Group standards may be either implied or clearly stated.

Nevertheless every group has its standards which, when enforced by social control, become important factors in determining the performance level of each member as well as the group as a whole. These standards become the group’s expectations of its members and also determine the member’s expectations of his group. Certain levels of expectations of other groups often then are judged in terms of the standards associated with the group.

Standards must be realistic – within the level of attainment of the group. They should be understood by all group members. Deviation from these expected performance standards, either above or below, is frowned on by the members, and the group sets up ways of securing conformance. If a member does not conform he is rejected. In most cases group members are more clearly in agreement on what the group norms or standards are than their observable behavior would indicate. Behavior is seldom in strict conformance to the ideal standard, but the limits of toleration are fairly well understood.

Some groups have found it advantageous to make both their expectations and their violations more explicit. For example, they might levy a small fine on a member for being late to meetings to make explicit the standard of prompt attendance. A frank discussion of what the chairman of a committee has a right to expect of his committeemen, or vice versa, may lead to more clearly understood standards of committee operation.

In some cases failure to live up to group standards results from poor definition of the standards themselves. More frequently it is due to individuals not being aware of the standards or not understanding them.

Group standards can be made more explicit and in many cases raised by looking objectively at either past performance or contemplated action and asking the group members if it is an acceptable level of performance.

In most cases, higher group standards are set when the entire group is involved in setting the standards as compared with standards being SEC by a small clique or an individual. Members have greater motivation to conduct themselves in keeping with those standards – to maintain their own conduct and to see that other group members maintain their conduct.

In terms of individual frustration or satisfaction, it is important that the standards are consistent – not rigidly enforced at one meeting and loosely at the next. This seems more important than the actual level at which the standards are set.

In general, the closer the individual comes to living up to all group standards or norms, the higher will be the group status of that individual, and his sense of satisfaction with his relationship.

Every group has a status in the community, whose members rank it in relationship to coexisting groups. Where and how a group is ranked depends to a degree upon how consistent its goals, objectives, and means are with the general community values. Related to its status is its role – or what the community expects it to do. At any given time two or more groups may be competing for a given status position. Any or all of these forces may affect the goals the group sets, and how it attempts and how hard it will work to accomplish them.

Parent Organizations
Many local groups have affiliations with an organizational structure which exists outside the community. The Masonic Lodge, the American Legion, the American Red Cross, many church denominations, and Federated Women’s Clubs are examples of this type. Most affiliated community groups have a high degree of local autonomy. But there are many instances where the “over-all organization” does exert influence through counsel, guidance, required or recommended programs and policies, and program aids provided to the local affiliate. It is important to recognize that such external forces affecting group function exist and must be considered in understanding group functioning.
Sometimes groups have problems in this regard because they are affiliated with outside organizations which do not hold the same values as the community. For example, the parent organization may set down certain policy positions on a national level. In some communities these policies may not be completely acceptable. The local unit is faced with the task of adjusting to this difference in values.

Groups, like individuals, can make different adjustments when faced with this kind of a dilemma: they can ignore the community values, which means they risk losing status or being ostracized by the community; they can ignore the institutional values, which means they risk censure by the parent institution; or they can try to adjust between the two. The fact that they are an integral part of an extra-community pattern as well as an integral part of the community is a force which constantly influences their activities and behavior. To understand such groups, one must recognize the value orientation of both the community and the parent institutions.

Groups with affiliation outside the community must often walk a tight-wire between individual group member interests, community values, and the values of the “over-all organization.” In many cases these are not completely compatible.

Another type of group is found in nearly every community. It is a subdivision of an existing formal structure. A good example is the “ladies aid society” – an integral part of most churches. The goals and objectives of these groups, and their means of attaining them, must be consistent with those of the parent group.

Most communities have groups that are independent of any formal group structure existing beyond the community. This independent group usually reflects community values and the social level of most of its members. Though independent, the community has expectations of the group, assigns it status, and has some influence on it. Such forces will affect its ongoing activities and must be considered in understanding its functioning.

The group must serve its members just as the members should serve the group. Specific interests or problems of group members must be known if the group as a unit is to “grow.” We often can understand interest, lack of interest, personally centered activity, or aggression if we recognize the heterogeneous composition of the group. Group heterogeneity may also place limitations on the objectives, techniques, and accomplishments of the group. The crux is that we must recognize that we have some degree of heterogeneity in all groups and learn to understand these differences from the point of view of how they might be harnessed for greatest group productivity.

