personal risk-taking.
ImportantQuick recall
- Johari Window (Luft & Ingham): four quadrants. Two processes: self-disclosure shrinks Hidden; feedback shrinks Blind.
- Berne’s TA: three ego states (P-A-C); three transactions (complementary, crossed, ulterior); four life positions (OK / OK is healthy); strokes and games.
- Schutz FIRO-B: Inclusion, Control, Affection, each with expressed and wanted dimensions.
- Communication styles: passive, aggressive, passive-aggressive, assertive. Assertive is the target.
- Group = two or more interacting and interdependent individuals. Types: formal vs informal; command, task, interest, friendship; in-group / out-group; reference / membership.
- Tuckman’s five stages: Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning.
- Punctuated equilibrium (Gersick): long inactivity broken by mid-point transitions in deadline-driven task forces.
- Group structure: roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness. Cohesiveness × productivity has a curvilinear effect.
- Asch showed normative conformity; Ringelmann showed social loafing.
- Janis’s groupthink: illusion of invulnerability, rationalisation, morality belief, stereotyping, pressure on dissent, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity, mind-guards.
- Decision techniques: interacting, brainstorming (Osborn), Nominal Group Technique (Delbecq), Delphi, electronic.
- Team vs working group (Katzenbach & Smith): complementary skills, shared purpose, mutual accountability.
- Team types: problem-solving, self-managed, cross-functional, virtual.
- Hackman’s five conditions for team effectiveness; Google’s psychological safety finding from Project Aristotle.
20.1.6 Social Exchange Theory
George Homans’s social-exchange perspective treats interpersonal relations as a series of exchanges of rewards and costs. Relationships continue when the perceived rewards exceed the perceived costs; they end when they do not. Thibaut and Kelley added the concept of the comparison level — the standard against which a relationship is judged — and the comparison level for alternatives — the next-best alternative the person sees.
The theory underwrites much of the OB literature on commitment, turnover and team functioning.