'Centro de Investigacao e Estudos de Sociologia (CIES-IUL)'
Abstract
Drawing on a sociological multi-level, dynamic systems approach – actor-system-dynamics
(ASD) -- which has been developed and applied in institutional, organizational, and societal
analyses, we formulate a general model for the comparative analysis of social groups and
organizations. This social systems approach has not been previously applied in the group area.
We claim that the approach can be systematically and fruitfully applied to small as well as large
groups and organizations as a methodology to understand and analyze their structure, functioning
and dynamics.
A group is considered a system with three universal subsystems on which any human social
organization, including small groups, depends and which motivate, shape and regulate group
activities and productions. The subsystems are bases or group requisites – necessary for group
“functioning” and performance in more or less orderly or coherent ways; on this basis a group
may be able to realize its purposes or goals(as well as possibly some members’ personal goals)
and maintain and reproduce the group. The group bases consist of: first, a rule regime (collective
culture)defining group identity and purpose, shaping and regulating roles and role relationships,
normative patterns and behavioral outputs; second, an agential base of group members who are
socialized or partially socialized carriers of and adherents to the group’s identity and rule
regime; of relevance here are involvement/participation factors motivating member to adhere to,
accept, and implement key components of the rule regime; third, there is a resource base,
2
technologies and materials, self-produced and/or obtained from the environment, which are
essential to group functioning and key group performances.
Section I briefly presents the framework and outlines the group systems model, characterized by
its three universal bases or subsystems and its finite universal production functions and their
outputs as well as the particular context(s) in which groups function. For illustrative purposes, the
section identifies three major ideal-type modalities of group formation: informal self-organization
by agents, group construction by external agents, and group formation through more or less
formal multi-agent negotiation.
The general systems model presented in Section II characterizes a social group not only by its
three universal bases but by its finite universal production functions (elaborated in Section IV)
and its outputs as well as by its shared places (situations for interaction) and times for gathering
and interacting. Group productions impact on the group itself (reflexivity) and on its environment.
These outputs, among other things, maintain/adapt/develop the group bases (or possibly
unintentionally undermine/destroy them) Thus, groups can be understood as action and
interaction systems producing goods, services, incidents and events, experiences, developments,
etc. for themselves and possibly for the larger environment on which they depend for resources,
recruits, goods and services, and legitimation. The model provides a single perspective for the
systematic description and comparative analysis of a wide diversity of groups (Sections III and
IV).
A major distinctive feature in our systems approach is the conceptualization of rules and rule
regimes (Sections II, III, IV, and V). Finite universal rule categories (ten distinct categories) are
specified; they characterize every functioning social group or organization. A rule regime, while
an abstraction is carried, applied, adapted, and transformed by concrete human agents, who
interact, exchange, exercise power, and struggle within the group, in large part based on the rule
regime which they maintain and adapt as well as transform.
The paper emphasizes not only the systemic character of all functioning groups – universally their
three bases and their output functions together with feedback dynamics -- but also the
differentiating character of any given group’s distinct rule configuration (Section IV). For
illustrative purposes Section IV presents a selection of rule configurations characterizing several
ideal types of groups, a military unit, a terrorist group, a recreational or social group, a research
group, a corporate entity Section V considers the dynamics of groups in terms of modification
and transformation of group bases and their production functions. The group system model
enables us to systematically identify and explicate the internal and external factors that drive
group change and transformation, exposing the complex interdependencies and dynamic
potentialities of group systems. Section VI sums up the work and points out its scope and
limitations.
The group systems model offers a number of promising contributions: (1) a universal systems
model identifies the key subsystems and their interrelationships as well as their role in group
production functions/outputs and performances; (2) the work conceptualizes and applies rules and
rule complexes and their derivatives in roles, role relationships, norms, group procedures and
production functions; (3) it identifies the universal categories of rules making up a rule regime, a
major subsystem for any functioning group; (4) the model conceptualizes particular “group rule
configurations” – rule regimes with specified rules in the universal rule categories—for any given
group; groups are identifiable and differentiable by their rule configurations (as well as by their
resource and agency bases); (5) it conceptualizes the notion of the degree of coherence
(alternatively, degree of incoherence) of rule configurations characteristic of any given group and
offers an explanation of why group attention is focused on the coherence of rules in certain group
areas; (6) the systems model suggests an interpretation of Erving Goffman’s “frontstage
backstage” distinction in terms of alternative, differentiated rule regimes which are to a greater or
lesser extent incoherent with respect to one another; moreover, the participants who are privy to
the differentiation navigate using a shared rule complex to translate coherently and consistently
3
from one regime to the other, using appropriate discourses; (7) incoherence, contradiction,
conflict and struggle relating to rule regimes are considered part and parcel of group functioning
and development; (8)group stability and change are explicated in terms of internal mechanisms
(e.g., governance, innovation, and conflict) as well as external mechanisms (resource availability,
legal and other institutional developments, population conditions), pointing up the complex
systemic interdependencies and dynamic potentialities of group systems; (9) given the multi-level
dynamic systems framework (i.e., ASD) that has been applied in a range of special areas
(economic, political, technological, environmental, bio-medical, among others) its applicataion in
the field of groups is a promising step toward achieving greater synthesis in sociology and social
science.
This 2nd edition of the paper has been substantially rewritten and extended: the current text is
twice the number of pages of the original – and there has been much restructuring of the
manuscript as a whole. Tables and figures have been added. Substantively, we developed the
following features of the work in the 2nd edition: (1) more attention has been given to tension,
conflict, and conflict resolution in groups; (2) we also stressed group requisites for sustainability
and group production functions; (3) a section on group formation with illustrations has been
added; (4) we have expanded our attention to group rule configurations which differentiate groups
from one another but also enable systematic comparisons; (5) we have much expanded
consideration of the dynamics of group change and transformation