We tend to group ourselves on both the informal and formal level on a relatively homogeneous basis – a basis of similarities – according to such characteristics as interests, status, intelligence, and occupation. However, even within these relatively homogeneous groups there is a great degree of heterogeneity – differences – when compared on the basis of such characteristics as age, moral standards, formal education, and values. Groups which take the time to analyze their resources from the point of view of both their homogeneity and heterogeneity make better use of their group potential and reach higher productivity. It also seems true that once the group recognizes the uniqueness of individuals they can better integrate those individuals into the group and better utilize their potentials for the common good. Furthermore, group members working together over time tend to become more homogeneous in interests, objectives, and satisfactions.

If a person were in a group largely for the security he felt the group gave him, it might be unwise to place him in a totally new situation. It would probably not be wise to throw one who has great difficulty expressing himself into a situation where he had to give a lecture. Some other technique should be used to tap the resources which this person can contribute to the group. Techniques should be tailored to fit the individuals concerned.

Forces at work within and without the group – dynamics of the group – must be considered in any rational selection of a group method. Several, or all, of the following elements of group dynamics should enter into the selection of a technique: size, atmosphere, standards, skills available, social controls, identity, general role definition, functional unit act roles, participation, and evaluation.

Group discussion, for example, works best in a small group in which the atmosphere is democratic and permissive rather than tense and inhibited. When a group is large “buzz groups” may accomplish similar ends. This technique is a waste of time when the group is of manageable size.

The most common of all techniques, the lecture, has a serious fault. It is only one-way communication. A very effective method, “role playing,” is also dangerous when social controls, identity, and objective evaluation are on an insecure basis within the group. Recreational or musical activities are sometimes chosen to break down status stratification in a group, but if injected into the wrong situation may actually increase hostility and tension.
A full knowledge of the forces making up the internal dynamics is the most likely way of avoiding pitfalls in technique selection.

The leader’s choice of a technique will also be affected by what he sees when he looks at the external dynamics. Forces impinging upon the group from the outside may have very significant effects upon the choice of a technique. Some institutions, such as certain churches and schools, frown upon music and dancing, thus placing severe restrictions on recreational methods. Other institutions place certain functionaries above the necessity of answering to the group. It might be unacceptable to involve a member of a church hierarchy in many types of activity, even though it could be very desirable from the standpoint of ends sought.

Community expectations often cause groups to bring in “name” lecturers when a different technique entirely might be more effective. Outside consultants are often used when local people might be expected to do a better job if they were free from community pressures. Choices are affected by the attitude of the community – the external dynamics.
When the method selector looks in the other direction, toward the goals of the group, he will again see a wide and varied assortment of factors influencing his choice. It will be remembered that all goals were divided into those which were strictly informative to the group and those which ostensibly call for action. It is obvious that this division frequently calls for completely different methods. Goals were also divided into long-run and short-run objectives, and again the means of achieving them may be better adapted to one form than another.

If the purpose of a meeting is a straightforward, logical, uninterrupted presentation of a single subject the “symposium” technique might be ideal. If the varying points of view are to be presented by only two people of roughly equal qualifications, the “dialogue” is a useful technique. An interesting combination of several techniques was presented in the Nixon-Kennedy television “debates” in the 1960 presidential campaign. To tap the ideas of as many people as possible, “buzz groups” or “huddle groups” are often used to approximate the benefits of general discussion in small groups. Full group discussion may be the only way to achieve consensus, but to’ free inhibitions and create a permissive atmosphere it may be necessary to precede this with some recreational or relaxing techniques.

Another characteristic of group objectives not previously stressed is that almost invariably they are subject to subdivision. Even short-run goals can be broken down into a series of intermediate objectives, and this may also be true of single-meeting goals. Each of the resulting intermediate goals may then be approached with a different technique which would seem to apply more logically to the situation. Combined techniques are really the rule rather than the exception and are particularly used when the objectives can be fragmented.

A general example of this would occur when some group might wish to solve a certain problem – say to improve some item of group process. First, a panel discussion might be set up, with those most concerned presenting the various aspects of the problem. The moderator would have the function of getting the panel under way and of keeping the discussion on the point. An important function of this technique would be to stimulate interest of all participants and to identify essential elements. The panel discussion might end with a general colloquy which in essence would serve to complete the definition of the problem and a crystallization of the essential facts involved. The group might then go into buzz groups to discuss the problem with instructions for each to suggest a solution. Then a general discussion could follow with the aim of achieving consensus. The advantages of such a prepared series of techniques over a desultory general discussion should be obvious as should the fact that combined techniques are often the most effective solution, even to a fairly simple problem.

