The main function of the group was to work from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday, in a business hospital setting, handling confidential patient information. The size of the group was twenty members including the leader, all females. The group was

monitored by a productivity based system that was generated by a computer software program. There were written policies for all to abide by, which clearly stated the roles and goal of the group. For the most part, all of the members consistently met their productivity. If ever a group member did not meet productivity the written policies would go into effect, which stated this incident would be documented in their file and the member was given a specific time frame for the productivity to be increased. If this was not adhered to, the written policy also stated it could ultimately result in termination.

After many meetings discussing the same topic, a solution was yet to be reached. It actually seemed as though some of the other members now had the same perception towards this friendship. The same members that once said the friendship had no negative impact towards the goals of the group were now singing to another tune. Moscovici (1985) wrote that “minority influence where the initial minority, or deviant, disagrees with the majority view and attempts to persuade the majority to his/her position” (p. 77). This situation was so distressing to the chastised member that she reported feeling as an outcast. She began to call in sick and when she was there she kept to herself. The group was slowly deteriating. It was now common to see many members arguing amongst each other. It seemed to be the ritual to spy on one another and complain to the leader about other members.

Some topics in this essay:
, Fisher Ury, Moreland Levine, written policies, friendship leader, friendship outside, claim leader, negative attention, threatened friendship, monitored productivity, negative impact, leader respected, social conflict,