Group Psychology Group Norms

Norms are inherent in society, they help it not be chaos, developing its action through a pattern of operation of things.

There are different types of standards: formal, institutional, legal, But those that concern us today are the rules that are given within a work group, those that make the members comply or not comply with what is established, those that depend on communication and that favor the cohesion that will later have that group, how involved they are with the achievement of the objectives and become the work teams that we dream of but that we certainly do not have today.

Group norms

A group norm is a behavioral regulation mechanism, and its main functions are:

• Contribute to the effectiveness of the task

• Putting psychological pressure on group members

• Contribute to the locomotion of the group.

Can be explicit or implicit, For the group to comply with it, it must know that it is necessary and what is its reason for being. There may be those who comply with it but are not satisfied with it, for fear of repression, they do not say anything in the appropriate spaces but rather as gossip with other collaborators, create rumors, antipathies and a series of negative effects caused by lack of communication.

The main difference between a group norm and an institutional is that the second has no discussion, but the group norm is established from the negotiation, from the acceptance of the group members, otherwise it is the criterion of power and it ceases to fulfill its fundamental function, which is to move the group according to the task fulfillment.

The main responses to group norms are

• Imitative and Suggestive: are the most primitive responses, where cognition does not mediate, they are elementary, in the second it is given by the presence of someone significant to me "as he (she) does it, I do it".

• Conformist: the rule is followed from an external logic "it seems stupid to me but I'll do it anyway", and from an internal logic, at first it does not agree with the rule, but it "digests" and reworkes it, finding a convincing reason to abide by it "this seems silly to me but surely it is necessary to fulfill objective X".

• Collectivist: does not question the norm in the first place, quickly understands why abiding by it is good for the fulfillment of the group's task or not, as a collectivist response may be to not abide by the norm.

• Negative: It is the one that does not comply with the norm, either by default or by excess, the latter may seem to be over-compliant, but not really, it is dissatisfied or in disagreement but does not have the resources to elaborate or communicate it, and then it does it that way.

When a norm is established, it might be thought that if people comply with it, it is because they are satisfied and committed to it, but this cannot be assured until the result of the group is seen at work or until the group communicates it..

In behavior, it is not possible to see what makes me comply with a rule, none of these answers has a difference in behavior, it is only seen that the rule is met or not, so it is important that you as a group director ( or if you prefer a work team, know that complying with a standard does not imply commitment to it as it can be done for many reasons, the important thing about the standard is that it never fails to fulfill its main function and is make group members accomplish the task in the best possible way, be efficient and achieve the goal.

When a rule is more of a burden, an obstacle, it slows down creativity and generates discomfort, because it simply stopped working (if it ever did), and must be eliminated.

It is useless to cling to remain unchanged before the changes and modifications that are inevitable, contrary to legal norms, group norms are not a “straitjacket” and should not be considered that way..

Can the transgression of a group rule be allowed?

It might be thought that the answer is NO, after all it is created and endorsed by the group, how could any member be allowed to transgress it and how this would affect the others?

The truth is that despite the fact that when a rule is not complied with, a punishment is generated in most cases, this type of rule does not exist as a repression mechanism, and if we remember that one of its main functions is to ensure that the group fulfill their task, there are certain collaborators who contribute more than others and whose contribution is crucial when it comes to meeting the objectives, these can be allowed in a certain way the transgression.

How? From certain credits ...

Idiosyncratic credit: to collaborators who contribute a lot to the group's work.

Innovative credit: when potential future leaders within the group are identified.

This allowed transgression has a limit, and that is that under no circumstances can you put yourself at risk the fundamental task of the group, its purpose or its mission.

In both cases, these collaborators are allowed to deviate a bit from the norm, but this is not an individual decision, but a group decision, as it cannot be interpreted as favoritism or imposition of power, here communication comes to play an essential role. , since the group "knows" what type of people are granted these credits.

A very frequent mistake is when everyone is treated in the same way, the most valuable in the same way as the least valuable, the one who is creative and fulfills the tasks the same as the one who always puts obstacles and is slow.

When this mistake is made, the group does not know who are the valuable ones within it and therefore when a member is allowed to transgress the norm under the criteria of the director-manager-manager (who must know everyone), because it is interpreted as a preference or that mediates a lucrative interest.

For this reason it is so important that people know their role and the role they play within the group, using the strengths of each and trying to mitigate weaknesses, but from the maxim that "being more effective and competent will bring better benefits".

The directors of work groups must have crystal clear of what was explained above, since it may be the case of a collaborator who makes intelligent interventions, looks for alternatives that result, has fresh and clear ideas and the boss sees him as a possible leader of the team or from another group.

However, if this collaborator is constantly interrupted by others, if they frequently disagree with his ideas, he will definitely not occupy the role of leader, since does not impact the group and they do not recognize it as such, even when the director sees it with possibilities.

On many occasions, a boss may be threatened by one of these members, be it the one who contributes a lot or the innovator, and see in the norm the instrument of power they have to reaffirm their authority in the group, another big mistake, perhaps it will follow being the head of the group, but the legitimate authority that is provided by the influence, he lost, he only has that endorsed by the name of his position. Is that the kind of boss we want to be?

Let's not forget that the group is first a ME, a YOU, a HE, becoming a US is a very difficult task, how it is to motivate people and make them professional and committed in what they do; But what is easy is to demotivate because it is achieved from obstacles, from refusals to change, being intransigent without arguments.

If there are so many social norms in which we have neither voice nor vote, immovable and repressive, let us not contribute, from our position, to perpetuate styles of sterile relationships that generate anguish and impotence, let us decide for excellence and collaboration, let us divest ourselves of mediocrity and let us be the motivational glow that others so badly need, we can do it and we deserve it.