It should be re-emphasized that to carry out the above program the leadership needs to know much about the individual members and their personalities. Also it is important to understand the “group personality,” its internal and external dynamics, and to have a clear appreciation of the specific objectives of the group. An understanding of the basic techniques and what each might be expected to accomplish can then be applied in the selections eventually made.

It is axiomatic in the discussion of methods that each technique has a definite potential for the mobilization of individual and group forces and for directing them toward group goals. This potential can only be realized, however, when knowledge, understanding, experience, and skill are present.

Groups are as old as mankind. Some sort of technique for securing group action is certainly as old as communication, no doubt antedating oral language. With the development of languages and written history we find many references to group action techniques in religious, pre-historical, and mythological literature. We recognize the “lecture” technique. Many times we read of groups being swayed to action by forms of the lecture; for example the “harangue” or the “exhortation.”

But while group techniques are ancient, their study under scientific methods is relatively new. Revolutions in group methods accompanied the development of spoken language. They were further changed with the advent of printing and the spread of literacy. Today we may be seeing a new revolution centered around mechanical aids: tape, film, television, and amplifiers.

Everything that furthers the group process is a technique. This logically includes coffee breaks, banquets, picnics, and teas. Various types of entertainment serve a similar purpose, and result in group singing, dancing, and talent nights. The difficulty of trying to cover the entire field in detail is apparent.

To begin with, the actual physical setting in which the group operates is important in helping determine the group atmosphere. The lighting, ventilation, or even the drabness or brightness of the room may be contributing factors to group atmosphere. The seating arrangement is also important. Seating in a circular or elliptical pattern where everyone can be seen and no persons are in physically dominant positions may be valuable in creating a friendly, permissive atmosphere.

Such a simple consideration as making sure that each member of the group has not only met each of the other members but has had opportunity to know a little about them is important. Addressing people by their preferred names can improve group atmosphere.

When individuals meet and work together they no longer behave only as individual units but respond as a collective whole to the prevailing group atmosphere. In the groups with warm, permissive, democratic atmosphere, there seems to be greater work motivation and greater satisfaction and the individuals and groups are more productive. There seems to be less discontent, frustration, and aggression in these groups. There is more friendliness, cordiality, cooperation, and “we-feeling.” There also seems to be more individual thinking, more creativeness, and better motivation. Participation in decision making in this democratic permissive atmosphere seems to facilitate the development of the individual motivations that serve to increase member productivity and morale.

A group member’s behavior is determined to a considerable extent by his perception of the reaction of the group toward him. The individual who feels secure, who perceives himself as having adequate group skills, more often takes the lead in group activities. The total resources of the group can be tapped more adequately when all individuals feel free to contribute and question as the group moves toward its goals. Motivation and morale reach high levels in a democratic permissive atmosphere where there is active participation of both the leaders and members of the group.
The atmosphere may be one of fear or suspicion; fear of being ridiculed, made fun of, or rejected. There may be a feeling of suspicion in the sense that people distrust each other, their motives, or their willingness to really say what they think. The group atmosphere may be aggressive everyone at each other’s throat. The atmosphere may be apathetic – no life or vitality, with everyone waiting for someone else to do or say something.

On the other hand, the atmosphere of a group can be friendly and warm. It can be permissive – where everyone feels free to express himself honestly and participate in group activity for a free and open exchange of ideas and feelings.

There can be an authoritarian atmosphere. The responsibility is with the authority and no one may participate or initiate action except at the dictate of the authoritarian leader. It is presumed that the authority knows best what the group should believe and do. Group member behavior is directed toward the authority’s predetermined ends.
There can be a democratic atmosphere. Leadership is shared by all, and individuals strive to recognize and play roles needed for group productivity. The responsibility of the formal leader and other group members is that of creating conditions – including group atmosphere – under which group members are best able to work together to accomplish chosen ends.
A crucial stage of atmosphere creation is the opening of a meeting. The way the leader introduces himself and the subject, the length of time he speaks, how dogmatically he speaks, and the spelling out of the general role expectations of group members can all be important factors contributing to a good group atmosphere.
Underlying the establishment of a warm, friendly, permissive feeling are certain fundamental considerations that all group members should have. There must be a basic belief in the value of the individual – a sincere belief in the dignity of man and an honest respect for each man’s point of view. Along with this basic belief, group members should develop a social sensitivity toward the group and its members. This social sensitivity (the understanding of individual personality traits and social interactions) should enable group members to determine and respond to the concerns, desires, and needs of the group and its members. The ability to see beyond one’s own needs to the wider range of needs of other group members and the group as a whole may well be the most important step in the establishment of a permissive group atmosphere.

