A Systems and Contingency Analysis Applied to Construction Projects of Exceptional Architectural Design

Chapter 5 - Individual and Group Dynamics

Summary / Group Size and Cohesion / Group Size and Communications / Individual Satisfaction / Group Permanence / Individuals within Groups / Return to Index Page

Summary

The smaller the group size, the more that the group is able to work together cohesively. This cohesion is more important on a project of exceptional design as the group will be more effective in achieving the objectives of the project organization. The smaller the group, the more likely that "group think" will occur, and the more that the group members will adopt similar views and self views. The size of the group affects its creativity, and generally speaking, smaller groups are more creative than large groups.

The ability of the group to process information will partially determine the group's effective size. The elimination of status barriers in the group will improve communication.

The more democratic the group, the higher the individual level of satisfaction and output. A totally democratic project environment however is not conducive to a project of exceptional design, and certain strategic areas of the project need to be insulated from democratic control.

High group turnover leads to a greater emphasis on formal rules and specificity of roles, and therefore it will become more difficult to establish a unified project culture. A strong culture is an aid to the attainment of the project objectives. Groups start to lose their effectiveness after several years together, and if this loss of effectiveness entails less effective support for the project's objectives, then the project will suffer.

A project of exceptional design will contain a higher number of talented individuals. These individuals resist any form of imposed organization. This tends to influence the project organization towards decentralization into somewhat autonomous groups.

Return to Index Page

Chapter 5 - Individual and Group Dynamics

This chapter will explore individuals and singular groups, with some analysis on dynamics between groups. Aspects of cohesion, creativity, processing of information, democracy, culture, and permanence will be addressed in the context of projects of exceptional design.

Group Size and Cohesion

The smaller the group size, the more the group is able to work cohesively together. Kast and Rosenweig [501] have noted that small groups have a high degree of naturalness; empathy; pressure to conform; and a unity of purpose. The group cohesion also holds true, I believe, though to a lesser extent within the project organization that is a group composed of groups.

In a project of exceptional design, I believe the cohesion of the group and project group is more important than for projects of standard design. In the chapter on the goal and value system, an argument was made that a project of exceptional design was value driven. I believe a group with a higher degree of cohesion, assuming the group is attuned to the project's value system, will be more effective in achieving the desired outcomes than would a group with less cohesiveness.

The smaller the group, the greater the pressure for individuals to conform to the group's value system. Kast and Rosenweig [502] have observed that the more cohesive a group, the more likely that "group think" will occur. Lin [503] makes note of a "strain towards symmetry model" where she argues that persons in a group tended towards similar views and self views, and that these similarities increased over time.

The size of the group can also affect the creativity of the group. Crosby [504] in a study of industrial organizations noted the importance of group size on creativity. Based upon his research, he postulated that a group of between six to twelve people was the most creative. Assuming that other variables, such as the external environment and technology regarding communication of information stayed constant, this concept of Crosby's can most likely then be applied to groups working on construction projects.

Group Size and Communications

The importance of information processing has been previously discussed in regards uncertainty in the chapter on technological systems. Information processing is also a determining factor of group size. Guetzkow [505] has stated that "the maximum size of an effective unit is limited by the ability of that unit to solve its problems of internal communication."

As argued in the chapter on technological systems, a project of exceptional design has a higher degree of uncertainty than a standard project, and therefore the requirements for information processing will be greater. Applying Guetzkow's theory to projects of exceptional design, this would mean either the groups would need to become smaller than normal in order to remain effective, or, the groups would have to increase their capacity to process information if they were to remain of a standard size.

With regards communications and status, Lin [506] has observed that communication tends to flow from people with high status to people of low status, and not vice versa. Applied to projects of exceptional design, if communication/information processing is more critical than for projects of standard design, it follows that the elimination of status barriers in a group will improve communications, and therefore make the group more effective.

Individual Satisfaction

The more democratic the group, the more satisfaction there will be among individuals. Golembiewski [507] notes that, generally speaking, democratic groups had more satisfaction and higher output that autocratic groups. This is reinforced by our culture, as noted by Fox [508], in that Western society has a strong preference for self determination as opposed to authoritarian control.

While noting the benefits of a democratic environment on the group and individual, I believe that the more democratic the group, the less likely that architecture of exceptional design will be produced. In his classic study of democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville made the observation [509] that aristocracies produced more singular works of art, whereas democracies tended to produce more art, but only art that was "pretty and elegant", but not great.

