A small group is typically one where the collection of people is small enough that all members of the group know each other and share simultaneous interaction, such as a nuclear family, a dyad, or a triad. German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1915) wrote extensively about the difference between a dyad, or two-member group, and a triad, which is a three-member group (Simmel 1950 [1902]). In the former, if one person withdraws, the group can no longer exist. We can think of a divorce, which effectively ends the “group” of the married couple or of two best friends never speaking again. Often dyads do not create a group structure, so a high level of individuality remains.

In a triad, however, the dynamic is quite different. If one person withdraws, the group lives on. A triad has a different set of relationships. If there are three in the group, two-against-one dynamics can develop, and a majority opinion may form on any issue.

In triads, a group structure can emerge where new social roles become possible. The third person can serve as a mediator between the two other people in the group if a disagreement emerges. The third member could also try to instigate conflict between the other two people. Creating conflict then helps the third member take control of the group (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2022).

Small groups generally have strong internal cohesiveness and a sense of connection. Small groups may face challenges when trying to achieve large goals. They can struggle to be heard or to be a force for change if they are pushing against larger groups.

It is difficult to define exactly when a small group becomes a large group. Perhaps it occurs when one group grows so large that there are too many people to join in a simultaneous discussion. Sometimes it occurs when a group joins with other groups as part of a movement. These larger groups may share a geographic space, such as a fraternity or sorority on the same campus, or they might be spread out around the globe. The larger the group, the more attention it can garner, and the more pressure members can put toward whatever goal they wish to achieve. At the same time, the larger the group becomes, the more the risk grows for division and lack of cohesion.

5.3.1 Authority and Group Leadership

In most groups, some form of leadership emerges. This leadership could be temporary or long lasting. The leader of the group needs to be perceived as legitimate by the group. This legitimacy allows the leader to make decisions and exercise power. German sociologist Max Weber identified three different types of authority that can exist in groups and organizations, building up to the larger social structures of the society like the government.

For large parts of human history, traditional authority was common as a type of power legitimized on the basis of long-standing customs. Here leaders rule based on tradition. These traditions can be that leadership is inherited from one’s family or parents. Besides being inherited, traditional authority is often closely tied to religion, where whoever the rulers are justify their position by arguing that a god or spiritual being chose them. Examples of traditional authority include kings and queens who typically justified their position by birth and divine right. Those with traditional authority have few constraints on their actions. They can reward friends and family even when those friends and family are not the most deserving.

In contrast to traditional authority, rational legal authority is a type of power legitimized by laws, rules, norms, and procedures. This type of authority is often associated with bureaucratic organizations, and there are usually formal rules to decide who can exercise power. As an example, consider how we elect the President of the United States. There are formal rules in the Constitution and a variety of laws that state how elections are supposed to be run. While the events surrounding January 6, 2021 (Beauchamp 2021) showed how precarious this process can be, in most instances these rules and laws have allowed for the peaceful transfer of power. The rules and laws also place constraints on the leaders. Leaders typically cannot appoint their friends and family to important positions. Instead those positions are filled by people with relevant qualifications and expertise.

Finally, Weber identified charismatic authority, a type of power legitimated by perceived extraordinary characteristics that inspire devotion and obedience from followers. In other words, the person that is the leader has charisma of some sort. They could be seen as exemplary, heroic, or having special powers. As a result there are very few constraints on the leader. Since the authority is wrapped up so closely with the charisma of the individual leader, there can be issues when the leader declines or dies. Legitimacy of the regime could be lost if they do not establish a way to pick a new leader. As a result, in trying to establish a way to select the next leader, a group might turn more towards traditional or rational legal types of authority.

You may have noticed aspects of these different types of authority within one individual leader. In the real world, there is going to be some combination of these types of authority.

Sociologists recognize three leadership styles. Democratic leaders encourage group participation in all decision making. They work hard to build consensus before choosing a course of action and moving forward. This type of leader is particularly common, for example, in a club where the members vote on which activities or projects to pursue. Democratic leaders can be well liked, but there is often a danger that decisions will proceed slowly since consensus building is time-consuming. A further risk is that group members might pick sides and entrench themselves into opposing factions rather than reaching a solution.

In contrast, a laissez-faire (French for “leave it alone”) leader is hands-off, allowing group members to self-manage and make their own decisions. An example of this kind of leader might be an art teacher who opens the art cupboard, leaves materials on the shelves, and tells students to help themselves and make some art. While this style can work well with highly motivated and mature participants who have clear goals and guidelines, it risks group dissolution and a lack of progress.

Finally, authoritarian leaders issue orders and assign tasks with little to no feedback from group members. These leaders are often instrumental leaders with a strong focus on meeting goals. Often, entrepreneurs fall into this mold, like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Not surprisingly, authoritarian leaders risk alienating the workers. When decisions need to be made quickly or informed by a high level of expertise, however, this style of leadership can be required.

In different circumstances, each of these leadership styles can be effective and successful. Consider what leadership style you prefer. Why? Do you like the same style in different areas of your life, such as a classroom, a workplace, and a sports team?

When we think of leadership we have a particular image in our minds of what a leader looks like and how they should act. Often how we define leadership is wrapped up with our understanding of gender. This includes how we evaluate leaders, how leaders perform, and how leaders attain authority. In the United States, we have widely held beliefs about gender and leadership. We often assume, without evidence, that men are more competent leaders. These beliefs create unspoken performance expectations on women. As a result when women do achieve leadership roles, they might be negatively sanctioned for violating these unspoken assumptions or face more resistance to their orders (Ridgeway 2001).