The greatest truism about groups is that every group is unique. It’s only natural then for group processes, structure, and culture to vary from group to group as a function of the group’s tasks, stage of development, and membership. That said, there are several barometers of group effectiveness that seem to apply universally, and that correlate with group performance.

Groups aren’t the answer to every kind of work. In fact, there are many tasks at which one person can outperform a group, for instance, where talent or experience is the critical performance factor. Who ever heard of group writing a novel, for example?

But groups can be particularly good at combining talents and providing creative solutions to unfamiliar problems. Whenever there is no established approach or solution to a task, a well-developed group’s wider range of knowledge, skills, and behaviors provides a distinct advantage over individuals working separately.

The study of small group behavior is a relatively modern development. It’s a sub-discipline of social psychology, which itself only gained recognition as a field distinct from sociology or psychology in the early 20th century.

Although Bruce W. Tuckman (1938-2016) was best known for his article “Developmental sequence in small groups,” published in 1965, his areas of academic expertise were educational research and educational psychology. Still, of all the models of group development ever proposed, Tuckman’s forming-storming-norming-performing remains the one most often referenced.

Every time you’re in a meeting, whether with one other person or twenty, you’re in a group. Task groups, work groups, departments, committees—all kinds of groups dominate organizational life. In fact, they’re every organization’s basic operating unit. Yet, how many people complain that groups and meetings are the least productive and rewarding parts of their job? As much as we work in groups, it’s sad that their potential often goes unrealized. This is where the social science of group dynamics comes in.