In an analysis on the architect F. L. Wright, Muschamp [510] noted that:

The effect of American architecture could be exhilarating, but by any existing standard of architectural greatness one was encouraged to conclude that the general effect of American democracy was to weaken the architect's power: to weaken his control over his own medium, and to weaken the power of the medium itself to represent in enduring, harmonious form the social and aesthetic values with which Americans sought to endow their culture.

I believe that Muschamp's postulate regarding American society as a whole would also remain true when one looks at the project organization. If one accepts Cleland and King's [511] or Kast and Rosenweig's [512] views of the project in a systems approach with "permeable" boundaries between the external environment and the internal subsystems, then the argument can be made that the social relationships in a democracy at large are replicated within the project organization.

The reason I believe that an entirely democratic process runs contrary to the conception of works of exceptional design, is that the democratic process is essentially a process of majority rule, where all of the participants exercise a say in the outcome. While this may result in a Pareto optimal solution, in terms of human satisfaction, the process effectively discards both the best and the worst of the options under review as these lie outside of the mainstream of the majority's values.

While noting the disadvantages of the democratic process, I believe there are only a few strategic areas on a project of exceptional design that are impeded by a democratic process. I believe the areas of the project that are incompatible with the democratic approach are the formation of the underlying values and objectives of the project, and the creation of the conceptual architectural design, as it is these two areas that fundamentally determine the difference between a project of exceptional design and a project of standard design. Beyond these two areas, assuming the project objectives receive the required support during the life of the project, I believe that the democratic approach works well within our culture, and certainly for the application of the majority of human effort, does provide the project organization with many benefits in terms of human satisfaction.

Group Permanence

Within a construction project organization, there is typically a high degree of turnover in the individuals or groups that are involved in a project organization at any one point. In a comparative analysis of organizations, Udy [513] notes that the salience of group structure is related to the permanence of an organization, however this relationship is affected by the degree of technology used. Additionally, Udy noted the higher the turnover rate, the more difficult were the social interactions, and therefore there was more of a tendency to place greater emphasis on formal rules and specificity of roles.

As a result of the above, the more that a project experiences turnover, the more difficult it will be to establish a unified culture within the groups that are involved in a project organization. For those aspects of the project that are particularly value driven, this lack of a unified culture can be detrimental to the attainment of the overall project objectives.

In terms of project culture, successful projects will exhibit a strong culture. This is noted by Kast and Rosenweig [514] and by Peters and Waterman [515]. This would seem to imply, at least partially, that a strong culture is an aid to a successful project. Without further research, it is difficult to say how much influence a strong culture has on success, or how much influence success has on a strong culture. Probably, something of the latter most likely exists.

While it has been noted that a too rapid turnover in a group is detrimental to the building of a unified culture, there are also consequences when a group stays together for too long. Kast and Rosenweig [516] have noted group effectiveness is at its peak between two and five years. After five years they feel that the effectiveness of the group tails off.

Generally, many construction projects do not last more than five years, but some larger projects can exceed this time. With regards projects of exceptional design, this is probably not as crucial as it may seem, as the underlying values and basic design will generally have been established. However, what I believe is critical is that the required support be given to the project, particularly if the external environment is hostile to the project. If diminishing group effectiveness equates with less effective support and realization of the project's objectives, then the project will suffer.

An example of this might be the Sydney Opera House, where the project went on for over a dozen years. Jorn Utzon, the original architect, resigned from the commission due to difficulties he was experiencing with the client organization [517]. The interiors of the complex were executed by another architect, and the lesser architectural quality of the interiors is noticeable.

Individuals Within Groups

On projects of exceptional design, it is common that several of the individuals within the project organization are highly qualified in their respective fields. While arguably it is these individuals that make a project an exceptional project, these types of individuals have an influence on the most appropriate managerial structures that can be effectively utilized.

In studying management teams Belbin [518] has identified what he denotes as the "Apollo Syndrome", where teams comprised mainly of individuals of high ability have a higher rate of failure than the norm. Belbin noted that those members of high ability strongly opposed any form of imposed organization.

Assuming that this analysis holds true for projects of exceptional design, having a significant number of talented individuals would seem to influence the project organizations towards decentralization into somewhat autonomous groups. The coordination and integration between these various autonomous groups would then appear to be more political due to the higher level of organizational resistance.

In a project organization, this formation of political autonomous groups is in conflict with the greater emphasis on rules and specificity of roles that occurs when a project experiences frequent turnover. It can be argued that this conflict exists to a greater degree on projects of exceptional design than on projects of standard design due to a greater number of talented individuals.

Return to Index Page

Return to Home Page