A circumplex model of group task types

McGrath [1984] has combined the main ideas of a number of scientists into a conceptually related set of distinctions about tasks. His framework is presented here, together with some of his remarks regarding a typology of tasks. McGrath concludes that his task circumplex, as he calls his framework, represents a reasonable attempt to classify group tasks: virtually all tasks used in group research can be accomodated.

First, McGrath proposes that there are four general processes. These processes make up the four quadrants which are distinguished within the model. These are the labels for the particular performance processes that are engaged by the task. They indicate what the group is to do:

• to Generate (alternatives)
• to Choose (alternatives)
• to Negotiate and
• to Execute

In turn, these quadrants can be subdivided into two types of tasks each:

• Quadrant I: Negotiate
• Type 1: Planning tasks. Generating plans for actions. Key notion: Action-oriented plan.
• Type 2: Creativity tasks. Generating ideas or images. Key notion: Creativity. This category is related to the adjacent intellective problem category in having an emphasis on cognitive matters.
• Quadrant II: Choose. The terms and distinctions in this quadrant are borrowed from P. R. Laughlin.
• Type 3: Intellective tasks. Performing intellective tasks is about finding a correct answer for a given problem. Examples of intellective tasks are logic problems and other problem-solving tasks with correct but not compelling answers; tasks for which expert consensus defines answers. Key notion: the correct answer.
• Type 4: Decision-making tasks. Typically, for these tasks, there is not a demonstrably correct answer. The group's task is to select, by some consensus (based on what is morally right or what is to be preferred), a preferred alternative. Examples include tasks used in risky shift, choice shift, and group polarisation studies. Key notion: preferred answer.

Collaborative writing, the group task that The COOPerator should support, may be characterised as a creative and intellective task.

• Quadrant III: Negotiate. According to McGrath, this quadrant is more or less an extension of quadrant II, Choose, under conditions where there is intra-unit conflict. The key word here is not solve but resolve.
• Type 5: Cognitive conflict tasks. In this case, members do not just have different preferences, but they have systematically different preference structures. Key notion: resolving policy conflicts.
• Type 6: Mixed-motive tasks. In this category, a number of subtypes may be distinguished. These range from those with an emphasis on resolution (compromise or agreement) to those with an emphasis on power. Examples include negotiations and bargaining tasks as well as coalition formation tasks. Key notion: resolving pay-off conflicts.
• Quadrant IV: Execute. This quadrant deals with physical behaviour. Though such tasks are very heavily represented in the workaday world, they are quite underrepresented in research on groups according to McGrath.
• Type 7: Contests/battles. Contests are tasks for which the group is in competition with an opponent or, in worse cases, an enemy. Performance results are interpreted in terms of a winner and a loser. The pay-offs are interpreted in those terms as well. Examples are competitive sports, all winner-take-all conflicts and wars. Key notion: winning.
• Type 8: Performances. Performances that include those tasks do not involve competition against an opponent, but rather involve striving to meet standards of excellence with pay-offs tied to such standards. These tasks involve complex sets of activities requiring coordination between members and over time. Examples include many physical tasks (lifting, digging, pushing, etc.) and some sports events.

The task circumplex is a two-dimensional representation. The horizontal dimension shows a contrast between behavioral or action tasks to the right and conceptual or intellectual tasks to the left. The vertical dimension reflects a contrast between cooperation or facilitative compliance at the top and conflict or contrient interdependence at the bottom.