If use of the term dynamics tends to become repetitious it is because it has developed as the only word which connotes all the things implied in its use – that is, the energies and forces derived, both from the individuals and from their interaction with each other, and the summation and resolution of these forces into active as opposed to static behavior.

It will be remembered where the outline of ideas concerning group behavior was discussed, that these ideas were divided into those involving the group, the goals, and the means. The internal dynamics, under that framework, was regarded as a function of the group and will continue to be so regarded. However, much of what will later be considered under goals and techniques also comes under the heading of internal dynamics. The dynamic qualities which go to make up group action are not solely the property of the group but also are an essential part of goal selection and orientation as well as of methods.

These ideas cannot be neatly pigeonholed into specific compartments. No matter how the various components are labeled, there will always be cross-reacting, overlapping, and spill-over. For that reason the forces of the group which go to make up the internal dynamics will be discussed under a series of subheads which do not necessarily carry equal value or at times even seem to be related. Certainly they will not be mutually exclusive. The list will be far from exhaustive, but will be detailed enough to point the way for the reader to create his own concept for its expansion. We will consider group size, group atmosphere, group identification, and qualities of homogeneous or heterogeneous composition. Also under study will be communication within the group, participation, the leadership pattern, and the kind of human relation skills present. The definition of roles, the kinds of roles needed for productivity, the objectives sought, and the activities chosen will all come under discussion in this chapter. All these will be influenced by the standards of operation and the degrees of social controls under which the group functions. Finally, the matter of group evaluation, while a specific force, will need to encompass all the foregoing aspects.

These various factors exist in all groups and many of them are immediately apparent. At any given time certain of them may be so obscure as to be considered latent, if present at all. Often they will be operating at such a low level of consciousness that only definitive objective consideration of the part they play will bring them into observable focus. For that reason a series of questions to be asked regarding any group has been included under each of the several subheads.

The forces which will be described are at the disposal of all group members as well as specified group leaders. Recalling our concept of leadership and recognizing that in the democratic group all members carry both responsibility and capacity for leadership, this subject will not be specifically discussed further in this chapter. Along with goals and techniques its elaboration is carried out elsewhere.

With the above qualifications we can now consider a selected battery of forces. Their general nature can be indicated by a commonly understood word or phrase expounded and extended for our purposes by the discussion. This somewhat detailed discussion has two purposes: (1) reporting the general principles regarding each as modern research has revealed them; and (2) the establishment of a framework for the analysis of groups such as our own.

However, there are many subtler behavior patterns in terms of gestures, attitudes, or manners that constitute participation. We often think of participation as member involvement through speaking and entering into the discussion. We may think in terms of the breadth of participation – how many group members take part. We may think again of the intensity of participation – how often various individuals take part or how emotionally involved they become.

We may think of participation patterns – how people respond to each other. When one person enters the discussion, is he usually followed by certain others? Do a few people monopolize the discussion, or is there opportunity for all to participate? Do we help everyone participate? Is the participation pattern leader-centered or distributed throughout the group?

We may also think of participation in the sense of attending meetings, being on committees, being officers, helping finance, being on work groups, washing dishes, or writing publicity.

Research seems to indicate that individual and group productivity is related to the opportunities provided for member participation. These may include setting goals, deciding on means of attaining goals, and other aspects of discussion and decision making. Even when an individual’s ideas do not agree with the final group decision, he is much happier when he has had an opportunity to participate and express himself in the decision-making process.

Participation in the analysis and decision-making process results in less resistance to change, lower turnover in group members, greater productivity, and greater satisfaction with the group and group membership. Decision making by representatives from the group or careful explanation of decisions made by others is not acceptable substitutes for member participation in decisions. The more a member participates, the more favorable are his attitudes toward the group and the greater his feeling of concern for and identity with the group.

Those members who participate the most are those who understand the basic purposes and function of the group, have clearly in mind the group’s expectations of its members, feel secure in playing their member roles, and can see how their member roles contribute to the over-all purpose and functioning of the group. They also derive satisfaction from their participation.

