The procedure for performing a sociometric analysis in an organization is quite basic: Various organization members simply are asked, through either an interview or a questionnaire, to name several other organization members with whom they like to spend free time. A sociogram is then constructed to summarize the informal relationships among group members. Sociograms are diagrams that visually link individuals within the population queried according to the number of times they were chosen and whether the choice was reciprocated.

Figure 15.4 shows two sample sociograms based on a classic study of two groups of boys in a summer camp—the Bulldogs and the Red Devils. An analysis of these sociograms leads to several interesting conclusions. First, more boys within the Bulldogs than within the Red Devils were chosen as being desirable to spend time with. The implication is that the Bulldogs are a closer-knit informal group than the Red Devils. Second, the greater the number of times an individual was chosen, the more likely it is that the individual is the group leader. Thus, individuals C and E in Figure 15.4 are probably Bulldog leaders, and individuals L and S are probably Red Devil leaders. Third, communication between L and most other Red Devil members is likely to occur directly, whereas communication between C and other Bulldogs is likely to pass through other group members.

Sociometric analysis can give managers many useful insights concerning the informal groups within their organization. Managers who do not want to perform a formal sociometric analysis can at least casually gather information on what form a sociogram might take in a particular situation. They can pick up this information through ordinary conversations with other organization members as well as through observations of how various organization members interact with one another.

Perhaps the most widely accepted framework for explaining the evolution of informal groups was developed by George Homans.25 Figure 15.5 broadly summarizes his theory. According to Homans, the informal group is established to provide satisfaction and growth for its members. At the same time, the sentiments, interactions, and activities that emerge within an informal group result from the sentiments, interactions, and activities that already exist within a formal group. Given these two premises, it follows that feedback on the functioning of the informal group can give managers ideas about how to modify the formal group in order to increase the probability that informal group members will achieve the satisfaction and growth they desire. The ultimate consequence will be reinforcing the solidarity and productiveness of the formal group—to the advantage of the organization.

To see what Homans’s concept involves, suppose that 12 factory workers are members of a formal work group that manufactures toasters. According to Homans, as these workers interact to assemble toasters, they might discover common personal interests that encourage the evolution of one or more informal groups that would maximize the satisfaction and growth of their members. Once established, these informal groups will probably resist changes in the formal work group that threaten the satisfaction and growth of the informal groups’ members. On the other hand, modifications in the formal work group that enhance the satisfaction and growth of the informal groups’ members will tend to be welcomed.