I did not find an established term, so for now the "g-group." There is no term, but you all must have come across this, if not in real life, then on the Internet. It will be about the formation of destructive groups in online communities and work collectives. The destructive group is not quite that, it is more difficult to formulate more precisely. But I’m sure in two or three paragraphs you will clearly understand what it is about.
And yes, everything will be explained with two examples. On the staff, I will call it a “working group”. And on a group in a social network, messenger, thematic forum, site chats, hereinafter I will call it an “Internet group”. Both the “working group” and the “Internet group”, I will call the team if there is no difference in details. All the people in the group, but somehow not standing out, let's call, no offense, a “gray mass”.
Conditions for the formation of “g-groups”
For the formation of the “g-group” we need a team in which it is formed, and the team is not homogeneous in terms of education, achieved well-being, career growth, etc. However, teams are rarely homogeneous.
The team should have a group of participants who have not reached the desired status in real life, and if we are talking about a “working group”, then also the desired career growth. But however, the more educated, and of course they consider that they deserve more than the rest of the “gray mass”. Let's call them “bad guys” :)
The team should not have many really successful people (we will call them “varnishes”), or they should not be active in this community. Otherwise, “foolishness” will simply be lost against their background, and all communication in such a team will come down to tips on “personal growth”, stories about “fairy tales” and the exchange of recipes and photos of cats :) And there will be no “g-group”.
How the “g-group” is formed
- Bored “fools” watching how “varnishes” zombify the “gray mass” telling (making posts) about the fabulous Bali, seals, single-malt viskarik, surfers, etc. begin to experience cognitive dissonance. And if the “varnishes” do not bury them under a pile of photos, the “bad guys” try to take their own. Guess the first steps?
- : - “” . - . «» « », . “” , . “” . “” , , “” : “ ?”. .
- “” “” “” , .
- “-” «», «», “ ”, , . “”, “” , — “ ”, “” “” « » “-”.
- “-” «-----», .
- . , . « » — « », « » — « ». , , ; , 2 , — . , “ ” , .
- : “ , ”
- “”. “”. “” , . “” , “”, “ ”. “” .
- : “ ?” “ ?” .
?
“-” , . “” , “-” , . “ ”, “ , ”, — “”, . ?
“ ”
, , , . , “-”, "". , “” , “-”.
“ ”
, ( , , , “ ”), “-” . , , . , “-” “” — . , . , “”, , «» «» . :)
“ ”
If you are not yet involved in this, then you have a choice. Remain "non-aligned", you will not be allowed. Either join the predominant group and reconcile, or quit. Otherwise, "all attention" will be directed to you.
Thus, if “on the Internet” “groups” are rather harmless formations that amuse the pride of their creators, then in work collectives this can become a big problem, disconnecting and destabilizing the team. And to solve the problem of “g-groups” in the team, only the boss can, and sometimes only the superboss.