Many group problems result from the inability of leaders or group members to communicate with other group members. We mean to say one thing but perhaps say quite another. We assume everyone understands us or our point of view. The same words may mean different things to different people. A slight inflection or emphasis may be interpreted by others much differently than was intended. The meaning of a facial expression or a body gesture may be completely misinterpreted. It seems that the old axiom about army orders applies equally well to group communication, “If it can be misunderstood, it will be misunderstood.”

In heterogeneous groups – where there are people with different backgrounds, occupations, formal education, and levels of communication skills – it is particularly important that each group member makes sure he is communicating with all other group members.

Group members tend to feel left out and unsure of themselves when they do not have two-way communication. Even when acts of hostility are communicated, there seems to be less resentment between the sender and the receiver when there is firm understanding on both sides.

Where there is the desire to change the attitudes and subsequent behavior of group members, two-way communication in formal or informal discussions tends to be more effective than lecture or direct order from above.

A group member is more productive when he feels that he has access to relevant information. Of special importance is communication on matters that directly affect him and the definition of his role.

Those groups that are most productive have a more adequate communication network set up than those that are less productive. There is higher group participation, productivity, and satisfaction when members feel they have the right to enter into discussion and where means are provided for adequate give and take between leaders and other group members.

Successful supervisors and leaders often achieve their results by paying attention not only to the members as individuals, but to the relationships, interactions, and communications within the group.
When formal communications are suppressed or ignored, informal lines of communication usually appear. In organizations where there is dominating leadership the informal organization structures that arise often have goals that conflict with the goals of the formal group structure. For instance, a subgroup that feels its lines of communication are blocked may take up the goal of making it difficult for the leader or getting rid of him.
In most group situations a decrease of interaction will bring about a decrease in the strength of interpersonal feelings and sentiments and will decrease member identity with the group. In groups that have a rigid status system, communication between status levels seems to serve as a substitute for real mobility toward higher levels. The results of many studies show the necessity of trying to communicate in the language that other group members can understand and accept.

Several standards may be used to judge the usefulness of objectives. An organization might judge their objectives by the following questions:

1. Are objectives stated in terms which identify the people or group concerned, the kind of behavior or behavior changes expected of the people involved, and the content or area of life in which this behavior is to operate?
2. Are objectives dynamic – likely to promote action on the part of the group?
3. Are objectives compatible with the general aims of the group or organization?
4. Are objectives achievable considering the level of maturity of the group or organization and permitted by the resources available to the group?
5. Are objectives developmental – will they lead the group to constantly higher levels of achievement?
6. Are objectives varied enough to meet the needs of individuals within the group?
7. Are objectives limited enough in number to avoid undue diffusion of effort within the organization?
8. Can objectives be evaluated – can evidence of actual progress be secured?
9. Were objectives cooperatively determined – was the group as a whole involved in the determination and acceptance of them?

Stating Objectives
Along with an understanding of the levels of objectives, consideration needs to be given to the form and wording of the statement of objectives. A common error is to state as objectives things which people on the various planned programs are going to do for the group. This might be to show how to refinish furniture, to show how to use insulation materials properly, or to present the juvenile delinquency problem. These topic ideas may indicate accurately what the person presenting the program plans to do, but they are not group objectives. Group goals should be statements of what is to be accomplished by or with the group, what is to happen to members of the group, or what the group is expected to do.

The real purpose of a group is not to have certain persons perform activities. It may be to bring about changes in the group and its members, or, if it is an action group, to make group decisions and carry out specified action programs. An objective should identify changes to take place in the group or the kind of action expected of the group and its members.

An objective stated as a planned activity fails to indicate the kind of accomplishment expected. The real purposes of a group are not holding a bake sale or a dance. Instead, such activities are usually a means of accomplishing the group’s purposes or objectives. For example, a bake sale is a short-run activity which may raise funds for the intermediate goal of providing a scholarship. This is directed at the ultimate goal of improving the educational level of our citizens. Groups, if they are to be most efficient, must be careful to choose those short-run means-ends complexes (activities) which are not only consistent with, but also positively oriented toward, the intermediate and long range goals of the group.

