Abstract
Previous studies of group dynamics have shown that in laboratory situations individuals can be labelled as high, low or medium participators. Moreover, it appeared that high participators tended to dominate the group, have more influence and contribute more in terms of attempted solutions (Bales, 1953; Barber, 1966; Chell, 1976). Was this an artifact of the laboratory situations or can these particular dynamics be applied to field groups?Data were collected from joint consultative committees in five organizations. Groups were divided into high, medium and low participators and it was predicted that if high participators were dominating then they would make more lengthy speeches and would thus have a higher average speech length than medium or low participators. Total number of utterances of each participant of each meeting was correlated with his average speech length. The hypothesis received substantial support. It seems that the division of groups into high, medium and low participators is meaningful.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