Sometimes objectives are stated as general topics or content areas to be handled by the group. Statements of this kind do not specify what is expected of the group. Thus, in a group concerned with health, the objectives might be stated by listing such topics as sanitation, vaccination, or health insurance. A well-stated objective indicates the kind of changes desired in the group and its members, or the action sought. Behavioral changes can be made in group members by changing their knowledge, understandings, skills, interests, appreciations, and attitudes. Objectives of an action group should identify the kind of action expected and the specific end to be accomplished. A group objective is stated with sufficient clarity if a member can describe or illustrate the kind of behavior or action his group is expecting to accomplish.

Another way in which objectives are sometimes stated is in the form of generalized patterns of behavior. Such statements fail to indicate specifically the area of life or the activity to which the behavior is related. For example, one may find objectives that state: “To develop broad interests;” or “To develop desirable social attitudes.”

While these indicate the kind of change expected of the group members, it is doubtful if such highly generalized objectives could be very useful to a group. It is necessary to specify more definitely the content area to which this behavior applies, or the situation of the group and its members when such behavior is to be used.

The most useful form for stating objectives is to express them in terms which clearly identify: (1) the people, group, or groups concerned, (2) the kind of behavior or action to be accomplished, and (3) the content or problem area in which this behavior or action is to operate. For example, the following statements of objectives include all three of these elements. The first is an example of an educational objective, the second an action objective.

Objectives stated clearly enough to be useful to a group in planning its program and selecting its activities will need to indicate all three of these elements. When objectives are formulated on this three-dimensional basis they become a concise set of specifications to guide the further development of programs and plans. Once goals and objectives are clearly established, alternative techniques or means for accomplishing them can be explored and decided upon and a purposeful plan of action determined.

Groups sometimes adopt general, and often abstract, objectives and then proceed to consider them as immediately and easily achievable. Such objectives, especially for groups having relatively infrequent meetings, will usually not supply the needed direction nor allow for a degree of achievement necessary for group motivation, growth, and development. All groups need some short-run, specific objectives that are achievable. A feeling of wellbeing and satisfaction results from the achievement of any goal. Such objectives help groups to proceed with purpose and in an organized manner; they help insure accomplishment, and permit the identification of evidence for the evaluation of achievement.

Levels of Objectives
It is also helpful to think of objectives on various levels.
Objectives of learning activities in education have been classified into levels and are marked by grade promotion and graduation. In considering objectives for groups and group members, it is helpful to make a similar classification.

Objectives based on the needs and interests of group members as individuals are usually very specific. Examples might include learning to speak more effectively, or increasing understanding of a teen-age son or daughter.

Other objectives may be based on the needs and interests of a group or organization. These are group rather than individually oriented and require the efforts of people working together. Some examples might be to develop favorable public relations with other local service clubs, to secure a new minister, to double the membership of the community club.

Objectives based on the needs and interests of the community, county, state, or nation are dependent upon the joint efforts of several groups and organizations. Their objectives might include inaugurating a housing development program for low-income families, bringing about rural and urban understanding of the zoning problems of a growing city, or county school reorganization.

General and remote objectives – the all-inclusive aims of society – are so broad they could serve as an umbrella for most groups and organizations. They might include “strengthening democracy,” and insuring the good life for all people.
The needs of individuals and of society must be joined in such a way that both can be met reasonably well. In any group, the relative importance and relationship of the individual member and his objectives and the group and its objectives need to be recognized and understood. One way to visualize this relationship is to consider two circles partially overlapping (Fig. 8.1). One of these can represent the objectives and goals of the individual member of a group < Circle I). The other circle can represent the objectives and goals of the group (Circle G). If these circles overlap, then an individual’s objectives and the group’s objectives are partially the same (Area C) and partially not the same.

The circle representing the goals and objectives of the individual is larger than that representing the group because it is recognized that the interests of an individual member are varied and only a part of them can be met by membership in a single group. Most groups are organized around a relatively few specific interests common to all members.

Individual and group goals and objectives overlap considerably for some members (Case B) and very little for certain members in some groups (Case A). If the overlapping is relatively large, as in B, there should be strong individual member motivation. If this situation exists the groups’ chances for goal accomplishment will be improved providing there is appropriate choice of means. This same concept of overlap of group and community goals and objectives is appropriate in any consideration of goals and objectives that are more inclusive than just for anyone specific group.

In the actual operation of groups, objectives are a rather complex interwoven network. Sometimes all levels are involved. At times, objectives seem hidden – even lost. Every group periodically needs to review and re-identify its objectives and classify them into their appropriate levels. All objectives must be consistent and compatible at any level just as immediate or short-run goals must be consistent and compatible with intermediate and more ultimate objectives.